Google tracked his bike ride past a burglarized home. That made him a suspect.

The email arrived on a Tuesday afternoon in January, startling
Zachary McCoy as he prepared to leave for his job at a
restaurant in Gainesville, Florida.

It was from Google’s legal investigations support team, writing
to let him know that local police had demanded information
related to his Google account. The company said it would release
the data unless he went to court and tried to block it. He had
just seven days.

“I was hit with a really deep fear,” McCoy, 30, recalled, even
though he couldn’t think of anything he’d done wrong. He had an
Android phone, which was linked to his Google account, and, like
millions of other Americans, he used an assortment of Google
products, including Gmail and YouTube. Now police seemingly
wanted access to all of it.

“I didn’t know what it was about, but I knew the police wanted
to get something from me,” McCoy said in a recent interview. “I
was afraid I was going to get charged with something, I don’t
know what.”

There was one clue.

In the notice from Google was a case number. McCoy searched for
it on the Gainesville Police Department’s website, and found a
one-page investigation report on the burglary of an elderly
woman’s home 10 months earlier. The crime had occurred less than
a mile from the home that McCoy, who had recently earned an
associate degree in computer programming, shared with two others.

Now McCoy was even more panicked and confused. He knew he had
nothing to do with the break-in - he’d never even been to the
victim’s house - and didn’t know anyone who might have. And he
didn’t have much time to prove it.

McCoy worried that going straight to police would lead to his
arrest. So he went to his parents’ home in St. Augustine, where,
over dinner, he told them what was happening. They agreed to dip
into their savings to pay for a lawyer.

The lawyer, Caleb Kenyon, dug around and learned that the notice
had been prompted by a “geofence warrant,” a police surveillance
tool that casts a virtual dragnet over crime scenes, sweeping up
Google location data — drawn from users’ GPS, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi
and cellular connections — from everyone nearby.

The warrants, which have increased dramatically in the past two
years, can help police find potential suspects when they have no
leads. They also scoop up data from people who have nothing to
do with the crime, often without their knowing - which Google
itself has described as “a significant incursion on privacy.”

Still confused - and very worried - McCoy examined his phone. An
avid biker, he used an exercise-tracking app, RunKeeper, to
record his rides. The app relied on his phone’s location
services, which fed his movements to Google. He looked up his
route on the day of the March 29, 2019, burglary and saw that he
had passed the victim’s house three times within an hour, part
of his frequent loops through his neighborhood, he said.

“It was a nightmare scenario,” McCoy recalled. “I was using an
app to see how many miles I rode my bike and now it was putting
me at the scene of the crime. And I was the lead suspect.”

A powerful new tool
The victim was a 97-year-old woman who told police she was
missing several pieces of jewelry, including an engagement ring,
worth more than $2,000. Four days after she reported the crime,
Gainesville police, looking for leads, went to an Alachua County
judge with the warrant for Google.

In it, they demanded records of all devices using Google
services that had been near the woman’s home when the burglary
was thought to have taken place. The first batch of data would
not include any identifying information. Police would sift
through it for devices that seemed suspicious and ask Google for
the names of their users.

Kenyon said police told him that they became particularly
interested in McCoy’s device after reviewing the first batch of
anonymized data. They didn’t know the identity of the device’s
owner, so they returned to Google to ask for more information.

That request triggered the Jan. 14 notice the technology giant
sent to McCoy, part of its general policy on notifying users
about government requests for their information. The notice was
McCoy’s only indication that police wanted his data.

Gainesville police declined to comment.

While privacy and civil liberties advocates have been concerned
that geofence warrants violate constitutional protections from
unreasonable searches, law enforcement authorities say those
worries are overblown. They say police don’t obtain any
identifying information about a Google user until they find a
device that draws their suspicion. And the information alone is
not enough to justify charging someone with a crime, they say.

Google geofence warrants have been used by police agencies
around the country, including the FBI. Google said in a court
filing last year that the requests from state and federal law
enforcement authorities were increasing rapidly: by more than
1,500 percent from 2017 to 2018, and by 500 percent from 2018 to
2019.

“It’s a great tool and a great technology,” said Kevin
Armbruster, a retired lieutenant with the Milwaukee Police
Department, where he oversaw the use of high-tech investigative
work, including geofence warrants.

Milwaukee police have used Google geofence warrants to solve an
array of crimes, including homicides, shootings, a string of
robberies and kidnappings and a sexual assault involving an
abduction, he said. “I would think the majority of citizens in
the world would love the fact that we are putting violent
offenders in jail,” Armbruster said.

There have been very few court challenges to Google geofence
warrants, mainly because the warrants are done in secret and
defense lawyers may not realize the tool was used to identify
their clients. One exception is an accused bank robber in
Midlothian, Virginia, who is fighting the charge by arguing the
geofence warrant used against him was illegal. That case is
pending.

‘You’re looking at the wrong guy’
Once McCoy realized his bike ride had placed him near the scene
of the crime, he had a strong theory of why police had picked
his device out of all the others swept up by the warrant. He and
Kenyon set out to keep them from getting any more information
about him - and persuade them that he was innocent.

Kenyon said he got on the phone with the detective on the case
and told him, “You’re looking at the wrong guy.”

For most of his life, McCoy said, he had tried to live online
anonymously, a habit that dated to the early days of the
internet when there was less expectation that people would use
their real names. He used pseudonyms on his social media
accounts and the email account that Google used to notify him
about the police investigation.

But until then, he hadn’t thought much about Google collecting
information about him.

“I didn’t realize that by having location services on that
Google was also keeping a log of where I was going,” McCoy said.
“I’m sure it’s in their terms of service but I never read
through those walls of text, and I don’t think most people do
either.”

Just before the start of his ordeal, he’d listened to a call-in
radio debate about the Department of Justice’s fight with Apple
over access to an iPhone left by a Saudi national who’d gunned
down several people at an air base in Pensacola, Florida, in
December. He remembered some callers saying they had no problem
with law enforcement having access to phone data, arguing that
people had nothing to worry about as long as they didn’t break
the law. Now McCoy thought the callers weren’t considering
predicaments like his.

“If you’re innocent, that doesn’t mean you can’t be in the wrong
place at the wrong time, like going on a bike ride in which your
GPS puts you in a position where police suspect you of a crime
you didn’t commit,” McCoy said.

On Jan. 31, Kenyon filed a motion in Alachua County civil court
to render the warrant “null and void” and to block the release
of any further information about McCoy, identifying him only as
“John Doe.” At that point, Google had not turned over any data
that identified McCoy but would have done so if Kenyon hadn’t
intervened. Kenyon argued that the warrant was unconstitutional
because it allowed police to conduct sweeping searches of phone
data from untold numbers of people in order to find a single
suspect.

That approach, Kenyon said, flipped on its head the traditional
method of seeking a search warrant, in which police target a
person they already suspect.

“This geofence warrant effectively blindly casts a net backwards
in time hoping to ensnare a burglar,” Kenyon wrote. “This
concept is akin to the plotline in many a science fiction film
featuring a dystopian, fascist government.”

Cleared by the same data
The filing seemed to give law enforcement authorities second
thoughts about the warrant. Not long afterward, Kenyon said, a
lawyer in the state attorney’s office assigned to represent the
Gainesville Police Department told him there were details in the
motion that led them to believe that Kenyon’s client was not the
burglar. The state attorney’s office withdrew the warrant,
asserting in a court filing that it was no longer necessary. The
office did not respond to a request for comment.

Kenyon said that in a visit to his office, the detective
acknowledged that police no longer considered his client a
suspect.

On Feb. 24, Kenyon dropped his legal challenge.

The case ended well for McCoy, Kenyon said, but “the larger
privacy fight will go unanswered.”

Even then, Kenyon wanted to make sure police didn’t have
lingering doubts about McCoy, whom they still knew only as “John
Doe.” So he met with the detective again and showed him
screenshots of his client’s Google location history, including
data recorded by RunKeeper. The maps showed months of bike rides
past the burglarized home.

In the end, the same location data that raised police suspicions
of McCoy also helped to vindicate him, Kenyon said. “But there
was no knowing what law enforcement was going to do with that
data when they got it behind closed doors. Not that I distrust
them, but I wouldn’t trust them not to arrest someone.”

He pointed to an Arizona case in which a man was mistakenly
arrested and jailed for murder largely based on Google data
received from a geofence warrant.

McCoy said he may have ended up in a similar spot if his parents
hadn’t given him several thousand dollars to hire Kenyon.

He regrets having to spend that money. He also thinks about the
elderly burglary victim. Police said they have not made any
arrests.

“I’m definitely sorry that happened to her, and I’m glad police
were trying to solve it,” McCoy said. “But it just seems like a
really broad net for them to cast. What’s the cost-benefit? How
many innocent people do we have to harass?”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...cked-his-bike-
ride-past-burglarized-home-made-him-n1151761

Excellent article. This is why my phone is always in airplane mode. If someone needs to get hold of me, it is by landline only. If I need to use my cell phone, I turn it on just for the call. I try to have all my communications by email only, and that over wifi only through a vpn connection.

On 3/7/20 5:59 PM, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
The email arrived on a Tuesday afternoon in January, startling
Zachary McCoy as he prepared to leave for his job at a
restaurant in Gainesville, Florida.

It was from Google’s legal investigations support team, writing
to let him know that local police had demanded information
related to his Google account. The company said it would release
the data unless he went to court and tried to block it. He had
just seven days.

“I was hit with a really deep fear,� McCoy, 30, recalled, even
though he couldn’t think of anything he’d done wrong. He had an
Android phone, which was linked to his Google account, and, like
millions of other Americans, he used an assortment of Google
products, including Gmail and YouTube. Now police seemingly
wanted access to all of it.

“I didn’t know what it was about, but I knew the police wanted
to get something from me,� McCoy said in a recent interview. “I
was afraid I was going to get charged with something, I don’t
know what.�

There was one clue.

In the notice from Google was a case number. McCoy searched for
it on the Gainesville Police Department’s website, and found a
one-page investigation report on the burglary of an elderly
woman’s home 10 months earlier. The crime had occurred less than
a mile from the home that McCoy, who had recently earned an
associate degree in computer programming, shared with two others.

Now McCoy was even more panicked and confused. He knew he had
nothing to do with the break-in - he’d never even been to the
victim’s house - and didn’t know anyone who might have. And he
didn’t have much time to prove it.

McCoy worried that going straight to police would lead to his
arrest. So he went to his parents’ home in St. Augustine, where,
over dinner, he told them what was happening. They agreed to dip
into their savings to pay for a lawyer.

The lawyer, Caleb Kenyon, dug around and learned that the notice
had been prompted by a “geofence warrant,� a police surveillance
tool that casts a virtual dragnet over crime scenes, sweeping up
Google location data — drawn from users’ GPS, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi
and cellular connections — from everyone nearby.

The warrants, which have increased dramatically in the past two
years, can help police find potential suspects when they have no
leads. They also scoop up data from people who have nothing to
do with the crime, often without their knowing - which Google
itself has described as “a significant incursion on privacy.�

Still confused - and very worried - McCoy examined his phone. An
avid biker, he used an exercise-tracking app, RunKeeper, to
record his rides. The app relied on his phone’s location
services, which fed his movements to Google. He looked up his
route on the day of the March 29, 2019, burglary and saw that he
had passed the victim’s house three times within an hour, part
of his frequent loops through his neighborhood, he said.

“It was a nightmare scenario,� McCoy recalled. “I was using an
app to see how many miles I rode my bike and now it was putting
me at the scene of the crime. And I was the lead suspect.�

A powerful new tool
The victim was a 97-year-old woman who told police she was
missing several pieces of jewelry, including an engagement ring,
worth more than $2,000. Four days after she reported the crime,
Gainesville police, looking for leads, went to an Alachua County
judge with the warrant for Google.

In it, they demanded records of all devices using Google
services that had been near the woman’s home when the burglary
was thought to have taken place. The first batch of data would
not include any identifying information. Police would sift
through it for devices that seemed suspicious and ask Google for
the names of their users.

Kenyon said police told him that they became particularly
interested in McCoy’s device after reviewing the first batch of
anonymized data. They didn’t know the identity of the device’s
owner, so they returned to Google to ask for more information.

That request triggered the Jan. 14 notice the technology giant
sent to McCoy, part of its general policy on notifying users
about government requests for their information. The notice was
McCoy’s only indication that police wanted his data.

Gainesville police declined to comment.

While privacy and civil liberties advocates have been concerned
that geofence warrants violate constitutional protections from
unreasonable searches, law enforcement authorities say those
worries are overblown. They say police don’t obtain any
identifying information about a Google user until they find a
device that draws their suspicion. And the information alone is
not enough to justify charging someone with a crime, they say.

Google geofence warrants have been used by police agencies
around the country, including the FBI. Google said in a court
filing last year that the requests from state and federal law
enforcement authorities were increasing rapidly: by more than
1,500 percent from 2017 to 2018, and by 500 percent from 2018 to
2019.

“It’s a great tool and a great technology,� said Kevin
Armbruster, a retired lieutenant with the Milwaukee Police
Department, where he oversaw the use of high-tech investigative
work, including geofence warrants.

Milwaukee police have used Google geofence warrants to solve an
array of crimes, including homicides, shootings, a string of
robberies and kidnappings and a sexual assault involving an
abduction, he said. “I would think the majority of citizens in
the world would love the fact that we are putting violent
offenders in jail,� Armbruster said.

There have been very few court challenges to Google geofence
warrants, mainly because the warrants are done in secret and
defense lawyers may not realize the tool was used to identify
their clients. One exception is an accused bank robber in
Midlothian, Virginia, who is fighting the charge by arguing the
geofence warrant used against him was illegal. That case is
pending.

‘You’re looking at the wrong guy’
Once McCoy realized his bike ride had placed him near the scene
of the crime, he had a strong theory of why police had picked
his device out of all the others swept up by the warrant. He and
Kenyon set out to keep them from getting any more information
about him - and persuade them that he was innocent.

Kenyon said he got on the phone with the detective on the case
and told him, “You’re looking at the wrong guy.�

For most of his life, McCoy said, he had tried to live online
anonymously, a habit that dated to the early days of the
internet when there was less expectation that people would use
their real names. He used pseudonyms on his social media
accounts and the email account that Google used to notify him
about the police investigation.

But until then, he hadn’t thought much about Google collecting
information about him.

“I didn’t realize that by having location services on that
Google was also keeping a log of where I was going,� McCoy said.
“I’m sure it’s in their terms of service but I never read
through those walls of text, and I don’t think most people do
either.�

Just before the start of his ordeal, he’d listened to a call-in
radio debate about the Department of Justice’s fight with Apple
over access to an iPhone left by a Saudi national who’d gunned
down several people at an air base in Pensacola, Florida, in
December. He remembered some callers saying they had no problem
with law enforcement having access to phone data, arguing that
people had nothing to worry about as long as they didn’t break
the law. Now McCoy thought the callers weren’t considering
predicaments like his.

“If you’re innocent, that doesn’t mean you can’t be in the wrong
place at the wrong time, like going on a bike ride in which your
GPS puts you in a position where police suspect you of a crime
you didn’t commit,� McCoy said.

On Jan. 31, Kenyon filed a motion in Alachua County civil court
to render the warrant “null and void� and to block the release
of any further information about McCoy, identifying him only as
“John Doe.� At that point, Google had not turned over any data
that identified McCoy but would have done so if Kenyon hadn’t
intervened. Kenyon argued that the warrant was unconstitutional
because it allowed police to conduct sweeping searches of phone
data from untold numbers of people in order to find a single
suspect.

That approach, Kenyon said, flipped on its head the traditional
method of seeking a search warrant, in which police target a
person they already suspect.

“This geofence warrant effectively blindly casts a net backwards
in time hoping to ensnare a burglar,� Kenyon wrote. “This
concept is akin to the plotline in many a science fiction film
featuring a dystopian, fascist government.�

Cleared by the same data
The filing seemed to give law enforcement authorities second
thoughts about the warrant. Not long afterward, Kenyon said, a
lawyer in the state attorney’s office assigned to represent the
Gainesville Police Department told him there were details in the
motion that led them to believe that Kenyon’s client was not the
burglar. The state attorney’s office withdrew the warrant,
asserting in a court filing that it was no longer necessary. The
office did not respond to a request for comment.

Kenyon said that in a visit to his office, the detective
acknowledged that police no longer considered his client a
suspect.

On Feb. 24, Kenyon dropped his legal challenge.

The case ended well for McCoy, Kenyon said, but “the larger
privacy fight will go unanswered.�

Even then, Kenyon wanted to make sure police didn’t have
lingering doubts about McCoy, whom they still knew only as “John
Doe.� So he met with the detective again and showed him
screenshots of his client’s Google location history, including
data recorded by RunKeeper. The maps showed months of bike rides
past the burglarized home.

In the end, the same location data that raised police suspicions
of McCoy also helped to vindicate him, Kenyon said. “But there
was no knowing what law enforcement was going to do with that
data when they got it behind closed doors. Not that I distrust
them, but I wouldn’t trust them not to arrest someone.�

He pointed to an Arizona case in which a man was mistakenly
arrested and jailed for murder largely based on Google data
received from a geofence warrant.

McCoy said he may have ended up in a similar spot if his parents
hadn’t given him several thousand dollars to hire Kenyon.

He regrets having to spend that money. He also thinks about the
elderly burglary victim. Police said they have not made any
arrests.

“I’m definitely sorry that happened to her, and I’m glad police
were trying to solve it,� McCoy said. “But it just seems like a
really broad net for them to cast. What’s the cost-benefit? How
many innocent people do we have to harass?�

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...cked-his-bike-
ride-past-burglarized-home-made-him-n1151761


An interesting read.

Didn't that stupid detective ever consider that this 97 year old woman
just might have dementia or alzheimers? In these situations, older
people start throwing things into the waste basket, like rings, glasses,
etc. I was involved in a care group for nursing homes that had theft
problems, and this type of thing happens often and then the elderly
claim that someone stole them.

In another issue also is someone stealing over the ear type hearing
aids. They aren't custom fitted so are easy targets of theft in nursing
homes. So if anyone that has their loved one in a nursing home that
needs hearing aids, get the custom fitted ones... those aren't stolen.

On Sun, 8 Mar 2020 13:19:32 -0600, anonlinuxuser wrote:

It was from Google¢s legal investigations support team

We covered this topic previously, over he

o Interesting story about geofence warrants increasingly being used on innocent people
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/bqITN_pClYA
--
Together we can learn far more than anyone of us can by learning alone.

I have put this instruction sheet out many times for Americans. Several times people have criticized it as an avenue to further police suspicions. These people do not know how the police operate and how dangerous it is to not take a firm stand against them. They do not know the lack of honesty and integrity that exist among most police officers. They do not recognize that most police officers do not have college educations and have been promoted into the higher positions of lieutenants, captains, and detectives out of experience and longevity, and not due to higher education in criminology and/or psycology. Their main motivation for solving crimes is to prove they are doing their job and most certainly for personal promotion. This goes for prosecutors also, if not more so, with the exception that they have a higher education. Police and prosecutor use bully, tyrannical tactics on people in order to scare them into cooperation, even unto making false confessions, if fo!
r no other reason, to give a confession to a reduced false charge in order to stay out of prison or to have a shorter prison stay. Police and prosecutors are a vicious and nasty group of people and must be dealt with sternly. The person in this case was seemingly under the delusion that he had to prove his innocence and had to spend thousands of his parents savings for a lawyer to stop the ravenous cops from pursuing him. All it would have taken was to hand any cop or prosecutor the below letter to stop them in their tracks.



Say this to any questions:
If driving - Officer, my lawyer has informed me that the only information you need from me is on my drivers license.
Officer, my lawyer has informed me to not answer any questions from the police.


Carry this lawyer instruction and present it if arrested or detained:

Letter to the Authorities

I, your name, being a law abiding citizen, having never knowingly participated in any unlawful activities, therefore refuse to be interrogated or otherwise answer any questions asked by the police and/or prosecutors, not having any knowledge of or being able to be of any help or assistance to them concerning any crime.

If I am arrested or detained by the police for any reason, I do hereby through this written statement exercising my right to remain silent. If I am arrested or detained at a police station, I wish to see a lawyer as soon as possible. If I cannot afford a lawyer, I wish for one to be provided. If questioned by a prosecutor, I will invoke my 5th amendment right after each question.

I am familiar with the vicious Reid Interrogation Method, a system so brutal that Great Britain has outlawed its use, its use being the cause of many innocent people falsely confessing to crimes that they did not commit. I also refuse to cooperate with a request to come to any police agency or a police station, recognize that the purpose of such a request is to isolate a person in order to viciously attacking them for hours with accusations and threats. Having seen that the authorities are habitual and incessant liars and deceivers, I therfore, will never be able to trust the authorities.

I have read the book The Lie Behind the Lie Detector found at antipolygraph.org, as well as read the Charlatanry in forensic speech science by Anders Eriksson and Francisco Lacerda, and thereby know that lie detectors and forensic speech science are junk science and a complete fraud. Therefore, I refuse to submit to a request to be examined by either. I also have read the article by the 'Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services' entitled Oklahoma Study Finds Voice Stress Analysis “Testing� No Better Than Random Chance, and therefore refuse to submit to a Voice Stress Analysis request. I likewise refuse to take a 'Guilt Detection Test'.

I recognize and know the fact that all police, prosecutors, and government employees will attempt to elicit statements from people through deceptive lies, and therefore the authorities can never be trusted to be telling the truth.

I recognize that any and all questions asked by the authorities are for the purpose of trapping people in their words. I recognize that the authorities purposely ask the same or similar question multiple times, endangering the innocent of innocently forgetting a fact, misspeaking concerning a fact, or remembering a fact more clearly at a later time, and as a result, honestly answering a question truthfully, the authorities then using such innocent discrepancies to charge that innocent person with the crime of lying to the authorities (Scooter Libby, Martha Stewart).

I, knowing that law enforcement always demands a written and signed statement, will not make a written or sign a statements of any kind.

You do not have my consent to take my picture, take my fingerprints, take my DNA, take a blood sample, or take my urine sample.

Signed:

On 3/8/20 3:02 PM, Arlen Holder wrote:
On Sun, 8 Mar 2020 13:19:32 -0600, anonlinuxuser wrote:

It was from Google¢s legal investigations support team

We covered this topic previously, over he

o Interesting story about geofence warrants increasingly being used on innocent people
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/bqITN_pClYA

Hopefully, and someday, that will be made illegal.

"anonlinuxuser" wrote

| o Interesting story about geofence warrants increasingly being used on
innocent people
|
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/bqITN_pClYA
|
| Hopefully, and someday, that will be made illegal.
|

Yes. On the other hand, the man is using an Android
phone and leaving it turned on, so he already doesn't
care about privacy. To top it off, he was using an app
to count the miles he rode on his bike and Google was
tracking that. So if he had the hassle of being considered
a suspect I'd call that an idiocy tax. It's hard to have
sympathy for such sheer ninny-headedness. I suppose
people tracking their steps [inaccurately] on their iPhone
are more stupid and wasting even more money, but feeling
a need to record your bicycle riding, and signing up for
spyware to do it, is pretty darn dumb.

On Sun, 8 Mar 2020 23:02:07 -0400, Mayayana wrote:

Yes. On the other hand, the man is using an Android
phone and leaving it turned on, so he already doesn't
care about privacy.

Unfortunately, as usual, Mayayana's post is filled with MARKETING BS.
o Intelligent people don't believe only in what MARKETING feeds them.

Mobile device security researches discuss frank factual results
on hacking iOS & Android devices (i.e., not marketing bull****)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/w3aEX2L4x8U/54qxrmbJCwAJ

*FACTS*!
o Not Marketing bull****.

Despite loud Apple's marketing of the mere _illusion_ of privacy...
o The fact is that privacy on Android is no different than on iOS.

What is the factual truth about PRIVACY differences or similarities
between the Android & iOS mobile phone ecosystems?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/FCKRA_3i9CY/Bm40liKdEQAJ

Privacy is a long chain of links, where Apple MARKETING is brilliant at
touting the very few links where it's stronger, while completely ignoring
the very many links where it's far weaker than Android privacy.

See also:
The FBI was easily able to penetrate Apple's most secure iPhones
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/fe_26eulOaw/1tig2D-KAAAJ

To top it off, he was using an app
to count the miles he rode on his bike and Google was
tracking that.

He was stupid; he didn't read comp.mobile.android for privacy solutions!
o http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-android
o http://comp.mobile.android.narkive.com

For example, there are plenty of offline privacy-based track saving apps:
https://i.postimg.cc/3R45GgNv/map02.jpg

See also:
Tutorial for saving & viewing tracks on USGS topographic maps in
real time on mobile devices
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/zNKD3jyeye4/njtP-yzoAgAJ

So if he had the hassle of being considered
a suspect I'd call that an idiocy tax.

Anyone who claims iOS is more private than Android
o Is merely proving they're ignorant of the facts around privacy on phones.

Either they are ignorant of the facts - or they believe only in MARKETING
What is the most brilliant marketing move Apple ever made?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wW-fu0jsvAU/iUMbvDSxAwAJ

It's hard to have
sympathy for such sheer ninny-headedness.

It's hard to have sympathy for people who only believe in MARKETING.

On Android, you can just skip pointing the OS to a Google Account.
o And you'd still have full functionality of that Android phone!

FACT:
On iOS, you _must_ have an iCloud tracking account for full functionality!
o On Android, you still have _full_ functionality without an account setup!

Why would anyone NEED to set up the Android OS to a Google Account?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/0O0GLU0bFmw/DD095dJ3AQAJ

See also:
iCloud backups are NOT encrypted
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/-EA9TYUeVhk/gutU2V0sDQAJ

I suppose
people tracking their steps [inaccurately] on their iPhone
are more stupid and wasting even more money...

He was an idiot for sure...but on Android... privacy is free!
o It's likely he didn't know about privacy tracking discussions on c.m.a
https://i.postimg.cc/J0fVWCmw/pedometertest01.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/D0NcGbBH/pedometertest02.jpg

See also:
Do you use a pedometer app that is free, no login, no ads,
& no reporting back to the home ship?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/fUdyQkxxRow/-ahiJJA2AQAJ

but feeling
a need to record your bicycle riding, and signing up for
spyware to do it, is pretty darn dumb.

The guy _was_ dumb for not setting his phone up for privacy.
o What irks me is people who don't set up the Android phone intelligently.
a. They upload _your_ SSID details to Google constantly
b. They sync _your_ contact information to Google constantly
c. They store _your_ meeting information with them on the cloud
etc.

While the number of exploits on iOS is the same as on Android
o Apple is officially upset Google exposed the imaginary security
Apple widely promotes (blaming Google for the iOS diarrhea)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/C54BNBxZKN8/QMb9aKL_AQAJ

The fact is that a pentest of up-to-date Android is far more expensive than
the same for iOS simply because _all_ iPhones appear to be fatally
compromised.
Why zero day Android exploits cost far more than zero day iOS exploits
(because iOS is far easier to hack)
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/9koS-SuRqgw

*FACTS*!
o Not Marketing bull****.
--
Those who disagree with facts get their news from MARKETING brochures.

"anonlinuxuser" wrote


o Interesting story about geofence warrants increasingly being used on innocent people
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/bqITN_pClYA

Hopefully, and someday, that will be made illegal.


Yes. On the other hand, the man is using an Android
phone and leaving it turned on, so he already doesn't
care about privacy. To top it off, he was using an app
to count the miles he rode on his bike and Google was
tracking that. So if he had the hassle of being considered
a suspect I'd call that an idiocy tax. It's hard to have
sympathy for such sheer ninny-headedness. I suppose
people tracking their steps inaccurately on their iPhone
are more stupid and wasting even more money, but feeling
a need to record your bicycle riding, and signing up for
spyware to do it, is pretty darn dumb.

A good way to handle this is something I do.

1. Get a burner flipphone for calls/calling. No google/fasebook tracking on it. Set it up as described below.

2. Get a burner smartphone at a department store (Walmart) with/using a monthly charge card. In the states, you will have to go to the burner phone's local store to initiate the phone. I just did this at AT&T. They asked for my name, address, etc, all of which I gave false information. Now your smartphone is untraceable to you and you can run all you foolish, baby phone toys on it. The cops can get all the google/facebook tracking information they want, but will not be able to trace it to your name. You probably shouldn't have your flip phone on while your smartphone is being used because they might correlate the two being linked, always being at the same place. Do not fall for AT&T's attempt to get you to recharge your phone time using a credit card over the phone. Always purchase a new charge card (I use the $35 for 3 months card).

3. Something else I did. I purchased the burner phone at Walmart one year before I began to use it. Walmart takes pictures of everyone now and it is believed that they keep them one year. This is probably a much shorter retention time when purchased at a convenience store.

"anonymous" wrote

| 2. Get a burner smartphone at a department store (Walmart) with/using a
monthly charge card. In the states, you will have to go to the burner
phone's local store to initiate the phone. I just did this at AT&T. They
asked for my name, address, etc, all of which I gave false information. Now
your smartphone is untraceable to you and you can run all you foolish, baby
phone toys on it. The cops can get all the google/facebook tracking
information they want, but will not be able to trace it to your name. You
probably shouldn't have your flip phone on while your smartphone is being
used because they might correlate the two being linked, always being at the
same place. Do not fall for AT&T's attempt to get you to recharge your
phone time using a credit card over the phone. Always purchase a new charge
card (I use the $35 for 3 months card).
|

You can't hide your identity from me. I can tell
by your phone buying habits that you're Jason
Bourne.

I don't get the point of buying an anon phone
and still using a computer phone. If it's on,
you're trackable. As with browsers, you might be
technically anonymous, but if a dozen companies
have a record of your location and activities, it
would be naive to think they're not connecting
the dots.

I find it interesting that you assume everyone
would still need a computer phone, anyway. I have
a Tracphone. $20 every 3 months. I leave it turned
off but have it in case I need to make or receive
a call. The nice thing with leaving it off is that it
rarely needs charging. Maybe once every couple
of months. I actually find that I don't use it much.
I've got about 3,000 minutes saved up. If someone
needs to reach me they can call my landline or send
an email or send a letter. (But I do find that an
increasing number of people find it difficult to grasp
that they won't be able to reach me with an LOL at
any time, day or night. Texting has become a kind
of epidemic.)

| 3. Something else I did. I purchased the burner phone at Walmart one year
before I began to use it. Walmart takes pictures of everyone now and it is
believed that they keep them one year. This is probably a much shorter
retention time when purchased at a convenience store.
|

This is all great if you're robbing banks, but I
don't see the point otherwise. You've apparently
got a computer phone that's tracking you
everywhere, anyway. And that means Apple/Google
and dozens of app makers and their datamining
partners have that information.

To my mind the whole system is a problem. We'd
complain if the phone company recorded our calls
and sold the data, so why should we allow Apple/Google
to do the same. Why are the phones not controlled
by the FCC to prevent eavesdropping? Why isn't
Google heavily fined for allowing it? Why aren't they fined
for tricking people into giving them data? Why aren't app
makers and their partners jailed? We've developed
a culture where TVs and cars spy on you, and that's
become normal. It's nuts.

But it's also not all their fault. The average person
is using GPS, Waze, Uber, Facebook, Instagram, and
so on. Many young people don't see anything as spying.
They think of it as service. Even when Facebook decides
what they'll see on their feed, they comply with it like
a happy infant with a nipple in its mouth. It's bad enough
that people are too lazy to read a map, but so many of
these toys are just idiotic. Things like pedometers and
heart meters? They've already acknowledged the things
are not even accurate. I had a pedometer that I wore on
my belt when I was about 10 years old. Was it accurate?
I don't know. But by the time I reached 11 I could see that
it was silly. Now we have 60-year-olds who congratulate
themselves for taking charge of their fitness because they
ask their iPhone how many steps they've walked.

I find it interesting when I visit my millennial neice.
She's got the works: Several audible notifications for
various incoming communiques that buzz or beep regularly.
Three Echos that interrupt our conversation with inane
comments. She's surprisingly tolerant of the old uncle with
no phone or texting. But she does see it as an issue of being
old. For her there simply isn't any other way to live. To not
be constantly tracked... to not buy back her social
life from Facebook... would be like turning off your frig. It
just makes no sense to her.

On 09/03/2020 04.45, Arlen Holder wrote:
On Sun, 8 Mar 2020 23:02:07 -0400, Mayayana wrote:

Yes. On the other hand, the man is using an Android
phone and leaving it turned on, so he already doesn't
care about privacy.

Unfortunately, as usual, Mayayana's post is filled with MARKETING BS.
o Intelligent people don't believe only in what MARKETING feeds them.

Mobile device security researches discuss frank factual results
on hacking iOS & Android devices (i.e., not marketing bull****)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/w3aEX2L4x8U/54qxrmbJCwAJ

*FACTS*!
o Not Marketing bull****.

Despite loud Apple's marketing of the mere _illusion_ of privacy...
o The fact is that privacy on Android is no different than on iOS.

There you go again with your monotheme. He said nothing about Apple, so
don't mix you hatred of Apple in this.

(it does not matter what mobile phone type you use: you can be tracked
in all cases).

What Mayayana said is basically true.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 08:56:01 -0400, Mayayana wrote:

I don't get the point of buying an anon phone
and still using a computer phone.

Mayayana is correct on this point.
o If you're using a smartphone, you're using a computer.

Unless you're a tech whiz (none of us are), you're trackable.

Even if you do manage to steal a burner phone unseen, at night, with no
cameras around, and then you use it to make your nefarious one call, you'd
better tape it to the bottom of a greyhound bus and get out of Dodge if you
don't want to be further tracked using it.

Since none of us are committing high crimes while using the phone, we don't
need that level of protection; where all we need is some intelligence.

It's rather easy to kill google on an unrooted Android phone, it turns out:
https://i.postimg.cc/d0Q1xWvp/killgoogle02.jpg

But there are a _lot_ of steps, unfortunately...
o But each of the steps is logical, sane, sensible, and, get this: easy.

For example, it's _stupid_ to own an Android phone and then upload your
neighbors' SSID information to Google every day. Turn that **** off.

It's also just as rude to upload your contacts to Google every day via sync
every time you use Gmail. Turn that **** off.

It's also just plain stupid to upload your calendar events to Google every
day. Turn that **** off.

I admit you need intelligence to set up a phone to be as private as we can
make it, but the steps, albeit myriad, are simple, e.g., permissions.
https://i.postimg.cc/q7m1Lf6y/permission13.jpg

But even real-time traffic can be obtained, with routing, with privacy!
https://i.postimg.cc/fRbSDSkj/traffic02.jpg

You just have to be intelligent about the Android phone setup steps.

For one, when it asks you to set up an account on the phone, skip that step
altogether; the Android phone has full functionality without the Google
account (unlike an iOS phone which requires the iCloud account for full
functionality).
o Why would anyone NEED to set up the Android OS to a Google Account?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/0O0GLU0bFmw/DD095dJ3AQAJ

If you're on the Android/iOS newsgroups, you're aware of the privacy steps:

Just search for "privacy" in these public permanent web-searchable archives
o http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-android
o http://tinyurl.com/misc-phone-mobile-iphone
o http://misc.phone.mobile.iphone.narkive.com
o http://comp.mobile.android.narkive.com
--
Intelligent people make their decisions based on facts & not on Marketing.

On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 14:28:45 +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:

What Mayayana said is basically true.

Hi Carlos,

You have to be intelligent and realize what Mayayana actually said:
"On the other hand, the man is using an Android phone
and leaving it turned on, so he already doesn't care about privacy. "

What on earth do you _think_ Mayayana was implying as the alternative?
o A Windows phone?

It's clear Mayayana fell for the MARKETING bull****...
o People who think iOS is more private fall for MARKETING bull****, Carlos.

Bull****, Carlos.
o I'm allergic to bull**** - particularly parroted MARKETING bull****.

You, and Mayayana, both know when you bull**** - I come down hard on you.
o Just as _you_ should come down hard on me if I ever bull**** you.

Deal?
o If I ever bull**** you, Carlos, I would _expect_ you to hit me hard.

Because I strive for 100% credibility Carlos.
o That means I know the facts - and I look askance at MARKETING bull****.

My peeve is too many morons _believe_ the Apple MARKETING bull****, Carlos.
o It's easily been proved iOS is no more private than Android. Period.

Facts.

I come down hard on FACTS - and on people who spout bull****.
o Most people seem to _believe_ the Apple MARKETING bull****.

And yet, I'm eminently logical, reasonable, and sensible.
o When it comes to ASSESSMENT of the facts, Carlos.

For example, Mayayana claimed the guy was an idiot, which I agreed was
basically true from the standpoint of what he did before he realized using
anything from Google is fraught with privacy holes.

My two-part message to folks is very simple:
a. Setting up (unrooted) Android for privacy merely takes intelligence
b. Believing iOS is (magically?) more private is not supported by facts

But as you're well aware, it's trivial to remove Google from an Android
phone, such that Google does _not_ get your tracking data, and yet, you
still have full functionality of the phone (which is privacy that is
impossible on iOS).

As nospam noted, it's far more difficult to remove your tracking data from
your cellular carrier, although it's trivial also (airplane mode) but then
you lose basic functionality of the phone.

But anyone who claims that iOS is somehow (magically?) more private than
Android is simply proving they fall prey to mere MARKETING bull****.

Let's be adults here and stick to the _facts_...
o Apple MARKETING is bull**** - and easily proven to be bull****, Carlos.

With facts.
--
Adults comprehend the difference between facts & mere MARKETING illusions.

On 3/8/20 9:02 PM, Mayayana wrote:
"anonlinuxuser" wrote

| o Interesting story about geofence warrants increasingly being used on
innocent people
|
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/bqITN_pClYA
|
| Hopefully, and someday, that will be made illegal.
|

Yes. On the other hand, the man is using an Android
phone and leaving it turned on, so he already doesn't
care about privacy. To top it off, he was using an app
to count the miles he rode on his bike and Google was
tracking that. So if he had the hassle of being considered
a suspect I'd call that an idiocy tax. It's hard to have
sympathy for such sheer ninny-headedness. I suppose
people tracking their steps [inaccurately] on their iPhone
are more stupid and wasting even more money, but feeling
a need to record your bicycle riding, and signing up for
spyware to do it, is pretty darn dumb.


I don't own any Google devices or software.
And who's idea was it to fund in the beginning of Google?
One of the three letter agencies. What a better way to spy on the public.
Hook n' Crook.

On 3/9/20 6:04 AM, anonymous wrote:

"anonlinuxuser" wrote


o Interesting story about geofence warrants increasingly being used on innocent people
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/bqITN_pClYA

Hopefully, and someday, that will be made illegal.


Yes. On the other hand, the man is using an Android
phone and leaving it turned on, so he already doesn't
care about privacy. To top it off, he was using an app
to count the miles he rode on his bike and Google was
tracking that. So if he had the hassle of being considered
a suspect I'd call that an idiocy tax. It's hard to have
sympathy for such sheer ninny-headedness. I suppose
people tracking their steps inaccurately on their iPhone
are more stupid and wasting even more money, but feeling
a need to record your bicycle riding, and signing up for
spyware to do it, is pretty darn dumb.

A good way to handle this is something I do.

1. Get a burner flipphone for calls/calling. No google/fasebook tracking on it. Set it up as described below.

2. Get a burner smartphone at a department store (Walmart) with/using a monthly charge card. In the states, you will have to go to the burner phone's local store to initiate the phone. I just did this at AT&T. They asked for my name, address, etc, all of which I gave false information. Now your smartphone is untraceable to you and you can run all you foolish, baby phone toys on it. The cops can get all the google/facebook tracking information they want, but will not be able to trace it to your name. You probably shouldn't have your flip phone on while your smartphone is being used because they might correlate the two being linked, always being at the same place. Do not fall for AT&T's attempt to get you to recharge your phone time using a credit card over the phone. Always purchase a new charge card (I use the $35 for 3 months card).

3. Something else I did. I purchased the burner phone at Walmart one year before I began to use it. Walmart takes pictures of everyone now and it is believed that they keep them one year. This is probably a much shorter retention time when purchased at a convenience store.


I don't own any cell phones of any kind.