When Enough is Enough: Location Tracking, Mosaic Theory, and Machine Learning

Similar documents
United States Court of Appeals

The GPS Tracking Case Fourth Amendment United States Constitution

u.s. Department of Justice

Body Snatchers. Heidi Reamer Anderson*

Location Privacy: The Legal Landscape. David L. Sobel Senior Counsel, EFF Stanford PNT Symposium October 29, 2014

Supreme Court Rules On GPS Trackers: Is It 1984 Yet? Legal Question of the Week Vol. 5, Number 2 January 27, 2012

HDSE Summit #9. Keith G. Logan, Kutztown Univ. of PA

United States v. Jones: The Foolish revival of the "Trespass Doctrine" in Addressing GPS Technology and the Fourth Amendment

RUTGERS LAW REVIEW. VOLUME 65 Summer 2013 NUMBER 4 INTRODUCTION. George C. Thomas III*

DRAGNET LAW ENFORCEMENT: PROLONGED SURVEILLANCE & THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

Presented by Stephen Vigorito, Associate Judge for City of Austin. Home Sweet Home WHY DO CODE VIOLATIONS MATTER?

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

DRAFT [8-4-15] TUFTS UNIVERSITY EXPERIMENTAL COLLEGE FALL 2015

DEFENDING EQUILIBRIUM-ADJUSTMENT

By Jane Lynch and Jared Wagner

underlying principle some rights are fundamental and should not be subject to majoritarian control

Department of Legislative Services Maryland General Assembly 2011 Session

Warrantless Access to Cell Site Location Information Takes a Hit in the Fourth Circuit:

United States Court of Appeals

Hearing on. Seven Communications Bills including H.R. 4889, the Kelsey Smith Act of Wednesday, April 13, 2016, at 10:15am

United States Court of Appeals

Fourth Amendment General Population Respondents. Conducted May 21-23, 2013 Margin of Error ±4%

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, * * * * * * * *

THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES: THE MISAPPLICATION OF ANALOGICAL REASONING

Fourth Amendment General Population Respondents. Conducted May 21-23, 2013 Margin of Error ±4%

Fourth Amendment United States Constitution

I. Introduction. fact that most people carry a cell phone, there has been relatively little litigation deciding

Lesson 1: Role of the Judicial Branch in the US

Fourth Amendment United States Constitution

Adapting Search and Seizure Jurisprudence to the Digital Age: Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Thursday, April 30 th 7B Social Studies

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.

THE LAW PROFESSOR CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ESSAY SERIES ESSAY QUESTION

Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding Argued April 21, 2009 Decided June 26, 2009

Track Me Maybe: The Fourth Amendment and the Use of Cell Phone Tracking to Facilitate Arrest

In the Supreme Court of the United States

Class #10: The Extraterritorial Fourth Amendment. Professor Emily Berman Thursday, September 25, 2014

TEXARKANA, TEXAS POLICE DEPARTMENT GENERAL ORDERS MANUAL. TPCA Best Practices Recognition Program Reference Searches Without a Warrant

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA NEW DELHI. IA No. 5 of 2014 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 833 of BETWEEN: Aruna Roy and another Petitioners

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

The Good Faith Exception is Good for Us. Jamesa J. Drake. On February 19, 2010, the Kentucky Court of Appeals decided Valesquez v.

298 SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. XLVI:297

Charles W. Thompson, Jr. Executive Director/General Counsel International Municipal Lawyers Association

No Supreme Court of the United States. UNITED STATES, Petitioner and Cross-Respondent, DAVID ELLIS, Respondent and Cross-Petitioner.

MARCH 23, Referred to Committee on Judiciary

Appellate Division, Third Department - People v. Mabeus

Mapp v. ohio (1961) rights of the accused. directions

In The SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. October Term, Docket No Albert Greene, United States,

State v. Tate: Role of the Courts, Criminal Trials, and the Fourth Amendment (Grades 8 and 9)

Knock and Talks : Obtaining Consent to Search

IR 26 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS CHAPTER 13

RECENT CASES. Nov. 19, 2010), cert. denied, No , 2010 WL (U.S. Nov. 29, 2010).

5. Pursuit... 2:25 6. High Speed Chases... 2:26 III. IDENTIFICATIONS... 3:1 A. In-Person Identifications... 3:1 1. Right to Have Counsel Present...

Emerging Technology and the Fourth Amendment

Supreme Court of the United States

RESTRAINTS ON PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE: Arizona v. Hicks* HISTORY OF THE PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE

2016 PA Super 84. Appeal from the Order April 25, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR

MINNESOTA v. DICKERSON 113 S.Ct (1993) United States Supreme Court

Justice Alito filed opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan joined.

Fourth Amendment United States Constitution

No IN THE DAVID LEON RILEY, On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District

FOURTH AMENDMENT PRACTICE. Tyranny of all kinds is to be abhorred

Supreme Court of the United States

ARTICLE. UNiTED STATES V. JONES: BIG BROTHER AND THE "COMMON GOOD" VERSUS THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND YOUR RIGHT TO PRIVACY.

Briefing from Carpenter v. United States

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CANADA MINISTÈRE DE LA JUSTICE CANADA

- WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE POLICE

United States v. Jones: GPS Monitoring, Property, and Privacy

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,632 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, JANIE SHOWALTER, Appellant.

Searches Conducted by Public School Officials under the Fourth Amendment

Canine Constables and

Unpacking the Dirtbox: Confronting Cell Phone Location Tracking with the Fourth Amendment

Electronic Searches and Surveillance ( )

Code of Practice Issued Under Section 377A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

United States Court of Appeals

1 See, e.g., Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547, 559 (1978) ( The Fourth Amendment has

NEW JERSEY v. T. L. O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985)

Law Enforcement Use of Global Positioning (GPS) Devices to Monitor Motor Vehicles: Fourth Amendment Considerations

Voluntary Disclosure of Information as a Proposed Standard for the Fourth Amendment's Third-Party Doctrine

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for La Crosse County: RAMONA A. GONZALEZ, Judge. Affirmed.

In the Supreme Court of the United States

Suppose you disagreed with a new law.

Surveillance Duration Doesn't Affect Privacy Expectations: An Empirical Test of the Mosaic Theory

The Fourth Amendment Fetches Fido: The Future of Dog Searches

Public Employees Right to Privacy in Their Electronic Communications: City of Ontario v. Quon in the Supreme Court

The Mirage of Use Restrictions

COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Criminal Procedure Update: Drones, Dogs and Delay TOPICS. Recent Supreme Court Cases. Professor Laurie L. Levenson Loyola Law School (2016)

Corporation Liquor License Application

Cook Islands: Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 2003

Patent Law. Prof. Roger Ford October 19, 2016 Class 13 Nonobviousness: Scope and Content of the Prior Art. Recap

v. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN November 1, 2002 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

THE THIRD AND FOURTH AMENDMENTS

The Mosaic Theory of the Fourth Amendment

Chapter 4: Civil Liberties

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

Administrative Search Warrants for Fire, Health, and Code Inspections. Course objectives. Why is this course important to you?

Privacy, Policy and Public Opinion in Canada

Transcription:

When Enough is Enough: Location Tracking, Mosaic Theory, and Machine Learning Steven M. Bellovin (Joint work with Renée Hutchins, Tony Jebara, Sebastian Zimmeck) 2 May 2015 1

PATTERNS AND PREDICTIONS Machine learning can find all sorts of patterns Some uses of big data are fairly obvious, once we know how to do it Some aren t like shaping legal doctrine For example: should the police need a search warrant to track someone s location? 2 May 2015 2

SHOULD POLICE NEED A WARRANT FOR GPS TRACKING? No: movements are public Police could just follow someone You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public activities No: in the 1982 Knotts case, the Supreme Court said that putting a beeper on a chemical shipment for three days is ok 2 May 2015 3

SHOULD POLICE NEED A WARRANT FOR UPS TRACKING? Yes: One check on police abuse of their power is economic: they can t afford to trail very many people for a very long time è GPS tracking is much cheaper Yes: Patterns of movement are very revealing 2 May 2015 4

THE FOURTH AMENDMENT The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Searches do not always require a warrant, but they have to be reasonable 2 May 2015 5

MOSAIC THEORY Mosaic Theory: a large-enough collection of data points is very, very revealing, and violates reasonable expectation of privacy It is the total pattern of movements that is revealing Law enforcement cannot afford to track (most) people for a month But where do you draw the line? What is large enough? 2 May 2015 6

US V. JONES (2012) Police attached a GPS tracker to Jones car for 28 days The warrant had expired The Supreme Court overturned the conviction 9-0, but on classical Fourth Amendment grounds: a physical intrusion on his car 2 May 2015 7

SOME JUDICIAL SUPPORT FOR MOSAIC THEORY Disclosed in [GPS] data... will be trips the indisputably private nature of which takes little imagination to conjure: trips to the psychiatrist, the plastic surgeon, the abortion clinic, the AIDS treatment center, the strip club, the criminal defense attorney, the by-the-hour motel, the union meeting, the mosque, synagogue or church, the gay bar and on and on. Justice Sotomayor s concurrence in Jones 2 May 2015 8

MORE SUPPORT We need not identify with precision the point at which the tracking of this vehicle became a search, for the line was surely crossed before the 4-week mark. Justice Alito s concurrence in Jones, joined by three other justices 2 May 2015 9

BUT [I]t remains unexplained why a 4-week investigation is surely too long Opinion of the Court (by Justice Scalia) in Jones 2 May 2015 10

MOSAIC THEORY AND MACHINE LEARNING: A HYPOTHESIS Use machine learning to make predictions based on location data When predictions are accurate enough, a mosaic exists In other words, use computer science to answer Justice Scalia s objection! 2 May 2015 11

MACHINE LEARNING AND MOSAIC THEORY The technical literature supports the basic premise: with enough points, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts Note the jump in accuracy at 5 weeks and 28 weeks (Graph from Altshuler et al.) 2 May 2015 12

ONE WEEK IS THE LIMIT Experiments show that week-to-week movements are very predictable (Sadilek & Krumm) Weekend movements are more predictable, though of course different than weekday movement With seven days of observation, you have a very good picture of someone s life 2 May 2015 13

THE FOURTH AMENDMENT Does Mosaic Theory make tracking unreasonable? Do people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their location and the inferences that can be made from it? Is it one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable? 2 May 2015 14

CONCLUSIONS From a technical perspective, Mosaic Theory is correct: you really can build a very full picture of someone with enough data points (The Massachusetts Supreme Court has set a limit of two weeks, though without giving a reason for that limit) Fundamentally, though, this is a legal question, not technical one Paper: http://lawandlibertyblog.com/s/hutchins.pdf 2 May 2015 15