
‘Locate X’ allows federal law enforcement to track phones without warrants - spking
https://www.protocol.com/government-buying-location-data
======
saagarjha
> Locate X must be "used for internal research purposes only," according to
> terms of use distributed to agencies, and law enforcement authorities are
> forbidden from using the technology as evidence — or mentioning it at all —
> in legal proceedings.

So it's obviously useless to law enforcement, right? Since parallel
construction and evidence laundering are illegal and not something that they
would engage in…

~~~
eth0up
The Bechtel of parallel construction.

~~~
m463
"I'm a construction worker"

More seriously, I think real criminals will just leave their phone at home.

~~~
ben_w
Criminals are unlikely to be better with computers than the general
population. The general population is worse than most people on this site
realise: [https://www.nngroup.com/articles/computer-skill-
levels/](https://www.nngroup.com/articles/computer-skill-levels/)

~~~
Phemist
There is strong selective pressure on criminals to become good at computers
though, more so than the general population.

~~~
sky_rw
For some perhaps, but crime is hard work and criminals are lazy almost by
definition.

~~~
Agenttin
Depends on the type, dealing drugs is like any other sales job, except way
higher risk. Distributing cocaine is as complex as any other distribution job
but you're not allowed to use established transportation methods and people
might shoot at you. You've got to be a real self starter and creative thinker
if you want to be good at it.

Then there's the contract negotiation where nothing is legally enforceable and
personnel management where your employees could become addicted to stealing
from you. It sounds way harder than my job.

~~~
sky_rw
I submit that is it lazy, because you are taking very high risks in order to
achieve extraordinary margins. It's a shortcut taken by people who don't want
to put the work into a dedicated career in legal sales. Obviously there are
exceptions, but the majority of people who become drug dealers are doing it
for quick cash.

~~~
qtplatypus
More often it is because the person belongs to a community that is excluded
from traditional carriers.

------
Tepix
These law enforcement people are going against judges orders (i.e. the warrant
requirement). The people in charge should lose their jobs.

------
eth0up
A couple older links on Babel Street from Vice and TWP (2017):

[https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/gv7g3m/meet-babel-
street-...](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/gv7g3m/meet-babel-street-the-
powerful-social-media-surveillance-used-by-police-secret-service-and-sports-
stadiums)

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/for-this-
com...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/for-this-company-
online-surveillance-leads-to-profit-in-washingtons-
suburbs/2017/09/08/6067c924-9409-11e7-89fa-bb822a46da5b_story.html)

Babel Street's first customer was the Pentagon, according to TWP. It appears
to have since spread with virulence to nearly all branches of government.

I wonder how viable they'd be (in cellphone location tracking) if permissions
actually meant something in Android. I missed any mention of iphones in the
Protocol article, but would default to equal cynicism.

~~~
cryptonector
Even if permissions are enforced, there will be enough apps that most users
will be willing to allow to track them, and those apps can participate in this
program without being exactly explicit about it to the user. The apps' privacy
policies will essentially be a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo amounting to "and
you have no privacy", and users won't even bother to read that.

Just because an uninformed user granted some app permission to track them,
which app implied it could share that with LEOs, doesn't mean that the courts
will consider warrant-less tracking this way constitutional. I don't know and
can't predict whether the courts will or won't, but they well might not. There
will be interesting cases arising out of this technology eventually. The
SCOTUS has already said that police can warrantlessly use surveillance
technology that is widely available to the public, but I doubt this tech will
so become.

~~~
eth0up
I (further) wonder what percentage of Fdroid apps lend themselves to Locate-X.
Certainly qualifies for the "Anti-features" honor.

Regarding that which might arise; very interesting for sure, and almost
certainly for the worse. I'll never embrace it, but do accept it - it's here
to stay along with endless other innovations, or so I fear.

------
greendestiny_re
I've started using my smartphone as a landline receiver. I keep it plugged
into the same power outlet all the time, check the messages and answer them
through the PC if possible. We've come full circle.

------
einpoklum
In Soviet Russia, government tell phone network operator to spy on you.

In Capitalist America, phone network operator spy on you to tell government.

------
AdmiralGinge
I'm amazed any self-respecting criminal would carry a smartphone (or arguably
even a dumb phone) while committing a crime. You might as well spray-paint
"I'm a criminal, come and arrest me at [address]" on a bedsheet and hang it
off a motorway bridge.

~~~
ganzuul
It's not criminals who need to be worried about this tech.

~~~
djeuegeue73
Citation needed.

~~~
raxxorrax
History books supply ample citations and experience. Authorities need a
regular check. This fact was established in all modern democracies. That these
checks don't work for modern technology is because of lacking competency from
people responsible. And the fact too many people trying to publish wrongdoing
end up in solitary confinement or need to flee the country.

~~~
westmeal
Case in point: Julian Assange and Snowden

------
Shivetya
The US use of it isn't the concern, we can regulate it and I do not see a
reason for many agencies to have the tool or its like. What people should
understand is once this tool exists then oppressive governments can either get
hold of it and create their own. So go pick your favorite country known for
oppressing people and you can guarantee this or similar is in use.

So what this leads to is further work on not allowing information of any sort
off a phone unless approved by the user and features that let them know which
apps have sent data and how much. Kind of like how tracking is being defeated
on the desktop.

Pretty much the end run is burner phones/prepaid but any organized individual
or group of who does not want to be tracked would or should already have gone
down that route. Of course that only works to a point, where a large number of
them congregate can provide agencies a lot of information as well.

~~~
einpoklum
> We can regulate it

Oh yes, you've been very successful in regulating the US government not to spy
on people without warrants. You might want to read Snowden's book about the
extent of this great success.

------
danmur
Pretty unpleasant seeing the term open source applied like this.

~~~
sneak
This is why, despite the Stallman-type connotations, I have started
exclusively using the term “free software” to call what I used to refer to as
“open source”.

Lesser reason: Lots of software is source-available, but isn’t free-as-in-
freedom in my view (including the AGPL!) and distinguishing that is very
important for anyone involved in a business that uses software. The last thing
an entrepreneur (who already deals with tons of existential risks) needs is an
additional risk uncertainty. Free software is (in most cases, Oracle’s fuckery
excepted) a bright line there.

(Sorry for veering off of the direct topic of TFA.)

~~~
dTal
Ironic that you say "despite the Stallman-type connotations" when that's
exactly why Stallman advocates the term. For guy who's right all the time he
really gets some unfair press.

~~~
sneak
Nobody is "right all the time", least of all Richard Stallman. He's a creepy
asshole who doesn't respect boundaries.

