Is cell phone tracking data reliable or not?

[rbhargan]

The Democrats used cell phone tracking data to go after people who were at the Capital on Jan 6. Now we have Democrats claiming that cell phone tracking data is unreliable in the case of the Fulton county DA and her boy-toy. So - is cell phone tracking data only reliable when used against conservatives, and unreliable when it implicates Democrats? Or is the entire system just a corrupt farce?

Fani Scrambles: Fulton DA Demands Judge Reject Cellphone Evidence | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

 

[Shadow01]

You’re under the false impression that consistency in the law applies to them

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Without diving into the whos and whys but to simply answer the title question: Yes. It's very reliable.

If it wasn't, the cell system wouldn't work. Remember the reason it's called 'cellular' is there are 'cells' of coverage and you are constantly moving between them. If the system doesn't know where you are, it doesn't know when to hand your call off to another tower and you lose connection.

When you get a cell report back, it will tell you both the location and the margin of error. Like "it's right effing here" vs "it's here, or somewhere with 50' or so" vs "It's in this cone but there's not enough data to say exactly where until it starts hitting another tower as well"

There can be large gaps of no location data, however, even if the phone is powered on and not in airplane mode. Ever have to restart your phone to get it to make outgoing calls again? It happens. So, if a phone shows as in a given area, it's as certain as most anything in life is that the phone was, in fact, at that location. The inverse is not true, though. A phone *not* showing at a given location doesn't mean it was *not* there with the same level of certainty.

******************
*Now, reading the linked article and assuming it's accurate, the attorney is not arguing cell phone records aren't reliable. They are arguing they shouldn't be allowed in court because some rules weren't followed. They don't say what those rules were.

See: Fani wants the evidence tossed - claiming that some of the data is inadmissible for technical or procedural reasons. Willis argued in a response that the cell phone data fails to "prove anything relevant," and should be tossed because it contains "both telephone records that have not been admitted into evidence and an affidavit and other documents containing unqualified opinion evidence."

This harkens to another conversation I'm in about the truth and it's role in court. Of course a lawyer is going to argue that damning evidence should not be allowed in court and they don't have to believe the reason they are arguing, they just can't have someone else in the same firm arguing the opposite of it at the same time (simplified, but still the basics). If the evidence gets in, they are likely to lose, so they have to attack the investigation, use the byzantine rules of evidence, etc. to get it tossed. Not the same as arguing cell records in general aren't reliable, or even aren't reliable in this case. See if the judge buys it. If the article is correct, probably not.

 

[rbhargan]

Without diving into the whos and whys but to simply answer the title question: Yes. It's very reliable.

If it wasn't, the cell system wouldn't work. Remember the reason it's called 'cellular' is there are 'cells' of coverage and you are constantly moving between them. If the system doesn't know where you are, it doesn't know when to hand your call off to another tower and you lose connection.

When you get a cell report back, it will tell you both the location and the margin of error. Like "it's right effing here" vs "it's here, or somewhere with 50' or so" vs "It's in this cone but there's not enough data to say exactly where until it starts hitting another tower as well"

There can be large gaps of no location data, however, even if the phone is powered on and not in airplane mode. Ever have to restart your phone to get it to make outgoing calls again? It happens. So, if a phone shows as in a given area, it's as certain as most anything in life is that the phone was, in fact, at that location. The inverse is not true, though. A phone *not* showing at a given location doesn't mean it was *not* there with the same level of certainty.

******************
*Now, reading the linked article and assuming it's accurate, the attorney is not arguing cell phone records aren't reliable. They are arguing they shouldn't be allowed in court because some rules weren't followed. They don't say what those rules were.

See: Fani wants the evidence tossed - claiming that some of the data is inadmissible for technical or procedural reasons. Willis argued in a response that the cell phone data fails to "prove anything relevant," and should be tossed because it contains "both telephone records that have not been admitted into evidence and an affidavit and other documents containing unqualified opinion evidence."

This harkens to another conversation I'm in about the truth and it's role in court. Of course a lawyer is going to argue that damning evidence should not be allowed in court and they don't have to believe the reason they are arguing, they just can't have someone else in the same firm arguing the opposite of it at the same time (simplified, but still the basics). If the evidence gets in, they are likely to lose, so they have to attack the investigation, use the byzantine rules of evidence, etc. to get it tossed. Not the same as arguing cell records in general aren't reliable, or even aren't reliable in this case. See if the judge buys it. If the article is correct, probably not.

I have no doubt that it is reliable - provided it has not been tampered with. I just find it amusing how liberals are "selective" about what can be used in court against their foes and what be be used against them.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I have no doubt that it is reliable - provided it has not been tampered with. I just find it amusing how liberals are "selective" about what can be used in court against their foes and what be be used against them.

That's just how lawyers work, doesn't matter who's side they are on. The defense is under no obligation to present a truthful account of events. The defense's job is to cast doubt on the prosecution's account of events, and trying to get damning evidence thrown out is a big chunk of that.

 

[BugI02]

Some information I found on required accuracy for 911 was within 16 square meters if the phones GPS location was available and within 3/4 square mile if tower triangulation had to be used. That was a worst case for tower triangulation with the report saying in dense urban areas where towers are close together the accuracy would be much higher

Accurate enough to claim you were on or near the capitol grounds, not necessarily accurate enough to say whether you were banging fani or her next door neighbor

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Some information I found on required accuracy for 911 was within 16 square meters if the phones GPS location was available and within 3/4 square mile if tower triangulation had to be used. That was a worst case for tower triangulation with the report saying in dense urban areas where towers are close together the accuracy would be much higher

Accurate enough to claim you were on or near the capitol grounds, not necessarily accurate enough to say whether you were banging fani or her next door neighbor

I don't know the 16 square meter standard, but the rest is spot on with my experience.

 

[BigRed]

The Democrats used cell phone tracking data to go after people who were at the Capital on Jan 6. Now we have Democrats claiming that cell phone tracking data is unreliable in the case of the Fulton county DA and her boy-toy. So - is cell phone tracking data only reliable when used against conservatives, and unreliable when it implicates Democrats? Or is the entire system just a corrupt farce?

Fani Scrambles: Fulton DA Demands Judge Reject Cellphone Evidence | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Democrats lie.
(They aren't the only ones)

 

[Ingomike]

The Democrats used cell phone tracking data to go after people who were at the Capital on Jan 6. Now we have Democrats claiming that cell phone tracking data is unreliable in the case of the Fulton county DA and her boy-toy. So - is cell phone tracking data only reliable when used against conservatives, and unreliable when it implicates Democrats? Or is the entire system just a corrupt farce?

Fani Scrambles: Fulton DA Demands Judge Reject Cellphone Evidence | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

It also was deemed not reliable for tracking election ballot stuffing mules...

 

[R3p1lc3]

Double standards are what we have, there should be no surprise at this point. Deny and Deflect.
Technically speaking it's very accurate to the OP point, and it's TOTAL corruption.

 

[BugI02]

I don't know the 16 square meter standard, but the rest is spot on with my experience.

Essentially it is saying if your cell phone's GPS location is available, 911 can locate you within a circle with about a 4.5 meter diameter

 

[BehindBlueI's]

It also was deemed not reliable for tracking election ballot stuffing mules...

Was it deemed not reliable or not probative? There's a distinct legal difference.

Not reliable means what you think it means, the data can't be proven to be reliable.

Not probative means it doesn't have evidentiary value to the charges.

It's the difference between "the data showing I was at the bank is faulty" vs "the data showing I was at the bank doesn't go toward proving I robbed it." How true that is will, of course, depend on other evidence. Your phone being at the bank absolutely doesn't show you robbed it...but it may help prove that if other information exists that supports it.

I think this thread is mixing the two.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Essentially it is saying if your cell phone's GPS location is available, 911 can locate you within a circle with about a 4.5 meter diameter

I get what it's saying, I just don't know that specific standard. I've been out of the 911 call center world for nearly 20 years, now, though.

 

[2tonic]

It also was deemed not reliable for tracking election ballot stuffing mules...

By the very same scum that says any conservative within 50 miles of DC on J6 needs jailing.

Was it deemed not reliable or not probative? There's a distinct legal difference.

Not reliable means what you think it means, the data can't be proven to be reliable.

Not probative means it doesn't have evidentiary value to the charges.

It's the difference between "the data showing I was at the bank is faulty" vs "the data showing I was at the bank doesn't go toward proving I robbed it." How true that is will, of course, depend on other evidence. Your phone being at the bank absolutely doesn't show you robbed it...but it may help prove that if other information exists that supports it.

I think this thread is mixing the two.

Neither. @Ingomike 's post references courts and media simply ignoring the existence of cell data backed up by video of people stuffing ballot boxes after making harvesting runs, thereby de facto deeming it unreliable.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Double standards are what we have, there should be no surprise at this point. Deny and Deflect.
Technically speaking it's very accurate to the OP point, and it's TOTAL corruption.

If it werent for double standards, the liberals would have no standards at all.

 

[wtburnette]

Between 2 witnesses testifying that there was a romantic relationship prior to when the pair claimed and this cell phone evidence, if she isn't removed from the case and disbarred, it's pure corruption. No two ways about it.

 

[snapping turtle]

Each phone has a unique identification number from a pool of available id's given out to the manufacturer of the devices.

There are (or were) ways to copy EID #.
SEID #'s MEID #'s and the like to basically clone a phone. So with the ability and the reason to do so one could clone a phone and show that a phone was in a place where it was not.

Because a phone is in a place does not mean the person was in a place.

Back in the day when it cost per minute to talk on a cell phone many never paid a dime because someone who was talking going over the bridge from Chicago to Indiana got the EID copied and cloned into a database which then used that EID to make one call the another EID to make the next call. Most never looked at the bill and you can steal a penny from 100 million people and get away with it but you can't steal 100 million from one person and not get caught.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

There are (or were) ways to copy EID #.
SEID #'s MEID #'s and the like to basically clone a phone. So with the ability and the reason to do so one could clone a phone and show that a phone was in a place where it was not.

Because a phone is in a place does not mean the person was in a place.

There are, but once a phone is cloned the original stops working in fairly short order. The system won't route calls to two phones.

It's also why an investigator will show normal use continuity. Scammers aren't calling your girlfriend and mom while they are scamming your phone number.

Correct on the phone doesn't mean the person was there, necessarily, but again you look at continuity of use. If someone else had the phone for some reason, the pattern would change up. Similarly, it's not proof you are out committing robberies when your phone gets turned off 15 minutes before a robbery and back on 15 minutes after on multiple occasions...but it sure is indicative.

 

[Leadeye]

Interesting info. Since my heart surgery the gardener has been worried that something will go wrong when I am out in the woods and I'll be feeding the coyotes before anybody finds me. I take my cell phone with me but had no idea how good it was at location. She feels better now.

 

[wtburnette]

The better question is, is our justice system reliable and as much as I hope these people go to jail I'm leaning towards Nope.