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."
...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.
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 am perfectly happy for them to do what ever it takes to catch a murderer.
No you aren't. Locking everyone up would catch a murderer, but you're clearly not happy with that. Forcing everyone to wear cameras 24/7 taping what they do for later review would catch a murderer, but you're clearly not happy with that. Collecting everyone's DNA in advance would significantly help catch murderers - would you be happy with that?
something you might just have to accept, because democracy.
"because democracy" has justified some of the worst oppressions. There are times when the majority of voters would vote for horrible things but constitutions or the people's representatives (MPs/Congress/whatever) have put a brake on it. This is why most modern democracies are better described as democratic republics.
Now if this was in an authoritarian dictatorship or if they hadn't used court oversight prior to obtaining this information you might be on to something,
It's up to the legislature what a court can grant permission for - the separation of powers makes things better, but it does not make every given behaviour acceptable.
but instead you sound like a whining teenager who doesn't like the idea of their parents telling then what to do.
Oh, I see the problem - I see government as existing to serve the people, whereas you see them like parents. Well, no.
It all comes down to whether you think people should have the right to commit crime and get away with harming others.
I think the government exists fundamentally to protect freedoms. That means that the freedoms of millions of innocent bystanders are more important than the desire to capture one miscreant, even if they have created one victim. One murder sucks, but it sucks less than denying privacy to everyone in the country.
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.
Completely false reasoning. You assume that revealing the information to the police was the only way to get the desired effect: notifying everyone in the vicinity.
The police could have made a request to the carrier to send the message on their behalf to every subscriber in the logs WITHOUT revealing any of the phone numbers. The loss of privacy was completely unnecessary.
Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php