NC to use cell phone tracking data during lockdown...
- Thread starter bigfelipe
- Start date
- Replies 68
- Views 2,384
Beware, we saw what you did last week.
I’ve been working on a solution to this problem... What do y’all think ??
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Looks like Conan
DrScaryGuy
🌈 Loves rainbows 🌈
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
I don't know if they do, but i know they could. i think pretty much every android and iphone made in the last decade have accelerometers.
Also, speaking of 10 year old things that use accelerometers, you should play the game "snuggle truck". it started as "smuggle truck" where you smuggled mexicans over the border. but the app stores wouldn't carry it, so the redid it to make it about stuffed animals going to the stuffed animal zoo.
random
Well-Known Member
But if it can't transmit that data, does it matter?
Based on that I live in a faraday cage.
DrScaryGuy
🌈 Loves rainbows 🌈
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
dont' worry, as soon as you connect to anything, it will send up all the missing data.
And don't forget that just because YOU can't get service doesn't mean THEY aren't still able to pick up your trail/data. They have large expensive antennas, you have a cheap antenna that gets bogged down when a fat person steps in front of you.
random
Well-Known Member
Not completely convinced about that first, and the second doesn't matter - that just means they can talk to you. YOUR antenna is what matters when transmitting.
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2019
- Messages
- 1,989
At least they’re collecting data. I feel like all along they just making decisions by rolling the dice with a board of ad Lib suggestions.
my hypothesis, this data shows far lower transmission in the evening (after adjusted for activity ) and curfews are total BS.
my hypothesis, this data shows far lower transmission in the evening (after adjusted for activity ) and curfews are total BS.
CarolinaColtCollector
It’s never a “War Crime” the first time.
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Life Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Huh...
I just opened my monthly Timeline email from Google and thought "hey that's cool, look where I went"
Guess I'm different.
I just opened my monthly Timeline email from Google and thought "hey that's cool, look where I went"
Guess I'm different.
Last edited:
FlatFender
Well-Known Member
Let's face it, your carrier always knows where the phone is, even without GPS, just based on how phones work. If you don't want to be tracked, and you're carrying a phone that's not in a Faraday bag, you're going to be disappointed.
I saw this last week doesn't exactly fit with the topic but it's close enough to be interesting in this conversation.
Fourth Amendment suit against police for use of cell site simulator device remanded for additional factfinding; summary judgment to defendants reversed
Andrews v. Baltimore City Police Dept., ___ F.3d ___, 2020 WL _____, No. 18-1953 (March 27, 2020).
Baltimore police used a cell site simulator (a “Hailstorm” device) to locate the plaintiff, relying on a pen register/trap and trace order (“the order”). Cell site simulators mimic cell phone towers and force all phones within an area to connect to the device, rather than nearby cell towers to which the phones would normally connect.
Every phone connecting to a cell tower (or simulator device) sends an identifying signal that may be collected and stored by the cell tower (or simulator). This data in turn can provide location data on the connecting devices—if the suspect’s phone connects to the device, police can determine the cell phone user’s vicinity.
Much secrecy surrounds the use of these devices, and the police had a nondisclosure agreement with the FBI limiting disclosures information about the device here, as is common. “Law enforcement agencies are reluctant to disclose information about cell site simulators. This case is no different.” Id. at 2 n. 1. (citations omitted) (observing that the government has dismissed cases rather than disclose details about the devices).
The order did not specifically identify the use of cell site simulator technology, but rather allowed for the “duplication of facilities, technical devices or equipment . . .[to] initiate a signal to determine the location of the subject’s mobile device . . .” Slip op. at 3. The order was limited to 60 days but was not limited by geographic area.
The plaintiff was arrested after police located him using the device, but the state court suppressed the evidence, finding that the pen register order lacked probable cause and particularity. The plaintiff then sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a Fourth Amendment violation. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants.
It found that the order was effectively a search warrant and did not hold a hearing on what data a Hailstorm device could or did collect, or how it operated. Without this information, the court was unable to conduct adequate review of the Fourth Amendment claim:
Absent a more detailed understanding of the Hailstorm simulator’s configuration and surveillance capabilities, we cannot address the issues necessary for resolution of this case. Despite the government’s use of a sophisticated, wide-reaching, and hard-to-detect new surveillance tool—one with potentially significant implications for constitutional privacy—we know very little about how many searches it conducted, of whom, and what data it collected and stored.
We thus cannot strike the appropriate ‘balance between the public interest and the individual’s right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers’ that is central to the Fourth Amendment analysis. Id. at 7.
On remand, the district court is to consider the following factors: (1) the device’s range; (2) the number of phones to which it may connect; (3) “all categories of data” collected by the device; (4) whether such data is stored; (5) what data is available to law enforcement; and (6) any efforts at protecting against data collection from innocent third-parties within the device’s configuration.
The district court was also instructed to consider if the defendants had any policy or practice of withholding information about the use of a cell site simulator from judicial officials when seeking search warrants or pen register orders. Without expressing judgment on the alleged Fourth Amendment violation, the court reversed and remanded for hearing.
Judge Wilkinson concurred, noting the public interest in solving crime and suggesting that the district court consider that governmental interest on remand as well.
Fourth Amendment suit against police for use of cell site simulator device remanded for additional factfinding; summary judgment to defendants reversed
Andrews v. Baltimore City Police Dept., ___ F.3d ___, 2020 WL _____, No. 18-1953 (March 27, 2020).
Baltimore police used a cell site simulator (a “Hailstorm” device) to locate the plaintiff, relying on a pen register/trap and trace order (“the order”). Cell site simulators mimic cell phone towers and force all phones within an area to connect to the device, rather than nearby cell towers to which the phones would normally connect.
Every phone connecting to a cell tower (or simulator device) sends an identifying signal that may be collected and stored by the cell tower (or simulator). This data in turn can provide location data on the connecting devices—if the suspect’s phone connects to the device, police can determine the cell phone user’s vicinity.
Much secrecy surrounds the use of these devices, and the police had a nondisclosure agreement with the FBI limiting disclosures information about the device here, as is common. “Law enforcement agencies are reluctant to disclose information about cell site simulators. This case is no different.” Id. at 2 n. 1. (citations omitted) (observing that the government has dismissed cases rather than disclose details about the devices).
The order did not specifically identify the use of cell site simulator technology, but rather allowed for the “duplication of facilities, technical devices or equipment . . .[to] initiate a signal to determine the location of the subject’s mobile device . . .” Slip op. at 3. The order was limited to 60 days but was not limited by geographic area.
The plaintiff was arrested after police located him using the device, but the state court suppressed the evidence, finding that the pen register order lacked probable cause and particularity. The plaintiff then sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a Fourth Amendment violation. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants.
It found that the order was effectively a search warrant and did not hold a hearing on what data a Hailstorm device could or did collect, or how it operated. Without this information, the court was unable to conduct adequate review of the Fourth Amendment claim:
Absent a more detailed understanding of the Hailstorm simulator’s configuration and surveillance capabilities, we cannot address the issues necessary for resolution of this case. Despite the government’s use of a sophisticated, wide-reaching, and hard-to-detect new surveillance tool—one with potentially significant implications for constitutional privacy—we know very little about how many searches it conducted, of whom, and what data it collected and stored.
We thus cannot strike the appropriate ‘balance between the public interest and the individual’s right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers’ that is central to the Fourth Amendment analysis. Id. at 7.
On remand, the district court is to consider the following factors: (1) the device’s range; (2) the number of phones to which it may connect; (3) “all categories of data” collected by the device; (4) whether such data is stored; (5) what data is available to law enforcement; and (6) any efforts at protecting against data collection from innocent third-parties within the device’s configuration.
The district court was also instructed to consider if the defendants had any policy or practice of withholding information about the use of a cell site simulator from judicial officials when seeking search warrants or pen register orders. Without expressing judgment on the alleged Fourth Amendment violation, the court reversed and remanded for hearing.
Judge Wilkinson concurred, noting the public interest in solving crime and suggesting that the district court consider that governmental interest on remand as well.
DrScaryGuy
🌈 Loves rainbows 🌈
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
not scared, just irritated at everybody trying to monetize me.
but don't get me started on stringray stations...
Here's the problem - I continually imagine the worst case scenario I am able to... and I'm frequently surprised at just how badly I underestimated things once I start digging into details...
Youre not alone.
Ok, Google is trying to monetize me...ok.
Are they doing anything malicious? Nah, just trying to sell me things, nothing forced on me.
Folks talking about faraday bags for your phone, give me a break
No doubt there is already a significant digital footprint out there about me: Google, gas stations, highway tolls, Amazon, ATMs, grocery stores, air travel, hotels, cell phones, email, former employer systems, .gov systems, hobbies, tax returns, software crash reports, bank accounts, utility bills, etc.
The amount of data out there about each of us already is staggering if you think about it. Turning off your phone might make it harder to locate you via that method, but no doubt our daily routines could be blueprinted without a lot of effort and likely already has been.
The amount of data out there about each of us already is staggering if you think about it. Turning off your phone might make it harder to locate you via that method, but no doubt our daily routines could be blueprinted without a lot of effort and likely already has been.
ES44AC
Happy to be here
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-google-create-contact-tracing-172621872.html
Apple and Google tracing the Virus .
Apple and Google tracing the Virus .
Last edited:
Nope. No cars with any of that.
No digital assistants.
The “smart TV” isn’t connected to the internet - it’s just a 4K display for the Mac and has a Blu-ray player as well.
On the home network I block all the social network IPs at the DNS level (and lots more) - there is no such thing as facebook or twitter or instagram on my internet...
All cameras on laptops taped over too.