Although there were some outrageous (and false) claims made about technology in the Gainesville, Florida murder trial of Pedro Bravo this summer, there are also some byproducts of how we use our personal technology that should give us pause.[icopyright one button toolbar]
The infamous erroneous claim
Detective: Murder suspect asked Siri how to hide body http://t.co/PdR9F2CZEq pic.twitter.com/AhrlhCTtFW
— WPXI (@WPXI) August 12, 2014
The claim in this tweet doesn’t pass my personal smell test, even if it is being presented by a mainstream media organization: a Pittsburgh television station, WPXI, part of the Cox Media Group Television.
The trial is in Florida. The news organization sending the tweet is in Pennsylvania, almost a thousand miles away. The odds that the TV station has a reporter on the ground in Gainesville is slim to none.
The British press took up the cry, but alas, no one seemed aware of this story at the CBS affiliate in Miami:
On Tuesday (Aug 12), prosecutors showed a screen grab of Bravo’s iPhone which read “I need to hide my roommate.”
Bravo’s attorney pointed out the screen grab was among hundreds of pictures that were on Bravo’s phone and that the search may not have been initiated by his client.
“This is not evidence that he ever did an inquiry, looking for some information online for needing to hide his roommate,” Bravo’s attorney asked Gainesville police department Det. Matthew Goeckel who had taken the stand.
“Correct,” replied Goeckel.
But even the Gainesville Sun got it wrong, despite (one hopes) having a reporter at the courthouse.
A detective also testified how queries made on the phone included the statement, “I need to hide my roommate.”
[…]
The cellphone had queries that were made, including “I need to hide my roommate.” Underneath that query, which was captured on a screen shot of Bravo’s phone, were responses to “where to hide a roommate.” The suggestions included reservoirs and swamps.
The Gainesville Police Department subsequently denied the media reports:
Multiple reports of Bravo asking Siri to hide a roommate are incorrect… GPD Det. Goeckel certainly did not testify to that. #BravoTrial
— Gainesville Police (@GainesvillePD) August 13, 2014
Error number two: Pedro Bravo was on trial for the murder of his friend Christian Aguilar, who was not his roommate.
On Wednesday, WUFT, North Central Florida’s public media stations, tried to set the story straight. (Gainesville in the home of the University of Florida.)
Here’s their transcription of part of Tuesday’s testimony when Assistant State Attorney Bill Ezzell questioned Gainesville Police Department Detective Matt Goeckel about the iPhone contents:
Ezzell: “Okay, was Siri as a program, was she available on the iPhone 4?”
Goeckel: “No.”
Ezzell: “Okay, how could a Siri image appear on an iPhone 4?”
Goeckel: “In this case it was cached on Facebook, it was viewed on Facebook with the phone.”
So not only did the mainstream news get its facts wrong, the claim falls flat because an iPhone4 does not have access to the Siri application.
Ugh.
The Independent updated its online story. However, WPXI deleted its erroneous one, as did its sister station in Jacksonville (only 70 miles from Gainesville). But their Cox Media first cousin, the Palm Beach Post, retained an edited version of the original story from Jacksonville. Unfortunately, the edit isn’t accurate, either.
Some initial media reports indicated the conversation happened on Bravo’s phone. It has not been shown whether the conversation took place on that phone.
At least three tech reporters were no brighter (and only one updated their stories). TIME got caught but added a correction while leaving the erroneous headline in place.
This regurgitation occurred despite widespread reports from as early as 2011 that people were chuckling about Siri’s response to questions like this one.
Ugh.
What the trial said about technology and privacy
There’s more in this story than reporters who don’t understand technology. Or rush-to-publish rewrites of other folks’ click-bait content.
First, it’s not just big brother who is watching us.
As the Boston bombing made clear — reinforcing science fiction moviedom — we are being watched by corporations (traditional surveillance for anti-theft) and individuals (phone cameras). Edward Snowden helped shine the light on what our governments (NSA et al) are doing.
But it was private tech that first implicated Bravo. According to WUFT we first see evidence of opportunity from Best Buy:
Surveillance video gathered at the time at Best Buy on Archer Road lead police to believe that Bravo was the last person seen with [Christian Aguilar] that day.
There certainly is no expectation of privacy when you’re entering a retail establishment. Or sitting in their parking lot. Although we may feel “private” while in our cars, quite often the converse is true.
Private tech provided additional circumstantial evidence reinforcing opportunity.
Detective Goeckel placed both men at the Best Buy based on cellphone pings to towers. In fall 2013, Bravo owned an iPhone4 with service from Verizon.
[S]ignals showed Bravo was heading west, in the general direction of where Aguilar’s body was found. Goeckel testified at 8 p.m. that night, the signal disappeared for nearly five and a half hours.
More circumstantial evidence from private tech suggests Bravo also had means:
Prosecutors also played security footage from Walmart and Lowes appearing to show Aguilar [sic] purchasing the shovel, and other items, including a knife.
Second, our smartphones (and computers) have long memories.
It was personal tech that provided even more circumstantial evidence regarding opportunity: the flashlight application was used for 48 minutes, from 11.31pm to 12.01am on the night Aguilar disappeared.
Yes, your computer keeps track of what apps you use and when and for how long.
And your smartphone is a computer.
What is acceptable access to computer metadata?
Bravo’s defense attorney tried to prevent iPhone and Verizon tracking metadata from being introduced, according to the Gainesville Sun:
Defense attorney Stephen Bernstein argued the data should not be shown to the jury because he cannot question the Verizon employee who developed it and gave it to Goeckel.
There is case law restricting admissibility of cellphone tracking data to information obtained only with a warrant.
However, NSA engages in extensive warrantless tapping of cellphone metadata, and local jurisdictions are also engaging in broad data sweeps that contain information about everyone in an area, not just the person who may be the subject of a warrant.
We’ve heard a lot about metadata and cellphones subsequent to Snowden’s revelations about NSA but there have been fewer analyses of the background records (logs) maintained by our personal computers.
Eight years ago, Joe Kashi detailed digital photographic evidence procedures for fellow lawyers.
Three years ago, Facebook evidence was rejected because the data had not been authenticated.
Two years ago, two lawyers pointed out ethical issues surrounding the use of data from social media sites (pdf).
And earlier this year, iPhone metadata was admitted as evidence in the trial of a registered sex offender.
There are at least four bills in Congress dealing with NSA authority to access telephone metadata:
- H.R.3361 – USA FREEDOM Act, introduced 10/29/2013, passed the House 303-121 on 05/22/2014 and S.1599 – USA FREEDOM Act, introduced 10/29/2013 (companion bills)
- H.R.3875 – Telephone Metadata Reform Act, introduced 01/14/2014
- S.2685 – USA FREEDOM Act of 2014, introduced 7/29/2014
These bills are focused on wide-ranging NSA data collection not on the investigation of the secrets maintained within a single device, whether those secrets pertain to a civil trial (think divorce) or a criminal one (like this murder case).
Which is the bigger threat to personal liberty?
Known for gnawing at complex questions like a terrier with a bone. Digital evangelist, writer, teacher. Transplanted Southerner; teach newbies to ride motorcycles. @kegill (Twitter and Mastodon.social); wiredpen.com