 kapilThe Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL | WTF This is just 1 year and 1 telco! 8 Million requests! Now think of all other companies and the number of years since we've allowed warrant-less surveillance. Yikes!
Big brother is no longer just watching. He's moved into your house and is banging your wife!
I pay sprint nearly $1,000 each month. I willing to take that business elsewhere unless there's a coherent response coming out of their mouth very soon about this. I would say that my 1k doesn't matter to a giant faceless corporation...but in Sprint's case, it needs every penny!
--
»www.VoIPTrunk.com |
|
 camaro92Question everythingPremium
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA
 ·Comcast
| said by kapil:This is just 1 year and 1 telco! 8 Million requests! Now think of all other companies and the number of years since we've allowed warrant-less surveillance. Yikes! Big brother is no longer just watching. He's moved into your house and is banging your wife! I pay sprint nearly $1,000 each month. I willing to take that business elsewhere unless there's a coherent response coming out of their mouth very soon about this. I would say that my 1k doesn't matter to a giant faceless corporation...but in Sprint's case, it needs every penny! lol "He's moved into your house and is banging your wife!" that chered my morning right up, sad thing is mabey some day it will come true. |
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to kapil
Re: WTF said by kapil:since we've allowed warrant-less surveillance. Is there a law requiring telcos to receive a warrant before releasing position information?
I know they're subject to statutory damages if they release call records without a warrant (although there are a couple exceptions which have been discussed in the context of telcos assisting NSA). But, is position information protected the same way?
If not, this seems like what happens in other industries. For example, insurance companies maintain info available through ChoicePoint about your insurance coverage, gaps in coverage, etc. Landlords submit eviction information, viewable by anyone. Lexus Nexus has all your credit card transactions.
Why should a telcom be subject to more restrictions?
Mark |
|
kapilThe Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL | said by amigo_boy:Why should a telcom be subject to more restrictions? I would hope real time tracking of a person's movement would be subject to higher standards or privacy.
OnStar can bring a moving vehicle to a halt remotely. Cell phone companies can activate a GPS module in a phone even if the phone has been powered off by the user. We can't do this and still call ourselves the land of the free. Here in Illinois, the tollway keeps a track of how long it takes a driver to get from one toll plaza to the next...and it's only a matter of time before the state police starts issuing tickets for speeding based on that data or insurance companies get their hands on it to monitor driving habits.
I also think some of the other examples you give, lexis-nexis, choicepoint et al, are also egregious violations of privacy. There is entirely too much data about individuals that is within the control of corporations. Not all of them are ethical and entirely too many of them willing to "co-operate" with government rather than fight to protect the privacy of their users.
These corporations won't change until we demand they do. We deserve, at the very least, the same level of privacy enjoyed by the citizens in the EU.
--
»www.VoIPTrunk.com |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by kapil:I also think some of the other examples you give, lexis-nexis, choicepoint et al, are also egregious violations of privacy. There is entirely too much data about individuals that is within the control of corporations. That's the point I was getting at. What telcos do with position data may not be any different than what's happening with all kinds of consumer (and public record) information.
It doesn't bother me too much that such info is available. For example, an eviction or coverage database could save me money on rent or insurance because I've been responsible in both regards. But, it bothers me how these databases are privately owned, and often exist in multiple "background check" service providers. Even if you could find all your information, you have no rights over it (like, correcting derogatory information).
I think that impacts people in much more palpable ways than "Da man knows I hung out all day between the plasma donor and methadone treatment centers."
I think people get wound up about the wrong stuff.
Mark |
|
 NOVA_GuyObamaCare Kills AmericansPremium
join:2002-03-05 | reply to kapil
kapil,
I don't know that I would move my business away from Sprint if I were in your shoes. At least Sprint is being a little open about this and is willing to make a few public statements. Companies like Verizon and AT&T are doing this with their customers as well, but are not willing to speak about it in the slightest bit. Moving your business over to them just rewards their secrecy while punishing Sprint for their "openness". (Openness is a very loose term here, obviously.)
If you (like me) strongly object to this type of stuff, I would suggest that you consider communicating with your elected representatives and also contributing to organizations that take action to protect our privacy (like the EFF). These would be far more productive.
--
To all liberals: I am NOT one of your parents, so get the heck out of my wallet. It's time for you to grow up and take some personal responsibility for taking care of yourselves, which means not relying on the government to give it all to you. |
|
kapilThe Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL | said by NOVA_Guy:kapil, I don't know that I would move my business away from Sprint if I were in your shoes. At least Sprint is being a little open about this and is willing to make a few public statements. Companies like Verizon and AT&T are doing this with their customers as well, but are not willing to speak about it in the slightest bit. Moving your business over to them just rewards their secrecy while punishing Sprint for their "openness". (Openness is a very loose term here, obviously.) If you (like me) strongly object to this type of stuff, I would suggest that you consider communicating with your elected representatives and also contributing to organizations that take action to protect our privacy (like the EFF). These would be far more productive. I hear ya'. And quite frankly, I'm not even sure how much good taking my business elsewhere would do because, as you said, all other telcos are probably doing the same thing.
I don't think the statement made by the Sprint product manager was done in the spirit of being open about these things...I really think he said too much in front of what he felt was a friendly audience. I'm pretty sure he regrets it now and the story will be whitewashed by the PR police at Sprint soon enough.
You're right, addressing the matter with my elected representatives is the proper venue to air my grievance, but honestly A) I don't know how much good that will do since the democrats are obviously just as bad as the republicans on this matter and B) as important as this issue is, there are more pressing matters at hand like the economy, the two wars, healthcare etc.
--
»www.VoIPTrunk.com |
|
 imrfPremium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI | reply to NOVA_Guy
said by NOVA_Guy:Companies like Verizon and AT&T are doing this with their customers as well, but are not willing to speak about it in the slightest bit. And you know this for a fact of just a WAG?
Sprint had no choice to "being a little open" about this because they got busted doing it. Kiss their butt all you want, they're still a shady company. |
|
|
|
NOVA_GuyObamaCare Kills AmericansPremium
join:2002-03-05 | said by imrf:And you know this for a fact of just a WAG? From the last paragraph of Karl's article:
Wired's Threat Level blog goes on to note Yahoo and Verizon's legal objections to Soghoian's FOIA request, the companies defending limited disclosure of their surveillance activities because knowing the truth would "shock and confuse" customers, and "impair our reputation for protection of user privacy and security."
I'd say that this is a good indication that Verizon is in on the game as well. If Sprint and Verizon are doing it, there's a good bet that T-Mobile and AT&T aren't far behind either. I don't know for a fact, but call it an educated guess from someone who's basing it upon an informed opinion.
said by imrf:Sprint had no choice to "being a little open" about this because they got busted doing it. Kiss their butt all you want, they're still a shady company. No arguments from me on this point. I guess the main point of my previous post should be interpreted as "Don't think that moving from Sprint makes your GPS data any more private," rather than conveying that Sprint is so much nicer and more open than all the other companies.
--
To all liberals: I am NOT one of your parents, so get the heck out of my wallet. It's time for you to grow up and take some personal responsibility for taking care of yourselves, which means not relying on the government to give it all to you. |
|
imrfPremium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI | What I'm saying is that I doubt they are doing it as easily as Sprint is letting happen. |
|
NOVA_GuyObamaCare Kills AmericansPremium
join:2002-03-05 | If that's the case, Verizon and AT&T shouldn't be too concerned about hiding everything they're doing to cooperate with law enforcement agencies, IMO. They could very easily come out and say "We provide this on a limited basis" and outline what is required to access their data. Instead it appears that they're trying to obfuscate things.
Personally, I think that every American should have a right to know what's happening (or what could happen) with data like this. We should have a right to know who can obtain access to what data, and under what conditions it will be provided. We can call it a "customer bill of rights" or something similar.
Your thoughts?
--
To all liberals: I am NOT one of your parents, so get the heck out of my wallet. It's time for you to grow up and take some personal responsibility for taking care of yourselves, which means not relying on the government to give it all to you. |
|
imrfPremium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI | Yeah, a customer bill of rights should have been part of the bill that the previous administration passed. But alas, our government isn't "for the people" any more. |
|
 james
join:2001-02-26
CWCville USA | reply to kapil
said by kapil:Big brother is no longer just watching. He's moved into your house and is banging your wife! MY OWN BROTHER?! SAY IT AINT SO! 
--
said by Metatron2008:But people who download thousands of movies and games.... Yes, they are as bad as any murderer |
|
| reply to imrf
The simple fact that both Verizon and AT&T did wiretap for the government. You know it was big news months ago. Also you need to read up on CALEA. |
|
jsb825Premium
join:2003-10-08
Exeter, NH | reply to kapil
death to a puke company! |
|
 GeekJediRF is Good For YouPremium
join:2001-06-21
Mukwonago, WI
 ·CenturyLink
·VOIPo
| reply to kapil
said by kapil:Cell phone companies can activate a GPS module in a phone even if the phone has been powered off by the user. Source?
--
The goal of the broadcast engineer is to get all the meters on the transmitter to go as far to the right as possible!! |
|
 GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:16 | reply to kapil
A "ping" is not a request.
For example, if you get a GPS update every minute to track a phone, that's more than half a million "pings" in a year.
So, those 8 million requests might be as few as 16 phones. |
|
| reply to kapil
As long as warrants are obtained; or it is a 911 call; or the phone's owner OKs it(like giving the owner and bill payer the right even if the phone is used by an adult relative).
So far that appears to be the case. The only open question is how secure is the interface used to initiate the tracking(is it subject to auditing for hackers and rogue employees working with private dicks?) |
|
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:Is there a law requiring telcos to receive a warrant before releasing position information? I know they're subject to statutory damages if they release call records without a warrant (although there are a couple exceptions which have been discussed in the context of telcos assisting NSA). But, is position information protected the same way? I seem to recall that the courts hold call meta data (origination number, termination number, time of call, duration, etc), to a different standard than the contents of the call. I suspect GPS data falls into the meta data category. |
|
