[jadenpeterson]

Why are they comfortable saying this?

> Generally, Boyd said his office uses the software to find “avenues for obtaining probable cause” or “to verify reasonable suspicion that you already have”—not as a basis by itself to make arrests.

As if that's not a massive violation of our rights in and of itself. This is my fundamental problem with the internet. As much as stories like these gain traction, as many millions of redditors protest these increasingly common stories (for example, the suspicious nature of Luigi Mangione being 'reported' in that McDonalds), nothing will change.

Perhaps this is the part of the criminal justice system I am most suspect of. Is this what happens in a country with less regulation?

[topspin]

> Why are they comfortable saying this?

They receive recognition for the results. Phone data was used in a large fraction of the cases against rioters in the 2021 capital attack. The Powers That Be were grateful that law enforcement were able to use phone data to either initially identify attackers or corroborate other evidence, and ultimately put people in prison. The justice system makes cases with this every day, and the victims of criminals are thankful for these results.

[mikeyouse]

Tools like this are substantially different than time/location Bound geofences with warrants served to providers like were used in the Jan 6 investigations. And even those are under SCOTUS scrutiny for 4th amendment concerns.

[prophesi]

I've heard a lot more recognition for Apple refusing to comply with unlocking iPhones over the years than any of these other cases.

[antidamage]

I don't like being devil's advocate on this because I am strongly against the invasion of privacy at that point in the investigation, but without that data, they'd just take a bit longer to have identified the members of the insurrection. There's varying degrees of data you can glean from cellular networks as well, right down to "it was definitely this person, the phone logs show a FaceID unlock at X time" and that action can be inferred by network logs, all information that carriers have retained for over two decades.

What it does become is a data point in an evidential submission that can strengthen a case that could otherwise be argued back as a bit flaky. It's similar to DNA evidence in that it's not actually 100% reliable nor is the data handled forensically at every stage of collection, but it's treated as if it is.

I think it's weighted too heavily in evidence and should not be used as a fine-toothed comb to sweep for "evidence" when it can be so easily tainted or faked. At the same time, I'd love to see the current members of the pushback against ICE using this data fallacy against future prosecutions. "Yeah, I was at home, look" and actually it's just a replay of a touch or face ID login running from a packaged emulator, or whatever signature activities meet the evidential requirement.

[wavefunction]

appeal to emotion

[alex_young]

The interesting part here is that they are apparently no longer even trying to use parallel construction [0] to cover this stuff up. They somehow feel confident that just saying we have this technology, we don’t say how we use it, but we wind up on the right trail and then gather some evidence down the road we wound up on somehow.

Seems shaky at best. Smells of hubris.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

[sneak]

Nothing will change until and unless police start suffering severe consequences for breaking the law.

Such consequences will never come from the state.

[sneak]

They’re comfortable saying this because the US doesn’t have the rule of law, as evidenced by laws not applying to police.

[thesmtsolver2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_police_offic...

[trimethylpurine]

"Without" regulations? As early as 2006 we discovered that phone carriers were subject to regulations forcing them to install back doors for government surveillance. Many near the 2002 Olympic games had their phone calls listened to by human ears (NSA) without warrant. And that's just a random example. This has been going on much much longer.

Regulations are made or dismantled in an effort to funnel money into regulators own businesses or investments and to combat their political opponents, all under the premise that it's for the good of society. (And, in some cases it has been.)

This shouldn't be news to anyone. What's shocking is that this is still shocking to people.

[Forgeties79]

>"to verify reasonable suspicion that you already have”

Translation: "Sprinkle some crack on him and let's get the hell out of here."

[titanomachy]

Was that suspicious? I thought his face was plastered all over the news.

[josefritzishere]

That quote is Boyd's criminal confession.