3 ms·

> deals only with the phone records of people actually under investigation. Hint: It doesn't.

by DaFranker 12y ago

pdabbadabba 12y ago
Ok...what else does it deal with?
- DaFranker 12y ago
  Any data on any seized smartphones. Where could a seized smartphone, obtained completely legally, come from? Well, for starters, let's say you've got a robbery ring of people snatching iPhones in public places. Police track them, raid their meeting point, and proclaim this glorious bust with 67 arrests related to the nefarious criminal snatcher ring. What happens to the phones present onsite during the raid? Seized. So they now have 300 seized smartphones, acquired legally. What do you think they do with them? Open 'em up, check the data, put it on the Fusion, of course! I mean, it's intelligence on the kinds of data criminals keep with them, so it's fair game, right? (Hint: Nope. But some police officers really do think this way.) What's more... maybe some of these phones were already "cleaned out" by the snatcher ring, and maybe some weren't. Time for a subpoena to the phone carriers to know which phones belonged to whom! And, well, while we're at it, it might be useful to know if any of these phones actually belonged to some of the snatchers themselves, maybe it'll lead us to their contacts and to more of their affiliates. This is still criminal activity intelligence, right? So let's also get all the phone records and contacts and calling history for all the previous numbers and owners of all of these phones. See how quickly this stuff escalates? And how easy it is for any officer or investigator to get carried away and justify it to anyone who asks? (Note: I'm not saying this happened. It's a thought experiment.)
  - pdabbadabba 12y ago
    The article doesn't say that the police are sharing "any data on seized smartphones." What it actually says is: "In the case of the Virginia database, it’s unclear whether content from seized cellphones—such as text messages— is included in the database or if it just contains so-called metadata describing the phone numbers called, the calls received and their date and duration." This is what I mean when I say that the Wired article does not have enough information for me to know whether anything shady is going on or not.
    - zaroth 12y ago
      When they won't affirmatively state what's in the database, it's nowadays very safe to assume that the answer is 'everything they could get their hands on'.
    - DaFranker 12y ago
      > (...) so-called metadata describing the phone numbers called, the calls received and their date and duration." Uhm. This already includes phone numbers called, calls received, dates, durations. Also, it's well-known among even amateurs and armchair intelligence analysts that "metadata" is usually more than sufficient to obtain a complete profile of an individual's private life, and it's been confirmed at least once by US Mil-related interests that they have killed foreign terrorist suspects based only on conclusions drawn from metadata. So even if it "just contains so-called metadata", that's probably still enough data to know the exact time you use the toilet in the morning, and for how long. Literally. (ref: Dozens of recent papers on metadata profiling)

> deals only with the phone records of people actually under investigation. Hint: It doesn't.

pdabbadabba 12y ago

Ok...what else does it deal with?

DaFranker 12y ago
Any data on any seized smartphones. Where could a seized smartphone, obtained completely legally, come from? Well, for starters, let's say you've got a robbery ring of people snatching iPhones in public places. Police track them, raid their meeting point, and proclaim this glorious bust with 67 arrests related to the nefarious criminal snatcher ring. What happens to the phones present onsite during the raid? Seized. So they now have 300 seized smartphones, acquired legally. What do you think they do with them? Open 'em up, check the data, put it on the Fusion, of course! I mean, it's intelligence on the kinds of data criminals keep with them, so it's fair game, right? (Hint: Nope. But some police officers really do think this way.) What's more... maybe some of these phones were already "cleaned out" by the snatcher ring, and maybe some weren't. Time for a subpoena to the phone carriers to know which phones belonged to whom! And, well, while we're at it, it might be useful to know if any of these phones actually belonged to some of the snatchers themselves, maybe it'll lead us to their contacts and to more of their affiliates. This is still criminal activity intelligence, right? So let's also get all the phone records and contacts and calling history for all the previous numbers and owners of all of these phones. See how quickly this stuff escalates? And how easy it is for any officer or investigator to get carried away and justify it to anyone who asks? (Note: I'm not saying this happened. It's a thought experiment.)
- pdabbadabba 12y ago
  The article doesn't say that the police are sharing "any data on seized smartphones." What it actually says is: "In the case of the Virginia database, it’s unclear whether content from seized cellphones—such as text messages— is included in the database or if it just contains so-called metadata describing the phone numbers called, the calls received and their date and duration." This is what I mean when I say that the Wired article does not have enough information for me to know whether anything shady is going on or not.
  - zaroth 12y ago
    When they won't affirmatively state what's in the database, it's nowadays very safe to assume that the answer is 'everything they could get their hands on'.
  - DaFranker 12y ago
    > (...) so-called metadata describing the phone numbers called, the calls received and their date and duration." Uhm. This already includes phone numbers called, calls received, dates, durations. Also, it's well-known among even amateurs and armchair intelligence analysts that "metadata" is usually more than sufficient to obtain a complete profile of an individual's private life, and it's been confirmed at least once by US Mil-related interests that they have killed foreign terrorist suspects based only on conclusions drawn from metadata. So even if it "just contains so-called metadata", that's probably still enough data to know the exact time you use the toilet in the morning, and for how long. Literally. (ref: Dozens of recent papers on metadata profiling)