The new warrant: how US police mine Google for your location and search history

Post by slownews45 » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 11:51 PM UTC

lr4444lr wrote: post #210

slownews45 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN is pretty out of touch I think. When I talk to non HN crowd. * Apple's efforts around blocking CASM are applauded * Folks are GLAD that cops are using tech to catch criminals * Folks don't have a ton of trust that the regulations will help their lives, or block govt from doing things, but do imagine they will be annoying (more permission banners / cookies popups etc). It would be interesting to look at other count…

What fundamental problem do you have with cops using tech to catch criminals? Not talking about the abuse of innocents here, or warrantless intrusions into your data, just the core of what you're saying.

Post by VRay » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 11:55 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #179

NoImmatureAdHom wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about raising money to buy a bunch of data from, say, the Washington, D.C. area and then de-anonymizing it. I wonder what we'd learn...

I wonder how a different tactic would fare: 1. Buy some legit(ish) dataset for marketing purposes. I hear DMVs in the US like to sell people's data. 2. Do a direct marketing job: send every single person in the dataset a snail mail letter with a printout of all the data you have on them, and a reference to where you got it from. I hear USPS offers good rates for bulk spam campaigns; they apparently live off it. That…

Post by lr4444lr » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 11:55 PM UTC

MereInterest wrote: post #218

lr4444lr wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What fundamental problem do you have with cops using tech to catch criminals? Not talking about the abuse of innocents here, or warrantless intrusions into your data, just the core of what you're saying.

I'll bite. The problem is asymmetry of information, and that the protections haven't advanced alongside the ease of collecting information. For example, imaging you have a suspect and want to trail them. The courts have established that you have no expectation of privacy when in a public area, so an officer can trail your car and watch where you go. You only have so many officers, and so there are implicit limits on…

Post by foerbert » Fri, Sep 17, 2021, 12:19 AM UTC

slownews45 wrote: post #220

sjwalter wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno, I mostly agree with you, but I think lately, at least with my family and friends, the coronavirus political response has made many more people much more skeptical about centralized authority figures. The narrative that is commonly recounted is that it's obvious that the people in authority are either incredibly incompetent or crazily power-hungry, and both are leading many of my family and friends to questio…

Right - but how does this generate support for more GOVT regulation ie, Trump and Biden appointees running things vs confidence in companies (like Apple). My concern, the HN crowd is yelling for more govt regulation, but the average person actually thinks Apple, not the govt, makes reasonable tradeoffs (security, privacy, CASM etc) and might actually trust folks like apple or google MORE than if for example the govt…

Post by 0des » Fri, Sep 17, 2021, 12:38 AM UTC

lr4444lr wrote: post #225

MereInterest wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll bite. The problem is asymmetry of information, and that the protections haven't advanced alongside the ease of collecting information. For example, imaging you have a suspect and want to trail them. The courts have established that you have no expectation of privacy when in a public area, so an officer can trail your car and watch where you go. You only have so many officers, and so there are implicit limits on…

I am pretty sure thr police cannot put a GPS tracker on your car without a warrant.