Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

To find suspects, police quietly turn to Google

wral.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 166 posts

Re: To find suspects, police quietly turn to Google

#71

Post by Digit-Al »

dwaltrip wrote: post #56
cornholio wrote: post #19

In principle and with some caveats, I support this use of tracking information: it's usually quite specific, it has a very positive efect for law enforcement, it's not a breach of fundamental rights of the suspect as confirmation of the physical location at a certain time is not secret and can be obtained by the police from CCTV cameras, eyewitnesses etc. The privacy of the bystanders is not significantly reduced if…

The idea that they will use such data responsibly seems like handing a bag of candy to a 6 year-old and saying "Make sure to only eat one!" Perhaps I'm wrong, but I can't imagine them managing the overwhelming temptations to quietly abuse the data, especially as time goes on. Edit: I realize this is a crude analogy that glosses over a lot of important details, but it gets at the heart of my intuition on the matter. T…

I can see both sides on this. I do think that such data when used responsibly can really help in solving serious crimes. But, as you say, there is a serious danger of law enforcement abusing the system and gathering far more data than they need. It's not like they haven't been guilty of such abuses in the past. Look at the situation with gathering fingerprints or DNA and then not scrubbing the data of innocents once an investigation has finished.

I am wondering if the solution is to have an independent service. One that would sit as a middleman between police and technology companies such as Google. Their mandate would be to provide the minimum amount of data required for an investigation (the example used in the article is a good one, where anonymous data for a particular location at a particular time-frame is requested and used to narrow down the search and then get more information on a subset of that data). They could be required to keep logs of what is being requested and what is being provided and could be audited at intervals by, say, the EFF. Obviously this is only a rough sketch of the idea, it would need fleshing out more completely.

Re: To find suspects, police quietly turn to Google

#72

Post by [deleted] »

nkurz wrote: post #26

This is an important story, but a little difficult to summarize. Here's my attempt at an overview: 1. Google stores location history data for more of its mobile users than you might expect. The precision is greatest when GPS is on, but less precise data from cell towers and WiFi sources is used almost any time a Google app is being used on an Android or non-Android phone. There have been cases in the past where Googl…

[deleted]

Re: To find suspects, police quietly turn to Google

#73

Post by user5994461 »

pmorici wrote: post #65
ams6110 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So this is another reason why as a business you want to keep minimal information on your customers. Not only does it respect their privacy, but it makes your data security compliance much easier.

I think people might be missing the finer details of this story. This is an example of the system working the way it is supposed to. They are getting a warrant and asking for very narrowly scoped information. If you take your argument to the logical extreme then businesses shouldn't have security cameras either. No crime would ever be solved.

There can be hundreds of people in any venue. There can be more than ten thousands in a skyscraper.

Everyone in an "area" is not necessarily a narrow scope.

Re: To find suspects, police quietly turn to Google

#74

Post by jonathanyc »

inetknght wrote: post #49
dwaltrip wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Holy shit. So my paranoia about turning off Google location tracking was completely well-founded, and way more quickly than I would have hoped. GDPR can't come soon enough...

Now sit back and think about what else people get called paranoid for.

Every time this happens, the same people magically transform from saying “What, are you paranoid?” to “What, are you naive?”

The NSA’s surveillance dragnet is a very different situation because they are a government agency, but you could see the same exact phenomenon happened when the Snowden revelations came out.

“Do you really think the government cares enough to log all your phone calls? You must be paranoid.” became “Well, obviously the government does this. How could you not expect this?” in the blink of an eye.

Re: To find suspects, police quietly turn to Google

#75

Post by user5994461 »

stefan_ wrote: post #10
karmakaze wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only way is to not use any Google services. If you connect from mobile IP ranges as other users who are in the area, you could also easily be included. Same goes for cell towers but at least it's not a single entity.

Google collects location data from WLAN networks in reach, triangulates from cell tower signal strength, GPS, GLONASS, geoip and if all that fails, sheer historical prediction. And no one quite knows why, other than "because we can". There is Google Maps, but when I'm not using it, when exactly is this orwellian infrastructure to my benefit and not exclusively Googles?

For reference, there was an article here on what it takes to track a million cell phones in real time. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14803443

Re: To find suspects, police quietly turn to Google

#76

Post by purple-again »

John_KZ wrote: post #31
Overtonwindow wrote: post #3

Wow that's deeply disturbing but also feels like a similar tactic to the stingrays. Does simply owning a cell phone and being in a geographical area make you open to 4th amendment search and identification?

What's even worse is that sooner than later, not owning a cellphone with gps tracking will be seen as incriminating. Were you trying to hide your position? How do we know that you weren't there at the time of the crime?

I don’t think this is a valid fear. The cost of a state issued license is considered too high to be fair in use in a much less important area of society, voting.

Ownership of a gps enabled tracking device? No chance that is ever cheap enough to be considered required to own as evidence against incarceration.

Re: To find suspects, police quietly turn to Google

#77

Post by martin-adams »

nkurz wrote: post #26

This is an important story, but a little difficult to summarize. Here's my attempt at an overview: 1. Google stores location history data for more of its mobile users than you might expect. The precision is greatest when GPS is on, but less precise data from cell towers and WiFi sources is used almost any time a Google app is being used on an Android or non-Android phone. There have been cases in the past where Googl…

I once used an app to record my location, which I'm sure was in my Google account. It mis-recorded my location to be in the centre of a park in the town I was in the middle of the night, but I was actually at home asleep. Needless to say, it crossed my mind if this data could be used as a false positive in any investigation if they got hold of all people recorded as being in that area.

Re: To find suspects, police quietly turn to Google

#78

Post by bilbo0s »

salad77 wrote: post #47
londons_explore wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably, this leaks everyones data. Anyone who was not in the area will be excluded from the list, therefore letting the police know where I wasn't at the time. I wonder how Google show that on their transparency report? Hopefully "Accounts searched: 1.5 Billion"

> Anyone who was not in the area will be excluded from the list, therefore letting the police know where I wasn't at the time. No, at best this only shows that your google linked device (presumably a phone) did not have location information for that area at the specific time. Alternatively it suggests the device could have been switched off/disconnected from the network to hide your presence - making you really a sus…

"...Alternatively it suggests the device could have been switched off/disconnected from the network to hide your presence - making you really a suspect of interest if your name comes into the investigation for some reason..."

That's really interesting. If I'm understanding you correctly, people who routinely switch off their location services, could potentially end up as suspects in crimes if they, for instance, live in the apartment across the hall from the victim or something.

So keeping location services on let's the police keep tabs on you, potentially making you a suspect in some crime in the future. Alternatively, turning it off potentially turns you into a suspect of interest in some potential crime in the future.

Re: To find suspects, police quietly turn to Google

#79

Post by logic101010 »

pmorici wrote: post #54
danso wrote: post #2

This seems to me to be a major revelation: police in North Carolina have successfully requested Google account information on all phones near a crime scene. While Google routinely responds to search warrants, this is a much broader type of data request.

Police have used this sort of investigative technique for ages this is just an instance of it being applied to Google and phones. For example, Sparkfun received a subpoena[0] once and they ended up having to turn over customer details of anyone from Georgia who purchased a particular Sparkfun product that was used in some crime. Another example, we've all seen movies or heard where someone sees a vehicle that flees t…

Your DMV example is not quite the same as what is being done. If it was, it would quite probably be reasonable in the circumstances.

The dragnet is every device, not just those matching a partial description of a suspect. For it to compare with your car example, the police would need to have a description of a suspect using an Android Galaxy S4 (or whatever) and then ask only for Galaxy S4 devices in the area.

Re: To find suspects, police quietly turn to Google

#80

Post by bitmapbrother »

SubiculumCode wrote: post #50
bitmapbrother wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I noticed you left out Apple - the same company that handed over control of their cloud servers to a Chinese state run company.

I notice you left out Amazon. In fact, there are a number of players to list, which is the reason the grandparent wrote 'etc..'

Apple is the biggest company in the world, by market cap. I would hardly call Apple a member of the 'etc..' list.
Post reply on HN