Secret Service Says You Agreed To Be Tracked With Location Data (404media.co) 103
An anonymous reader shares a report: Officials inside the Secret Service clashed over whether they needed a warrant to use location data harvested from ordinary apps installed on smartphones, with some arguing that citizens have agreed to be tracked with such data by accepting app terms of service, despite those apps often not saying their data may end up with the authorities, according to hundreds of pages of internal Secret Service emails obtained by 404 Media.
The emails provide deeper insight into the agency's use of Locate X, a powerful surveillance capability that allows law enforcement officials to follow a phone, and person's, precise movements over time at the click of a mouse. In 2023, a government oversight body found that the Secret Service, Customs and Border Protection, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement all used their access to such location data illegally. The Secret Service told 404 Media in an email last week it is no longer using the tool. "If USSS [U.S. Secret Service] is using Locate X, that is most concerning to us," one of the internal emails said. 404 Media obtained them and other documents through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Secret Service.
The emails provide deeper insight into the agency's use of Locate X, a powerful surveillance capability that allows law enforcement officials to follow a phone, and person's, precise movements over time at the click of a mouse. In 2023, a government oversight body found that the Secret Service, Customs and Border Protection, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement all used their access to such location data illegally. The Secret Service told 404 Media in an email last week it is no longer using the tool. "If USSS [U.S. Secret Service] is using Locate X, that is most concerning to us," one of the internal emails said. 404 Media obtained them and other documents through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Secret Service.
The Crux Of Privacy Data Issues (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why we don't have data privacy in the US. Law enforcement agencies fight it because they can purchase this data you agreed to hand over. Companies exist to make money selling your data. Big Business and law enforcement usually get what they want. They've upheld before agencies can use this third party data. 4th Amendment doesn't apply outside of your home. They've decided this in courts.
It's only going to get worse.
Re:The Crux Of Privacy Data Issues (Score:4, Funny)
Sadly to the point FP. I was really hoping for a bit of levity. Even though the story is not intrinsically funny.
Okay, so I'll try to be part of the solution!
But of course they won't track anyone who doesn't deserve to be tracked!
ROFLMAO.
Re: The Crux Of Privacy Data Issues (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
But of course they won't track anyone who doesn't deserve to be tracked!
ROFLMAO.
This is a variation on the sentiment that "_____" harms/penalizes law abiding citizens, which ignores the fact that everyone is a law abiding citizen right up to the moment they're not and that the before provides context to the after. Jan 6th is a good example of people crossing the line (figuratively and literally) in a moment, though many apparently came prepared for that.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not getting your point, but I did get a Funny (mod) point from somewhere...
So how about my new joke of the day? Imagine an orange t-shirt:
"I'm from the rich people and I'm here to destroy anything that stops me from getting more money!"
Okay, it needs to be shorter, but it's funny because he can never tell a truth and because in real life he was never rich. Reagan actually existed in real life and his actions proved he mostly didn't mean what he said, even as he unleashed the termites, but in fake Realit
Re: The Crux Of Privacy Data Issues (Score:3)
To play devils advocate- if one agrees to the commercial sale of oneâ(TM)s location data to any party at the apps discretion, why would it be illegal for law enforcement to buy that data? After all, you agreed that your app data could be sold to *anyone* at the discretion of the app provider. If you dont like the terms, delete the apps and use tools that do not have these terms and conditions.
This does not appear to be much different legally from employment handbooks or policies where one agrees that p
Re: The Crux Of Privacy Data Issues (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Those are tax payer dollars and no reasonable person would vote for this in the name of safety or crime prevention.
But they have :(
It happens, and the powers that be were voted into office.
It is simply a tool to circumvent the need to obtain a warrant which could be thrown out in court- fruit of the poisoned tree.
It's only fruit of the poisoned tree if it was acquired illegally.
It is not demonstrable that legally acquiring the data without using government powers to compel is in any way illegal.
There is no similarity between law enforcement acquisition of data and an employer's access to data or an employee handbook.
How do you figure?
If the LEO acquires the information like a private party would, then there is.
If it acquires the information using its powers of law enforcement, then it needs a warrant.
We don't say there are special rules when SPD orders a box
Re: The Crux Of Privacy Data Issues (Score:2)
Re: The Crux Of Privacy Data Issues (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now the personal attacks.
"You choosing or not being able to undetstand is not the same as me not making a valid point."
Personal attack.
Worse- you used it as a point in your argument, so unlike my weightless insult, you actually committed a fallacy.
I guess if youve got nothing more than the literal narrow interpretation of the law
There's nothing narrow about it. It's simply logical.
Look at it this way.
If a police department asks me for information about one of my customers, do they have to provide me with a warrant?
If you guessed no, then you're correct. They do not.
Warrants are to compel. Period.
Never, ev
Re: The Crux Of Privacy Data Issues (Score:2)
Re: The Crux Of Privacy Data Issues (Score:4, Insightful)
Except the Constitution requires the government to get a warrant, buying it does not change that fact.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: The Crux Of Privacy Data Issues (Score:5, Insightful)
Every person who moderated you positively is as ignorant as you are.
The Constitution requires a warrant for unreasonable search and seizure.
Police are, and always have been, free to ask someone to rat you out.
Seizure is the key word here. When data is not in their hands, and they most compel someone to hand it over, that is a seizure of that data.
They need a warrant to force me to give them information about my customers.
However, if they ask, I can also say yes, as long as privacy laws allow for it. And that's "The data-broker loophole" in a nutshell.
It's not illegal for data brokers to sell your information, and it's not illegal for police to purchase it.
One of those two needs to be fixed to close the loophole, because no matter how many morons like you step up and say, "This is a 4th amendment violation!" it won't make you any more correct.
Re: (Score:2)
The Constitution requires a warrant for unreasonable search and seizure.
Tax money that was taken at the barrel of a gun was used to get this data. It absolutely is a seizure, not merely a request.
Don't waste your time getting hung up on the "barrel of a gun" thing. It is there to point out that taxes are taken whether you volunteer to pay them or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Tax money that was taken at the barrel of a gun was used to get this data. It absolutely is a seizure, not merely a request.
Wrong.
Don't waste your time getting hung up on the "barrel of a gun" thing. It is there to point out that taxes are taken whether you volunteer to pay them or not.
I'm not hung up. Your argument just doesn't follow.
Regardless of how the taxation occurred- compulsory or voluntary, the data was not seized.
You can argue that the money for it was seized, and fine, it's a stupid sovereign citizen argument, but it's so irrelevant that I don't see a point in arguing it.
Your point was a non-sequitur. Try again, but this time with less logical fallacy.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Example. I steal a bike and sell it to you. You bought it legally. The bike was still aquired illegally. Did you commit a crime?
Sorry to be pedantic, but yes. According to most idiotic US laws, possession of stolen property is a crime whether or not you knew it was stolen.
Welcome to America, bud.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, so you and @DamnOregonian should square off: You say it's illegal and he's saying it's legal
splitting hairs is recommended
So I get the impression that if you bought the stolen bike off me, you now have stolen property and that can be held against you.
However, if Law Enforcement buys data from App XYZ... I'm saying you were duped into agreeing to provide GPS data, therefore law enforcement would now be holding stolen or illegally acquired property.
I understand
Re: (Score:2)
Receiving stolen property requires the Government to prove that you stole it.
I'll give you an example of my State's (Washington)
RCW 9A.56.140
Possessing stolen property—Definition—Presumption.
(1) "Possessing stolen property" means knowingly to receive, retain, possess, conceal, or dispose of stolen property knowing that it has been stolen and to withhold or appropriate the same to the use of any person other than the true owner or person entitled thereto.
There are some gotchas where mens rea is statutorily assumed- for example:
(3) When a person has in his or her possession, or under his or her control, stolen access devices issued in the names of two or more persons, or ten or more stolen merchandise pallets, or ten or more stolen beverage crates, or a combination of ten or more stolen merchandise pallets and beverage crates, as defined under RCW 9A.56.010, he or she is presumed to know that they are stolen.
But those are still defensible, as presumption is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm really a broken record on this, but I would argue the real issue, the real problem, is Terms of Service. I've actually spend quite a bit of time reading them (!).. I've read Google, Apple, Stripe, my credit card co's, and a few of the carriers in Canada, Bell, and Rogers... They a
Re: (Score:2)
Nebraska Law:Section 28-517 - Theft by receiving stolen property A person commits theft if he receives, retains, or disposes of stolen movable property of another knowing that it has been stolen, or believing that it has been stolen, unless the property is received, retained, or disposed with intention to restore it to the owner.
Under A.R.S. section 13-1802(A)(5), the government needs to prove that: (1) without lawful aut
Re: (Score:2)
One example,
he defendant was a bartender working for his wife at No. 30 West Reno street, in Oklahoma City. He sold this overcoat to the defendant for the price of $1. Defendant testified, admitting buying the coat, but said that he paid Myers $3.50 for the same. He denied that he knew it was stolen property.It is unnecessary to quote extensively from the record, as the testimony was for the consideration of the jury, and it was their duty to determine from all the evidence in the case whether in their opinion the defendant had knowledge at the time the property was received that it had been stolen, or that he had reasonable grounds to so believe. The record reveals many facts and circumstances which warranted the jury in reaching the conclusion of the guilt of the defendant. This property was bought at a place other than where property of this kind is generally sold. An inadequate price was paid for the same. It was sold near nighttime. The jury had the right to take into consideration the fact that the defendant and his wife had bought other property from Myers, and under suspicious circumstances.
Re: (Score:2)
If Law Enforcement monitors you it's wrong
Law Enforcement can monitor you with your consent.
They can get a court order if you don't offer it.
but If an app monitors you, it's right?
See above.
Law enforcement buying data gathered by apps/third parties is clearly just to workaround current laws.
Of course it is.
But that doesn't make it illegal.
Seems pretty self evident.
It is.
But that doesn't make it illegal.
The problem here is the confusion over what the 4th amendment protects you against.
You think it saves you from the government/police knowing anything about you without a warrant.
That is simply not true.
That which you surrender is fair game, and it always has been.
Such a "workaround" has always existed.
P
Re: (Score:2)
Just buy all the data from big data and surveil them all!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your employer declares, since you brought cigarettes into the building, he gets your car-keys as compensation. Yes, that's an extreme analogy: If you misbehave, he is more likely to call the police. No , it is a useful analogy, showing the power government can give itself: The police follow due process, or they don't. Other people do it, is not an excuse for people with guns and prisons.
Then we can deal with institutionalized government oppression, such as civil forfeiture, or the burden of proving y
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The Crux Of Privacy Data Issues (Score:4, Insightful)
Had a regular poor person done that, they'd be facing felony charges.
Re:Tracked (Score:5, Insightful)
Secret services or secret laws. FISA needs a major revision
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Democratic countries shouldn't have any type of "secret services" anyhow.
So democratic countries shouldn't have a service that protects elected politicians or hunts down counterfeiting operations?
Re: Tracked (Score:2, Funny)
ooops, should have posted that anonymously (Score:2)
No. In this country we worship free markets.
If I can produce a better product, let the good drive out the bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Tracked (Score:3)
True. There's not much of a secret surrounding its duties. Perhaps they should rename it the Praetorian Guard.
Now where's Claudius when we really need him?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Tracked (Score:2)
"Secret" in this context is like "secretarial",
But the word "secretary" is derived from the root, "secret". As a personal assistant that is privy to their employers private personal or business details.
Re:self-inflicted (Score:5, Insightful)
Like the automobile before it, owning a smart phone is now a basic precondition of a "normal" life. Increasingly, you can't communicate, work, or access services without one. There are only a few suppliers of hardware. There's effectively only two suppliers of the operating system. There's a million entities trying to get access to your data, and participating in all manner of shenanigans to ensure that access.
Like so many problems before it, this is a problem that ordinary people and "markets" can't reasonably be tasked with preventing. There have to be laws. The laws won't do a great job, but they're the only thing that can even do a shitty job.
Re: self-inflicted (Score:1)
Use Web Apps through your browser (Score:3)
It's all literally the same thing anyway. Why would you not?
Re: (Score:3)
Banner at the top of literally everything:
Get Our App for Basic Functionality Like Checking Your Place in Line
[link to app store]
(Looking at you Yelp!)
Privacy no longer exists (Score:5, Funny)
The result is that privacy is a thing of the past. Homeland security, and companies now have the ability to know pretty much everything about you.
Fortunately the US is a country where there is no chance of ever ending up with the sort of authoritarian government that would misuse this data in any way. So I am 100% behind our government tracking everything we do and protecting us against those who don't share our American values or who seek to limit our freedoms.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Interesting times. Right now I couldn't guess how many people will end up getting deported from the USA in the next 2 years within a factor of 100.
The number of immigrants who followed immigration laws that are deported will be zero.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Privacy no longer exists (Score:4, Insightful)
The number of immigrants who followed immigration laws that are deported will be zero
Then you are bad at math. Trump has vowed to deport 20 million people while there are only estimated to be around 11-12 million illegal immigrants.
Trump's plans will also result in the deporting of people who have essentially lived their entire lives in the United States - went to U.S. elementary schools, junior highs, graduated from U.S. high schools, and even attended and graduated from U.S. colleges. And they have paid their taxes, worked at U.S. companies, and own property and have families. But because their parents brought them over illegally when they were a baby Trump wants to deport them to a country where they never remember ever being in and maybe don't even know the language.
Good plan.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are delusional.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting times. Right now I couldn't guess how many people will end up getting deported from the USA in the next 2 years within a factor of 100.
The number of immigrants who followed immigration laws that are deported will be zero.
The number of people that are not illegal immigrants but will be deported anyways is non-zero.
Re: (Score:2)
Self replying because I did not mean this as a troll at all. I genuinely believe what I wrote and while I know there's people out there that might disagree or not think that these are the values that America exemplifies, I'd much rather someone reply and explain their point of view than mods just assume that I'm trying to flame or troll people (which I'm not).
I also think this is an important topic. The USA has 350k people in, and there are going to be many differences of opinions amongst those people. But
Re: (Score:3)
Privacy is not a boolean.
Absolute privacy is a thing of the past, perhaps.
There are thousands of data points funneling along thousands of channels/vectors into thousands of parties/factions. Fortunately not everyone cares about the same things. Fortunately not everyone gets ahold of everyone else's caches. You can thwart some. Do so at your comfort level and indiscriminately - I don't wash my hands thinking it may or may not prevent influenza strain #478-B, I don't wash expecting absolute purity, I take wha
Re: (Score:2)
Well to be fair, back in the good old days of small farming communities, everybody was in everybody else's business all the time. If somebody's car was parked in front of somebody else's house overnight *everybody* knew there was hanky-panky going on. So I guess you could say that privacy *never* existed.
TBH I think we want this warrantless (Score:2)
I think the only way the public is going to give a damn about privacy as a real political issue is if the legal standard is "yeah, you have literally no 4th amendment protection from active location surveillance if you agree to the ToS."
Re: (Score:3)
Part of the problem with this, is that it's being discussed in ridiculously non-legal terms.
LEOs aren't violating your 4th amendment rights. They've found that they don't need to.
Remedies are a constitutional amendment protecting your information from being given to the government (good luck there, that breaks a LOT more than just LEO), or federal and state s
Amen (Score:2)
That's why I said we actually want the police to use this stuff like crazy because it actually builds the case for tougher privacy laws. In fact, we want the police brazenly using this data so that it's as black and white as possible, otherwise people will never see a need for deep reform.
Re: (Score:3)
I just don't think it's helpful to portray this as a 4th amendment violation.
The fact is, you do still have 4th amendment protection.
A cop still needs a warrant to put a GPS on your car, etc.
We need to clearly paint this problem for what it is- corporations that collect your location/information/etc aren't just data mining to sell to people who want to sell you shit. They're also selling to governments of every color.
Like:
Warning: You are consenting to allow your
Re: Amen (Score:1)
I think you misjudge the population. People voluntarily consent to face scans at airport TSA, boarding international flights _leaving_ USA, and immigration. From what I observe, most people gleefully volunteer. It's not a violation of rights to voluntarily submit, and most volunteer to face scans and voluntarily leave their phone location setting ON all the time.
Where's the agreement (Score:5, Interesting)
when you virtually need a cellphone to lead a normal life today and there's no alternative to submitting to corporate surveillance when you use one?
I didn't agree to being tracked in any way, shape or form. I have no choice.
Re: Where's the agreement (Score:3)
That's exactly how you and the likes have normalized this corporate surveillance yourselves.
Like me, you have the choice. Agree or skip that crap. I choose to skip the crap.
And yes, I have still a life. Just not "normal" in the sense it is way less surveilled.
I know. People here yell at me for that. Is that because they ran into the traps eyes wide open or because they are the generation who developed and founded the fine grained surveillance that has become your norm? Funny isn't it.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't agree to being tracked in any way, shape or form. I have no choice.
You did, and that's the problem.
Jumping up and screaming that you didn't consent to something you did isn't going to fix the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a social choice, with political solutions.
If you don't like it, be or find a politician who will champion legislation to change the landscape.
Re: (Score:2)
"when you virtually need a cellphone to lead a normal life today"
But do you? I have a flip phone because they abandoned the land line, but it rarely leaves the dining room, much less the house. I certainly don't need a mapping app to find the grocery store.
Re: (Score:2)
But do you?
Yes.
I currently live in a country that went all-internet. You can't even get book an appointment at the hairdresser, go to the doctor or punch in your work hours of the day without having to log in securely with a fucking cellphone app which - surprise surprise - is Android or iPhone only.
No Android or iOS, no life here.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't agree to being tracked in any way, shape or form. I have no choice.
Welcome to late stage, unfettered capitalism. If you don't like it, you can starve to death.
I'm not a criminal (Score:5, Funny)
And I have nothing to hide. These brave bureaucrats are protecting us from dangerous criminals and we need to cooperate fully and allow them to do their job.
Next you're going to tell me that I don't have to quarter soldiers.
The bigger problem (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Rather than people dedicated to the actual law, we get people who want to dominate others."
Not just law enforcement, but government in general. For that matter, the Church too.
Third-party doctrine (Score:5, Informative)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The third-party doctrine is a United States legal doctrine that holds that people who voluntarily give information to third parties - such as banks, phone companies, internet service providers (ISPs), and e-mail servers - have "no reasonable expectation of privacy" in that information. A lack of privacy protection allows the United States government to obtain information from third parties without a legal warrant and without otherwise complying with the Fourth Amendment prohibition against search and seizure without probable cause and a judicial search warrant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I could see their point, if it was actually voluntary, but banks, phone service, and ISPs are basically required by today's society.
Personally, I think someone (with more money than most of us) should buy that same information for all Secret Service, FBI, and DHS employees, and make it publicly available.
No longer in use (Score:4, Funny)
The Secret Service told 404 Media in an email last week it is no longer using the tool
Of course not. Locate X has been deprecated and replaced with Locate Y.
Re: (Score:2)
Data Deletion Law (Score:2)
We need a law forcing mandatory tracking data deletion, potentially even a new constitutional amendment preventing the use of such data outside of homicide or heinous crime investigation.
When I was a kid, you could say and do various shit as a kid (non-criminal, I might add) and it won't come back to haunt you years later when you're running for political office or you've pissed someone off. Did I ever visit a strip club? Did I ever cheat on a girlfriend? Nowadays people are putting their whole lives online
The Problem is the Barter, Not the Buyer (Score:2)
The problem isn't the relationship between law enforcement and data broker. It's between the user and the app owner. Consider:
1. You grow apples.
2. You give Bob permission to harvest your apples and do what he wants with them. In exchange, Bob mows your front lawn.
3. Bob sells some of those apples to the FDA.
4. The FDA tests those apples and find that they have ridiculous amounts of illegal pesticide on them.
5. The FDA uses the test results as probable cause to seek a warrant to enter your apple orchard, ta
Re: (Score:3)
The problem isn't the relationship between law enforcement and data broker. It's between the user and the app owner.
Nope. The problems are the relationship between the government and the corporation, and between the person and the government. The government makes it illegal to share e.g. FTI (federal tax information) which is sourced from the IRS, but they don't make it illegal to share e.g. your banking information which is sourced from your bank. And the government is also one of the biggest buyers of that information.
None of this would be legal or profitable without the government refusing to protect our interests inc
Re: (Score:2)
The problems are the relationship between the government and the corporation
What's the exact problem here? People bartered away their own information and the company then resold that information to the government. Is that illegal or do you just not want it to happen?
Also, it's 100% OK to say, "I don't think it should be legal." I might even support that idea. But I'm yet to find any actual law or policy they're breaking in their actions (which is probably why their lawyers have allowed it to happen).
and between the person and the government
If the information was legally obtained, then the only problem that could exist in
Re: (Score:2)
Is that illegal or do you just not want it to happen?
Also, it's 100% OK to say, "I don't think it should be legal."
I'm very glad you feel that way, and said that right after the first thing, because I was just getting my back up.
I absolutely do think it should be illegal, because I don't want it to happen, specifically because I think allowing it to happen is a disaster. I think it needs to just be generally illegal for that data to be passed around more than is absolutely necessary to serve the customer.
Track me, but why a criminal in the white house? (Score:1, Troll)
Wanna track my phone? Go for it.
But keep that orange felon out of the White House. That would be protecting the country and its citizens, even the ones too stupid to get it.
LOL! (Score:2)
jurisdiction, constitution, and TOS... (Score:2)
Jurisdiction, constitution, and TOS agreement is between a person and THAT specific company. As far as i am aware, google is not a representative of the SS, nor a business partner that is mentioned in the TOS. If i agree to provide my geo data to google for google maps to tell me where to go, the expectation is that that is the purpose of the data being provided, not that i am also consenting to the SS to be able to track my location.
If the courts in the US view this as being okay and normal... something
And yet, they still seem incompetent (Score:2)
I agreed? (Score:2)
"Secret Service Says You Agreed To Be Tracked With Location Data"
Funny, I don't remember being handed a contract or an "X" to click by the Secret Service.
"We will come and kick your balls because we said you agreed to having us come and kick you in the balls".