Michael Williams’ all movement was monitored unnoticed – even before the fire. In August, Williams, a former partner of R&B star and accused rapist R. Kelly, apparently used explosives to destroy a witness’s car. When police arrested Williams, the evidence cited in Justice Department details was largely extracted from his smartphone and online behavior: text messages to the victim, records cell phone, and its monitoring history.
Investigators served a “keyword warrant,” asking the company to provide information about any user who had found the victim’s address around the time of the fire. Police shortened the investigation, named Williams, and then issued another search warrant for two Google accounts linked to him. They found other investigations: diesel fuel “smelting properties,” a list of countries that do not have extradition agreements with the U.S., and YouTube videos of victims of R. Kelly’s accusation speaking to the media. Williams has pleaded not guilty.
Data collected for one purpose can always be used for another purpose. Search history data, for example, is collected to update recommendation algorithms or to build online profiles, without catching criminals. Usually. Smart gadgets like speakers, TVs, and wearables hold detailed details of our lives that are used both as intrinsic and intractable evidence in murder cases. Speakers do not need to hear crimes or confessions to be helpful to investigators. They keep time-stamped logs of all applications, along with details of location and identity. Investigators can access these logs and use them to determine where a suspect is or even catch them in a lie.
It’s not just speakers or wearables. In a year in which some at Big Tech pledged support for the protesters seeking police reform, they continued to sell tools and provide apps that would allow government to access data much more closely. from far more people than traditional warrants and police procedures would allow.
A November report in Vice found that users of the popular Muslim Pro app may have had data about where it was sold to government agencies. Any number of apps will ask for location data, for example, the weather or track your exercise habits. The Deputy Report found that X-Mode, a data broker, collected Muslim Pro user data for prayer reminder purposes, then sold it to others, including federal agencies. Both Apple and Google banned developers from migrating data to X-Mode, but it has already collected the data from millions of users.
The problem is not just an individual app, but an overly complex and understated data collection system. In December, Apple began asking developers to publish key details about privacy policies in a “nutrition leaflet” for apps. Most data collection is “permitted” by users when they click “Agree” after downloading an app, but privacy policies are unbelievable and often unknown. what they agree.
An easy-to-read summary like Apple’s nutrition label is useful, but even developers don’t know where the data their apps collect will end up coming from. (Many developers who contacted Vice admitted they didn’t even know X-Mode user data.)
The pipeline between commercial and state-of-the-art surveillance expands as we constantly adopt more devices and serious privacy concerns are eliminated with a click of “I Agree.” In the nationwide debate on policing and race equality over the summer that quiet co-operation came to a great relief. Despite declining numbers of diversity, disrespect for white nationality, and abusive treatment of unorthodox employees, several technical firms raced to offer public support to Black Lives Matter and reconsider the their links to law enforcement.
Amazon, which gave millions to racial equality groups this summer, promised to stop (but not stop) selling face recognition technology to police after defending their use for years. But the company also noticed an increase in police requests for user data, including the internal logs held by their smart speakers.