[topspin]

> Why are they comfortable saying this?

They receive recognition for the results. Phone data was used in a large fraction of the cases against rioters in the 2021 capital attack. The Powers That Be were grateful that law enforcement were able to use phone data to either initially identify attackers or corroborate other evidence, and ultimately put people in prison. The justice system makes cases with this every day, and the victims of criminals are thankful for these results.

[mikeyouse]

Tools like this are substantially different than time/location Bound geofences with warrants served to providers like were used in the Jan 6 investigations. And even those are under SCOTUS scrutiny for 4th amendment concerns.

[topspin]

Results compel expectations, and every "success" unlocks more latitude. A rational person cannot admire headlines that trumpet the wonderful achievements of digital dragnets in one case, and then suffer "concern" when more aggressive techniques are employed elsewhere: there are powerful incentives involved, as any thinking person should know. J6 was a big unlock for state surveillance; the results were met with gushing praise and no friction was incurred. Now, new bounds are being pushed and the tools proliferate, as the fine distinctions you cling to are blithely forgone.

[mikeyouse]

J6 was a completely standard use case to confirm someone’s location in the Capitol with the location data from providers. It wasn’t some novel or breakthrough use, and not everything in life is a slippery slope so it’s completely rational to approve of a technology to convict those involved in a crime and decry more advanced and less legal means purely for surveillance of people who haven’t committed any crimes.

[prophesi]

I've heard a lot more recognition for Apple refusing to comply with unlocking iPhones over the years than any of these other cases.

[3form]

This might just be the bias of the groups you are in (myself included).

[prophesi]

I think there's also the bias in that it's normal to comply in the first place, and there'd be no fanfare about it.

[antidamage]

I don't like being devil's advocate on this because I am strongly against the invasion of privacy at that point in the investigation, but without that data, they'd just take a bit longer to have identified the members of the insurrection. There's varying degrees of data you can glean from cellular networks as well, right down to "it was definitely this person, the phone logs show a FaceID unlock at X time" and that action can be inferred by network logs, all information that carriers have retained for over two decades.

What it does become is a data point in an evidential submission that can strengthen a case that could otherwise be argued back as a bit flaky. It's similar to DNA evidence in that it's not actually 100% reliable nor is the data handled forensically at every stage of collection, but it's treated as if it is.

I think it's weighted too heavily in evidence and should not be used as a fine-toothed comb to sweep for "evidence" when it can be so easily tainted or faked. At the same time, I'd love to see the current members of the pushback against ICE using this data fallacy against future prosecutions. "Yeah, I was at home, look" and actually it's just a replay of a touch or face ID login running from a packaged emulator, or whatever signature activities meet the evidential requirement.

[potato3732842]

>they'd just take a bit longer to have identified the members of the insurrection

They'd have had to enjoin more parties, probably to include state agencies. Any party can push back, stall or blow the whistle if they feel something wrong and risky to them is happening. Which is exactly the opposite of what the feds want. They want to act unilaterally, on anything and everything.

[antidamage]

Without getting too political, the US is observably turning agencies over to their own people for exactly reasons like this, the feared "deep state".

I suspect we're about to see all kinds of abuses of information in the US.

[wavefunction]

appeal to emotion