Police can get your data – even if you aren’t suspected of a crime(vox.com)
vox.com
Police can get your data – even if you aren’t suspected of a crime
https://www.vox.com/recode/22565926/police-law-enforcement-data-warrant
109 comments
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.
Also anything you don't say or do, given the anecdote. Which is just as relevant; without a well protected right to privacy against law enforcement, an unfounded claim is just as valid as a founded one, since there isn't any vetting. -Hopefully- there will be if a case is ever prosecuted, but there's a lot police can do to you to make your life miserable without requiring criminal prosecution and the burden on evidence that that entails.
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.
They’re explicit in saying how they will use information.
That statement is the Miranda warning and refers to statements made during custodial interrogation. But yes, it does feel eerily true in general now.
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.
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.
But that's only true after they read you the Miranda rights. Officers need to say those words so that the accused understands that their statements will be taken seriously in the immediate future.
It's not supposed to refer to anything that you have ever or will ever say in perpetuity...
It's not supposed to refer to anything that you have ever or will ever say in perpetuity...
> "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.
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.
No this was weirder than that.
He immediately followed up with “but I’m going to cut you a break this time and let you go.” I had told him about the medical emergency. He also informed me “not all of us are bad”.
I got stopped for speeding once and the state trooper followed up the ticket by asking me if I was military or law enforcement because of my demeanor. I had been truthful about the speeding, I said I wasn't paying attention when he asked why I was going 82 in a 55. He had knocked 10mph off the ticket for me and I had thanked him for that. Anything over 80 in my state involves a lot more punishment than just a simple speeding ticket, you have to go to court, pay a bunch of money, and you get extra points on your license which raises your insurance significantly. I was a little taken aback by the question and just said no. I am a fat nerd with shaggy hair and have never been confused for military or law enforcement ever before. I'm not sure if it was just my politeness or there was something more to the question.
Sounds like a lot of paperwork avoided for the officer. Police like tedious and repetitive office work just as much as the next bloke.
How is he allowed to just "knock off" 10mph from the ticket? I assume he had you on a radar.
I really hate selective enforcement. Perhaps our laws would not remain so wrong if they were enforced more routinely.
I really hate selective enforcement. Perhaps our laws would not remain so wrong if they were enforced more routinely.
(not a lawyer, opinions are my own, yada yada) The executive branch has broad power to choose which laws to enforce and when and how to enforce them within certain limitations, such as not being allowed to racially profile. It's worth asking whether the pros outweigh the cons for the status quo, but that system does have some benefits. Here are a few:
(1) It offers a check on legislative and judicial power. Consider ~2005-2018 where some states had legalized marijuana but the federal government explicitly had the power to enforce marijuana laws. Selective enforcement allows those agencies to decide to uphold states' choices.
(2) To the extent that human cognition is a necessary component of the legal system, it's cheaper and easier for everyone involved to shift some of those decisions earlier in the process, much like shifting software bugs earlier in the development process. E.g., there was a period of time midway through the 2020 lockdowns in CA where the DMV might have been trying to process your new tags for half a year, where you might have paid for those tags long before they expired, and where you were technically breaking a law by not having new tags available to display on your car just after the extended governor's order halting enforcement expired. You'll get off scot-free if you take that in front of a judge, but it's cheaper for everyone involved for the police to just not write a stupid ticket in the first place.
(3) As a practical matter, not all laws can be enforced, so some level of discretion is necessary. If every CA police officer were working 24/7 then every hour of every day they'd on average have to police 320 car-miles driven on CA roads. Moreover, every ticket they write is a similar burden inflicted on the rest of the system.
So what happened in the example traffic stop? It could be a lot of things, but some combination of (1) and (3) seems likely. The officer might have (1) determined that the >=80mph punishment in that state was excessive given the circumstances and limited the legislature's ability to use that power here and (3) decided that if the speed were slightly dropped there would be a lot less incentive to fight the ticket and use up other government resources.
It's probably also worth noting that having a person on radar still doesn't necessarily suffice. In many states a +/-5mph tolerance is allowed in a speedometer, but speeding is still illegal. I'm not sure if the intersection of those two concepts is well tested in court (e.g., does intent matter in this case?), but in practice many cops, prosecutors, and judges are more than willing to drop 5-10mph off a ticket to accommodate such things.
(1) It offers a check on legislative and judicial power. Consider ~2005-2018 where some states had legalized marijuana but the federal government explicitly had the power to enforce marijuana laws. Selective enforcement allows those agencies to decide to uphold states' choices.
(2) To the extent that human cognition is a necessary component of the legal system, it's cheaper and easier for everyone involved to shift some of those decisions earlier in the process, much like shifting software bugs earlier in the development process. E.g., there was a period of time midway through the 2020 lockdowns in CA where the DMV might have been trying to process your new tags for half a year, where you might have paid for those tags long before they expired, and where you were technically breaking a law by not having new tags available to display on your car just after the extended governor's order halting enforcement expired. You'll get off scot-free if you take that in front of a judge, but it's cheaper for everyone involved for the police to just not write a stupid ticket in the first place.
(3) As a practical matter, not all laws can be enforced, so some level of discretion is necessary. If every CA police officer were working 24/7 then every hour of every day they'd on average have to police 320 car-miles driven on CA roads. Moreover, every ticket they write is a similar burden inflicted on the rest of the system.
So what happened in the example traffic stop? It could be a lot of things, but some combination of (1) and (3) seems likely. The officer might have (1) determined that the >=80mph punishment in that state was excessive given the circumstances and limited the legislature's ability to use that power here and (3) decided that if the speed were slightly dropped there would be a lot less incentive to fight the ticket and use up other government resources.
It's probably also worth noting that having a person on radar still doesn't necessarily suffice. In many states a +/-5mph tolerance is allowed in a speedometer, but speeding is still illegal. I'm not sure if the intersection of those two concepts is well tested in court (e.g., does intent matter in this case?), but in practice many cops, prosecutors, and judges are more than willing to drop 5-10mph off a ticket to accommodate such things.
Thanks for the reply, but not one of those points changes my opinion.
(1) This does not appear to be a check on power to me. Some legal (to the state) businesses were raided during this time, and they had no recourse.
(2) Is it that difficult to put a temporary law in place to codify this? Isn't that what we pay officials to do? Seems there are a lot of laws made for every single reason, when there's rich lobbyists involved...
(3) This would quickly cause both the police and citizens to lobby for laws that are both reasonable and enforceable. Both of which are good things IMO.
So I understand your points and agree they are relevant, but I don't agree with your conclusion.
The cynic in me says that the real reason for selective enforcement is so any individual can be selected as a criminal when those with the power to apply them deem it necessary.
I believe most laws should have an expiry/review date.
(1) This does not appear to be a check on power to me. Some legal (to the state) businesses were raided during this time, and they had no recourse.
(2) Is it that difficult to put a temporary law in place to codify this? Isn't that what we pay officials to do? Seems there are a lot of laws made for every single reason, when there's rich lobbyists involved...
(3) This would quickly cause both the police and citizens to lobby for laws that are both reasonable and enforceable. Both of which are good things IMO.
So I understand your points and agree they are relevant, but I don't agree with your conclusion.
The cynic in me says that the real reason for selective enforcement is so any individual can be selected as a criminal when those with the power to apply them deem it necessary.
I believe most laws should have an expiry/review date.
I suppose even the police are allowed to have mercy. Thank god.
Personally, I would rather the amount of mercy we, as a society, want is codified into law.
Better than individuals praying that random police will decide not to enforce merciless laws.
Better than individuals praying that random police will decide not to enforce merciless laws.
At 27 mph over the speed limit, he should've been taken to jail.
Huh
This sounds likely. It's like asking, "So you keep your savings in a box under your bed, huh?" If you reply with exasperation at how the interrogator found out, the irony is that you just told them. :)
>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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
There is no mention above about people being harassed and intimidated.
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.
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.
> 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>".
This is harassment and intimidation.
This is harassment and intimidation.
If only there was someone that could go arrest them…
The police always intimidate. It's how they try to gain control of every situation they are in. If there's no mention, it should be assumed, and should be assumed unless there's specific evidence to the contrary.
First time it happened my heart jumped into my throat. I was fucking pissed off.
or if it's actually the police and not a scam
I'm Canadian but worked briefly in a call centre during university. We were contracted out by different organizations -- the Veterans of Massachusetts, the Alaska State Troopers, the Hero Fund for Florida, etc., -- and we solicited donations for these organizations. What I learned through the process was that all the organizations were bullshit fronts and the donations flowed to different P.O boxes around the country. Most of the contributors were clueless patriots or dutiful elders. Most of the best callers simply made their own scripts and said whatever they wanted to close the deal. Anyway I left obviously but I think about it now and again.
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/
1: https://fop.net/
These same organizations were the #1 source of lobbying to keep marijuana illegal in the state I was in when they were passing legalization legislation.
For Californian's, there's also the 11-99 foundation[0] which will provide you with a license plate frame for donating $3,000 or more. The foundation ostensibly exists "to provide emergency benefits and assistance to California Highway Patrol employees and their families and scholarships to their children."
It's an open secret that the license plate frames make it much less likely to get pulled over for speeding by California Highway Patrol.
[0]https://chp11-99.org/membership/
It's an open secret that the license plate frames make it much less likely to get pulled over for speeding by California Highway Patrol.
[0]https://chp11-99.org/membership/
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.
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.
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.
As for how the State Troopers spend it - I would trust the paperwork.
> They tell me it’s to hand out teddy bears to kids.
This sounds like heavy sarcasm. Anyways, I do believe that “more charity” is a false conclusion. Not everything is charity, especially when the organizations are lobbying against others rights.
More so, when your own research shows that they use your money for various purposes, and other investigations show that most of these charities are corrupt.
This sounds like heavy sarcasm. Anyways, I do believe that “more charity” is a false conclusion. Not everything is charity, especially when the organizations are lobbying against others rights.
More so, when your own research shows that they use your money for various purposes, and other investigations show that most of these charities are corrupt.
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.
Carrot and stick? Oh this just gets better and better.
I don’t have a sticker, and have never gotten one, as a single data point.
Interesting. Here in Ohio they advertise it https://www.fopohio.org/?zone=/unionactive/view_page.cfm&pag...
Trooper associations.
He was testing you. Possible inferiority complex in the face of whatever your legitimate reason was.
I think perhaps that should be stepped down from a "he was" to a "he could have been."
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-...
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-...
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
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
>dispatch explicitly warns the officer that the guy has said threatening things about police on social media.
In which case the dispatcher should be charged with murder too, just like the officer has been.
http://www.stanislaus-da.org/pdf/news/2021/press-release-202...
The "warning" was based on an "officer safety bulletin" that was issued in response to Instagram posts, which I'm willing to accept was the result of a complaint (possibly someone namesearching for "MPD," we don't know). The police actually visited and interviewed him before determining that there was no threat. The original notice was rescinded and reissued saying he wasn't a threat. I haven't been able to find more detail, but it would seem the dispatcher took it upon themselves to relay the original bulletin. :shrug: It'll come out in the transcripts.
It seems to me that--unless you have other info--the police weren't tracking people so much as acting on complaints. I think we can conclude this was not information that appeared as part of the car computer, since the dispatcher thought it necessary to add to it.
I have issues with the idea of "officer safety bulletins" based on Constitutionally-protected activities, but that's a different story.
In which case the dispatcher should be charged with murder too, just like the officer has been.
http://www.stanislaus-da.org/pdf/news/2021/press-release-202...
The "warning" was based on an "officer safety bulletin" that was issued in response to Instagram posts, which I'm willing to accept was the result of a complaint (possibly someone namesearching for "MPD," we don't know). The police actually visited and interviewed him before determining that there was no threat. The original notice was rescinded and reissued saying he wasn't a threat. I haven't been able to find more detail, but it would seem the dispatcher took it upon themselves to relay the original bulletin. :shrug: It'll come out in the transcripts.
It seems to me that--unless you have other info--the police weren't tracking people so much as acting on complaints. I think we can conclude this was not information that appeared as part of the car computer, since the dispatcher thought it necessary to add to it.
I have issues with the idea of "officer safety bulletins" based on Constitutionally-protected activities, but that's a different story.
These days law enforcement agencies partner up with firms like Clearview[1] that mine data on individuals from the internet and build digital dossiers on them.
A story about someone getting their mined information from Clearview made the front page of HN[2] last year.
It is entirely possible that such firms are running sentiment analysis on social media posts, or analyzing likes and shares, to profile suspects as "anti-police" or not.
[1] https://clearview.ai/law-enforcement
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22681207
A story about someone getting their mined information from Clearview made the front page of HN[2] last year.
It is entirely possible that such firms are running sentiment analysis on social media posts, or analyzing likes and shares, to profile suspects as "anti-police" or not.
[1] https://clearview.ai/law-enforcement
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22681207
>These days law enforcement agencies partner up with firms like Clearview
Yes, I addressed that with my investigations link. Investigatory data, problematic or no, does not appear in cop car computers.
Yes, I addressed that with my investigations link. Investigatory data, problematic or no, does not appear in cop car computers.
Maybe he was bored and was looking to trigger someone and then get them arrested. Data gives them hints what will work best.
I don’t think so, fwiw. He was actually mostly nice.
It would be interesting which channels they use to get this information. Do you use social media under your real name? Ever signed a petition with your name? Had a run-in with cops at a protest?
Would be nice to be able to deduce which sources they have to get arbitrary information like that. And especially wrong information in your case.
For all we know you could be subscribed to a newsletter of an org that fights police abuse, your e-mail was leaked and somehow connected to your identity.
Would be nice to be able to deduce which sources they have to get arbitrary information like that. And especially wrong information in your case.
For all we know you could be subscribed to a newsletter of an org that fights police abuse, your e-mail was leaked and somehow connected to your identity.
Why would anyone like cops when they keep "records" on random citizens?
[deleted]
Did he call you by your username "artificialLimbs", or your real name?
> 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.
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.
If the result of the encounter would be the same either way then there is no reason to store the data.
That doesn’t make any sense.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
Aren't law enforcement immune from FOIA requests?
Police have qualified immunity but not from FOIA (or their state equivalent laws).
Actually they sort of do:
https://www.justice.gov/oip/foia-guide-2004-edition-exemptio...
Nothing that might reveal their investigations among other things. And who decides what is covered? The police themselves...
https://www.justice.gov/oip/foia-guide-2004-edition-exemptio...
Nothing that might reveal their investigations among other things. And who decides what is covered? The police themselves...
Fill that FOIA request right up.
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.
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.
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.
Are you sure "a signed request by a prosecutor" was enough to require you to hand over the data?
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 § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242
and 18 U.S. Code § 241. Conspiracy against rights - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241
Sounds like a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242
and 18 U.S. Code § 241. Conspiracy against rights - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241
> I'm not judging you but I want to clarify, this was merely a request from a prosecutor, with no warrant covering it?
Sounds something like a subpoena, not a request; these are (in many systems) issued and signed by attorneys, not judges. Now, if there is a legal argument that the material is not subject to subpoena, in the US a motion to quash is available, and something similar may be available in other systems, but they aren’t mere requests, they are obligatory unless successfully quashed.
Sounds something like a subpoena, not a request; these are (in many systems) issued and signed by attorneys, not judges. Now, if there is a legal argument that the material is not subject to subpoena, in the US a motion to quash is available, and something similar may be available in other systems, but they aren’t mere requests, they are obligatory unless successfully quashed.
Dutch (public) prosecutor, which in Dutch law do have the force of law.
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.
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.
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).
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#:~:...
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#:~:...
Ah, I think a lot of the people questioning your choice to hand over the data are US based, where a warrant signed by a judge is legally binding, but a letter from a prosecutor has no such power.
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.
[deleted]
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.
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.
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:
I'm wondering, are the Safari cookies e2e encrypted?
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
I'm wondering, are the Safari cookies e2e encrypted?
It's e2e but the key is also backed up in iCloud. Consider one uncomfortable fact: if you lose your iPhone and forget your iCloud password you can still recover your data.
Such a bizarre swiss cheese approach to E2E isn't it?
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.
Interestingly apple was planning end to end encryption of backups but changed their minds on the matter.
I’m under the impression this was government influenced. Anytime Apple has increased their encryption talk they are pressured by the feds.
So is the browsing history not e2e encrypted in the backup?
Can / how do you turn of the bluetooth keys? I have keychain turned off already. Does that include wifi passwords or not?
Wow. Photos are up for grabs but god forbid anyone see your "memoji"...
Because people get pissed if you tell them that since they forgot their password the photos of their kids are gone.
I wonder if the geolocations on photos themselves are the product Apple are being pressured to maintain. A fairly active phone photographer with geolocation on has a good location history up for grabs.
And they can request, without a warrant, all of your emails older then 6 months if stored in the cloud: https://www.dailydot.com/irl/police-surveillance/
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.
[deleted]
>It's frankly the most absurd system to ever exist.
https://youtu.be/J7MYlRzLqD0?t=103
https://youtu.be/J7MYlRzLqD0?t=103
Lol, well at least you didn't have to worry about figuring out how you'd pay your bills after you become exonerated.
> 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!
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!
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
If you're statistically discriminating, it doesn't matter if you're correct in any particular case - just that on average, you're more right than wrong. Just because you searched for heart issues doesn't mean you have them, but if people who do are more likely to search about them, then if an insurance company treats all people who search for this as if they are more likely to have it and raise their rates accordingly, they will profit.
> it would be really hard to separate pure curiosity from something serious
Not for a prosecutor. Anything at all that could be used to paint you in a bad light? "serious".
Not for a prosecutor. Anything at all that could be used to paint you in a bad light? "serious".
Are there any services that add a layer on top of google/apple/... services for encryption? Something like put a veracrypt/whatever container in google drive and use another open source web as entrance or bundle these services (google/apple/...) as encrypted ceph cluster which means every company only owns part of the encrypted data.
Another approach, host your data in full disk encryption (LUKS/...) in open source services (NextCloud/... you could find awesome self-hosted services on github) and put the password into a RAM USB with UPS. It could be sealed forever by turning off the power of RAM USB. The only problem here is that there is no commercial RAM USB.
Another approach, host your data in full disk encryption (LUKS/...) in open source services (NextCloud/... you could find awesome self-hosted services on github) and put the password into a RAM USB with UPS. It could be sealed forever by turning off the power of RAM USB. The only problem here is that there is no commercial RAM USB.
1) its not your data if it is not on equipment you own
2) this is the cost of free services
2) this is the cost of free services
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.
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.
If you don't like it, then these are the fundamental things that need to be reconsidered.
It _can_ be "not true" with a little effort.
I have encrypted files stored on Dropbox, S3, GoogleDrive, and cloud hosted virtual servers. That is 100% "my data" (only the GoogleDrive is a free service, but the technique applies anyway.
(I do agree with malwarebytess about the absurdity of the third-party legal doctrine applying to 21st century use cases like cell phone backups and cloud email and GPS location data from whatever random apps people have installed - stuff which was unimaginable when they gutted the 4th amendment in 1976...)
I have encrypted files stored on Dropbox, S3, GoogleDrive, and cloud hosted virtual servers. That is 100% "my data" (only the GoogleDrive is a free service, but the technique applies anyway.
(I do agree with malwarebytess about the absurdity of the third-party legal doctrine applying to 21st century use cases like cell phone backups and cloud email and GPS location data from whatever random apps people have installed - stuff which was unimaginable when they gutted the 4th amendment in 1976...)
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.
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.
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