Phone charging log helps to convict murderer An Australian man has been convicted of murder after mobile phone metadata describing when the device was connected to a charger was tabled as evidence. Alison Baden-Clay disappeared from her Brisbane home on April 19th, 2012. Her body was found in a nearby creek 11 days later. Her husband, Gerard Baden-Clay, claimed he was …
Why does a phone keep a log of when it was plugged in to charge? my phone gets plugged in to charge about 30 times day (in and out of car and in charger on desk - remove to take call, put back)... surely recording this info just takes up space?
Have I missed something here? Miss read the article?
I'm confused!
Also, just a thought that popped into my head - could it not have been a power cut that reset the charging flag? does it also record the fact that a physical "unplug" happened?
Not trying to cast doubt on the case - just wondering what goes through the mind of phone developers if they think: "I know, it would be really useful to know how many times a phone is plugged in to something, lets add extra bloat to the software to do that..."
"just wondering what goes through the mind of phone developers if they think: "I know, it would be really useful to know how many times a phone is plugged in to something, lets add extra bloat to the software to do that...""
Terms and Conditions plus battery duty cycle. If your battery dies and you claim on the warranty they need a way to make sure that you were charging it correctly.
Also, just a thought that popped into my head - could it not have been a power cut that reset the charging flag? does it also record the fact that a physical "unplug" happened?
If the Oz legal system is anything like the UK one, the defence will have been given advance sight of the prosecutions case, plus any details of crucial evidence like this. It would then be up to the defence to accept, or dispute the evidence. Whilst they might be able to suggest alternative explanations for the evidence (in this case the fact the phone reported being "charged" at a certain time) they would also have to back it up with some proof - maybe a report from the power company ?
There are several alternative explanations beyond that. Faulty charger ? Faulty mechanical connection ? Faulty phone ?
The thing is these alternatives should also have occurred to the prosecution, and been eliminated *before* deciding to introduce it into evidence.
But if the power cut was local, i.e. the fuse blew for the circuit that the socket was on, then he could simply have said I got up and fixed the fuse.
The obligation to prove guilt lies with the prosecution so defence would not have had to provide anything, the prosecution would need to show that the fuse didn't blow or that he got up to fix it during the night when he claimed he was asleep, etc.
And finally, I bet the charging information is on the phone and therefore not something GSHQ or NSA need to force the ISP/phone company to keep. It probably also has a set size so wipes entries to maintain space.
there are two regular stops on my net-news rounds before and after work, the register and the conversation. on both, i can seek a more balanced viewpoint than the fairfax/murdoch press available in the antipodes (i joyously noted one of the vulture south authors retweeting john birmingham the other day, a freelance - i think - columnist for fairfax, and genius author in his own right... but that's a total red herring...)
with weeks of blanket coverage on televised, radio and print news, i've gratefully dodged the bullet that is this stupid and unremarkable murder case, by seeking refuge in the simply *better* science and tech news that is old faithful here... and its less tech cousin at the conversation.
simon, i totally understand the tech angle and it is worthy of note for a tech news site, but i had to suppress a shudder when i read on the register, a headline related to this hateful distraction from the last couple of months worth of actual real news.
my tinfoil-hat-side, has been assuming that this murder trial is a deliberate overwhelming of popular media akin to a magician's misdirection - and intended to distract us from some awful legislation or horrendous activity going on elsewhere in the country...
I don't see any reason to be disappointed. There is very much a tech/privacy angle to this.
As far as overloading the media I tend to agree. A few years ago the media was overloaded about a "shock jock" who called a women's college basketball team a " bunch of Nappy Headed Hoes".
You couldn't get any real news for two weeks.
My iPhone tells me how long it's been in-use since its last full charge.
I imagine recording when it was charged is part of that.
Androids give you a battery graph which shows charge/discharge in some detail. Again, recording when (and by how much) the battery was charged is all part of that data collection.
Is it really metadata, or is it actually the data (i.e. the log) that was used. Ever since various leaks, all I seem to see is the word metadata being used, even when it's not appropriate.
So did they use the logs, or did they provide some data about their source data (and if so why, given there was only one subject)?
</grumpy pedant>
this is one time you'll be grateful that judges are doddery old fuckers ;). As a rule judges are *very* sceptical of technology, and are not dazzled by the shiny. When "novel" evidence is introduced, it's the judges *job* to ensure it's up to the standards required by the court. This is why, you will never see an astrologer called as an expert witness ....
don't take a phone with you when you're out and about up to shenanigans. Don't drive your own car (odometer, GPS/mapping, traffic cameras). Don't take a taxi (credit cards, in cab cameras). Don't use a mass transit system (CCTV, "Oyster cards", credit cards).
In fact... just don't. Be a good little citizen instead.
Shouldn't be to hard to disprove, or in fact rely on this type of expectation that you carry your phone everywhere and there will usable data that can help prove or disprove your case.
All he had to say was that "He got up for a piss in the night, noticed his phone was low on juice and plugged it in".
The more nefarious, could leave their phone at home go and do the deeds, and claim they were home all night as it hasn't been off charge and was connected to the wireless network all the time.
Location of phone and charging status does not equal location of phones owner.
I suspect that there may have been slightly more key evidence than this that convicted him, but it's all good to know.
All he had to say was that "He got up for a piss in the night, noticed his phone was low on juice and plugged it in".
Then how come he did not notice his wife was missing?
Seems to me that if the guy was stupid enough to take his phone with him, he would not have switched it off.
Was he not more incriminated by which cells he connected to while it was off charge?
Surely this will be used by Apple to proves that i* help solve crimes. They can even have a iPhone wearing a cape and spandex.
note to self: A method to use a device to solve crimes. Realy must patent that before Apple retrospectively do, and then sue the Oz gov for infringement.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
