Should Google location data be a tool for cops?

Evidence collected in a Google geofence dragnet warrant that's being used to prosecute a Virginia man accused of robbing a bank is unconstitutional and should be thrown out of court, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and eight federal public defenders.  The groups filed an amicus brief in United States v. …

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Why Google?

That only works if it's an Android phone with location services on.

If they ask the phone company they will have cell location which can't be disabled, assuming you want your phone to be a phone, and the cell phone companies happily hand over location data with no warrant

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Why Google?

Google features in this case because it is likely that the defendant used an Android phone.

Reading around this issue, it is likely that law enforcement requested and received information from Google, Apple, Uber and various social media platforms.

[Headley_Grange]

Re: Why Google?

If you've got an iPhone and were using Google maps because the native map app is a POS and you'd failed the turn-off-all-tracking-and-history treasure hunt then it's possible that you'd be included in the search.

[Woodnag]

Fixed it for you

If you've got an iPhone and were using Google maps because the native map app is a POS and you'd failed the turn-off-all-tracking-and-history treasure hunt then it's

likely

that you'd be included in the search

regardless.

[jmch]

Re: Why Google?

" it is likely that the defendant used an Android phone"

How would anyone investigating know that the bank robber had an Android phone? Unless he actually pulled a phone from his pocket during the robbery, there's no way they would have even known he had ANY phone. And even if he did pull a phone out, I doubt the resolution on security cameras is good enough to identify the model, or that any witness was both close enough to see AND reliably alert enough to identify if it was an iPhone or not.

Seems very much like a fishing expedition to me... and frankly, even if the police DID have evidence that n Android phone was used, it's still a fishing expedition with overreach of powers.

[Alumoi]

Re: Why Google?

If you own and use any kind of internet connected device Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon and your ISP can track you 24/7.

And Google is the biggest tracking company out there, so it stands to reason to ask Google first for location data.

[iron]

Re: Why Google?

I disagree...

My ISP can track my internet usage while I am at home. If I'm not at home they have no idea what I'm doing or where I am.

Amazon can tell my IP address which gives the location of one of my ISP's offices, usually 200+ miles away. Or the IP address of my mobile network, similarly useless for location.

Apple are very confused because they know I own iDevices but they don't have SIM cards and have never left my home network because they're test devices. So like Amazon they think my location is 200+ miles away.

I have never used Facebook and while they will have a shadow profile it should be sparse since I've been using ad blockers since they first existed. Their apps do not exist on my devices.

As for Google, location is off on my devices and if they are obeying my privacy settings they should have no record of my location. But they probably do.

[Androgynous Cow Herd]

Re: Why Google?

HAhahaha No.

Unless your phone is more that 15 years old or so, it has E911 capability which cannot be turned off. The phone knows it's location, and therefore the carrier know it's location, and therefore, anyone who cares to ask the carrier knows its location.

And all phones have a unique SSID.

So, next time you feel like overthrowing a government, leave your phone at home, mkay?

[Michael Wojcik]

Re: Why Google?

E911 location information is pretty accurate if you're in an urban area. If you're rural, it's less reliable. Manufacturers may enable GPS when they detect a 911 call being made, but they're not required to, and they're certainly not required to enable it when one isn't being made. And a phone may not be able to get a GPS lock anyway.

The phone does not "know [its] location" as some sort of absolute oracular feature.

[Alumoi]

Re: Why Google?

Your carrier is also your ISP when using mobile data.

Also, if your phone is turned on, even if it doesn't have a SIM card, it can be easily located by any carrier by simple triangulation. Do look up how a cell phone operates and you'll be suprised to discover your phone has a unique ID which every cell tower in range will read.

[abetancort]

Re: Why Google?

Your phone acts as an electronic transponder even when not in actual use. It pings the surrounding cell towers every few seconds transmitting its IMEI (that resolves to your cell number and subscriber data whenever the telco wants) since it pings all surrounding towers and the signal gets to them with different power they can easily triangulate its position both in real time and after the fact.

[tip pc]

Re: Why Google?

Given that most people have either an Android or iPhone it’s likely 70/30 chance the perp had an Android phone.

If your trawling then those aren’t bad odds.

[Hubert Cumberdale]

Re: Why Google?

"most people have either an Android or iPhone"

iDon't. Maybe I should think about robbing a bank.

[tip pc]

Re: Why Google?

You make a good point, clearly your not most people.

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide

Mobile Operating System Market Share Worldwide - January 2023

Android 71.74%

iOS 27.63%

Samsung 0.35%

Unknown 0.12%

So the odds of the phone not being android or iPhone are vanishingly low, less than 0.5% so if you where a bank robber and needed comms then an old school phone would definitely confuse the authorities who won’t even look for your type of handset.

[DS999]

Re: Why Google?

In the US it is basically 50/50

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Why Google?

>How would anyone investigating know that the bank robber had an Android phone?

Poor people own Androids, rich people don't rob banks - at least not in the way the police care bout

[abetancort]

Re: Why Google?

This is news because the one handing the data is Google, if it were the telco it would not make it to news.

[Filippo]

Re: Why Google?

"Android phone with location services on" is an awful lot of devices.

[DS999]

Re: Why Google?

Probably 99% of them, because only the type of people who read The Register would even consider turning it off.

[DS999]

Cellular data isn't precise enough

They can't tell who is within 150 meters of a certain location, so a geofence of everyone who might have been in the bank during the hour in question would be a much longer list of people for them to go through.

I suppose a bank could install microcells for all three major US carriers, which phones would automatically connect to (the baseband does it, there is no way for the phone's owner to prevent it) which would provide them their own data to give the cops even if this type of data trawling is ruled unconstitutional.

The lesson here is smart criminals will leave their phone at home when robbing a bank. Or better yet, visit a grocery store and hide it behind stacks of cereal or something, then retrieve it after the robbery is complete. If the cops finger you, you can claim you were grocery shopping at the time they say the crime was committed. And your lawyer can subpoena your carrier who will produce data to back that up - which might introduce just enough reasonable doubt in one or two jurors to get you off the hook!

[abetancort]

Re: Cellular data isn't precise enough

Depends on the number of towers the phone pings, the more towers the better the resolution. Moreover a mobile will not only ping towers from its own mobile provider but any and all the towers of any telco that it can reach.

[martinusher]

Probable Cause

Just being in an area is not usually probable cause (unless its something like a January 6th riot). So its really knowing that such and such a device was in this area, was used by so and so and combined with other evidence makes a case. Just because you're a random piece in a evidence puzzle doesn't mean that you're relevant to an investigation -- investigators discard numerous apparent leads before they hit on the right one. (Things only go wrong when they start with a suspect, a piece of flimsy or non existent evidence and then work back from there. But then you don't need technology to fit someone up, in fact its a positive impediment should it prove your fit wasn't involved in the crime.)

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Probable Cause

But you don't have to convince a logical el'reg reader but just a jury - These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know… morons.

And "Dur Computer says he was there" goes a long way to convincing somebody

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Probable Cause

Just being in an area is not usually probable cause (unless its something like a January 6th riot). So its really knowing that such and such a device was in this area, was used by so and so and combined with other evidence makes a case.

Not convinced that's a good example. Or it's a slippery slope. There would have been non-rioters probably caught in that dragnet, and proximity isn't really probable cause. It is useful to supress political protestors though, which isn't necessarily a good thing for society.

But..

In 2019, someone robbed a Virginia credit union at gunpoint and left with $195,000 from a bank safe.

I have mixed views about this. IMHO, law enforcement should be able to use technical methods to catch people who commit serious crimes. Google, and a lot of 'Big Tech' have simply enabled this. They hoover up masses of personal and private information for no good reason. At least LEO's are using it for the greater good.. Unless they're not, and it's not proportionate. We give law enforcement and the security services extraordinary powers to invade our privacy. Google and Apple just gives themselves those powers, without the same safeguards or accountability. If it's illegal for LEO's to use data in this way, perhaps it should also be illegal for 'Big Tech' to collect, hoard and sell it in the first place.

It also gets a bit pointless. I'm curious why the request in the first place, ie how they knew there was an Android phone? Maybe that was a Hollywood robbery, ie the armed robber told everyone to put there phones in the bag, so LEO's could then track those phones. Or maybe they had a suspect, and used this evidence to place them at the scene. In which case, yey!, they caught a dumb criminal. Smarter ones will now know to just leave their 'smart' trackers at home, or give them to someone else to create an alibi.

[Dimmer]

Re: Probable Cause

“ January 6th riot”

If you want to see a good example of tracking, watch 2000 mules. They even supposedly solved a crime due to analyzing the data. Sadly all it takes is money to get the data. No warrant needed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Probable Cause

Even bettter, there's a video (wait while i look it up again) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq2zuE3ISYU

Also, leaving your device at home won't get you an alibi. What you need to do is have someone who has your build, wear your clothes, and sit in the middle of the back seat of a van, where he'll be mosty invisible from outside, carrying your phone. Also make sure that you keep gps enabled so that you phone's log will match the carriers' logs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Probable Cause

So what you're saying is nobody is at home during banker's hours? Blimey, it's a wonder the plod's not breakin me door down every time a bank is robbed. SOME of us are home all day because we work at night.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Probable Cause

Sorry, Dimmer, that tired old lie has been debunked so many times it's pathetic anyone brings it up,

https://issueone.org/articles/swamp-stories-episode-45-debunking-2000-mules/

[Neil Barnes]

a diameter longer than three football fields

Is that an imperial or metric football field?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: a diameter longer than three football fields

Assuming it is an American football field, it is approximately 498983 square bananas in area.

I just wish the made the type of "football" field that was used clear to avoid measurement errors.

[SW10]

Re: a diameter longer than three football fields

Well, the quote is from the brief penned by the American Civil Liberties Union, so I imagine it's a gridiron field.

And, a rest-of-the-world football terrain would be a "pitch", not a "field"

Moreover, this is the new, all-American terminology El Reg

[Hubert Cumberdale]

Re: a diameter longer than three football fields

If it were a "proper" football field, then the size could vary considerably.

[Winkypop]

Going equipped

I know bank robbers aren’t usually Einsteins, but why take your phone with you on a job?

Going interstate for an abortion?* Leave your phone in the motel on the day.

Despite popular belief, a human does not require a mobile phone with them 24/7 to get by.

* The US is f$cking weird.

[Filippo]

Re: Going equipped

Even better: give all the phones to a mate and have him go to the movies at the time of the robbery.

[M.V. Lipvig]

Re: Going equipped

Nah, then your mate knows something was up, and will be looking for a cut.

[tiggity]

Re: Going equipped

.. and of course burner phones have been used by crims (& on occasion people wanting anonymity for legit reasons (abortion already mentioned) other examples include someone in an abusive relationship making their escape (as many a controlling partner puts spyware on phones, beyond the inbuilt tracking options so ditching your phone a must before leaving))

[My-Handle]

Re: Going equipped

This was my first thought as well. If I were robbing a bank, I would definitely leave my phone at home. Same with GPS devices, fitbits... hell, I'd not even use a vehicle made in the last ten years or so. If a phone was absolutely ciritcal to my getaway plan, it'd be the dumbest burner phone I could find.

[Helcat]

Re: Going equipped

Leaving the phone behind is one option, sure, but so is using a 'borrowed' phone. Or clone someone's phone ID so the network thinks they're where you are. Both may be illegal but since when has a bank robber cared about something trivial like that?

However, that doesn't help when you're innocent but the location system decides you're in the area when you're not. You may still get added to the list to investigate and any 'odd' behavior (such as rather rapidly moving from the site of the robbery to a town 20 miles away...) puts you as a suspect (or you get lucky and are not recorded as being in the area, but now if they find you are and your mobile isn't - that's suspicious, right?). Now, if the actual robber hasn't got a phone on them - because they have more brain cells than your average politician (or police officer) - then they won't show up on any geolocation search. They're using a stolen car, which may have a mobile phone tucked in the pocket of a jacket that's in the boot/trunk, both registered to the unfortunate person whose door is about to get kicked in by trigger happy cops (or so the media describe them as). So the police aren't going to be looking for the actual criminal: They're looking at all the bystanders and other victims of the criminal, and those who are incorrectly registered as being in the vicinity when they were actually 20 miles away doing something quite legal and innocent.

That's just more reasons for why this kind of broad data slurp shouldn't be allowed. However, the police probably know that criminals aren't the smartest of beings, and didn't brush up on the latest forensics techniques to see how much they can mess with the poor police officer, so are wearing their comfy clothes and regular footwear, putting their mask on as they enter the bank, and using a gun with their name scribed into the slide. Oh, and demanding the cashier use their real name while leaving their own car pulled up on the pavement outside as their escape vehicle. Which would beggar the question as to why they'd need phone location details considering they have the plates of the person's car as it's illegally parked...

[JoeCool]

A little too simplistic

"... Leave your phone in the motel on the day."

What about the day you ...

called the train/cab/uber/friend to transport you, or bought fuel/food/motel stay while driving

made travel plans for the clinic

searched for a clinic

researched the legal status of abortion

reasearched alternatives to abortion

researched the physical and psychological effects of abortion

looked into abortion

looked into childcare

Talked/chatted to your friends

Talked to you family

Talked to the father

Ran the test again

got a positive test result

bought the pregnancy test

Sorry, but you fully understimate the ability and pyschotic devotion of the human animal to hunting down a target.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: A little too simplistic

Of, if you're my friend, all you have to do is tell me that you've made up your mind, and ask me to drive. If you've called me because the father isn't answering your messages or calls, I'll pay for it, too.

[JoeCool]

Re: A little too simplistic

And that makes you a good person.

However that's not the point of the aclu challenge, or my post.

And, you helping one person doesn't solve the legal problem for anyone else.

Also, in theory that call out to you can be found as well, and now two people are being persecuted.

[trindflo]

Lazy police work

As far as I know police could have used this data to zero in on a suspect and then kept an eye on him. The problem for the police is they brought this evidence into court as a justification (probable cause) and proceeded with it. This sounds like a lack of patience.

It seems to me there were other options. As it was a bank, who are willing to pay to make sure the perpetrator gets collared, couldn't private detectives have been used to stake out the likely robber (assuming police would not spend the time)? The money was going to go somewhere.

My objection is this seems to be using a broad dragnet and acting on the inconclusive evidence for expediency sake.

[tip pc]

Re: Lazy police work

So if you where in that vicinity at the time and happened to be the same general appearance as the perpetrator then it’s ok to be followed by cops or PI’s just in case you where the guy?

No harm done if your subsequently ruled out but your details will be retained on file in case you need to be ruled out in a future trawl!

[Kevin Johnston]

I appreciate that a geo-fence would go straight to names but surely the first step would have been all that wonderful CCTV footage that places (especially banks) have in play. Even the real-world TV shows demonstrate there is enough that law-enforcement can immediately access to allow them to do some basic tracking at which point you have a much smaller sub-set of suspects. Once you add in footage from private companies along the route that could be requested the only hard bit is fitting a name to a face and they all have that wonderful facial recognition software 'on test'

[Anonymous Coward]

It wouldnt be so much of an issue if the american police werent known for raiding peoples residences with hardly any evidence and shooting people inside...

[BebopWeBop]

Or even getting the wrong addresses - and then shooting people.

[Hubert Cumberdale]

Or even just shooting people because they're not obsequiously subservient, which is apparently required if you speak to a US cop for some reason.

[Spanners]

Conversation with a Police officer

I always find it odd when I hear how subjects in the USA have to call a police officer "Sir".

If I was being very formal with someone in the police, I might call them "Officer" or whatever rank I see. They should call me "sir" in this situation.

[Hubert Cumberdale]

Re: Conversation with a Police officer

^ Absolutely this ^

The USA is weird. In the UK, we (allegedly, probably, usually) have policing by consent. Over the pond, it seems that the default assumption is that you probably won't consent, so it's assumed that violence (be that through the demand for verbal subordination or actual physical attack) will be required.

[M.V. Lipvig]

Re: Conversation with a Police officer

I have never called a cop "sir", but all cops I've had an official interaction with have called me "sir." No idea where you have the idea that it's required over here.

[Hubert Cumberdale]

Re: Conversation with a Police officer

(^ white guy ^)

[M.V. Lipvig]

Re: Conversation with a Police officer

Am I? Bigot. What I don't do is don't try to run, don't try to attack, but do obey instructions given by the guy with the gun. It's amazing at how beat and shot you don't get when you don't do these things that is conveniently edited out of all those anticop videos you see.

[Hubert Cumberdale]

Re: Conversation with a Police officer

"Bigot."

...says the same person who recently suggested that people taking offence at bigotry should be told "to go fuck themselves and mind their own business".

[Jellied Eel]

Or even just shooting people because they're not obsequiously subservient,

Or because police are defunded, ammunition is expensive, just beating a person to death after they'd already been detained.

[Anonymous Coward]

Should Google location data be a tool for cops?

remember the discussion about... 10 - 15 years ago? 'Should drones become tool of war'?

[mark l 2]

Do the cops have any other evidence of this suspect other than his phone was potentially in the area of the bank when they were robbed? As if their only evidence is from this geo location dragnet then I certainly wouldn't convict if i were on the jury, even if the geo location evidence was allowed.

But this goes to show you that if you want to commit a crime in the modern age then your smart phone is the last thing you want to have with you.

Although it could be used for an alibi for the time of the robbery if you get a friend to drive/walk around with your phone miles away in another town while you commit the crime. Or if you dont trust anyone to do that you could just pop your phone into a box, drop it at the post office and have it delivered back to you via express mail.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be ok with this - but with modifications

For instance, instead of "an hour before and after", how about 10 minutes? Just in case they're a hair off on the *exact* time of the crime. And range limited to within 20 yards of the building; no picking up people across the street. And this data cannot be used as evidence in the courtroom as it's purely circumstantial - the phone was present at the time of the crime, but that doesn't mean the person was nor that they were involved. For good measure, have a way of filtering out the phone numbers of legitimate customers known to be at the bank at the time, BEFORE getting any other identifying or personal information, like name, address, etc. (Look at bank transactions within that +/- 10 minute time period for an easy list of "this person's innocent".)

In other words, it can be used in a very narrow way to help *identify* a suspect. But that's it. And a warrant is absolutely REQUIRED. And all data except the suspects' is to be deleted IMMEDIATELY; anyone who's cleared also has their data promptly deleted.