[HN Gopher] Police can get your data - even if you aren't suspec...
___________________________________________________________________
Police can get your data - even if you aren't suspected of a crime
Author : arkadiyt
Score : 121 points
Date : 2021-08-01 15:56 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.vox.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.vox.com)
| tomohawk wrote:
| 1) its not your data if it is not on equipment you own
|
| 2) this is the cost of free services
| malwarebytess wrote:
| And both of these things are wrong and should be changed. We
| don't need to be beholden to the disastrous third-party legal
| doctrine.
| tomohawk wrote:
| Just because they're wrong and should be changed doesn't mean
| that they are not true now.
|
| If you don't like it, then these are the fundamental things
| that need to be reconsidered.
| artificialLimbs wrote:
| Fun (mildly related) story - a couple months ago I was pulled
| over for speeding. I had a very good reason to be doing so IMO
| (medical). The cop took my license and when he came back to the
| car said "Mr artificialLimbs, I can see that you don't like cops.
| It says that when I pull up your records".
|
| 1.)I have no idea why they think this, especially since I donate
| to the state troopers every year. I may cancel that
| subscription...
|
| 2.)WTF I live in the U.S. If this profiling doesn't directly
| violate laws, it certainly violates the spirit of "All men are
| created equal".
|
| I am considering filing FOIA for video and all records pertaining
| to myself to find out exactly what he meant, and then writing
| congresscritters.
|
| *edit spelling
| [deleted]
| throwaway75787 wrote:
| He was testing you. Possible inferiority complex in the face of
| whatever your legitimate reason was.
| intricatedetail wrote:
| Maybe he was bored and was looking to trigger someone and
| then get them arrested. Data gives them hints what will work
| best.
| artificialLimbs wrote:
| I don't think so, fwiw. He was actually mostly nice.
| whatshisface wrote:
| I think perhaps that should be stepped down from a "he was"
| to a "he could have been."
| rhizome wrote:
| Well, there's basically no legal way that that kind of
| information is in the databases accessible via his car
| computer, so he's already lying by saying "you don't like
| police" and "it says that when I pull up your records."
| Police also protect their tools with a fierce secrecy, so
| they don't just banter about what they can access on their
| computers, especially when that would mean they're
| revealing functionality or data that doesn't have a
| compelling government interest, unless they're lying about
| it.
|
| You can step it back up yourself by turning the question
| around: by what mechanism, process, or law would your
| opinion of the police appear on a screen in a police car?
|
| In my book, as far as surveillance or internet comments
| (etc.) information getting used at traffic stops goes,
| that's an extraordinary claim begging for extraordinary
| evidence.
|
| Ancillary links:
|
| Difficulty of retaining a wide spectrum of information:
|
| https://apnews.com/article/us-news-police-lawsuits-maine-
| law...
|
| Random information comes from in-office access:
|
| https://apnews.com/699236946e3140659fff8a2362e16f43/ap-
| acros...
|
| Basis for investigation not at traffic stops:
|
| https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-
| reports/when...
|
| Maybe something more detailed can be found here:
|
| https://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,4643,7-123-3493_72291-294063
| -...
| leetcrew wrote:
| I'm not sure exactly what kind of mechanism they have to
| track such information, but some departments clearly do
| keep tabs on people who are vocally hostile towards
| police.
|
| take a look at this video if you have a minute. dispatch
| explicitly warns the officer that the guy has said
| threatening things about police on social media.
| unfortunately, the encounter ends in a (very likely)
| unjustified shooting of an unarmed suspect.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFWR73R9G3E
| LatteLazy wrote:
| Aren't law enforcement immune from FOIA requests?
| barbacoa wrote:
| Police have qualified immunity but not from FOIA (or their
| state equivalent laws).
| cryptonector wrote:
| > "I can see that you don't like cops."
|
| He's trying to get you to talk. It's like: "where are you going
| tonight?" (if the answer is "home", then "where from?", if the
| answer to that is "a restaurant", then you'll get "did you have
| anything to drink tonight?", and if you answer "yes", then next
| up is "please step out of the car").
|
| The way to deal with this is to start by asking the office why
| they stopped you, and then "am I being detained or am I free to
| go?". The officer will instantly know that you know not to
| answer his questions about anything other than your name and
| address, so now all they get to do is find violations to ticket
| you for -- and well they might, but it will be harder for them
| to find something serious.
| dTal wrote:
| >I donate to the state troopers every year
|
| Wait, what? ...are they not tax-funded? Forgive me, it's your
| money, but are underfunded state troopers such a problem that
| there's nowhere else you'd rather put your charity?
| artificialLimbs wrote:
| They tell me it's to hand out teddy bears to kids. When they
| send the paperwork though, it says it's for all manner of
| things. I assume they're telling the truth and this is just
| CYA, but who really knows.
|
| Is there a reason you think I only donate to one charity? I
| don't think we need more people telling people they're
| donating to the wrong charity. We need more charity.
| dTal wrote:
| No, I don't assume that you only donate to one charity. I
| do assume that the amount you can donate to charity is
| capped, and that charity allocation is therefore zero-sum -
| a dollar you donate to the State Troopers is a dollar you
| haven't donated somewhere else. I agree that we need more
| charity, but donating to the "wrong" charity - one that
| does not use your money to do good effectively - is as bad
| as not donating.
|
| As for how the State Troopers spend it - I would trust the
| paperwork.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| It's not funding for their jobs. It's funding for
| associations such as FOP[1] that do some combination of
| advocacy/lobbying for police interests, and local charitable
| work.
|
| 1: https://fop.net/
| cryptonector wrote:
| Trooper _associations_.
| e40 wrote:
| I've been getting calls for years at home where the caller
| would say "Mr XXX, this is the police" and then a pause and
| then "don't worry, we're just calling to talk to you about
| <some charity event>".
|
| I have friends who tell me they always donate because they
| are afraid of repercussions. Lately the calls are actually
| bots, and very good ones. I had a short conversation with one
| and I thought they were human, before I hung up. Next call
| sounded exactly like the first, so I asked "are you human?"
| and after asking 2-3 times I got transferred to a human and
| told them to take me off their list. Haven't been called
| since.
| dTal wrote:
| Um. I don't often swear on HN, but _what the fuck_.
|
| It should go without saying that it is _not normal_ in a
| civilized society for the police to harass and intimidate
| random people over the telephone into giving them money -
| let alone _automating_ it.
| artificialLimbs wrote:
| There is no mention above about people being harassed and
| intimidated.
| dTal wrote:
| Yes there is. Phoning someone and saying "This is the
| police", followed by a pause, is _calculated_ to raise
| people 's heart rate and stress them out. They _know_
| that because they follow it up with "don't worry" -
| people shouldn't be worried in the first place. It
| deliberately plays on people's fear, and that's
| despicable.
|
| Then there's the fact that some people fear repercussions
| for not donating. How did they get that impression? An
| honest misunderstanding, no doubt...
|
| Then there's the repeated robocalling. That would
| certainly harass me.
| thatguy0900 wrote:
| you get a little sticker to put on your car when you donate,
| the usual suspiscion is that people who have those stickers
| are treated better if the cop sees it, so a lot of people
| donate.
| artificialLimbs wrote:
| I don't have a sticker, and have never gotten one, as a
| single data point.
| thatguy0900 wrote:
| Interesting. Here in Ohio they advertise it https://www.f
| opohio.org/?zone=/unionactive/view_page.cfm&pag...
| dTal wrote:
| Carrot _and_ stick? Oh this just gets better and better.
| kypro wrote:
| This really highlights how incorrect the "nothing to fear,
| nothing to hide" argument is. With enough data anything we say
| or do which someone with authority doesn't like can be used
| against us, either directly as a means to criminalise us or
| indirectly as a motive to find some reason to criminalise us.
| Robelius wrote:
| Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court
| of law.
|
| They're explicit in saying how they will use information.
| SilasX wrote:
| That statement is the Miranda warning and refers to
| statements made during custodial interrogation. But yes, it
| does feel eerily true in general now.
| cryptonector wrote:
| It's also true of statements made prior to custodial
| interrogation, it's just that the police don't have to
| read you your Miranda warning prior to taking you into
| custody.
|
| This means that you have to be super careful when
| speaking to the police _at all_. And by super careful I
| meant: don 't. Watch professor James Duane's videos on
| the topic, and Don't Talk to Police. Also, if arrested,
| you can't just stay quiet: since Salinas v. Texas the
| defendant must actually invoke their 5th amendment right
| to keep quiet before actually keeping quiet, otherwise
| their keeping quiet... can be used against them in a
| court of law. You'll learn that from watching professor
| Duane's videos.
| austincheney wrote:
| > I can see that you don't like cops.
|
| Does it really matter? The result of the encounter would be the
| same either way, whether or not favorable. The best you can do
| is not provide anything to confirm an unqualified suspicion.
| artificialLimbs wrote:
| If the result of the encounter would be the same either way
| then there is no reason to store the data.
| legrande wrote:
| > You might get swept up in one just because you were in the
| wrong place at the wrong time or looked up the wrong search term
|
| And who gets to decide what a 'wrong' search term is? What if I
| wanted to figure out how nitrate bombs were made just out of
| plain intellectual curiosity, and not for the purposes of harming
| others?
|
| And for sensitive search terms, I use Tor+DuckDuckGo and call it
| a day. Now and then I do that if looking up sensitive topics /
| health information like `how to cure hemorrhoids` or sexual
| health issues like ED. I would _never_ use Google for topics like
| that!
| karencarits wrote:
| Regarding Google and sensitive topics; why not? I often search
| on a lot of topics that could be sensitive but it would be
| really hard to separate pure curiosity from something serious
| darig wrote:
| OK, Karen. Time for jail.
| MeinBlutIstBlau wrote:
| You have no rights in front of a cop. You only have rights in
| front of a judge. A cop can break every single one of your rights
| as they want, including kill you. It's frankly the most absurd
| system to ever exist. Your rights should exist well before it
| makes it to court (if you want to wait that long...if you get a
| court date). This whole system that cops can escalate your
| punishment and practically ruin your life financially is the
| greatest injustice in criminal justice system of the US. But talk
| of worker protections and limiting police powers is evil rhetoric
| here among the actual ruling class.
| shrimp_emoji wrote:
| >It's frankly the most absurd system to ever exist.
|
| https://youtu.be/J7MYlRzLqD0?t=103
| MeinBlutIstBlau wrote:
| Lol, well at least you didn't have to worry about figuring
| out how you'd pay your bills after you become exonerated.
| infogulch wrote:
| https://youtube.com/c/AuditTheAudit
| [deleted]
| yawaworht1978 wrote:
| This depends heavily on the country. Some countries severely
| restrict what police can access,in former or current
| socialist/communist countries the people expect nothing less than
| all data available to the government and in the US the people
| believe somebody safeguards their data and privacy, this is
| almost ironic when you think about how many google , Facebook etc
| are out there, not to mention agencies like NSA doing mega data
| collection wherever they can.
|
| Doesn't matter much on an individual basis, the governments will
| always find a way to get what they're looking for once they
| seriously target you.
| joelbondurant wrote:
| Tungsten core bullets fix USA thugs.
| adevx wrote:
| When I had to comply with a recent data request for a police
| investigation I had to provide all data of anyone who had
| favoured/bookmarked a certain profile. I realized just how easily
| a person's data can end up in an active investigation.
| intricatedetail wrote:
| How do you know you had to? Companies send such data out of
| fear. Many jurisdiction require prosecutor or judge to sign
| request. Giving police data just like that may be against the
| law. One of reasons small websites die, because they have no
| money for legal advice.
| adevx wrote:
| It was a signed request by a prosecutor after having been
| quizzed about what data they could get. I would never freely
| hand over such data.
| quesera wrote:
| Some prosecutors will charm you into cooperation.
|
| A request by a prosecutor is an informal request.
|
| A search warrant signed by a judge is a formal demand.
|
| Your corporate data policy will dictate whether you can
| share customer information without a search warrant or a
| subpoena.
| xenocyon wrote:
| Was it mandatory to comply with such a request? I was under
| the impression that mandatory court orders need to be
| signed by a judge (not a prosecutor).
| adevx wrote:
| The request was signed by a Dutch prosecutor (Officier
| van Justitie) In the Netherlands, not complying can
| result in a jail sentence with a maximum of 3 months [1].
|
| I do believe this request was pushing the legal
| boundaries as the law describes the request should be as
| specific and narrow as possible [0]. (with "as possible"
| being a rather big loophole)
|
| (Dutch)
|
| [0] https://maxius.nl/wetboek-van-
| strafvordering/artikel126nd
|
| [1] https://maxius.nl/wetboek-van-
| strafrecht/artikel184/lid1#:~:...
| throwawayboise wrote:
| Many companies will comply with a police investigation,
| warrant or not. You can't reply on third parties
| demanding a warrant before they release your information
| to someone with a badge.
| rhizome wrote:
| Are you sure "a signed request by a prosecutor" was enough
| to _require_ you to hand over the data?
| cyphertruck wrote:
| That's not a warrant signed by a judge. I'm not judging you
| but I want to clarify, this was merely a request from a
| prosecutor, with no warrant covering it?
|
| Sounds like a violation of 18 U.S. Code SS 242. Deprivation
| of rights under color of law -
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242
|
| and 18 U.S. Code SS 241. Conspiracy against rights -
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| iCloud backups are a treasure chest that Apple hands over to law
| enforcement more easily than people assume. Just backup to your
| laptop. If there's a legal need to access your devices, you'll
| have the warrant served to you directly.
|
| Also Tresorit offers end to end encrypted cloud storage. If
| you're storing a lot of sensitive documents like ID scans,
| account statements, medical paperwork, it's worth a
| consideration. Then if your iCloud storage has to be handed over,
| at least you maintain some privacy in those matters.
| ronnier wrote:
| https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303
|
| Seems some of iCloud is end-to-end encrypted. These features
| and their data are transmitted and stored in iCloud using end-
| to-end encryption: * Apple Card transactions
| * Home data * Health data * iCloud Keychain *
| Maps Favorites, Collections and search history * Memoji
| * Payment information * QuickType Keyboard learned
| vocabulary * Safari History and iCloud Tabs *
| Screen Time * Siri information * Wi-Fi passwords
| * W1 and H1 Bluetooth keys
|
| Things that are not e2e: photos, iMessage, Notes, Mail,
| Contacts, and others.
|
| I'm wondering, are the Safari cookies e2e encrypted?
| novok wrote:
| Such a bizarre swiss cheese approach to E2E isn't it?
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| https://blog.elcomsoft.com/2021/01/apple-scraps-end-to-
| end-e...
|
| Interestingly apple was planning end to end encryption of
| backups but changed their minds on the matter.
| ronnier wrote:
| So is the browsing history not e2e encrypted in the
| backup?
| TheParkShark wrote:
| I'm under the impression this was government influenced.
| Anytime Apple has increased their encryption talk they
| are pressured by the feds.
| dTal wrote:
| Wow. Photos are up for grabs but god forbid anyone see your
| "memoji"...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-01 23:01 UTC)