SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Fast Company reports that Police in Raleigh, North Carolina, have presented Google with warrants to obtain data from mobile phones from not just specific suspects who were in a crime scene area, but from the mobile phones of all people in the area.
The above story links to an investigative piece at WRAL:
In at least four investigations last year – cases of murder, sexual battery and even possible arson at the massive downtown fire in March 2017 – Raleigh police used search warrants to demand Google accounts not of specific suspects, but from any mobile devices that veered too close to the scene of a crime, according to a WRAL News review of court records. These warrants often prevent the technology giant for months from disclosing information about the searches not just to potential suspects, but to any users swept up in the search.
City and county officials say the practice is a natural evolution of criminal investigative techniques. They point out that, by seeking search warrants, they're carefully balancing civil rights with public safety.
Defense attorneys and privacy advocates, both locally and nationally, aren't so sure.
They're mixed on how law enforcement turns to Google's massive cache of user data, especially without a clear target in mind. And they're concerned about the potential to snag innocent users, many of whom might not know just how closely the company tracks their every move.
"We are willingly sharing an awful lot of our lives with Google," said Jonathan Jones, a former Durham prosecutor who directs the North Carolina Open Government Coalition at Elon University. "But do people understand that in sharing that information with Google, they're also potentially sharing it with law enforcement?"
[...] Users can switch location tracking off to prevent the device from pinging GPS satellites. But if it's on a cellular network or connected to Wi-Fi, the device is still transmitting its coordinates to third parties, even if they're far less accurate than GPS.
In the past, at least, turning off that technology has been no guarantee of privacy.
Business and technology news site Quartz discovered late last year that Google continued to track devices even when all GPS, Wi-Fi and cell networks were supposedly disabled. The tech giant says it has updated its software to stop the practice.
(Score: 2) by Virindi on Wednesday March 21 2018, @09:55AM (2 children)
Good point, and obviously that's similar to the way the thinking goes for proponents of the third party doctrine too. But, I do not agree.
It does seem somewhat similar: a store owner makes a video recording of you, and google takes a 'recording' of your movements.
The difference of course is expectation of privacy, or perhaps more accurately, nature of data. The much more intrusive nature of phone monitoring, showing your every move all the time, makes it more along the lines of private data (sadly the Court has failed to muster a majority for this line of thinking eg. in US v. Jones). Of course, where you would draw the line is an issue. But modern tracking is so incredibly intrusive that if it is not private information, I don't know what is.
The other question is does it make a difference that Google holds this information and not you, and I say no. The problem with only caring about the rights of the entities actually being searched (and not those whose data is being held) is that if this data is private, Google is essentially acting as your agent in holding it (and of course you have an agreement that lets them do what they please with it, but in practice you would not be happy if they printed it on a public website). Surely it should not matter whether I or my agent is actually holding my papers, when the police wish to search them.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday March 21 2018, @03:01PM (1 child)
I would agree that the standards surround data privacy should not be equal to those of say, cameras (while at the same time noting the increase in England that seems to be spreading here of having CCTV cameras everywhere making that surveillance pervasive also.) And asking for all data of users in an area (individual bits of data gathered in a central location) is not the same as asking for a singular video of an area and isolating the individuals in it. But instead we end up taking the same laws as before and making them fit (or not).
On the agency question, I think I see. The counter argument would be if I hand you a satchel with contents in it, and the police come along and ask you, "Can I look in that satchel," does the person holding it have the right to turn it over? What if the contents of it are not lawful? Do I get away with drug dealing by handing you the satchel and it can't be searched? But that argument isn't fully parallel I think.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by Virindi on Wednesday March 21 2018, @05:19PM
Yeah clearly I would not argue that should be the case. I am just saying that if you are holding my bag and the police want to search it, my rights should be the ones that apply. It should be no different if you are holding the bag for me, or if I am holding it myself, when it comes to whether the police can compel a search.
Whether you have the authority to consent on my behalf is really a question between you and I and the nature of our agreement, which is separate. In this case it is doubtful that Google would consent to a warrantless search either; they want people to feel like Google is a good custodian of their data, so they don't get uncomfortable about sharing it.