Google Hands Feds 1,500 Phone Locations In Unprecedented 'Geofence' Search (forbes.com) 53
According to Forbes, Google has sent 1,494 device identifiers to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to help them investigate arsons carried out across Milwaukee, Wisconsin, throughout 2018 and 2019. "The requests, outlined in two search warrants obtained by Forbes, demanded to know which specific Google customers were located in areas covering 29,387 square meters (or 3 hectares) during a total of nine hours for the four separate incidents," the report says. "Unbeknownst to many Google users, if they have 'location history' turned on, their whereabouts are stored by the tech giant in a database called SensorVault." From the report: To investigators, this kind of "geofence" demand is useful, allowing them to go through the data trove provided by Google, look for devices of interest such as a known suspect's phone and ask for more personal information on the user of that mobile. But it's also the kind of search that's been making pro-privacy folk anxious over the last year. Such data grabs, also referred to as "reverse location searches," see the police give Google a timeframe and an area on Google Maps within which to find every Google user within. Google then looks through its SensorVault database of user locations, taken from devices running the tech giant's services like Google Maps or anything that requires the "location history" feature be turned on. The police then look through the list, decide which devices are of interest to the investigation and ask for subscriber information that includes more detailed data such as name, email address, when they signed up to Google services and which ones they used.
It's unclear whether or not Google handed over any identifying information, but to Jerome Greco, a public defender in the Digital Forensics Unit of the Legal Aid Society, it's a sign that geofence warrants are overly broad and endanger user privacy. "The number of phones identified in that area shows two key points," he tells Forbes. "One, it demonstrates a sample of how many people's minute-by-minute movements Google is precisely tracking. "Two, it shows the unconstitutional nature of reverse location search warrants because they inherently invade the privacy of numerous people, who everyone agrees are unconnected to the crime being investigated, for the mere possibility that it may help identify a suspect." For what it's worth, Forbes did obtain a search warrant that indicates Google is trying to fight back against overly broad government requests, "but still appears to be handing over innocent people's information as well as legitimate suspect data."
It's unclear whether or not Google handed over any identifying information, but to Jerome Greco, a public defender in the Digital Forensics Unit of the Legal Aid Society, it's a sign that geofence warrants are overly broad and endanger user privacy. "The number of phones identified in that area shows two key points," he tells Forbes. "One, it demonstrates a sample of how many people's minute-by-minute movements Google is precisely tracking. "Two, it shows the unconstitutional nature of reverse location search warrants because they inherently invade the privacy of numerous people, who everyone agrees are unconnected to the crime being investigated, for the mere possibility that it may help identify a suspect." For what it's worth, Forbes did obtain a search warrant that indicates Google is trying to fight back against overly broad government requests, "but still appears to be handing over innocent people's information as well as legitimate suspect data."
Automatically Delete Location History (Score:2, Informative)
From the Location History Map, way down in the bottom right, is a little gear. Hit that, choose Automatically Delete Location History, and choose a shorter time frame.
I'd love to have these kinds of records and data, but if I can't protect it, then Google shouldn't have it.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, yeah... about that
The thing is that your phone SHARES your location with multiple apps, some of them don't even bother to tell you about it
In fact, I doubt that turning off all location services will, in fact, prevent it from reporting your location all of the time
fwiw, I am paranoid and assume my phone will rat me out in a heart beat, AND if somebody is going to run around committing crimes with their phone on them... then I am a-ok with it being used against them in a court of law
Re: (Score:2)
I am a-ok with it being used against them in a court of law
I'm ok with it too, as long as the evidence is also investigatable. I can't tell you how many times my cable company has sent me a letter saying that I downloaded some copyrighted material, only to have my info confused with someone else's.
I'm worried about everyone's blind faith in social media logs, or anything google logs. They're operating without any regulation or oversight.
Re: (Score:3)
If you look at your own Google maps location data, you'll probably notice addresses that have nothing to do with you, other than perhaps you may have passed by them.
Looking at the history of my work phone, it links me to a residence that I've never been in, only parked curbside in front of. But given the frequency of that connection, it would be easy to assume some relation. From a law enforcement perspective, my rather obvious explanation would be insufficient, because how would they know I wasn't actuall
Re: (Score:2)
Google (or whatever social media giant) can say, "We have logs on our servers, so we can prove yada yada yada..." But what option for proof does the defendant have? If a friend of mine sets up a server that keeps up with my phone's whereabouts, and he presents his server logs that disagree with Google's, who wins and why?
Hahahahahaha (Score:3)
Re: Hahahahahaha (Score:2)
Haha right isnt it cute. The only thing the setting does is hide the data from YOUR view. All is still collected and sold. The fact that anyone uses google or android and expects any notion of privacy is hilarious.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that anyone uses google or android and expects any notion of privacy is hilarious.
Not to defend The Goog or anything, but if it's so hilarious, can you please recommend a better option that doesn't sell you out? I'd genuinely like to hear.
iPhone? They talk the privacy talk, but they were recently caught collecting location history despite user explicitly disabling Location Services. So they're out.
What other options are there? Blackberry? A shell of its former self. Huawei or any Chinese manufacturer? Bugged all the way back to Beijing. Samsung? Runs the same Google services.
Gim
Re: (Score:2)
How is that "weaseling" your way out? If all smartphones track you, then the only option is not to use a smartphone. Why is that an unacceptable answer for you? Is it because you have a phone addiction, like so many other people? Or, do you have some special circumstance that requires you to have a smart phone?
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how many names they got (Score:3)
It says after getting about 1,500 locations, they identified some for which they anted to know who it was. I'm curious how many names they got. One? Two? Forty?
One can make a good argument that Google shouldn't have this data. Given that Google actually DOES have thr data that can be used to identify serial arsonists, murderers, etc, it's interesting to ponder how that should be handled.
In a hypothetical case, if four arsons were if four widely separated places, I'd imagine there would only be about one person who was in all four locations at the time the fires started. In such a case, Google already knows who the prime suspect is. I wouldn't mind them telling the police I such a case.
Re: (Score:3)
I think it makes sense for everyone to wear a Google location tag on their clothing in case they forgot their phone at home. Even better yet it could be implanted under the skin. That way you wouldn't forget to attach it. Just need VC funding it make it a reality!
Re: (Score:1)
I think it makes sense for everyone to wear a Google location tag on their clothing in case they forgot their phone at home. Even better yet it could be implanted under the skin. That way you wouldn't forget to attach it. Just need VC funding it make it a reality!
They were way way ahead of you even back in 1967.
https://youtu.be/s2NNZdigSXg [youtu.be]
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That would indeed be a problem. Should we have slightly different processes and rules for felonies vs misdemeanors? Should this type of general police power, handling things like littering, be handled by your local sheriff who lives down the block from you rather than by DOJ, so you can have a "conversation" with him about it when you run into him at McDonald's? Do any solutions or ideas come to your mind?
Re: (Score:1)
I'd imagine there would only be about one person who was in all four locations at the time the fires started. In such a case, Google already knows who the prime suspect is. I wouldn't mind them telling the police I such a case.
This natural human bias is exactly the sort of thing I would exploit if I were trying to frame somebody for my crimes. All I have to do is build a trivial device to ignite when my victim will be nearby. Boom, now Google frames him and nobody's even considering me as a suspect.
Re: (Score:2)
While I don't argue that a LOT of people use Google and that there there were probably a lot of Google products-- I mean "users"-- or, a lot of the people that Google uses, in the area, that doesn't mean that law enforcement necessarily got data on the real perpetrator. As other commenters have pointed, a smart criminal would have at least turned off the phone, if they had one with them. But it's also possible that the perpetrator is not being used by Google and that if the cops only went after Google "user
Ethical? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you placing any corporation in a privileged/trusted role?
Re: Ethical? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
An ad company is not in a "privileged/trusted role"... its an ad company.
Re "is it ethical"
Re "exploited without user consent"... when working for an ad company "user consent" was never an issue really
Re: Ethical? (Score:1)
Does anyone still believe Big Brother Google is in the "advertising" business? You don't build the tools of totalitarian dystopia to sell "ads" that no one looks at.
Ethical Building. (Score:2)
You build the tools to USE in a dystopian country.
https://www.reuters.com/invest... [reuters.com]
Re: (Score:2)
oh, that IS funny, you should do stand up
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You are confusing users with product. Those people with location data were not Google users. They were product in data mining business
Conclusion (Score:4, Funny)
I didn't understand it all, but my conclusion is that Android users are all arsonists.
Re: (Score:1)
Welcome to 1984 with a private sector plot and ads every few pages..
Invite a networked ad company into the home 24/7, invite any level of a nations police into the home 24/7...
Smart criminals (Score:3)
The inconvenience of being a good criminal is hard. And many people attending peaceful gatherings don't realize the FBI targets everyone.
Re:Smart criminals (Score:4, Funny)
Smart criminals become bankers or DOD contractors. No need for skulking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Smart criminals (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if you will feel better if you become a victim of a police canvasing that makes you guilty by association.
Catching a criminal is not so valuable that the privacy of innocent people must be sacrificed and potentially putting them in the literal cross hairs of trigger happy police that like to shoot first and forget the questions later.
Google customers? (Score:4, Insightful)
So Google's users are "customers"? I thought they were the product.
Re: (Score:1)
Good reason to turn it off (Score:4, Interesting)
And they don't care if you're guilty or not. All a prosecutor wants is a notch on their belt. Meanwhile "Tough on Crime" voters are happy to give them power every chance they get.
Basically, keep yourself out of databases like this when you can. You never know. And show up to vote so we can put a stop to this "Tough on Crime" bullshit that throws innocent men and women behind bars.
Re: (Score:2)
If you really believe that the US is "guilty until proven innocent", I would suggest you explore the Mexican legal system where you ARE presumed guilty, and then have to prove your innocence.
Arrest and Trial Procedures [pov.org]
In Mexico, those arrested are, in practice, considered guilty until proven innocent -- with predictable results. The great majority of the accused never see a judge or even an arrest warrant.
At present, a person who commits a crime in Mexico has less than a 2 percent chance of being caught and
Re: (Score:1)
I was falsely accused of rape to prevent me from seeing my son or even having visitation rights. There were 6 other men in court with me that day and since my last name starts with "W", I was the last case heard. The first 4 men had rock solid proof they were elsewhere when said attack took place. One guy did not show to court and
Re: (Score:2)
You are complaining about rules involving testimony and evidence
As you noted, people with good evidence to the contrary of the testimony were not arrested, while those without a sufficient means to deny the testimony were arrested
Sounds like you received timely judicial service, but what happened to you is NOT what you are trying to complain about
You will find that courts do not accept specious arguments, please continue to document encounters to prevent bad testimony from being accepted
Re: (Score:1)
You are complaining about rules involving testimony and evidence
None of these women provided any evidence. I even think one or two of the women were not even present only a lawyer. Any claim by a plaintiff does not need to provide evidence. The defendant is presumed guilty until the defendant can provide proof of innocence. If I by all out luck did not have the dash cam recording. I would be in jail today. She did not need any evidence for her claim. I had to disprove her claim with evidence. Guilty until proven innocent.
Re: (Score:1)
I hate it as much as you do, and I was scared to no end as someone before me had raised the concern that the recording may not be admissible. I had not consulted a lawyer prior.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the first person to provide testimony usually has an advantage, particularly if the opposing witness fails to provide any meritorious argument against the claim
Examples would be:
1. other witnesses with corroborating evidence
2. Contemporaneous notes
3. Legally obtained recordings or videos to the contrary
I simply sounds like you failed, and want to blame somebody else
even turned off they slurp in geolocation (Score:1)
"Hands them"? (Score:1)
The geoIP and wifi geo-location companies, *all of them*, have been handing over weekly data dumps to the 3-letter agencies since the technology was invented. I used to deliver a 100 GB compressed tarball weekly, collated into the *weirdedst* data format you've ever seen, to an S3 bucket where whether or not they had deleted was important to track to track to ensure that we'd delivered it and they'd gotten it. I've no idea why they wanted it, since they had direct access to the original non-hashed and non-