121–130 of 256 posts
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there still any advantage to having a registered oyster card?
Yeah, because if you have a weekly/monthly Travel Card (worth it if you travel frequently), you can't load that onto a contactless card, just an Oyster. And if you lose that, it's £150+ down the drain unless it's registered.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cell providers have information on what cell sites a mobile user has connected to and rough triangulations of the devices position. Google has the exact GPS coordinates sent by the device itself, WiFi networks around it, and other location data.
But that's only if the GPS and wifi are activated on the phone. On my phone it's rarely the case.
I bet in 7/10 cases they do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
The rest is assuredly not opt in.
This is the very basic argument: if I don't opt in, you do not have a right to my private affairs, details, papers, movements or discussions with others.
If you want to argue we live in an imperfect world full of grey areas and need to sometimes give up some general privacy for the greater good and safety of the people then do so, and I will likely agree with you on a lot of the justifications to concede that privacy.
Just don't for a second think that those individual concessions instantly justify all others. That like your original position is just far too many logical fallacies to even begin to unpack.
> 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…
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…
As an hypothetical, suppose there is data on two people, who were in the same house at 11:00 pm. Then, at 12:00 pm, one of those people moved over to a neighboring house for 1:00 hour, after which they went back.
It looks a lot like two people who live together, where someone snuck out to spend the night with someone else. This is sensitive data, and not really anonymous.
Looking at the graph of reverse location searches over time (despite being an atrocious way to present the information) shows that there were a lot when it was first started and then quickly petered off. Is this an indication of its efficiency, pushback from Google, or denials from judges, I wonder? 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…
It's 1984 kafkaesque. The slowly-boiled frog deserves neither liberty nor safety. What the naïve fools don't grasp is anything they do or any information about them can be used to target them for arbitrary or deliberate police or political purposes. 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 hous…
In Nineteen Eighty-Four, mass surveillance is allowed to exist because of the application of force (torture and murder). It's a dystopia founded in violence and oppression. We like to think things are like the book, because it paints us as victims.
However, the truth is that, at best, we're complicit. This reality is explored in the far more prescient Brave New World.
This surveillance is allowed not because people are afraid to protest, but because they don't care (or rather, they care more about other [meaningless] things).