Michael Williams’ each movement was followed without his knowledge – even before the fire. In August, Williams, an accomplice to R&B star and alleged rapist R. Kelly, allegedly used explosives to destroy a potential witness’ car. When police arrested Williams, the evidence in an affidavit from the Department of Justice came primarily from his smartphone and online behavior: text messages to the victim, cell phone records and his search history.
Investigators called Google a “keyword order” and asked the company to provide information about any user who searched for the victim’s address around the time of the arson. Police narrowed the search, identified Williams and then filed another search warrant for two Google Accounts linked to him. They found other searches: the “explosive properties” of diesel, a list of countries that do not have extradition agreements with the US, and YouTube videos of R. Kelly’s alleged victims talking to the press. Williams pleaded not guilty.
Data collected for one purpose can always be used for another. For example, search history data is collected to refine recommendation algorithms or set up online profiles, not to catch criminals. Usually. Smart devices like speakers, TVs and portable items hold such precise details of our lives that they are used as accusatory and acquittal evidence in murder cases. Speakers do not need to hear crimes or confessions, to be useful to investigators. They keep time-stamped logs of all requests along with details of their location and identity. Investigators have access to these logs and are using them to verify the location of the suspect or even to catch a lie.
These are not just speakers or portable items. In a year in which some in Big Tech pledged support to the activists demanding police reform, they continued to sell devices and programs that give the government access to far more intimate data from far more people than traditional warrants and policing methods allow.
A November report in Vice found that users of the popular Muslim Pro app may have sold data about their location to government agencies. Any number of programs ask for location data, for example the weather or to track your exercise habits. The Vice report found that X-Mode, a data broker, collected data from Muslim Pro users for prayer reminders and then sold it to others, including federal agencies. Both Apple and Google have banned developers from transferring data to X-Mode, but it has already collected data from millions of users.
The problem is not just an individual app, but an overly complicated system of data collection. In December, Apple began requiring developers to disclose key details about privacy policies in a “nutrition label” for apps. Users agree to most forms of data collection when they click ‘Agree’ after downloading an app, but privacy policies are notoriously incomprehensible and people often do not know what they are agreeing to.
An easy-to-read summary, like Apple’s nutrition label, is useful, but not even developers know where the data their apps collect will end up. (Many developers contacted by Vice admitted that they did not even know that X-Mode had access to user data.)
The pipeline between commercial and state security is widening as we increasingly use devices and serious privacy considerations are rejected with the click of “I agree.” The nationwide debate on policing and racial equality this summer has brought the silent cooperation to great relief. Despite the backward diversity numbers, indifference to white nationalism, and the mistreatment of non-white employees, several tech companies have rushed to offer public support to Black Lives Matter and reconsider their ties to law enforcement.
Amazon, which has committed millions to racial equity groups this summer, has promised to halt (but not stop) sales of face recognition technology to police after defending the practice for years. But the company also noticed an increase in police requests for user data, including the internal logs kept by its smart speakers.