Google says geofence warrants make up one-quarter of all US demands
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
* 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.
This would result in your stored data being used against you to build a case for criminal liability.
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.
The same result obtains when your phone isn't leaking your location data to anyone.
Having no data causes you to be uninteresting and they leave you alone. Having data that says your phone wasn't there causes you to be uninteresting and they leave you alone. It's the same result.
It's only when your phone is informing on you that you get into trouble, because then when you're unlucky to have been in the vicinity of a crime, you then become interesting and have a bad time even when you're completely innocent.
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.
Each time a phone connects to a cell site, it generates a time-stamped record known as cell-site location information (CSLI). Wireless carriers collect and store this information for their own business purposes.
[...]
With just the click of a button, the Government can access each carrier’s deep repository of historical location information at practically no expense.
[...]
With access to CSLI, the Government can now travel back in time to retrace a person’s whereabouts, subject only to the retention polices of the wireless carriers, which currently maintain records for up to five years. Critically, because location information is continually logged for all of the 400 million devices in the United States — not just those belonging to persons who might happen to come under investigation — this newfound tracking capacity runs against everyone.
[...]
The Government and JUSTICE KENNEDY contend, however, that the collection of CSLI should be permitted because the data is less precise than GPS information. [...] The location records [...] placed [Carpenter] within a wedge-shaped sector ranging from one-eighth to four square miles.
[...]
While the records in this case reflect the state of technology at the start of the decade, the accuracy of CSLI is rapidly approaching GPS-level precision. As the number of cell sites has proliferated, the geographic area covered by each cell sector has shrunk, particularly in urban areas. In addition, with new technology measuring the time and angle of signals hitting their towers, wireless carriers already have the capability to pinpoint a phone’s location within 50 meters.
Cell tower data includes signal strength to multiple towers. The FTC quotes an accuracy of 3/4 sq mile using 3 cell towers, with more accuracy possible in urban areas with more towers: https://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/911/Apps%20Wrkshp%202015/911...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221568410_Accuracy_... shows a median error of 55m is possible with real-world data from LA.
It would probably be a lot harder for them to get it from mobile carriers. There are multiple mobile carriers. They may not have the systems from which they could easily give law enforcement that data (Google has them, and uses the to respond).
Making things harder for law enforcement matters. But yes, of course you are more secure without your phone on you. (Then let's talk about the universal camera surveillance we have, and facial recognition... it is hard to be invisible in 2021, but that does not mean all venues are equal, it matters when you make it as easy as it is with a geofence warrant to Google).
Rather, there are laws governing what data police may request under what circumstances from mobile carriers. They can either follow the rules and do all the paperwork to get data from the phone companies or they can request location data from Google, which is just as good for most purposes and much easier to obtain.
Also important is that these are not two giant melting pots silos of data. Your mobile phone provider has multiple types of data that require differing burden of proof for LEOs to access. Some require an actual warrant, whereas others may be obtained simply by asking or purchasing (due to the Third Party Doctrine).
Similarly, Google has massive troves of different kinds of data. Your Search Queries may not have the same level of protection as access to your Google Maps location data which may differ from WiFi wardriving, which may differ from Google Phone account data, etc.
Historically, land lines had very stringent protections in US law. A “Tap and Trace” warrant had specific burden of proof and requirements for LEOs who listened in (there were fantastic scenes in the Sopranos and The Wire that showed criminals frustrating police while being spied on), but I believe mobile phone call content is governed by different statutes.
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.)
Default is off for new accounts, not existing accounts, where data is still collected and retained forever.
>Location history is opt-in (it wasn’t always). But if it’s turned on, user location data will now automatically be deleted after 18 months.
Users of existing accounts will maintain their current settings and need to manually adjust them
https://searchengineland.com/google-will-now-auto-delete-you...
I have "location history" off, but I have "location services" ON, to allow for instance Google Maps to know my current location. THAT is useful enough I'd have trouble doing without it, Google Maps knowing my location (or uber, tinder, etc, things that won't work without it).
It's unclear to me leaving "location services" is enough to create the records that can be accessed with a geofence warrant? Even with "location history" off entirely/purged?
The article says: "collected from users’ phones when they use an Android device with location data switched on"
It doesn't sound like deleting old location history, or even turning off location history entirely will actually limit anything at all for these warrants?
Actually turning off location services might, but if you find it inconvenient to even turn off "location history", I don't think you'll like that solution much...
There’s absolutely no way any of the FAANGs would let you use their service without harvesting your data. It’s their reason for existing and any other “features” (like search, maps, video) is just the carrot to get you there.
We openly trained/training image detection algorithms with re-captcha for example.
That said google at least and I think Microsoft anonymizes a bit after I think 18 months or so, and does the last bits of an IP address before anything is written to disk on the google analytics side.
For users who signed up before that point you choose how long to keep it for.
Why would they do that when commercial intent is available from current behaviour so easily.
If they don't want you to use services then they should explicitly disable them without tracking
Another quote from the article: > In 2018, the Associated Press reported that Google could still collect users’ locations even when their location history is “paused.”
If you turn off location services on device, also probably not true and the AP is lying.
If you run location services set to ON at device level and you have App Activity tracking set to ON then location will be tracked.
Note that a fair number of users like these features. Google starts suggesting common destinations based on starting destination in Maps, Weather apps will remember the most recent location weather was checked from and much more.
> If you have web and app activity off this is probably not true and the AP is lying.
However in this case this is absolutely true, and Google recently lost a lawsuit in Australia over it: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/04/australia-rules-goog...
As the article it self says, Google collects and stores location from a number of different sources, and this setting only affected one of them.
There are other lawsuits ongoing:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/did-google-viola...
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/08/unredacted-suit-...
I know how to turn "Location Services" on and off. I know how to turn "Location History" on and off, as well as use Google's interface to delete my current history. I can't find anything on Android "App Activity tracking".
But we're specifically talking about having "Location Services" on, but "Location History" off, that's what the article suggests is being recorded and available for warrant anyway. Since the posts at the top of the thread was suggesting deleting your "Location History" data -- but the article seems to suggest that if you still have "Location Services" on, it's still recording you and available for warrant. I don't think there is any reporting that standard Android/Google record you available for warrant if "Location Services" is turned off though.
It definitely makes it more confusing that there are several different settings/services, each of which may be called slightly different names in slightly different places, and it's not always clear how they interact with regard to what information Google is actually recording. That is part of what's making this conversation confusing and I'm not sure we're all talking about the same things when we think we are.
"App Activity tracking" is a term that's confusing me. Do you mean this as a synonym for "Location History" and/or "Location Services", or is this a separate thing?
Separately for google apps themselves you can go here: https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/54068
Because they will track location at app level across both play and ios etc. So even if you are on a device WITHOUT location service, google may still be getting your location data through an app on the device.
https://myactivity.google.com/activitycontrols?settings=app&...
I used to have that off, but I actually found I liked getting the various suggestions (google figures out your commutes and common destinations based on starting points from what I could see - pretty convenient).
This is in stark contrast to someone people who demand universal and mandatory privacy at all costs for everyone, regardless of that.
This is not tied to Google applications, your account, etc. It's in the system software. It is underneath everything and it basically services all location requests from all apps.
Because Google believes this is anonymized data, it doesn't feel that you should have well-labeled controls over it.
To disable this data collection, you must disable "High accuracy location" in Android systems menus.
There's a reason why there is a click-through agreement. It constitutes "consent" in the eyes of Google lawyers.
> This data must not show up in geofenced warrants though
Who knows...the public does not know exactly what Google is required to do to comply with these requests, nor how it implements these "queries". And then there are NSLs, which is a whole other level of batshit-insane secrecy, where Google can't even confirm or deny they've even received a NSL. They only voluntarily offer the number of NSLs they receive annually, not on how many they comply with.
Technical details are important. The public cannot reason about this issue when the players intentionally perpetuate our ignorance. This is by design, and that itself is a gross violation of our human rights. Instead, all we have is vague assurances of powerful institutions who do not have our best interest at heart.
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.
Data is gold
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.
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.
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.
Let's be clear. 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.
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&...
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.
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.
http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/05/nstic-analysis-identity-pri...
>Innocent man, 23, sues Arizona police for $1.5million after being arrested for murder and jailed for six days when Google's GPS tracker wrongly placed him at the scene of the 2018 crime
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7897319/Police-arre...
It's not just creepy, it's dangerous.
That seems completely unreasonable. The police operates on imperfect evidence, and as long as we don't switch to an omniscient surveillance state, that will always be the case. Catching the wrong guy and letting him go after a week seems like a reasonable mistake when you're looking for a murderer. If it had been 6 months, he would have had way more of a point.
I'd also try to get the most out of this awful week.
> That seems completely unreasonable.
Here's [0] another article.
He showed up in the location (Google) and his ownership of same make/color vehicle (surveillance video) added to his suspectibility. So he was arrested. A week later he was released. A year later he's suing for defamation, gross negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
In that one week:
> the arrest causes him to fail background checks
> news coverage prominently features in Google searches of his name
> forced to drop out of school, having missing too many classes of the accelerated college program he was enrolled in
So, he lost his job and his school. In one week he easily could have missed rent -- and this is before the pandemic so there's no moratorium on evictions.
$1.5 million definitely isn't unreasonable for problems caused from being in jail for a week despite innocence.
[0]: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10760055/innocent-man-23-sues-...
For anyone who is not blessed as a programmer and merely earns the average (median) of $36,0000 year, we'd be talking about 40+ years of lost wages.
However, the US does tend to drop the ball on homicides [1], with some of the lowest clearance rates in the Western world. Though that's skewed by some states being utterly atrocious, and some being more average.
> Across the country, North Dakota has the highest solved-murder rate among U.S. states for homicides reported from 1976 to 2019. It also has the fewest reported murders, according to the Murder Accountability Project. Its 94 percent solved rate dwarfs New York state’s 55 percent solved rate.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/30/us-crime-rat...
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/track-solved-murder-rat...
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.
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?
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
Effectively, the NSA had excellent vision where Al Qaeda did not exist, and was blind where they did.
The quantity and low cost of sigint can often lead to a deprecation of humint. It's not sexy, it's slow, it's low-volume, it's expensive, it doesn't generate large support contracts with government suppliers.
But it can put precisely the right eyes and ears in precisely the right place in ways sigint often has difficulty in achieving.
Mind: this is based on open-sources discussion at the time. How much this reflected actuality vs. speculation or public campaigning / turf wars between intelligence camps (CIA tends to be more humint, NSA more sigint AFAIU) I'm not sure.
This is a much more recent article (I'm referring mostly to the 2000--2005 period), but makes similar points:
https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/enhanced-human-...
The actual on-the-ground investigation was done by an at least nominally-independent UN team (UNSCOM).
Scott Ritter specifically rejected WMD claims: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter
The investigation lead by Hans Blix found some violations but AFAIR no indications of a significant WMD capability. The Wikipedia article has more information (I've skimmed it): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_des...
I don't think this maps well to the Humint/Sigint division. Inspectors relied somewhat on both, though non-covert on-site visits played a large role.
(Sigint and Humint are more typically covert.)
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.
Which phone is that these days?
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...
Nothing about spying is ever going to be simple. Especially building those vital human relationships.
https://www.gawker.com/5861484/iran-and-hezbollah-caught-all...
Admittedly, it's not a risk you want to take if you don't have to, but if you have no other option, it's workable.
The country under your feet does the same. Every civilization has used spies throughout history. A greedy, hungry or desperate neighbor might get ideas that threaten your security.
It's compiling reports on what is happening, meeting with the other countries officials about bilateral relations, meeting your own citizen to know what they are doing. A lot of it is above board. I will hasard that most of the information which end up being classified is actually acquiried legally but becomes interesting through cross-referencing or exclusivity.
We also need a law to outlaw these warrants, but I doubt that will ever happen, because I can see how useful they can be to legitimate investigations.
> 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.”
> "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.
I mean, we all make mistakes and decisions we regret down the road, but even in my Maverick days I'd have given that type of work a wide berth
2] insert sim insert battery turn on phone , make call/text
3] goto 1
Okay, but once I'm done with the hammer, how do I get the battery back in?
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
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.
antenna and lead, gone , circuit trace to antenna input severed and sent to ground, power lead for SOIC desoldered and given manual toggle.
It also doesn't take much to rip onstar out of vehicles considering how many of them go from Texas to Mexico.
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.)
Requiring cars to get around ensures DUIs will happen
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.
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.
I suspect in 20 years, walking down the street without a digital radio in your pocket will arouse suspicion though.
I guess you could limit accomplice activities to things like driving around.
Yes. [0] And that's hardly the only paper on achieving the technique.
There are RF-shielded bags, wallets, and purses.
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.
This allows it to be powered on and emergency services called if necessary. (911/112 works fine without a SIM.)
For sub-life safety personal emergencies, I can usually just wait until wi-fi.
"We're sure he did it, he hatched 12k eggs at the same time!"
Reading things like this makes me think of climate change messing up infrastructure and space junk making it impossible to operate satellites is maybe for the better.
Laws have obviously failed in keeping technology at bay from concentrating power in the hands of a few. Maybe nature can help reverse this.
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
Possibly GPS too, though probably an order of magnitude more complex to achieve.
https://www.antena3.com/noticias/sociedad/pederasta-ciudad-l...
Is there some other mechanism that Google can gather location data?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sounds to me like privacy is difficult.
- Edward Snowden
No need to be sorry since it's the way the world is headed now. This will soon be the norm. I won't be surprised in 5-10 years those you mentioned will be even more expanded and current laws can't keep up. There's even recent talk of a national ID system in the US for instance which would expand it even more. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/08/voting-...
> 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.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207056#:~:text=If%20Locati....
TLDR Android & iOS Location Services will automatically contribute wifi data and correlate it with GPS. This can be audited to prove it's anonymously uploaded but it does happen.
> 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.