Denmark Releases 32 Prisoners Convicted Because Of Flawed Mobile Phone Tracking Data
from the but-how-many-more-to-come? dept
A few weeks ago, Techdirt wrote about Denmark reviewing 10,000 court verdicts because of errors in mobile phone tracking data that was offered as evidence in those cases. At that time, it wasn't clear how many of the group were affected by the unreliable data. However, the Guardian reports that 32 people have already been freed. Given the large number of cases involved, it seems unlikely that many have been reviewed in such a short space of time. If that's the case, it is possible that quite a few more verdicts will be overturned, and more people released. Companies providing mobile phone services in Denmark are naturally keen to distance themselves from this mess. Jakob Willer, speaking on behalf of the country's telecoms industry association, said it was not their job to provide evidence:
"We should remember: data is created to help deliver telecom services, not to control citizens or for surveillance," Willer said. He conceded it could be valuable to police, but insisted its primary purpose was to facilitate communication between users.
That's an important point. If the authorities wish to use this kind of data they need to take into account that it was never designed to track people, and therefore has limitations as evidence. Fortunately, Denmark's embarrassing discovery that an unknown number of over 10,000 verdicts may be based on unreliable evidence has been something of a wake-up call for the country's lawyers. Karoline Normann, the head of the Danish law society's criminal law committee, told Agence-France Presse:
"This situation has changed our mindset about cellphone data. We are probably going to question it as we normally question a witness or other types of evidence, where we consider circumstances like who produced the evidence, and why and how."
It's troubling that it didn't occur to the legal profession to do that before. Just because information comes from high-tech sources doesn't mean it is infallible or that it can't be challenged.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter, Diaspora, or Mastodon.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: csli, denmark, evidence, location info, location tracking, privacy
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
So WHY wasn't it challenged at the time? Not ONE in 10,000?
Surely it'd be a major point obvious to any defendant.
The figure kind of makes the defendants look FLAWED TOO!
You just VERY slightly re-write what I'd already read.
You've added nothing! In fact, reduce!
Is this the utmost level of your "journalism"?
Don't you have ANY curiosity about details?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So WHY wasn't it challenged at the time? Not ONE in 10,000?
Have you had a mental health exam lately?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I’m curious about the detail of how you can both support copyright and decry corporate censorship without your brain turning into pudding.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So WHY wasn't it challenged at the time? Not ONE in 10,000?
If you don't like reading the articles here, why do you keep coming back?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Because he can’t hatefuck an actual woman.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
At least it wasn't the US.
Here if something like that came about, you would still have to go through years of appeals while locked up, and might still remain convicted because even if all the evidence was wrong, the jury might still have been right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: At least it wasn't the US.
So far as I know, actual innocence isn't a reason to overturn a conviction, yet convictions get overturned. This is one of the places where our legal system absolutely baffles me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Thus "Blue Balls."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
In America? Pretty much: “The Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to hold that the federal Constitution allows for so-called freestanding claims of innocence, that is, the right to be let out of prison simply because you didn’t do it, without any other “technical” violation to back up your argument. In the United States, the inmate who raises a compelling case of innocence after a constitutionally proper trial may well be doomed.” (Source)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Get real
I think the big issue is, Denmark isn't willing to be the first country to admit their mobile phone tracking data is 100% accurate. I mean, no government would use questionable data.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You forgot a sarcasm marker there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Some context
While I agree, I feel two things need to be noted here:
An entirely different matter is that this logging of location data (or at least the directive forming the basis for IT) has been ruled in violation of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights by the ECJ, but the Danish government, three years on, refuses to change the relevant legislation. A lawsuit has been filed to force their hans, but it's purposefully being stalled by the government awaiting a new logging case at the ECJ.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Some context
Apologies for the misspellings. That's the curse of having autocorrect enabled in a different language.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"...wake-up call for the country's lawyers..."
Wake up call? More like lunch time call.
They are going to make big eurobucks from this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I know. I don't use the Sarcmark™. I don't want to get sued for a Trademark violation. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hence why I use a tilde before punctuation (e.g., sarcasm~.).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: At least it wasn't the US.
"So far as I know, actual innocence isn't a reason to overturn a conviction"
Although it should be.
"yet convictions get overturned"
As a result of much effort and many hours in court.
Justice should not be directly proportional to your net worth, and yet it is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Some context
"extremely shaky basis for a conviction."
Never stopped them in the past.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: At least it wasn't the US.
Troy Davis what?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is an unusual case! Have a look here https://bestparentalcontrolapps.com/track-kids-phone/ if you need a tracking app
[ link to this | view in thread ]