71–80 of 256 posts
question: can an appeals judge later throw out the warrant, if the judge applied the law "incorrectly"? This technique makes sense for cops . For a lot of killings there's a lit of potential suspects so this weeds out all but a few.
It doesnt weed out anyone. You dont have to have your phone with you during a crime.
> He noted that even if it did target the wrong person, "it doesn't mean they're going to get convicted or arrested, it just gives the detective a look at who could be involved." ...because no case has ever been so righteously pursued, with such a vigorous degree of righteous indignation, that an innocent person was ever thrown in prison[0], yeah? This blasé attitude about sweeping-up data of innocent people is preci…
>He noted that even if it did target the wrong person, "it doesn't mean they're going to get convicted or arrested, it just gives the detective a look at who could be involved." "Hmm, this black person was near..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubin_Carter
(others, too numerous to mention)
Edit: Or they were just hot on it after the training and then their interest petered out.
> He noted that even if it did target the wrong person, "it doesn't mean they're going to get convicted or arrested, it just gives the detective a look at who could be involved." ...because no case has ever been so righteously pursued, with such a vigorous degree of righteous indignation, that an innocent person was ever thrown in prison[0], yeah? This blasé attitude about sweeping-up data of innocent people is preci…
Oh and then there's the peer-pressure gaslighting of anyone pushing back on the "nothing to hide" mantra or pantopticon surveillance state. Ask them to live in glass houses or give over their banking details, suddenly they have less "nothing to hide."
Lock up anything you value because no one else will. Also a good book: Three Felonies a Day
So essentially they asked for anonymised lists of phones (i.e. not even the actual numbers) that had been in the locations where the suspects had been, then cross-referenced these to find potential suspects, presumably finding some phones that exactly matched the reported movements of the suspects which they then made a second application to de-anonymise. Do people honestly think this is disproportionate for investig…
The country with the greatest personal liberty, currently probably the US, is consistently a place that people would choose to live if they had a choice. This is a hint that moving away from personal liberty will end up with a society that is (1) free of crime and (2) not a desirable place to move to.
I'm not really going to expand the argument; I hope it is self-evident why having your activities reviewed by a person who might choose to arrest you is going to make your life worse. Statistically and at the macro scale that is a bigger threat to you than a home invasion (even if you think you aren't committing any crimes - I hope you've read all the laws that apply to you, don't ever get into a grey area and the police never make a mistake!).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the criminal justice system a judge is asked, in 15 minutes average per case, to see if there is any reason at all to suspect this person, nothing more. A judge would sign off given just the list of coordinates, and legally, they'd be correct in doing so.
That's the difference though. This isn't a warrant against a person. It's a warrant against "anyone who google recorded as being in an area"
So would this work the other way around? Leave your phone at home to prove you didn't go somewhere?
In Germany the "Funkzellenabfrage" ("reverse location" request by cell) provided by the providers is used quite often. On the last Chaos Communication Congress there was a talk about this and the police uses it quite frequently. The guesses were that on average every german phone is identified multiple times per year during this procedure. According to the Berlin statistics from 2017 there were nearly 450 requests re…
of all places you would Germany is the country the most aware of the dangers of broad surveillance powers. Strange that police gets such a blank check...
Why did the police ask Google, and not the cellular operators? They know who was where to the level of positioning detail this requires.
Google has the exact GPS coordinates sent by the device itself, WiFi networks around it, and other location data.