Local law enforcement agencies from suburban Southern California to rural North Carolina have been using an obscure cellphone tracking tool, at times without search warrants, that gives them the power to follow people’s movements months back in time, according to public records and internal emails obtained by The Associated Press.
Police have used “Fog Reveal” to search hundreds of billions of records from 250 million mobile devices, and harnessed the data to create location analyses known among law enforcement as “patterns of life,” according to thousands of pages of records about the company.
Sold by Virginia-based Fog Data Science LLC, Fog Reveal has been used since at least 2018 in criminal investigations ranging from the murder of a nurse in Arkansas to tracing the movements of a potential participant in the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol. The tool is rarely, if ever, mentioned in court records, something that defense attorneys say makes it harder for them to properly defend their clients in cases in which the technology was used.
The company was developed by two former high-ranking Department of Homeland Security officials under former President George W. Bush. It relies on advertising identification numbers, which Fog officials say are culled from popular cellphone apps such as Waze, Starbucks and hundreds of others that target ads based on a person’s movements and interests, according to police emails. That information is then sold to companies like Fog.
“It’s sort of a mass surveillance program on a budget,” said Bennett Cyphers, a special adviser at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital privacy rights advocacy group.
Because of the secrecy surrounding Fog, however, there are scant details about its use and most law enforcement agencies won’t discuss it, raising concerns among privacy advocates that it violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure.
What distinguishes Fog Reveal from other cellphone location technologies used by police is that it follows the devices through their advertising IDs, unique numbers assigned to each device. These numbers do not contain the name of the phone’s user, but can be traced to homes and workplaces to help police establish pattern-of-life analyses.
“The capability that it had for bringing up just anybody in an area whether they were in public or at home seemed to me to be a very clear violation of the Fourth Amendment,” said Davin Hall, a former crime data analysis supervisor for the Greensboro, North Carolina, Police Department. “I just feel angry and betrayed and lied to.”
The Government’s acquisition of Carpenter’s cell-site records was a Fourth Amendment search. Pp. 4–18.
The Government did not obtain a warrant supported by probable cause before acquiring Carpenter’s cell-site records. It acquired those records pursuant to a court order under the Stored Communications Act, which required the Government to show “reasonable grounds” for believing that the records were “relevant and material to an ongoing investigation.” 18 U. S. C. §2703(d). That showing falls well short of the probable cause required for a warrant. Consequently, an order issued under §2703(d) is not a permissible mechanism for accessing historical cell-site records. Not all orders compelling the production of documents will require a showing of probable cause. A warrant is required only in the rare case where the suspect has a legitimate privacy interest in records held by a third party. And even though the Government will generally need a warrant to access CSLI, case-specific exceptions—e.g., exigent circumstances—may support a warrantless search. Pp. 18–22.
This has already basically been ruled unconstitutional to do without a warrant. Although there are probably some facts that can "distinguish" this case from the other uses.
What I want to most highlight here: Roberts authored this opinion, joined by justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, & Kagan. "Our guys" - Thomas, Alito, Kennedy, & Gorsuch dissented. For as much as we pile on the leftist justices, they come through on cases like this. It is "our guys" that give us flagrant encroaching decisions on the 4th amendment; as well as on other constitutional rights that arise out of the criminal adjudication realm. Just about every "exigency" or "exception" to the 4th amendment (which has basically written it out of existence in most circumstances) was authored by one of "our guys" and created case law ignoring the obvious.
Really the only attractive fog I can think of are those beautiful misty September mornings when you are enjoying devotion to GOD and His creation--the birds and trees and deer in the field.
Gregg Phillips is a hero working the front lines for us!
yes he is..look at the link to ....Fog Reveal....more spying on us
Local law enforcement agencies from suburban Southern California to rural North Carolina have been using an obscure cellphone tracking tool, at times without search warrants, that gives them the power to follow people’s movements months back in time, according to public records and internal emails obtained by The Associated Press.
Police have used “Fog Reveal” to search hundreds of billions of records from 250 million mobile devices, and harnessed the data to create location analyses known among law enforcement as “patterns of life,” according to thousands of pages of records about the company.
Sold by Virginia-based Fog Data Science LLC, Fog Reveal has been used since at least 2018 in criminal investigations ranging from the murder of a nurse in Arkansas to tracing the movements of a potential participant in the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol. The tool is rarely, if ever, mentioned in court records, something that defense attorneys say makes it harder for them to properly defend their clients in cases in which the technology was used.
The company was developed by two former high-ranking Department of Homeland Security officials under former President George W. Bush. It relies on advertising identification numbers, which Fog officials say are culled from popular cellphone apps such as Waze, Starbucks and hundreds of others that target ads based on a person’s movements and interests, according to police emails. That information is then sold to companies like Fog. “It’s sort of a mass surveillance program on a budget,” said Bennett Cyphers, a special adviser at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital privacy rights advocacy group.
Because of the secrecy surrounding Fog, however, there are scant details about its use and most law enforcement agencies won’t discuss it, raising concerns among privacy advocates that it violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure.
What distinguishes Fog Reveal from other cellphone location technologies used by police is that it follows the devices through their advertising IDs, unique numbers assigned to each device. These numbers do not contain the name of the phone’s user, but can be traced to homes and workplaces to help police establish pattern-of-life analyses.
“The capability that it had for bringing up just anybody in an area whether they were in public or at home seemed to me to be a very clear violation of the Fourth Amendment,” said Davin Hall, a former crime data analysis supervisor for the Greensboro, North Carolina, Police Department. “I just feel angry and betrayed and lied to.”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf
Carpenter v. United States, 819 F. 3d 880 (2018)
Held:
The Government’s acquisition of Carpenter’s cell-site records was a Fourth Amendment search. Pp. 4–18.
The Government did not obtain a warrant supported by probable cause before acquiring Carpenter’s cell-site records. It acquired those records pursuant to a court order under the Stored Communications Act, which required the Government to show “reasonable grounds” for believing that the records were “relevant and material to an ongoing investigation.” 18 U. S. C. §2703(d). That showing falls well short of the probable cause required for a warrant. Consequently, an order issued under §2703(d) is not a permissible mechanism for accessing historical cell-site records. Not all orders compelling the production of documents will require a showing of probable cause. A warrant is required only in the rare case where the suspect has a legitimate privacy interest in records held by a third party. And even though the Government will generally need a warrant to access CSLI, case-specific exceptions—e.g., exigent circumstances—may support a warrantless search. Pp. 18–22.
This has already basically been ruled unconstitutional to do without a warrant. Although there are probably some facts that can "distinguish" this case from the other uses.
What I want to most highlight here: Roberts authored this opinion, joined by justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, & Kagan. "Our guys" - Thomas, Alito, Kennedy, & Gorsuch dissented. For as much as we pile on the leftist justices, they come through on cases like this. It is "our guys" that give us flagrant encroaching decisions on the 4th amendment; as well as on other constitutional rights that arise out of the criminal adjudication realm. Just about every "exigency" or "exception" to the 4th amendment (which has basically written it out of existence in most circumstances) was authored by one of "our guys" and created case law ignoring the obvious.
Really the only attractive fog I can think of are those beautiful misty September mornings when you are enjoying devotion to GOD and His creation--the birds and trees and deer in the field.
He kinda fell off the radar for a little bit, didn't he? I almost forgot he said he was going dark for awhile though..
Didnt he have a two more weeks post recently?
https://truthsocial.com/@greggphillips/posts/108975432025251132
https://apnews.com/article/technology-police-government-surveillance-d395409ef5a8c6c3f6cdab5b1d0e27ef
Is this the „hot August“ guy?
Mr PHILLIPS is doing this as a "WARNING" TO ALL....
The last sentence is: "The tool (Fog Data Science LLC, Fog Reveal) tool is rarely, if ever, mentioned in court records."
Turn off the Advertiser ID and the LOCATION and check ALL of your phone apps to see IF they go cross-app/location/app-id!!!!!!!
Also, the 4 Amendment Violations