Slashdot Mirror
Police Used Cell Tower Logs To Text 7,500 Possible Crime Witnesses (www.cbc.ca)
"Investigators are calling it a 'digital canvass' -- the high-tech equivalent of knocking on thousands of doors for information," reports the CBC, describing how an Ontario police department sent text messages to 7,500 potential witnesses of a homicide using phone numbers from a nearby cell tower's logs. Police obtained the numbers through a court order, and sent two texts -- one in English, and another one in French -- asking recipients to "voluntarily answer a few simple questions..."
Slashdot reader itamblyn writes: On one hand, this seems like the natural progression from the traditional approach of canvassing local residents by putting up flyers and knocking on doors. On the other hand, I think one can reasonably ask -- Are we OK with this approach...? Do we want this to happen whenever there is a major crime?
The article adds that the police force "will keep the numbers on file until the killing 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."
The article adds that the police force "will keep the numbers on file until the killing 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."
Canvassing door to door involves public knowledge and eyes. Anyone can do it.
I, a civilian, can't just fish for cell logs when I want to contact people who were in a particular area at a particular time.
This sort of shit is why I wouldn't offer witness testimony to the police - no matter how much sympathy I have for a victim, I am not in the slightest bit convinced that the police have society's interests at heart, and would rather they wasted time on a more difficult investigation than receive help.
...yep, yet another nail in the coffin for freedom. If youre near the crime scene - you COULD be involved. And cops dont have a reputation for nailing someone to be used as a scapegoat, now do they?
Im reminded of those entrapment methods that certain states are so fond of using, Hi, Im Chris Hansen...why dont you have a seat right here. (Brings in 18+ decoy). Same with open car-decoys with the keys left in the ignition. Where does the limit go tomorrow?
Well, he was near the victim...weve logged his/her movement pattern over some time, were pretty sure he/she is the one that did it. Denied being a witness? Guilty for sure right there.
Were getting closer and closer till the guilty until proven innocent society.
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
And where will this type of thing end? What level crimes will justify such privacy invasions? To me, this just sounds a lot like spam.
How many people will have to explain to someone that they were not where they claimed to be?
"You said you were at the hockey game. Doesn't that slutty marketing chick live over by there?"
This was posted the other day...
https://yro.slashdot.org/story...
A story I've heard:
A man had his coat stolen. He called a police, gave a statement, was thanked, end of story.
In a few months the man applied for a promotion which was declined. When he asked for the reason, he was told it was because a few months ago he was mixed up in a coat-theft case...
The summary implies that the text receiver is not required to respond to the LEOs' text message. What happens if one does not respond? Does one receive "special attention"? What happens if the LEOs make it a requirement that one respond? What if penalties are imposed on those who don't respond? Having watched a progression from voluntary participant in governmental activities to required activities, I would not be surprised that mandatory participation would become the norm. A repressive government starts taking more and more of one resources as time goes by. Time is a resource and one already spends too much time in the governments' lines whether actual (like the DMV, DOT, etc.) or virtual (paperwork approval, *mail responses, etc.). I am speaking for the USA. Your country and your mileage may vary.
I think the real question here is why are they keeping logs so old? The probable victim went missing almost a year ago (Dec. 17, 2015).
That's all I can say
Since the cell tower's logs and phone numbers were obtained legally and transparently through a court order, I don't particularly see the problem here. I would if they had been obtained without a court order, in secret, by using a hack or a stingray device or something similar, but that isn't the case here.
but that wouldn't happen. The police don't publish the names of victims. Your anecdote doesn't work. It's kinda like when people say the gov't has a monopoly on violence. It sounds right (the police, military, etc) but when you think about it self defense means they don't really. And both the police & military are heavily regulated. All allowed violence is.
I think the problem here is tracking. It reminds us how much privacy we give up by carrying cell phones. Personally I'm much more concerned with wealth inequality than privacy. The latter is almost always abused to maintain the former.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
We're talking about Canada, where Blackberry not long ago has given encryption keys to the Canadian Mounted Police that gave access to ALL messages from non enterprise users, and this case seems all but forgotten with the company releasing new phones supposed to be the most secure phones ever.
http://www.theverge.com/2016/4...
So yeah, to me it kinda sounds like a slippery slope. But nothing in comparison to what was already done.
The fact that Blackberry is still alive and well (as much as the company can be on their own merits), never had a public outcry after what they did, and that the case seems to be forgotten with tons of people still using and praising the company for their efforts... even after the CEO explicitly supported the idea with a vague public comment... I think it's pretty clear that something like what was described in this post would be pretty ok.
http://blogs.blackberry.com/20...
Having access to numbers located in the immediate vicinity of a crime isn't all that much in comparison to having access to the messaging content of an indiscriminate list of costumers of a certain class from a certain brand of phones.
Would I be ok with this? No, I wouldn't... like I said, slippery slope. At least this case was handled properly with a court order and all, and a message to respond is not that much of a bother, but anyone can see how actions like that can go wrong pretty fast. In a way, it's still relatively indiscriminate based on mobile location - it doesn't mean by any stretch of the mind that a person is suspect of anything, but they are still being targeted.
These days, it doesn't sound like that much of a jump going from requiring a court order to do that and doing it without one, doesn't sound that much of a jump from getting phone numbers to getting private content, and it might not be that much of a jump going from sending messages asking for cooperation to outright pre-emptively arresting people. Sure, hard to imagine the police and judges making such a jump and being this irresponsible - but then again, we have enough proof how overreaching they can become.
I know lots of people won't get the base concept, but essencially mobile companies are revealing private information - for a good cause, yes, and at a minor level in this case, yes. But let's say that in the list is someone who does not want his or her location disclosed at the time of the crime, not being involved with it, for some reason. This is one problem with indiscriminate targeting.
I would be ok with helping the course of an investigation, I would not be ok with mobile companies logging and releasing private information. As for Blackberry, of course, the company is dead to me. Has been for quite a while now. But it's ridiculous how people still defend it.
Those that didn't respond? Put them on the watch list.
What use is this really? Your going to text 7000 random people looking for info over a year old? You're going to waste so much time sifting through useless non relevant information that way.
Also who responds to random texts claiming to be police? I don't answer texts from numbers I don't know, especially not when they claim to be from a business or government office.
There was scam run just last month with texts claiming to be from the IRS.
Such a waste of time. Data gathering like this is just stupid.
I have a flip phone with no text or data. I usually don't even take it with me anywhere.
sent text messages to 7,500 potential witnesses of a homicide using phone numbers from a nearby cell tower's logs ... 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.
I'm not certain it makes any goddamn sense to privilege textual communication over audio communication. Yes, I'm certain it's a bit more awkward having to talk to a police officer in real time, but I find it a bit strange that they're lowing the legal bar for texts. Is there any prior precedent for this?
THAT seems like illegal and unwarranted tracking of private individuals
The way I use my cell phone, if I get a text from an unknown person, it is erased without being read. The same goes for phone calls from unknown people.
You have 4 new messages:
police: Stop resisting!!!
police: Stop resisting!!!
police: Stop resisting!!!
police: Stop resisting!!!
This sig intentionally left blank.
It should be easy to detect if a cellphone tower a phone is connected to is NOT a legit tower. you used to be able to set your cellphone to only connect to a specific tower, now you are stuck with the dumbed down OS that keeps this stuff from you. Anyone know of an android image that allows fine control or full data from the cellular hardware?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
like a motherfucker. Seriously, FUCK YOU if you're going to spam me with bullshit like that because you're too fucking lazy and incompetent to do some basic police work, and wtf is wrong with the judge who thought this was okay?
Don't talk to cops.
(Though now not talking to cops is suspicious in itself.)
"Didn't you say that your where in Medicine Hat on business that day?"
"Yes"
"So why did you get that text?"
"Doesn't that slutty marketing chick from your company live near there?"
"Hmmm, I don't know."
how would I be certain that the text message was not a spoof? I don't answer phone calls from numbers that are not in my contacts list. I don't respond to texts whose origin is questionable.
linquendum tondere
Answering the phone and hearing a detective on the other end is the fucking worst. That's happened to me a few times, and my first reaction is always, "Why the fuck did i pick up for this number i didn't even know?"
Of course, the other side of that is if you don't pick up, they start looking for you, and I've also had to deal with spinning some bullshit to friends, neighbors, parents, and employers about why detectives want to talk to me. The best policy is to never let people know enough about you that they can even describe you well enough for the police to even find.
If an officer comes to your home to ask if you have any information regarding a crime that has happened in a generalized area, you have the right to not answer the door. If you do answer the door you have the right to ask them to leave your property. You do not have the opportunity to reject there request with this type of investigatory method. I'm not anti-police, I have the utmost respect for the boys in blue (they have a thankless job) but their new found techniques for conduction an investigation are to intrusive, to wide spread (nets too big) and has not been tested in the courts (no president). Your phone and any data stored or transmitted to and from the device should by law be protected as if it was an extension of your home and require probable cause and/or court order (warrant) signed by a judge and to be search on an individualize basses. You can't simple use aggregate data lifted off a sting-ray type device or sequester from a telco provider as an investigatory method you walk all over the rights of to large of a set of peoples protected rights to privacy and due process.
Tremble, lowly plebes. Bad things happened near you. This nasty crime happened right nearby you, you were lucky not to be the victim and should consider spending more money on police to prevent such things. We know you were there, maybe you were the perpetrator? We'd like to ask you some questions, it's voluntary although I must say I wouldn't expect the perpetrator to respond.
PS: we promise not to expand the program to "voluntary but not responding makes you the prime suspect" nor to "response is mandatory", and we also promise not to expand this program to minor crimes.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Seriously, if an actual witness to a crime is holding back (fear, loyalty, distrust of authority, etc.), then why would they respond to a text from the police?
I don't want to rule it out entirely. Maybe someone on the edge of reporting a crime needs that extra little prompt. Maybe family or friends of the witness will give them a push. Maybe the witness will feel the police are close and getting closer, so the jig is up and they better step forward.
However a lot of the time, I'm just not sure this will accomplish much. And yeah, this feels like more of Police Creeping On Citizens. All your privacy belong to us!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Det. Insp. Andy Raffay said those fears are largely unfounded, and the police can be trusted to protect information lawfully obtained through a court order.
I don't know about the Ontario police, but US police prove almost daily that they cannot be trusted with this kind of information.
Those polices are stupid with technology, aren't they? If the (not really) good guys can do it, SO can the bad guys. There are reasons why physical mail is still used as official, because phishing scam is extremely common.
Now there will be more fake police text message demanding for your credit card and personal information.
I use a major CellCo (Verizon) as my provider. I use every social network known to man. I pay around $5/gb a month. I don't have issues with whatever you are trying to avoid. BTW what ARE you trying to avoid? Also, I guarantee there is a difference in quality. CellCo providers have HD/Advanced voice. No VOIP provider in the world offers this (almost every US CellCo limits this to themselves or other CellCos), and even if they did, your VPN connection likely would not meet the bandwidth requirements required to allow this. Also, my voice calls do not waste my data.