zlacker

>>benwer+(OP)
> Such data may be useful, it says, to “identify every person who attended a protest or rally based on their smartphone location or ad-tracking records.”

"May"? This is exactly how the January 6th protestors were identified.

>>roarch+E3
doubtful. they were issuing subpoenas to the cell companies for their records of the tower registrations for a certain time frame when crimes were being committed. It doesn't take much to identify the owner of a smartphone via that and then correlate that with driver's license photo ids and correlate that with surveillance camera footage to bring a case. that had nothing to do with peaceful protester tracking but bog standard criminal investigation.

>>weaksa+Rd
I posted the source in another comment but I'll put it here as well: https://www.businessinsider.com/doj-is-mapping-cell-phone-lo...

The data came from Google and included GPS data.

Either way, I don't think that matters. My point is that tech companies store data that can be used to identify everyone present at a specific location and timeframe, and that data is easily available to the government. There's no "may" about it.

>>roarch+te
That's missing the point. Your article says

> investigators obtained GPS and other cell phone records from Google via a search warrant

Search warrants are and remain the correct tool for the government to get this data. What this article is worrying about is the fact that sometimes the government simply purchases this data without any sign off from a judge. That's where constitutional protections are eroded.

Your outrage is misplaced until such time when the government can buy this data from Google without a search warrant.

>>kccqzy+Em
I'm aware of the distinction. I guess I wasn't clear in my original comment because this keeps coming up: My point is merely that there is absolutely no doubt that once acquired, the data gives the government this capability. The article implies that this is uncertain, and it is not.

> Your outrage is misplaced until such time when the government can buy this data from Google without a search warrant.

Whatever outrage you read into my comments, I assure you it's not there. If you're looking for a fight, look elsewhere.

Also, the OP article is about the government doing exactly that. So if I was outraged, it would be well placed, according to you.

>>roarch+Hn
> Also, the OP article is about the government doing exactly that.

The OP article doesn't match the document it describes, which says that the government authorized 5 searches of this data in the past 2.5 years.

>>lern_t+jv
Are you sure about that? See Section 2.2 of the report, "Examples of CAI Contracts" that says "The IC currently acquires a large amount of CAI" and goes on to list specific data brokers contracted by specific government agencies. What am I missing?