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.

15 of 121 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.

    3. 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. :(

    4. 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
    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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

  2. 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!
  3. 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.

  4. 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.
  5. 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."