Slashdot Mirror


Canadian Police Are Texting Potential Murder Witnesses (vice.com)

On Thursday, the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) will send text messages to anybody who was in the vicinity of a murder in the hopes that one of them will have information that can help catch the culprit. One of the recipients may even be the killer. Others may wonder how the police obtained their phone number in the first place, or knew where they were on the day in question. From a Motherboard report: The OPP is ramping up its efforts to find the murderer of 65-year-old hitchhiker John Hatch, who was found dead near Erin, Ontario, on December 17, 2015. He was last seen alive the day before, outside Ottawa. Now, the OPP has announced what it's describing as a "new investigative technique" for the force: obtaining the phone numbers of everyone who was in the area where and when Hatch was last seen alive, via a court order, and sending each person a text message directing them to a police website. If they follow those instructions, they'll be asked a series of online questions. According to digital privacy lawyer David Fraser, this technique is known as a "tower dump" -- essentially asking telecom companies for information about everyone who connected to a certain cellphone tower, at a given time. If the police plan on using this technique again, its future uses could have unintended effects, Frasier said.

69 of 121 comments (clear)

  1. will they pay for that? even if there are high roa by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    will they pay for that? even if there are high roaming fees?

  2. You have the right to remain silent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    I suggest you use it. There is never anything to gain from talking to the police. Ever. The idea of the policeman as keeper of the peace is dead in Canada as one by one rights in the charter are ignored "for the public good".

    Fortunately the right to remain silent is still valid.

    1. Re: You have the right to remain silent by Hylandr · · Score: 4, Informative

      What could possibly go wrong?

      Video completely related.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    2. Re:You have the right to remain silent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      tell them that I just saw someone stab someone else around the block?

      Ah, the ol' "I saw him run that-a-way mister!" trick. Exactly the kind of thing the murderer would say. Oh, hang on, I smell weed. Stop resisting!

    3. Re:You have the right to remain silent by taustin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People how loudly cry that no one should ever talk to the police cry the loudest when they're the victim of a crime, and they know their neighbors know who did it, and won't talk to the police.

      You live in the world you create.

    4. Re:You have the right to remain silent by SumDog · · Score: 4, Informative

      You should talk to a lawyer if you saw something, and have them deliver your message to the police. Yes, being a good citizen can cost you money.

      Here are several reasons why:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik ..this is the world we live in. :(

    5. Re:You have the right to remain silent by quantaman · · Score: 2

      I suggest you use it. There is never anything to gain from talking to the police. Ever. The idea of the policeman as keeper of the peace is dead in Canada as one by one rights in the charter are ignored "for the public good".

      Fortunately the right to remain silent is still valid.

      True, there is a possibility that in talking to the police you will inaccurately draw some suspicion towards yourself.

      However, the stronger possibility is that you will accurately direct some suspicion towards the guilty party, and perhaps prevent future crimes.

      I, for one, believe in motives other than pure self-interest.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    6. Re:You have the right to remain silent by FrozenGeek · · Score: 1

      Not that I know much about texting, but how do I know for certain that the text ostensibly from the police is truly from the police? I'm not paranoid, at least not since the Snowdon revelations.

      --
      linquendum tondere
    7. Re:You have the right to remain silent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When the consequence of "inaccurately draw some suspicion towards yourself" is losing your liberty or your life, why take any risk?

      There are anonymous way to report crime and they are the only acceptable way to do so.

    8. Re:You have the right to remain silent by mark-t · · Score: 2

      Canada and the USA are neighbors, but they are different nations, with different laws. The right to remain silent is not as absolute here as it is in the USA.

    9. Re:You have the right to remain silent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      I've called the police with a tip exactly three times in my life and always ended up regretting it. They were more interested in treating me like a potential suspect than in hearing what I had seen... and I'm white.

      Remember that next time when you hear about a black person refusing to cooperate with the police.

    10. Re:You have the right to remain silent by PsychoSlashDot · · Score: 1

      When the consequence of "inaccurately draw some suspicion towards yourself" is losing your liberty or your life, why take any risk?

      Because some of us aren't sociopaths.

      --
      "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
    11. Re:You have the right to remain silent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're right, the US right is much weaker. Canada listed it twice just to be sure that it didn't disappear:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_7_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

      7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

      "In R. v. Hebert the court held that the right to silence was a principle of fundamental justice. Statements of the accused may not be achieved through police trickery and silence may not be used to make any inference of guilt."

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Hebert

      "McLachlin found that the right to silence was a principle of fundamental justice and as such was protected under section 7."

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_11_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

      11. Any person charged with an offence has the right ...

              (c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;

      The only exceptions are for witnesses in court, in which case anything a witness is compelled to speak about in court cannot be used against them in any case ever. I guess that's three times! My bad! Well, that and anytime you're crossing the border in any fashion. When the CBSA orders you to talk, you must or face jail/fines.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_13_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

      13. A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.

      IANAL, but if you speak with a police officer they'll tell you how seriously the right to remain silent is taken in Canada. You can even refuse to talk at a RIDE checkpoint, but expect to be given a hard time for it. I have not yet found an exception outside of a courtroom.

      Now, the right to open your trap and say something, and then have Miranda rights get that erased, no, we don't exactly have that in Canada. So don't open your mouth and you won't have that issue. And lawyers will tell that that you will have to keep it shut for a long time. Could get annoying. Better than jail. But Canada doesn't have any laws that compel you to talk, except in a courtroom where you're covered by section 13 of the charter anyways. Unless you can point me towards something I don't know about.

      https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2007/11/02/right_to_remain_silent_not_a_given_court_says.html

    12. Re:You have the right to remain silent by vux984 · · Score: 1

      One anecdote deserves another. I've talked to the police lots of times, and never regretted it nor had any negative outcomes nor had any suspicion placed on me.

      I've watched that video a couple times, and legally, its really good advice. BUT its also a recipe for a shitty society.

    13. Re:You have the right to remain silent by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Article is garbage and completely misses S.1 of the Charter, something you're also missing. S.1 states "guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." To boil it down, government or courts can make laws that override these rights, or put in place case law judgements if there is a "greater good" for the rest of society. It's one of the big things that makes a lot of charter lawyers here in Canada believe that the Charter probably won't make it to 2030.

      So with that, you can not refuse to talk at a RIDE checkpoint because S.1 supersedes other rights guaranteed under the charter and the SCC has already ruled that the "RIDE Program" that although being an unlawful search, there is a reasonable exception under S.1 "for the safety of all Canadians, to reduce the number of drivers under the influence" as long as it's premise holds true. That means you have no reasonable right to refuse to answer, even though it's technically an illegal search. On top of that since it is a search, and you are driving a motor vehicle you must also show license and vehicle registration if demanded. What you can do however is answer to the bare minimum that's requested of you, nothing more. There's a whole pile more to this but I'm too damned tired to write it out.

      Also, the wikipedia article on R. v. Hebert misses several key things, I recommend reading the actual case law on http://canlii.org/

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    14. Re:You have the right to remain silent by Whibla · · Score: 1

      There is never anything to gain from talking to the police. Ever.

      I have seen this video too, and frankly this attitude appalls me. It's essentially saying "I'll look after myself, and sod the rest of you!"

      As an extreme example: let's say that your neighbour's house was burgled last night. As it happens you were woken by a noise, and saw two individuals loading a van with your neighbour's expensive electronics, and, being a smart cookie, you snapped pictures of the individuals on your mobile phone, and noted down the license plate of their van.

      Question: No reason to talk to the police?

      Let's slightly extend the example: Instead of your neighbour's house last night it has been your neighbours' houses over the last fortnight, but you still got the pictures and van license last night.

      Question: Still no reason to talk to the police?

      You can probably see where I'm going with these examples... (cue keyboard warriors enumerating how many firearms they keep at their bedside)

      It is an unfortunate fact that behaviour breeds behaviour. If you do not trust the police, if you are antagonistic towards the police, if you are unhelpful in your interactions with the police, guess how they are more likely to behave towards you. Society is not a group of individuals all operating for their own, sole, benefit! The betterment of society requires cooperation between its members, and the remarkable thing is the more we help each other the more those we help are able to help others, those others also incidentally including ourselves, and so on. The moment we start being afraid of helping others, and this includes the police, is the moment we abrogate our 'responsibilty' in creating a better society. And that would be a shame!

    15. Re: You have the right to remain silent by jeremy.brown3327 · · Score: 1

      Good video. Moronic sig. Anyone who even remotely claims that climate change is in question as an established scientific fact is either lying for personal profit or stupidly trying to be edgy. It's been measured repeatedly, everywhere, beyond any margin of statistical doubt.

    16. Re: You have the right to remain silent by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      You shouldn't get your science from the entertainment industry. That includes news agencies. Same industry.

      Instead I would encourage you to peruse the vast store of data available through various governmental agencies and take a look at the numbers there.

      *Hint* Don't just look at the side where the ice is receding. Look at both sides, top and bottom. I bet you will be surprised. Also, for shorelines, consider erosion and subsidence.

      Happy hunting. :)

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    17. Re:You have the right to remain silent by NoSalt · · Score: 1

      That was awesome ... thank you!

    18. Re: You have the right to remain silent by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If I go through the data, I'll find that temperatures are going up along with human-released CO2, and I'll find significant climate changes, like Arctic sea ice.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    19. Re:You have the right to remain silent by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      To be fair, you don't know what the police were doing when you called, and if they have the slightest hope of catching someone they're not going to drive up with lights and sirens.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    20. Re: You have the right to remain silent by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      If I go through the data

      Don't guess. Do it. You claim 'science' and 'facts', then do some science, and check the facts. You will be surprised.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    21. Re: You have the right to remain silent by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      http://www.nasa.gov/feature/go...

      “We’re essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica,” said Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study, which was published on Oct. 30 in the Journal of Glaciology. “Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.” Zwally added that his team “measured small height changes over large areas, as well as the large changes observed over smaller areas.”

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    22. Re: You have the right to remain silent by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Okay, what is this supposed to mean? Global warming doesn't mean that all ice everywhere starts to melt at the same rate. It doesn't mean that every place on earth is warmer by the same amount. If you look at the data, you will see that the surface of the Earth, as a whole, is heating up. This is a simple basic fact, and cannot be disproved by making some superficial predictions and finding they're wrong. The Arctic sea ice is going away. We never used to have a usable Northwest Passage. That's a significant effect, and has nothing to do with Antarctic land ice - and you will notice that Zwally disagrees with others, so his findings aren't conclusive.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    23. Re: You have the right to remain silent by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      We are done here.

      There are three things I will not discuss with people.

      - Politics
      - Religion
      - The Weather, because it combines both politics, and religion.

      May peace find you in the church of the chicken little.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    24. Re: You have the right to remain silent by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, asking a non-political non-religious non-weather related question, why did you start posting on something verboten under your third heading?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    25. Re: You have the right to remain silent by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      Brand new rule.

      Thanks for that.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  3. Re:will they pay for that? even if there are high by Luthair · · Score: 1

    You don't typically pay for receiving text messages.

  4. What could possibly go wrong? by Hylandr · · Score: 1, Informative

    Video completely related.

    This is going to get messy...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --
    ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    1. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      I am sure you know better than that.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  5. Investigators might phone you if you don't respond by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...

    "The force will keep the numbers on file until the murder is solved, officers said at a news conference on Wednesday.

    Investigators will also consider calling the numbers of people who don't respond voluntarily, but they would be required to obtain another court order to do so."

    --
    If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
  6. So I got this text ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    But the person I murdered doesn't match that description. xthxbye

  7. Re:will they pay for that? even if there are high by known_coward_69 · · Score: 1

    what a backward country

  8. How could one not assume this to be SPAM? by ffkom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I mean - seriously - if I would receive any kind of text message from a stranger asking me to visit some web site, it wouldn't take my well-trained neural network more than a split second to classify this as either SPAM or SCAM, discarding the message.

  9. Re:will they pay for that? even if there are high by PRMan · · Score: 1

    Why do you have a phone plan that doesn't match your needs? And even more, why do you brag about it on the internet?

    --
    Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  10. Re:will they pay for that? even if there are high by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    Are we still talking about Canada?

    --OR MUCH IMPROVED VERSION --

    Are we still talking aboot Canada, eh?

    --OR 2.0 VERSION ---

    England could mimic "backwards" Canada
    News from Wot could go bloody wrong department

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  11. Re:will they pay for that? even if there are high by maglor_83 · · Score: 1

    I thought it was just an American thing. In Australia, Telstra sent everyone on it's network an ad SMS and charged them all for it. That quickly put a stop to the practice here.

  12. Re:will they pay for that? even if there are high by newcastlejon · · Score: 5, Informative

    No you don't. Never have done (unless you were roaming at the time). The USA is the only country I've heard of that has carriers who charge for receiving messages.

    --
    If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
  13. Re:will they pay for that? even if there are high by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Which provider(s)? All the plans I know of do not require the recipient of a text to pay anything.

  14. Re: Investigators might phone you if you don't res by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You're all going to jail unless one of you confesses!

  15. Re:will they pay for that? even if there are high by rtb61 · · Score: 1

    Will they pay for the psychological damage of those texts. Consider they are not taking into account the specific psychological health of the people in question, just, meh fuck em, make it easier for us and will get is that promotion. So mentally challenged person, someone was just murdered near you, oh my god, it could have been you and by the by, yes we are watching you, we know were you were and we know where you are. So morons, how much damage do you think that message would do to a mentally ill individually under going therapy. How much damage would it do to normal people just minding their own business. Seriously, what the fuck.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  16. Why don't they text potential murder victims? by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    Giving them a heads up would go a long way in cutting down the murder rate.

    1. Re:Why don't they text potential murder victims? by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

      Like they do in the movies?

      You're Next!

      (with blood dripping from the letters of course)

    2. Re:Why don't they text potential murder victims? by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      Good idea!

  17. Speaking as a Canadian and privacy advocate... by morethanapapercert · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I've read a number of posts thus far and it seems the anti-police contingent is out in force tonight. Many of the paranoid or anti-police comments thus far have been posted by AC, so I don't know what prompts their attitudes.

    In my opinion; Canadian police forces are far less deserving of anti-cop, paranoid rhetoric than US or Latin American forces. In this case, the police obtained a court ordered warrant before asking the telecoms for the tower dump info. This is exactly how the law is supposed to work The police are seeking information that they cannot obtain through the usual personal observation or talking to people one on one and one at a time. Traditional foot work just isn't going to produce the leads they need. They came up with a way to essentially canvas a virtual neighbourhood. Obtaining phone numbers and sending an sms message to everyone who was within a certain area and during a certain time seems to me to be the digital equivalent of knocking doors, asking residents if they've seen anything suspicious.

    The only aspect that I can see where someone might make a legitimate objection is if the police then also use the list of numbers and names as a way to populate their list of suspects. Being a suspect, even if only a routine "talk to you so they can strike your name off the list" would trouble many people. Thing is, that is entirely within the bounds of normal police work. Using data that was legitimately obtained for further uses within the same case is an accepted and necessary part of police work.

    As for myself, I have only two points of concern in this case:

    1) I would want to be assured that the police didn't share this list with anyone else. Other investigations must go and obtain their own warrants. That way if a case might be helped by this data, but itself doesn't merit having a judge issue a warrant, it doesn't get that data. It also makes sure that the police or other authorities don't get handed an easy way to build a database of citizens and the numbers associated with them.

    2) That the police do not retain this data. That way, if a user found in the current data changes his or her phone number down the road, they don't have the police looking at them for a crime committed by someone else who later got that number.

    --
    I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
    1. Re:Speaking as a Canadian and privacy advocate... by BitterOak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In my opinion; Canadian police forces are far less deserving of anti-cop, paranoid rhetoric than US or Latin American forces. In this case, the police obtained a court ordered warrant before asking the telecoms for the tower dump info. This is exactly how the law is supposed to work

      Generally warrants are obtained against suspects not potential witnesses. It's the scope of the warrant that's disturbing. They even say that one of these people could be the killer, so they're basically treating everyone as a potential suspect merely for having their phone turned on in the vicinity of the crime.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    2. Re:Speaking as a Canadian and privacy advocate... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But why does the police even *need* the data? They can just ask the network operator to send the message on their behalf. After all, the message still goes through the network operator, so the goal is accomplished with no unnecessary information revealed.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:Speaking as a Canadian and privacy advocate... by PsychoSlashDot · · Score: 2

      They even say that one of these people could be the killer, so they're basically treating everyone as a potential suspect merely for having their phone turned on in the vicinity of the crime.

      "They" is Motherboard, not the OPP.

      Also, even if the OPP said "we're sending a text to everyone who was in the area hoping someone remembers seeing something, oh, and it's possible one of the numbers we text might even be the culprit", there's zero logical connective with "so they're treating everyone as a suspect". No. Even in that narrative, they're treating everyone as witnesses and acknowledging the statistical possibility that one of the numbers belongs to the killer. It's absolutely not the same as "we have this list of numbers, and one of you might have done it, so we're going to question each of you until you produce alibis."

      --
      "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
    4. Re:Speaking as a Canadian and privacy advocate... by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      It's absolutely not the same as "we have this list of numbers, and one of you might have done it, so we're going to question each of you until you produce alibis."

      I think the concern here is the scope of the warrant, not the aggressiveness of the police interrogations.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    5. Re:Speaking as a Canadian and privacy advocate... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Generally warrants are obtained against suspects not potential witnesses. It's the scope of the warrant that's disturbing. They even say that one of these people could be the killer, so they're basically treating everyone as a potential suspect merely for having their phone turned on in the vicinity of the crime.

      In Canadian law this is completely legal FYI. Hell if you're walking down the street and there was a murder 2 blocks over, and the only information is "the suspect is a black male and accomplice was white male" and you fall into either of those categories, the police can detain you to ensure you're not one of the people who fit the profile of the individuals they're looking for. There's a lot to cover in this but that's the bare minimum that should make sense.

      There have been multiple cases of warrants being used against witnesses in case law in Canada as well, especially against uncooperative witnesses in crimes, several cases that I can remember witnesses were also found to be accomplices. What a lot of people don't understand and this is usually due to watching a lot of American TV(which is just plain bad on law, and really terrible on US laws too) is that the rights afforded to you under the Charter are weighted against S.1 which allows the suspending of rights if enacted via the courts or laws. Your average Canadian has less rights then their American neighbors do and it all comes back to S.1.

      Keep in mind that in Canada up until a few years ago, Exigent Circumstances were legal on the books and so on. The whole idea behind it was to allow warrentless entry/searches/tapping of communications/etc before a warrant was authorized, or allow entry into a building, and so on. And allowed police to do actions without a warrant, then go back and get a warrant to cover their actions. The various laws that used it, had been on the books since before there was a Canada, and the courts ruled that exigent circumstances were overly broad in a modern society and struck the entire thing out of law.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    6. Re:Speaking as a Canadian and privacy advocate... by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      In my opinion; Canadian police forces are far less deserving of anti-cop, paranoid rhetoric than US or Latin American forces. In this case, the police obtained a court ordered warrant before asking the telecoms for the tower dump info. This is exactly how the law is supposed to work

      While I agree with your emphasis, it's important to understand the US/LA "anti-cop" sentiment you've encountered covers far more than just the constabulary. The fact that a court approved a warrant makes little difference to those who consider the entire system corrupt: the police who enforce the laws, the judges and attorneys who interpret them, the politicians who sign them, and the vested interests that write them.

      And it shouldn't come as a surprise to find that such a sentiment will colour opinions even across borders; people worry that what happens 'there' might (be) happen(ing) 'here'.

    7. Re:Speaking as a Canadian and privacy advocate... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Maybe Canadian police are better, but for example the UK police have a long history of bungling investigations and framing people because they are under pressure to get a conviction. Much as I would like to do the right thing, unless I knew I had a watertight alibi and could afford a really good lawyer, I'd keep my mouth shut. The police are just too untrustworthy and when they lie/screw up there are no consequences for them, only for you.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:Speaking as a Canadian and privacy advocate... by houghi · · Score: 1

      If I get such an SMS from my operator, I would ask them why they are sending me this message. If they then dare say that they do it on behalf of a third party, a shitstorm will happen on how they should NOT spam me and I would look up the privacy laws that tell them not to do this.
      If they say they do this on their own, I would file an official complaint how they are in possesion of data of an ongoing investigation.
      If I was the killer, I would use this to get my case thrown out, most likel as they are gathering informaton illegally.

      If the court would have ordered the operator to comply, there would be other roads to be taken and that is a big if.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  18. Re: will they pay for that? even if there are high by slazzy · · Score: 1

    Depends on your plan, post paid are normally free, pre paid normally extra. Also tablets have phone numbers attached and sometimes get wrong texts for dollar or more each.

    --
    Website Just Down For Me? Find out
  19. So a vast digital database of witness now exists? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    What is the first thing smart criminals, corrupt police, private detectives and the press will do?
    Hack it and get the background stories to each person. Create a reason for a face to face interview with real details from the initial police contact.
    If they saw something its a great story or information to sell.
    The UK tried to keep digital secrets about case work in the past and the files got sold to anyone with cash in real time.
    "Journalists caught on tape in police bugging" (21 September 2002 )
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk...
    "Tabloid journalists were caught on tape by a police surveillance operation obtaining information from a private detective agency which in turn paid corrupt officers for confidential police material."
    The access to any witness material in digital form should be air gapped, not networked with telcos. Telco staff with access are just as corrupt or cult members or criminal or have cash flow issues to help with as any other member of the wider public and would sell or give such contact lists.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  20. Re:will they pay for that? even if there are high by youngone · · Score: 1

    Telstra sent everyone on it's network an ad SMS and charged them all for it...

    This happened in New Zealand too, also by the formerly publically owned former monopoly.

  21. Re:will they pay for that? even if there are high by mark-t · · Score: 1

    okay, but I thought we talking about Canada here

  22. This shows that it's possible by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

    to do precisely what people like me fear.

    Let's say that instead of texting potential witnesses, they find someone upon whom they can pin the crime.

    No leads, no suspects but they find that someone just happened to be in the areas with a criminal record.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  23. Police Have Been Doing This For Years, I Suspect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I was in San Francisco and I was driving up Sloat Boulevard from the beach, once, a few years ago, and I witnessed an auto collision, but didn't stop because I was going the other way and there were plenty of witnesses.

    A few weeks later I got a call on my call phone from someone who identified themselves as a detective for the SFPD. He asked me if I had seen the accident and I told him that I had, and what I had seen.

    Perhaps I was foolish to assume that he WAS a SFPD detective.

    Never heard anything more but obviously this technology has been around and in the hands of police who have been using it without a warrant for five years, at least.

    ~childo

  24. Re:will they pay for that? even if there are high by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

    Only time I've ever been charged for a text was when it was an international text, which was retarded and I complained and got the fees waived.

    As for the crime, I think if I was planning on breaking the law I'd want to create an alibi, and I would leave my cell phone wherever I intend to claim that I was, maybe even plant a burner phone somewhere else, call it, and keep the line active for a set time period while I go and bury Nina on the side of a hill between Redwood Regional Park and the Huckleberry Botanic Regional Preserve.

  25. Re:You down with OPP? by sabbede · · Score: 1

    Damn, beat to the punch...

  26. Re:Investigators might phone you if you don't resp by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    Expect a wave of bogus calls claiming to be from the police.

    In the UK some criminals pretend to be the police and use the phone system to make their con more believable. People have lost of a lot of money because the "police" told them that criminals had accessed their bank accounts.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  27. Re:Investigators might phone you if you don't resp by Drethon · · Score: 1

    This is why I don't answer any number I don't recognize, even my own area code, until they leave a message proving I actually want them calling me.

  28. Re:will they pay for that? even if there are high by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

    Only time I've ever been charged for a text was when it was an international text, which was retarded and I complained and got the fees waived.

    That depends on what you mean by "international". If you are abroad and someone sends you a text from your home country there are additional costs involved (in theory). Since your friend has no way to tell if you're abroad it's not fair to pass these costs on to them so you have to foot the bill. The same also used to apply to phone calls: you paid extra for outbound calls and also paid for incoming calls. These days in the EU I understand that the incoming call/text fees have been quashed by an EU directive.

    --
    If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
  29. Re:will they pay for that? even if there are high by _merlin · · Score: 1

    Not true with Australian carriers - receiving text messages when roaming overseas is free. Only sending text message cost money. (Receiving calls when roaming overseas costs money, but receiving calls within Australia is free.)

  30. This raises privacy concerns by ruir · · Score: 1

    So you receive an SMS to visit a site "from the police". If visit the site, and your Windows computer *might* get infected with a malware to spy on you. The police also asks your name, and correlates your name *with* your phone, and with your IP address of the next few days or weeks. Seem a pretty wise idea...

  31. Re:will they pay for that? even if there are high by phorm · · Score: 1

    Heck, a lot of the providers in Canada not only have free incoming text, but allow free international texts.

  32. or a SCAM by phorm · · Score: 1

    Especially if they say they're a government body/authority, given the number of scams posing as the police/RCMP, tax agency, etc.

  33. How do I know it's the police? by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

    I get email and phone calls all the time "From" the FBI, the IRS, and the U.S. Marshall's Office telling me I have not paid my taxes or I've been otherwise behaving badly, there is a bench warrant for my arrest, and that I must pay the taxes and/or fines immediately or I will be carted off to jail. "Go to the nearest 7-11 and buy a Moneygram card in the amount of $$$$ and email the card number to our offices at..."

    I'd be happy to help actual law enforcement in an investigation, but I'm afraid I will need some authentication. Like, I will look up the phone number of the law enforcement agency who sent the email in the Yellow Pages, and call that number. Number in the email/text/phone call? Yeah, right.

    But first, that message would have to get past my "*sigh* yet another spammer/scammer" filter, which is, frankly, set at a high paranoia level.

    If actual law enforcement starts doing this sort of thing regularly, the bad guys are going to join the party in a big way. Guaranteed.