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?
You have to drag police to a robbery, property crimes might as well be ignored here, and yet in the States, the Feds get involved, granted, now I see he was armed, but why wasn't this handled by local constabulary?
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.
Just leave your android phone at home when you commit an armed robbery.
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.
Follow the law. Wherever it may lead. To a police state. A dictatorship. Total control over the population.
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.
As with any controversial topic it is always one extreme vs the other: either we let all robbers lose or we have a police state. I cannot stress enough that there is a middle ground, a situation when the police has tools to effectively catch criminals and citizens have enough freedom to not be oppressed by the government.
People mostly do not realize how much government oversight they take for granted nowadays vs ancient times and still not ending up with a police state (e.g. there was time, when people were free to travel to any country with only restriction to report at the destination to a local duke). On the other hand technology did change reality for both police and criminals, the latter use it freely, let the police also have a chance - the point is to make enough check and balances to keep a free society.
I think a key to a free society is not police stripped of modern tools, but a healthy (being exercised by educated and informed society) democracy with police having tools but being kept accountable for its actions. Technology will keep changing the reality we live, we have to adapt, otherwise the free society many of us enjoy might perish - aka cyber-warfare dangers to democratic elections.
What kind of an idiot tells Google where he is at all times while committing an armed robbery?
It's a dick move to rob anyone to begin with, but it takes a special kind of stupid to broadcast your location to the world's biggest mass surveillance company while you're doing it!
Two programs that are give-me's for tracking when no tracking is selected are Weather and Maps.
Best to leave your Android/Apple behind, on the other hand that would imply premeditated.
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.
Google does this kind of profiling for its commercial customers (advertisers) all the time. The only difference is that they don't share the identity of the user with the advertiser, but they know who it is. The person gave up this privacy willingly. If Google wants to retain and monetize this data, they (and you) should not be surprised when law enforcement wants to use it too. A court order should take precedence over Google's privacy policy, otherwise Google is above the law. This is why privacy policies are pretty much fiction. They are essentially unenforceable. What is your recourse if it is broken? What are the damages? They can't refund your money or anything. They won't go to jail. They're too big for you to successfully sue them. Law enforcement must have a legal way to access the records for the legal system to function. That the modern internet economy is built upon this fiction doesn't make it less of a fiction.
> I don't think you should be able to request information about a large number of people, most of whom are innocent, to maybe find just one guy.
Agreed.
> If you have *a* suspect and you want to build a case by requesting information regarding his whereabouts from his cell phone company, plus google, I agree.
IF they have probable cause and a warrant, agreed.
Here we have a class that doesn't fit either of the above.
They don't need info about many people. They don't have the name of a suspect.
They have evidence that the (one) perpetrator or team repeated the crime in several locations at known times. They can ask Google for the name of the ONE person who was at all crimes. Google can run a quick database query to get one name, the very likely perp. Obviously then police would follow up and gather appropriate evidence.
I (and SCOTUS) think there is an interesting distinction between the government saying "give us data on everyone so we can see if any of it is interesting" vs "here are some criteria which will identify the armed robber. Let us know if you have the name of the person who fits these very specific criteria."
By way of analogy, it would generally be unconstitutional for the FBI to subpoena all of my emails in order to see if I ever talked to Paul Combetta. It would be legal for them to ask for "any emails you exchanged with Paul Combetta in July 2014 about wiping servers". Specificity matters.
Is it really that bad for the government to get all that information on everyone who traversed those areas at those times, when Google already has it?
Seems to me that if you're upset at the government trying to get that info, you should also be upset that Google has been recording it.
How do they know even know the robber has a smartphone? If they can't even prove that then they should be flat out denied before even broaching the issue of obtaining google location data.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Since when is armed robbery (not of a bank, or a Federal institution) under their jurisdiction? That's a state crime, not Federal.
Sorry, but I've got to disagree. One being a problem doesn't make the other less of a problem, but rather more of a problem.
I don't like intrusive trackers, and avoid them to the extent possible. But their existence makes overreaching warrants worse.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
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.
Why ask for your papers at random when they could just grope everybody?
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.