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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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