| 911? You call 911 from your cell phone in your overturned car... do you want the authorities to track your location and find you? Or not? |
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Isn't that what OnStar is for 
Seriously though, an over turner car / 911 dial should not generate 'thousands' of pings. Tracking someone would.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
|
|
| reply to mlundin
said by mlundin:... do you want the authorities to track your location and find you? Or not? If I call them, then it is my choice - yes, I want them to find me.
If they track me without probable cause, or on some fishing expedition, then hell no. |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to en102
said by en102:Isn't that what OnStar is for Seriously though, an over turner car / 911 dial should not generate 'thousands' of pings. Tracking someone would. Yes, but how many people dial 911 from their Sprint cell phone? I bet it's an astronomical number. They have 50 million customers or so after all.
--
trafficcloak.com - pptp/sstp vpn services |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to eugenegill
YOUR OnStar is trackable.. they even show it on commercials when your vehicle is stolen.. I mean, in THAT case, it's great, but YOU are allowing the tracking, and that I'm okay with. |
|
 PhoenixDown-- Wants FIOSPremium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1 | reply to mlundin
I don't think any one has an issue with the legal and ethical use of GPS to locate an individual, except perhaps crooks and evil doers.
Most people just want assurances that adequate protections are in place to prevent the misuse of the service and if data is being turned over, its not wholesale (ala the ATT telco room issue).
Seems reasonable all around.
Its amazing what common sense and reason can do. 
--
~ Insert a Funny Sig Here ~ |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by PhoenixDown:Its amazing what common sense and reason can do. Agreed.
It's also amazing to me how little common sense and reason is applied when people think the government in any way whatsoever cares what they are doing or where they are. What further baffles me, is there is no evidence that any information like this has ever been misused. The same people who spaz out about issues like this, are probably the same ones who deride law enforcement for their ineffectiveness, yet have no problem stacking the deck against them.
Of course, I simply don't understand and probably don't deserve freedom nor liberty, incorrect Benjamin Franklin quote notifying me of this to appear in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...
--
trafficcloak.com - pptp/sstp vpn services |
|
Reviews:
 ·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to mlundin
said by mlundin:You call 911 from your cell phone in your overturned car... do you want the authorities to track your location and find you? Or not? Not if you were driving drunk.... |
|
Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | reply to eugenegill
said by eugenegill:If I call them, then it is my choice - yes, I want them to find me. If they track me without probable cause, or on some fishing expedition, then hell no. They track you only if they have judicial approval.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
|
|
bemis
join:2008-07-18
Reading, MA Reviews:
·Comcast
 ·Verizon FiOS
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to en102
said by en102:Seriously though, an over turner car / 911 dial should not generate 'thousands' of pings. Why not?
You dial 9-1-1, the automated systems don't know whether you are stationary because you crashed, or stationary because the kidnappers van is stopped at a light, so your location needs to be updated as regularly as possible.
I don't know how frequently the location data is transmitted back, but let's say once every second?
The average police response time--from 9-1-1 call to officer arriving--in Minneapolis in 2008 was 8 mins & 33 secs... that's over 500 pings there... now, for fire/ambulance calls it might be higher, people also call 9-1-1 as a replacement for poison control, etc...
Now let's factor in places like L.A., NYC, etc where the response times are probably considerably higher.
I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that an average 9-1-1 call might generate 1,000 hits to a location database. |
|
 NOVA_GuyObamaCare Kills AmericansPremium
join:2002-03-05 | reply to mlundin
This is an example of a good use of this data. No reasonable person would not want to be located in a time of personal emergency.
I would also argue that any time someone calls 911, they have no expectation of privacy. First, they are speaking with a government official in the process of him/her performing their official duty. (I would think that speaking with someone in this manner automatically removes any expectation of privacy.) Second, they are speaking on a recorded line (hence the beeps that are commonly heard every now and then). This should remove any expectation of privacy at all.
The issue that I, and I think many others, have is when any government agency quietly and secretly uses this type of data to track people without their knowledge or consent. To do this, agencies should be required to show probable cause to a judge and obtain a warrant; without this process there is nothing to prevent agencies from running amok wasting time, manpower, and resources while trampling our privacy rights.
The fourth amendment protects us from unreasonable search and seizure; I would expect that obtaining a massive dump of personal data (like location, cell phone number, etc.) would be included as part of the items protected under this. If so, agencies should be forced to go through the proper channels to perform any activity, no matter what the circumstance. Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I'd rather live in a nation that values privacy highly enough to let terrorists and criminals get away with activities rather than trample individual rights and eliminate privacy altogether.
I realize that's a rather extreme statement, and there are multitudes of shades of gray between the two positions. There is likely some happy middle ground that would satisfy the needs of all affected parties and agencies. But I feel strongly enough in personal liberties and privacy rights to support erring strongly on the side of caution. I forget who it was that said those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither-- but they hit the nail right on the head, IMHO.
--
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. |
|
 marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | reply to bemis
It's less than every second. More like every 15 or 30 seconds max. And in that scenario, only a small handful of pings would be requested. Active tracking of police equipment/personnel is going to be the big ping generator. |
|
NOVA_GuyObamaCare Kills AmericansPremium
join:2002-03-05 | reply to Romney2012
Are you sure this is the case? I'd like to have some assurances that agencies don't go on fishing expeditions, beyond your saying so...
Just looking at things that agencies like the TSA do to passengers in the airport leaves me feeling less than comfortable that our government would do the right thing here... and that's just one of probably dozens of examples that I (and others) could point out of government abuse of power.
I would really like to see Sprint release more info to back up their claim that privacy hasn't been trampled (the article says they will). I will give Sprint credit through all of this, though: they're being significantly more open than yesterday's article insinuated Verizon to be over this whole thing. (IIRC, Verizon essentially said their customers were too stupid to understand GPS tracking and not panic in the streets.)
--
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. |
|
Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | said by NOVA_Guy:Are you sure this is the case? and not panic in the streets.) It depends on locale. In most states, state constitutions require a search warrant. But Federal Courts so far have not required one. So I guess if the FBI is after you, they can use GPS to track you without a warrant.
»74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:KIo···=lang_en
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
|
|
NOVA_GuyObamaCare Kills AmericansPremium
join:2002-03-05 | reply to Matt
said by Matt:What further baffles me, is there is no evidence that any information like this has ever been misused. Given enough time, I'm sure some posters out here can find an article or two that would show this. While there are plenty of good people who work as law enforcement officers, we need to keep in mind that they are just people... which means they're prone to make mistakes, let their judgment be affected by emotions at times, etc., etc.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that there was a cop or two (or FBI agent or two, etc., etc.) who used their authority to track a loved one/significant other who they suspected of cheating on them or doing something else. Where there is potential to misuse something, there is likely someone somewhere who is misusing it.
It is this fundamental need of checks and balances that requires law enforcement to go through a judge, present probable cause, and obtain a court order before getting this data. Unfortunately things don't always work out that way-- especially with the destruction of our privacy that things like the PATRIOT Act have created.
--
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. |
|
NOVA_GuyObamaCare Kills AmericansPremium
join:2002-03-05 | reply to Romney2012
So, to be clear, your statement prior to this one only covers requirement for state and local police agencies...
That's not particularly assuring, considering that the agencies most people are likely concerned about abuse with are run by the federal government. 
But I suppose if they can tap our overseas conversations without permission and court supervision, I shouldn't be surprised when they can abuse their powers even closer to home...  
Hopefully the court will rule in the favor of privacy and decide that GPS location data is covered by the fourth amendment.
--
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. |
|
 davoice
join:2000-08-12
Saxapahaw, NC
·Comporium
| reply to Matt
said by Matt:What further baffles me, is there is no evidence that any information like this has ever been misused. On the same token, there is no evidence the information was used correctly.
That's the rub here. There is no public accountability in the process. As governments worldwide, not just ours, have constantly proven throughout history, government actions are not inherently moral. Thus there should be checks and balances to each granted power. The founding fathers knew this... hence our own 3 branches of government.
}Davoice |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to NOVA_Guy
I am in no way stating there shouldn't be checks and balances, I'm referring more to the people who start screaming that the sky is falling and how dare the ability to do this even exist.
As to the Fourth Amendment, it only applies to things that qualify as a reasonable expectation of privacy and furthermore, you must make an effort to ensure that expectation is met. In other words, if you leave GPS enabled on your phone and then try an invoke the Fourth Amendment as protection from a law enforcement officer using that information, you're up the creek because you didn't take reasonable steps to protect your own privacy.
--
trafficcloak.com - pptp/sstp vpn services |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to davoice
said by davoice:said by Matt:What further baffles me, is there is no evidence that any information like this has ever been misused. On the same token, there is no evidence the information was used correctly. That's the rub here. There is no public accountability in the process. As governments worldwide, not just ours, have constantly proven throughout history, government actions are not inherently moral. Thus there should be checks and balances to each granted power. The founding fathers knew this... hence our own 3 branches of government. }Davoice Karl didn't quote this part of the blog post, so it bears including here:
said by Sprint :
Instances where law enforcement agencies seek customer location information include exigent or emergency circumstances such as Amber Alert events, criminal investigations, or cases where a Sprint customer consents to sharing location information.
I'm apt to trust them in this case and when a violation occurs, move forward with appropriate actions. I find it rather ironic that everyone wants to champion the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but then state, rather plainly to the contrary, that law enforcement is guilty until proven innocent.
--
trafficcloak.com - pptp/sstp vpn services |
|
 HangmnDon't Fight It...It's InevitablePremium
join:2000-04-08
Philadelphia, PA | reply to PhoenixDown
said by PhoenixDown:I don't think any one has an issue with the legal and ethical use of GPS to locate an individual, except perhaps crooks and evil doers. Most people just want assurances that adequate protections are in place to prevent the misuse of the service and if data is being turned over, its not wholesale (ala the ATT telco room issue). Seems reasonable all around. Its amazing what common sense and reason can do. Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin
--
»davescustompc.com |
|
