Intro:
About Techdirt.
Started in 1997 by Floor64 founder Mike Masnick and then growing into a group blogging effort, the Techdirt blog relies on a proven economic framework to analyze and offer insight into news stories about changes in government policy, technology and legal issues that affect companies’ ability to innovate and grow. As the impact of technological innovation on society, civil liberties and consumer rights has grown, Techdirt?s coverage has expanded to include these critical topics.
The dynamic and interactive community of Techdirt readers often comment on the addictive quality of the content on the site, a feeling supported by the blog’s average of ~1 million visitors per month and more than 1.7 million comments on 73,000+ posts. Both Business Week and Forbes have awarded Techdirt Best of the Web thought leader awards.
You can also find Techdirt on Twitter and Facebook.
Daily Deal: Microsoft Surface Pro 5 (Refurbished)
from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept
If you’re looking for a tablet that can also double as a laptop, the refurbished Surface Pro
12.3″ 256GB is your best bet. This device weighs just 1.73 pounds and
measures just 0.33″ thin, so it’s one of the lightest and smallest
laptops available on the market today. The device features a 7th-Gen
(Kaby Lake) 2.6 GHz Intel Core i5-7300U processor with turbo boost up to
3.5 GHz, 8GB DDR4 memory, and a 256GB M.2 SSD for fast performance. it
also includes an integrated UHD display that supports 10-point touch
input for Windows 10 Pro users who want to take advantage of multi-touch
gestures in their work environment or on their mobile devices while on
the go. It’s on sale for $445.
Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.
Filed Under: daily deal
✓ 1 FOG DATA SCIENCE/Data Brokers
(INSERT
Yet Another Data Broker Found To Give Massive Amounts Of Location Info To Law Enforcement
from the we-can-remember-where-you-were-wholesale dept
"The Supreme Court may have extended constitutional protection to historical cell site location info, but that’s not going to stop our public servants — and the private companies that serve them — from finding ways to elude the ramifications of the Carpenter decision.
Over the past couple of years, court documents and public records have exposed this law enforcement-adjacent business. (These brokers also sell data to private companies, but seem to prefer their government contracts.) Bypassing even questionable geofence warrants (ones that perform searches of areas for devices of interest, rather than targeting any specific suspect), government agencies are buying direct access to location data pulled from dozens of apps that collect this information while in use.
The EFF has obtained several documents detailing the offerings of Fog Data Science, yet another entrant in the data broker sweepstakes. Pulling information gleaned from over 100 public records requests, the EFF notes the company has (or has had) contracts with at least 18 law enforcement agencies, including some at the federal level.
Here’s what the company does:
The company, Fog Data Science, has claimed in marketing materials that it has “billions” of data points about “over 250 million” devices and that its data can be used to learn about where its subjects work, live, and associate. Fog sells access to this data via a web application, called Fog Reveal, that lets customers point and click to access detailed histories of regular people’s lives. This panoptic surveillance apparatus is offered to state highway patrols, local police departments, and county sheriffs across the country for less than $10,000 per year.
And it appears the company (and some of its law enforcement customers) believe obtaining location data through Fog (which the company advertises as being capable of long-term tracking) does not implicate the Fourth Amendment. One of its communications with the California Highway Patrol contains this statement from a Fog representative — one which states it has spoken to other law enforcement customers who believe the Carpenter decision has nothing to do with this particular location data source.
We haven’t done any work on Carpenter. We have had several clients view our solution through the lens of Carpenter, most recently was from a meeting I had with NJ State Police and NJ AG’s Office. The attorneys in the meeting felt that since we are providing non PII [personally identifying info] data, held by third parties, Carpenter doesn’t apply. As you know, in the Carpenter case, the FBI had his cell number and requested specific records pertaining to him. With our data, we have no way of linking signals back to a specific device or owner.
That legal theory can be described most charitably as “untested.” Maybe courts will find that layering third parties (the app sources and the data broker hawking the data) makes it too far removed from the source to make Carpenter applicable. Or maybe some courts will find it’s ultimately close enough to the CSLI-enabled tracking in the Carpenter case (since investigators will use this data to identify suspects and then can go back to the brokers to gather more data on the targeted device/device owner) that warrants are required.
Either way, it shows law enforcement is looking for solutions that
don’t require judicial oversight, and Fog Data Science is more than
willing to be that solution. . .
That’s not to say that if Fog sucks at its job, that makes it ok. It doesn’t. App users may opt into sharing data with apps, but they’re rarely aware app developers are sending this information on to data brokers, who are now basically forcing app users one step removed from the data broker to share their location data with government agencies.
The first breakdown in responsibility comes from app developers who sell this information to data brokers. The second breakdown comes from Fog’s government customers, who haven’t been exactly open or honest about their frequent use of third-party brokers to obtain bulk data they can’t legally acquire from cell service providers without a warrant.
There’s much, much more in the EFF’s discussion of its findings from its public records haul, including suspected links to Venntel, another data broker with plenty of powerful government clients. And it shows packaging and analyzing app data to track people is still a growth business, one that won’t see any slowdown until it’s either reined in by privacy legislation or courtroom precedent."
Filed Under: 4th amendment, data brokers, data sharing, law enforcement
Companies: fog data science
READ MORE
✓ 2
Court: Yeah, No One’s Going To Feel They’re Free To Go When Cops Are Firing Bullets Through Their Front Door
from the each-bullet-means-you're-even-freer-to-go dept
"Consent can mean a lot of things when you’re accosted by cops. Law enforcement officers tend to feel it’s always voluntary, even when you’re sitting in an interrogation room for what the “good cop” refers to as a “friendly chat” meant to “clear everything up.”
Whenever a seizure is challenged, if cops didn’t have the requisite reasonable suspicion or probable cause to support the stop, they and their lawyers will almost always claim the stop was consensual and the person now suing or trying to suppress evidence was free to go.
I’ve witnessed a lot of really terrible government arguments while covering terrible police work for Techdirt. But this one [PDF], handled by the Sixth Circuit Appeals Court (following an appeal by the state), has to be the argument furthest disconnected from reality I’ve seen yet. (h/t FourthAmendment.com)
The timeline leading the Fourth Amendment violation is pretty clear. There are recordings of the incident, which alone makes it an anomaly. From those recordings and testimony of all involved, the Sixth Circuit reconstructs the late evening welfare check that devolved into (police) violence.
. . .
The evidence is this: no firearm was found on the property after the officers entered the residence. Also of note: while Mark Campbell was charged with two counts of aggravated assault on the officers, those charges were dismissed.
The couple sued, alleging Fourth Amendment violations stemming from the incident. And they won at the lower level, prompting the government’s appeal, much of which hinged on the government’s assertion that the whole thing was a consensual interaction that was only complicated by Mark’s statements and actions.
Oh hell no, says the Sixth Circuit, summing up the whole debacle in one devastating sentence. Whatever might apply to Mark and his “I’ve got one too” statement alluding to a gun did not apply to the other person in the house, who was definitely held against her will by law enforcement until the situation was resolved.
In view of all the circumstances here, a reasonable person would not believe that he or she was free to leave a house while an officer repeatedly fired at the front door.
It’s sad that it takes a court — and not just the first level of the judicial system — to state the obvious. No person would feel free to leave when several officers are present in the front yard. And they definitely would not feel free to end the interaction after an officer fires eight bullets through their front door.
Really just extremely obvious stuff. And yet, the court has to explain this to the willfully obtuse law enforcement officers who continued to claim no one was seized despite the officers in the yard and the bullets flying into the house. Whatever Mark Campbell did (including returning to the porch after the hail of gunfire) has no bearing on rights violation perpetrated on his wife.
It also makes no difference whether Fox knew Sherrie was also inside the home. We have explained that when an officer seizes one person by shooting at a car, for example, the officer seizes everyone in the car, even if the officer is unaware of the presence of passengers.
As for the claim the gunfire was justified because of Mark Campell’s statement about (alleged) gun possession, the Appeals Court says this cannot be resolved at this level. Mere gun possession is not a justification for police violence. Officers must clearly show their safety (or the safety of others) was at risk. Furthermore, despite Campbell’s statement (and officers’ testimony), no gun was recovered from the home.
This all seems amazingly clear. And yet, there’s a dissenting opinion — one that claims officers did not perform an unlawful seizure of Campbell’s wife, despite repeatedly firing through the front door of the house. Many arguments are raised by the dissent, but they all ignore the crucial central fact: no reasonable person would assume they were free to terminate an interaction with law enforcement that involved an officer firing their gun into the residence. Precedent isn’t the issue. It’s the reasonableness. And the officers’ arguments are anything but reasonable. Qualified immunity denied."
Filed Under: 4th amendment, 6th circuit, mark campbell, search, sherrie campbell
READ MORE
- Yet Another Data Broker Found To Give Massive Amounts Of Location Info To Law Enforcement
- Ohio Court Says Distance Learning 'Room Scans' Violate The Fourth Amendment
- Judge: No Expectation Of Privacy In User Info Voluntarily Shared With Facebook, OKs FBI's User Data Grab
- Sixth Circuit: Equal Access To Court Proceedings Only Applies To Those More Equal Than Others
- FBI Lied To Court En Route To Seizing Property Owned By Private Vault Company Customers
Comments on “Court: Yeah, No One’s Going To Feel They’re Free To Go When Cops Are Firing Bullets Through Their Front Door”
Thursday
Wednesday
Tuesday