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

141–150 of 166 posts

Re: To find suspects, police quietly turn to Google

#141

Post by zo1 »

groby_b wrote: post #140
lopmotr wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this actually a real problem for normal non-criminal people? Murders happen every day and this would help deter or prevent repeat offenses. But having information about you that's correct, and can't be used in court because it was obtained without the correct warrant, when is that ever a problem? I'm not talking about high profile journalists or terrorist suspects. Just normal people like you.

We have such an astonishing amount of laws and codes that everybody is guilty of something. And the more data is available on you, the more you enable the government to go on a fishing expedition, should they ever dislike you. But that's only the selfish motivation. The wider reason is that mass surveillance can easily be used to silence dissent. And if you think that's far-fetched for the US, I invite you to read up…

That's a slippery-slope argument. Guns can be used to silence dissent. Violence can be used to silence dissent. Targeted facebook ads and social-media emotional warfare can be used to target dissent. Skilled orators can be used to silence dissent. So can political distractions, wars, etc. All of it can and does, so I wouldn't quite call that an effective measure of whether something should exist in our political sphere or not.

Those laws/codes that you mention are there for a reason. We shouldn't be breaking them, is what we're told. If the whole thing was built on the predicate that only a fraction of people would be charged with them, what sort of criteria do you think those lawmakers had in mind as to when to apply that charge? Well, silencing dissent, for one.

But more to the point, either they're valid crimes and we need to do everything that is reasonable and cost-effective to enforce them. Or, we don't really consider them a crime, but we work on some funky as yet-undefined honor system about when to apply those laws. I.e. Let's use them to stick it to the bad-guy™. Usually, it's at the whim of whoever is deciding on whether to charge someone.

You are absolutely right that government can use these laws against you if they dislike you. But they can do that with a whole host of other things that we consider pretty benign. Being a white minority and a foreigner in an majority black country, I am constantly singled-out and harassed and at the whims of whatever government official I interact with. Usually police, but desk-clerks and the like also have their fair share of it. Government, and their agents can ruin your life on whim, even with existing non-surveillance-like laws.

We need to get past the point where vagueness and subjective criteria are used to enforce whatever laws we deem as a society to want to have. The vagueness and subjectiveness is the problem, not the laws.

Re: To find suspects, police quietly turn to Google

#142

Post by dingo_bat »

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?

If you turn off continuous background location tracking in Android, Google maps will bug you every time you use it. Even though foreground location is on and set to use all available signals.

Re: To find suspects, police quietly turn to Google

#143

Post by groby_b »

zo1 wrote: post #141
groby_b wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have such an astonishing amount of laws and codes that everybody is guilty of something. And the more data is available on you, the more you enable the government to go on a fishing expedition, should they ever dislike you. But that's only the selfish motivation. The wider reason is that mass surveillance can easily be used to silence dissent. And if you think that's far-fetched for the US, I invite you to read up…

That's a slippery-slope argument. Guns can be used to silence dissent. Violence can be used to silence dissent. Targeted facebook ads and social-media emotional warfare can be used to target dissent. Skilled orators can be used to silence dissent. So can political distractions, wars, etc. All of it can and does, so I wouldn't quite call that an effective measure of whether something should exist in our political sphe…

It's not a slippery slope if the government already does it, no?

And mass surveillance can be used to silence on a large scale - that's the whole point of objecting to it. It's not about you. Or me. It's about the effect on society as a whole

Re: To find suspects, police quietly turn to Google

#144

Post by btown »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #118
petilon wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You live in Los Angeles (according to Google). How will GDPR help you? Companies such as Google and Facebook aren't going to implement European laws for their American customers!

Google and Facebook may choose not to, but plenty of others will. Consider the technical challenges of implementing one set of compliance rules in one place, and one set elsewhere. The profit gain from not following GDPR in an area must exceed the cost of maintaining separate rulesets. LinkedIn's new policy that goes into effect in May appears to grant GDPR-like permissions across all users, for instance, though it d…

Under a hypothetical US version of the GDPR, Google might be prohibited from sharing that data with non-governmental third parties. But it wouldn't be prohibited from collecting and storing that data, as showing someone their location history (with clear opt-out language) is actually in the legitimate interest of providing better mapping services for that individual. And law enforcement wouldn't be subject to those third-party restrictions.

There are additional laws that could protect citizens against overreach. But something like the GDPR alone would not do the trick.

This is especially dangerous given that there is already overreach in which data on the correlation of travel and behavior with crime, is being used to unlawfully detain people: https://www.npr.org/2017/12/05/568351544/teens-arrested-on-g... This data would only serve to multiply that problem. It's not an easy problem to solve.

Re: To find suspects, police quietly turn to Google

#145

Post by bduerst »

dwaltrip wrote: post #48
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…

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...

Google already allows you delete your account-linked location data: https://myactivity.google.com

Just be aware that deletion isn't instant though. From the TOS:

>We aim to maintain our services in a manner that protects information from accidental or malicious destruction. Because of this, after you delete information from our services, we may not immediately delete residual copies from our active servers and may not remove information from our backup systems.

Re: To find suspects, police quietly turn to Google

#146

Post by mirimir »

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…

Innocent people are commonly investigated because they were nearby when crimes were committed. Or because they somewhat match a victim's description of the attacker. Or because they're driving a vehicle that somewhat matches a description.

But this is taking it to another level. Here, location and time are the only identifiers. Once you've identified someone who was at the location of the crime when it was committed, they were either a perpetrator or a witness. Or maybe neither, because they weren't close enough in space and time.

But anyway, what happens next? Police hope to get a confession? Maybe some physical evidence. Or witnesses. But then, people often lie. And there's less opportunity for an alibi, except maybe a friend who says he was there with you. But his phone had better agree with yours.

And really, it's hard to imagine that someone doing serious crime would be carrying a smartphone. At least, one that's not turned off, and in a Faraday bag. But then, some criminals are just plain stupid, I guess.

Re: To find suspects, police quietly turn to Google

#147

Post by cbr »

megy wrote: post #126
cbr wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The email reminders I get look like: Subject: You are using Google Location Sharing to share your real-time location. Hi Jeff, To protect your privacy, we would like to remind you that you are sharing your real-time location using Google Location Sharing with [wife] and [close friend and housemate]. If you didn't enable this or want to stop sharing your location at any time, please go to your Google Location Sharing…

This isn't the same thing at all.

But it may be what the grandparent recalls receiving

Re: To find suspects, police quietly turn to Google

#148

Post by rdtsc »

mirimir wrote: post #146
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…

Innocent people are commonly investigated because they were nearby when crimes were committed. Or because they somewhat match a victim's description of the attacker. Or because they're driving a vehicle that somewhat matches a description. But this is taking it to another level. Here, location and time are the only identifiers. Once you've identified someone who was at the location of the crime when it was committed,…

> But then, people often lie

Police can lie with impunity when interrogating and it is all legal and protected mostly. They can get innocent people to plead guilty to all kind of crimes the didn't commit simply by threatening them.

Re: To find suspects, police quietly turn to Google

#149

Post by pasbesoin »

pkilgore wrote: post #103
pasbesoin wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In addition to all the other, very serious concerns, I'll also ask this: How long until these records are available for subpoena, e.g. in a divorce case? (Maybe -- hopefully! -- not in area sweeps, but nonetheless, where was the other party and who was in proximity. As I'm writing this, well, maybe they will ask for all connections in proximity, that list then to be whittled down to a list of candidates (per the poli…

> How long until these records are available for subpoena, e.g. in a divorce case? I see nothing preventing this information being sought in U.S. discovery right now--at least in Federal litigation[0]. That isn't to say that the subpoena won't be squashed by a court for one of the traditional rationales under FRCP 26(b).[1] >When are police going to start sweeping such data up en masse, looking for e.g. parole violat…

Thanks for the response.

Yes, the last part could be considered rhetorical. Except, I think that is the very real direction some -- including especially some already in authority, in the U.S. as well as around the world -- want to take things.

On the other hand, maybe my question is rhetorical, in that the tracking is already in place.

Re: To find suspects, police quietly turn to Google

#150

Post by htoooh »

dwaltrip wrote: post #48
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…

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...

Waltreezy! Hope you're well buddy
Post reply on HN