Slashdot Mirror
Privacy in the Woods?
Rorschach1 asks: "I work with a local Search and Rescue team, and for some time I've been thinking about the possibility of installing sensors at a few critical trail junctions in the local back country. The sensors would detect passing hikers and report timestamps to an Internet gateway in near real-time. When a hiker goes missing, this information could be very valuable in determining where search efforts should be directed.
However, I've spent enough time on Slashdot to know that whenever you start monitoring or tracking people and their activities, someone's going to get upset. So I'd like to hear from the tinfoil hat brigade - what are your objections to such a system, and how might your concerns be addressed?"
I wouldn't have a single objection if it was a voluntary system. Make it known that you offer the service and have them wear some sort of tag that would be detected by the system (make sure it's light and not physically intrusive). It could even have a unique ID (which could be disabled at the request of the hiker).
I don't think I would have much of an objection to one being in place as long as there is no requirement for a permit to be camping/hiking in the park. If you are able to place a specific hiker in the area to the timestamps then that's too intrusive for me. I get out into the woods to get away from people. I don't want people being able to track me in real time out there. I really don't see a need for it either.
I would have serious reservations unless someone made sure that the statistics are kept private, very, very, very private. Who knows what person would have access to it (not everyone in law enforcement is all that friendly). Say they notice a hiker *alone*? They could go out there and get a good idea of where the person might be headed (or staying). Knowing where the points are for tracking they themselves might be able to bushwhack around the sensors and do things I don't care to mention.
As long as your sensor isn't a video camera of some sort, the anonymity of the technology should be fine for most.
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
It isn't as though it would be idintifying the people, it would just know someone/thing passed there. I don't see any privacy issues with something like an IR beam that logs traffic on the trail.
Douglas P. Price
You'll be tracking more deer than humans I imagine
I'd rather see that the forest remains the sole place where one can escape all that resembles modern technology, society etc. It's really one of the few places left where one can go to be completely alone and unreachable. Don't touch my forest.
Are you detecting that a hiker passed a specific location, or that a specific hiker passed a specific location? If the former, it's no different from loop detectors in roads that count the number of cars. If the latter, well, it needs to be voluntary. Just like you can decide to take emergency flares and a radio with you hiking, you can decide to sign up for the tracking system or not.
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
Instead of tracking hikers on trails with sensors (and how do you know it's a hiker anyway, and not a bear/deer/extraterrestrial?), offer hikers the ability to check-out an emergency transponder that they can turn on if they need assistance. Hell, you could even offer it as a service that people might be willing to pay for, and that would offset your equipment costs.
I say forget the sensors. Let the weak ones die. One day they'll be fossils for future earth inhabitants to discover. You know that the majority of the fossils we found to date are the stupid animals of long ago. Just look at lebrea as one example.
So I'd like to hear from the tinfoil hat brigade
Why do you attempt to make fun of people who have serious concerns about their privacy?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Those with tin hats would rather die in a snow storm them anyone know where they are.
Give me a break. Its a life saving tool. It would not know who the hiker was so I say screw it. If they don't like it let them go get lost somewhere else..
Since in this case they do have a choice.. Your not forcing them to walk down your monitored trail, they are choosing to do it on there own then forget it.
I would be midly surprised if you had one person go home because they where afraid you might be able to track them when the next snow storm hits and there to stupid to come back.
Personal Website
As a card carrying member of the local chapter of the Atlanta Georgia Tin Foil Hats of America (AGTFHA), I have absolutely no problem with your proposal. So long as it's voluntary. In fact I have even a low-tech solution. Put up weather protected boxes on poles. Let them (who don't have a GPS) write their name, date and time on a sign in sheet. You don't have to spend a bunch of tax payers money (we need it all for Bushies holy war), they (your backpackers) don't have to have high-tech equipment. Simple solution. Participate if you want. Sign in at strategic points and if you get lost we'll have an idea of where to start looking.
This is assuming your campers do what I've had to do every time I've gone to the back country. Is to sign in, give member counts, get fire permits, etc... Inform them to sign in at each box and explain why. They do or they don't.
Somehow this isn't a tin hat problem for me and I'll even show you my card.
-[d]-
Going for a walk in the woods is one of the few escapes from the intrusions of modern society still available.
Leave the control over information disclosure in the hands of the hiker. Let them take a cell phone, leave an itinerary with a friend, start a fire if they're in trouble. Besides, if you really need to find people you can get the police helicopter with IR sensors to comb the woods with your search and rescue team in an emergency.
I know you mean well, but this is where you ought to let people assume special risks and precious responsibilities - Don't take them away so lightly.
Rather, put your efforts into an education program for students. How to enjoy the woods, hike safely, avoid hypothermia, etc. Sponsor some hikes and let them get a feel for how wonderful it is to be in the wilderness away from civilization.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
If you save one life with this system, you could flush all those complaints down the toilet.
What if an animal were to cross a beam? Or if a transmitter fell down, or stopped reporting? You'd still be searching all over the place to try to find the missing person.
I think the better approach would be, as some users have suggested, voluntary RFID tags, or maybe "help" buttons installed in highly visible and easily accessible locations.
Funny, I was about to demolish your house since it was a blight on the land. Y'know. Just in my personal opinion, which, of course, makes it okay to destroy property.
If you're ripping down private garbage that was put on public land, fine. But if you're ripping down shit that my tax dollars paid to put up on public land, and will pay to repair after you decide that your word is suddenly law, I'd really appreciate it if you could stick your head in the toilet and flush it a few times.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
So I'd like to hear from the tinfoil hat brigade - what are your objections to such a system, and how might your concerns be addressed?
This is less of a tin-foil hat issue and more of your idea being redundant and a waste of money. First off, hikers are already tracked. Before you go on any long distance hike, you should typically sign in at a local ranger station. These are usually where the best drop-off points and parking lots are. Plus, it's just good to be face to face with a ranger before hitting the woods. At least then, they will have a face in memory, just in case you turn up missing.
Anyway, tax dollars are already being spent on tracking hikers through a paper log, there is no benefit to doing it digitally, and considering costs of managing the electronic system, it's pointless and doesn't deserve much attention.
No offense, just an honest thought on the issue. I grow weary of people searching for technical solutions to mundane things that can be done better through arcane methods.
In other words -- "Keep it simple, stupid."
EPIRB.
Let me carry one or not, as I choose. If I wish to go out in the woods alone and get lost, that's my business.
If I wished to be tracked I'll carry a beacon, simple as that.
Having someone to come after me if I get in trouble is one thing. Having my mommy watch me all the time to make sure I don't get into trouble is another.
KFG
Just to be a devil's advocate and put a voice of realism into a proposal such as this.
Any system that did not require hikers to wear a tag would be suseptible to a rediculous number of false positives from weather and wildlife (the IR sensor going off in a hail or dust storm, or a squirrel walking by).
As well, even a system that required hikers to wear tags would require huge amounts of maintenance.... cleaning things, aligning them in case the ground moved or the sensors were kicked or misaligned due to the weather or wildlife...
A better solution, IMHO would be to put solar powered, battery assisted radio type call boxes at intersections. A simple button push and hikers could be in touch with a ranger or with help of some sort.
A few years ago I went hiking in Vermont and came across a campsite where someone had left a notebook in a somewhat weather-resistant box. There was a note attached encouraging people coming through the area to leave their names and the date/time and any comments they felt like leaving. (Mostly folks saying who they were and where they were from, but a few were inspired to write some poetry.)
Putting similar logbooks at your "critical trail junctions" would probably fit your needs while remaining completely voluntary. Plus you wouldn't have to worry about a power supply.
And yeah, yeah, yeah. Go ahead and make your own joke about how amazing it is to find someone on /. who goes hiking without coercion. :-p
There's obvious answers to this "Ask Slashdot" like "keep it voluntary," but perhaps giving people technological security blankets for outdoorsmanship is actually a disservice? I remember reading an article a while back how cell phones have become, paradoxically, both a lifesaver for lost hikers, and a bane for search and rescue teams. The problem is that novice hikers/climbers push themselves farther than their abilities because they feel like they can just fall back on their cell phones if they get stuck--and they do. People overextend themselves either physically or in terms of terrain, and then waste search & rescue resources by calling in for an extraction. One example in this article was a hiking party that just got "too tired" and didn't feel like recouping for the return trip. The first step in not getting stuck in the wilderness is adequate training and knowing your limits, not simply constructing a better (and more abusable) safety net.
But if no one happens to need it, does that invalidate its usefulness? People don't like making long-term investments... the same apparently goes with forward thinking.
"What are you doing?"
"I'm scaring away the elephants."
"But there are no elephants here!"
"See? It's working!"
"If a hiker gets lost, that's their problem."
Damn straight! We have GPS, cell phones, CB/SW radio, portable emergency beacons, maps and compasses. The last thing we need is another excuse for the terminally stupid to avoid taking responsibility for their own safety. So what if a few morons die? Thats evolution at work.
I agree that the point of wilderness is that its just that: wilderness. If people want to be safe and sound, either take precautions (like never hike alone, which is a basic one) or STAY AT HOME.
Wrap yourself in cotton wool if you want, but leave the world alone. damn it!
Deer, elk, moose, etc. will frequent those trails more than humans will. (They get out of the way when they hear us coming). You'll get a bunch of traffic on your sensors at dusk and dawn. I don't think you'll have very good data - too much noise.
-=-=-=-=- osjedi uses Debian GNU/Linux. -=-=-=-=-
what else can I say.
I guess if the person you are with also gets seriously injured, the man upstairs is sending you a message.
The "safer society" club of America is getting in my way of having a good time.
I do not want you to look out for me, watch over me, make sure I don't smoke in a bar. I do not need you to tell me my kids should wear helmets on bikes, nor do I require your input on just how much protective gear I should wear when I use my weed whacker on the lawn. I certainly do not reuquire you and your supporters forcing my car to have things like a GPS (in case I get lost, yes, I know) or insisting that my cell phone can be found in the middle of the Mojave (for that one in 100 million of us who stumbles headlong into the barren desert, sure).
We, the free thinking and self-aware people of north America are really sick and fucking tired of you looking out for us. We are not your children nor your keep. Please kindly fuck off and take your mother-hen make the world a safer place excuse for butting into my lifestyle back into your own living room where it squarly belongs.
A society without risks is a society who cannot place a tangible value on the rewards afforded to some risk takers.
-- RLJ
For a lot of people, the woods is where you can be Not monitored, where you Are at risk of getting lost or getting mauled by a bear. That's the point. Putting these in makes it the "woods-with extra-monitoring".
Sure I might get killed but then, I knew that when I was going in there...
If it's
1) voluntary
2) works
then fine. I'd wonder how you'd power and maintain electronics in areas I know where it can be 110 in the sun or -50F in winter.
It might be something as simple as giving hikers (for a $10 deposit) an iButton that they touch to a box. It records the number and time and that's all. No invasion. Now, if the bottom camp knows that $THIS 64bit number is associated with that party, then they know that they passed and tagged this box. And it's all voluntary.
My experience is that you'd have better luck(?) or results(?) by simply making sure hikers have a MAP and a COMPASS.
A cellphone and a GPS is nice, but too many search and rescues are for the stupid. "My, um, GPSs batteries ran out" or better:
idiot: "I'm precisely HERE."
forest servce: "And do you know where the trail is from THERE?"
idiot: "Um, I (don't have|can't read) a map."
On the plus side, at least some states are charging idiots. If you don't have basics, and need to get your ass rescued, you're liable for 10s of thousands of dollars of rescue. (ever fly a helicopter at night in the rain/snow to find someone in shorts, without a map who's calling on the cell phone? It happens.)
In short, technology will not solve the problem where the basics are missing. I say: Let them evolve.
Why do you attempt to make fun of people who have serious concerns about their privacy?
Come on? It's called sarcasm! If he gave a rats ass about privacy - and therefore people who have serious concerns about their privacy - he wouldn't have submitted this would he? So he's entitled, IMO. :-)
For the record, I'm concerned about my privacy, but I still found the "tinfoil hat brigade" pretty funny.
zWhat would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
I have a personal policy that if I see anything manmade in the woods other than a basic signpost, it comes down.
I hope you are not stupid enough to pull down flagging tape. SAR teams use that constantly during searches to mark areas that have been searched, need searched, etc.
Finkployd
It's not about privacy. It's about preserving nature. The last thing I want to see when I'm alone in the woods is another piece of electronic junk. Natural areas are there for a reason.
As far as risk goes... if you're worried about getting lost or hurt, don't go in the woods. Go on a "hike" in a local park with paved "paths". If I fall down and get hurt, that's my problem. There's *GOT* to be somewhere left where people can be in pure nature. There's gotta be.
Ooh, and the problem with the word "all" pops up again. No, you couldn't flush all the complaints down the toilet. Arguments can be made for all kinds of tracking devices that would save lives, but people will complain that they are being tracked. The point being that there are usually other less obtrusive ways of doing things.
As a backcountry trip leader I see the validity of having this kind of system. However I see that unless there is some kind of personal identification system it would be pretty hard to say where the hiker is. A simple motion sensor would shouw that something went by the sensor at a certain time, but not who or what.
People need to be encouraged to travel with the right equipment, radio beacon included. Don't want to take a radio beacon? Expect to be charged a small fortune when your butt has to be pulled out.
~~Guildencrantz
Penguin Trivia #46: Animals who are not penguins can only wish they were. -- Chicago Reader 10/15/82
you can't just go around installing computer hardware on trails. While it may be "public" land, it really is no different from someone's back yard: some specific institution (part of the government in this case) ultimately has responsibility for managing it, no different from a home owner or a private land owner. That institution will also have lawyers and administrators whose purpose in life is to figure these things out.
Installing such sensors sounds harmless enough, but even there may be things to watch out for: wildlife impact, liability, pollution, litter laws, fire hazard, etc.
I mean, they are powered devices, right? They can short out? They do contain some heavy metals? They need to be maintained and they need to be removed when they no longer work, etc.
My little sister works for the Parks Service at Yellowstone, and she's told me a number of troubling stories about the types of people that SAR has to deal with. Cell phone coverage in the park is limited, but there are still people every year who take their new GPS unit and cell phone and wander off trail and call up with, "I'm at latitude dd mm ss and longitude dd mm ss and and I need you to come and get me. But I'm not lost." In other words, the people that make up the bulk of those in need of SAR are, for the most part, dim. Which means that any solution that requires thought on the part of the participants will not work.
My take? If EULAs can be deemed binding by breaking a plastic seal, it shouldn't be a big stretch to make use of public lands an implicit acceptance of trivial invasions of privacy. I didn't sign any waiver to allow my ATM to take my picture; is this really so different? There are already many public land use policies designed (with varying degrees of success) to keep stupid people safe from themselves. This is one that could actually be useful...
"I'm a scientist! I don't think, I observe!" - Dr. Clayton Forrester
With that reasoning, you could justify putting everyone on a regimen of Ritalin.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
However, one person made a good point that this does run counter to why some of us go to the natural areas. I had two places I went to when I grew up. Both of those places represented "God made" areas barely touched by people. Thus, the escape for me was to be somewhere where God was and civilation had virtually no impact.
One of those places was changed to permit public access, which ruined it, because they had to destroy 90% of why we went there in order to make it "safe."
The other place put cameras in the trees, again in the name of safety. This, again, ruined it. I went there to be away from civilization, but cameras just bring civilization to you, just knowing that someone behind some TV can watch.
I had nothing to hide; wasn't a criminal or a fugitive. Heck, these were place I went to since age 7 to enjoy some time in a God created recreation area with rivers, trees, mountains and wildlife that people didn't ruin yet. I simply didn't want civilation to be at a place where I went to enjoy time away from civilation.
Yours is less intrusive, but clearly you are bringing in the presence of technology in the name of safety to a place where people go to get away from technology and other totems of civilization.
Thus, I'd have to consider other options that might be possible, and even more effective at your goal. One option might be to offer beacon devices that are off unless someone turns them on. The person can choose to:
This way, you have the ability to locate a person to an exact location. Yet, the system is truly voluntary, and people even have the option of only turning the beacon on if they actually need it, meaning that for those people, they have increased safety over no beacon, without having to sacrifice any privacy unless they actually have an emergency.
With radio technology dirty cheap, I imagine that such a beacon device can be quite cheap.
Open Standards Portal
i know this was a humorous post but i still feel the need to remind people of the differnce between passive and active rfid. it is true that passive (really small, the size of a large grain of rice) only work within a few cms. they contain a capacitor charged by rf and then discharged to give off its id. these are what we tag pets with. active rfid have a small battery and are about the size of.... well.... a watch battery + a grain of rice. these work for about 2-3 meters and would be a great application for this task. this is how we see how often the cattle come in to eat.
so long as people are not forced to use them, and so long as in using them you are not required to give out your identity, it would be a great idea. if a person could check one out for a $20 deposit and get the cash back when they return it to the rental place, this could save many lives and even many man-hours of searching.
The method you used would be unreliable and would probably do nothing to reduce the search time of the S&R mission. Why?
Unless you only allow one hiking team in the park at a time, you will have multiple logs/hits of movement from multiple trail monitors, assuming the monitors manage to effectively send a signal each and every time a human (and only a human) passes the monitor.
Once you have all the data logged, how do you know where a hiker party went? Was that them on trail "A" or were they on trail "F"? Are the hikers going to be required to file a hiking plan from which they may not deviate?
So we have: unreliable sensor data and unknown parties with unknown destinations. I don't see where a system such as you proposed would provide any data that an S&R team could use to locate missing people faster.
And there's still the whole "you don't know they're missing/in trouble until they don't show up for a few hours/days and someone else calls you.
A far better method would be to use emergency locator transmitters (ELTs) carried by each party or person in the park, and do it on a voluntary basis. When someone gets need help they would activate the ELT which would be "heard" at a central station and S&R teams would be dispatched to home in on the signal. With the right type of box the holder could even press one of several buttons to tell authorities what type of help they need: lost, medical emergency, fire.
This method has the following advantages:
1. There is little to no delay between a person needing assistance and that assistance being dispatched.
2. The search portion of the S&R is virtually eliminated, with beacons you can home in very quickly
3. No-one has to submit to tracking, but they still can have the security it can provide
4. Costs can be recouped by charging a small fee for the transmitters, or for the loss of them
5. The system is probably less complex than the anonymous tracking and reporting/loging
6. No chance of false alerts from large animals moving through the forest
7. Higher chance of successful rescue when you don't have to wait for the person to go missing before trying to find them
Disadvantages:
1. not everyone will want to take an ELT, so S&R will still need to do it the "old fashioned" way at times
2. Potentially higher initial cost depending on how the ELT signal is tracked an the number of units deployed
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
"Save one life" arguments are specious at best, because they rarely examine the reverse. What if someone were to somehow find out, using this kind of tool, which trails were used the least, and then decide that a lone hiker in the region might be far away from help? Would the avoidance of deploying such a system be validated in that case, because then one life would be saved?
It's a matter of examining both sides, instead of just saying something that feels good. This is one of the reasons we get so many overburdening, overlapping laws, because it feels good to pass them rather than to really take some time to examine what the real cause of something is. Perhaps, on examination, such a system would prove to be better because on balance it would save lives. But to simply decide that it would, and that the saving of a single life would justify deployment of an entire system, is ducking the question.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
How would you address the issue of being able to track a lonely hiker for nefarious purposes? Personally I think the only way to do this is to have two classes of RFID tag or similar, ones which all have the same ID and ones which have unique IDs. Let users of the unique IDs specify whether they want their information public or not. But, being able to track people around the woods is a liability until you're lost.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This could be a problem not from a privacy standpoint so much as from a dependency standpoint. One problem with rescues lately has been the use of cell phones as a sort of insurance for backcountry travelers. For every person who uses one to legitimately save themselves there seem to be 2 or 3 others who wander out unprepared or naively and then use the cell phone to call for help to bail them out (sometimes risking their life as well as the rescuers). These monitoring stations could have the same effect with travelers thinking "Well, they know where I am, I don't need extra water, clothes, map, etc...". Believe me, I've seen plenty of people out in bad conditions wearing ridiculously poor clothes and gear.
The best technology is the one between your ears. Too bad the quality of that piece of gear seems to vary wildly.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
When I go deep into the mountains, a large part of the joy I experience comes from the knowledge that my life is in my own hands, and that my judgment and decisions will get me out of (or into) any life and death situation that may arise. Every time I go out, I relish the small idea in the back of my mind, the idea that this might be the time I never come back.
There is a certain exhiliration associated with being completely disconnected from the real world, from our social and technological support structures, fending for yourself.
I do not support this idea because:
- It encourages people who are not physically and mentally ready for wilderness travel to enter the wilderness
- It provides a false sense of security, because the devices may stop functioning at any time, or the devices may not cover a particular area
- It will cause people to take risks they would not take under standard conditions, for example they may ford a stream they would otherwise avoid because they feel they have "backup."
- It will invite technological development to the wilderness, an area specifically set aside for the exclusion of those technologies.
Simply put, the wilderness is, and should remain, a wild, volatile, and dangerous place. While I am all for advances in personal safety in remote regions, I also believe that the tools for personal safety should remain personal, in your own hands. Carry a radio or other beacon to signal with if you get into trouble. Learn the skills of relying on yourself that have been taught and relied upon for hundreds of years. This is the spirit of the wilderness.I wish. Keep in mind that trees block IR as well as visible light, and there are plenty of other heat sources in the woods (e.g., deer.) And someone bundled up against the cold doesn't emit a lot of heat to be seen.
Still, I'll happily take a FLIR-equipped aircraft if one is available. But it's hardly a silver bullet for SAR.
Show me a voluntary system paid for by tax dollars. The more elaborate the system, the greater the cost and the more likely it would be forced. After all, unless the rescue team is a volunteer organization, you are already paying for the service.
Every dinky camera system erected so far has been used in exactly the manner the foil hat people said it would be. Once the tool is paid for it will be abused by the state. The only way to prevent the abuse is to realize that the tool does not satisfy the stated goals and to not build it in the first place.
This kind of thing reeks of statism. Taken to it's extreme, you won't be allowed to walk in the woods without permission and careful monitoring. Your enjoyment of the woods takes a back seat to society's costs of your potential injuries. You don't own the woods because the state owns your hide by providing you with all of these nifty services. I already see signs about not being able so spend the night in areas and other mindless restrictions that assume the park belongs to the park service rather than the park service belongs to me.
It's for your own good, they say. Sure it is. Like cameras that give you speeding tickets, keep people from driving in Central London and can be used to track any political opponent are for my own good - too bad they have been proven useless for their stated purpose of crime prevention.
The devil is in the details. A system that would really be useful would also have to be very invasive. Even then the value will be negligible. The world is a large place and people are small in it.
The park rescue officer will complain that narrowing the search lowers his own risk of injury. The other way to lower that risk of injury is to not search at all. How many young men have died on wild goose chases? Does it all add up when you figure out how many people were actually saved?
Wired woods are not for me.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
OTOH, I am not above helping people and donating my time to searching for hapless souls who didn't know better. Dead (wo)men don't tell tales; they also don't learn from their mistakes. Everyone should be free to enjoy the great outdoors, but it should also be known that it's not always a picnic, and part of the attraction of such an activity is getting away from it all - "it all" being civilization and all it's trappings, for better or for worse.
Nathan's blog
What happens when I go out hiking and pass sensors 1 - 4 (of 10, for example), turn around, and head back? Is the system going to be implemented in such a way that it will recognize 'turn arounds' - or will it just assume that there are two hikers lost between points 4 and 5?
It could be a liability in other ways. What if the hiker dies, and the sensor failed because of something preventable like a dead battery?
There'd likely be no way to prove that the dead battery wasn't the reason rescue teams failed to reach the hiker.
On the other hand, a beacon with a rechargable battery and self-test system could be useful. Let the beacons recharge when you stack them on the base, and give off an alert if they're unable to charge the battery.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
He's asking for the extreme view point. The comment actually excludes the average Slashdot reader. He primarily wants to hear from the paranoid extreme because the average person won't be the ones making the the fuss if he does it. Better to know clearly the objections of the extreme minority. He's asking for the downsides. Do you have any idea how many millions of dollars are wasted each year looking for hikers that wandered off? If you're really worried wear a bear costume when you walk in the woods. By the way you look quite dashing in your tinfoil hat. Not the least bit silly.
Exactly. Where I lived they passed a new law for new drivers. For a while we've had graduated licencing. For a year and a half you are a "new driver" and have a zero alcohol tolerance level, but other than that all was good. Now they have upped it to longer (2 or 3 years) with the additional restriction that you can only have ONE passenger in the vehicle. The reasoning: There was an accident one year that involved a bunch of teens being loud in a car. Therefore, a law preventing passengers "will save approximatly 4 lives a year. If it saves even one life, it is worth it."
If you want laws that save lots of lives, everybody should wear a GPS belt 24/7, and there should be cameras on every street corner, and in every room of every store, office, and home, and all of their recordings will be tied together with this GPS database. If a camera sees somebody that isn't on the GPS system, the police can be dispatched immediatly. If even one serial killer is caught because of the video cameras and the GPS tracking, it will be worth it, right? No more kidnappings, right?
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
As far as risk goes... if you're worried about getting lost or hurt, don't go in the woods. Go on a "hike" in a local park with paved "paths".
So you advocate turning forests into paved path parks? I think you want to be selfish. I think you want the forest all to yourself and you need to realize that there are a lot of people in the world. There isn't enough forests for everybody to think they can have their own piece.
Others have a right to use nature as much as you. The signs and sensors can go a long way to reduce the human impact on forests. We all make a mark in nature even yourself. For example, if you don't have signs marking bike paths then people will make their own paths. All the individual paths will have a significant effect on the forest floor or disturb animals which would otherwise learn where the established path is and avoid it.
Errr, if it's anonymous, doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose? The idea isn't to track usage, the idea is to find people when they're lost.
If Joe goes missing, what tag do I look for if I don't know what tag Joe has? Do I wait for everyone else to turn theirs in maybe? I'm not sure if people would be expected to do that..
Doesn't really seem to make sense.
In my mind, as long as it's optional -- TRULY optional -- then there's no problem tracking people. The other thing to be done is to not keep records of the data for extended periods of time. Not sure exactly what that definition would be, but presumably some duration longer than when people get reported missing.
Trail head logs are awesome, when they're there and when they're used. They at least give you an accurate last-known-point.
Some people even leave a trail map on their dash board with the time of departure noted and their intended course highlighted.
These aren't the people this system is conceived to help.
Some people seem to forget that there are MANY ski resorts/areas in decidedly remote locations which REQUIRE you to wear RF Tracking transmitters. In case of Avalanche and the like. Don't like it? Don't ski here. Or else don't complain when you are buried under 50 metric tons of snow, ice, and rock. On the other hand complain all you want. Nobody will hear you anyhow. Ever again.
:-)
But seriously, I think the original idea of this thread is a valid one, and were there a way to effectively anonymize the device so as to asuage the fears of the tragically paranoid, it would see little opposition. As long as the system sees that there is *somebody* clinging to a rocky crag because he was too stupid to stay on the trail and ignored the signs alerting him to loose rocks and steep cliffs, and not that it was Joe Schmuckatelli, who was too stupid to heed the aforementioned signs, it should be fine. However once he gets back to the base camp and the CNN crews flood said idiot, any anonymization of the system will be circumvented anyhow.
I guess there's no simple answer...
Regards,
- Que profuturus est maeror causa sententia Caelestis
A lot of folks who go into the woods do so because they relish the element of risk involved. Idiot-proofing the wilderness experience will not appeal to most of them
I don't care what appeals to you. If you expect S&R to bail you out of a mess, a little RFID tag is not too much to ask.
Believing that "Darwin doesn't apply to me" is often the first step in proving that it does.
Sunlight is also voluntary, as you can sit under a UV lamp. Suggesting that not using a public area is a reasonable alternative for those who don't wish to be tracked is absurd because it fails to address the primary objection that it is madatory.
How about RFID reader stations at intervals along the trail, and RFID tags are available at the ranger station? True, not making it mandatory doesn't help when "stupids" get lost without a tag, but treating the rest of us like prisoners under house arrest is too high a price to pay to save the lives of people who SHOULD die in the backcountry. If you're too dumb to pick up a tag or (like they do it now) file a trip plan and you run into trouble in the backcountry, you DESERVE death. Nature isn't an amusement park. It's not a game. It's dangerous.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
While I can see why people are suggesting that it should be voluntary, but ultimately the people that will need it the most are people who won't think to use it.
The people who need rescuing typically are people who were ill prepared and didn't heed the signs that the weather was bad or conditions unstable. It's the people who go out without the right gear or clothes, without checking in at the ranger's hut, without a clue.
I don't have a solution, as a society we aren't prepared to say that's evolution in action - if they were meant to survive they'd have taken a compass, so the people who least deserve the assistence are the ones who will require it the most.
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
As a former Boy Scout/casual pyromaniac, I can attest to the fact that many passersby will do everything they can to mess with the system. Dancing on it to register a couple thousand people passing through. Sending the database operators messages in morse code. And, in some cases, blatant vandalism. I know that a part of me would certainly want to take it apart to see how it worked.
This kind of makes me sad, but it's a fact of human nature. We like to fuck with stuff, especially when no authority figures are in view. Hiking through the forest, miles from civilization, is fertile ground for mischief.
Post signs saying that hikers must register at the trail head (provide pencils and forms). Hikers that are too lazy to register don't deserve to be found.
Also, how about wiring up some decoy trees, so vandals that absolutely have to leave behind their initials get a nice memorable shock through their knife blade.
You could also dust litter for fingerprints and send the owners fines through the mail.
Vote in November. You won't regret it.
That's much more than a tech problem. It's a societal problem.
So some guy grabs one of these beacons and proceeds to get lost in the woods in a storm. He dies of hypothermia before the rescue crews can find him. Now, somehow, it's their fault? And the guy's family rides the legal system to their pot of gold.
That's what's so f*cked up with the US. The guy posting wants to use tech to help find lost people, and in doing so opens him self up to lawsuits. It's a wonder anyone invents anything.
I agree with you, but I suspect that remote piloted aircraft technology and sophisticated image processing may likely make a dent in that problem someday.
Hopefully soon. The military has some pretty awesome kit, and eventually it'll filter down.
Cheers
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
Darwin had it right, natural selection works!!!
I wonder what percentage of people who go into the wilderness are unprepared?, I lived in Alaska for 8 years, and Colorado for another 15. There is a real simple rule to follow in the backcountry: "Don't get into a place you can't get out of". Couldn't even begin to count the number of times I've loaned (my spare pair of course!) gloves, raingear, jackets, food, water, stove fuel, hats, etc, to underprepared hikers/backpackers. It's simple, take what you need, add some spares, prepare for the worst, and expect to do a good deed by helping some underprepared moron out.
Just my opinion of course.
I guess some people, many people, apparently think yes.
In evaluating such systems, you also have to figure in the bad consequences of the system. Like what about cops abusing the system such as by rigging the system to frame somebody?
It's happening already, in a way, with the red light cameras. Alot of people who don't do the violations are likely paying when they don't have to. I did, figuring if you spent the time in court you'd have to divulge who did drive and they'd go after that person, which in my case would've meant that I paid anyway. Fortunately, that's not the case, but you do have to go to court and contest it - maybe not worth it for some people even with the points if there are any.
With your teenager driving law, what about if a teenager has to walk because he can't ride with a friend due to the passenger law and he ends up getting hit? Something like that's bound to happen sooner or later. (I'm from D.C. and it still sticks in my mind about that guy who visited for some reason and was hit on the street - he lost an arm because of it.)
So, on the one side, you have 4 deaths due to loud music. Assuming these are the only deaths due to more than one passenger being in the car (might not be the case), you'd have to amortise the 4 deaths over the total time cars have been driven by teens in your city - likely a very low rate of death per year (let's say 60 years of driving, 4 deaths = 0.067 deaths per year due to overcrowding).
On the other side goes any injuries resulting from kids having to walk (hopefully very low, but as the recent accident in D.C. shows, it happens), plus all the lost time, missed appointments (kids will be late, especially if they have to walk), and simple loss of the ability for kids to do things if they don't have rides.
Not saying your teenager laws are wrong, but the city's characterization that it saves 4 lives per year with no mentioned downside doesn't tell the whole truth.
Not the same thing, but reminds me of what happened locally due to 911. Lots of metro riders walk into the Pentagon City mall through the parking garage entrance. After 911, they had security there to prevent this for a week or so (why I don't know - driving in was ok, walking not. What, they thought walkers could conceal bombs?). The thing was, with the construction at the time, the only way to walk around was to walk a few hundered feet facing ongoing rush hour traffic with no shoulder space. I almost wished an accident happened so that the mall would get sued - would've served them right.
Or even more to the point, do you want 6 teenagers on the road with 3 cars rather than 1? 3 drivers will, statistically, have three times as many accidents as one. Spreading the kids to three cars only guarantees that you won't lose 6 at once. It's just stupid law, passed by people who were "thinking of the children" rather than applying common sense.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
I didn't read other posts as i am in a hurry, but i hope this is not a duplicate of anyone's idea.
Offer every hiker of the are somekind of tracking device that will be used to track your location if you are lost AND to track the time it took you to hike from tracking point to tracking point so they can use it as somekind of performance analysis.
So they would voluntarily opt to your tracking which benefits those who get's lost on the way, and those who don't get lost.
In the Adirondaks they have trail registers; just a covered eazel type thing with a log book. They tend to be at trailheads and major forks. Sign in if you want: name, # of people in the party, # of days you plan to be in the backcountry, intended route, address. Sign out when you leave.
No need for cameras/sensors/whatever. One nice thing about the backcountry is being away from it all. Among serious hikers, there is even controversy about taking a mobile phone into the woods. "If I break my leg, I can call for help". "Only unprepared morons ever need to be rescued and this lowers the threshold of asking of a heliocopter evac", etc.
Personally I do not want civilization to intrude when I am seeking solitude.
No it won't. If the 6 people are all going from point A to point B at the same time (why else would they had been traveling in the same car without this law ?), then they are likely to be traveling in a line of some sort. Furthermore, they are likely to be driving close to each other (almost everyone does, nowadays). So if something happens to the front car, say, it has to brake suddenly, the middle car will crash into it and the last car will crash to the metal heap. Six dead bodies.
Furthermore, this situation will provoke competition between these three drivers. Remember, these were loud, irresponsible, safety-ignoring type of teenagers in the first place. This causes the chance for accident to go up sharply.
And of course, if it just happens that they have been drinking, it isn't enough to find a single sober driver, no, you need 3.
So no, this doesn't guarantee anything, and has nothing but negative consequences (except for maybe car manufacturers, because it makes "sharing" a car much more difficult).
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
The problem with a system like this, funded by taxpayers, where the rescue chopper is also funded by taxpayers, is that sooner or later some over-zealous legislator will get the idea that since this system reduces the cost and risk of rescues, it should be compulsory. Then they realize that it's actually quite expensive, and wilderness users should pay for it. Bang goes the wilderness experience. You might as well go to Disneyworld.
There is a growing trend towards cluelessness amongst outdoor users. Self reliance is a thing of the past. Hurt your ankle? Call a rescue! The fact that your hurt ankle is costing others money (unless you have rescue insurance), and putting others at risk, and impinging on other wilderness users doesn't seem to matter. Self rescue is an option. I was involved in a self-rescue, where the girl who was with us hopped for 10 miles over very rough terrain after smashing her heel. It was hell, but it is possible (and it's a good story).
You can buy so much cool gear for hiking/camping/climbing, people seem to think that you can buy safety, when the only thing that really helps there is knowledge.
Hi all,
as far as I can tell, most of the ppl that want this to be voluntary are suggesting that the hiker carry a tag that they collect from a centralised point (e.g. gate lodges?)
I have a problem with that - that means these collection points have to exist. Hiking areas seem to be very large, and I doubt they all have completely controlled points of entry. the hiker may wish to start at a point off the beaten track, and many are not going to go out of their way to pick up another thing to carry.
So I'm with the ppl who are suggesting having a well-marked radio point e.g. footpad or push-button that the hiker can activate optionally.
Another thing to ponder though: vandalism....
- Lnr
It may be possible to use an accelerometer to detect the hikers footsteps. It may be configured to disregarde amplitudes that resemble smaller animals. There also might be a frequency band that could distinguish between humanoid and other but I'm thinking amplitude is the simplest approach if you didn't want to get too crazy. I'm working with an accelerometer right now on an electrical engineering project and I'm impressed as to the sensitivity of these things. Just blowing on it makes the voltage spike...
Not necessarily.
From the sounds of it (having followed the clarifications from the original poster) it's not to try and track down "Those who know what they're doing and know the risks", nor is it "Those who seriously want to get away from it all". From what I can gather, they're the ones who either don't get into trouble, or who leave the details to allow themselves to be found in case of emergency.
The people this is supposed to help is those who go out, and don't have the knowledge/skill/brains/whatever to bring enough supplies or leave a trail plan.
Now ideally, I'd say "Privacy first", don't do anything like this, and anyone who gets themselves lost/killed/whatever through abject stupidity needed removing from the gene-pool anyway.
I guess the problem is that it's a no-win situation for those in S&R - and those interested in privacy.
The majority of people who (like yourself) don't want tracking are clueful enough to not need saving. Also, the majority of those who would "opt in" to carrying some sort of EPIRB are probably careful enough to not need rescuing as often. Unfortunately, many of those who need saving are probably clueless enough to actually need tracking.
It really is a no-win situation, 'cos there is no solution that is 100% right for everyone. (There's always someone inconvenienced by any decision) Problem is, then the authorities are the ones held responsible for something going on.
For every "What right do you have to invade my privacy?" there is one "Why, with all modern technology, couldn't you find my relative when they got lost?" And the real kicker is that both arguments are valid points - unfortunately they're mutually exclusive.
Tiggs
"120 chars should be enough for everyone..."
I don't want to seem overly harsh here, but I don't care if it *does* save a few would-be darwin-award winners each year, I don't want to see sensors in trees when I'm in the backcountry. I take a GPS sometimes, but other than that, electronics in the woods is just wrong.
I understand that accidents completely beyond folks' control *do* happen, but most search-and-rescue missions are the direct result of inneptitude, inexperience, incompetence, ignorance, failure to properly plan and prepare, or other reasons related entirely to deficiencies of the missing. Don't distract from my outdoor experience to help out those that won't help themselves.