Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Privacy Cellphones Crime

Google Tracked His Bike Ride Past a Burglary, and That Made Him a Suspect (nbcnews.com) 204

Posted by EditorDavid from the hell-on-wheels dept.
JustAnotherOldGuy shares a tale for our time: "I was using an app to see how many miles I rode my bike and now it was putting me at the scene of the crime," said Zachary McCoy. Yep, that's all it took. Google's legal investigations support team emailed him to let him know that local police had demanded information related to his Google account. The man's lawyer dug around and learned that the notice had been prompted by a "geofence warrant," a police surveillance tool that casts a virtual dragnet over crime scenes, sweeping up Google location data — drawn from users' GPS, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi and cellular connections — from everyone nearby.
NBC News reports: An avid biker, he used an exercise-tracking app, RunKeeper, to record his rides. The app relied on his phone's location services, which fed his movements to Google. He looked up his route on the day of the March 29, 2019, burglary and saw that he had passed the victim's house three times within an hour, part of his frequent loops through his neighborhood, he said. "It was a nightmare scenario," McCoy recalled. "I was using an app to see how many miles I rode my bike and now it was putting me at the scene of the crime. And I was the lead suspect.
McCoy's lawyer "pointed to an Arizona case in which a man was mistakenly arrested and jailed for murder largely based on Google data received from a geofence warrant. McCoy said he may have ended up in a similar spot if his parents hadn't given him several thousand dollars to hire Kenyon."

"I didn't realize that by having location services on that Google was also keeping a log of where I was going," McCoy said. "I'm sure it's in their terms of service but I never read through those walls of text, and I don't think most people do either...."

The article also notes a Google filing last year reporting that the requests from state and federal law enforcement authorities incrased by more than 1,500 percent from 2017 to 2018, and then again by 500 percent from 2018 to 2019.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Tracked His Bike Ride Past a Burglary, and That Made Him a Suspect More

Google Tracked His Bike Ride Past a Burglary, and That Made Him a Suspect

Comments Filter:

  • You don't have to tell Google where you are. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Mononymous ( 6156676 ) on Saturday March 07, 2020 @09:39PM (#59807122)

    There are multiple ways to use a smartphone without sharing your location with Google.

    I don't have a Google account, and my phone's OS is LineageOS for microG. [microg.org]

    • Re:You don't have to tell Google where you are. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jma05 ( 897351 ) on Saturday March 07, 2020 @10:57PM (#59807290)

      Good for you.
      I don't even think 0.01% of Slashdotters would go through that though, let alone general public.

  • Dug (Score:3, Funny)

    by DogDude ( 805747 ) on Saturday March 07, 2020 @09:42PM (#59807126)
    "I didn't realize that by having location services on that Google was also keeping a log of where I was going,"

    "I didn't know a data mining company was going to mine my data. Who could have guessed?"

    Next up, person surprised that Wal-Mart sells stuff.

    • Re:Dug (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jma05 ( 897351 ) on Saturday March 07, 2020 @10:54PM (#59807282)

      The point wasn't that the data mining company was mining data.
      It was that law enforcement automatically could query that without a subpoena.
      He was in a hybrid world between Orwell's and Kafka's - he could not tell for a while, why law enforcement was interested.

      Also, he was not using an app made by Google, but the very fact that he was using Android meant that all his location data was placed in our de facto panopticon.
      I wonder if he would have been in the database if he turned off location history in his Google account. Does Google actually respect that setting?
      Would his location history have been uploaded regardless, if the network was off while he was biking, but when he connected at a later date?

      At least Google notified him that they were compelled to share. I wonder when that nominal line would be erased as well.
      Google also makes it hard to keep location off. Now even connecting to indoor BLE devices needs location permission.
      Except a few senators like Wyden, the lawmakers don't seem to care for the privacy of their citizens. Their disinterest is stunning.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jeti ( 105266 )

        Would his location history have been uploaded regardless, if the network was off while he was biking, but when he connected at a later date?

        Yes. Google records location data and uploads it as soon as a network becomes available.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        It says right there in the summary that they got a geofence WARRANT. They couldn't "automatically could query that without a subpoena", they applied for and were granted a warrant.

        And at least Google lets you disable location history. Try telling your cellular carrier not to log your location via cell tower signal strength.

      • The point wasn't that the data mining company was mining data. It was that law enforcement automatically could query that without a subpoena.

        Wrong. Geofence warrants are court issued.

      • If you read the story, you'll see that the police DID have a warrant, and DID NOT get his name.

        The info they got was "a user whom we shall call 847946484 went by the house several times".

        The police never did get his name until he went to the press.

    • "I didn't know a gestapo snitching company was going to snitch to the gestapo. Who could have guessed?"

      FTFY

    • "I never thought leopards would eat MY face," sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party.

  • How do you pass the same house 3 times? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by h33t l4x0r ( 4107715 ) on Saturday March 07, 2020 @09:48PM (#59807140)
    2 is the maximum number of times you can pass a house before it looks suspicious.
    • Seriously? You ride about your suburb, or around the block, more times than 2.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by h33t l4x0r ( 4107715 )
        More than 2 is cruising. Just saying. If you're cruising an area when it was burglarized, you're a suspect. And if you're black or latino, you're in jail.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by goose-incarnated ( 1145029 )

          More than 2 is cruising. Just saying. If you're cruising an area when it was burglarized, you're a suspect. And if you're black or latino, you're in jail.

          I doubt it. I'm curious why he needed money for a lawyer; he wasn't arrested after all. Being on a public road outside the scene of a crime and not being connected to the victim in any way is not enough to get convicted. There simply isn't enough evidence.

          It's even less likely if that is his regular route (even if "regular" means once every 6 months or so). This sounds more like the lawyer over-emphasising the police's interest in him, purely to bill more hours - that isn't unusual at all.

          A second more

          • Re: How do you pass the same house 3 times? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by drewsup ( 990717 ) on Sunday March 08, 2020 @03:16AM (#59807608)

            No, this is LAZY policing,pure and simple. Anyone with 1/2 a brain looking at the data would see this guy went past... didnâ(TM)t linger there.
            All this data slurping does is make it easy for police to throw out spurious arrest warrants.
            What if youâ(TM)re a beginner jogger, most start with laps around their particular block, then range out from there. God forbid you get winded/ have a cramp and have to randomly stop, now youâ(TM)re caught in a geofenced warrant and have to defend yourself? And you seem to be ok with this?!

            • Not lingering doesn't clear him, he could have been a lookout for his buddy who was inside, and I imagine that's exactly what the cops were thinking until they saw the color of his skin.

            • The thing that struck me was, what if he had coincidentally stopped outside her home for a few moments to tie a shoelace, take a sip of water, or check his bike or something? What if he paused a bit to catch his breath?

              It sounds crazy but this is the kind of thing that make cops salivate; they'd have gone to town on this poor bastard.

          • The police eventually lost interest in him as a suspect. The point is, it was enough to raise eyebrows with the cops, and rightfully so IMHO.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            Being on a public road outside the scene of a crime and not being connected to the victim in any way is not enough to get convicted. There simply isn't enough evidence.

            What does lack of evidence have to do with it? The cops will get you in a room and apply every form of pressure they legally (and sometimes illegally) can, and then the prosecutor will build up the charges so you are facing 30 years behind bars unless you take their plea deal for 2.

          • I'm curious why he needed money for a lawyer; he wasn't arrested after all. Being on a public road outside the scene of a crime and not being connected to the victim in any way is not enough to get convicted. There simply isn't enough evidence.

            There is a ton of evidence, evidence that it was *not* him. GPS evidence that he briefly passed by and never entered the property. His timestamped GPS track.

            • I'm curious why he needed money for a lawyer; he wasn't arrested after all. Being on a public road outside the scene of a crime and not being connected to the victim in any way is not enough to get convicted. There simply isn't enough evidence.

              There is a ton of evidence, evidence that it was *not* him. GPS evidence that he briefly passed by and never entered the property. His timestamped GPS track.

              Maybe that is why they didn't question him, nor arrest him, nor anything else. They left him alone - what would you prefer they have done?

        • Maybe in good old USA. There's a lot of people in my block who walk around it several times in a row. It's convenient exercise- you go up the big hill for a few hundred meters and down the other side and then repeat. You don't have to get too far from home so if you get too shagged out or need a bathroom you can duck in home.

          I imagine a lot of people on a lot of blocks do the same. Why should it be suspicious of itself?

        • More than 2 is cruising. Just saying. If you're cruising an area when it was burglarized, you're a suspect. And if you're black or latino, you're in jail.

          That didn't happen, and he was not a suspect - because you can't commit burglary while driving past a house.

        • or jogging. or bike riding.
    • I am highly suspicious. I walk past my office about 7 times a lunch break on my walk.
    • Assuming your streets are laid out so you can follow a closed loop route (which is true for any home which has 2+ access routes to the main street), you can just circle in laps for exercise. It's nice because it's easy to count out how much distance you've traveled without having to pull out the GPS. And an emergency requiring you to return home or equipment failure like a flat tire doesn't potentially strand you your full exercise distance from your house. If your normal routine is 5 laps, then the maxi

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Cederic ( 9623 )

      I know. There's this guy that keeps walking past my house, I'm really worried by him.

      Luckily if he does try anything, I know where he lives. Next door.

  • Googleing While Black (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Saturday March 07, 2020 @09:49PM (#59807142)
    The problem is that prosecutors often don't care how they get a conviction, just that they get one. If the guy had been black, no alibi, no lawyer and maybe with a few misdemeanor drug possession charges under his belt there's a good chance he'd be in jail and/or have taken a plea deal putting him one step closer to a 3 strikes law and lifetime in prison.

    • Re: Googleing While Black (Score:5, Informative)

      by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Saturday March 07, 2020 @10:02PM (#59807174)

      The guy in the second linked article was Hispanic, ended up doing some time in jail before the police did some actual police work and cleared him.

      • Coerced false confession ("plea bargain") means there's no need for actual police work.

      • The guy in the second linked article was Hispanic, ended up doing some time in jail before the police did some actual police work and cleared him.

        Spin by omission. In the second article:

        Google provided location data placing his phone at the scene of the crime at the time of the crime

        AND

        Security footage had someone in his car actually firing the shots.

        That's certainly enough to arrest and charge someone. Not enough for a conviction, granted, but they didn't try to get one so that's moot.

        He spent 7 days in jail because his alibi was his mum, his sister and a friend. The Uber proof is evidence that his friend rode in Uber, not that he was there at

        • Security footage had someone in his car actually firing the shots.

          No, the security footage was not detail enough to get a license plate so this is a false statement. What the police had was footage that the shots came from a white Honda. Not his white Honda down to the make and model but generically a white Honda. The suspect owned a white Honda; however, the police was told previously that the suspect was not the only person who drove the car.

          • Security footage had someone in his car actually firing the shots.

            No, the security footage was not detail enough to get a license plate so this is a false statement.

            Fair enough, they didn't know at the time that they actually had the correct car, so they did the correct thing and followed up. When they eventually arrested someone else for the crime, it turned out that the car in the CCTV footage was, indeed, his car.

        • But he was hispanic/black/martian/etc....Obviously the police went after him only because of his skin colour. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a Raaaaaaacist!!!1! (Sarcasm for the challenged).

  • And technically still are.

    As they imply a kind of general suspicion. An initial building block for a totalitarian police state like the Nazis had.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:Reminder that dragnets used to be illegal. (Score:5, Informative)

        by ITRambo ( 1467509 ) on Saturday March 07, 2020 @11:01PM (#59807302)
        Unfortunately, it requires money to hire a lawyer to protect your rights. There is no law that prevents your being questioned or detained for a short time. In fact, the law supports the police detaining a suspect for a short time. This is how the USA legal system has been for over 50 years. Money talks. The rich walk, unless there is evidence to support an arrest.

    • Re:Reminder that dragnets used to be illegal. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Humbubba ( 2443838 ) on Saturday March 07, 2020 @11:26PM (#59807352)
      Welcome to the information age, where our data is the new oil.
      Yes, the cops use Google, but they got other tricks up their sleeve.
      One trick takes advantage of our cell phones automatically connecting to mobile phone towers. With just one search warrant, the cops have access to all the data they need to find who has been around a crime scene.
      Another search warrant lets them track an individual as she/he goes from place to place, their phone connecting to one tower, then another.
      And, of course, there's "Stingray". By now we should all know that cops use fake towers, GSM base stations that mimic mobile phone towers, used to track phones, monitor calls and gather other information.
      BTW, IMHO, the way things are going, I won't be surprised if the laws, the contracts, and the courts will soon allow for even more pervasive surveillance.
  • Everyone knows that google collects a ton of information about. Everyone knows that this is how they make their money. So when you opt in to use their services there really are no excuses for not knowing that they are sharing pretty much every detail about you with whoever will pay for it, or demand it through regulatory procedures. And really, is this all that different from a witness seeing you in the location and the police following that up? If you are in the region of a crime, they're going to want to

    • Do you consider buying an Android based phone to be using a Google service? The Runkeeper app is owned by Asics so I would expect them to have the data, not Google.

    • Re:most of this doesn't bother me (Score:5, Insightful)

      by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Saturday March 07, 2020 @10:41PM (#59807258)

      >"Everyone knows "

      Sorry, but everyone does not know. Perhaps everyone on SLASHDOT knows. But my Mom doesn't know. My neighbor doesn't know. I bet way more than half the people out there have no clue how much they are being tracked. And it isn't just Google. If your mobile phone service is "on", you are being tracked, regardless of settings.

    • Everyone knows that google collects a ton of information about.

      Everyone knows no such thing. Normal people don't expect Google to be following them around everywhere they go.

      Everyone knows that this is how they make their money.

      I don't know that. My understanding is Google is an advertising agency.

      So when you opt in to use their services there really are no excuses for not knowing that they are sharing pretty much every detail about you with whoever will pay for it, or demand it through regulatory procedures.

      I don't know this. Google's privacy policy explicitly states data collected is NOT shared externally with the standard LEA exceptions. Are you saying Google is lying?

      And really, is this all that different from a witness seeing you in the location and the police following that up?

      Yes it absolutely is.

      If you are in the region of a crime, they're going to want to talk to you, that's always been true. Trawling through geolocation data just makes that process easier. The real problem lies in the prosecution process, and if it turns out you are the only person the police can track to the area then maybe they will try and pin it on you no matter what.

      The real problem is allowing governments to have total knowledge of everyone's whereabouts only breeds corruption and corrodes the legitimac

      • Everyone knows no such thing. Normal people don't expect Google to be following them around everywhere they go.

        Google sends me an email every month titled "Google Maps Timeline" which shows me a map of all the places they recorded me going last month. Exactly how could they be more clear about it?

      • My understanding is Google is an advertising agency.

        Google is a **targeted** advertising agency. One of those criteria used for targeting - location.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by sjames ( 1099 )

      And really, is this all that different from a witness seeing you in the location and the police following that up?

      Actually yes, it is quite different.

      Should I happen to walk within a block of a crime minding my own business, I might see a number of people if I'm in an urban area. They don't know who I am and I don't know who they are. Unless I'm acting strangely, they probably won't remember me 5 minutes later. That's OK, I won't remember them either.

      That process acts as a filter. I don't get questioned because I wasn't doing anything of interest so nobody remembers me being near the crime. That filter is what is reall

      • You do realize that the police use the geofence warrant to find both suspects and witnesses?

      • Unless I'm acting strangely, they probably won't remember me 5 minutes later

        Did you not get as far as reading the article? The part that says this guy became the prime suspect because he passed the scene of the burglary THREE TIMES on his bicycle?

        If an eye-witness had reported "I saw the same person ride past three times" then the police would be on it just as enthusiastically. The only difference is the amount of resources it would have taken to identify (and possibly eliminate from enquiries) that person.

  • Lazy, Unconstitutional Policing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by schwit1 ( 797399 ) on Saturday March 07, 2020 @10:14PM (#59807200)

    Geofence warrants should be outlawed. They have no place in a free society.

    Warrants should involve evidence that A person was involved in the crime. Cell phone proximity is not evidence of anything other than being nearby.

    • "They have no place in a free society."

      Agreed. But this is an American website, and America stopped pretending to be a free society in 2001.

    • If police departments could be trusted to use information fairly, then it would be a good way to contact potential witnesses to a crime (remember a witness frequently won't realize that something they saw was important and won't know to contact the police on their own). It's treating them as suspects instead of potential witnesses that creates the problem.

    • Geofence warrants should be outlawed. They have no place in a free society. Warrants should involve evidence that A person was involved in the crime. Cell phone proximity is not evidence of anything other than being nearby.

      Which means you may be a potential witness and thereby someone the police might want to interview to learn what you saw going on in the area.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

      Can we break this down here?

      Warrants should involve evidence that A person was involved in the crime.

      Agreed.

      Cell phone proximity is not evidence of anything other than being nearby.

      Agreed.

      Geofence warrants should be outlawed

      This does not follow from the above statements. The geofence data is evidence, not proof. It sounds like you are arguing that if any singular piece of evidence does not produce proof, then the police should not be allowed to use it. If that's your line of thinking, then it would be impossible to solve any crime. This is just one piece of evidence that can be used. It is not enough to convict, and the person was merely a suspect.

      Lets instead ask this question: H

  • >"I didn't realize that by having location services on that Google was also keeping a log of where I was going,"

    And it is far more than just Google. Your cell phone provider also is keeping such records- ones you cannot opt out of, either. As long as you are carrying a phone that is on, your movements and location are being stored. Next will be systems in cars (many already do).

  • didn't just hand it to them.

  • If you're doing nothing wrong, you've got nothing to worry about.

  • if the location data shows constant movement, without stopping at the burglary house.

    I mean you do have to stop, walk in, grab stuff and walk out.

    A simple examination of the location data should provide the truth...

  • The problem is $$$ (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Snotnose ( 212196 ) on Saturday March 07, 2020 @11:45PM (#59807364)
    Lawyers are expensive. The government doesn't have to worry about such things, but this is a young dude with no resources that had to come up with 3-5 thousand $$$ for no good reason.

    So, all you armchair warriors saying "if you aren't doing anything wrong yadda yadda", this guy did nothing wrong and it cost him a pretty decent home theater. Or his parents their home theater. Oh, you say, he did nothing wrong so why did he hire a lawyer? If you ever go in front of a judge without a lawyer you are fucked.

    I had a neighbor 4-5 years ago who started calling the cops on me. Final thing was she pushed my doorbell, over and over and over and over. Finally answered it, she's standing there with a taser. I slammed the door shut. She called the cops. I got to sit on the curb, in full view of my neighbors, with 2 cops standing over me. She claimed I pulled a gun on her. I don't own a gun, and actually let a cop search my apartment (which you really should never do,but I was discombobulated). No gun was found (duh). She also claimed I threw a bowl of urine on her. She was wet when the cops showed up, but it was not urine, let alone mine.

    I remember I called the non-emergency number on her once, told my story, and, seriously, I quote "so that's where she moved to".

    She filed a restraining order against me. Which sucked,, as she had to walk past my front door to go anywhere. So WTF am I supposed to do?
    It took 3 lawyers, first 2 wanted nothing to do with it ("look at it from the judge's perspective. If she's wrong no joy, if she's right and you do something to her you make headlines").

    Got to court, she had a witness. Who contradicted every fucking thing she said. It was clear to everyone in the courtroom, including her own witness, she was lying big time. Judge decided against the restraining order, but would not let me charge her for the $1500 legal fee I'd paid my lawyer.

    Never go to court without a lawyer. And never expect the system to reimburse you for legal fees.

    If I didn't have a purring cat in my lap, and wasn't worried about being sued, I would name her right here and now. Fuck that, if I wasn't so lazy I would post her fucking name, cuz her bullshit cost me $1500 I don't have.

    Fuck that, this is anger management I dealt with 5 years ago.

    Christine J Solgi, you fat fuck, you owe me $1500 plus interest. I sincerely hope google latches onto this and it seriously fucks up your life. Christine J Solgi, you owe me $1500 plus an apology. I did nothing wrong but live next to you for a year, and I was there first. Christine J Solgi, you fat fuck, I hope you are living under a bridge somewhere and your classier homeless folks are realizing what a fat sack of shit you are.

    • Lawyers are expensive. The government doesn't have to worry about such things, but this is a young dude with no resources that had to come up with 3-5 thousand $$$ for no good reason.

      No, he didn't have to do that.

      They didn't arrest him even though they had his location for some time, they didn't even question him. They simply weren't interested in him enough as a suspect. His own paranoia and/or his lawyer caused him to think that he was the lead suspect. He then spent that money under the impression that he was the lead suspect.

      The problem with this is not that they retrieved the data under threat of force from google, it's that they were granted the authority to use that force to

      • Please re-read the summary. He was not contacted by the police. He was notified by Google that his information was being released to them under the authority of a warrant.

        Clearly, he was being investigated, but he did not know FOR WHAT CRIME. Obviously he wanted to know what was going on. That's not paranoia. That's common sense.

        Consider for a moment what you might be investigated for on the Internet in 2020. Especially if you do not have a lot of confidence in the good faith/competence of the police.

  • Now we're at guilty for being in the general area, no need for being in any way associated with a criminal anymore.

  • This technology now, while reasonably new, is probably going to be useful for solving a few crimes, with the collateral damage of a few innocent victims. On the other hand, having proof of your location might be a great alibi for those accused of something they didn't do. But over time, as more real crooks are caught and end up in jails, and talk about how they ended up there because of their mobile phone, the answer becomes simple: when you're planning on doing your crime, don't take your phone. Then, agai

  • Referring to it as "scene of _the_ crime" vs. "scene of _a_ crime" seems a bit suspect.

  • Nothing To See Here (Score:3)

    by dcw3 ( 649211 ) on Sunday March 08, 2020 @03:47AM (#59807632) Journal

    Police never even spoke with the guy because until he went public, they didn't know who he was. And by then, they'd already cleared him. /yawn

  • Modern times (Score:3)

    by AxisOfPleasure ( 5902864 ) on Sunday March 08, 2020 @06:30AM (#59807866)

    Instead of it being the correct "Innocent unless proven guilty.", the law enforcement and big biz automcatically assume the incorrect "Guilty until proven innocent.".

  • They want it both ways (Score:3)

    by CODiNE ( 27417 ) on Sunday March 08, 2020 @07:07AM (#59807918) Homepage

    Interesting how the geofence is enough evidence make him their prime suspect, yet not enough evidence to prove he rode past.

    From the thousands of GPS locations saved from his bike ride they've chosen to ignore all but the ones showing him at that one spot.

    How can it simultaneously convict and not exonerate him?

    Clearly the data is absolutely concrete and yet totally unreliable.

    • The answer here is to prevent the government from being able to query such data, not to suggest Google hand over more of it so they can show where everyone was.
  • If a bicycle drives past the location of the burglary, I would expect it to be hundred meters away at time x, right at the spot of the burglary 20 seconds later, then again hundred meters away 40 seconds later. Unless the police can explain how to commit a burglary within a few seconds, that's not a reason for suspicion, that's a perfect alibi.

    And being present at the location of a crime at the right time may be reason for suspicion and lead to further investigation, but there is no way it is in any way

  • Fake GPS location: https://play.google.com/store/... [google.com]

    How about malware that spoofs gps location on someone else's phone?

    Also, physically attaching your phone to some sort of drone while you run off and do a crime somewhere else seems like a good plan.

    Personally, I don't see the data collection issue going away. The only winning move I see is everyone generating so much fake data that it just creates a sea of garbage.

  • What is this guy, retarded?

Slashdot Top Deals

No spitting on the Bus! Thank you, The Mgt.

Close