The positive side to tracking and a cell layer anecdote - cell layer forensics are often utilized in search and rescue contexts. I have seen this data accessed (through legal procedure in the US) and utilized to save lives of the missing and to provide closure to the families/friends of the missing.
On the flipside e.g. in Germany this has been used to track down creators of illegal graffiti, using a law that is intended for terrorism and other heavy crimes. We can allow search and rescue missions without having to also accept abuse of power.
All this and the parent comment means is that any tool that is useful, is equally useful for good or bad. It is yet another example showing how it's wrong to address something bad by attacking the tool used to do it.
I think I found the talk I got most of the info from [0]. The interesting parts about the law and how it was abused start roughly at 25:03, though unfortunately it's only available in German (Edit: turns out it actually does have an English audio track).
A very short summary: the law is only supposed to be used for very severe crimes and only if the investigation would otherwise be significantly more difficult or impossible. Also the owners of the tracked phones have to be notified of the tracking as it is a violation of the person's rights. In reality (at the date of the talk) it had never been used for terrorism, about 5% of the time for crimes like murder and in over 70% of the time for theft (including a case of stolen empty beer barrels), and nobody was ever notified.
Thank you, those stats of the usage seem fine on paper, maybe worse than they should be, I'm still waiting to see what parent was talking about when he inferred abuse..
Europe does need a security authority, that doesn't depend on slow bureaucracy.
Comments
The positive side to tracking and a cell layer anecdote - cell layer forensics are often utilized in search and rescue contexts. I have seen this data accessed (through legal procedure in the US) and utilized to save lives of the missing and to provide closure to the families/friends of the missing.
On the flipside e.g. in Germany this has been used to track down creators of illegal graffiti, using a law that is intended for terrorism and other heavy crimes. We can allow search and rescue missions without having to also accept abuse of power.
All this and the parent comment means is that any tool that is useful, is equally useful for good or bad. It is yet another example showing how it's wrong to address something bad by attacking the tool used to do it.
Can you reference anywhere where that happened because I've never heard of that and would expect huge pushback in Europe in general..
I think I found the talk I got most of the info from [0]. The interesting parts about the law and how it was abused start roughly at 25:03, though unfortunately it's only available in German (Edit: turns out it actually does have an English audio track).
A very short summary: the law is only supposed to be used for very severe crimes and only if the investigation would otherwise be significantly more difficult or impossible. Also the owners of the tracked phones have to be notified of the tracking as it is a violation of the person's rights. In reality (at the date of the talk) it had never been used for terrorism, about 5% of the time for crimes like murder and in over 70% of the time for theft (including a case of stolen empty beer barrels), and nobody was ever notified.
[0] https://media.ccc.de/v/35c3-9972-funkzellenabfrage_die_allta...
Thank you, those stats of the usage seem fine on paper, maybe worse than they should be, I'm still waiting to see what parent was talking about when he inferred abuse..
Europe does need a security authority, that doesn't depend on slow bureaucracy.
In general those things are not made public so that you don't have pushbacks.