[HN Gopher] Google says geofence warrants make up one-quarter of...
___________________________________________________________________
Google says geofence warrants make up one-quarter of all US demands
Author : arkadiyt
Score : 199 points
Date : 2021-08-22 16:11 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (techcrunch.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (techcrunch.com)
| fulafel wrote:
| Is there a difference in what iscollected and stored in EU?
| kbsspl wrote:
| such geographies have probably become redundant as there is no
| way to summon for this data
| slownews45 wrote:
| Location history is default off - but in general is useful enough
| you'll want to turn it on. To have it turned on you would need to
|
| * Sign into your google account
|
| * Turned on location history (google account level) - default is
| off
|
| * Turn on location reporting (device level option).
|
| ---
|
| A reasonable balance I've found is to have Google delete old
| location history - to do that you go to Google Maps Timeline
|
| http://www.google.com/maps/timeline
|
| Then do automatically delete location history. This deletes after
| some time. So you get the benefits of history without the forever
| record.
|
| ---
|
| You can also see what location history has been tracked for you
| with Takeout. Some cool visualizers there.
| prox wrote:
| Define "useful" ? Why would I want this? I am pretty sure I
| know where I have been without a log somewhere.
| aendruk wrote:
| Detailed location history for personal reference is one of the
| conveniences that I miss since having minimized my usage of
| Google products. Any recommendations of alternative solutions?
| hatware wrote:
| Home Assistant does a pretty fine job tracking my location,
| phone battery life may suffer a bit but I don't think that's
| much of a problem these days.
| deadmutex wrote:
| Hmm, interesting. I don't think it works as well as Google
| Maps for me :(. Which phone/OS are you using?
| sneak wrote:
| Police investigate crimes shortly after the crime (within the
| location data retention period).
|
| This would result in your stored data being used against you to
| build a case for criminal liability.
| snet0 wrote:
| Alternatively uh... Don't commit crimes?
| sneak wrote:
| Criminal liability is a huge risk even for those who don't
| commit crimes.
| robbedpeter wrote:
| https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE
|
| This applies to any private information - the less a third
| party has of your data, the smaller the attack surface
| through which incompetence, malice, and coincidence can
| burn you.
| moksly wrote:
| Privacy isn't about having nothing to hide, it's about
| having nothing that you want to share.
| barnesto wrote:
| Well, when they start finding crimes to fit the man it
| doesn't matter, does it? And make no mistake that's what's
| happening.
| gretch wrote:
| Or it could exonerate you
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| If your phone shows up at the scene of a crime, even if you
| weren't the perpetrator, they use it against you. If your
| phone shows it wasn't anywhere near the scene of the crime,
| they claim it's irrelevant because you knew you were going
| to commit a crime and left your phone somewhere else.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| If your phone is elsewhere you might not even be
| interesting enough to be questioned in the first place.
|
| Unless the police have reason to suspect specific people
| then casting drag nets (phone location data, ALPR data,
| etc) and then sifting through the list of people they get
| for the most probable suspects is SOP.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > If your phone is elsewhere you might not even be
| interesting enough to be questioned in the first place.
|
| The same result obtains when your phone isn't leaking
| your location data to anyone.
| adrr wrote:
| Does it even matter when your location is also available from
| the mobile carriers? Best solution is if you value privacy is
| not to carry a phone on you.
| noodlenotes wrote:
| Cell tower data is much less granular than GPS data collected
| by apps. Google knows that you were on the same block where a
| crime was committed, but mobile carriers only know you were
| in the city or neighborhood.
| BugWatch wrote:
| Anyone knows any scripts or whatnot which would enable the
| download of current timeline history (with places,
| establishments and their addresses and all other (meta)data),
| and import into the alternative open source self-hosted one?
|
| Haven't tested Google takeout for that functionality yet, but I
| kind of doubt it includes that data, probably just GPS
| coordinates. (I could be wrong, though.)
| Threeve303 wrote:
| Cameras with facial and gait recognition everywhere you go
|
| RFID/NFC broadcasters/scanners all over the place
|
| Credit cards that track your spending and movement
|
| Contact tracing
|
| Daily massive data breaches
|
| Social media manipulation
|
| Every modern car has built in GPS tracking that is uploaded to
| the dealer and stored
|
| Three letter agency programs to capture as much metadata and
| content as possible
|
| Hash bashed copyright scanning enforcement on your local devices
|
| Oh and the stuff you create on these services? They own it.
| Everything they "sell" to you? You're renting it.
|
| --
|
| Sorry for the rant but the reality is that this is already a
| dystopian nightmare and there is no way to go back.
| treis wrote:
| These are all just tools that can just as easily be used for
| good as evil. You choose to look at the negative possibilities
| while ignoring the positive ones. As an example, if we're all
| tracked and recorded in public that will pretty much end non-
| domestic crime. Or at least guarantee that anyone that commits
| a crime will be caught and punished.
|
| AFAICT there's little to no evidence to tie advancing
| technology to authoritarianism or otherwise diminished civil
| liberties.
|
| Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and any number of others through out
| history have created repressive regimes without modern
| technology. And in the West we are a freer and more just
| society than we ever have been.
| karaterobot wrote:
| > As an example, if we're all tracked and recorded in public
| that will pretty much end non-domestic crime. Or at least
| guarantee that anyone that commits a crime will be caught and
| punished.
|
| Where's the evidence for this? As pointed out above, we're
| already being tracked, and it doesn't seem to have stopped
| all crime, or even cut it down in a noticeable way. As for
| being recorded in public, that hasn't even even stopped 7-11s
| from being robbed, let alone preventing or resolving all
| crime everywhere.
|
| > AFAICT there's little to no evidence to tie advancing
| technology to authoritarianism or otherwise diminished civil
| liberties.
|
| Do you remember how there was a time when having a scan of
| your naked body examined by a stranger at the airport was
| considered at least mildly invasive? That was just a few
| years ago. Now, we're used to it. That's a small example of
| how fast humans adapt to preserve their sense that everything
| is fine. The amount of surveillance we consider normal today
| would have seemed oppressive not long ago.
|
| > Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and any number of others through out
| history have created repressive regimes without modern
| technology.
|
| It's true that Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot did not use GPS
| tracking against their citizens, because (being dead) they
| didn't have the option to use it. But electronic surveillance
| has been the tool of every country's secret police dating
| back to the invention of the telephone, so I'm not sure what
| you mean.
| treis wrote:
| >Where's the evidence for this? As pointed out above, we're
| already being tracked, and it doesn't seem to have stopped
| all crime, or even cut it down in a noticeable way. As for
| being recorded in public, that hasn't even even stopped
| 7-11s from being robbed, let alone preventing or resolving
| all crime everywhere.
|
| All of the people in jail that were caught by surveillance
| that can't commit crimes is a good piece of evidence.
| Otherwise, it's hard to prove anything about crime because
| we can't do double blind experiments in the real world.
|
| Either way, we are talking about theoretical perfect
| surveillance. Every crime would be caught on 4k HD and the
| criminals location tracked. Hard to imagine how you'd get
| away with a crime in that scenario.
|
| >Do you remember how there was a time when having a scan of
| your naked body examined by a stranger at the airport was
| considered at least mildly invasive? That was just a few
| years ago. Now, we're used to it. That's a small example of
| how fast humans adapt to preserve their sense that
| everything is fine. The amount of surveillance we consider
| normal today would have seemed oppressive not long ago.
|
| TSA seems perfectly happy to fondle your junk instead. So
| whatever we've lost there isn't due to technology. If
| anything technology helps because it gives us a choice
| between naked body examination and junk fondling.
|
| >It's true that Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot did not use GPS
| tracking against their citizens, because (being dead) they
| didn't have the option to use it. But electronic
| surveillance has been the tool of every country's secret
| police dating back to the invention of the telephone, so
| I'm not sure what you mean.
|
| The point is that repression and technology are orthogonal
| issues. You can have brutally repressive regimes with no
| modern technology. And, as I said before, the trend seems
| to be away from repressive regimes so there's little reason
| to think technology contributes to their existence.
| SevenSigs wrote:
| > Sorry for the rant
|
| don't be sorry, it makes me sad that we don't see more rants
| like that ;)
|
| Also, The Gov. don't need warrants for stuff stored in the
| cloud if it is 6 months or older. They just have so many ways
| to get all of your data.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| "No way to go back" is surrender.
|
| Legislation, regulation, and litigation seem the most viable
| paths forward.
|
| Civil disobediance, hacking, and sabotage might also play a
| role.
|
| I'm leaning increasingly toward a scorched-earth approach.
| tempfs wrote:
| And ofcourse the government while it can't collect all that
| information on its own can sure as hell buy or rubber-stamp
| warrant their way into these datasets at will in order to side
| step the 4th amendment all together.
|
| If people are generally willing to accept the axiom that
| information is power, I am continually baffled as to why they
| can't understand how reckless it is to allow all of this
| capture, sale and sharing of the intimate details of their
| lives.
|
| How can we possibly defend ourselves or have any control over
| our lives while giving this much power to profit motive
| corporations?
|
| It is just pure madness.
| donmcronald wrote:
| Don't forget "AI" that's just the pattern matching ability of a
| 2 year old enforcing security policies.
| loteck wrote:
| _Cameras with facial and gait recognition everywhere you go_
|
| Some cities have brought these technologies under oversight.
| The technologies themselves aren't inherently harmful, their
| misuse is.
|
| _Credit cards that track your spending and movement_
|
| Totally optional
|
| _Contact tracing_
|
| What is this even doing here
|
| _Daily massive data breaches_
|
| Laws are changing to address this from both the supply and
| demand side.
|
| _Every modern car has built in GPS tracking that is uploaded
| to the dealer and stored_
|
| Self-enrolled surveillance is indeed a huge societal problem,
| but cars aren't on the top of the list. We are all addicted to
| the GPS tracker in our pocket.
|
| _Three letter agency programs to capture as much metadata and
| content as possible_
|
| Encryption is on the rise.
|
| _Hash bashed copyright scanning enforcement on your local
| devices_
|
| Not yet, and maybe not ever if we don't stand for it.
|
| _this is already a dystopian nightmare and there is no way to
| go back._
|
| It's not just that you're wrong about this, what grinds my
| gears is fatalist comments like this that are actively selling
| fatalism. Don't listen to this devil on your shoulder. The
| reality of the future is decided by action now.
| mullingitover wrote:
| This sure sounds scary, but it's just a gish gallop of scary
| phrases. It's a shade away from "there are microchips in the
| vaccines!" A bare sliver of the crimes committed online are
| ever even investigated (and that's _crimes_ , not politically
| subversive speech). You'd think that if there was some
| functioning, pervasive state surveillance apparatus there would
| be swift punishment of the plethora of incompetent criminal
| schemes that people perpetrate online, but there just isn't.
|
| > Contact tracing
|
| _If only_ that was even happening. South Korea did it, and
| they made people who were exposed to covid stay home and check
| in regularly with an app. If we 'd had the sense to do that
| here we probably would've saved tens of thousands of lives.
| harperlee wrote:
| It is an interesting argument, and indeed the pandemic has
| shown a lot of weak points in policy enforcement and
| government's effectiveness, but all this could be selectively
| enforced upon you, and these are things that are quite easier
| to enable than to disable, so I think that prudency is
| warranted.
| lamontcg wrote:
| It is still a highly human resource intensive process to
| investigate and punish crimes using that surveillance. It
| doesn't get used to identify who broke into your car and
| stole stuff out of it, because they just don't really care
| about that. They do care about everyone who was at the
| demonstrations, which affects the police directly and which
| threatens the role that the police have in protecting private
| capital. If you understand what their role and focus is then
| the lack of enforcement on petty crimes isn't a
| counterexample at all.
| mullingitover wrote:
| > They do care about everyone who was at the
| demonstrations, which affects the police directly and which
| threatens the role that the police have in protecting
| private capital.
|
| Who are the regular people asserting their first amendment
| rights who are being hunted down? I haven't seen that. I
| have seen a bunch of insurrectionists having these tools
| used on them, and that's frankly a laudable use of these
| surveillance tools.
|
| If you're using a peaceful protest as a cover for looting,
| honestly I enthusiastically encourage that 'they' hunt you
| down, because you're just a vanilla criminal at that point.
| That's an ideal outcome for the justice system.
| the8472 wrote:
| In bavaria the police abused contact-tracing guest books (a
| paper process!) for criminal investigations. Even well-
| intentioned surveillance can be turned against citizens.
| Nbox9 wrote:
| > If we'd had the sense to do that here we probably would've
| saved tens of thousands of lives.
|
| Hundreds of thousands. The US is currently at >628,000 COVID
| deaths. US citizens traveling abroad, or people traveling
| inside the US probably account for a significant number of
| COVID deaths outside of the US, but those are much harder to
| count.
| rangerdan wrote:
| Wear a wide-brimmed hat, sunglasses, face mask and put a pebble
| in your shoe.
|
| Use RFID blocking wallets.
|
| Pay with cash where feasible.
|
| Don't run google/ios services on your phone.
|
| Freeze your credit reports and check them annually.
|
| Stop visiting social media.
|
| Disable ontrac/onstar crap in your legally owned cars.
|
| Use Tor Browser.
|
| --
|
| Privacy is not difficult, it just takes a bit of effort and
| discipline.
| literallyaduck wrote:
| So if you are "doing the crime" leave your electronics behind?
| vmception wrote:
| I've posted about having a phone walker service
|
| A courier or ride share driver can have an additional service
| that fairies phones around and pollutes location data. Maybe
| even charge the phones too
| beardyw wrote:
| Since most location data is based on WiFi stations it should
| be possible to record that data and play it back to the phone
| in the comfort of wherever you are.
|
| Possibly GPS too, though probably an order of magnitude more
| complex to achieve.
| mongol wrote:
| If my phone was stuck in the same place an entire day, that
| would be really suspicious.
| 8note wrote:
| I lose my phone in my house every so often.
| akersten wrote:
| On the other hand for those of us who relax at home over the
| weekend, that would be entirely normal. I hope leisure
| without a digital tether isn't so unheard of that it becomes
| suspicious automatically.
| ghaff wrote:
| I _usually_ pick up my phone in the course of a day spent
| around my house. But if I don 't do so on a given day--or
| certainly for multiple hours on a given day--that wouldn't
| be anything especially strange.
| cm2187 wrote:
| Attach it to you dog's collar.
| loeg wrote:
| You've never spent a day at home?
| mongol wrote:
| Well, if I don't step outside the door I am most likely
| sick. I don't want to stay indoors at home one full day. I
| feel bad if I don't go out.
| xxpor wrote:
| Until a year ago, no. I made it a point to go outside to do
| something at least once every day. :(
| 01100011 wrote:
| No. You give it to an accomplice who continues using it
| consistent with your typical usage patterns. That way you not
| only avoid a digital trail, you generate a digital alibi.
|
| I suspect in 20 years, walking down the street without a
| digital radio in your pocket will arouse suspicion though.
| devoutsalsa wrote:
| At some point they'd probably figure out how to use the
| accelerometer to fingerprint your movements. Your accomplice
| will almost certainly have a different profile for how the
| phone moves when walking.
|
| I guess you could limit accomplice activities to things like
| driving around.
| titzer wrote:
| The resolution is probably already there now. AI can do
| gait recognition based on video, and sensor traces from
| accelerometers are accurate enough to detect individual
| footsteps. Are they precise enough to recognize gait? I
| don't know. But they can easily distinguish between
| walking, jogging, running, and riding a bike.
| laurent92 wrote:
| iPhone is already precise enough to tell how much time
| you spend on the left leg, right leg and both legs down.
| Sure they have a walking profile.
| cm2187 wrote:
| And that assumes no CCTV (which will sooner or later be
| 4k).
| samstave wrote:
| An EMP in a backpack. How powerful could one make a portable
| EMP?
| lostlogin wrote:
| A faraday cage would probably be better.
| samstave wrote:
| The amp is for taking out cameras :)
| dredmorbius wrote:
| EMP would destroy the surveillance infrastructure.
| Faraday cage only shields your own electronics.
|
| There are RF-shielded bags, wallets, and purses.
|
| https://privacypros.io/faraday-bags/
| hellbannedguy wrote:
| I was just thinking about a fanny pack with faraday
| shielding sewn into the fabric. Kinda like PacSafe
| products.
| rdiddly wrote:
| An accomplice is a liability though. Also it's harder to make
| it rhyme. "If you're doing a felony, give your phone to
| Melanie."
| hellbannedguy wrote:
| Yea, that whole, "How do you keep a secret between three
| people?". Kill the other two.
| rdiddly wrote:
| Yup they could turn state's witness or blackmail you.
| Plus they'll want a cut of the spoils if there are any.
| Better to establish a pattern of leaving your phone
| untouched at home. Assuming you're planning it ahead of
| time that is.
| fedreserved wrote:
| Or do the deed in those convenient 5-8 hour blocks of
| sleep where you don't use your phone
| mrlonglong wrote:
| Melonie rhymes better !
| MathMonkeyMan wrote:
| This is well into "tin foil hat" territory for me personally,
| but I've stopped automatically putting my phone in my pocket
| when I go out for an errand.
|
| I lived the first fifteen years of my life without a "phone"
| on me at all times, and I don't see why I need one now.
| sneak wrote:
| I frequently carry a dumbphone, powered off, charged, with
| no sim card.
|
| This allows it to be powered on and emergency services
| called if necessary. (911/112 works fine without a SIM.)
| vgeek wrote:
| I've debated getting a cheap/tiny phone like a Unihertz
| Jelly Pro with a Redpocket sim card to just keep in the
| car for emergencies. So far I just leave my phone at home
| unless I'm going on a longer trip.
| sneak wrote:
| For true life safety emergencies you don't even need the
| SIM/subscription as 911 will still work.
|
| For sub-life safety personal emergencies, I can usually
| just wait until wi-fi.
| kook_throwaway wrote:
| I'm sure that most criminals know to either turn phones off or
| leave them behind, and if they don't they surely will if this
| kind if thing becomes more widespread. This seems like a system
| designed to ensnare innocents.
| tyingq wrote:
| Lots go unsolved in the US, and that figure is over 50% in
| many places. A pretty interesting story with graphics/data
| interleaved: https://urbanobservatory.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Ca
| scade/index....
| rolph wrote:
| 1] leave phone on remove battery remove sim, live life
|
| 2] insert sim insert battery turn on phone , make call/text
|
| 3] goto 1
| ineedasername wrote:
| _remove battery_
|
| Okay, but once I'm done with the hammer, how do I get the
| battery back in?
| rolph wrote:
| ah i see you have one of the new phones, as an aside, ATT
| decided for me to disable my phone that had no problems
| and sent a phone that is now never more than three bars
| and usually two bars, and needs recharging daily.
|
| this phone [alcatel flip], surprisingly doesnt have the
| battery glued in.
|
| in the case of battery glued in you need a nonconductive
| shim to jam between the contacts
| samstave wrote:
| You don't, just throw it in the fire on the homestead
| phsau wrote:
| Not all crime is premeditated and most people aren't
| described as criminals.
| rolph wrote:
| i had an LEO [homocide] tell me that most murders are
| committed in a less than thinking state of mind, and solved
| in about 15 minutes.
| jdavis703 wrote:
| I would assume this LEO works in a relatively low-crime
| area. I know that where I am most murders remain unsolved
| and and the shootings that I've witnessed appear to be
| premeditated.
| rolph wrote:
| i have a feeling this may be related to prevalence of
| 'willing" witnesses.
| mrlonglong wrote:
| Wtf is "homocide" though?
| rolph wrote:
| it is the key right next to homicide on the keyboard.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| That can also be used in court (e.g. "Pretty odd you just
| happened to turn your phone off for the first time in a decade
| during the exact timeframe of this crime."). Ideally, you'd
| "lose" your phone a few weeks to a month before the crime and
| then get one afterwards.
| post_break wrote:
| Just have two phones. Problem solved. Drive a vehicle without
| onstar or cellular connection.
| hellbannedguy wrote:
| I don't know why I think so much about crime (not murder,
| but larceny, and safe cracking), but I do.
|
| I have come to the conclusion that because of the
| proliferation of cheap tech (Mainly cameras everywhere),
| pulling off successful capers in exponentially harder than
| it was 15 years ago.
|
| It used to be getting away is lighting up the tires, and
| you are gone.
|
| Now--cops that aren't just Revenue Collecting can get a
| treasure trove of info just asking for cam footage.
|
| Hell, even carrying around construction tools can arouse
| suspicion if pulled over.
|
| I guess it's for the best? There is still a bit of me
| rooting for the clever thief.
| sib wrote:
| Make a living by conducting an ongoing series of < $950
| thefts in San Francisco?
| toast0 wrote:
| Do crimes that cops don't care to investigate and it
| doesn't matter how easy they are to investigate.
| thephyber wrote:
| The trail of evidence grows exponentially, but most cops
| are terrible art collecting the best evidence (partly
| because law/jurisprudence makes it difficult).
|
| Most cops still use fax as the primary method of
| requesting evidence from companies that are
| geographically distant. Collecting video camera evidence
| is slow and tedious so long as the department doesn't
| have a volunteer database where residents can publish
| their location and other metadata. Filing requests
| digitally is still infrequent and usually done on portals
| specifically designed by tech companies to automate the
| tech company's side.
|
| The moment there is a single portal which links lots of
| data which automated the police side of the legwork for
| all systems which support automation, that is when police
| start to actually collect a significant portion of the
| exponential data being collected.
| fedreserved wrote:
| The cleverest of thieves just rob criminals
| kbsspl wrote:
| In less than 2 decades regulations supported by car makers,
| insurance corporations and the government themselves will
| outlaw cars not fitted with such systems.
| laurent92 wrote:
| Little known, the airbags already have the last 15s of
| driving before accidents. They act as a recording box.
| This was setup pretendedly because NGOs were worried
| about airbags triggering at the wrong time, so they have
| to save the last 15s of the CAN bus (brakes, speed, radio
| usage, wheel position, turn indicators, faults...).
| crocodiletears wrote:
| Those vehicles are harder to find every year, and
| increasingly more conspicuous on the road.
| everdrive wrote:
| Hard to find yes. More conspicuous? I don't think so.
| Lots of people have old cars, and the median car age
| keeps climbing.
| wyager wrote:
| NHTSA keeps mandating new tech crap in cars on extremely
| questionable putatively utilitarian models. Infotainment
| systems are effectively mandatory now. The recent
| "infrastructure" bill also included language about
| investigating mandatory DUI-detection technology in new
| cars. Getting a vehicle without cellular is going to be
| impossible soon. My 2020 Tacoma (a pretty bare-bones
| pickup) even has a cellular modem.
| akomtu wrote:
| Just disconnect the antenna?
| wyager wrote:
| It throws an error code, meaning you fail inspection in
| many states.
| hellbannedguy wrote:
| I sometimes wonder if government really wants to end
| DUI's.
|
| I know it sounds crazy.
|
| I just see the amount of money marginal dui's bring into
| counties.
|
| I might buy a vechicle that didn't let me drive if over
| .08%.
|
| I would love to be able to drive after 10:30 pm, without
| a cop tailing me, looking for a marginal dui.
|
| (In Marin County, don't drive through here after 10:30
| pm. Cops gave literally nothing to do, except look for
| marginal dui's. There used to be a app called Trapster,
| but it was never implemented properly. You might get a
| pass on a pull over if you look wealthy though. Wealthy
| Ross/Kentfield guys never seem to get any "fishing"
| pullovers. No--I have never had a dui. I just know how
| these cops operate. I'm getting tired of poor people
| being singled out too. I mentioned my county, because I
| know a few of you guys live here.)
| 8note wrote:
| If they really wanted to get rid of DUIs, places would be
| designed in a way that discouraged it
|
| Requiring cars to get around ensures DUIs will happen
| Sebguer wrote:
| The incentives between the federal government and local
| police departments probably aren't aligned here, but
| they're probably not aligned in a lot of other places,
| too.
| sircastor wrote:
| Wouldn't the second phone put you at the scene of the
| crime?
|
| As an aside, working for an automotive manufacturer (my
| opinions are my own and doing reflect my employer, etc) I
| think were rapidly approaching a time when all new vehicles
| will have a built-in cellular connection.
| moistly wrote:
| And remote engine kill. This will be used to prevent
| upset citizens from attending protests, riots, and other
| forms of civilian uprising.
| rolph wrote:
| someone i know bought a chevy cruze , yup cell ?phone?
| integrated into the console.
|
| antenna and lead, gone , circuit trace to antenna input
| severed and sent to ground, power lead for SOIC
| desoldered and given manual toggle.
| post_break wrote:
| The second phone would, but if you're smart you would
| cycle through burners, never take it home with you, never
| carry it with your main. Prepaid phones are cheap.
|
| It also doesn't take much to rip onstar out of vehicles
| considering how many of them go from Texas to Mexico.
| AshamedCaptain wrote:
| In a rather well-known murder case in Spain, they made a
| detention based on the fact the suspect had turn off his phone
| around the time of the crime.
| [deleted]
| newbamboo wrote:
| It's interesting to contrast the communist and western (liberal)
| approaches. See for instance:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28252667
| threatofrain wrote:
| > Google has long shied away from providing these figures, in
| part because geofence warrants are largely thought to be unique
| to Google. Law enforcement has long known that Google stores vast
| troves of location data on its users in a database called
| Sensorvault, first revealed by The New York Times in 2019.
|
| > Sensorvault is said to have the detailed location data on "at
| least hundreds of millions of devices worldwide," collected from
| users' phones when they use an Android device with location data
| switched on, or Google services like Google Maps and Google
| Photo, and even Google search results. In 2018, the Associated
| Press reported that Google could still collect users' locations
| even when their location history is "paused."
| titzer wrote:
| If by hundreds of millions they mean "tens of hundreds of
| millions", then yes.
|
| > "with location data switched on"
|
| People need to realize what these two things together mean.
| Google believes that its anonymization strategy for device
| location data masks user identity. This is why they use the
| term "devices". It depersonalizes the information they have.
| De-anonymizing high-accuracy location data is easy. That means
| they really have location records on people. They don't
| technically _store and index_ by people, that 's why they can
| keep making carefully worded plain-English (but mark my words,
| it is absolutely lawyer-speak) explanations that sound
| innocent. But de-anonymization is just a map-reduce away, and
| the government knows this.
|
| They will not open up technical details of Google Location
| Service (GLS) until they are forced by court order, and even
| then, maybe never, as it will be redacted for the public. It
| will be redacted because its very existence represents next-
| generation espionage capabilities.
|
| Read their own documentation [1]:
|
| > On most Android devices, Google, as the network location
| provider, provides a location service called Google Location
| Services (GLS), known in Android 9 and above as Google Location
| Accuracy. This service aims to provide a more accurate device
| location and generally improve location accuracy. Most mobile
| phones are equipped with GPS, which uses signals from
| satellites to determine a device's location - however, with
| Google Location Services, additional information from nearby
| Wi-Fi, mobile networks, and device sensors can be collected to
| determine your device's location. It does this by periodically
| collecting location data from your device and using it in an
| anonymous way to improve location accuracy.
|
| [1] https://policies.google.com/technologies/location-
| data?hl=en...
|
| They use it in an "anonymous way". Pardon my french, but
| _horseshit_! They are sucking accelerometer and WiFi data with
| GPS and calling that "anonymous".
|
| When are people going to realize the technical capabilities of
| Google's dystopian location tracking? The US government already
| has. Google has built a one-stop shop for totalitarian
| government's location-tracking needs.
| YLYvYkHeB2NRNT wrote:
| If the government was not getting what they wanted from
| Google, the entire alphabet company would have been broken up
| a long time ago just like the phone companies were.
| ByteWelder wrote:
| The same goes for their analytics "IP anonymization": it's
| hardly anonymous. I wrote an article about it a while back:
| https://bytewelder.com/posts/2021/07/08/google-analytics-
| ip-...
| wildlogic wrote:
| I know for sure this is possible because I helped build it
| (embarassingly, I'm working on being a jeweler now).
| headShrinker wrote:
| Just curious where all the Apple CSAM defenders are when
| information like this comes to light. All the "I have nothing to
| hide people", don't understand they don't control when or how the
| information is used or if the information is even accurate. Your
| information is power given to an invisible fist, that you will
| need to defend yourself against.
|
| > NBC News reported last year how one Gainesville, Fla. resident
| whose information was given by Google to police investigating a
| burglary was able to prove his innocence thanks to an app on his
| phone that tracked his fitness activity.
|
| He was forced to prove his innocence because a tech company gave
| incorrect information as incontrovertible 'evidence'. Everyone
| let that sink in as your spyPhone scans all your photos looking
| for 'evidence'.
|
| You don't have access to all the information they collected and
| they don't share it with you even if it will prove your
| innocence. All prosecutors want is a persecution and they don't
| care if they have the wrong person. Giving them information is
| equivalent to slowly closing the steel door of the jail cell you
| didn't realize you were standing in.
| tinus_hn wrote:
| You're telling a story about Google and blaming Apple. You're
| telling a story about tracking Google does and Apple does not,
| and blaming Apple.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Data are liability.
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20170604101018/https://plus.goog...
|
| https://toot.cat/@dredmorbius/106775595907820294
|
| Gene Spafford is, I believe, amongst those who've noted that you
| cannot reveal what you do not have.
| codegladiator wrote:
| > Data are liability
|
| Data is gold
| azalemeth wrote:
| Data are tradtionally plural!
|
| To be horrendously pedantic, from the Oxford English
| Dictionary:
|
| > Data
|
| > ...
|
| > 2. As a mass noun.
|
| > a. Related _items_ of (chiefly numerical) information
| considered collectively, typically obtained by scientific
| work and used for reference, analysis, or calculation. Cf.
| datum (n. 1a.)
|
| [1] https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/296948?rskey=IhOFGI&result
| =1&...
| wlesieutre wrote:
| That sent me to a login page, but use of "data" as a
| singular mass noun like "information" is pretty universally
| accepted.
|
| Some discussion on Wikipedia
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_(word)
|
| Their citation of "Data is most often used as a singular
| mass noun in everyday usage" points to New Oxford
| Dictionary of English, 1999, so it's not super recent
| shift.
| meepmorp wrote:
| You're being horribly pedantic by undermining your own
| point?
|
| The definition you quote indicates that data has become a
| mass noun, i.e., non-countable. The reference to the word
| datum is to contrast this with part of the previous
| definition.
| monkeybutton wrote:
| Having a large amount of gold sitting around is also a big
| liability too, so the analogy works in more than one way.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Gold you hold _is_ an asset.
|
| It _creates_ a liability, in the sense of associated risks
| of holding a large liquid portable store of wealth. You
| might find the storage location burgled, yourself
| kidnapped, associates (family, household or business help,
| etc.) betraying you, etc. The overall consequence of those
| risks is not necessarily the same as the value of the
| asset, and could well greatly exceed it.
| godelski wrote:
| When everyone around you is trying to get your gold, then
| for all practical purposes it is still a liability. If
| you can convert that gold into a different asset that is
| just as valuable but fewer people are trying to get a
| hold of it, then you maintain your assets without the
| liability.
|
| Let's be clear. Something can both be an asset AND a
| liability. These are not mutually exclusive.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| _Something can both be an asset AND a liability. These
| are not mutually exclusive._
|
| That's precisely my argument, as I've expanded elsehwere
| in this thread.
|
| What (gold|data) (is|are) an (asset|liability) is _not_ ,
| however, is offsetting assets/liabilities in the double-
| entry bookkeeping sense, as some here seem to think / be
| arguing (especially:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28268433 ... my
| correction follows).
|
| Your usage is that _gold possession becomes part of ones
| threat model_ , and is thus a liability. That's an
| actuarial, not an accounting, concept.
| jdavis703 wrote:
| This is not how GAAP accounting works.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| For those disagreeing, this is a correct statement.
| csomar wrote:
| That's actually how GAAP accounting works. Having a large
| amount of gold is both an asset and a liability (see
| double-entry accounting).
| dredmorbius wrote:
| That's not the sense in which I find "data are a
| liability" to be useful.
|
| Double-entry bookkeeping records _transactions_ as debits
| and credits _to different entities_.
|
| "Data are a liability* is a recognition that whilst there
| may be a _positive_ value to data, there is also a
| probabalistic _negative_ value, especially in the event
| of unauthorised access or disclosure. That 's not a
| double-entry value, where debits equal credits, it's an
| _independent_ value, independent of the asset value,
| dependent on the nature of the data, the type of
| disclosure, the subject of the data, and the identity of
| the actor(s) who gain access to the information.
|
| The role is the same as that of any other business
| liability risk. And again, is independent of the asset
| value.
|
| As with other liabilities, the actual extent and
| probability of the liability-based cost is often unclear,
| and may change with time, particularly as the environment
| changes.
| maneesh wrote:
| That is usually called an asset.
| Kye wrote:
| Banks record deposits as liabilities because they're owed
| to someone. Law enforcement with sufficient pretense to
| get a judge to sign a warrant is owed any data Google
| holds. Data is a liability.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Whilst true, that's not how "data are a liability" uses
| the terms.
|
| In banking or brokerages, loans and credit extended are
| _assets_ as they 're value owed _to_ the bank by others.
| Deposits, held certificates (e.g., stocks), or stored
| valuables (gold in a safety deposit box) are
| _liabilities_ because others can make claims on them.
|
| Checking accounts are literally "demand deposits" in the
| sense that the funds are demandable at any time by the
| accountholder. Many _savings_ accounts actually have
| limits on the amount or rate of withdrawal. These are
| typically large and generous, but they may exist.
| YetAnotherNick wrote:
| Governments are basically asking for extortion data for
| allowing and encouraging google to collect data.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| As a specific policy:
|
| http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/05/nstic-analysis-identity-
| pri...
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| Being a spy is only getting harder. I remember reading a few
| years back how biometric scanning meant the CIA spy could not
| enter CountryX as a Textiles importer one week and a Olive
| salesman the next. They had to bribe people at the passport
| office into fixing their biometrics etc.
|
| Now this sort of thing must make it almost impossible. You can't
| even leave your mobile at home accidentally - that would trip
| alarm bells, especially if your contact does it at the same lunch
| hour.
|
| Spying seems to be a necessary part of how States understand one
| another. If human level intelligence work simply gets blown apart
| by technology then yeah we can keep track on what the other side
| is doing, but so very often we want to know _why_.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| What the consequences of an ever-tighter control over identity
| to the intelligence community _will_ likely be interesting, and
| it 's already presenting problems.
|
| Among possibilities:
|
| - Individuals not closely associated with the IC will be
| increasingly utilised (knowingly or not) for intelligence work.
|
| - Intel collection will shift from human intelligence to
| technical / signals intelligence (humint vs. sigint). This
| creates its own knock-on effects.
|
| - Active development of countermeasures and practices,
| including creating and deploying cultivated identities and
| personas online, possibly with cooperation by online services,
| possibly through manipulation of them.
|
| There's some existing coverage of this, e.g.
| https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/27/the-spycraft-revolution...
| (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19970339)
| https://archive.is/vlJYo
| ectopod wrote:
| A fun thought experiment: how can one own and use two phones
| without the authorities being able to correlate their
| ownership?
|
| It would have been hard to avoid ten years ago. Unless you use
| both phones very infrequently (which is of no use to most
| people) I think it's nearly impossible now.
| sattoshi wrote:
| Living in a dense city, sending your phone to be driven
| around on the bus are my immediate thoughts.
| laurent92 wrote:
| But where does it sleep at night? Where does it sleep on
| holidays? Near you? Or do you leave it home on a table, and
| the motion sensors say it's on a table?
| kbsspl wrote:
| there can only be one spy now.
| makomk wrote:
| You've seen this right? https://www.wired.com/2007/06/st-cia/
| There was a more detailed presentation about it from Defcon or
| somewhere, and one of the details that apparently gave them
| away was that the cellphones used only communicated with each
| other and not with anyone outside the group, aside from the odd
| screw-up.
| dublinben wrote:
| Something similar happened to the CIA in Lebanon as well. One
| hopes they've improved their tradecraft in the decade since.
|
| https://www.gawker.com/5861484/iran-and-hezbollah-caught-
| all...
| tester756 wrote:
| >You can't even leave your mobile at home accidentally - that
| would trip alarm bells, especially if your contact does it at
| the same lunch hour.
|
| sometimes I do wonder whether if i'll be going to US to steal
| some faang jobs, then TSA will mark me as a terrorist/spy
| internally cuz I don't have smartphone?
| papaf wrote:
| _You can 't even leave your mobile at home accidentally - that
| would trip alarm bells, especially if your contact does it at
| the same lunch hour._
|
| This is straightforward to spoof. A single programmer could do
| it if they cared enough. It is possible to change the GPS
| (GNSS?) HAL to send any information you want [1].
|
| [1] https://www.pathpartnertech.com/all-you-need-to-know-
| about-g...
| giansegato wrote:
| You would need to also consistently fake location data
| inferred from cell towers, which I guess is a bit more
| difficult to spoof.
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| I am dubious - not that I can't learn to alter my (android)
| phone so it thought it was in London when really it is in NY
| - but that I would not be tripped up by _correlations_. It
| would have to be a slow sensible variation, it would have to
| be within the correct _cell_ - London / NY would not work -
| plus other dumb stuff that I simply don't know about radio
| propagation or being seen on a CCTV camera etc.
|
| Nothing about spying is ever going to be simple. Especially
| building those vital human relationships.
| laurent92 wrote:
| The motion sensor has to keep moving. Apps don't need
| permission for the motion sensor, they can freely send it
| over, it's not private data.
| [deleted]
| LatteLazy wrote:
| Its probably redundant for the HN audience, but some people are
| shocked to see the location data google has. See for yourself:
|
| https://www.google.co.uk/maps/timeline
| SevenSigs wrote:
| How large are those areas?
| _rpd wrote:
| The Google doc doesn't say. The article says:
|
| > details of who was in a geographic area, such as a radius of
| a few hundred feet at a certain point in time
|
| It probably depends on whether the suspect was on foot or
| driving.
| [deleted]
| twodave wrote:
| Actually it depends on the signal, whether WiFi is turned on,
| etc. I used to build mobile apps for luxury clubs who wanted
| to know which members were arriving at the club (e.g. to go
| ahead and start getting their golf clubs ready. First world
| problems, I know). The GPS data we get access to for both
| Google and Apple includes lat/lng plus a radius in meters
| that represents the accuracy of the measurement. Depending on
| the different factors it can be over 100m or as little as
| about 5m.
| nitrogen wrote:
| Did the club members have to install an app, or were you
| able to get the data some other way?
| twodave wrote:
| They had to install the app and also consent to have
| their location tracked by the club. They could still use
| the app without that stuff, obviously, and the platform
| actually didn't allow club admins to see where members
| were at all times--just which members were
| entering/exiting designated areas. It was actually quite
| a challenge to get that kind of information to the club
| in a timely fashion, especially if the club was situated
| near a busy roadway. You wanted the geofence large enough
| to give the club time to prepare to receive the guest,
| but not so large that it gave false positives for members
| simply driving past the club.
| laurent92 wrote:
| Could you have pinged a server that only existed on the
| public wifi, and made the public wifi keyless?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-22 23:00 UTC)