Canadian Police Are Texting Potential Murder Witnesses (vice.com) 121
On Thursday, the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) will send text messages to anybody who was in the vicinity of a murder in the hopes that one of them will have information that can help catch the culprit. One of the recipients may even be the killer. Others may wonder how the police obtained their phone number in the first place, or knew where they were on the day in question. From a Motherboard report: The OPP is ramping up its efforts to find the murderer of 65-year-old hitchhiker John Hatch, who was found dead near Erin, Ontario, on December 17, 2015. He was last seen alive the day before, outside Ottawa. Now, the OPP has announced what it's describing as a "new investigative technique" for the force: obtaining the phone numbers of everyone who was in the area where and when Hatch was last seen alive, via a court order, and sending each person a text message directing them to a police website. If they follow those instructions, they'll be asked a series of online questions. According to digital privacy lawyer David Fraser, this technique is known as a "tower dump" -- essentially asking telecom companies for information about everyone who connected to a certain cellphone tower, at a given time. If the police plan on using this technique again, its future uses could have unintended effects, Frasier said.
will they pay for that? even if there are high roa (Score:2)
will they pay for that? even if there are high roaming fees?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
what a backward country
Re: (Score:2)
Are we still talking about Canada?
--OR MUCH IMPROVED VERSION --
Are we still talking aboot Canada, eh?
--OR 2.0 VERSION ---
England could mimic "backwards" Canada
News from Wot could go bloody wrong department
Re:will they pay for that? even if there are high (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Only time I've ever been charged for a text was when it was an international text, which was retarded and I complained and got the fees waived.
As for the crime, I think if I was planning on breaking the law I'd want to create an alibi, and I would leave my cell phone wherever I intend to claim that I was, maybe even plant a burner phone somewhere else, call it, and keep the line active for a set time period while I go and bury Nina on the side of a hill between Redwood Regional Park and the Huckleberry Bota
Re: (Score:2)
Only time I've ever been charged for a text was when it was an international text, which was retarded and I complained and got the fees waived.
That depends on what you mean by "international". If you are abroad and someone sends you a text from your home country there are additional costs involved (in theory). Since your friend has no way to tell if you're abroad it's not fair to pass these costs on to them so you have to foot the bill. The same also used to apply to phone calls: you paid extra for outbound calls and also paid for incoming calls. These days in the EU I understand that the incoming call/text fees have been quashed by an EU directiv
Re: (Score:2)
Not true with Australian carriers - receiving text messages when roaming overseas is free. Only sending text message cost money. (Receiving calls when roaming overseas costs money, but receiving calls within Australia is free.)
Re: (Score:1)
Heck, a lot of the providers in Canada not only have free incoming text, but allow free international texts.
Re: will they pay for that? even if there are high (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was just an American thing. In Australia, Telstra sent everyone on it's network an ad SMS and charged them all for it. That quickly put a stop to the practice here.
Re: (Score:2)
Telstra sent everyone on it's network an ad SMS and charged them all for it...
This happened in New Zealand too, also by the formerly publically owned former monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Will they pay for the psychological damage of those texts. Consider they are not taking into account the specific psychological health of the people in question, just, meh fuck em, make it easier for us and will get is that promotion. So mentally challenged person, someone was just murdered near you, oh my god, it could have been you and by the by, yes we are watching you, we know were you were and we know where you are. So morons, how much damage do you think that message would do to a mentally ill indivi
Re: (Score:2)
You have the right to remain silent (Score:3, Informative)
I suggest you use it. There is never anything to gain from talking to the police. Ever. The idea of the policeman as keeper of the peace is dead in Canada as one by one rights in the charter are ignored "for the public good".
Fortunately the right to remain silent is still valid.
Re: (Score:1)
Ah, the ol' "I saw him run that-a-way mister!" trick. Exactly the kind of thing the murderer would say. Oh, hang on, I smell weed. Stop resisting!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People how loudly cry that no one should ever talk to the police cry the loudest when they're the victim of a crime, and they know their neighbors know who did it, and won't talk to the police.
You live in the world you create.
Re: (Score:2)
I've called the police with a tip exactly three times in my life and always ended up regretting it. They were more interested in treating me like a potential suspect than in hearing what I had seen... and I'm white.
Remember that next time when you hear about a black person refusing to cooperate with the police.
Re: (Score:2)
One anecdote deserves another. I've talked to the police lots of times, and never regretted it nor had any negative outcomes nor had any suspicion placed on me.
I've watched that video a couple times, and legally, its really good advice. BUT its also a recipe for a shitty society.
Re:You have the right to remain silent (Score:5, Informative)
You should talk to a lawyer if you saw something, and have them deliver your message to the police. Yes, being a good citizen can cost you money.
Here are several reasons why:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik ..this is the world we live in. :(
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I suggest you use it. There is never anything to gain from talking to the police. Ever. The idea of the policeman as keeper of the peace is dead in Canada as one by one rights in the charter are ignored "for the public good".
Fortunately the right to remain silent is still valid.
True, there is a possibility that in talking to the police you will inaccurately draw some suspicion towards yourself.
However, the stronger possibility is that you will accurately direct some suspicion towards the guilty party, and perhaps prevent future crimes.
I, for one, believe in motives other than pure self-interest.
Re: (Score:1)
When the consequence of "inaccurately draw some suspicion towards yourself" is losing your liberty or your life, why take any risk?
There are anonymous way to report crime and they are the only acceptable way to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
When the consequence of "inaccurately draw some suspicion towards yourself" is losing your liberty or your life, why take any risk?
Because some of us aren't sociopaths.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, you don't know what the police were doing when you called, and if they have the slightest hope of catching someone they're not going to drive up with lights and sirens.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You're right, the US right is much weaker. Canada listed it twice just to be sure that it didn't disappear:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_7_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
"In R. v. Hebert the court held that the right to silence was a principle of fundamental justice. Statements of the accused may not be achieved
Re: (Score:2)
Article is garbage and completely misses S.1 of the Charter, something you're also missing. S.1 states "guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." To boil it down, government or courts can make laws that override these rights, or put in place case law judgements if there is a "greater good" for the rest of society. It's one of the big things that makes a lot of charter lawye
Re: (Score:2)
There is never anything to gain from talking to the police. Ever.
I have seen this video too, and frankly this attitude appalls me. It's essentially saying "I'll look after myself, and sod the rest of you!"
As an extreme example: let's say that your neighbour's house was burgled last night. As it happens you were woken by a noise, and saw two individuals loading a van with your neighbour's expensive electronics, and, being a smart cookie, you snapped pictures of the individuals on your mobile phone, and noted down the license plate of their van.
Question: No reason to talk
Re: You have the right to remain silent (Score:5, Informative)
What could possibly go wrong?
Video completely related.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You shouldn't get your science from the entertainment industry. That includes news agencies. Same industry.
Instead I would encourage you to peruse the vast store of data available through various governmental agencies and take a look at the numbers there.
*Hint* Don't just look at the side where the ice is receding. Look at both sides, top and bottom. I bet you will be surprised. Also, for shorelines, consider erosion and subsidence.
Happy hunting. :)
Re: (Score:2)
If I go through the data, I'll find that temperatures are going up along with human-released CO2, and I'll find significant climate changes, like Arctic sea ice.
Re: (Score:2)
If I go through the data
Don't guess. Do it. You claim 'science' and 'facts', then do some science, and check the facts. You will be surprised.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/go... [nasa.gov]
“We’re essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica,” said Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study, which was published on Oct. 30 in the Journal of Glaciology. “Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.” Zwally added that his team “measured small height changes over large areas, as well as the large changes observed over smaller areas.”
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, what is this supposed to mean? Global warming doesn't mean that all ice everywhere starts to melt at the same rate. It doesn't mean that every place on earth is warmer by the same amount. If you look at the data, you will see that the surface of the Earth, as a whole, is heating up. This is a simple basic fact, and cannot be disproved by making some superficial predictions and finding they're wrong. The Arctic sea ice is going away. We never used to have a usable Northwest Passage. That's a si
Re: (Score:2)
We are done here.
There are three things I will not discuss with people.
- Politics
- Religion
- The Weather, because it combines both politics, and religion.
May peace find you in the church of the chicken little.
Re: (Score:2)
Out of curiosity, asking a non-political non-religious non-weather related question, why did you start posting on something verboten under your third heading?
Re: (Score:2)
Brand new rule.
Thanks for that.
What could possibly go wrong? (Score:2, Informative)
Video completely related.
This is going to get messy...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I am sure you know better than that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Investigators might phone you if you don't respond (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/... [www.cbc.ca]
"The force will keep the numbers on file until the murder is solved, officers said at a news conference on Wednesday.
Investigators will also consider calling the numbers of people who don't respond voluntarily, but they would be required to obtain another court order to do so."
Re: Investigators might phone you if you don't res (Score:1)
You're all going to jail unless one of you confesses!
Re: (Score:2)
Expect a wave of bogus calls claiming to be from the police.
In the UK some criminals pretend to be the police and use the phone system to make their con more believable. People have lost of a lot of money because the "police" told them that criminals had accessed their bank accounts.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why I don't answer any number I don't recognize, even my own area code, until they leave a message proving I actually want them calling me.
So I got this text ... (Score:1)
How could one not assume this to be SPAM? (Score:5, Insightful)
or a SCAM (Score:1)
Especially if they say they're a government body/authority, given the number of scams posing as the police/RCMP, tax agency, etc.
Why don't they text potential murder victims? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're Next!
(with blood dripping from the letters of course)
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking as a Canadian and privacy advocate... (Score:5, Insightful)
In my opinion; Canadian police forces are far less deserving of anti-cop, paranoid rhetoric than US or Latin American forces. In this case, the police obtained a court ordered warrant before asking the telecoms for the tower dump info. This is exactly how the law is supposed to work The police are seeking information that they cannot obtain through the usual personal observation or talking to people one on one and one at a time. Traditional foot work just isn't going to produce the leads they need. They came up with a way to essentially canvas a virtual neighbourhood. Obtaining phone numbers and sending an sms message to everyone who was within a certain area and during a certain time seems to me to be the digital equivalent of knocking doors, asking residents if they've seen anything suspicious.
The only aspect that I can see where someone might make a legitimate objection is if the police then also use the list of numbers and names as a way to populate their list of suspects. Being a suspect, even if only a routine "talk to you so they can strike your name off the list" would trouble many people. Thing is, that is entirely within the bounds of normal police work. Using data that was legitimately obtained for further uses within the same case is an accepted and necessary part of police work.
As for myself, I have only two points of concern in this case:
1) I would want to be assured that the police didn't share this list with anyone else. Other investigations must go and obtain their own warrants. That way if a case might be helped by this data, but itself doesn't merit having a judge issue a warrant, it doesn't get that data. It also makes sure that the police or other authorities don't get handed an easy way to build a database of citizens and the numbers associated with them.
2) That the police do not retain this data. That way, if a user found in the current data changes his or her phone number down the road, they don't have the police looking at them for a crime committed by someone else who later got that number.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In my opinion; Canadian police forces are far less deserving of anti-cop, paranoid rhetoric than US or Latin American forces. In this case, the police obtained a court ordered warrant before asking the telecoms for the tower dump info. This is exactly how the law is supposed to work
Generally warrants are obtained against suspects not potential witnesses. It's the scope of the warrant that's disturbing. They even say that one of these people could be the killer, so they're basically treating everyone as a potential suspect merely for having their phone turned on in the vicinity of the crime.
Re: (Score:3)
They even say that one of these people could be the killer, so they're basically treating everyone as a potential suspect merely for having their phone turned on in the vicinity of the crime.
"They" is Motherboard, not the OPP.
Also, even if the OPP said "we're sending a text to everyone who was in the area hoping someone remembers seeing something, oh, and it's possible one of the numbers we text might even be the culprit", there's zero logical connective with "so they're treating everyone as a suspect". No. Even in that narrative, they're treating everyone as witnesses and acknowledging the statistical possibility that one of the numbers belongs to the killer. It's absolutely not the same
Re: (Score:2)
It's absolutely not the same as "we have this list of numbers, and one of you might have done it, so we're going to question each of you until you produce alibis."
I think the concern here is the scope of the warrant, not the aggressiveness of the police interrogations.
Re: (Score:2)
Generally warrants are obtained against suspects not potential witnesses. It's the scope of the warrant that's disturbing. They even say that one of these people could be the killer, so they're basically treating everyone as a potential suspect merely for having their phone turned on in the vicinity of the crime.
In Canadian law this is completely legal FYI. Hell if you're walking down the street and there was a murder 2 blocks over, and the only information is "the suspect is a black male and accomplice was white male" and you fall into either of those categories, the police can detain you to ensure you're not one of the people who fit the profile of the individuals they're looking for. There's a lot to cover in this but that's the bare minimum that should make sense.
There have been multiple cases of warrants bei
Re:Speaking as a Canadian and privacy advocate... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree with your emphasis, it's important to understand the US/LA "anti-cop" sentiment you've encountered covers far more than just the constabulary. The fact that a court approved a warrant makes little difference to tho
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe Canadian police are better, but for example the UK police have a long history of bungling investigations and framing people because they are under pressure to get a conviction. Much as I would like to do the right thing, unless I knew I had a watertight alibi and could afford a really good lawyer, I'd keep my mouth shut. The police are just too untrustworthy and when they lie/screw up there are no consequences for them, only for you.
So a vast digital database of witness now exists? (Score:2)
Hack it and get the background stories to each person. Create a reason for a face to face interview with real details from the initial police contact.
If they saw something its a great story or information to sell.
The UK tried to keep digital secrets about case work in the past and the files got sold to anyone with cash in real time.
"Journalists caught on tape in police bugging" (21 September 2002 )
https [theguardian.com]
This shows that it's possible (Score:1)
to do precisely what people like me fear.
Let's say that instead of texting potential witnesses, they find someone upon whom they can pin the crime.
No leads, no suspects but they find that someone just happened to be in the areas with a criminal record.
LK
Police Have Been Doing This For Years, I Suspect (Score:1)
I was in San Francisco and I was driving up Sloat Boulevard from the beach, once, a few years ago, and I witnessed an auto collision, but didn't stop because I was going the other way and there were plenty of witnesses.
A few weeks later I got a call on my call phone from someone who identified themselves as a detective for the SFPD. He asked me if I had seen the accident and I told him that I had, and what I had seen.
Perhaps I was foolish to assume that he WAS a SFPD detective.
Never heard anything more but
This raises privacy concerns (Score:2)
How do I know it's the police? (Score:2)
I get email and phone calls all the time "From" the FBI, the IRS, and the U.S. Marshall's Office telling me I have not paid my taxes or I've been otherwise behaving badly, there is a bench warrant for my arrest, and that I must pay the taxes and/or fines immediately or I will be carted off to jail. "Go to the nearest 7-11 and buy a Moneygram card in the amount of $$$$ and email the card number to our offices at..."
I'd be happy to help actual law enforcement in an investigation, but I'm afraid I will need s