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

“Reverse location” search warrants identify all cellphones near a crime scene

mprnews.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 256 posts

Re: “Reverse location” search warrants identify all cellphones near a crime scene

#221

Post by wurst_case »

jcranberry wrote: post #187
iceninenines wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This comment is unproductive and ridiculous. 1. Histrionic comparison to a dystopian novel. 2. Calling people who disagree with you "naive fools". 3. Evoking this category of "nothing to hide" strawmen. This information can only be attained by a warrant, and doesn't change the fact that you are tried before a judge, by a jury of your peers. Furthermore, Police are funded by local governments with locally elected offi…

>"nothing to hide" strawmen

Obviously I have no source for this except for personal experience but fwiw about %90 of the people I talk to here in the Bay Area believe the benefits of serveillance outweigh the harms and communicate such by saying they have "nothing to hide". I know my sample could be biased somehow but I've organized groups of activists before and done recruiting for such activities all around the bay (from ghetto to mansion). I have definitely noticed a trend. People here and on the internet seem more perceptive but that's definitely biased by my limited visited websites. I think it's impossible to have a constructive conversation about serveillance without talking about the "nothing to hide" people since, after all, in order to change policy you have to get people to agree on policy change.

Re: “Reverse location” search warrants identify all cellphones near a crime scene

#222

Post by swasheck »

latch wrote: post #130
iceninenines wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I always find comparisons to Nineteen Eighty-Four to be a [small] part of the problem. 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 th…

It's allowed to persist because they've self-medicated and conditioned to not care. It was started because of fear ... so I agree that Brave New World is absolutely a more appropriate context in which we can frame ourselves.

Re: “Reverse location” search warrants identify all cellphones near a crime scene

#223

Post by swasheck »

mipmap04 wrote: post #174
latch wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always find comparisons to Nineteen Eighty-Four to be a [small] part of the problem. 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 th…

Or, in many cases, people have done the mental calculus between free, powerful, entertaining services and their privacy rights and have chosen the former.

... so ... soma?

Re: “Reverse location” search warrants identify all cellphones near a crime scene

#224

Post by michaelmrose »

nabla9 wrote: post #102
renholder wrote: post #52

> 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.

We don't always actually know that a crime happened to the minute nor do we know the position of a cell phone to the meter indoors or near buildings.

Your potential criminal pool is potentially anyone who passed within a few hundred meters within a period of hours. Potentially hundreds of people in some cases.

Absent real evidence of note the black man with a record who walked 200 feet away 4 hours before the crime looks like winner.

This makes me want to purchase a librem with a switch to turn off the baseband.

Re: “Reverse location” search warrants identify all cellphones near a crime scene

#225

Post by swasheck »

fixermark wrote: post #180
mipmap04 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, in many cases, people have done the mental calculus between free, powerful, entertaining services and their privacy rights and have chosen the former.

Correct. It's best modeled by neither 1984 or Brave New World---It's "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas." People get the basics that there are breakdowns in the system of safeguards and a non-zero chance that they'll be the victim of a crime or injustice facilitated by ubiquitous observation. But relative to the benefits, the odds they'll be the one locked in the dungeon suffering are so low that they'll readily sho…

This looks like a fascinating read. Thank you for bringing it to our attention!

Re: “Reverse location” search warrants identify all cellphones near a crime scene

#226

Post by michaelmrose »

fixermark wrote: post #202
jancsika wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sentence was poorly worded. But then if this least generous interpretation you chose represented my train of thought, one would have expected me to clearly argue that both "road cameras" and "mobile service providers" are illegal. Instead I replied with, "Agreed." Did you read down to those parts? If so I'm curious what you thought that could mean in a worldview where police cannot legally investigate crimes.

No, the error was mine. I zoned out on details because I misinterpreted your earlier sentence and assumed the remainder of the post was poor justification of my misunderstanding of your thesis.

This is surprisingly civil for an internet discussion forum. Kudos on having good manners.

Re: “Reverse location” search warrants identify all cellphones near a crime scene

#227

Post by scottlocklin »

Animats wrote: post #45

Why did the police ask Google, and not the cellular operators? They know who was where to the level of positioning detail this requires.

Because google gets more detailed records than cellular operators.

https://qz.com/1183559/if-youre-using-an-android-phone-googl...

Re: “Reverse location” search warrants identify all cellphones near a crime scene

#228

Post by nabla9 »

michaelmrose wrote: post #224
nabla9 wrote: post #102

Earlier 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.

We don't always actually know that a crime happened to the minute nor do we know the position of a cell phone to the meter indoors or near buildings. Your potential criminal pool is potentially anyone who passed within a few hundred meters within a period of hours. Potentially hundreds of people in some cases. Absent real evidence of note the black man with a record who walked 200 feet away 4 hours before the crime l…

In big investigations hundreds of people are suspects. There is nothing wrong with that.

There is nothing wrong with a police being able to collect information of people who were in the scene.

The real issue is what happens to data and how you get it.

1. Police should need to use subpoena to get the data.

2. Police should not be allowed to use the data for any other thing than solving that particular crime.

These kinds of issues should be separated from mass surveillance. The ability to just go there and explore data of citizens or persons who they are interested in but don't suspect from crimes. That's what intelligence agencies do.

Re: “Reverse location” search warrants identify all cellphones near a crime scene

#229

Post by gnicholas »

renholder wrote: post #218
heartbreak wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There was no murder. The man died of a heart attack. While the home invasion was undoubtly the cause, to arrive at the conclusion that it was murder is disingenuous. This isn’t the detective obfuscating facts, this is you being unfamiliar with felony murder doctrine.

> ...this is you being unfamiliar with felony murder doctrine. Someone isn't aware of the merger doctrine, I see. To point: Where's the felony murder charge[0,1]? [0] - https://www.newrichmond-news.com/news/crime-and-courts/45488... [1] - https://kstp.com/news/lennie-dwayne-brooks-randy-lorenzo-bro...

How does this implicate the merger doctrine? Isn't that for lesser included offenses — which felony murder would not be here? It does appear that the suspects were not charged with felony murder here, but it's not clear why that was.

The CA legislature recently attempted to narrow their felony murder law [1], but I don't think MN has done the same (and even the CA attempt may have failed due to a conflict with the CA Constitution [2]).

Could you explain on how the merger doctrine is involved?

1: https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-aler...

2: https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02/19/felony-murder-law-rep...

Re: “Reverse location” search warrants identify all cellphones near a crime scene

#230

Post by michaelmrose »

nabla9 wrote: post #228
michaelmrose wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't always actually know that a crime happened to the minute nor do we know the position of a cell phone to the meter indoors or near buildings. Your potential criminal pool is potentially anyone who passed within a few hundred meters within a period of hours. Potentially hundreds of people in some cases. Absent real evidence of note the black man with a record who walked 200 feet away 4 hours before the crime l…

In big investigations hundreds of people are suspects. There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with a police being able to collect information of people who were in the scene. The real issue is what happens to data and how you get it. 1. Police should need to use subpoena to get the data. 2. Police should not be allowed to use the data for any other thing than solving that particular crime. These kin…

The "scene" could in fact be an arbitrarily large space and time due to uncertainties and complexities of the particular issue at hand.
Post reply on HN