To Catch A Robber, The FBI Attempted An Unprecedented Grab For Google Location Data (forbes.com) 140
Back in March, as it investigated a spate of armed robberies across Portland, Maine, the FBI made an astonishing, unprecedented request of Google, Forbes reports. The feds wanted the tech giant to find all users of its services who'd been within the vicinity of at least two of nine of those robberies. They limited the search to within 30-minute timeframes around when the crimes were committed. But the request covered a total space of 45 hectares and could've included anyone with an Android or iPhone using Google's tools, not just the suspect. From a report: The FBI then demanded a lot of personal information on affected users, including their full names and addresses, as well as their Google account activity. The feds also wanted all affected users' historical locations. According to court records, while Google didn't provide the information, the cops still found their suspect in the end. Outside of concerns around government overreach, the FBI's remarkable attempt to force Google to assist in its investigation will likely worry all who were disturbed by an Associated Press investigation published on Monday that claimed Google continued to track people even when they turned location features off. The court warrants unearthed by Forbes indicate some at the FBI believe they have a right to that location data too, even if it belongs to innocents who might be unwittingly caught up in invasive government surveillance. And the government feels such fishing expeditions are permissable; it issued the warrant on Google without knowing whether or not the suspect used an Android device or any of the company services at all.
Re:It is better (Score:5, Insightful)
Too much TV (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly the FBI has been watching too much CSI and Criminal Minds. How did these guys do their job before technology kept track of everyone?
Re: Too much TV (Score:1)
Poorly
Re: (Score:1)
Clearly you misunderstood his question. He said 'BEFORE'
Re: Too much TV (Score:5, Insightful)
And that is intentional and by design.
Laws are created, worded, and punished according to how possible it is to enforce and how often on average someone committing a particular crime will be caught. Speeding tickets are on average in the US several hundred dollars because most people are not caught. It would cause riots if there was perfect enforcement and were fined that amount for any and every single instance, even momentary, that someone exceeded the speed limit.
What the FBI is engaging in here is attempting to set the precedent for issuing general warrants, which are forbidden under the US Constitution.
There is a cost to having a free and open society. One cannot have an ordered, "safe" society where nearly every criminal is apprehended and broad personal liberty. They are mutually exclusive.
Safety | Liberty
Choose one.
Strat
I'd bet 1 person was at three or four robberies (Score:5, Insightful)
Of the nine robberies, I would bet only one person was at three or more of them.
The 30 minutes time frame before and after, and two of nine, seems a bit broad to me. Suppose the FBI had asked Google:
Please let us know if you have records of one person being at at least three of these armed robberies, within 5-10 minutes of when the robbery occurred.
That would identify approximately one person, the armed robber. If Google has that information, I don't see why the FBI shouldn't ask for it.
Re:I'd bet 1 person was at three or four robberies (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have *a* suspect and you want to build a case by requesting information regarding his whereabouts from his cell phone company, plus google, I agree.
I don't think you should be able to request information about a large number of people, most of whom are innocent, to maybe find just one guy.
What about the third scenario? (Score:5, Interesting)
> I don't think you should be able to request information about a large number of people, most of whom are innocent, to maybe find just one guy.
Agreed.
> If you have *a* suspect and you want to build a case by requesting information regarding his whereabouts from his cell phone company, plus google, I agree.
IF they have probable cause and a warrant, agreed.
Here we have a class that doesn't fit either of the above.
They don't need info about many people. They don't have the name of a suspect.
They have evidence that the (one) perpetrator or team repeated the crime in several locations at known times. They can ask Google for the name of the ONE person who was at all crimes. Google can run a quick database query to get one name, the very likely perp. Obviously then police would follow up and gather appropriate evidence.
I (and SCOTUS) think there is an interesting distinction between the government saying "give us data on everyone so we can see if any of it is interesting" vs "here are some criteria which will identify the armed robber. Let us know if you have the name of the person who fits these very specific criteria."
By way of analogy, it would generally be unconstitutional for the FBI to subpoena all of my emails in order to see if I ever talked to Paul Combetta. It would be legal for them to ask for "any emails you exchanged with Paul Combetta in July 2014 about wiping servers". Specificity matters.
Re: (Score:1)
Honestly, Google already has this information, we know it, FBI clearly knows it. Googles doing god knows what with it (general assumption being advertising) but using it to find a robber and pass just that persons name on with relevant info on their known whereabouts specific to the timeframe of the robberies? Probably a hell of a lot better use of that data than
Re: (Score:2)
Just playing devil's advocate here but the benefit to you is that someone who could potentially rob you will be prosecuted and with luck removed to where they can no longer rob you. Society benefits by the prosecution of law breakers.
Having said that I don't believe that such wide nets meet the constitutional requirements. If the FBI has a suspect and can delineate a narrow enough query such as "Where was Joe Shmo at these particular times" or better yet "was Joe Shmo here at this particular time" all well
Aha, so make it one person!! (Score:2)
I don't think you should be able to request information about a large number of people
Here's an interesting idea: A company can only respond to requests for information that searches large numbers of people, when you give them enough limiting factors that at most one or two people are returned in the results.
As someone else said, there's no way that more than one person was at all nine of these locations around the times of the robberies - heck even from cell tower triangulation alone that would probably bo
In for a penny, in for a pound (Score:3)
Is it really that bad for the government to get all that information on everyone who traversed those areas at those times, when Google already has it?
Seems to me that if you're u
Re: (Score:2)
I will be upset that google has that information when they have a police force, a military, and prisons. Also add in a broad immunity to legal action for a number of criminal acts.
In terms of power to cause harm, Google and the government are nowhere near equivalent.
Re:In for a penny, in for a pound (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is that, bad as Google sometimes is, the government has many instances of being a lot worse. Google doesn't kill innocent people. Google doesn't lock innocent people up. Etc.
In a way it's like the difference between civil and criminal law. Criminal law rightly has a lot higher requirements and standards of proof.
Now I say this as someone who attempts to keep from being tracked by Google. I don't like them accumulating information about me, or other people. But they will only result in more spam.
No purpose, no consent, no warrant, no probl caus (Score:2)
The government has no compelling interest to get everybody who drove through the neighborhood 30 minutes after the crime. Only people who were actually very near the crime scene at the time it happened.
People who happened to go through the area have not consented to having the government examine their location history and there is no probable cause for the government to do so.
An unrelated issue is how well informed they may be with their "informed consent" about what information Google keeps. That ends up i
Sesame Street for you (Score:2)
Let the difference between two and three, jackass.
My daughter was two years old when she knew the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a LOT of people. Consider, you were "at" every single address you passed on the way to work as far as location data goes but you probably have never set foot in any of those places except perhaps a gas station.
If a few of those places got robbed, you were "AT" multiple locations that got robbed. Case closed, see you in 5 to 10.
Re: (Score:2)
If the person is actually the robber, I would expect him to be present at ALL of the robberies at the exact time of the robberies. Start there. If nobody pops up, then consider possibly widening the constraints to account for imperfect tracking, but by the time they get down to only being present for 2 within such a wide area and a 30 minute time frame, they're essentially asking for junk data.
Re: (Score:2)
What if he carries an iphone?
What if he left his phone at home, rather than bring a tracking device to the scene of a crime he is committing?
What if he uses burner / disposable phones?
What if he has access to, and carries the phone of somebody he doesn't like? An ip address isn't a person, and similarly, a phone isn't a person.
How many times does a story like this need to be news, before criminals decide to turn off their phones and remove the sim before committing a crime? I'm all for cops be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
99% of the time, police solve crimes by having someone tell them who did it.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly the FBI has been watching too much CSI and Criminal Minds. How did these guys do their job before technology kept track of everyone?
Well, OTOH, they matched the shoe print in the snow to an Under Armour sneaker, which they then somehow found, and took DNA from, and they already had the suspect's DNA in the database. Then they were also able to corroborate using a toll pass from his work(!!!) truck.
They're arrogant and lazy, and their hubris is their main impediment. Imagine if google had given them the information, and then they followed that to the other evidence, then they could have lost the whole case.
ARMED "robber" (Score:1)
The goon was armed. Telling people he would kill them for a little money. Find him (or her), melt down his gun and toss him in the woodchipper - improve the world!
Re: (Score:1)
Well, in California, that is a Catch n Release crime. Since nobody was actually hurt during the robberies, it isn't considered violent, and hence subject to release before trial. Add in the "Bail is too hard on criminals" logic from a number of left wing loons, and you have criminals who know they are free to commit crimes.
Re: (Score:1)
That is complete nonsense. Armed robbery is considered a violent crime under California law. But the constitution still requires reasonable bail. The founders had this ridiculous notion that someone should have a trial and be proven guilty before being punished. They also had this ridiculous notion that everyone was entitled to a trial by jury. We have come so far in our understanding of freedom that we now know both of those things just make us less safe. Better to let police, prosecutors and judges sort t
Re: (Score:2)
It was partially hyperbole. There is a Catch and Release mentality in California.
Re:ARMED "robber" (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, in California, that is a Catch n Release crime
Citation needed. Armed robbery is not a catch and release crime nor is it considered non-violent.
Add in the "Bail is too hard on criminals" logic from a number of left wing loons
Nice strawman. Nobody is making the argument that bail is too hard on criminals. The argument is that bail unfairly penalizes people who are poor and cannot afford bail. One's financial means should have zero relevance on whether you remain in a jail cell.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, and that's why I was annoyed by TFA headline. A "robber" (as per the headline) could potentially be non-violent, e,g., a bike thief. An "armed robber" (as per TFA; this is someone who expressly values property above life) is the worst kind of anti-social scourge and should be thinned from the herd.
Re: (Score:2)
Add in the "Bail is too hard on criminals" logic ...
If we're talking about bail, we're dealing with defendants, not criminals.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like it's time to repeat high school civics!
Bail is for people awaiting trial. You seem to have forgotten that in the United States, you have the right to be presumed innocent unless and untill you are found guilty in a court of law. So the actual claim is that bail is too hard on innocent people.
[Smacks desk with a ruler] *WAKE UP!!!*. Now, tell me, in the United States of America, what are you UNLESS and UNTIL you are found guilty in a court of law?
Re: (Score:2)
You think they would believe you?
They shouldn't, I saw him do it. Filthy AC's are ruining my city, taking our jobs, bringing in drugs, hang em all.
Re: (Score:2)
>> spate of armed robberies The goon was armed. Telling people he would kill them for a little money. Find him (or her), melt down his gun and toss him in the woodchipper - improve the world!
That's what us mean old white guys have been saying forever (although a tall tree and a rope is less messy) ...
We got mostly overruled though; we have to first figure out what the root causes and inequalities and so forth were that motivated this armed goon. Then and only then might we decide if he can even have a short stay at the graybar hotel.
Re: (Score:2)
What if he had no arms, but told the victims that he did? (But he would be unable to wave his arms while explaining.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Getting robed isn't so bad. In fact if it fits, and the material is soft its probably nice.
But getting robbed is a different matter entirely.
And yet in the UK (Score:3)
You have to drag police to a robbery, property crimes might as well be ignored here, and yet in the States, the Feds get involved, granted, now I see he was armed, but why wasn't this handled by local constabulary?
Re: (Score:3)
Bank robberies fall under the purview of the FBI.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no they don't.
Google is storing this information so they can SELL IT to someone else. The FBI can't just call up a grocery store and say, "Give us all your apples!" If they want apples they can buy them like any other customer.
Re: (Score:2)
A better question for Google's next shareholder meeting: why isn't google selling this data each time the police state wants to have a peek?
Simple (Score:3)
Re:Simple (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
And your toll pass.
And your shoes.
"FBI": (Score:2)
F: Fucktards,
B: Bitches &
I: Imbeciles
I'm not defending robbery, but... (Score:1)
What kind of an idiot tells Google where he is at all times while committing an armed robbery?
It's a dick move to rob anyone to begin with, but it takes a special kind of stupid to broadcast your location to the world's biggest mass surveillance company while you're doing it!
Re: (Score:3)
What kind of an idiot tells Google where he is at all times while committing an armed robbery?
It's a dick move to rob anyone to begin with, but it takes a special kind of stupid to broadcast your location to the world's biggest mass surveillance company while you're doing it!
Two programs that are give-me's for tracking when no tracking is selected are Weather and Maps.
Best to leave your Android/Apple behind, on the other hand that would imply premeditated.
Welcome to cyberpunk (Score:4, Insightful)
So I've got this idea that we've more or less caught up to the cyberpunk genre. It's no longer sci-fi, it's just fiction. Sometimes current events. I'm collecting a pile of Articles that lend weight to that argument. This one is going on the pile.
And this is where "what do you have to hide" dies. (Score:5, Insightful)
FBI: Hey, we notice you were in these 2 places an these dates and times.
Me: So?
FBI: We're investigating robberies there.
Me: So? Wasn't me.
FBI: We'd like to talk to you anyway.
And now I'm spending money on lawyers just for being in the wrong area.
Re: And this is where "what do you have to hide" d (Score:1)
Now IMAGINE you are not white and that is a regular occurance...
Re: (Score:1)
Easily handled in the states, without a lawyer. Hand this printed statement to the cops and stick to it:
Letter to the Authorities (Upon the advise of legal counsel)
I, your name, being a law abiding citizen, having never knowingly participated in any unlawful activities, therefore refuse to be interrogated or otherwise answer any questions asked by the police and/or a prosecutor.
If I am arrested or detained by the police for any reason, I do hereby through this written statement exercising my right to rema
why one extreme vs another (Score:5, Interesting)
As with any controversial topic it is always one extreme vs the other: either we let all robbers lose or we have a police state. I cannot stress enough that there is a middle ground, a situation when the police has tools to effectively catch criminals and citizens have enough freedom to not be oppressed by the government.
People mostly do not realize how much government oversight they take for granted nowadays vs ancient times and still not ending up with a police state (e.g. there was time, when people were free to travel to any country with only restriction to report at the destination to a local duke). On the other hand technology did change reality for both police and criminals, the latter use it freely, let the police also have a chance - the point is to make enough check and balances to keep a free society.
I think a key to a free society is not police stripped of modern tools, but a healthy (being exercised by educated and informed society) democracy with police having tools but being kept accountable for its actions. Technology will keep changing the reality we live, we have to adapt, otherwise the free society many of us enjoy might perish - aka cyber-warfare dangers to democratic elections.
Re: (Score:2)
For me a big part of the problem is that our society routinely refuses to hold law enforcement responsible for wrongs when they are caught red handed. Some large parts of the population justifiably have a deep rooted mistrust of law enforcement. So I'm leery of granting broader powers to the police when they frequently have shown they can't be trusted with what they do have.
Re: (Score:2)
I cannot stress enough that there is a middle ground,
Jesus Christ, a well-reasoned, insightful comment -- from under what rock did YOU come crawl out from?
... my adrenaline high is fading away just thinking about it.
We don't want your kind here, either you're WITH us or your AGAINST us. Thinking there's a middle ground for everybody to stand on. (Walks away) Ridiculous
Legitimate question: (Score:4, Interesting)
How do they know even know the robber has a smartphone? If they can't even prove that then they should be flat out denied before even broaching the issue of obtaining google location data.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps it's an iPhone. Using Apple Maps.
Some poor guy in Wichita is getting his door kicked in.
Re: (Score:1)
They honestly don't care. Hell they may not even be investigating the robbery at all.
What they do care about is setting precedents where whatever violation of law, rights, constitution and ethics are deemed okay for anyone wearing a badge.
"...caught up in invasive government surveillance" (Score:2)
So how many people here don't understand the difference between government activities and activities of private companies? And for those (hopefully very few) that really don't understand this - why do you think these are in the linked article:
"... FBI’s remarkable attempt to force Google ..." ..."
"The court warrants
FBI? (Score:3)
Since when is armed robbery (not of a bank, or a Federal institution) under their jurisdiction? That's a state crime, not Federal.
Re: (Score:3)
Federal law enforcement operates under fewer privacy restrictions than state and local. So local LE calls the FBI in for 'assistance' and the the FBI makes requests that the locals might not be able to due to state laws.
You keep using that word.... (Score:2)
"Unprecedented" means "nobody saw this coming".
Hands up, anybody, really, anyone at all, who didn't see this coming?
Spoiler - they gave up. (Score:1)
They gave up on Google. I think Google deserves a pat on the back for standing up to them.
HOWEVER if the FBI knew what they were doing they'd realize that data isn't necessary.
Re:Perfectly fine request (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the FIB was not especially interested in this robber. They were more interested in setting the precedent of making such a large grab of location data. One more step towards a police state. Little by little the water boils.
Nobody will need to ask "your papers please!". They'll already know who you are, they'll just need to tell you to strip for the search at each road checkpoint.
Re: (Score:1)
As the saying goes, the more laws, the better the chance that everyone is a criminal -- or could be, whenever government sees fit. With the new surveillance state created by profit-seekers, creating criminals out of nowhere just became at least an order or magnitude easier. Want to make a criminal out of Steve Smith? Just call up Spybook. Done.
Re:Perfectly fine request (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't really understand the issue, the police can request a warrant of data... could be wide or narrow, its up to the judge and lawyers to fight that battle.
The real issue is google here or other tech companies who are storing this data. I havn't seen a single comment made about that. if you care for your privacy, stop using these tackers.
Re: Perfectly fine request (Score:1)
Ya, people got desensitized to that loooong time ago.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, but I've got to disagree. One being a problem doesn't make the other less of a problem, but rather more of a problem.
I don't like intrusive trackers, and avoid them to the extent possible. But their existence makes overreaching warrants worse.
Re: (Score:2)
i am not saying govt overreach or authoritarianism is not an issue here, i just want to paint the problem to include the tools and companies that are colluding with the govt. for their profit motive
Re:Perfectly fine request (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
https://www.vox.com/policy-and... [vox.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
> Seriously I think it's legitimate and you privacy asshats can go f*** yourselves...
I think the FIB was not especially interested in this robber. They were more interested in setting the precedent of making such a large grab of location data. One more step towards a police state. Little by little the water boils.
Nobody will need to ask "your papers please!". They'll already know who you are, they'll just need to tell you to strip for the search at each road checkpoint.
First they came for the robbers, and I didn't say anything, because I wasn't a robber...
Re: Perfectly fine request (Score:5, Insightful)
police should do their job within the confines of the constitution. Fishing expeditions are not part of that, regardless of how expedient they might be.
Surveillance technology and an entitlement complex from law enforcement is never a good combination.
Rules exist to keep the police honest.