SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
US agencies using phone location data for immigration enforcement, report says:
The Trump administration has reportedly acquired access to a commercial database that tracks the movements of millions of cellphones in the US. The data is being used for immigration and border enforcement, according to sources and documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
The data is reportedly collected from apps for gaming, weather and shopping that ask users to grant them location access. The Journal's Friday report said the Department of Homeland Security uses the information to detect undocumented immigrants and people who may be entering the US illegally.
Separately, US gov't using phone location data to track migrants: Report:
The administration of United States President Donald Trump has purchased commercial databases and software that tracks millions of mobile phones and used the information to crack down on undocumented immigrants in the US, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported on Friday.
Citing sources familiar with the matter and documents it has seen, the WSJ reported that the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) has made arrests based on the data, which helped identify the movement and location of undocumented migrants.
[...]According to the report, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) began purchasing location data back in 2017 from Venntel, a Virginia-based company, which declined to comment. The data is gathered through smartphone applications after users grant access to their locations.
The DHS and its agencies acknowledged buying access to the data, but did not discuss details about how they are using it in law-enforcement operations. US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has said it has privacy protections in place and limits on how it uses location data. The agency says that it accesses only a small amount of the information, which is anonymised to protect the privacy of Americans.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Booga1 on Monday February 10 2020, @10:13AM (13 children)
The first issue is that you need to track everyone to be able to track illegal immigrants. It's not like phones or apps have a checkbox for "I'm in this foreign country illegally."
Another is that it is an end run around constitutional protections. It is a way to find people without a warrant by purchasing commercial databases instead of filing a warrant. The fourth amendment has 50 years of precedent regarding that: In 1967, the Supreme Court held that its protections extend to intrusions on the privacy of individuals as well as to physical locations.
Everyone in the United States is subject to the constitution, so anything that violates that is illegal. Though the people may be in the country illegally, that doesn't waive their rights under the constitution. It certainly doesn't waive those rights for everyone else swept up in the database.
I'm absolutely against illegal immigration, but I'm also against violations of constitutional protections. Equal protection under the law is for everyone.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 10 2020, @10:51AM (3 children)
If violating the first amendment can be done with impunity using "commercial entities" to do the muzzling, then violating the fourth using same entities to do the tracking is no different.
When some "commercial entities" have grown in power to the point they have the capability to violate the constitution on par, if not exceeding, the government itself, you are destined to have problems if this their capability does not get comparably limited.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Booga1 on Monday February 10 2020, @11:10AM (2 children)
This sentiment is understandable, but the difference in this situation is that it IS the government doing the tracking through purchasing the database because they weren't allowed to do the tracking themselves.
Besides, just because someone does something wrong doesn't mean we should just shrug our shoulders and say "If they can do it, who can stop anyone from doing it?"
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 10 2020, @08:06PM (1 child)
You may want a virus to take out your rivals, but it will go through your friends too unless stopped. Attempts to instead direct its spread away from you are ultimately futile.
You may want a crypto backdoor to spy on your enemies, but chances are, those very same enemies will be using your "secret" backdoor to spy on you.
Same thing with loopholes in critical laws. It is better to patch them and not have them, than involve in a political tug-of-war for the "right of abuse" and breed general contempt for all the participants and the very concept of law. As if you don't have enough of that already.
And the government can pay enough high-powered lawyers that would explain it away, as to exactly why and how it ISN'T doing the tracking, because of, see, purchasing the database. The game of sophistry cannot be won when both sides can purchase equally talented deceivers.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Tuesday February 11 2020, @08:28PM
You don't think that the various superpowers aren't working on the racists ultimate wet dream - a virus that kills people of a certain ethnicity?
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 10 2020, @07:17PM (4 children)
"Everyone in the United States is subject to the constitution, so anything that violates that is illegal. Though the people may be in the country illegally, that doesn't waive their rights under the constitution."
i don't accept that as true.
(Score: 2) by Booga1 on Monday February 10 2020, @09:27PM (2 children)
Not sure who modded you comment as troll, but it might help to clarify your stance. Which part do you feel is untrue?
Does the constitution not cover everyone in the United States?
Is violating the constitution legal?
Do people who enter the US illegally waive their rights under the constitution?
(Score: 2) by Booga1 on Monday February 10 2020, @09:44PM (1 child)
Also, I am aware of diplomatic immunity and consider it to be a special case.
I am more interested in finding out if your views relate to the average person or this story.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Tuesday February 11 2020, @08:31PM
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday February 11 2020, @03:43AM
So? What you believe about the Constitution means jack and shit except insofar as it is in line with what the Constitution itself states. Believe whatever you want; all you're doing is throwing a tantrum.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 10 2020, @10:22PM
The government could filter the data to areas outside the US or within 100 miles of a border where "the 4th amendment doesn't fully apply": https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone [aclu.org].
IOW, when you enter the country illegally, leave your cell phone at home and get a new one once you're over 100 miles from the border.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Reziac on Tuesday February 11 2020, @03:04AM (2 children)
Seems to me all they have to do is note where each phone crosses the border, via the normal location data. If it comes in at a legit port, and pauses in the usual way of someone waiting in line -- they can be presumed to have entered legally and can be ignored. If the phone crosses the border at any non-port location, it is obviously in the possession of an illegal entrant, and should be tracked.
Yeah, burner phones are a thing, but if a border jumper bothered to bring it along, they probably intend to call a contact, and there's your point to watch. Seems to me this will mainly nail drug cartel types.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Booga1 on Tuesday February 11 2020, @03:21AM (1 child)
That is an interesting take on things. I'm not sure how many people cross the border at non-standard locations while carrying a cell phone, but that would definitely make them stand out. It might even be what they're using already.
Unfortunately, this still falls into the problem of needing to track everyone since it's not the government doing the collection of data. They're just buying the results of the commercial entity collecting everything. If a company specifically collected only that data you called out and then sold it to the government it would be even clearer evidence that they were only using an intermediary to skirt the law.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday February 11 2020, @03:52AM
Good point, but it's not like every cellphone doesn't of necessity get tracked so long as it's powered on; we agree to that by using 'em. \
Probably this is just deduplication of costs and effort, since the cell carriers have to track their phones anyway (at least from tower to tower). But it is a bit grey around the edges, as you say.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.