Sprint Defuses GPS Privacy Media Bomb By simply talking about it with the press... Earlier this week Sprint found itself at the center of a privacy firestorm, after a blogger posted an audio recording of a Sprint executive discussing a new Sprint portal designed to easily hand off GPS-tracking data to authorities. Whereas some companies simply would have clammed up and cited national security, Sprint decided to address the claims head on and has been talking with all media outlets (and us) about what happened. They've also posted a blog entry dissecting the original claims that Sprint handed over subscriber data 8 million times in a little over a year: The comments made by a Sprint corporate security officer during a recent conference have been taken out of context by this blogger. Specifically, the '8 million' figure, which the blogger highlights in his email and blog post, has been grossly misrepresented. The figure does not represent the number of customers whose location information was provided to law enforcement, as this blogger suggests.
Instead, the figure represents the number of individual 'pings' for specific location information, made to the Sprint network as part of a series of law enforcement investigations and public safety assistance requests during the past year. It's critical to note that a single case or investigation may generate thousands of individual pings to the network as the law enforcement or public safety agency attempts to track or locate an individual. Sprint still hasn't divulged how many unique individuals they've tracked during that time, but is telling bloggers and the press the actual location attempts are in the "thousands," and that they will be releasing additional data. That's a nice change from similar privacy stories of this type, which result in the companies involved clamming up, the paranoid filling in the blanks, and everybody going home angry. Still, it makes sense that privacy advocates are demanding total transparency and guaranteed accountability for the process Sprint's using. At the same time, people who understand how modern networks (and the NSA) work realize the idea of any real telecom privacy died a long, long time ago.
|
 | | 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 | Re: 911? 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 | |
| | |  MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: 911? 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 | |
| | | bemis
join:2008-07-18
Stoneham, MA Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Sprint Mobile Br..
| 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. | |
| | | |  marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | Re: 911? 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. | |
|
| | dagg
join:2001-03-25
Galt, CA | 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. you're right, but how many times do you call 911 from your cell phone in a given year?
in the last year, i have had to call 911 for different things twice. not a lot in a given year, but that counts for at least 2 of these pings but im only one customer.
the year before that i used 911 4 times in the year (that i remember).
and how many "pings" does that even count as anyway? we dont know... could be 1 could be 5...
that leaves me with the following thoughts. 8 million in the given situation is not that big a number
and
you knowingly bought a phone with a gps chip in it... what exactly did you THINK was going to happen? | |
|
| | | 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. | |
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: 911? 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. | |
| | |  ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 | 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
| |
| | | |  NOVA_GuyObamaCare Kills AmericansPremium
join:2002-03-05 | Re: 911? 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. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  james
join:2001-02-26
CWCville USA | Re: 911? said by NOVA_Guy: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. I know it's your sig, and I'm being off topic, but why is your sig only directed at liberals? I'm a Libertarian, so can I have your money? If not, maybe you should direct your sig to everyone and not just liberals.
--
said by Metatron2008:But people who download thousands of movies and games.... Yes, they are as bad as any murderer | |
| | | | | | | | NOVA_GuyObamaCare Kills AmericansPremium
join:2002-03-05 | Re: 911? Libertarians aren't actively supporting the health care highway robbery being discussed in Congress. They also aren't actively supporting legislation loosely coupled with the climate change conspiracy that supports mass wealth transfers to people around the world. Libertarians also aren't trying to raise taxes and expand the size of government.
My signature is aimed at the primary group of people who support the above policies, hence the mention of liberals.
--
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. | |
|
| | | | | | Crysin
join:2009-07-26
Wauconda, IL
1 edit | I know i'm going to get flamed for asking, but why is it you care so much that your government is tracking you? Sure it may not be right, but you seem outright paranoid about it. If the FBI is going to track you, they're not going to go just randomly choose, they're going to be tracking people with high level interest, not the average joe on the street.
Also remember you choosing to by the product that Sprint or whoever is offering, by you choosing that product, i think it's unfair to complain about what they do with their product, that they service, that you chose to buy. | |
| | | | | | | | Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| Re: 911? said by Crysin:but you seem outright paranoid about it. This always happens. There's always a group who focus on how changes in technology empower government. But, they want everyone to ignore how changes in technology have empowered us as individuals too. It's a balancing act. But, to the complainers, all they see is one-sided government growth.
Things like global travel, global communication, weapon improvements, etc., have all improved our rights as individuals. My freedom of movement is enhanced compared to the guy in 1776 who had to spend 2-3 weeks on a boat to sail to Europe.
My freedom of speech is improved because I can publish my views to anyone using the internet. I'm exposed to a variety of views which I wouldn't have had access to in 1775.
My freedom of association is improved because I can pick up a phone and call anyone (instead of spending the day on horseback, to travel 10 miles to my friend's house).
These all improve our political rights. And, they impose new challenges to the orderly exercise of rights which the founding generation couldn't even imagine.
The people who complain about how government has taken on more power as a result of these improvements completely ignore how our own political power and autonomy has improved. They act like we're standing still, losing rights. They don't count how our rights have improved tremendously (and, as a result, created challenges that also improve government power).
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | "why is it you care so much that your government is tracking you? Sure it may not be right, but you seem outright paranoid about it."
Some people are more sensitive about their privacy than others. I'm old enough that I am one of them. I think it's a generational thing. Younger people seem to have less concern about the feeling that they may be monitored constantly, seem to crave attention and fame and to be more exhibitionistic than in the past. I think these things are related.
"If the FBI is going to track you, they're not going to go just randomly choose, they're going to be tracking people with high level interest,"
This is a question of what is technically feasible. As technology progresses and it becomes possible, and relatively inexpensive, to track everyone 24 hours a day the government will do it. I'm not saying this because I'm a paranoid person, nor am I an anti-government right winger in case you were wondering. I'm saying this because it is the nature of power and the human desire for ever increasing control by those who have it. | |
| | | | | | | | | marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | Re: 911? said by asdfdfdfdfdf :
This is a question of what is technically feasible. As technology progresses and it becomes possible, and relatively inexpensive, to track everyone 24 hours a day the government will do it. While it will reach that point some day, we are still a long ways away. Our county does GPS tracking of our vehicle fleet (ironically through a different Sprint portal). The combined space-time coordinate + metadata is not that small, but when you record it every 30 seconds (even tossing out the zero movement points) for a big enough fleet, it rapidly builds up. Even now we only have enough storage to store about 7 days before we have to toss it. While it might be possible to track anyone, tracking everyone and retaining the information still is a ways off.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
| | | | | | | | | | NOVA_GuyObamaCare Kills AmericansPremium
join:2002-03-05 | Re: 911? Hopefully our government will never have this capability. If it has, we've let it go too far. Unfortunately at that point it will likely be impossible for us to also consider measures to limit and/or reduce its power.
Perhaps the time will come when more people will realize the danger of giving too much freedom and power to others in the name of "safety" or "security". But as long as the Facebook/Twitter/MySpace social networking crowd continues down the "Look at me! Pictures of my drunken state as last night's party!" path, I fear that won't happen. The problem with giving everybody their 15 minutes of fame, is that everybody has 15 minutes of fame.
--
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. | |
|
| | | | | | |  VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA
 ·Verizon FiOS
| said by Crysin:I know i'm going to get flamed for asking, but why is it you care so much that your government is tracking you? Because we want our privacy which we are guaranteed to have unless the government has a legal warrant to back up their search
Would you want the government searching your house/car because they think you may have something?
I have nothing illegal in either but no, I don't want cops/agents searching through my stuff without an actual legal reason | |
| | | | | | | | NOVA_GuyObamaCare Kills AmericansPremium
join:2002-03-05 | said by Crysin:I know i'm going to get flamed for asking, but why is it you care so much that your government is tracking you? Because I care about my privacy, even though I may have nothing to hide. And because, philosophically, I believe that our government must be kept on the shortest leash possible and given only enough limited power to perform its most essential functions.
Since security is an essential function, I support our government having the ability to monitor people. But since this ability-- like all things-- is subject to abuse and misuse, I believe that its use should be strictly monitored and audited.
I am not opposed to the technology, per se. I am opposed to having a system that blindly trusts that the technology will not be abused.
Law enforcement officers are people too, which means they're subject to making mistakes, being emotional, and going on power and ego trips. If close tabs were not kept on the ability to monitor GPS cell phone locators, I could easily see an officer or two who thinks his wife/significant other is cheating on him abusing the system to track their movements. Those types of actions not only hurt the targeted victim; they hurt law enforcement, as public trust in their ability to protect decreases. (I am a firm believer that the protect part of "protect and serve" includes protecting everyone's rights.)
said by Crysin:Sure it may not be right, but you seem outright paranoid about it. Perhaps there are reasons for being paranoid about government abusing its power. Waco and Ruby Ridge come to mind as two extreme examples of said abuse. The Rodney King beating comes to mind as another.
While there is admittedly a big difference between beating/killing innocent civilians and merely tracking them, I would still argue that there are a number of people in government who routinely abuse their power. Providing them with another tool that makes it even easier is not something I'm in favor of.
said by Crysin:If the FBI is going to track you, they're not going to go just randomly choose, they're going to be tracking people with high level interest, not the average joe on the street. I would certainly hope so. But I do not share your blind faith that this is (or will always be) the case. We give our government a considerable amount of power over our lives. This power should come with significant accountability, a very short leash, and harsh penalties for abuse. Unfortunately in today's world the accountability, short leash, and still penalty portion of my opinion does not appear to be reality.
said by Crysin:Also remember you choosing to by the product that Sprint or whoever is offering, by you choosing that product, i think it's unfair to complain about what they do with their product, that they service, that you chose to buy. I've chosen to purchase a product provided by Sprint, which means I've chosen to buy their service. This service does not include the right to disseminate private, personal information about customers at will-- which is essentially what is being done.
I suppose you would be opposed to releasing customer credit card and Social Security number information to the general public by Sprint. I also suppose you would be opposed to releasing your private cell phone number to the public by Sprint. (I know I would be.) Other private, personal information-- such as GPS tracking information that show where I am and where I've been-- should remain confidential as well.
A system needs to be put in place to ensure that it does, by monitoring and recording requests for information, and tracking when and how such requests are fulfilled. Ideally, data from the monitoring system (about who is requesting what information) should be accessible to the public. This would appear to be the most direct method of ensuring that abuse of the GPS tracking data system does not occur.
--
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. | |
|
| |  Augustus IIIIf Only Rome Could See Us Now....
join:2001-01-25
Gainesville, GA | said by eugenegill: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. Thank you. | |
|
|  PhoenixDown-- Wants FIOSPremium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1 | 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 |  Re: 911?
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 | |
| | | | NOVA_GuyObamaCare Kills AmericansPremium
join:2002-03-05 | Re: 911? 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. | |
| | | | | MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: 911? 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 | |
| | | | | | | | Re: 911? said by Matt: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. So pray tell what reasonable steps I need to take to protect my privacy, while still retaining the ability to use my phone GPS?
I look forward to your reply. | |
| | | | | | | MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: 911? said by eugenegill:said by Matt: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. So pray tell what reasonable steps I need to take to protect my privacy, while still retaining the ability to use my phone GPS? I look forward to your reply. They are mutually exclusive. In other words, you can't. If you want to use your phone's GPS you give up that right.
--
trafficcloak.com - pptp/sstp vpn services | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: 911? said by Matt:said by eugenegill:So pray tell what reasonable steps I need to take to protect my privacy, while still retaining the ability to use my phone GPS? They are mutually exclusive. In other words, you can't. If you want to use your phone's GPS you give up that right. You have just trashed the 4th Amendment. If your opinion of the Constitution coincides with that of just a single person in Government, then these are sad days indeed. | |
| | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: 911? said by eugenegill:You have just trashed the 4th Amendment. If your opinion of the Constitution coincides with that of just a single person in Government, then these are sad days indeed. The 4th amendment doesn't require anyone I choose to do business with to treat my information privately. That's a function of the conditions I set forth as part of them doing business with me.
Why do you believe otherwise?
Mark | |
|
| | | | | | | NOVA_GuyObamaCare Kills AmericansPremium
join:2002-03-05 | I really wish that the market would start offering phones without any sort of GPS capability-- even when calling 911. Not being able to be precisely located in an emergency is a risk I'll happily take if that's what needs to happen to retain some degree of privacy.
--
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. | |
| | | | | | | | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
 ·Cox HSI
·T-Mobile US
| said by Matt:They are mutually exclusive. In other words, you can't. If you want to use your phone's GPS you give up that right. The phone's GPS is not under your control. Whether you use Wayfinder/Google Maps/whatever makes no difference regarding the ability of the network to track you.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  | |
|
| | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
2 edits | said by Matt: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. Exactly. In a business transaction, the only expectation of privacy is what's contained in the agreement/contract. If I contract with a landscaper, there's nothing preventing him from disclosing any info he learns about me. Unless I require an NDA (or, part of his contract says he offers confidentiality).
Even then, it's not a 4th amendment issue. It's civil/contractual.
In some cases we have a universal umbrella privacy agreement, like the federal law which imposes statutory civil penalties against telcos for releasing call records except under a few defined circumstances.
Even that's not a 4th amendment issue. It's more like how copyright statutorily imposes a universal contract upon business relationships.
It would only be a 4th amendment issue if an LEO forcefully searched my landscaper's office for information about me without a warrant. (Improperly obtained evidence.). Otherwise, if my landscaper releases info voluntarily it would only be a civil matter between me and my landscaper (assuming I had an agreement with him to keep my details private).
So, I think the important question is whether existing federal law treats position data the same as call records. If not, should people start a movement to press for that kind of statutory protection?
Otherwise, it's a matter of consensual consumer relationships. If telcos don't put privacy in their customer agreement, it's because they don't have to. Not enough people are worried about it to leave, and reward a telco that does.
Mark | |
| | | | | | |  VigThread-safe since 1997Premium
join:2004-03-23
San Diego, CA | Re: 911? said by amigo_boy:So, I think the important question is whether existing federal law treats position data the same as call records. If not, should people start a movement to press for that kind of statutory protection? This is exactly the question to ask. It's a long-established legal principle that people have an "expectation of privacy" in their phone conversations even though phone service is nothing more than a "consensual consumer relationship" with the phone company. There is not a long-standing precedent for location data because it only recently became commonplace for everyone to carry a potential tracking device.
It would be in keeping with the spirit of the 4th amendment if all these new streams of data were to be considered part of a reasonable expectation of privacy unless otherwise ruled for a compelling reason. Until there's enough body of law to establish precedent, though, there will be great pressure from business interests and law enforcement to maintain a free-for-all use of such data because it makes it easier to achieve their goals. | |
|
| | |  davoice
join:2000-08-12
Saxapahaw, NC
·Comporium
| 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 | Re: 911? 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 | |
| | | | | | | | Re: 911? Law enforcement is an agency of the state, so of course it is they that must be held publicly accountable and guilty until proven innocent.
To do otherwise is why our country is so screwed right now; people have way to much trust in the State (slowly waning, however).
And, with all of the instances of police abuse, lying, and criminality amongst their ranks that are covered-up, ignored, and, in some cases, defended it is best to not trust the state and its agents | |
|
| | | VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Well, I think people like myself worry that this is the start of some sort of ball-rolling-down-a-hill effect where this leads to more invasion of privacy to something else to something else
I have done nothing wrong and if the government hears my conversations, they must be pretty damn bored of my work.
But I still don't like the idea that me telling my family something is being heard by someone because they THINK I did another crime | |
|
| |  HangmnDon't Fight It...It's InevitablePremium
join:2000-04-08
Philadelphia, PA | 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 | |
| | | | MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: 911? said by Hangmn: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 I called it.
»Re: 911?
--
trafficcloak.com - pptp/sstp vpn services | |
| | | | | HangmnDon't Fight It...It's InevitablePremium
join:2000-04-08
Philadelphia, PA | Re: 911? said by Matt:said by Hangmn: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 I called it. » Re: 911? Too bad my quote and response had absolutely nothing to do with your post
--
»davescustompc.com | |
|
| | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by Hangmn:Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin A couple things to keep in mind:
1. Franklin can be quoted for just about any position. Just 3-4 years before the revolution he was in England, writing letters about John Wilkes a very popular politician who was imprisoned and elected to parliament three times from prison. His supporters were rioting over his treatment by the king.
Franklin criticized them as deserving a horrible fate. He praised King George as the best King England had ever had. That was just 3-4 years before it became fashionable in the colonies to rail against the King in the same way Wilkes and his supporters were doing.
2. Franklin's quote was first published in 1755, and republished 20 years later (5-6 years after the Wilkes episode mentioned above). Just 12 years after that, the founding generation was fed up with the relatively libertarian life under the Articles of Confederation, and wanted a vastly more powerful constitutional federal government in 1789.
Franklin was a Federalist. He argued in favor of giving up some liberty in exchange for safety.
Mark | |
|
| Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Optimum Online
| 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.... | |
| | NOVA_GuyObamaCare Kills AmericansPremium
join:2002-03-05 | 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. | |
| | | | 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? My cell is so old that i don't have 911 chip. | |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | My issue with this.. ... I don't believe, for ANY REASON WHAT SO EVER, that our own personal property should be able to be used to track ANYONE for ANY REASON, PERIOD!
Either way, I have the GPS in my phone turned off anyway. Let them use the towers and try to get close..
And yea, I could care less just how much of a criminal someone is.. there is always a trade off to everything.. we're only in the real beginning of technology and future predictions are already coming true.. I don't care to allow my government the ability to EASILY use and abuse this type of information.. WE control the government, not the other way around.
Why not chip everyone and just get it over with already? | |
| |
See 7 replies to this post | |
1 edit | HA ! BINGO ! just as I thought (and posted)
"public safety assistance requests" aka 911 calls.
that was probably 7.9 million of the requests
quote:
Either way, I have the GPS in my phone turned off anyway. Let them use the towers and try to get close..
If that works for you - great. just don't try and sue some public safety entity when you call 911 on your cell and nobody responds...
--
3500/512 5.7 GHz Motorola Canopy Wireless; FoxValley.net
'It looks just like a Telefunken U47 !' | |
| |
See 8 replies to this post | |
| | Guns and GPS This is a similar debate to gun ownership. Guns by themselves are fine, misusing them is not so much. However you have to have guns in order to misuse them so the question is should we have them.
Similarly GPS enabled networked mobile devices (aka, your phone, laptop, car, boat, etc.) enable misuse. You have to trust that your network provider and law enforcement will not misuse it.
For some reason very few devices offer a true hardware off switch that gives you the option for disabling any of the location technology. Just "turn off" your phone and set it next to some amplified speakers. Chances are you'll still here the interference of the device calling back to the mothership.
>> Ramble off. | |
| | | Erroneous use of GPS tracking [random rant mode=on]
Lets say I have a Spring phone of which the telephone number originally belonged to a dead-beat dad/mom. While failure to pay child support is still a civil, not criminal, case - the potential to get caught up in the draconian dead-beat laws are scary.
I don't mind law enforcement having the tools to do their job. I do have an issue with the data being misused - but of course our government agencies would never do anything like that.
[return to normal broadcasting=yes] | |
|  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Privacy Is Your Responsibility Too Someone who uses a cell phone, which by its very nature communicates your location to the phone company, and then complains about a lack of privacy, is being silly.
If you really value your privacy that much, don't use a cell phone, period.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
| | | | Re: Legitimate Concerns The Freedom of Information Act wouldn't apply to Sprint as its not a government entity. Users could start a fishing expedition on all the government entities you can think of and find out if you are being tracked.
Perhaps would create a website for for private citizens to query this... | |
|
MTUPremium
join:2005-02-15
San Luis Obispo, CA Reviews:
·AT&T Yahoo
| Bliss Judging by the 'expertise' residing at 'dsl.reports' you must no-doubt recognize that we live in an environment where info is money & power. In the late 90's I convinced my 'agency' to subscribe with 'Choicepoint' . Amazing how much info was available pre-cellphone dominance. Gleaned from sweepstakes entries and local govt' files, it was useful and a bit unnerving. It's grown, out of control, to be 'just part of life'.
Cellphones have become a cash cow (as opposed to being solely useful) based upon the vanity/gimmick factor of the "y" gen. They have also become a fall-back (easy) tool for LE or all sorts.
After military folks assigned to the NSA (to monitor 'Al qaeda' sat-phones) disclosed that they'd been listening int to, and recording, ALL sat-phone conversations worldwide, and that the recordings were ALL maintained, there is no doubt that it is open season on all data. | |
| | | | Re: Bliss I guess there is some good news from a phone that the aGPS says that i am in Latvia. Kind of hard for the NSA to know where I am when my phone doesn't. | |
|
| |
|
|
