Slashdot Mirror
To Catch A Robber, The FBI Attempted An Unprecedented Grab For Google Location Data (forbes.com)
Back in March, as it investigated a spate of armed robberies across Portland, Maine, the FBI made an astonishing, unprecedented request of Google, Forbes reports. The feds wanted the tech giant to find all users of its services who'd been within the vicinity of at least two of nine of those robberies. They limited the search to within 30-minute timeframes around when the crimes were committed. But the request covered a total space of 45 hectares and could've included anyone with an Android or iPhone using Google's tools, not just the suspect. From a report: The FBI then demanded a lot of personal information on affected users, including their full names and addresses, as well as their Google account activity. The feds also wanted all affected users' historical locations. According to court records, while Google didn't provide the information, the cops still found their suspect in the end. Outside of concerns around government overreach, the FBI's remarkable attempt to force Google to assist in its investigation will likely worry all who were disturbed by an Associated Press investigation published on Monday that claimed Google continued to track people even when they turned location features off. The court warrants unearthed by Forbes indicate some at the FBI believe they have a right to that location data too, even if it belongs to innocents who might be unwittingly caught up in invasive government surveillance. And the government feels such fishing expeditions are permissable; it issued the warrant on Google without knowing whether or not the suspect used an Android device or any of the company services at all.
Clearly the FBI has been watching too much CSI and Criminal Minds. How did these guys do their job before technology kept track of everyone?
Of the nine robberies, I would bet only one person was at three or more of them.
The 30 minutes time frame before and after, and two of nine, seems a bit broad to me. Suppose the FBI had asked Google:
Please let us know if you have records of one person being at at least three of these armed robberies, within 5-10 minutes of when the robbery occurred.
That would identify approximately one person, the armed robber. If Google has that information, I don't see why the FBI shouldn't ask for it.
> Seriously I think it's legitimate and you privacy asshats can go f*** yourselves...
I think the FIB was not especially interested in this robber. They were more interested in setting the precedent of making such a large grab of location data. One more step towards a police state. Little by little the water boils.
Nobody will need to ask "your papers please!". They'll already know who you are, they'll just need to tell you to strip for the search at each road checkpoint.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
It's better for a thousand innocent people to be prosecuted than for police to do actual police work. Extra bonus points of the police can beat them up, off camera, on the way to jail.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Well, in California, that is a Catch n Release crime
Citation needed. Armed robbery is not a catch and release crime nor is it considered non-violent.
Add in the "Bail is too hard on criminals" logic from a number of left wing loons
Nice strawman. Nobody is making the argument that bail is too hard on criminals. The argument is that bail unfairly penalizes people who are poor and cannot afford bail. One's financial means should have zero relevance on whether you remain in a jail cell.
So I've got this idea that we've more or less caught up to the cyberpunk genre. It's no longer sci-fi, it's just fiction. Sometimes current events. I'm collecting a pile of Articles that lend weight to that argument. This one is going on the pile.
FBI: Hey, we notice you were in these 2 places an these dates and times.
Me: So?
FBI: We're investigating robberies there.
Me: So? Wasn't me.
FBI: We'd like to talk to you anyway.
And now I'm spending money on lawyers just for being in the wrong area.
I don't really understand the issue, the police can request a warrant of data... could be wide or narrow, its up to the judge and lawyers to fight that battle.
The real issue is google here or other tech companies who are storing this data. I havn't seen a single comment made about that. if you care for your privacy, stop using these tackers.
police should do their job within the confines of the constitution. Fishing expeditions are not part of that, regardless of how expedient they might be.
Surveillance technology and an entitlement complex from law enforcement is never a good combination.
Rules exist to keep the police honest.