undefined

points

[-]

> I guess don't bring your phone to a bank robbery.

You should also make sure not to bring your phone to anywhere where a nearby crime is happening because that's all it takes to make you a suspect and force you spend a bunch of money defending yourself. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/google-tracked-his-bike...

Hopefully rulings like this make that scenario a little less likely to happen, but it doesn't stop it entirely, it just means that the police need to spend 15 minutes to get a rubber-stamped warrant before they turn everyone within a few miles of crime into a suspect.

by jotux1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

>You should also make sure not to bring your phone to anywhere where a nearby crime is happening because that's all it takes to make you a suspect

Proximity to a crime makes you a suspect even without the phone, right?

by kube-system3 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

A one hour period and 150 meter radius of a bank surrounded by cornfields? sure.

A one hour period and 150 meter radius of a bank surrounded by high-rises and public transit? no.

by autoexec1 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Only if it's known that you were ever there in the first place, and people that typically wouldn't ever be considered, like someone who is quietly visiting in the living room of someone who lives nearby, will fall under scrutiny when police are just getting the data of everyone in a certain radius.

by sidewndr461 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

one of the more fun things I learned during criminal court in Texas is that the absence of forensic evidence cannot exonerate an individual. The prosecutor and the judge covered that despite not having any forensic evidence, the jury would still be expected to be able to convict the defendant. If you weren't OK with that you weren't eligible to serve on a jury.

by alwa53 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

Was your prior assumption that forensic evidence must exist in every case—and that if it doesn’t, then there’s no way to convince a jury of someone’s guilt?

As in, as long as I clean up really well afterward, I can pretty much do what I want?

by sidewndr4633 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

I think you're missing the slippery slope that this goes down. The criminal charges were way too low, given the alleged actions. The state admitted it had absolutely no forensic evidence. The judge was perfectly fine with this and selecting a jury that was OK convicting in this circumstance. This pretty quickly pretty us down a path of "you're guilty of at least one crime since you've been indicted, maybe a more serious one if we have some evidence".

by IncreasePosts33 minutes ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

There's no indication that this guy had to hire a lawyer or actually do anything. The same location data that put him near the scene/time of the crime would also absolve him. I guess it's sad that he felt the need to pay for a lawyer.

by bombcar1 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

I mean in this case it would also have helped not to have $100k in cash from a bank robbery laying around.

by BeetleB1 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Source for this? As I recall, his phone was off when he committed the murders. In fact, they used the evidence that it had been turned off just for the duration of the murders (with some padding) against him.

If you're going to commit a crime, don't suddenly turn off your phone if you don't have a history of doing so!

by xyzzy_plugh1 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Do you have a source for this? I find it hard to believe this data is persisted, unless they tore open the device to extract logs.

by ceejayoz1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/amazon-releases-echo-dat...

by xyzzy_plugh1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

This article is about audio recordings. There's no mention of Bluetooth nor any mention as to if there were any relevant recordings, which as I understand it are not stored on the device at all.

This smells like an urban myth.

by ceejayoz1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I don't think it's implausible that an Echo would have an internal list of trusted Bluetooth devices and their last date of connectivity.

by xyzzy_plugh56 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

The original claim is:

> all the bluetooth MAC addresses that was seen by the Echo device in the home around the time of the murders

which is just not how this stuff works. I'd believe it if, say, debug-level logs were being recorded locally. But that would be an incredibly stupid way to burn through your flash storage.

But that's besides the point. A record of the last date of connectivity for trusted devices is an entirely different thing.

I'm interested in evidence that this type of data extraction took place. I'm not interested in speculation.

by ceejayoz34 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

My car shows "last seen" on its Bluetooth connections. The murderer in this case was an invited friend; it's hardly implausible he's connected to Bluetooth there.

> I'm interested in evidence that this type of data extraction took place.

That they obtained access to the Echo's internals via Amazon is evidence. It sounds like you want proof of a very particular bit of data being in it, which I'd guess the FBI etc. aren't going to provide here.

by sidewndr4627 minutes ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

I don't think that is ever admitted into the public record or presented to a jury. An expert reviews it and prevents the conclusions. In the even that you had the knowledge to review it yourself, you're excluded from the jury as jurors aren't allowed to question means and methods.