Google User Data Is Police's Top Shortcut for Solving Crimes

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-09-28/google-user-data-is-police-s-top-shortcut-for-solving-crimes

by 1vuio0pswjnm7 • 3 years ago

137 151 3 years ago

chii2• 3 years ago

just like opening letters, or search warrants, as long as the data is accessed via a court order, which has audit and transparency attached, it should be OK.

What's not allowed is indiscriminate vacuuming of data for analysis to see if "crimes" have been committed.

pnpnp2• 3 years ago

I’m so torn on this. Your digital life is so much more than a letter.

I feel like police need to be very specific with what they are allowed to access.

monero-xmr• 3 years ago

Fast forward to the 45 second mark

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cnA6XwVQUHY

psunavy033• 3 years ago

How is this different from the fact that they can toss your house with a court order, if necessary?

Yes, search warrants generally limit themselves more than that, but a warrant is a warrant and the authorities can search anything they need to that's reasonably connected to what they have probable cause to suspect. How is your digital life any different from your physical life in that regard?

Police and other LE already have to go to a judge and be "very specific" to be able to search anywhere you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

quest88• 3 years ago

The small amount I've seen, they are.

cm2187• 3 years ago

And to take a measure of the creepiness, you just have to remind yourself what would be the non digital equivalent of what google is doing. You would be followed all day long by a guy who would log in his notebook every move you do, everything you say, who you meet, what they tell you, he would follow you into your doctor's office or at the coffee machine where you are flirting with a colleague.

Anyone would go crazy with being spied on like that, it's worse than what the Stasi could ever do. And of course that notebook would be a treasure trove way more sensitive than a letter you would have written.

doctorpangloss• 3 years ago

Are you concerned that it advantages Google to have a cozy relationship with authorities everywhere? Do you think being friends with police big and small everywhere is powerful? Can politicians even offer "Do your job" to the same extent?

It twists things.

ricardo81• 3 years ago

Reasonable take, where I'd perhaps feel I'd disagree is that 90% of the Western World uses Google for search, mobile OS or whatnot- is it reasonable to presume they all read the ToS(s) and understand the consequences, or do they really have a choice in the matter?

e.g. search engine choices wrt Google being scrutinised on a possible monopoly position.

qup2• 3 years ago

https://archive.ph/p6jcc

bella_sm• 3 years ago

Thank you, kind stranger!

qup2• 3 years ago

Lifehack: use another search engine and at least avoid the search query lists

deadalus• 3 years ago

I use Bing for porn. For reverse image search, I use Yandex. And for researching psychedelics and conspiracy(censored) topics - I use Brave Search.

I use Google only for vanilla search that shows I am a good citizen(navigation, online shopping, general research on movies and sports...etc). I don't want my search Identity to be fully profiled by Google. Police(and other bad actors like a hostile government) are more likely to access my data on Google than on other lesser know search engine.

ThePowerOfFuet• 3 years ago

Why use Google at all, instead of something like DuckDuckGo?

99912• 3 years ago

How do you know all search engines aren’t compromised?

(OK, reasonable chance Yandex isn’t compromised by your government, but the others?)

ggm• 3 years ago

Bing over yandex to avoid kompromat?

ta8903• 3 years ago

If you use google (the search engine) without being signed in and without sharing your location data, I doubt they could tie down any relevant information to you.

orthoxerox• 3 years ago

If you disable every cookie, run anti-fingerprinting on your (desktop!) browser and route your requests through TOR, then probably yes.

stevezsa82• 3 years ago

Doesn't any web request need a source IP address? So I'm sure Google can infer who you are. Or atleast your household.

Plus, even if you used a Trusted^TM VPN, if the authorities want to know who you are, chances are they can find out.

bagels2• 3 years ago

Importance of advertising revenue would dictate otherwise.

extr4• 3 years ago

I've let Google track my location history for over 10 years now. On top of being incredibly useful (and fun) to remember where I was and when, I always imagined it would come in handy as an alibi if I was ever accused of a crime.

account-5• 3 years ago

Unless you commited the crime...

ipaddr• 3 years ago

Or happen to be in an area where a crime occurs

snvzz4• 3 years ago

It'd get thrown out as an alibi. But it'd be used as evidence for a crime.

That's how it works with data: Against you.

jjoonathan• 3 years ago

That sounds rigged.

nxm• 3 years ago

Evidence of this?

extr4• 3 years ago

Why would it get thrown out?

lhnz13• 3 years ago

This isn't true. Contemporaneous evidence may often be admissable in court, subject to other legal tests and challenges regarding its relevance, reliability and integrity.

Any evidence that you have that can corroborate your story will be useful to you, hence digital trails are defensive tools to innocent people, even though appearing on CCTV or near a crime could be sufficient for further investigation including questioning, detainment, or other forms of inquiry.

more_corn• 3 years ago

That’s not how any of this works. An alibi shows the investigators that you aren’t a suspect. It happens before anything goes to trial. I’m not in favor of location data collection, but once it is collected it can be an easy way to show you weren’t involved.

hilbert4210• 3 years ago

"I always imagined it would come in handy as an alibi if I was ever accused of a crime."

Yeah, right. But not if you're in the zone swept up for questioning. See my comment.

extr4• 3 years ago

Don't mind if I get swept up. Happy to help the police catch potential criminals.

isodev• 3 years ago

Except when... imagine you were helping a friend do something perfectly normal but temporarily considered as a crime... the downsides are just too great to ignore.

extr4• 3 years ago

Sounds contrived.

farseer• 3 years ago

You left your phone somewhere else to hide your tracks.

iepathos2• 3 years ago

Google phone location doesn't work as an alibi in court, you'd need people to verify your location. In court, it only proves your phone was there not that you were so it's thrown out as an alibi. For police, they use it to generate leads for investigation not as evidence in court to prove someone they charged was at a location.

lhnz13• 3 years ago

Even if the phone was completely stationary and you made no recorded interactions/transactions at all with it, it wouldn't get "thrown out as an alibi". This evidence would get considered with regards to other corroborating evidence that you provide.

Obviously, if you picked up the phone and chatted to your wife, or used it to buy something at the local store, it validates your location data even further.

everdrive• 3 years ago

Unless you happened to be physically located near a crime, in which case your location data could be falsely used to accuse you. And you'd better hope there aren't other circumstantial bits of evidence which makes it look like you're actually guilty.

mbrumlow• 3 years ago

Yes. But it can also prove you were near a crime you did not commit and thus used as evidence you did commit it.

The problem is you don’t have control over the data.

Example. Somebody was killed in a hit and run. PD says “give me all the people where in this location at this tome in a car”. Your name is the only one that shows up. You just became the top suspect. And and after the investigation a homeless guy who was given a hot meal in return for looking at some photos indicates he saw you do the hit and run.

Good job. Your data locked you up in jail for 10 years. Hope Google is logging how many times you dropped the soap.

nuancebydefault3• 3 years ago

Well argumented! However, consider that any evidence, google data or not, has the problem that it might be held against an innocent.

Any evidence has to be considered with caution. Basing a conviction on, let's say location only, is not passing the reasonable doubt test.

The problem I see is when the justice system would become 'lazy' and would not look beyond automatically collected data. The non-auto-collected evidence is harder to get, hence the result (from a total set of evidences) could get heavily biased.

rasz• 3 years ago

Very useful to person purchasing your location data and framing you for murder.

1vuio0pswjnm73• 3 years ago

Perhaps you might have to prove it was you who was carrying the phone at the date(s) and time(s) in question.

Obviously if Google or its subsidiaries are your adversaries, then you might not get the data you need from the source. For example if the company or its subsidiaries are negatively affected by the alleged crime, or they just don't like you for any reason, they might even be the ones who report it.

Why not let your government track your location history for a decade. That way, it will know that you did not commit any crimes. That is how silly this sounds to me.

By law and by agreement, Google is actually less accountable to you than your government (assuming you are American).

hilbert4210• 3 years ago

Am I missing something here? Wouldn't most reasonably smart criminals leave their smartphones switched on at home before they go on a job? 'Switched on' at home would be an alibi if later questioned. Alternatively, at least switching to airplane mode or switching the phone off (but that could indicate intent).

It seems to me then that only the stupid would get caught this way. That raises the question of how much longer will this method be effective when even the stupid get wind of the fact that their phones will betray them.

From the unsolved crimes mentioned it seems the smart have caught on already. I wonder if there are any stats on whether crooks are actively aware of the dangers of carrying a phone. If so, then is there any trend downward in solving crimes as the knowledge of the fact spreads?

watwut2• 3 years ago

Most often when people engage in small crime, they are not engaging in smart behavior overall. Having phone with them is just one of multiple stupid decisions that were done that week. They are used to have smartphones with them all the time, so they do not think about them at all.

Another pretty common way of catching you is that you brag to friends or family about the crime and one of them tells the cops.

hilbert4210• 3 years ago

Accepted, that's the stupid class. And no doubt such detection would be very useful in solving serious but unintended crime such as a hit-and-run accident.

stevezsa82• 3 years ago

I've seen a few stories of murders where the "smart" criminal turned their phone off during the exact window the crime took place. That and being seen at the scene of the crime was used as evidence.

So the intent part is definitely a thing if they simply turn off their phone.

fx1994• 3 years ago

Well, you can check in current Ukraine vs. Russia war how both sides lost soldiers for using mobile phones. People tend to forget they carry device that might hurt them in the end.

hilbert4210• 3 years ago

I'm surprised soldiers are actually allowed to carry mobiles whilst on active duty.

It's a long time since I did any military stuff and it was before smartphones but I distinctly remember the incessant lectures about carrying unnecessary items that would identify one or one's mission. By those standards carrying a smartphone would definitely be outlawed and if caught one would be up on a charge.

Edit: it seems to me that back then that had smartphones been around they'd have been classified as radio equipment and there were very strict rules and procedures about 'radio silence'.

sureglymop2• 3 years ago

"Only the stupid".. what about " the desperate" instead? I believe many may engage in illegal activities because their situation (be it financial or otherwise) is so dire that they themselves see no other option (even if there are options). Most petty crime is not orchestrated by some super intelligent super criminal like depicted in a heist movie.

sudhirj• 3 years ago

Stealing bread to feed your starving family is one thing, planning a heist doesn’t feel like the same thing. Isn’t shoplifting not really the kind of case for which Google data would be requested?

hilbert4210• 3 years ago

"Most petty crime is not orchestrated by some super intelligent super criminal like depicted in a heist movie."

Right, that's the problem, it's why strict safeguards have to apply. Given half a chance law enforcement would welcome a real-time connection to Google's location data. If it ever reaches that stage then we'd be in Orwell's world.

arghwhat2• 3 years ago

Note that desperation does not preclude a degree of planning, nor does intelligence rule out desperation.

Considering how long phone tracking has been part of movies about crime, I imagine "turn off your phone" would be in the same category as "don't leave blood stains", "don't fire a traceable fire-arm", etc.

... But maybe we should try to avoid accidentally making this thread read like a how-to for committing crime.

fooker• 3 years ago

Most reasonably smart people can have careers without resorting to petty crime.

sambazi2• 3 years ago

I wonder if there are any stats on whether crooks are actively aware of the dangers of carrying a phone.

burner phones are a thing prominently featured in all kinds of popular media ('breaking bad' and 'better call saul' come to mind)

avidiax• 3 years ago

before they go on a job?

Not every burglar is a "cat burglar". Many of them respond to crimes of opportunity, where they could not have foreseen the need to leave their phone on but at home.

Of course, this investigation method is going to decrease in quality. Only going to take a few popular songs mentioning leaving Netflix on at home before this method only catches the innocent and amateur criminals.

iepathos2• 3 years ago

Answered this in another comment here, but can repeat. Phone location is not a valid alibi in court. As you pointed out with your example here, it only proves your phone was at a location not that you were so it isn't accepted as an alibi. Police use phone location to generate leads not as evidence in court to prove someone they charged was at a location. They need better evidence than that in court to prove someone committed a crime.

brokenmachine2• 3 years ago

"We have proof you were there. Will you risk 10 years in jail, or take this plea bargain? Are you feelin' lucky, punk?"

mleo• 3 years ago

I was a on a jury back in 2002 where the prosecutor was presenting cell tower data to show the suspect was in the area. We are at 20 years from then and people are still committing crimes with their phones on, and the phone is more part of daily lives now.

hnburnsy• 3 years ago

Google also tracks your app interactions so leaving your phone at home, switched on but not showing any interactions is possibly telling the authorties something.

seydor• 3 years ago

This is very inefficient. There was never a stronger case for defunding the police. Google can arrest individuals with at least 79% better efficiency. Just needs a catchy name, something like GJail

ehecatl42• 3 years ago

GJail

Just Gail… the G is "soft" like giff.

ibejoeb• 3 years ago

Not to re-table a long settled debate, but I always knew that the one true pronunciation is gif, and everyone else who pronounce it gif is just weird.

gadders• 3 years ago

Give it 5 years though and they'd end of life the product and execute all the prisoners.

Kim_Bruning3• 3 years ago

"Give me ten sentences spoken by the most innocent of men, and I will find something in them with which to hang him." -- Voltaire.

All sorts of companies (not just Google) manage to store rather more than ten sentences these days.

This is why data privacy should be considered so important. Sooner or later all sorts of people (including the government) discover this <treasure trove>, and some of them will use it to hang you.

If you think it's not possible for ordinary citizens to care about data-privacy, maybe visit Germany. The number of times even pretty regular people asked me to do or not do something in the name of "datenschutz" was pretty large!

nicolaslegland• 3 years ago

"Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre" — https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu#Disputed

zombot• 3 years ago

Richelieu was exactly the kind of man to have said something like this.

Kim_Bruning3• 3 years ago

I double-checked and thought I had indeed made a mistake in attribution here.

However, while Richelieu is the most commonly cited as the source of the quote, the source is actually somewhat disputed, and has been attributed to various people (who may or may not have been (mis)quoting Richelieu themselves), including -apparently- Voltaire.

So I get off on a technicality :-/ . Going forward, I do promise to be more careful with attribution of quotes in future.

Garvi• 3 years ago

The fact that social media demonstrated(faked by censorship) apathy after the Snowden revelations did the most damage to personal freedom as a single incident in history.

Now everyone that respects privacy feels like they're alone. And all the broken people have a target to bash, to feel better about themselves. I'm talking about the folks using "I don't need privacy, because I have nothing to hide (this means I'm better than you)" to avoid facing their personal problems.

The main problem of the situation we're finding ourselves in is this: How can you dispute information obtained this way? Reporting this: https://www.militarytimes.com/off-duty/military-culture/2021... ..is what gets you arrested for child porn possession. This man was snatched from his home without a warrant. The last remaining journalists, still working in this environment, took note. Make no mistake. The original story from Rolling stone magazine has been removed. Of course the people that followed the story closely, looked the other way in fear of being accused of supporting pedophilia. There was no outrage.

lnxg33k14• 3 years ago

[flagged]

hfuyf65• 3 years ago

Anger is a valid emotion, but it does not advance the conversation or gain you adherents to your cause. Here, it will almost certainly do the opposite.

Just to give you an idea, you could have easily undermined the argument that reaction to Snowden's revelation was a societal shrug.

yesco2• 3 years ago

Right now, who do you think looks more ridiculous?

a) Your strawman, who is apparently comfortable without privacy from the government, but does support free speech so they can be racist?

b) The guy who replies to a comment advocating for privacy by derailing the discussion with an inflammatory post, seemingly forgetting that the patriot act had bipartisan support, and in an ironic twist, also presents an anti-free speech position which demonstrates they themselves lack the integrity to defend civil liberties.

dang3• 3 years ago

Please don't post like this here, regardless of how wrong people are or you feel they are. It's against the site guidelines because we're trying for a different sort of discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

You may not owe wastes of sperm better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it.

(Edit: I appreciate that you downregulated this in your replies to other users - I'm sure that prevented the thread from turning hellish.)

tiahura• 3 years ago

I'm talking about the folks using "I don't need privacy, because I have nothing to hide (this means I'm better than you)" to avoid facing their personal problems.

As between someone who says I really don’t care if they know I use Viagra, wear size 13 shoes and like guacamole, and someone worried about a knock on the door for child porn, I can tell you who probably needs to spend some time with a professional on their personal problems.

beej71• 3 years ago

I know we can't know, but is having location history off enough? I still share my location with a few friends and family.

I guess I have to trust that it's enough, since I already can't trust that Google isn't using some other channel to continuously monitor and record my location.

reportgunner• 3 years ago

I believe the only way is to not have the phone on you.

There are many ways to track you other than GPS. Your phone might be collecting data even while it's in airplane mode and broadcast it once airplane mode is off.

Google User Data Is Police's Top Shortcut for Solving Crimes

Related Stories