
Google tracking a bike ride past a burglarized home made the rider a suspect - oftenwrong
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/google-tracked-his-bike-ride-past-burglarized-home-made-him-n1151761
======
Noos
Even before all of this tech, if you looked suspicious you would get stopped
or worse. A story was when I moved to a different state, I went out walking in
my new area. Exploring the suburbs. I had brought a book with me, and it was
starting to rain. I kept my book under my shirt to protect it. As I went home,
I was suddenly stopped by four police cars; apparently a resident thought my
book was a gun, and I was casing the area or something and the suburb I walked
through must have been worried about crime. It was darkly funny to show them
my book, which was a defense of political civility. It stopped me from walking
there, though, as long as i lived there.

I think one aspect of this is the surprise that an engineer would get swept up
in this, but this isn't really something that can be solved by tech.

~~~
maram
>>Even before all of this tech, if you looked suspicious you would get stopped
or worse.

Tech is IMPROVING our lives. Software is an enabler, it solves our problems.
If the software is making our problems worse, then there is something wrong
with the software, we fix the software. But the issue here isn't the software,
the issue here is privacy invasion. Terms of Use and Privacy Policy aren't
comprehensive enough to inform users what they are doing or how and when they
are collecting their personal data.

From the story “I didn’t realize that by having location services on that
Google was also keeping a log of where I was going, I’m sure it’s in their
terms of service but I never read through those walls of text, and I don’t
think most people do either.” McCoy said.

Steve Jobs had a solution for this:

"Privacy means that people know what they’re signing up for. In plain English,
and repeatedly. I believe that people are smart. Some people want to share
more than others. Ask them...Make them tell you to stop asking them. Let them
know what you’re going to do with their data"

~~~
shadowgovt
If it changes the phenomena that trigger false-positives of suspicion towards
"was actually present near the scene of the crime" and away from "wrong skin
color in the neighborhood," it can be argued the tech has improved people's
lives.

~~~
rak
The problem is that it isn't. The police have routinely conducted similar
dragnets with racial profiling in the past.

Even in systems with less human intervention (e.g automated loan approval
systems) bias is still being built in.

If anything this could provide people with the excuse of "see! it was the
algorithm!".

~~~
TuringNYC
>> Even in systems with less human intervention (e.g automated loan approval
systems) bias is still being built in.

Just because there is bias in the system does not mean it is OK to open the
floodgates and introduce more

>> If anything this could provide people with the excuse of "see! it was the
algorithm!".

It doesn't work that way. First the person has to come up with tens of
thousands of dollars to defend themselves and hire lawyers and expert
witnesses. What you are stating is just a luxury of the rich. If the new
system is that rich people get extra avenues of defense, you are right.

------
freeAgent
This article brings up one of the biggest problems I have with our justice
system. When someone is falsely suspected or accused of a crime, they
typically have to hire a lawyer and take time off work and out of their lives.
This can cost thousands of dollars that many people can't really afford to
spend. The police or court may eventually say, "oops, our bad," but the
accused typically has no way to recover what they spent on their own defense.
The whole situation is asymmetric given that investigators, courts, and
prosecution don't have to spend personal funds to conduct investigations and
try people in court.

~~~
hypersoar
My sister is a lawyer who works with poor clients with criminal cases (though
not a defense attorney). She believes strongly that most people are better off
with their public defender than with private council. I asked her if she could
square this with the general perception that the criminal justice system is
stacked for with wealthy, she answered that the, most of the time, the
_connections_ matter more than the actual money. There are a lot of bad
private lawyers out there, and it's hard for most people to tell them apart
from the good ones. For a lot of us here, if we suddenly need a lawyer, then
we'll ask our friends and family to help us find a good one. But if you don't
know anybody who knows anybody who knows a lawyer, what do you do? Look at
online reviews? If I were freaked out about criminal charges, needed a lawyer
_now_ , and didn't have my connections, it'd be up to blind luck. That's the
reality for most criminal defendants.

They'll hire private council and think that because they're paying for it,
it's better. But it's often not. For a typical defendant with an aggravated
assault charge, a public defender has handled dozens of similar cases before.
Moreover, they'll have done it with your judge and your prosecutor. A private
lawyer probably won't have that. Granted, this probably holds a lot less for
the HN comments section.

I'll add that there is no right to defense council for civil cases. These can
have consequences just as dire as a criminal case, as in immigration or
eviction proceedings. An indigent defendant with no lawyer has a very poor
chance. There's a movement to create this right [1]. The current Supreme
Court, however, seems more likely to weaken _Gideon v. Wainwright_ than expand
it.

~~~
ALittleLight
Responding to the point about what you are supposed to do if you need a lawyer
and don't know any - I needed a lawyer once and didn't know any. I first read
about what I was accused of, I read the relevant parts of the law I was
accused of violating, and then I googled and read whatever I could about the
crime. I then looked up local lawyers and read their websites and bios and
googled them to see if there was anything to read about them.

Background research done I created a list of lawyers I wanted to talk to and
called them one by one and discussed the case over the phone. The crime I was
accused of was somewhat rare and none of the five lawyers I called were
familiar with it. I could tell fairly quickly that several of the lawyers
were, for lack of a better term, bullshitting me about their familiarity with
crime because I had first done the basic research so I had some understanding
of what was reasonable to say about it. One lawyer was obviously reading
passages from wikipedia verbatim to me, which I recognized having recently
read the same wikipedia article myself. Another lawyer didn't seem to listen
to me - after hearing my story he confidently assured me he could get the
charge reduced... to what I was already charged with. Others just didn't seem
that competent.

The lawyer I ultimately went with was a former prosecutor, which I liked
because I figured it meant he would know the other prosecutors, and he was the
only one who, when I called him, said "I don't know much about this. Let me do
some reading and call you back." I immensely respected that more than the
people who tried to pretend like they knew what they were talking about.

Ultimately, we had an extremely successful result and now if anyone I know
ever needs a lawyer, I have one to recommend. It may be a bit harder if you
don't have connections, but there is no reason why the average person
retaining a lawyer can't go through the effort of finding one they are
comfortable with.

~~~
jackpirate
_there is no reason why the average person retaining a lawyer can 't go
through the effort of finding one they are comfortable with._

You are vastly overestimating the ability of an "average" person to be able to
understand and analyze legal complications for themselves. The average person,
for example, does not have a college degree [1], let alone a degree in a
technical subject that has trained them in analytic reasoning.

[1] Only 37% of people age 25-30 in the US have a bachelors:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_United_States)

~~~
wolco
And a bachelors tells us very little.

------
vermontdevil
* I’m definitely sorry that happened to her, and I’m glad police were trying to solve it,” McCoy said. “But it just seems like a really broad net for them to cast. What’s the cost-benefit? How many innocent people do we have to harass?”*

I understand he doesn’t have the resources to fight the constitutionality of
the whole process. This quote is why ACLU, EFF, and others need to work
together to take it up further. Stop the police from continuing the habit of
just sweeping people’s data and worry about the details later.

~~~
throwaway17_17
There is no constitutional issue in this case. This person gave their
information to Google and Google was asked for the information. There is no
4th Amendment protection for information a person gives to someone else. The
ACLU, EFF, and others have nothing to take further.

~~~
theluketaylor
The third party doctrine is badly outdated in the modern world where third
parties hold immense volumes of information about our locations and
interactions. Since it was a court ruling that brought the doctrine into
being, the passage of legislation or further court rulings can overturn it or
reduce the scope. There is absolutely work for groups like the ACLU and EFF to
do here.

Here in Canada several of our wireless providers banded together to fight an
incredibly broad request for information about everyone hitting particular
cell towers during a robbery. The crown tried to simply drop the request when
challenged, but thankfully the judge didn't let them off so easily. The court
issued some rather strict requirements for similar requests.

[https://blog.privacylawyer.ca/2016/01/ontario-court-
provides...](https://blog.privacylawyer.ca/2016/01/ontario-court-provides-
clear-guidance.html)

~~~
kspacewalk2
Judicial oversight requirements should be strict, but it should absolutely be
a police investigation tool. Calling it "dragnet" to imply dystopian
surveillance is silly. Oversight is the crux of the issue, not the tool
itself.

------
2OEH8eoCRo0
The police have far too much power in this. The police should only have the
power to name a suspect and then request a single GPS fix in a window of their
choosing. Anything else requires more judges to sign off. This power of
dragnet, "give me everyone within 200 feet of this property in the last 48
hours" is just astoundingly one-sided.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Why? They use it to compile a witness list, maybe suspect list, rule out many
people, as a first approximation. As long as the data is archived and not open
for abusive use; where do you feel any harm comes in?

~~~
jellicle
"Somebody walked by the outside of a house where a 97-year-old said something
was stolen" wasn't _previously_ sufficient grounds to search every document
you had ever written or received, but now it is.

~~~
kspacewalk2
Sure it was, if they walked/biked by the house 3 times in close succession
around the time of the burglary. A completely legitimate reason to make him a
person of interest and interview him. If he was picked up on a neighbour's
door cam, this wouldn't even be on the news.

------
pjdemers
What surprises me is that somewhere there is a police department that can
afford the time to investigate a $2,000 loss.

~~~
notRobot
There are too many cops in the US. So they need the work. This is also why
they have police cops in all schools. Which seems horrifying to anyone not
from the US. (They're often on a power trip and take even the smallest
opportunities to beat up kids. A web search brings up a long list of such
cases.)

~~~
burlesona
They are really unevenly distributed though. Many major cities are short on
police, while most suburbs have plenty to spare. This has a lot of effects on
day to day, for example in most cities you aren’t getting a traffic ticket
unless you do something egregious, the police will see you commit a very minor
offense (probably on accident), and just shrug and let it go. They have no
time to spare. But in a lot of suburbs they’ll come ticket you with this
attitude that they’ve saved the world from a criminal. It’s frustrating.

------
asdfasgasdgasdg
And also cleared him, for what that's worth. If this concerns you, go
[here]([https://myaccount.google.com/activitycontrols](https://myaccount.google.com/activitycontrols))
and disable location history.

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
Google has a shit-ton of dark patterns making it hard to turn it off
completely. Maps will refuse to center on your location even though the phone
has a GPS lock and the blue pip is right where it is supposed to be.

You can restrict data to three months which would have been helpful here.

~~~
asdfasgasdgasdg
Just tried turning off all these settings and maps still centers for me just
fine. Can you post a video of this happening? Are you sure you haven't denied
your location to Google Maps on your phone entirely?

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
It comes and goes intermittently.

------
PhantomGremlin
It's not just Google. It is many many apps.

Here is a posting from a month ago that didn't get any traction. It links to a
Washington Post article that says that the US government is buying location
data from apps. It conveniently means they don't need a warrant:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22285638](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22285638)

Here is a posting from 2018 that got 253 comments:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17938548](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17938548)

------
hyperion2010
I love how many people in this thread think that Google's location tracking is
the issue here. If you have a phone at all you are tracked. If you drive many
newer cars you are tracked. If you go out in public where there are cameras
you are tracked. The difference is that the individual will never be able to
get access to the cell tower tracking information, cctv footage, etc. The
problem if there is one, is that it is too easy for law enforcement to get
access to Google's information and use it in ways that are probably a
violation of the constitution. While turning your tracking off may seem like a
good idea, and for some threat models it certainly is, for many users this
actively disempowers them relative to corporations and states. Someone already
has your data, you might want to get a copy of it too.

------
AlexandrB
> They also scoop up data from people who have nothing to do with the crime,
> often without their knowing ─ which Google itself has described as “a
> significant incursion on privacy.”

This is masterful re-framing of Google's deplorable attitude towards user
privacy. Apparently the _real_ incursion on privacy is _not_ when Google
collects and tracks this information, but when government officials subpoena
the information from Google. Amazing.

------
dchyrdvh
I like how an innocent person needs to have a criminal mindset to avoid going
to jail for a made up charge. I mean this attitude "never talk to the police"
seems backwards until you realise why. Someone made a good analogy that police
is the HR department of the state and you know that if an HR wants to talk to
you, it's rarely for your benefit.

------
hyperpallium
There's a simple solution to ubiquitous surveillance: conform.

Don't do anything out of the ordinary. Do exactly what everyone does, and you
won't get hurt. If you enjoy exploring and experimenting, discovering and
inventing, creating and wondering, you'll need to train yourself out of that,
because thoughts lead to actions.

Think Same.

~~~
kspacewalk2
The whole point is that it's the conforming behaviour (leaving the location
tracker on) rather than the non conforming one (turning it off) that led to
him being a person of interest. A completely legitimate one, I might add.

------
sedachv
Do you need to take phone calls and answer messages while riding your bike?

When it became obvious to me that the scenario described in the article was
going to be increasingly common, I started to carry my phone in airplane mode,
in an electromagnetically shielded pouch (most of which only work marginally),
when in transit from place to place. I only turn GPS on when I need it. This
also has a nice side-effect of prolonging battery life.

As far as bike fitness tracking, I have and highly recommend the Sigma BC
14.16 bike computer - it runs for over a year on a single coin cell battery,
comes with a barometric altimeter, and even does altitude plotting. And it
does not and cannot report you to the police!

[https://www.sigmasport.com/en/produkte/fahrrad-
computer/wire...](https://www.sigmasport.com/en/produkte/fahrrad-
computer/wired/wired/bc1416)

~~~
glitcher
I get it that this is a simple thing one can do today to help increase their
privacy a little, but this is wholly the wrong attitude. One can still easily
be caught up in a geofence dragnet without riding bikes, regardless of how
often they turn on airplane mode.

If law makers/enforcement continue down this dystopian path, having your phone
off or not with you at all may become enough to make you a suspect.

------
jb775
Couldn't he just show the police his exact bike route for that day? It would
show him passing the house only momentarily. That's probably more than enough
for them to eliminate his as a suspect, especially considering they have
access to Google's metadata for cross-reference.

~~~
sedachv
Trying to "explain" things to the police is a very bad idea:

[https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-duane-dont-
talk-...](https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-duane-dont-talk-
police-20160826-snap-story.html)

~~~
LeoTinnitus
Talking to cops is like being questioned by your parents as a kid. They assume
the worst and don't care if they're wrong.

------
miguelmota
American justice system is broken; if you’re arrested you get put in jail
until your court date unless you can pay the bail. If you can’t pay the bail
then you can be in jail for months or years for something you didn’t do. The
prosecutor will tell you to take plea deal for a shorter sentence or risk
losing fighting in court and get a more severe punishment. A lot of innocent
people end up taking plea deals because the odds are against them. Court cases
can drag on for years and cost a fortune in lawyer fees. The biggest lie is
that you’re 'innocent until proven guilty'. If you get accused of a felony and
end being proven innocent, there’s still no way to get that off your permanent
record and will show up in background checks and follow you for life.

~~~
metabagel
California eliminated cash bail in 2018. In California, a risk assessment is
done to determine whether a suspect can be safely released.

------
jeffdavis
This might run afoul of the _Carpenter_ decision, right? It basically held
that asking for cell tower location data is a search of the person rather than
a subpoena of records.

EDIT: maybe not. This one had a warrant rather than a subpoena. I'd still be
interested in the interaction though.

~~~
throwaway17_17
Doubtful, Carpenter was based on the fact that the cell tower location was not
a willing transfer of international, but merely a functioning of the cellular
technology and so the information was still protected under the 4th amendment
requirement for a warrant. In this case, suspect ‘willingly’ transferred that
information to Google and there was a warrant request for the information.
Although, I suspect that the warrant was more to make it easier to get
Google’s compliance than to deal with 4th amendment concerns.

------
willart4food
The police wanted all the data, so my guess is "including search and browsing
data"

oh oh... time to switch to Firefox.

To be noted: real bad actors will start shutting their phones off before their
actions.

~~~
luckylion
> To be noted: real bad actors will start shutting their phones off before
> their actions.

Which would be a signal as well. They'd rather just leave their phones at
home.

~~~
LeoTinnitus
Reminds me of the college kids that painted swastikas on the cement and were
caught cause their phones were connected in the area.

------
apk-d
Are there any recommendations how one can limit the amount of information
Google is collecting on them, preferably without completely giving up on
Android and Google services (such as maps)? I'm already considered a hermit by
friends for not having a Facebook/Instagram/LinkedIn account, but to me it
constantly feels like I haven't gone far enough. This shit is downright
dystopian, and I'm outraged by the general lack of outrage.

~~~
Youden
So long as Google Play Services is installed, there's only so much you can do
to limit it. It's essentially equivalent to giving Google root access to your
phone.

The best thing you can do is cut off Google completely. Install AOSP,
LineageOS or a similar ROM and don't install Play Services. Get apps from
FDroid or where necessary something like Aurora Store (an open-source Play
Store implementation). Don't use apps that depend on Google. There are
alternative apps for maps that are pretty great, mostly OSM based (e.g. OSMAnd
and the Maps.me-based "Maps" app in FDroid).

However that's not always something you can do. Some apps just won't work
without some kind of connection to Google. For those, there's MicroG, an open-
source implementation of Play Services that gives you a whole lot more control
and even allows you to use different location backends like those provided by
Mozilla or Apple.

------
DoofusOfDeath
Tangential question about the work "burglarized":

Is there a term for a word that's the result of inefficient application of
modifiers?

I would guess that "burglarized" is formed by this evolutionary chain:

A1) burgle

A2) buglar : someone who burgles

A3) burglarized : an object which has been acted upon by a burglar

But I would think a more canonical chain is:

B1) burgle

B2) burgled : an object of burgling

A3 and B2 seem to mean the same thing, so I would think B2 is preferable
because both the word itself, and the chain of applied modifications, are
shorter.

~~~
mistersquid
This is a guess, but I think “burglarize” is a back formation coming from
“burglarization”, the state of having been burgled or an instance of same.
“Burglarization” is, naively but grammatically, caused by someone or something
that “burglarizes”.

It’s similar to “orientate“ instead of “orient”. An object or person has an
“orientation” produced by someone or something that “orientates”. This in
contrast to someone or something that “orients”.

It’s ugly English, for sure, but I believe it’s perfectly cromulent in
grammatical terms.

------
gerardnll
Everything about the case is nuts but, to me, one of the worst thing is this
line "They agreed to dip into their savings to pay for a lawyer.".

No money, no justice.

------
cnst
I think it's interesting that these articles are always from the PoV of living
in a surveillance state.

What about legitimate uses of geofence warrants? Does that not exist?

What if your mobile device gets stolen? Why should you not have the right to
get its location easily? Happened to me in Northern California, and both AT&T
and the police were useless. Part of the reason why I'm not very interested in
returning to Cali.

~~~
chrischen
You have a right... so long as you don’t encroach on others’ rights.

~~~
cnst
Well, it's my phone and service, I paid for it, and I want to give the police
the address of the perpetrators for them to check out.

But, no, I'm not allowed to do that, because privacy; and, no, the police in
California won't do that, either, because courts are overcrowded, and they
don't feel like asking the judge for a warrant that AT&T requires.

I don't think the criminals who steal my device are supposed to have any
privacy rights. Just sayin'.

~~~
chrischen
Actually the real reason is probably that the GPS data isnMt that accurate nor
real time enough that they can just go to the spot and it pinpoints the
person, so they aren’t going to go on a wild goose chase to recover your
private property while other more serious crimes are being committed.

------
antpls
It makes you wonder how many of these stories exist and are unheard of. I'm OK
with Google sharing some aggregated metrics and statistic to help fight
criminals, but tracking individuals is a nightmare becoming real.

It is not directly Google's fault, they are required by laws to provide the
data. Laws are democratically voted, yet are people okay with police able to
open their private lives with just a button?

~~~
Youden
> It is not directly Google's fault, they are required by laws to provide the
> data.

It's Google's fault for collecting the data in the first place.

They could have collected it anonymously rather than tie it to a user but they
chose not to do so.

------
rdiddly
Another day, another new outrage.

 _“I would think the majority of citizens in the world would love the fact
that we are putting violent offenders in jail,” Armbruster said._

Remind me to bust that one out the next time anyone disagrees with me. "I
would think the majority of citizens in the world would want us to watch
another UFC fight, honey, instead of Stranger Things."

------
colordrops
This is a perfect example of a concrete problem arising from lack of privacy
in electronic devices. It's not some abstract fear of being manipulated, but
instead a simple and direct invasion of privacy that leads to dire
consequences.

I didn't know police had such free access to Google data btw. This is super
concerning to me.

------
HarryHirsch
Don't talk to the police. Don't carry a tracking device.

~~~
minitoar
I suspect both of these things are nearly impossible in the US. At some point
you will have to talk to police, if only to identify yourself. At some point
you will be tracked, if only by your license plate, or soon your face.

~~~
sneak
I do believe a license plate counts as a tracking device, which GP suggested
not taking with you.

Here's a US-based criminal defense attorney saying that not only is that good
advice, it's also practicable (in the US):

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE)

Do not talk to the police. Under any circumstances at all. (But especially if
you're innocent!)

~~~
suby
Am I missing something? If you take your license plate off your car, you will
be pulled over by a cop. It's not practical for most people in the U.S. to
give up driving.

~~~
sneak
The thing you're missing: I wasn't suggesting that you remove the license
plate from your car. I was suggesting that a car, with a license plate
attached, is a tracking device which you should avoid.

Most cars these days also have GSM modems in them, letting the manufacturer,
the cell tower, and by extension the entire military intelligence community
and federal investigators know exactly where they are at all times (they
receive all GSM HLR data in realtime from the carriers). It really is that
bad. We know for a fact that domestic federal law enforcement is using
parallel construction to conceal the fact that they are receiving tips from
the military's mass surveillance systems:

[https://theintercept.com/2018/01/09/dark-side-fbi-dea-
illega...](https://theintercept.com/2018/01/09/dark-side-fbi-dea-illegal-
searches-secret-evidence/)

Furthermore, millions of Americans that don't own or drive cars stand in
direct evidence contrary to your claim that giving up driving is impractical.
Driving is actively harmful to our society, our safety, our cities, and our
future well-being. Everyone should be avoiding it as much as possible,
including but not limited to moving to places where it's not necessary, or
only very rarely necessary.

~~~
minitoar
I stand by my assertion that it’s extremely impractical for most people to
reconfigure their lives in this way.

------
upofadown
A good reminder that even if you have nothing to hide, privacy is still very
important. The more data you make available the greater chance of a false
positive. Those who protect their privacy will in the long run come out ahead.
It is one of the few situations with no real tradeoffs.

------
x__x
So if he were using an old cellphone, before the days of apps, would he still
have been served a notice from the phone company for his phone tower location?

The article says: "drawn from users’ GPS, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi and cellular
connection"

and cellular connection.

~~~
bm98
_That_ is the question we should be asking. If not, is it because geofence
warrants have a higher legal bar if issued to a phone company? Or is it about
the level-of-effort?

------
sundvor
Bah, if riding with eg a Garmin or Wahoo it would clearly show there was no
stopping at the front of the house and that should be it.

If Google Fit is a bit like Samsung Health, it would probably stop an activity
at the spot of the burglary so without that there's proof of no involvement.

In Australia there'd be no point wasting money on a lawyer, just show the data
and you'd be in the clear.

The whole story feels stupid, but that's probably mainly because I stem from a
more (on overall) enlightened country (Norway).

------
zmmmmm
It's ironic that in the end the narrowness of the warrant was what hurt him.
They could see he went past the house during the time of the burglary but not
that he went past there regularly. By showing them more data he convinced them
he was innocent.

Not that I am arguing for more pervasive powers for data collection. But
rather, appreciating how poweful data is and how dangerous data without
context is. People need control over and access to data about them guaranteed.

------
jumpinalake
How inconvenient is it to turn off all location sharing at the OS level on a
mobile device? I have just started testing moments ago and am not sure what
I’m up for.

~~~
RandomBacon
It's a step in the right direction, but be aware the police could also ask the
cell service provider for location information.

------
robocat
It took the prosecutors 10 months to follow up:

“burglary of an elderly woman’s home 10 months earlier”, “ He looked up his
route on the day of the March 29, 2019”.

------
superkuh
Lets be real here. They didn't track his bike. They tracked his phone. Your
phone is how you are tracked.

It doesn't matter if you're using an application where you didn't read the TOS
and opted in or what. The basestations are always going to be collecting years
of aggregate multilateration data on your habits of movement and saving it.

------
x__x
"law enforcement authorities say those worries are overblown...is not enough
to justify charging someone with a crime, they say."

But it is enough to justify the person spend thousands and thousands of
dollars on their legal defense so they can prove their innocence

------
chiefalchemist
I'm surprised various mobile tech breadcrumbs aren't being used to track /
cross track the random ppl who getting C19.

I'm not suggesting I'm in favor of it; only that I'm surprised it's not
happening. Yet?

------
jobseeker990
Are Apple products any safer on this issue, or not at all?

~~~
ajross
Not really. The phone companies have relevant data too for this kind of
search. What's notable here isn't that Google was a single source for this
data, but that they notified the user when it happened, even if it means
everyone on HN now thinks they're the bad guys in the situation.

~~~
theferalrobot
Yes the phone companies have data but it is far far less precise than GPS
which was required in this case.

Additionally, Apple does not collect your location data like Google does so I
am not sure why we should let Google off the hook.

~~~
ajross
You don't know that GPS was required, nor whether or not cell records were
subpoenaed as part of this investigation. All we have is what Google told the
guy in the story.

And as far as Apple, I don't think that's true. Apple has a location history
feature just like Google does. If that data ever reaches their machines in a
non-anonymized way, then it's subject to subpoena just like anyone else's data
is. Do you have a cite that explains why this is impossible?

~~~
theferalrobot
>You don't know that GPS was required, nor whether or not cell records were
subpoenaed as part of this investigation. All we have is what Google told the
guy in the story.

I do know that because cell tower triangulation is on average only precise
within about a square mile, which is considered far too broad for these types
of searches.

>Apple has a location history feature just like Google does. If that data ever
reaches their machines in a non-anonymized way, then it's subject to subpoena
just like anyone else's data is. Do you have a cite that explains why this is
impossible?

Location history on ios is stored locally, not logged and stored by Apple. Any
data that is passed to Apple is anonymized. Per Apple:

"Where you go says a lot about you. Maps delivers a great experience without
Apple knowing which stores, neighborhoods, or clinics you visit. And because
Maps doesn’t include a sign-in, where you go isn’t associated with your Apple
ID at all. Personalized features, like locating your parked car, are created
right on your device. Data used to improve navigation, such as routes and
search terms, is not associated with your identity. Instead, that information
is based on random identifiers that are constantly changing."

AND

"If Location Services is on, your iPhone will periodically send the geo-tagged
locations of nearby Wi-Fi hotspots and cell towers (where supported by a
device) in an anonymous and encrypted form to Apple, to be used for augmenting
this crowd-sourced database of Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower locations."

[https://www.apple.com/privacy/](https://www.apple.com/privacy/)
[https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207056](https://support.apple.com/en-
us/HT207056)

------
discordance
Before you sign up for a service online check tosdr.com to see what you’re
signing up.

It’s crowd sourced site that shows what’s inside the terms of service.

~~~
aembleton
I get the message: Tosdr.com is for sale

~~~
discordance
correction: tosdr.org

------
joering2
> Not long afterward, Kenyon said, a lawyer in the state attorney’s office
> assigned to represent the Gainesville Police Department told him there were
> details in the motion that led them to believe that Kenyon’s client was not
> the burglar. > On Feb. 24, Kenyon dropped his legal challenge.

Here is the problem. Getting entangled he should have press harder and get
them to answer precisely what they are referring to.

~~~
fluidcruft
I think it's just saying that information provided in the John Doe motion to
block Google from releasing his identity led them to believe that John Doe was
not the burglar. It's not like the police had any info to rule him out, just
some fragment of a location trace or whatever that said he was someone to look
into. It could be some guy biking round his neighborhood or some guy who drove
in to stalk the neighborhood for a burglary. If they don't know his identity,
how can they even know it was his neighborhood? They don't have any reason to
exclude him until they have more info.

------
shaneprrlt
The idea of living off the grid becomes more and more appealing every day.

------
fortran77
This is outrageous! It's bad policing.

The police in my area do this too, but they use the "anonymized" data and
warrents aren't issued unless they see the same id involved with several
burglaries in the area.

------
mckoss
Why the hell isn't Google challenging these sweeping untargetted searches?
This is akin to giving law enforcement all of our location data without
reasonable suspicion.

~~~
srtjstjsj
ctrl-F "warrant". You may disagree with the law, but Google is required to
comply.

------
kaelzhang
Google, does do evil

------
code_duck
They can also come through and completely destroy your house in an operation
that has absolutely nothing to do with you, and not only do none of the
individuals involved have any financial responsibility but neither does any
government agency.

[https://www.denverpost.com/2019/10/30/swat-team-destroyed-
gr...](https://www.denverpost.com/2019/10/30/swat-team-destroyed-greenwood-
village-familys-home-police-dont-have-to-pay-for-damages/)

In this case, police in Colorado destroyed a man's $600,000 home while
pursuing a shoplifting suspect.

~~~
throwsprtsdy
A shoplifting suspect who barricaded himself inside someone else's home during
the pursuit and fired gunshots at the police.

~~~
code_duck
Yes, starting with (from another article)

>The incident started when an Aurora police officer attempted to lead Seacat
into an office at a Walmart, where he was suspected of shoplifting. But Seacat
ran to a Lexus in the parking lot, jumped in and fled.

So they caused $670,000 of damage to protect Walmart from shoplifting. Not
great ROI for the community.

All of that is beside the point, anyway. The point is that the government
should be paying for that house.

~~~
alharith
Caused 670,000 to uphold the law and prevent us from inching that much closer
to anarchy. That's the invisible benefit to most. Soon as criminals can figure
out the law enforcement's cost-benefit ratio, they will start exploiting it,
and there's too many examples of this to count.

~~~
ljm
I'm sure the homeowner who had their entire house destroyed to catch a petty
thief appreciated the police's efforts to save him from anarchy...by
essentially being anarchists themselves.

Even if you follow this logic and believe it to be true, the police decided
that putting an innocent homeowner out of a house and over half a million
bucks, plus the cost of all the officers spectating, and the cost of rolling
out a tank, was worth it to recover a few dollars of lost income for Walmart.

------
Snetry
This kinda reminds me of Watch_Dogs 2

------
smlckz
google knows so much about us.

how many people [have] read t&c and privacy policy?

~~~
banads
Is there anyone that has ever had more information on more people in human
history than Google or FB? They have gotten to God like levels with their
omniscience

------
tcd
delete your google account.

don't use android (or iOS really).

don't carry a smartphone.

I mean, it may seem inconceivable but you're not forced to carry a spy in your
pocket =).

~~~
jumpinalake
Is this what you do?

~~~
wizzwizz4
It's what I do, and it's a huge inconvenience.

Instead, I recommend getting a smartphone known not to have dedicated spying
_hardware_ , replacing the OS with Lineage OS, installing F-Droid and microG
(and perhaps Yalp, but only install apps from it if you really really need
them) and then keeping it usually switched off (unless you need it on).

------
iamleppert
He sure don’t look like an avid bike rider.

------
jcims
All it would take is a curious engineer an Google to assemble location data on
politicians and the 'associates' they appear to be exercising with privately
to help move the regulatory needle here.

~~~
luckylion
They do get hundreds of thousands of reasons per year to not do that, and
stock options on top. Don't put your hope on the people that benefit from the
problem.

------
rb808
Surely this is a good thing about the future? Everyone is tracked and when a
serious crime happens we can find out who was there. I agree it feels weird
now and will need some controls worked out but seems inevitable and not that
scary.

~~~
lostcolony
And it only costs several thousand dollars a pop to prove you're innocent!
What progress!

------
crazygringo
Of course it made him a suspect. So would anyone caught on security cameras
nearby, cars passing intersections that record license plates, and so on. Or
anyone a neighbor described seeing walk by.

 _And then of course he was cleared._ Because unless they then find additional
evidence like him selling the jewelry on eBay or something... there's nothing
there.

I don't know about you guys, but I _appreciate_ living in a world where we
have reasonable tools to catch criminals, rather than live in fear of burglary
and worse.

I'm _glad_ we can use cell phone locations to help catch the _actual_
criminals. Obviously _abusing_ that power is bad (e.g. a police officer using
it to stalk an ex.) But as long as there are procedures, safeguards and
accountability in place... this seems like a win, no?

~~~
AlexandrB
> I don't know about you guys, but I appreciate living in a world where we
> have reasonable tools to catch criminals, rather than live in fear of
> burglary and worse.

Why is this the only choice? Is there _any_ evidence that crime would increase
if geofence warrants were disallowed entirely? Crime has been on the decline
for decades now even without invasive techniques like geofence warrants.
Considering the historically low crime rates, living in fear of burglary is
irrational - a "you" problem, not a law enforcement technology problem.

~~~
crazygringo
> _Crime has been on the decline for decades now even without invasive
> techniques like geofence warrants._

So we should stop trying to lower crime further? Why don't you tell that to
the families of murder victims?

> _Considering the historically low crime rates, living in fear of burglary is
> irrational - a "you" problem, not a law enforcement technology problem._

Burglary is by definition a law enforcement problem, and law enforcement uses
tools like technology. It always has.

You're writing as though burglary and other crime doesn't exist anymore. Lower
crime does NOT equal no crime.

Perhaps if you'd ever had someone close to you be a victim of a crime, you'd
be a bit more empathetic. The idea that fear of crime is "irrational" is
just... one of the most callous comments I've read in a while.

------
Myrmornis
There’s nothing in the article that indicates that cooperating with the
enquiry would have been problematic (he appears to have a physical appearance
that wouldn’t trigger race-based police prejudices). I do mistrust US police
in general, but it must be a bit annoying for them for every good faith
investigation direction to be treated adversarially like this.

~~~
praptak
Should we play them the saddest melody on the tiniest violin in the world?

US police and prosecutors have a track record of bad faith prosecution.

~~~
Myrmornis
The other thing to be said here is that, despite the risks of cooperating with
a police enquiry, if the choice is between them using objective geolocation
data to identify possible leads, versus them stopping off for some donuts
before driving around until they find a black guy, then we surely all agree
which is preferable.

