US Gov't Buys Location Data For Millions of Cellphones (engadget.com) 53
America's government "has reportedly acquired access to a commercial database that tracks the movements of millions of cellphones in the U.S.," reports CNET. "The data is being used for immigration and border enforcement, according to sources and documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal."
Engadget's report on the news notes it's been going on "since at least 2017." The publication says the government bought the data from a company called Venntel, which in turn purchased it from a variety of marketing companies...
"This is a classic situation where creeping commercial surveillance in the private sector is now bleeding directly over into government," Alan Butler, the general counsel of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, told the WSJ.
The American Civil Liberties Union told TechCrunch that it plans the fight the newly-revealed practice, arguing that the government "should not be accessing our location information without a warrant."
CNET adds that the data "is reportedly collected from apps for gaming, weather and shopping that ask users to grant them location access."
Engadget's report on the news notes it's been going on "since at least 2017." The publication says the government bought the data from a company called Venntel, which in turn purchased it from a variety of marketing companies...
"This is a classic situation where creeping commercial surveillance in the private sector is now bleeding directly over into government," Alan Butler, the general counsel of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, told the WSJ.
The American Civil Liberties Union told TechCrunch that it plans the fight the newly-revealed practice, arguing that the government "should not be accessing our location information without a warrant."
CNET adds that the data "is reportedly collected from apps for gaming, weather and shopping that ask users to grant them location access."
And yet (Score:3)
Re:And yet (Score:5, Insightful)
folks can't seem to accept the fact that these spy-machines are performing exactly as advertised, constantly spying on you.
Nope. Not as advertised. Google accesses data to advertise to people. The government accesses data to arrest people. Not the same at all.
The government should not have access to location data without a warrant based on probable cause and approved by a judge.
The "marketing companies" that sold the data to the government need to be named and sued.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
The American Civil Liberties Union told TechCrunch that it plans the fight the newly-revealed practice, arguing that the government "should not be accessing our location information without a warrant."
If it's OK for private companies to use this data, how is it wrong for government to use it?
Here's a tip for privacy activists - if you don't want to be tracked by government or private industry, don't buy a GPS-enabled tracking device, then pay a monthly fee to maintain the connectivity of that device.
Re: And yet (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Cell tower records are the most common form of police/state tracking used. The cell companies don't even ask for a warrant, they let the police self-regulate and have a nice search interface for them so they don't have to employ people to manually process requests.
What we need is a law that says cell tower logs can only be kept for a maximum of 24 hours. If some major incident happens they can get a judge to extend the time for those records.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's OK for private companies to use this data, how is it wrong for government to use it?
1. Because the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution says so.
2. Because governments and corporations are different. One of them has the authority to carry guns and kick down doors in the middle of the night, and therefore should be held to a different standard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: And yet (Score:3, Insightful)
If we accept the legality and ubiquity of the instruments of a totalitarian surveillance state, then we will (do) have a totalitarian surveillance state.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you that that is the way it should be. However the "private database" exception to the warrant requirement is something that has been festering for awhile now and is ingrained in the law. Unfortunately under the current regulatory scheme the collector of the data owns it and can generally do as they please.
It's also why I still carry a blackberry with all the 3rd party apps stripped off. The phone company may know where the phone is, but they have regulatory restrictions on how that data is
You can live better with (Score:3)
You can live fine without one now.
You can, but you can live so much better with full access and computation with you at all times...
Honestly the better recommendation would be, to have one and just leave it in airplane mode most of the time.
But frankly why would I care that some location data about me leaks to the carriers? Most people feel the same way.
That's the real problem, there just are not enough people that actually care (including very technical people) that anything will be done to limit stuff li
Re: (Score:1)
Honestly the better recommendation would be, to have one and just leave it in airplane mode most of the time.
But that would exclude incoming phone calls and messages, which is most of the reason I have a phone.
Wouldn't a better solution be to make it illegal to store or sell cellular tower location data, and then simply not use apps that request location data?
Re: (Score:3)
But frankly why would I care that some location data about me leaks to the carriers? Most people feel the same way.
So cute, your smartphone vomits-out location data on a regular interval, and cell towers are constantly tracking the (approximate) location of any cellphone thru triangulation from multiple towers.
Re: (Score:3)
"creeping"? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
People are 100% tracked if they have a "smart phone"
Dumb phones can also be tracked.
Re: (Score:2)
Dumb phones can also be tracked.
At least there are laws, numerous legal rulings including in the supreme court and active lawsuits against major carriers specifically addressing this vector.
When it comes to Google play and the rest of app store cesspool its a lawless free for all ruled by the principal of "we'll do whatever the fuck we damn well please".
So yes dumb phones can also be tracked but there is no equivalence of any kind.
Re: "creeping"? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
What a cnut.
Looking at comment history nobody actually responds to any of your comments, so fuck all lost there then.
In essence you are no better that your average AC.
What a twat!
Clipper chip (Score:2)
Makes the Clipper chip an exceedingly obsolete idea! Of course, that can be said of plenty of new businesses of the last decade or so.
Re: (Score:2)
There was plans to ID every car on the road too. Now, with every new car being brim full of tracking equipment anyway, there's no need to regulate for that any longer either.
Re:Clipper chip (Score:4, Insightful)
There was plans to ID every car on the road too.
They did that, about 100 years ago, they are called license plates.
I just met someone in the victim protetion program (Score:1)
So I just went on a Tinder date with someone who is being stalked by a wanted violent fugitive.
* She uses burner phones
* She never uses her real name to check into a hotel
* She never uses apps except on a phone with no cell service
* She has a card from the government that says she doesn't have to give her home address to anyone
* The government actually compensates her for stuff because her stalker is at large and a wanted fugitive.
* A sheriff escorts her too and from airports
* Her bank does not know her soc
Re: (Score:1)
Damn. If you were a girl you would be pregnant. You believe anything.
Re: (Score:3)
So I just went on a Tinder date with someone who is being stalked by a wanted violent fugitive.
* She uses burner phones
* She never uses her real name to check into a hotel
* She never uses apps except on a phone with no cell service
* She has a card from the government that says she doesn't have to give her home address to anyone
And that's where you lost me. That just sounds like so much BS.
* The government actually compensates her for stuff because her stalker is at large and a wanted fugitive.
What? My tax dollars are paying for what "stuff" exactly? More BS...
* A sheriff escorts her too and from airports
She flies without providing a home address? Still more BS...
* Her bank does not know her social security number
Conceivably she uses a fake SSN provided by gov't - that's plausible.
* The DA files her tax returns
Wow, really? Without her SSN and no home address?
It's on the dIning room bookcase. (Score:2)
There, saved them the trouble.
It doesn't travel with me. If I'm driving then by law I can't talk on it anyway, so you still can't get through.
It takes messages, so I won't miss anything.
So far, there is no law requiring me to have it with me at all times, which I was half expecting by now. Maybe the next Democrat in the White House will push that through, but it hasn't happened yet.
Seems like a pretty great idea (Score:2)
To me, it seems like a no-brainer to use cellular records to find phones that move between cellular towers without ever going through a known checkpoint.
That is obviously illegal, those people are exactly the kinds of people you want looked at, and honestly that seems like a really good use of technology.
It's a shame this has been outed as it will probably lead some criminals to alter behavior, but I'll but not many are thinking that deeply as to what this means...
Clarification - border checkpoints (Score:1)
Reading back I realize I never mentioned specifically I was talking about people traveling across country borders.
Re: (Score:1)
The chat down gets a voice print.
The cell phone data set is linked with one/two people.
Same with any port, airport, using rail, entering a US city.
The smartphone data is just a small part of a larger per person data set.
Some collected by a task force, state/federal funding mix, some by the US mil on the other side of the "across country borders" side... very legal then
Re: (Score:1)
That some vey small town does not print out its police budget in full for walk in inspection on paper and has line by line federal task force support details.
No federal/state/mil FIOA with a digital request will find much.
But the small towns still have to do their police budget paper work.
Re: (Score:1)
Keep the Damned Thing Turned Off (Score:3)
This is why it doesn't matter who's tracking you (Score:3)
People here often say they'd rather be tracked by China because who cares if they have their data. But why wouldn't they just sell it to your government? Or trade it for information on their dissidents? Of course they would.
Just today went to the trampoline park. (Score:2)
They required a waiver for the two kids (5 and 7). The waiver was on a computer and 4 pages. Asking for one's address, and ages of everybody in party. That wasn't going to happen - city was the address I used and Birth-dates picked randomly, but I imagine most everybody else divvied up the information requested.
Re: (Score:3)
That was so they could have immediate contact with you and/or lawyers if someone got injured by accident or on purpose. You basically lied on a legal form.
practicing their surveillance techniques (Score:2)
The data is being used for immigration and border enforcement,
Practicing on "undesirables" before they use it on citizens.
Remember, it always gets used on "them" before it gets used on you.
Re: TDS this! (Score:1)
Are you "okay", bro?
Re: (Score:1)
Should I be "okay" with a gov't ran by bigots? Why the F should we "just tolerate" such? Tell me!
Re: TDS this! (Score:1)
I dunno man - why do you follow the propaganda that tells you to be a big bigot? Seems kinda lame to me. But hey, I guess it floats your boat.
Re: (Score:1)
His own burger-hole gives him away multiple times. I don't need intermediate persons or institutions to summarize and interpret.
Re: practicing their surveillance techniques (Score:1)
The totalitarian dystopia is already here, it's just not evenly distributed.
ACLU has it wrong on this one (Score:1)
A warrant is not required to access this data because it's data that belongs to the government. They bought it, so they own it. They can access it all they want.
It was not illegal for the data to be captured by the cell companies, either. It's required to make their network function and to evaluate network performance over time. They never agreed to keep it private and you consented to the collection of it.
There really is nothing to see here. If you don't want to be tracked by your cell phone, don't have a
Just an observation here: (Score:5, Interesting)
When China did this stuff, it was "a violation of human rights and privacy".
When the US Government does it, it's OK? After all, they paid someone for it. Just not the users whose data they obtained.
I must be missing something.
I didn't think GPS was needed to know location (Score:1)
I was looking to see if apps was able to do the same thing, but didn't find anything definite. See things about Android and not on Apple. But, if one can then all can. Just nothing that was absolute.