Why do people keep coming to this couple’s home looking for lost phones?

Post by simoncion » Fri, Jan 22, 2016, 2:12 AM UTC

ehaughee wrote: post #64

kazinator wrote: post #38

What's sad is how the local police seem to have some sort of learning disability or amnesia about this problem. They showed up there repeatedly and harassed the occupants.

Disclaimer: I agree with the intent of your comment but, as this is the second time I've seen this comment in this thread, I'll bite and play devil's advocate. Additionally, I have absolutely no knowledge of dispatch or any other law enforcement software. Where would the knowledge of this phenomena be stored? Does the dispatch software have a notes field? If so, is it procedure to put that sort of information in plac…

Post by asciimo » Fri, Jan 22, 2016, 2:19 AM UTC

ghshephard wrote: post #133

chad_strategic wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

---> It's bullshit that police are coming to the door and dragging them outside while trying to determine if a search warrant is in order. I think this is the biggest issue! Their rights where violated.

What rights are you referring to? The police seem to have done everything correctly. These were individuals who were being detained pursuant to an investigation of an ongoing crime. The police did not search the inside of the house without a warrant - though, it's unclear why not - if they had strong belief that there was a crime in progress, they had every legal right to do so. I guess the only thing in question is…

Post by simoncion » Fri, Jan 22, 2016, 2:23 AM UTC

mindslight wrote: post #151

simoncion wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe private data like BSSIDs... Is it private when you're screaming it on the street corner for everyone to hear? If we're talking about vocal utterances, the law says "no". It's... disappointing that the addition of a computer to a activity makes people lose sight of the similarities between that activity and very similar ones that have long-settled legal treatment. Edit: To drive the point home: There are many…

It's even more unfortunate that the committees designing these protocols don't think this way. People with an identifier number tattooed on their arm don't walk around continually reciting it. In fact, they generally wear long sleeves.

Post by anikamariam » Fri, Jan 22, 2016, 2:25 AM UTC

andreasvc wrote: post #90

anikamariam wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes it will hold up in court. Police don't let suspects out of detention just because they complain they have to pee. High-tech state-of-the-art tracking technology from Google and Apple indicates that these people are somehow involved in the disappearance of a missing person. How dumb would the officer look if he let a suspect destroy evidence, escape, or otherwise pull something on the claim that they have to pee?

> High-tech state-of-the-art tracking technology from Google and Apple indicates that these people are somehow involved in the disappearance of a missing person. It is rather odd that you insist on this when you know it to be false. The technology is not state-of-the art because it is missing the crucial feature of telling you how confident it is in its assessment. These people were clearly not involved and the track…

Post by superuser2 » Fri, Jan 22, 2016, 2:27 AM UTC

cmiles74 wrote: post #26

craigmccaskill wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would not the location tracking telling them the girls phone was inside the house be probable cause? Seems more reliable than a dog alerting on a car.

Whoever said that the phone location tracking was anywhere near this level of reliable? IMHO, it's really only good as a sort of hint on where your phone _might_ be.