3 ms·
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 unc
by 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 agoWhen 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)