Slashdot Mirror
FCC Wants to Track Wireless
pin_gween writes "According to an article on ZDNet, the FCC wants the ability to track Wi-fi accessible phones like the ZyXel phone. The FCC's June report talked about several ways of realizing a caller's location: 'creating an "inventory" of every Wi-Fi access point in the United States, engaging in "mapping and triangulation" of those access points, compiling an "access jack inventory" for wired VoIP users, or even mandating that Net phones include GPS.'"
The war on terror has claimed another victim.
mandatory ankle bracelets they can use to track you all the time.
Can I just ask one question? WHY? Is tracking wireless really necessary?
So, basically, for the FCC to track down everything wifi, they need to check Google?
Damn, they sure clamped down on THAT idea fast!
Just another harmless drunk
This is just yet another attempt to monitor what we're doing and where we are. Who says that the transmitter in the phones would only transmit the location?
"(As a side note, I think it's cowardly for FCC officials to refuse to have their names mentioned, but it was a condition of attending the event.)"
Yeah, if you cant stand in front of a conference type event that you evidently called for, and have the press print you as a source, I think thats seriously pathetic.
We don't need an "overrated" so much as we need a "you completely missed the parent's point, dumbass..."
They want a list of EVERY access point?
I can't even imagine the immensity of that task. There must be millions of APs in the US, and the list would change on a day-to-day basis.
Without SSID broadcast, it wouldn't even necessarily be possible to discover them all.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
The article states that there will occur a "mapping and triangulation" of the access points. Triangulation may have worked to sniff out the spies in World War II, but nowadays it's ineffective for one simple reason: the number of branches to and from each node is too high.
I've worked (someone with a job on /.!) with WiFi access points for some time, and we constantly came across this hurdle. It's interesting that as technology develops, the capacity of both surveillance and anonymity increases.
Food for thought.
This could be used as a tool for big brother, not just 911 calls. You are as naive as a child if you don't see the dark possibilities in this. The FCC commissioners probably only see a new toy to play with in this tracking technology, and have no concept of the monster they are creating. Those who will exploit it are counting on the FCC to not "get it".
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
if the fcc is a government agency, paid by taxpayers, shouldnt we know the identity of the officials and who said what? why are they hiding if they want to know where we are? even if it is *only* for emergency responders...
always mosh clockwise
I dunno about you, but I WANT my phone to have GPS. Simply so they can locate me if I call 911 on my wireless phone. I think that would be the most elegant and potentially useful idea. Registering all Wi-Fi access points is WAY too intrusive and complicated. Simply making wi-fi phone providers insert an inexpensive GPS locator into the phone makes much more sense, and the phone makers can turn it into a feature! (Wardriving with your Phone! W00T!)
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
We (enterprise) have a hard enough job tracking our own and our rogue points. And it's not like users ever want to have a mobile access point for presentations at non-wifi locations.
And what about every laptop that is automagically converted into a wireless bridge/access point with a few clicks?
On top of which, what is it really necessary to track every wap? To "triangulate" a connection they'd still need to trace the origins of a voip call over the IP connection to figure out where the call was made. A wifi access point map doesn't give you much if you haven't got a way of sourcing the call.
If you compare what they're attempting and what they're saying, you'll find two different things.
If they were just trying to locate 911 callers, this could easily be done with a caller-enabled location system. When someone dialed 911, and only when someone dialed 911, it could report the location.
But what they're looking to do is much more. They want a system to enable law enforcers to quickly locate any individual person in the country. In other words, locating 911 callers is just a rather transparent excuse.
Do you know how you can tell that the federal government just wants more power to fuck with the commoners? Look at things like this, the USA PATRIOT Act and like the and tremble. The government talks about homeland security, but the borders are still open, we're still butt buddies with Saudia Arabia (mainly on the receiving end in more ways than one), the government pushes for things that mostly target the general public and the push is always for more and more power while *gasp* not doing anything consistently pro-security with it.
This is a good example of why I vote libertarian in every election. The government doesn't need to be able to track cell phones because it already has the powers it needs to control the influx of terrorists: deportation, border security and wire-tapping regular conversations. If our government cared less about not offending people and more about really using its basic powers first to fight major crime and terrorism, we wouldn't be wasting our time reading about this stuff.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
Hopefuly they will just opt for gps and then manufacturers will include a "debug mode" like on almost every dvd player to turn it off. If theres no debug code cutting a few leads and bridging some wires will do the trick for extra anonimity :) Rember if they think they can track you but they cant its even better then if they cant track you at all.
http://www.uwarfare.com the Best Seattle Counterstirke Community
This story makes the tin-foil hats cry out for tin-foil hats, wow.
Firstly: have each ap have a programmable text location in case the handset dialer dials e911. Make it part of the setup app that you should fill this address in if you want voip to work properly, but can be disabled if the owner overrides it.
Second: This is so over-the-top paranoid gay, why not say all ip-addresses have to have full gps location tags with each packet (which is close to what this means). "Hey user_bob01, wave at the sky, you're on keyhole camera!". I understand there is a risk of criminal use, but add a little control to the server side so if a number is being used it can be tracked to it's ip and you can guess where that is from the geoip tables. This shouldn't happen often enough for this to be regulated.
Man the FCC is going psycho lately, wtf? Do I have to worry that my next cellphone will rfid tag my balls when i put it in my pocket?
The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
If the answer to the first question is 'no', the next question is "Is anyone getting sick of the lies being told by our governments as a matter of routine?"
Guess you missed the news about the DEA seeking the arrest and extradiction of Marc Emery then ...
... and before anyone replies back with something like "but he was sending seeds to the U.S." ... the point is the tenticles of the U.S. extend to most ALL CANADIANS and to that of citizens of numerous other countries around the world - the DEA and other various U.S. law enforcement agencies actually have OFFICES and conduct investigations in Canada, and many other countries globally.
http://www.cannabisculture.com/
Emery is a CANADIAN citizen who has NOT been in the U.S. for over a decade, and operates his business from within Canada, including his web servers, etc.
Yet, despite all of that, the DEA has sought his extradiction
Point of my tirade is that moving may not help; in large part due to technology, such as being described in this Slashdot news item.
Ron
Except it's a false dichotomy.
They want you to believe they need full-time, universal access to your location in order to locate you when you dial 911.
That's obviously false. They only need your location to be reported when you dial 911.
The way it should work:
1) your phone is able to determine its current location at any time
2) if you dial 911, your phone sends along its current location information
It's that simple. The idea that it's a choice between safety and freedom is a lie, and a pretty barefaced one at that.
The government wants to be able to control information. Sure, they are clueless as to how impossible that is, but that also means that they will try. It could easily kill lots of innovative businesses.. Perhaps thats the idea, the current GOP-led government is clearly obsessed with suppressing competition for their big corporate donors. The Dems are not angels, either..
Yes, Ultimately, it will mean that many businesses are started elsewhere, not in the US, but isn't that the case already?
The power elite cares much more about maintaining their hold on power than our 'national' future.. (nations are a quaint concept, but one which is useful in divving up the rights to you) Don't see what I mean?
Look at education.. they are clearly trying to defund the public education system (whats the point of training people for jobs that will be elsewhere anyway..public education was for training workers for industry, and without industry, it serves no purpose..prisons are more like where we are going..or 'recycling' like Leu's fate in George Lucas's early film, THX-1138.. America is being looted.. while it still has wealth..
'Milieu control' is what information blockades like China's are used for, filtering out information that causes 'cognitive dissonance'.. (Festingers' now-proven theory, also worth looking up)
Milieu control: its also a hallmark of cults and totalitarian regimes.. look it up..
...for a trade off of a couple bucks:
"For one thing, what if someone doesn't want 911 service on his or her VoIP phone? I already have a landline and a cell phone at home, and I might add a VoIP phone to the mix. I don't need 911 service and don't wish to pay higher prices for a GPS receiver or location-identifying hardware that would be included in it. Mandating 911 service would amount to a tax on VoIP customers."
I'll start out by saying I think the above reason is really kinda weak. There are other problems to be hashed out, but I'm just looking at this for the moment.
If anyone has read "This is Burning Man" by Brian Doherty, this will fall similarlly in line (its near the end of the book):
America seems to have grown up in an environment that gives the false illusion that they are safe. Child safety locks on cars and meds, etc. While there are a batch of people (and I'll personally go out on a limb and say over half as I'm an optimist at times) who can generally figure out whats safe and what isn't. There is still a large contingency (especially at large festivals such as Burning Man or Bonnaroo) who will push that limits to the point where they could/do die from their own actions. These people exist in society as we know it, and it isnt until they are in a dangerious situation that they dont realize it or choose to ignore it, and harm themselves.
Now, with that in mind, you and I both know, that there will be someone, somewhere, who does something insanely stupid (like making meth in a hillbilly home methlab), will need to call 911, and cant cause they were too cheap to get a real phone. Now, personally, i'm kinda ok with standing back and saying "well, Darwin was right after all", but the general public, in all of their emotional-based reactions and overzealous desire for safety , probably wont bode well with that***, and a nasty mess will ensue in the media and lots of other things. So, while there are other issues to be hashed out about who has access to what databases, I can understand why, from a fundimental level of ensuring access to emergency services, it (IMHO) should be required.
*** Steven Levett made an interesting point in Freakonomics: People dont have fear/outrage for the more probable, but very distant disasters, such as heart disease that can kill them, but instead focus their energy and fear/outrage on things that are very miniscule, such as terrorism attacks.
We don't need an "overrated" so much as we need a "you completely missed the parent's point, dumbass..."
The U.S. government engages in more surveillance than any other country in the history of the world. The U.S. government spends more on surveillance than any country in the history of the world, and U.S. taxpayers are not allowed to know true total amount.
The departments of the U.S. government such as the CIA and NSA and FBI function as a world-wide secret police. Sure, they have openly acknowledged purposes, but much of what they do and how they do it is hidden from U.S. citizens. There are departments of the U.S. government that do secret police work whose names are even secret. United States taxpayers are expected to pay, and vote, and they are expected to accept that they won't have the full facts of the activities of their government. United States citizens are not allowed to know enough to base their vote on the facts.
Historically, U.S. government surveillance has had some political or economic benefit for those who wanted the surveillance.
--
If you support dishonesty and violence, don't say you are Christian.
I did RTFA, but I didn't feel like searching through a PDF for the answer to my question. How do they plan on identifying someone's location in one of these 911 incidents that they are so sure will happen?
To triangulate a broadcast location, don't you need at least 3 reciever stations in the immediate area?
If so, wouldn't that mean that you would already be in a decently populated area (we are taling about calling 911 in public, right?) where someone nearby should be able to find a land line while you are bleeding in the street?
Sounds like maybe 911 shouldn't be available with these phones, or that it should be a known risk in buying one that it may contribute to your death when operators have no idea where you are.
Vol~
If you want to be located when you call 911, maintain a land-line. Where is the goddamn rocket science here, people?
You know what? If you don't have a land-line and you have to call 911 and can't speak...well, maybe you die. It happens. Sucks, but it happens. I hate this society...we've become obsessed with throwing huge wads of cash, effort, and legislation at the stupidest problems. 700,000 people die each year of heart disease; zero people a year die from terrorism. We spend billions on one, not on the other...and when Little Timmy dies because he choked on a marble 'cause mommy wasn't watching him, we get "Timmy's Law" which solves a Darwinism problem.
Please help metamoderate.
even *if* this is just about 911, i'm all for a warning label on the box explaining that you can't be automagically found using that particular wireless phone. if that's a problem, find something else.
eric
What the FCC is suggesting is clearly within reasonable bounds of methodology to insure successful commerce and increase national security. What with all the terrorists running around, we've got make sure we're safe. Personally, I'd like to see more of this kind of thing happening but not just tracking phones, tracking people too. The way I see it, the world is a dangerous place and you've got to make certain that the wrong sorts of people are carefully watched. Considering that I am not involved in anything that could be flagged as suspicious by law enforcement, I am confident that my reputation as an honest American will ensure my privacy.
The main problem with the griping about what the FCC proposes is that people don't want to take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Instead of making sure they keep their noses clean to keep the FCC from taking an interest in their activities, they expect the nanny state to go the extra mile to create the illusion of privacy. That's the problem with most people these days. They have no sense of personal responsibility and expect the nanny state to do everything for them. This line of thinking is what costs lives to terrorism. If everyone let the government keep track of everywhere they go and everything they do, then the only people who would have anything to fear would be the true bad guys. Every other citizen would be safe and they would know that [tt]heir privacy was assured since they took it upon themselves to walk the straight and narrow.
Come on people! This stuff is simple. Instead of expecting the government to do everything for you take matters into your own hands by letting the government track you! It's not that hard to follow this line of thinking. I know that the Bush administration has definitely moved in a much better direction by stepping up surveillance. We haven't had one attack since 9/11 here and it's because we've given up the illusion of privacy for true personal privacy that WE control ourselves by NOT being criminals. Why is this so hard for everyone to get?
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Well, fuck the FCC. They don't have that power.
My cell phone (a Samsung A660), like many others, has some sort of location-broadcast feature (GPS, probably?) built-in. By default it is on.
Even when it is off, 911 operators can determine your position. Good; there's no reason they shouldn't be able to - it's for safety's sake.
When it is turned on, this message is shown: "Sprint PCS and those parties you have given permission to will now be able to retrieve your location from the network."
What qualifies as permission given? Was there some small text in the service contract giving permission to some other party?
(fyi, I wouldn't know as I'm on a family plan and my parents signed the service contract.)
i for one welcome our naive welcomer of overlords.
Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
Well, you just proved their point. Anytime Bush is disparaged then the person doing it is unamerican.. go fuck yourself. Both Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson would flay the skin from your bones were they alive today to hear your kind of talk. They didn't want a country of blind obedience or they wouldn't have revolted against England's King George.. so we have the right to decent against ours. Asshole.
Tell me what you believe...I'll tell you what you should see.
Automatic routing of cellular 911 calls was introduced because manual routing worked very badly. California used to route all 911 calls from cell phones to the California Highway Patrol. As cell phones became more common, CHP dispatch was overwhelmed. By 2002, the CHP was getting over 8 million calls a year, most of which didn't involve freeway incidents, which is most of what the CHP handles. Call hold times on 911 were reaching 10 minutes during peak periods. The CHP was running a huge call center, which basically asked where callers were and forwarded their calls to some local 911 dispatch center.
That's the background for cellular 911. It's convenient that the dispatcher gets the location of the caller, but the real benefit is that the call gets sent to the right dispatcher.
If 911 routing isn't automated for VoIP, where should the calls go? Some call center in Bangalore? If the VoIP provider doesn't have some clue where the caller is, that's about all they can do.
There's worse stuff than this going on. The extension of the "Commmunications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act" rules to VoIP is much more of a Big Brother thing. If you aren't aware of how this works, the basic concept is that wiretapping has been built into the phone system, and wiretaps are now delivered to law enforcement over T1 lines. The US wiretapping system is run by Verisign. That's being extended to VoIP.
The really bad ideas always start out in the clothing of good ideas and then just sort of creep down the slippery slope.
The problem with these tools is that the people using them imagine themselves to be unambiguously the good guys. And the sad truth is that often they are the good guys. But they don't understand that they have no way of assuring that the people running the show tomorrow will be the people running the show today. People don't live forever. People don't hold the same job forever.
Even without a political attack, there's still the issue that you have to hand over the tools you build today to the government employees of tomorrow. Even if you just look at political party issues, the mildest of all possible concerns: if you're a Democrat, do you trust the Republicans with the spy tools you've made, or if you're a Republican, do you trust the Democrats? And when you add in the possibility of enemy infiltration, influence through bribes, and outright attack to take control, it gets scarier in a variety of ways.
Any time you centralize the power of the Good Guys, you risk that in a single stroke, the Bad Guys (however you define them) can take central control of everything. One of the big protections of the United States, rarely talked about, has been the non-centrality of the "root password". That is, even if someone took over Washington, they would not necessarily control all the states.
As things get more and more centralized, and all these walls between agencies are broken down in the name of "efficient prosecution", the walls are also broken down that prevent "efficient toppling".
What I find ironic is that the people who want this power are also the biggest supporters of the Second Amendment, which was never historically about hunting and always about protecting the right of the people to retain the power to overthrow the government if it ever got uppity. (I seem to recall that some--e.g., Jefferson?--thought this would probably need to happen every 20 years or so...) Yet these tools they are creating for surveillance are designed specifically to assure that no such overthrow would ever succeed, nor even be attempted. Maybe that's even good. But if it is, we don't need all those second amendment guns. And if it's not, we don't need the cameras. Without even making a value judgment, I'll just say it seems just-plain-inconsistent to me.
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
Given any reasonable timeframe, the median number of Americans who die every year from terrorism is zero. (Granted, median doesn't give any weight to the number of people who died in a specific year, but a few thousand isn't much compared to just about any other cause of death and misery you're likely to see on the news.)
.50 Desert Eagles), those dehumanizing "most wanted" decks of cards, our very weak dollar, etc. etc.
I do not know how much we spend on heart disease research, but I highly doubt that it's anywhere near the cost of the Afganistan war, the Iraq war, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, extra security at the airport, time that the politicians spend debating inane but ostensibly terrorist-related issues, time and money our police officers spend on anti-terrorism training and security (I live in a backwater town in Florida that most Floridians have never heard of, and last Easter we had an entire freaking army of cops out to make sure the terrorists weren't going to steal our Easter eggs. I'm serious, they barricaded off a five block area and were at least a dozen of them walking through the crowd wearing unusually large sidearms... I coulda sworn they were
The two wars alone probably cost more than we spend on heart disease in a decade. It sucks that a few thousand people died back in 2001, and no one is saying that nothing should be done. But what we should do should be PROPORTIONAL to the threat, and terrorists just aren't that big a threat. Even the small threat they do pose is practically impossible to eliminate, at least by our current measures. What the hell is all this bullshit about GPS and Total Information Awareness and ID cards? None of that will ever stop a terrorists. Many (most?) of the hijackers were here legally. The only truly effective methods of stopping terrorism (refusing all immigration from hardline Muslim theocrasies and/or telling Israel that they're on their own) never seem to be brought up.
All we ever get is THIS... programs and technologies that are piss-poor at stopping terrorism, but awesome at tracking and controlling American citizens.
And awesome at wasting money too. Throw those billions at heart disease, and you save millions of lives every year around the globe. That's a hellofalot more important than pissing off the Sunnis and making sure Osama doesn't try to blow up our Easter Eggs.
C'mon, folks, I can't believe that if someone really wanted to mis-direct the government as to their physical location while using a computer-controlled phone, they wouldn't be able to fake the GPS info going out.
The REAL bad guys won't be caught with this, only the poor slobs who make mistakes...
They are competent enough to kill masses of people, whever they want to, about anyplace they want to, including the US if they feel like it.. They come up with laser guided missiles that work. they have satellites that work. they got planes tanks and various other whizzbangs that work. they got jails all over and a few million people locked up at any given time. They are competent enough to run multiple torture camps and get away with it. They can call anyone a terrorist and snatch them away, and don't have to tell anyone that it happened. You have no idea how many people have been disappeared, hardly no one does because so many people-disappear! Who's to know?? They *were* competent enough to whack JFK and get away with it. They are competent enough to manipulate the stock market for high level globalists and get away with it. They are competent enough to make a killing off the oil market and divert public opinion that it's all the ay-rabs fault that the prices are high. (hint: ay-rabs and opec DON'T make the bulk of the money in the oil market, it's whiteguys in suits in major western nations that do. They are competent enough to buffalo the entire US population into putting up with random roadblocks, which is as close to a classic police state action as you will see right before the major pogroms start (hint 2: check history books). They are competent enough to make everyone just eat blackbox voting and like it. They are competent enough to pull off a new reichstagg fire event and cover it up with a ton of lies.
In short, they are competent enough to mandate whatever they WANT and make it stick and you and the next 280 million "consumers" ain't gonna say or do boo about it.
That's how competent they are. Sometimes they screw up, but it really doesn't matter, most of the time they are so big and powerful just getting "close enough" is good enough for their purposes. Anything else that happens is acceptable collateral damage and what they consider a cost of doing geopolitical and economic "business".
This is especially bizarre given they are calling for universal tracking -- they want to know where we are and who we are but they won't even let us know who they are, yet they speak in the name of the public! This isn't just ironic; it's downright Kafkaesque.
Thats right. Now the spyware is going into the hardware. Now they can track our location. Which means they'll be able to track traffic patterns, congestion, lifestyles, spending habits, frequent and popular areas, demographics, studies, and more.
It will be a massive mining operation of information. For sale, for study, for research... who the hell cares. Nothing good can come from it.
People won't stop using cell phones because the technology is put in them to track. Most people are ignorant of the devices they use every day. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence people will even deny so they can continue to be in complete convenience without hassle.
Never underestimate the laziness of the populus.
Those two lines alone are a dead giveaway. Anyone intelligent enough to actually form a coherent, properly spelled rant is also intelligent enough not to say something so blatantly stupid and self-contradictory. Thus, we know he's not being serious, and is really against such gross invasions of privacy.
It's an idea that is taking a long, long time become developed and it is very slowly coming into clarity among the power elite. The idea that the more that you use technology to focus the systematic application of violence for the control of society, the less of this violence can be used against those who create the technology.
The people who develop and engineer technology that is used to direct violence (directed violence being the police, the military, and the mafia, as opposed to random criminal acts) can ensure that this violence is never directed against themselves by building safeguards into the technology that prevents it from being used against those of the technology 'guild'. Technologists need to develop a new consciousness that transcends nationalism and corporatism and focuses on the idea that we should put the needs of the global tech community above the needs of the various governments, corporations, and religions.
High tech terrorism exists because the technicians are willing to give a higher loyalty to the religious fanatics who order other technical people to be randomly killed than they do to technical people that they are killing. This is wrong. We should protect ourselves first. Since we design and build the technology, we should ensure that the technology is not used against us. We should start doing this by refusing to use high technology against other members of the global tech community regardless of their nationality, religion, or corporate affiliation.
It's time for a very quiet, very discrete shift in loyalty in the global tech community. We need to develop the deep idea that our primary allegiance is to our own people, and our secondary allegiance is to God, country, and corporation.
Generals, CEOs, mullahs, and presidents can never make world peace or progress. They simply have too much gain from constant endless wasteful war. But since the modern means of directing violence is increasing based on technology, we, the designers and builders of this technology, have more control over the systematic application of violence than the nominal rulers of society.
Why should we care if the government, the police, the fascist mullahs, or the mafia is using technology against the people? Just as long as they are not using it against our people.
This meme is one of the primal ideas of the new Information age that is developing out of the excesses and breakdowns of the Nation-State Age.
Law enforcement should not have extensive powers of surveillence over law-abiding citizens whom have given no sign that they have broken any law. As long as there is fundemental disagreement in this country as to what is right and wrong, it is a bad idea to give our government the ABSOLUTE ability to impose the (currently) popular ideology on the minority. It's a good thing that people are able to rebel. Bad laws are often defeated by people breaking the law (see: civil rights of the 1960s and the Prohibition.)
I know this is a hard concept to wrap your head around, but if the government is given the means to completely wipe out all lawbreakers, it will be the end of democracy and the birth of a sickening (and yes, Orwellian) form of totalitarianism. Everything our legislators pass will instantly become a reality, and there will be no way to stop or reverse it even if it turns out to be a REALLY BAD IDEA.
Openness is bad because our productive society as a whole (I'm exluding "hardened criminals" here) does NOT have a unified moral code. Personally, I don't want to give the FBI the ability to, say, prevent sex toys from being sold if President Jeb Bush manages to sell congress on the "war on dildos." I don't want to give the DEA the power to eradicate all pot in the USA. I don't want to give the FBI the ability to investigate to find out if a person is gay, and then "accidentally" leak this information if they don't like that person's (perfectly legal) actions.
Maybe you disagree with all of these personal preferences, and that's fine, but just remember that it's not guaranteed that YOUR preferred rule of law will be passed by an essentially omnipotent "open" government. If you're not a Protestant Christian, for example, it's likely you will disagree with many of the laws that come out of a conservative-controlled DC.
But you will have no choice but to follow them at all times, because even the slightest rebellion can be detected and you will be arrested long before you have the chance to start a even a peaceful, Ghandi-like campaign.
By the way, I love the fact that you're in complete agreement with an obviously ironic post. Re-read it, and see if you can spot the sarcasm this time. Bonus points for every contradictory sentence you find.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Attributed to Benjamin Franklin
I8-D
You could also check out WiFiMaps.com. We've been doing this for a while, but what makes us different, is that our database is open to the public.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
See...the problem is, that's retarded.
Sure, GPS works outside, with a mostly unobstructed view of the sky.
Ever use GPS in a canyon (urban or in the boonies)?
How about with large overhanging objects overhead?
How about indoors?
GPS is everywhere, sorta.
But the reality is that Wi-Fi goes a lot of places GPS does not.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
First one that came to mind was this one: 6,759,960
It is a patent on using the known location of an access point. It's not specific to 911, but I think it would be covered.
In America it's not so much Goebbel's "Big Lie" that sways the crowds, but Bush's "Dumb Lie". The stupider the lie, the more Americans want to hear it repeated.
Since many IP devices are WiFi enabled already, I propose a network of WiFi location beacons. Just like APs broadcast SSIDs, why not make cheap, autonomous GPS/WiFi devices that simply rebroadcast their GPS location via WiFi? Deploy them by the truckload into major cities and let the laptops and the WiFi phones of the world choose to listen if they want.
This would provide a solution to the FCC's stated desires (providing E-911 to VoIP), while avoiding the mess that a network-based location tracking system would cause. A client-driven system needs to exist so that location determination and transmission is under complete control of the client.
I'm interested in throwing ideas around about this concept - wifigps@gmail.com if you want to discuss at length.