North Carolina Police Obtained Warrants Demanding All Google Users Near Four Crime Scenes (wral.com)

An anonymous reader quotes the public records reporter from North Carolina TV station WRAL: In at least four investigations last year -- cases of murder, sexual battery and even possible arson at the massive downtown fire in March 2017 -- Raleigh police used search warrants to demand Google accounts not of specific suspects, but from any mobile devices that veered too close to the scene of a crime, according to a WRAL News review of court records... The demands Raleigh police issued for Google data [in two homicide cases] described a 17-acre area that included both homes and businesses... The account IDs aren't limited to electronics running Android. The warrant includes any device running location-enabled Google apps, according to Raleigh Police Department spokeswoman Laura Hourigan...

On March 16, 2017, a five-alarm fire ripped through the unfinished Metropolitan apartment building on West Jones Street... About two months later, Raleigh police obtained a search warrant for Google account IDs that showed up near the block of the Metropolitan between 7:30 and 10 p.m. the night of the fire... In addition to anonymized numerical identifiers, the warrant calls on Google to release time stamped location coordinates for every device that passed through the area. Detectives wrote that they'd narrow down that list and send it back to the company, demanding "contextual data points with points of travel outside of the geographical area" during an expanded timeframe. Another review would further cull the list, which police would use to request user names, birth dates and other identifying information of the phones' owners.
"Do people understand that in sharing that information with Google, they're also potentially sharing it with law enforcement?" asks a former Durham prosecutor who directs the North Carolina Open Government Coalition at Elon University. And Stephanie Lacambra, criminal defense staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, also criticized the procedure. "To just say, 'Criminals commit crimes, and we know that most people have cell phones,' that should not be enough to get the geo-location on anyone that happened to be in the vicinity of a particular incident during a particular time." She believes that without probable cause the police department is "trying to use technology as a hack for their job... It does not have to be that we have to give up our privacy rights in order to participate in the digital revolution."

Nathan Freed Wessler, staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, put it succinctly. "At the end of the day, this tactic unavoidably risks getting information about totally innocent people."

Comments

Some kind of

[AHuxley]

Faraday cages that allow a cell phone to stay powered on but never connected.
Easy to use when needed quickly but stay not connected when moving around a city, state?
Make sure a big brand can only see your phone at home and at work.

Re:Some kind of

[freeze128]

Wouldn't "Airplane Mode" do the same thing, you know, without carrying around a grounded metal cage?

Re:Some kind of

[AHuxley]

Trust the PRISM brands with their hardware to say off is off?
Trust but verify now works for the faraday cage.
The big telco brands cant be trusted.

Re:Some kind of

[swillden]

Trust the PRISM brands with their hardware to say off is off?

No need to trust. A cheap RF signal meter can tell you for sure. And what are the odds that no one would have noticed and blown the whistle if airplane mode didn't actually work?

Sigh. This site used to be populated by people with a clue. This is like all of those people who believe that smart speakers must be sending 24/7 audio to the cloud, but don't bother to simply measure the data the devices send/receive at their routers and do the math.

Paranoia is well and good, but being paranoid about a possibility that you can easily check yourself is stupid. Computers aren't magic.

Re: Some kind of

[fortfive]

Could not the device continue to collect location data without emitting ref signals?

Re: Some kind of

[AmiMoJo]

This is indeed the problem. You might be able to detect things like power draw and RF oscillators if the device is receiving RF signals even when in airplane mode, but it is harder to do than measuring transmissions.

There is also a question about what "airplane mode" actually does. Okay, it prevents transmissions, but what about GPS? It appears to turn it off, but why? GPS is receive only, there is no transmission and no danger to aircraft even if it is turned on. Chances are it turns GPS off just to satisfy clueless airline staff and consumers.

Re:Some kind of

[BronsCon]

GPS still works in airplane mode, as it receives a signal, rather than broadcasting one. You think Location Services doesn't log that shit and upload it when you turn airplane mode off?

Re: Some kind of

[cyber-vandal]

I could constantly monitor and analyse my network traffic or I could just save myself time and money and not buy something I don't trust.

Re: Some kind of

[mikael]

You mean the M7 motion-detection chip?

https://www.technologyreview.c...

Re:Some kind of

[jenningsthecat]

No need to trust. A cheap RF signal meter can tell you for sure.

It can - so long as they aren't turning on the transmitters in the phone in short bursts once every minute or so. In that case you need something that can log those short bursts of RF over a specified band or bands. You might be able to put something together around SDR that would do that, but it would take some time and effort. AFAIK the only off-the-shelf solution would be one of the more sophisticated, (read "expen$ive"), spectrum analyzers.

Even then, your phone might be receiving in stealth mode, in which case there might be provisions for making it 'phone home' on demand. Then it's likely that you would never catch your phone defying the Airplane Mode setting. If that capability doesn't exist now, it almost certainly will in the future. And in THAT case, the Faraday cage that others have suggested is the only measure, (short of not carrying a phone at all), that will keep you off their radar.

Re:Some kind of

[BronsCon]

I actually forgot about this, thanks for bringing it up. Yet another reason to leave your phone at home (or lend it to a friend who won't be anywhere nearby) before you go on your crime spree.

I only phrase it that way because millennials simply can't be without their precious phone for long enough to commit even the simplest of crimes, so the suggestion might actually reduce the crime rate a bit.

Re: Some kind of

[chaboud]

GPS works fine with airplane mode. I use it to check airspeed when sitting in window seats. There are GPS-only location apps for you to nerd out on individual satellite signal, etc.

Flying in airplanes can get pretty tedious.

Re: Some kind of

[serviscope_minor]

GPS is receive only, there is no transmission and no danger to aircraft even if it is turned on. Chances are it turns GPS off just to satisfy clueless airline staff and consumers.

Radio receivers aren't generally allowed. I assume this dates back from the era whne cheapass radios would piss out the IF and its considerable harmonics (linear? ha!) all over the spectrum to the point where it could interfere with the pilot's radio, so receivers got banned and this rule has been cargo-culted ever since.

Re:Some kind of

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is people using any of Google's services don't read the terms of use and terms of service agreements attached to the various Google products. The problem are the assholes who mistakenly define Google as a technology firm when they are actually a marketing and advertising firm. Any advanced technology they develop or champion is aimed at collecting, processing, and disseminating all the data it can collect from their user base.

In this particular case law enforcement obeyed the rules by obtaining a court ordered warrant. The warrant was limited to a small geographical region and a defined time period in which the crimes were perpetrated. And the warrant became a matter for the public record. It wasn't a FISA or NSL warrant.

The way things are going the ACLU and EFF will not be satisfied until they eliminate every single law enforcement tool or procedure because of privacy violations. These are the same people who think that US covert foreign intelligence and counter intelligence agencies should be transparent.

And for those thinking that privacy concerns only became relevant during the electronic age they best think again. The IRS makes the NSA, FBI, and CIA look like a bunch of rank amatuers when it comes to amassing information on it's citizens. And the government doesn't even need a warrant to go searching through the IRS databases. The IRS is the only agency that can defy the constitutional protection of being innocent until proving guilty. The IRS will appropriate your property and other assets before you ever get near a court house.

Re: Some kind of

[swillden]

I could constantly monitor and analyse my network traffic or I could just save myself time and money and not buy something I don't trust.

And which mobile phone can you trust?

Re: Some kind of

[swillden]

Could not the device continue to collect location data without emitting ref signals?

Airplane mode disables transmitters, not receivers, so obviously it could. The comment I replied to was implying that airplane mode didn't do what it claims to, not that it didn't do things it doesn't claim to.

Re:Some kind of

[swillden]

No need to trust. A cheap RF signal meter can tell you for sure.

It can - so long as they aren't turning on the transmitters in the phone in short bursts once every minute or so. In that case you need something that can log those short bursts of RF over a specified band or bands.

The goal was to detect whether it was transmitting, not to log the transmissions. You can detect short bursts with a cheap RF signal meter, you just need to watch it. In fact, phones do transmit short bursts quite a bit, to avoid having to keep the transmitters powered up unnecessarily. They suck a lot of power, which drains your battery.

Even then, your phone might be receiving in stealth mode, in which case there might be provisions for making it 'phone home' on demand.

Perhaps, but now you're into stratospheric levels of paranoia. Actually, this sort of behavior would be pretty easy to detect just by watching battery levels while airplane mode is active, because in order to receive in stealth mode, the phone would have to power up the radios periodically.

If that capability doesn't exist now, it almost certainly will in the future.

Sure, all part of the Illuminati's grand plan.

Re: Some kind of

[AmiMoJo]

Interesting. I've had the whole spectrum depending on the aircraft. Some as okay with WiFi and anything else, others wanted all electronics turned off completely.

Re: Some kind of

[AmiMoJo]

Sure, on my phone you can enable everything in airplane mode if you want to. It's just a fast "disable everything" button.

Re: Some kind of

[angel'o'sphere]

GPS is GPS is GPS ...
Every GPS handles altitude. It us basically impossible not to handle it.
Speed and direction depends in the sample rate ... how often the position is recalculated.
There is on receiving side no difference between consumer or other GPS, it is just a receiver ...

Re: Some kind of

[gweihir]

Sure, GPS is likely blocked, but an accelerometer can be used to do a pretty good extrapolation from a starting point, more so when you have accurate plans of the target. Of course, something need to report that data, but I expect applications that do this are already available and will become more common if people start blocking GPS and phone signals.

Re: Some kind of

[nehumanuscrede]

There is no need for the data to be transmitted in real time. It can be quietly collected and burst transmit once a day, once a week or whatever parameter you want to set.

Is how certain bugs go undetected by sniffer gear, they don't transmit full time. ( Bonus, it also saves battery )

Re:Some kind of

[AHuxley]

AC so the device is ready if it was needed at a moments notice. The device its kept working ready for use. Just not able to show the location to a network, ad company and brand.
The cell phone is just not going to a map of movement and location until it is used by its owner.

Re: Some kind of

[sabri]

GPS works fine with airplane mode. I use it to check airspeed when sitting in window seats.

You cannot check airspeed using GPS. Airspeed is measured by measuring the difference in airpressure from the pitot port and the static port.

What you're measuring is groundspeed. If you have both (that is, groundspeed from GPS and airspeed from the pitot-static system), you can calculate with and wind direction, and a compass heading.

Re:Some kind of

[Pros_n_Cons]

An Android on airplane mode actually collects more data as it scrambles to gain information. So everyone is cool with that since it's not connected right? Well guess what happens when plugged into your laptop or airplane mode is turned off? Yep uploads everything it gathered.

Re: Some kind of

[chaboud]

You are correct. What I meant to say was that I check groundspeed vs. airspeed on the airlines that show airspeed on the in seat screens.

Re: Some kind of

[Actually, I do RTFA]

GPS is GPS is GPS ...

Except for number of satellites it can track simultaneously, legal limits on altitude and speed, access to the decoded (incredibly precise) data vs. slightly fuzzed commercial version, refresh rate (as you point out), etc.

With the exception of decryption, they are all limitations built into the receiver. But you think Apple/Google/Samsung are going to violate the laws just to sell to the one person in the world who wants a superaccurate GPS?

Re: Some kind of

[angel'o'sphere]

How do you come to those myths?

Why should my phone "track" less satellites than a commercial specialized GPS? Hu?

You only need 3 satellites anyway to get a precise enough position.

Which laws are you talking about? There is no law that a phone needs to be less precise than any other GPS receiver you can buy in a shop.

Re: Some kind of

[Greyfox]

Also a little known fact is that most civilian GPS units will not work above a specific altitude or speed. IIRC the ceiling is either 45K or 60K feet and 600 MPH. Those are the numbers that stick in my head, anyway. It doesn't affect most people, as the ceiling is above where civilian aircraft fly, but it can be a bother for people doing high-end model rocketry or weather balloon experiments. I thought I might be hitting it when trying to track some skydives with my phone, but the altitudes I'm jumping from are well below the ceiling. It seems like the GPS receivers in most phones are pretty much just crap. Or maybe just not optimized for falling at speeds up to around 200 MPH from altitudes up to 20K feet MSL. And yeah, average terminal velocity is approx 120 MPH belly-to-earth, but I've hit 200 MPH in a head down dive. I've heard tell of the competition fall-rate guys hitting 300 MPH with skin-tight jumpsuits and aerodynamic rigs.

Re: Some kind of

[RockDoctor]

Why should my phone "track" less satellites than a commercial specialized GPS? Hu?

The GPS chipsets in phones are far and away the biggest sellers of GPS chipsets. With additional specialisations for reducing power (compared to the Garmin GPS which I had in the early 2000s). But why would a phone track fewer satellites than (say) 15kg of suveyor's GPS with a differential base station and another 5kg of battery for each station? Partly for power use - each received signal and decoding cost miliwatt-seconds of battery power - and partly for speed of response.

You only need 3 satellites anyway to get a precise enough position.

Three satellites will give you a ground position. Actually, three satellites will give you the crossing point of three arcs of position solutions. Which almost certainly will not cross, but will define a triangle (*) on the ground. What is the probability of the true ground position being inside that triangle ? 12.5% - 1 in 8.

That is why GPS systems are more accurate with more satellites, and why they strive to acquire as many satellites as the system can handle.

The same problem applies to getting an altitude, for which you need a 4th satellite. It's actually a bit worse, since the system is optimised for ground positions not altitudes, so the uncertainty in altitude is almost always bigger than for ground position. (*) triangle - with arc of a conic section edges, not straight lines. But it doesn't change the argument, just makes the geometry much more complex.

Re: Some kind of

[angel'o'sphere]

Sorry, besides for your 'ground station point' the rest is wrong.

3 satellites give you 3 intersecting spheres in 3D space.
That includes altitude.

Yes, that will be an approximation, of about 1 meter, depending where you are and if you have adjusted your GPS accordingly (e.g. around the Finnish coast, unadjusted GPS is easy 30m off).

What is the probability of the true ground position being inside that triangle ? 12.5% - 1 in 8.
That is complete nonsense.

Being inaccurate has nothing to do with probabilities.

I guess when you are doing a manual compass based bearing, you believe as well that 3 bearings increase the "probability" of your position versus two bearings, while it actually only makes the spot you are probably inside bigger and more fuzzy.

Re: Some kind of

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Why should my phone "track" less satellites than a commercial specialized GPS?

To save money on hardware, physical size and battery life. If you don't need the precision, you don't need the cost to get it.

You only need 3 satellites anyway to get a precise enough position.

Geometircally, only 3. In reality 4 is considered the minimum. But that's true enough for turn-by-turn directions moving at a car. That's probably not enough for Delta to use to broadcast their plane's position. More satellites add precision, speed and altitude degrade precision.

Which laws are you talking about?

Dude, is your friend: Note, while these limits are high, being able to handle that much speed (or altitude) requires more expensive hardware. And while it's not that your phone is less precise than your Garmin, it's that neither is as precise as what Delta's using.

Re: Some kind of

[angel'o'sphere]

The only thing that is truee that you need more hardware to track up to the maximum of sattelites over the horizon.
The rest is simply false, sorry.
Already the 'precission' claim is false. If you track more then the minimum required satellites the GPS, choses the ones with the clearest signal, or those with clear enouh signal, that have the biggest angle towards each other in the sky. And that is the only reason why you want more than 3.
Having more than 3 does not add the singlest bit of precission. How would even the math work, to jump from 3 sattelites to 4?

You can easy check that on paper in 2D.

Make some crosses somewhere as refernce points assuming you are in a boat somewhere in the center.
Use two of the crosses and draw lines to the center that intersect. "You are somewhere there". Call this point A. Now we know we have an inaccuracy of lets say +/- 5degrees. Draw for each line two dotted lines in -/+ 5 degrees angle.
Where your boat is, you have now an irregular quad-angle. It is somewhat safe to assume your boat is inside there. Now look how big that area is in comparision to the original intersection of the first two bearings.

Anyway: now take a third X to find a bearing, keep in mind, it won't intersect with the forst two ... in other words the straight line bearings will form a tri-angle where they meet. Now we could assume that the ship is somewhere inside of that triangle. But look at point A. carefully.

Again add two dotted lines for a +/-5degree error margin. So, why would you conclude now, your boat is inside of the triangle, when your new error margins for the last bearing, clearly indicate it could be outside 'behind point A' somewhere?

It is just psychology that you believe you are inside of the triangle ... the third bearing did not add any more accuracy. It only showed you how improbal your first two bearings were.

Now do it with an board radar to two solid objects and you know your position up to a few cms .. no need to use a third bearing.

Same with GPS. You need as many bearings as you have dimensions, and thats it.

More sattelites only give you more options to pick 3 which will give you a perfect 'bearing'. (in 2D a perfect environment for bearings would be two easy to pinpoint objeccts that have roughly a 90degrees angle to each other, two objects that are close to 180 degrees to eacch other are obviously a poor choice)

(Yes, I have a naval sailing patent).

Re: Some kind of

[Actually, I do RTFA]

GPS isn't based on bearing...

Re: Some kind of

[angel'o'sphere]

Obviously it is not, but partly it is.

It is the same principle as in "bearing", but you use the intersecting spheres they "produce". And obviously instead of aiming towards the satellite as in "bearing" the satellite tells you where it is, so: it is exactly the same principle as "bearing".

Re: Some kind of

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I mean, wikipedia has the math that GPS uses to combine more than four satellites to get a better result. So, that's obviously a thing.

GPS is really complex, and simple geometry doesn't generate good instincts w. regard to GPS limitations.

Consider not carrying a tracking device

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with this is the way crimes get prosecuted in the US. The DA will threaten you with a bunch of charges that will put you away for a long time if you don't plea bargin. It will cost a very large amount of money to defend yourself. So if you happen to be some random person in the area who LE or the DA thinks might have done it, even if you are innocent your life could be wrecked. Perople need to realize carrying tracking devices around with you incurs a small chance of having your life ruined and it might not be something you want to do.

Re:Consider not carrying a tracking device

[b0s0z0ku]

Exactly - the US sentencing system is terminally fucked up, in a way that pushes people to plead guilty to crimes they're INNOCENT of. This serves nobody -- the real criminal is still out on the street, innocent lives are ruined, and the states pay to incarcerate innocent victims of the US injustice system.

Better solution would be to erase a whole bunch of victimless crimes from the books (i.e. non-violent drug possession by adults, prostitution between consenting adults, gambling offenses) and require that the state prove its case in front of a jury for any other serious crime. In short, treat people like grown-ups, not like abused children.

Re:Consider not carrying a tracking device

[dryeo]

This serves nobody

It serves the politicians, which in the USA often includes the Judges, prosecutors and heads of police departments. For a politician, it is more important to be seen as doing something, even if it is totally the wrong something and throwing someone in jail is doing something.

Re:Consider not carrying a tracking device

[R3d M3rcury]

Perople [sic] need to realize carrying tracking devices around with you incurs a small chance of having your life ruined and it might not be something you want to do.

What's funny is that criminals will start to realize this as well and will turn off their cellphones. So all you'll have is innocent people who happened to be in the area.

Re:Consider not carrying a tracking device

[Anonymous Coward]

>Same tactic, same outcome.

Not even close. Manafort, Trump, etc. have millions to defend themselves. Manafort pled guilty because he knew he was. It amazes that anyone still defends these criminals.

Re:Consider not carrying a tracking device

[david_thornley]

Good call, but you missed private prisons. A private prison wants people to be incarcerated. Whether the inmate actually committed a crime or got a fair sentence is completely irrelevant to financial accounting.

Probable cause?

[msauve]

"...no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, ..."

What judge signed the warrant? They're a clear and present danger to the Constitution.

Re:Probable cause?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

"...no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, ..."

It's right there for you in the TFS:

from any mobile devices that veered too close to the scene of a crime

"Hey, there was a murder in New York City last weekend. Google's records show that you were also in NYC, along with millions of other potential suspects. That is enough probable cause for the police to beat you to a pulp."

This is going to end like the former East Germany secret police, the Stasi. They were collecting so much information . . . that they couldn't even seriously analyze it all.

Now if the police could broadcast the locations of crime scenes, we could all stay way clear of them. Otherwise, the police might as well pick up random people off the street and see if they can beat out a confession of them.

Re:Probable cause?

[Dorianny]

This search warrant is likely far too broad to pass Constitutional muster, unfortunately only a defendant can challenge a search warrant. In other words neither Google nor the ACLU have the standing to challenge the search warrant before it is executed. The only silver lining is that this tactic is not likely to end once someone is charged and they end up walking free because of it

Re:Probable cause?

[Anonymous Coward]

Parallel Construction. Once you're on "their" radar, it's for life. If by some chance this is thrown out they will hang him with anything.

Google absolutely CAN fight these but it would go against their business model.

If you want to see shit like this changed, ask yourself why the Government doesn't use these tactics on their own? Why aren't the records of Senators and other Government agencies made public? Would go a long way to establishing trust especially with simple travel claims.

What would be even more interesting is what if those records DID include so called protected classes like Senators. Would that not be a Federal crime?

Re:Probable cause?

[Chrondeath]

"Hey, there was a murder in New York City last weekend. Google's records show that you were also in NYC, along with millions of other potential suspects. That is enough probable cause for the police to beat you to a pulp."

I feel like, personally at least, how objectionable this is depends on how wide of an area they're targeting. "All of NYC" would obviously be, literally, too broad, but "within 20 yards at the time the murder occurred" seems reasonable. I don't know how small of a resolution the data can get here.

I feel like objections to this need to focus on how it differs from things like a camera or witness seeing your car in the area and reporting the license plate.

It does seem like it needs some specific rules around how large of an area/time range they're allowed to request, since it lacks....friction, in expanding that range, compared to cameras/witnesses. But I don't feel like the entire concept is bad.

Re:Probable cause?

[b0s0z0ku]

Are any other cities than NYC rolling out free calling stations, like LinkNYC?

Re:Probable cause?

[Tony Isaac]

The thing is, there WAS probable cause.

This is like police getting a warrant for video surveillance recordings from a business next door to where a crime occurred. There is no presumption that the neighboring business did something wrong, or that the owner or any patron of that business did something wrong. The point of the warrant is to gather evidence relating to the crime that occurred.

This kind of warrant seems reasonable to me, provided that due process is followed. There is no presumption of guilt of any person who was in the area, rather, a presumption that persons in the area might be able to recall details of the incident. Yes, the perpetrator might be among them. But being located in the area, in itself, doesn't imply guilt.

This is why there are such things as warrants. Police are required to get proper authorization before "infringing" on people's privacy and property rights.

Re:Probable cause?

[sjames]

Well, if they see any evidence that you knew what he was up to, that would be probable cause. If they saw you walk by oblivious, they could ask if you might have seen anything but it would not be reasonable to search you. Best bet would be to broadcast that they were looking for witnesses who were around X at Y time and see if you contact them.

The only reason that wouldn't work is that they have cultivated an atmosphere of distrust over the years.

Re:Probable cause?

[fafalone]

Don't forget NYC's vertical space. If that 20 yards includes a large building, it could still be hundreds of clearly innocent people since GPS coords don't typically include height.

Re:Probable cause?

[gravewax]

This search warrant is likely far too broad to pass Constitutional muster

really why? cell tower records, credit card transactions have been used for years in exactly the same way, as are CCTV, red light cameras etc etc.

Re:Probable cause?

[houghi]

Accountability. As long as there is no accountability for people who break the law, that law is meaningless. And it is irrelevant if that is something written in the consitution, a written law, an unwritten one or one that people made up on the spot.

If there is no acountability, it is nothing more than a potential discussion point of "what if", no matter how often you yell it.

OTOH, if you are held accountable, no matter if it is written, it becomes the law.

Captured on camera.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nathan Freed Wessler, staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, put it succinctly. "At the end of the day, this tactic unavoidably risks getting information about totally innocent people."

Same could be said about public CCTVs.

Re:Captured on camera.

[b0s0z0ku]

They're a problem, but at least they get images of what a suspect is actually doing.

Re:This is not a problem

[Immerman]

So if location data of every person using google on their phone in a 7 city block area over a period of 2.5 hours is "limited", where exactly would you draw the line?

Re:Note to self

[Anonymous Coward]

Of, you can just pull the battery out, assuming you've gone one of the last 3 models of phone that allows you to do it. Within a very short period of time, any capacitors in the phone will be discharged as well, making it impossible for the phone to tattle.

The real problem here though is that we have two rightwing parties in the US that think it's OK to ignore the 4th amendment when it's expedient. This kind of fishing expedition isn't good for the health of a democracy and in most cases isn't even necessary. Criminals usually out themselves at some point by flapping their lips too much. Having this information, just lets the cops find a patsy more efficiently, not necessarily the guilty party.

Re:Technological Hack

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't about technology, it's about the fact that the police shouldn't be handed that kind of information without a warrant drawn on probable cause. They don't have probable cause here to say that most of those cellphones belong to a suspect. This is a dragnet, arresting everybody that was present without any specific reason for believing that they did anything wrong.

Except that normally when they do that, there's a police officer present and the people being arrested are usually interviewed before being cuffed and have some knowledge that something illegal just happened that could place them under arrest. In this case, the cops will have an easier time tricking one of those people into confessing because they won't know they need an attorney.

Apologists like you make me sick. If we had real laws on the books, this would be a much smaller problem.

Re:This is not a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that it's an illegal warrant. They don't have probable cause to believe that any specific cellphone owner committed those crimes. They suspect that one of them did it, but they don't really even know that. It could have been somebody without a phone at all, or who was smart enough to take the battery out until after they were done.

This isn't any different from pulling over all the people driving red cars because a red car was used to rob a convenience store. Unless there's more than just a car color, there's no legal cause for pulling them over.

What's more, because of the way that prosecution works, they'll probably violate the rights of the accused even more and offer plea bargains in order to get a conviction, even if there isn't sufficient evidence to win a conviction at trial.

This is a pretty blatant violation of the 4th amendment and people need to stop making excuses for the police violating the constitution.

Re:This is not a problem

[Lunix Nutcase]

The 4th Amendment is pretty clear that warrants should only be issued on having probable cause. What they asked for sounds very much like the general warrants that are explicitly banned by the same amendment.

You are so backwards.

[Jason1729]

It scares me that google, a greedy for-profit company, has all that personal data. I don't want them and their business partners to have it.

Sure, I'd rather not give that data to law-enforcement either, but it's a lot less bad than google and friends having it.

How are you okay sharing it with google and hundreds of "partner" companies, but somehow not okay with "guvurnment" getting access?

Re:You are so backwards.

[Gravis Zero]

How are you okay sharing it with google and hundreds of "partner" companies, but somehow not okay with "guvurnment" getting access?

One group may throw an advertisement at you for 30 seconds even if you don't want the product. The other group may throw you in jail for 30 years even if you didn't do the crime.

Magnitudes of impact matter.

Re:You are so backwards.

[Dorianny]

Fortunately Googles location data gathering can be turned off; For now at least.

From a web browser it can be done from the "activity controls" settings, This is the easiest way since each android release seems to be burying the settings deeper and deeper

Re: You are so backwards.

[Reverend Green]

Hahahahahaha!

Re:You are so backwards.

[Actually, I do RTFA]

One group may throw an advertisement at you for 30 seconds even if you don't want the product. The other group may throw you in jail for 30 years even if you didn't do the crime.

The advert group requires your cooperation. The government can arrest you regardless.

Re:You are so backwards.

[dryeo]

The advert group requires your cooperation. The government can arrest you regardless.

Do they? Google seems to have trackers almost everywhere on the web and even being somewhat technically literate, it is hard to block them all, especially on a closed system like a cell phone and I don't know about Google but Facebook, which is also in the advertising business, seems to have shadow profiles of most everyone, whether they ever cooperated by signing up or not.

Re:You are so backwards.

[swillden]

It scares me that google, a greedy for-profit company, has all that personal data.

Then you should turn off location history, so they won't have it. With history off but location on, location data is only uploaded as needed to satisfy app requests and is not retained.

Personally, I find location history to be very useful. I like being able to see where I was on any given day and time. I like it enough that I periodically go in and correct any errors in Google's guesses as to where I was while I still remember (there are a fair number of errors because for power efficiency GPS is used as little as possible).

Re:You are so backwards.

[Actually, I do RTFA]

While blocking tracking is much, much harder, Ad blocking seems solved. Facebook only serves ads on their own site (I believe) and Google seems to serve ads from a few well known domains.

Re:You are so backwards.

[dryeo]

Yes, on my desktop I see next to no ads and have most all tracking blocked. Now and again I have to do some testing with a virgin profile and it horrifies me how ads there actually are, even with a lot of addresses blacklisted.
My phone not so much. This partially due to having retired my flip phone not that long ago and switched to an Android one and not having spent much time at looking into blocking everything, partially because I don't do much with it. It still seems much more non-trivial to set up Android for no ads and even not having a data plan, my phone provider seems to randomly turn data on and off. Looking, the month seems to have started yesterday, the phone has already used 1.27 MBs, mostly by Google Services.

Re:You are so backwards.

[david_thornley]

I can perhaps turn off location history in my phone, but that's not where the police were searching. If you turn off location history, does that stop Google from keeping what they've got?

Re:You are so backwards.

[swillden]

Turning off location history will prevent storage of new history. In the settings dialog in Android where you turn off location history there's also a button that will delete existing history. Alternatively, you can go to myactivity.google.com and delete it (as well as a bunch of other stuff) from there.

Obviously, all of this depends on Google actually deleting what they say they're going to delete, and not storing what they say they're not going to store, and you have no direct way of verifying. There would be significant negative consequences to Google if it were found to be lying about those things, though, both legal and PR. Plus I'll tell you I know some of the people who work on the deletion infrastructure, and they work hard to make sure gone is gone. But I'm some random guy on the Internet who could be lying, so my assurance is worth less than the observation that the FTC and many others would take a dim view of Google deceiving users.

Re:Note to self

[I'm New Around Here]

Of, you can just pull the battery out, assuming you've gone one of the last 3 models of phone that allows you to do it. Within a very short period of time, any capacitors in the phone will be discharged as well, making it impossible for the phone to tattle.

The real problem here though is that we have two globalist leftist parties in the US that think it's OK to ignore the entire US Constitution.

Re:This is not a problem

[I'm New Around Here]

So that's the blocks to each side of the crime site, around the time of the crime. Since they aren't asking for info not near the crime site, and not around the time of the crime, I think that is where you will find a line.

Wait a minute

[bobstreo]

What if the person was using a Windows phone? /s

Seriously, Just Google apps?

Is it easier to serve a warrant to google than the local cellular companies?

Because even if you have your location information turned off/disabled, your location can easily be tracked by the cell towers...

Re:This is not a problem

[Immerman]

I'm not - which is why I leave location services off on my phone, as would any non-stupid criminal.

My objection is that a warrant for information about "every person who was in a 7 city block area in a 2.5 hour window" is ridiculously over-broad, and will almost certainly put dozens if not hundreds of innocent people under suspicion, while not giving any clue whatsoever about the actual criminal unless they were bone-headedly stupid.

It's only a stone's throw from outright government mass surveillance (which I hope you understand the dangers of) - in any city there's almost certainly several crimes within a 10th of a mile of you on any given day. Only it's even worse because it's completely blind to any even marginally intelligent criminal, and thus can only be used against the innocent and the idiot criminals - and if your criminal is an idiot then it should be easy enough to catch them through real police work.

Re:This is not a problem

[I'm New Around Here]

This isn't any different from pulling over all the people driving red cars because a red car was used to rob a convenience store. Unless there's more than just a car color, there's no legal cause for pulling them over.

A coupe years back, a guy robbed a bank. He took off just before the cops got there, but stopped at a red light. The police realized he was in one of the cars waiting for the red light, but with 25 cars, they had no idea which one. Should they just let all of them go because there's no legal cause to stop the innocent people in the other two dozen cars?

No, the cops did not let them go. They blocked the traffic, got dozens of officers on site, and then proceeded to search each car one at a time. Each driver was taken out and handcuffed, the car was searched for weapons and cash, and as it was cleared the cops moved to the next one. Eventually they got to the car with the bank robber, who was arrested. No shots were fired, no one was hurt.

That is what is legal in finding and arresting someone when you don't know who is the guilty one.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com...

People who commit murder ...

[PPH]

... also bought ...

Re:Oink-oink.

[Humbubba]

Anonymous Coward says

Using the same methodology as truffle-sniffing pigs.

Truffle-sniffing pigs issue search warrants to Google for user data in an effort to target criminals? I had no idea.

I must say, I've always been impressed with Anonymous Coward. An odd fellow, yes, but a real eclectic pedagogue, with eccentric wit and extraordinary vision. If I didn't know any better, I would say a good bit of A.C.'s invaluable post is froth with subterfuge. But what could possibly be the point?

The future has arrived

[Reverend Green]

The future has arrived - and it's totalitarian. Congratulations!

Re:Note to self

[chadenright]

Very funny, newbie, but the US is conservative relative to other countries (https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-USA-as-a-nation-so-conservative-compared-to-Europe).

Re: This is not a problem

[UnknowingFool]

I would say you and I have very different definitions of "limited". I would call the non-specificity of the warrant's conditions a "dragnet".

Sure!

[nospam007]

"Do people understand that in sharing that information with Google, they're also potentially sharing it with law enforcement?"

Sure! We always remove the battery of our devices when we go on a crime spree.

Re:This is not a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the absolutely should let them go until they have more evidence. At a certain point, it's just not worth it to society to have the police pulling over random people without cause.

And what happens if in the course of one of these illegal fishing expeditions they find evidence of an unrelated crime or get frustrated that they haven't made a collar and decide to plant some evidence? Is it still OK?

The courts regularly make incompetent rulings like that. The whole point of the 4th amendment is that we have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. If they didn't know which car had the thieves in it and had no evidence to suggest which one it was, then they were completely wrong in searching all those people illegally.

People like you that make excuses for this kind of blatantly unconstitutional activity by the cops are why we've lost so many of our rights already. Allowing the police to perform speculative searches without having probable cause is barely any different from allowing them to search random houses for contraband and if people keep making excuses, it's hard to say that it won't go that far.

It's just like ...

[CaptainDork]

... confiscating all the surveillance footage, both residential and commercial, in the area, so I don't have a problem with it.

Smart devices behave in predictable ways. Owners are aware of those ways and can take actions to mitigate.

It's a choice.

Re:It's just like ...

[b0s0z0ku]

All the more reason to run your footage on a 24-hour wipe cycle if you're a store owner. If YOUR store gets robbed, you save it. If cops show up on a fishing expedition two months later, it's gone.

Re:It's just like ...

[Actually, I do RTFA]

It's a choice.

Not if they're not aware of what they're choosing. It's called informed consent.

Re:It's just like ...

[CaptainDork]

And this would enhance the business' revenue in what ways?

Re:It's just like ...

[CaptainDork]

Ownership is called, RTFM.

Re:It's just like ...

[gravewax]

In what possible way is that in the local businesses interests? Insurance, profit and safety is enhanced by them keeping it for a much longer period, sometimes crimes aren't caught or noticed the day it happens as it is unlikely anyone has the time to sit and review their own recordings every single day. More like, "Oh fuck that $20k piece of equipment is gone, time to go back through the last few weeks of recordings to work out when it disappeared and who did it."

Re:It's just like ...

[AHuxley]

The store will be offered better CCTV and to be part of a city police partnership if they network their private CCTV with the city.
Every face and license plate is getting kept for years thanks to networked public private partnerships in city areas.
That 24/7 CCTV capture is going to the city and police and is only limited by how much storage the police can budget for with a third party to keep the data.
2 years for faces was the best guess years ago.
Outside a city? The FBI will put a hidden camera on a utility pole along a main road.
On a highway thats the only easy direct way into and out of that part of a state? Expect to have driver, any passenger to get facial recognition. Back and front license plate kept.
The funding is mostly federal out for decades with the support of city and state task forces.

Re:It's just like ...

[b0s0z0ku]

A store agreeing to that would require the assumption that cops are honest, which is often not correct.

Dim

[markdavis]

The really sad part is that anyone who isn't pretty dim KNOWS they are being tracked and will turn off location history, shield it, turn off the phone, or leave it behind when committing a planned crime. So such unconstitutional warrants in those cases are not only ineffective, they target the people most likely to NOT be involved.

Of course, there are a lot of dim criminals out there, and unplanned crimes of passion for which it might work. But where do you draw the line? If it is OK to do in a murder or arson case, then what next? Battery? A non-violent theft? Speeding? Jaywalking? Walking an animal off-leash? Protesting without a license? Loitering? Or even pre-crime?

Re:Dim

[LostOne]

I would actually go so far as to say that the majority of criminals are dim. We just don't hear about many of those cases (unless they are particularly funny or the stupidity is particularly egregious) since they are usually dead easy to solve. Things like criminal poses for the security camera on the way in to rob a place, with his face in full view. That sort of dim.

But, to be fair, most people don't have a clue about location services, or the fact that their location is stored in the pictures they take, or anything like that. Even people that are not "dim". Even people that know about it and think it's pretty neat don't think about it any further. People don't think about the implications of things. Even reasonably intelligent people who are often busy doing other things.

None of that erases your other point, though. It's a major slippery slope and we must not allow fishing expeditions under any circumstances. The mere coincidence of your device thinking it's near some location at some time should not be usable as "probably cause" because in that case, you don't have the probable cause until you have the information from your fishing expedition. Probably cause needs to come first, not as a result of the fishing.

Re:Dim

[JesseMcDonald]

I would actually go so far as to say that the majority of criminals are dim.

The majority of criminals who get caught, you mean. Don't forget to account for sampling bias.

The mere coincidence of your device thinking it's near some location at some time should not be usable as "probably cause" because in that case, you don't have the probable cause until you have the information from your fishing expedition.

Indeed. Probable cause should be read as having sufficient evidence to support a reasonable belief that the owner of the property to be searched or seized is likely to be convicted of a crime serious enough to—retroactively—justify this infringement of their property rights. Considering the results in retrospect, if your searches or seizures did not lead to the conviction of the property owner in at least 50% of cases, the standard for probable cause was too lax: the cause, however just, was not sufficiently probable. And on a more practical note, in any situation where you failed to convict the target of the search or seizure, with or without probable cause, you owe compensation to the property owner for the unjustified infringement of their rights.

Serving a warrant on a third party who is not even a suspect (such as Google in this scenario) is simply wrong, full stop. Even the information eventually led to locating the offender and won the government their case, that outcome wouldn't justify infringing Google's property rights. Now, nothing prevents them from asking for the data, and Google could turn it over voluntarily, but if they had previously agreed to keep the data private then doing so should open them up to civil liability for breach of contract.

Re:Dim

[LostOne]

I would actually go so far as to say that the majority of criminals are dim.

The majority of criminals who get caught, you mean. Don't forget to account for sampling bias.

Actually, I do mean the actual majority (I'm expressing an opinion) but your point about sampling bias is definitely valid. We have something akin to the survivorshp bias here since we don't know (by definition) about some number of criminals who are never caught. We know about those whose crimes are detected but aren't caught, but we don't know about the ones whose crimes are not detected at all (or never reported). There's obviously an element of luck, and also an element of dimness on the side of law enforcement in many cases, too.

Of course, that doesn't necessarily disprove my statement, either, but yours is definitely a lot more defensible since it doesn't rely on information that we'll almost certainly never have. I just happen to believe (but can't prove) that the vast majority of criminals are dim. Which is why I said I would "go so far as to say".

Re:Technological Hack

[b0s0z0ku]

Doctors save lives, cops mostly destroy lives, in a country that has a 1% incarceration rate. If most doctors were like most cops, they'd be sued into bankruptcy for gross negligence. No need to help cops destroy more lives.

Re:Technological Hack

[Anonymous Coward]

Not yet, but if we wait until that point, it's more or less too late to avoid injuring private citizens that just happened to be in the area.

Why should any of those people have to get an attorney to fight an illegal warrant just because they happen to be in the area? The point of this illegal warrant is to make an arrest. If they don't have other evidence to tell them which phone it is that the perpetrator has, they shouldn't have that information. If they have a suspect, then it's perfectly legitimate to get a warrant for any location information that Google or the carrier might have.

It still kind of sucks, but at least it's a reasonable search.

Also, where in my post did I claim to not like technology? If you weren't a shill, you wouldn't have skipped over the literal first 4 words where I said that it's not about technology.

Re:Technological Hack

[sjames]

You still wooshed. The technology is not what is being objected to. The objection is turning the location information over to police with no probable cause or even reasonable suspicion.

If the doctor is doing a CAT scan on me, he already has probable cause. Nobody goes to the doctor reporting they feel fine and have no history of serious illness and then gets a CAT scan. Also, even if the doctor wants you to get a CAT scan, you are free to decline. You probably shouldn't, but you can refuse.

Re:This is not a problem

[sjames]

What Google is doing is not really as bad. They can't detain me and ask questions about what I was doing. They can ask and I can dismiss the question unanswered. They cannot put me on trial and they cannot jail me. They cannot cause me to need to spend thousands of dollars on a lawyer while they try to convince a jury that I should be locked in a cage for many years.

Re:This is not a problem

[sjames]

That's not much of a line, especially considering that location information isn't pinpoint accurate. They are getting information about people who did not even know the victim of the crime existed or that a crime happened. People who have probably never even been inside the building where the crime took place.

There will be no end to this unless WE end it

[hyades1]

Most of the cops I know/have known are just about bright enough to figure out early in life that they're never going to make a lot of money in fields requiring a lot of brain power. So they go for the one where they get power and a pretty good salary without spending a lot of money on schooling.

An unfortunate corollary is that (as we've seen repeatedly), the people in charge of solving crimes generally aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer.

So this leaves us in a situation where the police are constantly demanding more laws, more surveillance, more control. This will not end, because in a standard "survival of the fittest" scenario, stupid criminals will get caught, smart ones will get away. So your basic crook will get smarter, while your basic cop will remain just the same, because he can always whine for more tech and more power from the government to keep up.

If we want to stop this insane march to a cop state, we'd better get proactive.

Re:This is not a problem

[sjames]

Even that was far more tightly constrained. The people they looked at were within a 1 minute window, not 2 hours. They were at the exact spot the criminals were known to be in, not within a several block area.

Still, they should not have been cuffed, and they should not have even been asked for their names unless or until the money or weapons were found in their car. Everyone else should have received a heartfelt apology. Anything seen that was not related to the specific crime should have been ignored.

Re:This is not a problem

[R3d M3rcury]

The one big difference is that they have reasonable evidence to believe it's one of those 25 people. Arguably, all of those people are suspects.

In this case, they're using Google to find suspects. "We have no suspects, so let's demand that Google tell us all of the people who were in the area around that time and we'll make them suspects."

It's one thing to investigate suspects. It's another thing to investigate whether someone is a suspect.

Re:This is not a problem

[dryeo]

Google tries to keep all your info to itself and uses it to target ads at you. They screw up and send you the wrong ads, not exactly life altering though it is shitty that they have so much data, which is a weakness that the government can use.
The government is run by politicians who want to be seen doing something like jailing criminals. Doesn't really matter to them if they actually jail innocents as long as no one notices and they have the power to ruin lives really quick. Just takes being wrongly arrested to fuck up your life in some cases and even if they shoot you in the back doesn't seem to matter.

It's all sciencey, true enough

[fyngyrz]

Why would you want it to use power while in a Faraday cage?

1) A smartphone is a general purpose computer. At this point, it might be a multicore, >1 GHz computer with lots of memory and storage.

2) There are many things you can do with a general purpose computer that isn't connected to the network. Especially one that is replete with useful sensors like cameras, motion, iris, fingerprint, microphone and so forth, as well as audio and visual output and handy data input mechanisms such as keyboards and touch-sensitivity.

It wouldn't ever get a call.

And you think this is a problem? lol...

This stuff isn't rocket science.

If I were you, I'd worry about clearing some lower bars before I went there. :)

Ignoring the 4th (and the rest, too)

[fyngyrz]

The real problem here though is that we have two rightwing parties in the US that think it's OK to ignore the 4th amendment when it's expedient.

It's not that they are right-wing. It's that they are criminal.

Re:Ignoring the 4th (and the rest, too)

[gweihir]

Not regarding "the law", because they can change that as needed. But in spirit, most certainly.

Re:Ignoring the 4th (and the rest, too)

[fyngyrz]

Yes, regarding the law. The highest law in the land. The US constitution.

Re:Ignoring the 4th (and the rest, too)

[gweihir]

The constitution is basically a "mission statement" like "don't be evil" and can be conveniently ignored if you have your people in the right places. Sounds to me like this is the law with the least teeth and hence calling it "highest" is probably better replaced with "most irrelevant".

Re:Ignoring the 4th (and the rest, too)

[fyngyrz]

The constitution is basically a "mission statement" like "don't be evil"

The constitution is literally the highest law in the land. It is the document that authorizes, and limits, our government.

No question that our current (and recent) batches of evildoers are treating the document as advisory, but that's because they are criminals – not because it actually is advisory.

No mod points, but...

[fyngyrz]

++insightful

Location services... there's more

[fyngyrz]

I'm not - which is why I leave location services off on my phone, as would any non-stupid criminal.

Location services create a circumstance where (presumably) the phone does not give location data to apps running on it.

Turning them off does not prevent you from being tracked, either in realtime or after the fact. The cellphone is constantly talking to the towers, and the towers, taken several at a time, constantly locate you fairly precisely - they actually have to in order to hand you off from tower to tower.

Aside from that, if the phone knew were you were at any point, the motion sensors can keep track of you for quite a while under a very wide range of circumstances even if no communications are presently available to it. It can also acquire information from your surroundings that can locate you WRT any particular time.

You may even be complicit in this - taking a photo, making an audio recording, etc. It depends on what's running on the phone at the time. Which is something you aren't in full control of unless you wrote your phone's OS and all its applications and drivers. Which is... unlikely.

If you really don't want to be tracked through the phone's capabilities, in realtime or after the fact, you have very few options: Don't use a phone, let the battery die, take the battery out, or don't carry the phone.

Re:This is not a problem

[mileshigh]

any non-stupid criminal.

Probably a _lot_ more stupid petty criminals than smart, educated ones.

Standing

[fyngyrz]

In other words neither Google nor the ACLU have the standing to challenge the search warrant before it is executed

Google should have standing, because complying with the warrant would make them accessories to a crime.

At the very least, they can not comply, which (might) get them charged with something, and at which point they can take it upstream.

Of course, SCOTUS is utterly corrupt WRT actually obeying the constitution, so that might not work, but as for Google having standing, it's entirely within reach.

Re:This is not a problem

[dryeo]

Are you seriously implying that it is OK for the cops to handcuff and do a search on 25+ (I'll assume some of those cars had more then one person in it) people, especially in a country where it is routine for cops to shoot suspects for not complying quick enough? What a fucked up country when it comes to the rights of the people.

Re:Happens all over unfortunately

[dryeo]

Yea, the previous Conservative government as part of their tough on crime agenda really weakened civil rights. It did take them 3 tries as the people did scream but they were patient and finally implemented it to "save the children" after accusing everyone of being a pervert didn't go over well. And of course the current government finds it a handy tool and is not going to revoke it.

Re:This is not a problem

[fafalone]

Blocking traffic and taking a quick look would have been fine. Having people get out of their cars, handcuffing them, and conducting a warrantless search is a horrendous abuse of rights. The guy robbed a bank, not machine gunned a bunch of kids then ran off with a suicide vest yelling something about his next target. That you even phrased your post to imply it's somehow ok for those jackbooted authoritarians to handcuff and search dozens of people simply for being in the wrong spot at the wrong time means you clearly have no respect for the 4th Amendment.

Re: This is not a problem

[sjames]

WHOOSH! The Stasi would be the part where judges are issuing warrants they shouldn't. The only reason what Google is doing is a problem is because it might enable police and judges to violate the Constitution.

The Great Debate

[JimSadler]

For the government as well as the public to have the ability to severely observe all people at all times would be interesting. There would be huge benefits as well as losses. We are now about to confront new realities. Between cams and computers and standardizing electronic money as the only means of exchange we could bring crime to a very close to zero event. The catch is what would we do with the millions of people who currently commit crimes? Most people actually commit serious crimes but often are completely unaware that they are doing so. Examples include a bit of fudge on income tax. Or how about smoking pot? Worse yet businesses commit more crimes than individuals. Can the American public withstand such revelations?

Re:Note to self

[gravewax]

far better to leave it on and someplace you usually go, that way provides a plausible alibi, after all no one could possibly willingly be separated from their precious smart phone for 10 mins.

Re:This is not a problem

[shubus]

So where do we stand if we have a VPN installed on our smartphone? Am not sure how deep Prism can dig when VPN is employed. This should stop Google tracking.

Careful there, Officer.

[duke_cheetah2003]

Not all is at it seems. Not long ago, I was discussing this with some colleagues, the fact Google Maps has a timeline of everywhere I go, how long I was there, how long I drive to get from place to place etc.

I concluded this tracking could be turned right around into a fantastic alibi. Since it tracks everything, every day, establish a normal pattern, for quite a bit of a time (a few years is preferable!), now, one day, leave your phone somewhere it's expected to be for a certain duration of time, while you go without it to commit a heinous crime. Return to collect phone and carry on. You could easily point to this data and say "I didn't do it, phone proves I'm innocent."

The moral of the story? Don't trust that data. It is vastly easy for the common idiot to falsify. If I thought of it, millions of others did too, I'm not exceptionally clever.

Re:Careful there, Officer.

[Zero__Kelvin]

You can edit Google Timeline data. I guess you didn't realize that. Also cops will say that your phone being somewhere proves you were there when it makes you look guilty, and is not proof you were there if the data would serve as an alibi. It is no different than when DNA clears a falsely accused man and the DA suddenly claims two men may have committed the crime when their entire case had always been that one man did it and it couldn't possibly have been anyone else.

Re:Careful there, Officer.

[RhettLivingston]

And every interaction including your edits is in google's records. It then becomes evidence of both your being there and your naive attempt to cover it up.

Re:Careful there, Officer.

[Zero__Kelvin]

You have no idea if that is true, and I have seen cases where the data they had was incorrect. Why do you think they allow the edits?

Re:Careful there, Officer.

[duke_cheetah2003]

You have no idea if that is true, and I have seen cases where the data they had was incorrect. Why do you think they allow the edits?

Are you suggesting that Google does not keep a record of your edits? Seriously? Google LOVES data, they want to know everything, you can bet it's recorded you made an edit.

Re:Technological Hack

[AHuxley]

AC
A fix is to remove the battery as the soft power buttons and OS GUI settings offered by the big brands don't do much to stop a phone from getting tracked.
Buy a phone that can have its battery power removed by the owner.
A faraday cage.
Take back your cell phone from the networks and brands.
Become an owner again not just a cell phone user.

So before committing arson

[RhettLivingston]

The problem with this is that if a convicted arsonist happened to be in the area with their smartphone prior to the fire, police will come up with SOME story to "prove" the convicted arsonist did it. Juries are people and easy to fool especially when you've already fooled yourself. Looking for possible suspects prior to developing a strong theory with evidence you can use to verify the suspect afterhand is a recipe for convicting an innocent person. Once a suspect is found, there will be no effort to do anything but find a theory that fits them and can be sold to a jury.

So if you want to commit arson, send word a few hours beforehand through all of the local shelters that there will be a fire at the address later on. At least one convicted or suspected arsonist will almost certainly be there with smartphone ready to video the scene.

DuckDuckGo

[emaname]

One more reason NOT to use Google.

Re: This is not a problem

[UnknowingFool]

Do you know how small 17 acres is? That's a radius of 485 feet. Do you know how small 17 acres is? That's a radius of 485 feet.

I know that in an urban setting like Raleigh it is not just the area but the amount of people with the area. It's called population density. From the article: "The demands Raleigh police issued for Google data described a 17-acre area that included both homes and businesses. In the Efobi homicide case, the cordon included dozens of units in the Washington Terrace complex near St. Augustine's University." I also know looking at footage of one of the fires, that it is not in the middle of nowhere. Again. Dragnet.

Its a good Idea.

[wolfheart111]

I would give up that Info on my phone in order to catch the killer of someone dearly loved.Its good you folks have the comfort of not sharing my opinion.

Much fuss over nothing

[sonamchauhan]

Nathan Freed Wessler, staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, put it succinctly. "At the end of the day, this tactic unavoidably risks getting information about totally innocent people."

And? How is that a problem? There is still a burden of proof before you are judged guilty, or even detained for questioning.

How is this different from the police requisitioning surveillance camera tapes after a crime? The tapes have the faces of innocent passers-by too. This is just the digital equivalent. Google (and the phone companies) have a 'surveillance camera' of sorts running. It's the police's job to sift through the data to find patterns that eventually deliver justice to the aggrieved.

Why make their job more difficult?

America - you have bigger problems. Don't make so much fuss over nothing.

Re:Much fuss over nothing

[ebvwfbw]

Sounds like you don't have any experience with law enforcement. Sounds like your father never had the "police talk" with you either.

Goes along this way - they have a job to do. Sometimes they get a lot of pressure to solve the case and they're clueless. So they grasp at straws.
Say your name is Barak Obama (BO for short). BO is seen at a bank that is robbed. Who did it? Well the suspect is about the size of BO and BO hangs around the bank all the time. Next thing you know BO is in the station being grilled. Just so happens BO was having fun with a Ho in the next city. Even was issued a ticket at the time the bank was held up.

At this point the cops could say - Yea, he was with a Ho in the next town.. has a ticket and move onto the real guy that did it - BC. BC was in town, staying right across the street and can see the bank. Has motive - wife has just left him penniless due to him banging woman after woman so she left him and took all his assets. He bought a gun the day before. They knew about BC, however that eye witness put BO right at the scene of the crime and the Ho is probably lying to save him.

You'd be surprised at how many times they'll go after the BO character here even though they have a solid lead on the BC character. BC they have to start all over - was he there, did he have a gun, bla bla bla.. A lot more work and the Chief want's this done by 3:00 so he can go out with his wife and bang her later. So they arrest and charge BO. Now we're in court and a jury will think they're guilty or they wouldn't be there. A prosecutor never makes mistakes, certainly not one like this! BO gets convicted and is sentenced to decades in jail. If he's lucky someone will find a camera or something and prove it really wasn't him after the fact. Even if he is let go after the arrest part, that still screws his life. Just the fact you were arrested for something bad is a hell of a monkey on your back.

So the father talk is like this - don't hang around places unless you have business there. Treat it like a toilet - get on, do your business, get off. Sure you're seen at the bank, however you were making a deposit/widrawl/etc and left the bank and didn't hang around. They'll move on. Same with liquor store, abortion clinic... and so on. Don't give police a reason to think you've done something wrong. Probably some of the soundest advice ever given on slashdot.

Now here we are on a fishing expedition with the North Carolina PD. Tell me who was in the area. Suppose I happened to be there which in my case is a posibility? I have relatives in the RDU area. Now I could be hauled in and grilled. Sometimes they'll keep a suspect there for 20, 30, I've seen as high as 72 hours in the inter. room. Sending out for food/water. So do you want to spend hours with the police while they play the game - gotcha! If they get you, you're done. Even if you make a trivial mistake it can cost you thousands. Such as you remembered you drove the wrong car that day, wrong shirt, anything that turns out that you're wrong and they can prove it. Now it's - why did you lie to us? Not - gee, you made a mistake. What else are you lying to us about? See... this guy did it! Couldn't be this poor guy in front of us is scared out of his mind.

Ramp this up to what's happening today. Ok, who was there? What are their political affiliations? Well we have 50 democrats, 50 republicans, 10 independents and 5 that are not registered. Boom, let's start with the 5 unregistered because it's just 5, then move onto the Democrats because they are far more likely to be our suspect. Just adjust this for your political view - Independents are far more likely to be our suspect or single out the black men... or single women, etc. I bet all that stuff is in google.

Listen to the Google engineers.

[bill_mcgonigle]

If Google ever gives you a privacy choice, opt out. They're giving you the chance, so don't be a dope and turn it down.

Totally innocent people

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Should be honored to help the Police.

It's not so innocent people who need to worry, and the answer here is, if committing a crime, don't use a smartphone that has GPS.

Re:Totally innocent people

[MikeBabcock]

If only the police were all above board and never just grabbed the first possible person they could pin a crime on to keep their stats up.

Innocent people should worry too. Helping police is one thing, having the police delve into your data without consent is another.

Re:Totally innocent people

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Data cuts both ways. If the police can delve into your data, so can you- and the problem with data is that it isn't biased. Problem for them, that is.

All you have to do is find out the exact time of the crime, then look at your data.

Similar thing happened in Ottawa

[MikeBabcock]

When a crime happened in Ottawa that the police wanted potential witnesses for, they turned to cell phone users as well, but in a slightly less invasive manner:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/...

TL;DR, they got the cell phone numbers of people near the scene at the time and texted them asking if they had information on the crime.

I imagine it wouldn't be hard to have cell phone providers offer this service to police *without* disclosing the numbers.

"We want to text everyone who was in proximity of X,Y on YYYY:MM:DD at HH:MM this message: 'foobar' ... here's our warrant, thanks."

Re:This is not a problem

[houghi]

That is nice. Now what? And I mean actual things that are going to happen or that you are going to do, not some wishfull thinking that you hope that might happen.

As long as nothing happens, the 4th and any other Amendment is hollow and just a discussion point and something for story tellers as the 3 laws of Robotics.