US cops go all Minority Report: Google told to cough up info on anyone near a crime scene Efforts to track down criminals in the US state of North Carolina have laid bare a dangerous gap in the law over the use of location data. Raleigh police went to court at least three times last year and got a warrant requiring Google to share the details of any users that were close to crime scenes during specific times and …
Honest question: do you consider the data held/acquired by the police and the data held/acquired by the security services as equivalent?
The point of the security services is to get data that other people have, secretly, in order to do things relating to the security of the country. Are we saying they shouldn't get that data, and if they don't get that extra, secret, illegal data, should they even exist?
.. and the rest of the world is laughing at you.
I'm not laughing. I get concerned and pissed off when I hear of things like this happening in America, like I'd hope most Americans reading this would be when it's the same sort of bullshit affecting us in the UK.
Sure, I may ridicule Trump and co. but I'm not laughing at Americans, and they are welcome to ridicule our carcrash of politics too!
This is not a good thing. Maybe if they pinpointed the area even tighter but still... they're casting a wide net and either evidence can be doctored, fabricated, or just plain misinterpreted can put a lot of innocent people at risk. As we approach the 1984 level of civilian surveillance here in the US and other "free world" countries, I think we have a lot to fear.
This is not a good thing. Maybe if they pinpointed the area even tighter but still... they're casting a wide net and either evidence can be doctored, fabricated, or just plain misinterpreted can put a lot of innocent people at risk.
It has greater rammifications than the article discusses.
Police could potentially use the technology to identify possible and 'definite' witnesses to a crime, and prosecutors could then apply pressure to obtain testimony against crimes that might not have been given voluntarily - do you really want to put yourself and family at risk of reprisals in cases where, for example, one wannabe gangster batters another wannabe gangster?
There are so many varying situations where a witness may choose not to come forward, either for their own safety, or community standing, etc, which raises an interesting dynamic between a victims right to have a crime solved and a witnesses right to not come forward.
1984 or BRAZIL?
Yes, this is very much a two edged sword. Both benefits, and amazingly dangerously harmful.
What if someone borrows a phone? What if (as Facebook evidently know how to, or other agencies), they trace it to you via your unique walk cycle/gyro feedback?
What if the data says one thing, but you know the data is wrong. How would an individual prove it in court?
Introducing doubt (not negative proof) into the prosecution evidence of where you were has been part of a defence's job since Cain. It's not a new thing.
Mobile phone location has been used since dumb mobile phones.
Tracking by similar journey is published academic research, not private to Facebook. I'm not aware of any prosecution using it.
I don't see that is is very different from CCTV, particularly with facial recognition applied.
There is also a very simple opt out, turn phone off or place in flight mode when not in use.
Note that your newer EU car is also now tracking you, although they say the emergency call system is not tracking you it's a SIM. It's tracking you!!
It is very different from CCTV because few cities in the US are covered by public CCTV systems the way London and other large UK cities are. Sure, there may be a fair number of private systems, but the police don't have access to them unless they ask each individual business owner - who may be willing to help out for a major Boston bomber level crime but if police do it for every crime that may have had a suspect pass by they will quickly tire of all the work and tell the cops to get a warrant.
If there is an active investigation, it seems like allowing the police to provide a specific query to a carrier or provider to identify who in the area A) might be a witness, or B) might be a person of interest. I don't know if I am willing to entertain that for all potential crimes or infractions, but it seems like for crimes of the level of murder, physical or sexual assault, or armed robbery it's a valid investigative tool. Not real exited about them requesting location info to find out who's dog is crapping on Ms Jones lawn.
Either way, I think that there should be forced transparency, requiring the carrier/provider to disclose both aggregated statistics, and notify all the specific individuals that were caught up in the dragnet(obviously after they are interviewed, cleared, or are going to trial).
I'd still be nervous sanctioning these tools, as without both transparency and oversight a bad actor could abuse this pretty badly. They could use trivial or trumped up charges to keep a permanent search box over other targets, or target witnesses of police misconduct like whistle-blowers and journalists.
it was not too long back that local councils were given powers for covert surveillance to aid in the war or terror...
The powers they were then given was abused by councils to catch people renting a second home to get the kids into a better school than the local failing dump on the doorstep.
True that! Can't beat a good old Council getting ideas above their station!
You can bet your bottom dollar that any powers given, will be stretched to the point of abuse by any power wielding body.
Transparency, accountability and oversight is needed at all points.
Everything in the article points to the use of tools and methods that are, at least on the face of it, already established and legitimate. There should be no controversy in requiring a warrant to gain this information and it should be considered worth noting that the information was brought to the attention of the public through legal means rather than extralegal. I certainly have no illusions that these methods cannot or will not be misused, but that in and of itself does not mean that it is wrong that they exist, just that they should used appropriately and that the public should have a right to be informed about their use and hold the ultimate power over it.
Here's the rub: the public that should be paying attention, caring about how this plays out, and has the most to lose through its abuse is the same public that is willing to give away all their rights for a few shiny baubles granted by Facebook, Google, et al. This is a problem of human nature and behavior, not of tools, laws or rights. It does not inspire confidence.
Also, this:
The first crime was the murder... the second an arson attack... the third, sexual battery... suggesting that the police force is using the approach to discover potentially incriminating evidence for increasingly less serious crimes.
Sorry, what?! Besides the awkward phrasing of ever increasing lessening (Updecreasingness? Superungrowing? How about "decreasingly"? ), all three of these crimes are all very serious. Nothing in the statement suggested that the police were in fact abusing their powers in these cases to go after significantly lesser crimes, only that the very real potential was there. That's the difference between "is" and "could". I tend not to criticize the articles themselves here on El Reg, but this was a lapse in logic and rigor of reporting that I am highlighting as a curmudgeonly service. Please feel free to down-vote. It is better than kicking a puppy though both activities may be monitored by the State.
Flatly, I do not trust the ethics of too many local Stasis and their state and feral counterparts, All sorts of problems with this. Not only do you have the perp and possible witnesses but a lot of people who know absolutely nothing of the crime. The fact one might have in theoretical eye sight of the crime does not mean you were looking in that direction or heard it.
If law enforcement were trustworthy enough, I'd agree with with you. But they're not, so I don't.
But I think the most egregious part of this is the gag order. They should not be allowed for wide-net data collections like this.
"But I think the most egregious part of this is the gag order. They should not be allowed for wide-net data collections like this."
The problem is that without the gag order the search becomes pointless. If Google tell a murder suspect they've just given the police his location at the time of the murder he's going to be off to another country faster than you can say accessory after the fact.
While I'm not totally comfortable with warrants like this it does seem reasonable to catch perpetrators of violent crime. Theft, criminal damage and other such crimes of harm to property do not warrant such sweeping invasions of privacy, but violent crime most certainly does.
I understand the rationale, and as distasteful as it is, I can even go along with it if the gag is actually for a very limited time and only applies to a small number of people. But if you're gathering info about lots of people -- such as everyone who happened to be in a particular region regardless of whether or not they're suspects -- I have serious issues with that. I don't think that it's justifiable, even for violent crimes.
damn right, these koppers are so-o-o-o handcuffed in what they can do, and always face enormous repercussions when they do the silliest, minor transgressions of -you know- rights, and laws and archaic stuff like that...
.
in fact, why there isn't an immediate 10 mile radius cordon put around all crime scenes where everyone is preemptively tasered and interrogated is beyond me... just being -you know- safe...
.
how naive can you be ? AS IF the donut eaters and spooks ACTUALLY FOLLOW the laws and restrictions they are supposed to follow already ? ? ? geez, i hate outing authoritarians, but someone has to do it...
.
you can always tell bubble people who color within the lines and wonder what is wrong with wanting the trains running on time...
.
(*sigh*, here's the answer, bubblehead: there is nothing wrong with wanting the trains to run on time, it is the despot who enacts all the horror to make it so that is the problem...)
“I'd still be nervous sanctioning these tools, as without both transparency and oversight a bad actor could abuse this pretty badly.”
Not only that, but even if they only have the purest intentions it’s not exactly impossible to imagine a data leak outside a specific investigation - so, before sanctioning this kind of data use, maybe the court should insist on named officers only, on isolated equipment, and treating as contempt any attempt or effort to use the data obtained for anything other than investigating the specific offence for which the warrant was granted, making the named officers personally responsible (and liable) for ensuring the data are not available to anyone who is not named in the warrant.
I have the feeling the Cambridge Analytica stuff is going to lead to all sorts of backlash, even against perfectly reasonable uses of “big data” or “analytics”, without these sorts of issues on top ..... when you add the idiocy of individual US judges deciding they have jurisdiction over EU citizens’ data held in the EU ....
"I have the feeling the Cambridge Analytica stuff is going to lead to all sorts of backlash, even against perfectly reasonable uses of “big data” or “analytics”"
I sure hope so. As I've been saying for years -- any use of data about me that I haven't been made aware of and agreed to is unreasonable use -- particularly if that data is being combined with other data in large databases and then mined.
Well, it seems the cops can't win. Since crimes like murder are irreversible, people will ALWAYS clamor to get the criminals BEFORE they commit their crimes (after all, THEY could be next, and they consider a few murders too high a price to pay for civilization) since after the fact is just too damn late. How does the police deal with all the anguished outcries of, "Why didn't you get them sooner?!" when "We're doing the best you let us" is NOT an acceptable answer?
Well, even more surveillance is not the answer. We are ALREADY living in a world that could turn into George Orwell's 1984 at the flip of a simple switch. And don't you think it would never happen, because it WILL.
CCTV cameras everywhere, our whole lives, thoughts and opinions can be tracked via social media, our movements and current location tracked by the GPS on our phones, our secret and most intimate web searches (porn, eheh) tracked by our OS and browsers, 24/7 listening devices in our own homes (Alexa, Echo, etc...) put there BY US, and we are already being brainwashed/limited in what to think and what to say by political correctness.
We have been slowly but steadily giving up all our freedoms and rights in exchange for a bit of (illusionary) security. And as B.Franklin wrote, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
If you can't see the writing on the wall and the terrible potential risk we're already under, then you're blind as a bat. In truth, if it ever happens, we will fully deserve it for failing to react when we still could - even a stupid OS is pushing us to the limit and STILL we don't fight back!
Do you know what would have happened just a few years ago if people even suspected the OS *might* be phoning home? A full riot. These days, when we actually know *for sure* that the OS is actually spying on us?! Not so much as a whimper.
To which I ask Mr. Franklin, "What happens, then, when you find out that the ONLY way to get ANY form of safety, full stop, is to give up your liberties? Are you then willing to posit that civilization as you know it is doomed to failure?"
Because it's becoming more and more the case that things are polarizing such that it's going to become all or nothing.
"Do you know what would have happened just a few years ago if people even suspected the OS *might* be phoning home? A full riot."
To which I respond, "ORLY?" CCTV is NOT new technology, yet I never saw riots in the streets over them. I've never seen people literally DIE rather than fall under someone else's gaze a la Patrick Henry's quote, "Give me liberty or give me death." IOW, I think the Founding Fathers grossly overestimated the average human being.
To which Mr Franklin would reply that to have reached that point then you have already surrendered most of your liberties in exchange for fantasies that the state can or will offer you protection.
In any popular tabloid any criticism of the police is inevitably met with a response - when you need the police to protect you. The problem of course is that the police do not offer this service, at least not to Joe Public. The social contract between the government and the governed has long been broken and one sided. Further erosion of the rights of the governed will not make the government any more competent or any more interested in protecting you in your time of need.
"The social contract between the government and the governed has long been broken and one sided."
Then civilization was broken long ago and the unwashed masses prefer the police state. Sounds like the game was over long ago since someone among the government's going to be willing to Kill Em All if they're about to lose.
"when you need the police to protect you. The problem of course is that the police do not offer this service, at least not to Joe Public. "
I know it was a long way back in the thread, but I feel the need to call out this utter twaddle. The Police are not your personal servants, turning up whenever you have a disagreement with someone, but they do protect you. A quick look at the news today shows a dangerous driver arrested, a bombing investigated (a long time ago), an investigation into possibly dangerous housing, a child rapist convicted and a suspected child killer arrested.
All of those helping to protect Joe Public.
It also has significant criticism of West Midlands police for failing to stop something they knew nothing about. Maybe we should place all children under 24/7 big brother coverage by the Police because parents can't be bothered to find out who their 14 year old is shagging and want to blame anyone but themselves.
@Mycho:
"Safety from giving up liberty is not safety. The difference between a violation of safety and a violation of liberty is whether the perpetrator works for the government. "
Ahhhh, I'm not so sure about that - - you might want to ask a stalking victim, or an ex cult member about that definition....
I'm with Charles in that I dont think throwing every technical advantage that we could give the police and other security forces out of the window because they arnt sensible enough to use properly is a good idea.
To me the advantages of security and crime prevention totally outweigh your vague paranoid rambling about "1984". Seriously there must be some way we can stop a government turning us into slaves (or whatever it is you're tinfoil hatting about) other than tieing their hands to make them impotent and useless at security?
I know! how about we give everyone in the country a gun so we can rise up if they try anything?
"What happens, then, when you find out that the ONLY way to get ANY form of safety, full stop, is to give up your liberties?"
I would argue that's an impossible choice -- without liberty, safety is impossible. The most you can do by removing liberty is shift which group of criminals are more likely to victimize you.
1) Stop using Google for as much as possible
2) Stop telling the world whay you are going to do on Social Media
3) Lie when asked to fill in a survey. Give totally wrong information about yourself including use wrong but valid addresses
4) Disable GPS on your phone when you don't need it.
5) Stop using the Satnav for a 5 min drive to Tesco's/ASDA's. You know the way.
6) Shred or preferably burn every bit of paper that has your address on it rather than just throwing it away in Recycling.
7) Do the same to all those shop receipts where you paid by Card or say Apple Pay.
There are many, many more things you can do to keep yourself out of the spotlight but basically stop making it easy for {redacted} to observe you and finagle their way into your life..
Careless Talk and Actions can come back to hurt you big time.
"1) Stop using Google for as much as possible"
Google uses you even when you don't use it. Unless you're a complete and total hermit out of site of even land-photography planes and satellites, the moment someone on Google identifies you, you're already screwed.
"2) Stop telling the world whay you are going to do on Social Media"
Like (1), your friends will do it for you.
"3) Lie when asked to fill in a survey. Give totally wrong information about yourself including use wrong but valid addresses"
Great, give the government and demographics firms a reason to pay you a personal visit instead. They can tell if you're lying. Ever heard of the Panda-B test?
"4) Disable GPS on your phone when you don't need it."
You know GPS is PASSIVE. You can use it without sending information back as long as you use a passive device.
"5) Stop using the Satnav for a 5 min drive to Tesco's/ASDA's. You know the way."
Not necessarily if they keep closing different roads every day.
"6) Shred or preferably burn every bit of paper that has your address on it rather than just throwing it away in Recycling."
One, people have shown enough patience to intercept and put trash back together a la jigsaw puzzles. Two, if you're THAT paranoid, you need to fear the Postal Service, which means you're already too late to shred, as they recorded the information before your mail ever got to you.
"7) Do the same to all those shop receipts where you paid by Card or say Apple Pay."
What about the STORE COPIES? Now you want us to break and enter into the stores to shread THOSE copies, too?
"There are many, many more things you can do to keep yourself out of the spotlight but basically stop making it easy for {redacted} to observe you and finagle their way into your life.."
Too late. It's already too easy to spy on you if they wish without any action on your part. Basically, to interact with society in any significant way, you WILL be profiled. It's the price of civilization. Think it's too high? Then you're an anarchist, plain and simple.
"Careless Talk and Actions can come back to hurt you big time."
ANY Talk and action can come back to hurt you...fatally, even. The whole "Give me six lines" business.
you're right. And wrong. Right about the gps, but wrong about the gps. Recently, I did find another f(...) google setting, PRE-TICKED on my phone, that mumbled something about helping to navigate even with the gps off (it was related to a-gps, but buried somewhere else, possibly in 3G settings.
Let me add my take on this.
If criminals are aware that their phone gives off their location when committing a crime they will leave their phone at home. Therefore you have just enabled tracking of the population for no reason, sure you may be able to identify witnesses but at the end of the day if they didn't report it there and then or stick around then they aren't exactly going to want to co-operate or they would have done it at the time.
Lets say we run out of power, not totally unbelievable. We then have "power protests" because some people have electricity (the well off) and some people don't (that's what smart meters are for). Do you think this won't be used to stop peaceful protest or identify dissenters so they can be rounded up?
The government we have now and their objectives may not be the same as future governments so no I don't think this is a good idea at all.
"If criminals are aware that their phone gives off their location when committing a crime they will leave their phone at home"
Yeah , only the *reeeeeelly* smart ones would do that. The rest of them havent learned to stop boasting about their misdemeanors on facebook yet.
plus at least you could find witnesses.
If i were in charge (read: ruling with the iron fist of a dictator) I'd have anyone found guilty of anything in court wearing a trackable ankle gizmo 24/7 for a year.
"The government we have now and their objectives may not be the same as future governments"
The crux of this debate is how can the government maintain law and order if we dont let them maintain law and order because we dont trust them not to turn into a mass murdering dictator?
...answers on a postcard please. or use the reply button whichevers easier.
1) Google shows me at home when I use them since with my present responsibilities that is where I am about 23 hours per day.
2) Difficult one this as I cannot stop using (anti)social media since I never started its use in the first place.
3) Likewise, if and it is a big IF I am asked about something relevant I would possibly answer as it is in my interests, otherwise for junk surveys junk answers are fine as are nil responses.
4) GPS is a useful diary when I do take a mentally disturbed person out, I just wish the tracking would not show me driving across fields, through hedges, walls and building and fording deep rivers in a 12 year old car.
5) Satnav takes too long to program and sets off unstable person so rarely used.
6) All confidential and semi confidential papers are already shredded and composted - it severely limits reconstruction of the papers. This includes shop receipts, etc. This is to prevent data abuse by those with light fingers.
Do please note that expenditure patterns are already known i.e. what and where you spend it on anyway. The credit reference agencies love such data, HMRC are also partial to know if expenditure matches with income from similar sources they do not need dumpster diving. However, (anti)social media can be very useful to know on what you are splashing out the dosh.
Anonymous because of personal references already known by those with a need to know
2) Difficult one this as I cannot stop using (anti)social media since I never started its use in the first place.
I'm always amused by the people who post claims like this to an on-line forum.
Or think that posting AC will necessarily prevent them from being identified.
Protect yourself by not engaging in criminal acts is even a better advice.
It is amazing so many people are criticizing US law enforcement practices used for solving major crimes like murder. In case somebody is making the mistake of committing such a crime carrying an active phone, it could provide a critical piece of information to solve it. The law can be as effective as we want it to be, maybe in civilized countries it should be the objective of law enforcement to get access to all the means it can get to solve capital crimes, and not give murderers and rapists the opportunity to make more victims because a few worry about their privacy.
"Protect yourself by not engaging in criminal acts is even a better advice."
That is indeed the start... but this is not so much about the solving of crime. If it was just a matter of slurping up the data, searching for gps data that puts a person in the same location at the same time as a victim of crime, then going for a little chat with that person is one thing. Great, perfect use of the slurp of data,
But that's not how its going to be used...
sooner or later, the government is going to (if they have not already) going to have a file on everyone and every bit of your day to day life will be recorded, from what time you had breakfast to what time you took your last piss of the day and match you up to pre-defined profiles to see if you are the type of person that would object to the governments next move... and then make sure you dont....
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
