In France that’s how the former president got busted, he used his burner phone from a sparsely populated area.
Which president got busted for what?
“Reverse location” search warrants identify all cellphones near a crime scene
111–120 of 256 posts
Re: “Reverse location” search warrants identify all cellphones near a crime scene
#112>ordering Google to identify the locations of cellphones that had been near the crime scene in Eden Prairie
So, is the court pretending that Google isn't conducting a search that involves every cell phone Google has ever known about, or are they saying that's "Google's database" particularly describes the place to be searched?
Re: “Reverse location” search warrants identify all cellphones near a crime scene
#113In the future I think that the idea that the government doesn't know where everyone is at all times will seem hard to imagine. (This is an IS statement not an OUGHT statement)
I'm actually kind of surprised that we don't all have permanent connected heart rate monitors already, in order that an ambulance can be called automatically should something happen.
Re: “Reverse location” search warrants identify all cellphones near a crime scene
#114> 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…
All criminal investigations start with group of innocent people. That's the only way to investigate. Police collects data from security cameras, road cameras, credit card purchases, witnesses, and now from mobile service providers. I agree that privacy erosion is real, but you argument was not convincing.
Your response illuminates the exact boiling frog / slippery slope problem AP was referring to.
None of what you mentioned should have been granted to the police but because of similar apathetic non argument whataboutism tactics like yours it was.
The only one I see there that even holds water as an acceptable invasion of privacy is witnesses but that's only because people still have a right to tell the police to get lost provided they're not a damn fool [1].
The rest are just as bad if not worse invasions of privacy. None of which have valid arguments for existing themselves. Their current use doesn't really give much more of an argument for allowing this new encroachment. If anything they give a reason to push back even more.
Re: “Reverse location” search warrants identify all cellphones near a crime scene
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Are you ignorant or choosing to ignore how much of the prison population is there due to criminalising the use of narcotics and much of the violent crimes committed is a result of this policy? Neither, that's simply besides the point.
How's putting people in jail based on racism besides the point when it comes to liberty? What good is being able to criticise leaders if you're in jail and can never vote again?
It's beside the point because the discussion is about mass surveillance, which will only make the problems you mention worse. If we give police more and more ability to track people, who do you think they'll track, murderers or drug dealers/users? As a hint, the latter is far more profitable to the police station.
Yes we need to change laws that disproportionately put non-violent offenders in jail, but that's beside the point when talking about mass surveillance. Both are bad, and both should have separate discussions.
Re: “Reverse location” search warrants identify all cellphones near a crime scene
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Are you ignorant or choosing to ignore how much of the prison population is there due to criminalising the use of narcotics and much of the violent crimes committed is a result of this policy? Neither, that's simply besides the point.
How's putting people in jail based on racism besides the point when it comes to liberty? What good is being able to criticise leaders if you're in jail and can never vote again?
> How's putting people in jail based on racism besides the point when it comes to liberty?
The point made upstream was that optimizing for jailing criminals and ignoring all else is not a good metric, while also making the terrible mistake of calling the US pretty free, which was "refuted" by with, well, a single metric, incarceration rate -- I asked what that changes about the original point, and said incarceration rate is not the one and only metric by which to measure liberty. If you wish to contest either of those points, actually do it.
Re: “Reverse location” search warrants identify all cellphones near a crime scene
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
Does Germany not have judicial review of these kinds of police requests?
As far as I understand, every request has to be done with judicial approval, which is given every time since there's no mechanism to check for effectiveness after the fact and most judges have no clue how broad the request might be (and the police will certainly not dwell on that fact).
Re: “Reverse location” search warrants identify all cellphones near a crime scene
#118So 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…
> Do people honestly think this is disproportionate for investigating a home invasion? The scale of the search[0] is grossly disproportionate, to be sure. The population of the city in question was 60,797+[1] almost ten years ago. So, we have a wide-net around the house, a period of about six hours requested, and if that main road is a major artery for driving, then we can safely assume (if it's day-time time-frame)…
The additional search areas limit the potential for collateral intrusion though, because they are essentially going to be ANDed with the list from the main crime scene not ORed. Even if the whole town visited those markets, it could never be more intrusive. Also, the reasonably wide rectangle is precisely because the location data is not particularly accurate, I am not sure why you think this supports the idea that it should be smaller.
I'm honestly shocked that people think that the police are overstepping the mark by requesting anonymised phone data from around the scene of a home invasion murder.
Over the last few years I've watched the privacy debate on HN evolve from completely legitimate criticism of mass surveillance programs with insufficient transparency and oversight, to criticising a detective getting a warrant from a judge, that is specifically written to request anonymised data! While investigating a murder in his community!
> The original police-work methods they were using, which they admitted in their court-filings as having actually led to the suspects? The confidential informant being chief amond those, yeah?
The level of proof required in a criminal case is incredibly high, what's more police have a responsibility to find all assailants as well as test the veracity of witness reports and follow all reasonable lines of enquiry.
"Witness is lying", "Someone stole my car" etc etc. All these will be presented as defences. They don't even need to be probable, because the prosecution needs to clear a very high bar of proof. This is why police collect as much evidence as they can and don't just stop when they think they know who did it.
Ultimately the detective has a responsibility to the wife who's husband is dead - and to society in general - to make sure people face justice when they offend, and they can't half arse it.
(Disclosure: I am a detective)
Re: “Reverse location” search warrants identify all cellphones near a crime scene
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
All criminal investigations start with group of innocent people. That's the only way to investigate. Police collects data from security cameras, road cameras, credit card purchases, witnesses, and now from mobile service providers. I agree that privacy erosion is real, but you argument was not convincing.
Your response illuminates the exact boiling frog / slippery slope problem AP was referring to. None of what you mentioned should have been granted to the police but because of similar apathetic non argument whataboutism tactics like yours it was. The only one I see there that even holds water as an acceptable invasion of privacy is witnesses but that's only because people still have a right to tell the police to get…
I upvoted the gp post just so it and your reply can be kept visible.
This dismissive attitude towards the slow but steady incremental erosion of privacy and authoritarian creep terrifies me. It's like people have completely forgotten about not-so-distant history, and are not just tolerating, but welcoming the mechanisms of oppression rolling out once again. In the name of catching a dozen or so criminals - just like every other time in the recorded history of oppressive regimes.
This has all happened before. For centuries. The same dismissive arguments have been used to defend the Gestapo and KGB. If there's a crime, why wouldn't you interrogate the family of everyone who was reported to be near the scene? Why wouldn't you force a confession and tick off the case if none of the leads are working out?
It takes only a few minutes of empirical thought to realize that not every crime must be solved, especially when that doctrine creates an incentive to 'solve' crimes with easy targets rather than the real perpetrator. You hit diminishing returns really hard really fast by investing extra resources into solving crimes with statistically negligible incidence rates. The only entity that stands to benefit is the proto authoritarian regime and its ability to target arbitrary population segments and continue expanding.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin knew better.
Re: “Reverse location” search warrants identify all cellphones near a crime scene
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
All criminal investigations start with group of innocent people. That's the only way to investigate. Police collects data from security cameras, road cameras, credit card purchases, witnesses, and now from mobile service providers. I agree that privacy erosion is real, but you argument was not convincing.
Your response illuminates the exact boiling frog / slippery slope problem AP was referring to. None of what you mentioned should have been granted to the police but because of similar apathetic non argument whataboutism tactics like yours it was. The only one I see there that even holds water as an acceptable invasion of privacy is witnesses but that's only because people still have a right to tell the police to get…
> None of what you mentioned should have been granted to the police
Not even questioning the witnesses, or stopping people in the area?
Please describe the alternative method for police investigation? Someone is killed in the street, now what?