Using Cell Phones to Track Traffic

msh210 writes "The AP has reported (with additional information from KMOX-AM) that the Missouri Dept. of Transportation will be teaming up with a private company to track in-use cell phones on Missouri highways and state roads in an effort to monitor traffic flow. Individual information will not be stored, they say -- only the aggregate will be studied, using "sophisticated" math. (See also findlaw.com's commentary on privacy concerns. "

Comments

Better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Using cell phones to track dupes.

Re:Better idea

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

How is this off topic? Isn't knowing that the story (and ensuing comments) have already been discussed important information?

Re:Better idea

[Alex P Keaton in da]

Someone should, using "sophisticated" math, figure out the the stories most duped are the ones that get the most comments... More comments = more page reloads/serves and more ad revenue....
Does no one else notice this? Stories about some small niche thing with limited interest gets posted once, and only once. Anything that engenders comments mentioning A: Big Brother, B: Bush/Repubs or Democrats or C: Europe/Asia/America/France (especially france) sucking get posted again and again. Because guess what, even trolls count as a page view for Ad reporting.
So there is the answer to the dupe question- It isn't funny- it is just business.

Re:Better idea

[stupidfoo]

But, we haven't had a US vs UN Internet root control discussion for days now!

Re:Better idea

[Biff78]

This isn't a particularly new idea. A similar study was conducted in the Washington, DC area 3-4 years ago. I believe the results were pretty accurate due to high cell phone use in the area. People raised privacy concerns then as well.

Re:Better idea

[Buran]

This is the second time this story has been printed (AND I LIVE IN FUCKING ST. LOUIS) and I have received NO credit for the submission. I hold my middle finger high at whatever fuckhead posted a dupe AND failed to acknowledge a local's submission!

Re:Better idea

[matzebrei]

Assuming the most duped stories are the ones with the most comments, all that means is that there's a lot more people addicted to righteous indignation on these topics than on the more technical/deeper/niche/etc. topics.

The only thing advertising revenue explains is why they don't get killed.

Re:Better idea

[Tongo]

Give it ten minutes.

Re:Better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. what a moron you are. chill bud, this is slashdot. stuff happens move on with whats left of your miserable life.

P.S. Perhaps your mom shoulda considered having an abortion.

what?

[conJunk]

is it just me, or does this sound like a complete waste of money? privacy concerns aside (i'm not convinced there are any), what will this accomplish that video cameras don't already do?

so we'll use mobile phone signals to monitor traffic? seems heaps less efficient that actually looking at real traffic volume...

Re:what?

[LordNimon]

Video cameras can't count cars. A device which detects cell phones can.

Re:what?

[rocjoe71]

I would say that cellphone antenna towers are already in place, depending on the area, traffic cameras might need to be installed.

A traffic camera also has a limited scope and would cost more to run a series of cameras to provide continuous coverage along a single stretch of road. Presumably, if there's cellphone coverage in a given area, there could be traffic monitoring with no need to deploy extra hardware and technicians.

So from a procurement and deployement angle, this could actually save money and provide more bang for the buck, considering how pervasive cellphone coverage is in metropolitan areas.

Re:what?

[GoodOmens]

This has been going on for the past 6 months in Maryland.

http://www.mddailyrecord.com/pub/5_398_friday/busi nessnews/172883-1.html

MMTIS uses the movement between towers, without collecting personal information, and uses that data to determine speed and movement in specific areas.

Re:what?

[honeypotslash]

They must be trying to get people to stop using cell phones while driving by making them paranoid that they are being tracked.

Re:what?

[pvt_medic]

The hope is to use existing infrastructure, so you dont have to spend money to build up a network of video cameras, and instead just tap off the cell companies network

Re:what?

[Anonymous Coward]

But if you have no cell phone, you are invisible to the system.

Re:what?

[Trevahaha]

You think there could be methods such as motion detectors or those rubber things you run over when they count the number of cars that go through intersections.

Re:what?

[Surt]

I think you got that backward: a cell phone detector can only count cell phones. For example, a bus with 18 people using cellphones on it is not 18 cars. A video camera, on the other hand, can tell you exactly how many cars are on the road, and what types and sizes, and their speeds.

Re:what?

[thelexx]

"privacy concerns aside (i'm not convinced there are any)"

Really. Would you like a personally assigned police officer to trail you around 100% of the time you aren't in your house or on your lawn, taking notes on what you are doing? Once pervasive enough, remote surveillance accomplishes the same exact thing. A velvet cage is still a cage.

Re:what?

[Trevahaha]

And obviously those drivers without cell phones won't appear at all. I don't know exactly how they do it here in Seattle, but we have live automated traffic monitoring in Seattle that (I believe) uses the cameras on the freeway. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/traffic/seattle/

Re:what?

[soft_guy]

As an aggregate, X cell phones will mean Y cars. It would take very little money to do such a study and figure out what the rate is.

You'd probably need to reevaluate it each year or after any laws go into effect that could effect the rate (such as laws saying you can't talk on a cell phone while driving - either in Missouri or in a neighboring state.)

Re:what?

[Politburo]

Right.. but there are many other sensors in use that detect traffic flow, speeds and roadway conditions on major highways. Look for odd boxes on the side of the road with antennas and camera-shaped objects pointed at the road but with no lenses.

This is simply unnecessary.

Re:what?

[fury88]

Actually this is much more accurate than what they do here in Florida. They use the ePass things to track traffic but not everyone has them. I would thing that more people own cell phones than ePasses, though it could be the same ignorant people who don't want to get an ePass that don't want to get a cell phone for safety reasons.

Re:what?

[ifwm]

Knowing where you are is in no way equivalent to knowing what you're doing.

The only thing cell phone tracking tells anyone is where your cell phone is.

"A velvet cage is still a cage."

And hyperbole is still hyperbole.

Re:what?

[stupidfoo]

Actually, analyzing the video streams would allow you to count cars. So, video cameras can count cars.

Re:what?

[Andrewkov]

Maybe measuring cell phone usage would be chearper and easier than installing these devices everywhere.

Re:what?

[squiggleslash]

Even worse, I don't see this working unless the cellphones are in use. Most of the time they sit there being quiet listening for a call from the tower. They're not constantly exchanging GPS information with the tower.

It strikes me that this is going to bias the results towards the groups that generally talk & drive. Makes little sense to me.

Re:what?

[Andrewkov]

But statistically, you can estimate how many cars are on the road.. Like if you know that 87% of cars have cell phones, you can figure out approximately how many cars are on the road. Presumably you'd only have to have the phone turned on, not be speaking on it. (oh, and the 87% I pulled out of my ass, I have no idea what the actual percentage is, nor did I RTFA)

Re:what?

[MCraigW]

You think there could be methods such as motion detectors or those rubber things you run over when they count the number of cars that go through intersections.

There are, but somebody has to pay to purchase and install such equipment. Monitoring cell phone use on a busy highway is cheaper, the equipment already exists wherever there are cell phone networks.

Re:what?

[MCraigW]

a cell phone detector can only count cell phones. For example, a bus with 18 people using cellphones on it is not 18 cars. A video camera, on the other hand, can tell you exactly how many cars are on the road, and what types and sizes, and their speeds.

It isn't the number of cell phones, it is how fast they move from cell to cell -- thus telling you the speed that traffic is moving on that section of highway. Estimating the number of cars and trucks in the traffic jam is an exercise left up to the reader...

Re:what?

[mspohr]

If you had RTFA, you would know that this works without the user talking on the phone... the phone is always in contact with the towers so that the phone company knows where to find it even when you are not talking.

Re:what?

[mspohr]

A cell phone tracker can tell how fast traffic is moving by knowing how fast each particular phone traveled from point A to point B. You don't really need to know how many cars/busses/trucks are on the road. You only need one cell phone traveling to tell the speed of the traffic which is the important information here.

Re:what?

[Kevin Stevens]

This system is using statistical analysis to cheaply determine traffic volume.

I am fairly sure that the mix of cars, trucks, busses, etc is more or less constant during the workweek and probably different on weekends and holidays. Similarly, I am also fairly certain that the percentage of riders with turned on cellphones is also more or less constant. So... I count the number of cellphones in the area and can calculate the speed they are traveling and I can get fully automated real-time traffic data.

A cellphone tracking based system is far easier to automate (and hence cheaper) than traffic cameras being put on the road every few miles which then have to be monitored by real live people. People are expensive and a recurring cost, and counting cars is not a great use of people.

You will have to re-evaluate your assumptions every year or so to take into account changing trends in cellphone usage vs. the number of cars, but overall the system will require little manual intervention to keep it accurate, and hence save lots of money.

Whether or not I would call basic statistical analysis "sophisticated" is another story though.

Re:what?

[vertinox]

A velvet cage is still a cage.

Its still better than sleeping in the iron one.

Re:what?

[CreatureComfort]

None of this is for monitoring traffic volume. It is for monitoring speed and density (or flow). The available technology for evaluating speed and density from video cameras is extremely poor. I've been testing this stuff since 1995 and it is totally unreliable. Right now, the best point source of speed and density is radar scanners by a company called wavetronix. The biggest drawback, however, to both these and video monitoring is that both are expensive to deploy, require extensive communications infrastructure to retreive the information in real-time, and are point sources of information. The huge advantage to tracking aggregate cell data is that side-of-the-road sensors, and their concurrant communications needs, are not necessary. Instead all of the information is coming from cell towers, which are already in place and which already have high bandwidth connections available for transferring data. The other big advantage is that you get wide area coverage and data, as opposed to a single point on a single roadway. So far all of the agreements and systems I have reviewed or demo'd for doing this supply only aggregate, not individual data from the cell service provider to the traffic agency. The cell company already knows who you are and where you are for 911 purposes. They are being very careful, with information to be handed to non-law enforcement agencies, to only provide anonymized, or aggregate data, outside of their network. I.e. that may say that vehicle ID XJalkdjfh877634 was detected at location latX, lonX at time Z1, and then later detected at latY, lonY at time Z2, or, more frequently, they will provide information that all devices detected along road segment X in the last 5 minutes traveled the Y distance in Z time.

Re:what?

[negative3]

Traffic sensors and cameras cost money and need to be installed & maintained. The Findlaw article states that this will apparently save money when compared to traditional means.

Re:what?

[squiggleslash]

Bollocks. I stand by what I said. It is most emphatically not the case that phones are "always in contact" with the towers. If that were the case, your battery life would be the same regardless of whether you're on a call or not.

Cellphones for all modern popular standards do little but listen every few seconds for a paging signal when they're not in use. They do not generally transmit anything unless they're getting out of range of the tower or system of towers (depending on the standard) they're registered with, are turned off, or are about to become active (make a call, send a text message, etc)

At best, without the cellphone engaged in a call, you might be able to determine that a cellphone is within a few miles of a particular tower. That kind of precision isn't exactly useful if you're running anything but the most rural road networks.

Re:what?

[mspohr]

Since you don't want to read it..

From TFA:

Although most new cell phones come equipped with Global Positioning System capabilities that can pinpoint their locations, the tracking technology used for transportation agencies does not depend on that. Instead, it takes the frequent signals that wireless phones send to towers and follows the movement of the phones from one tower to another. Then it overlays that data with highway maps to determine where the phones are and how fast they are moving. Lumping thousands of those signals together can indicate traffic flow. To keep from being tracked, motorists could turn off their cell phones. A Delcan demonstration Web site developed for Baltimore uses various shades of green, yellow and red to show block-byblock whether vehicles are moving at or below the speed limits. As rush hour started on a recent workday, observers could watch as green turned to yellow and then red on roads heading out of downtown.

Re:what?

[LifesABeach]

I'm sure gonna hate myself in the morning when I find out that bin Laden was in rush hour traffic, on a cell phone. Wait! I didn't know that the Show Me state HAD enough "Running" cars for a traffic jam. They must have "Bear" looking front yards now.

Re:what?

[Stubby]

In fact the traffic industry does use Video Detection to count cars.

http://www.iteris.com/rs/products/vvs.html

http://www.autoscope.com/products.htm

These are just 2 popular solutions.

They use video processors and fixed focus cameras to determine the presence of vehicles on the road.

Some security cameras use a similar type of system for intrusion alarms.

This is not new technology.

Re:what?

[jabber01]

So, when I break down on the highway, in the middle of the night, with no one else around, and call AAA, the traffic monitor will inform the public that the turnpike is gridlocked? Brilliant!

And if I break down at rush hour where by some strange feat of fate, no one in the quickly passing cars is on their phone, it will again register as gridlock. Dubbly brilliant!

And unless my phone has built-in GPS, all that can be monitored is the hand-offs between towers, which complicates thing just a bit.

And of course NOBODY lives within the cell-tower's footprint of the highway, and they never use their cell phones at home, or while driving on frontage and neighborhood roads.

They'd be better off installing radar guns on signs and overpasses, and reading traffic speed and volume that way.

Re:what?

[squiggleslash]

Why thank you for repeating it. The fact you repeated the article means that it is entirely correct, and that all of a sudden, mobile phones are connected constantly to the towers reporting on their every position.

Which means we're all fucked because our battery lives are going to hell.

Seriously, why did you quote that?

Re:what?

[lamp540]

Yeah, but no one in missouri rides buses... Well we do a little bit, but for the purposes of this they want to be able to track traffic during rush hour and that's pretty much just a whole bunch of single people in cars with cellphones.

Re:what?

[instarx]

...a cell phone detector can only count cell phones. For example, a bus with 18 people using cellphones on it is not 18 cars. A video camera, on the other hand, can tell you exactly how many cars are on the road, and what types and sizes, and their speeds.

This is insightful? The system described isn't interested in how many cellphones are being used on a road so it can't be "fooled" by 18 people in a bus. It is interested in how far cellphones travel in a given amount of time. A cellphone taking 15 minutes to jump from cell tower A to B to C to D along a specific roadway has a definite rate of travel associated with it. No one really cares how many vehicles are on the road, only how fast traffic is moving. TV cameras do allow counting cars, but counting cars was just a way to estimate traffic flow because the number is cars is usually inversely proportional to the speed of traffic. In other words, why estimate traffic flow by counting cars when you can directly measure speed by tracking cell phone movement? Five or thirty cell phones traveling quickly from tower A to B and then sitting for 30 minutes in tower C's coverge area indicates a traffic jam. Who cares if they are in a bus?

Re:what?

[rk]

The GP is correct. You are making an unwarranted assumption that a cellphone communicating to the towers to determine where you are uses the same amount of power as talking on the phone.

How do you think you receive incoming calls? Do you think that every tower in the country broadcasts trying desperately to find your phone? No. Your cellphone looks for cell towers, sends some data that basically says "here I am!" and the tower and its associated network take note of that. This does take some power, but not as much as when you're talking. When you move into the range of a new tower, the cycle repeats itself. When an incoming call comes, the network already has a pretty good idea where you are. Wikipedia does a pretty good job of giving a basic explanation.

I do not know for certain, but I am given to understand that the primary reason they want cellphones off on airflights is not because of a threat to avionics systems, but that the frequent handoff signalling going on plays holy hell with the cellular network. This is not a field of specialty for me and perhaps someone with more knowledge can clarify and/or correct.

Re:what?

[squiggleslash]

The GP is correct. You are making an unwarranted assumption that a cellphone communicating to the towers to determine where you are uses the same amount of power as talking on the phone.

No, the GP is incorrect. Do I have to quote ETSI standards to demonstrate it (and, God forbid, read the rantings of CDMA advocates too)? I am not making any such unwarranted suggestion. The GP is claiming that the cellphones are in constant contact with the towers. That's bullshit. If they were, then yes, we'd be talking about power usage similar to that of talking, because yes, it doesn't matter if it's voice, location data, or the bit "0" repeated over and over again, if you are in continuous communication with a tower, you're using the same power.

How do you think you receive incoming calls? Do you think that every tower in the country broadcasts trying desperately to find your phone? No. Your cellphone looks for cell towers, sends some data that basically says "here I am!" and the tower and its associated network take note of that.

What exactly was the point in this rant? I explained in the response to the GGP how the network determines which towers to use to page a phone. Do you want to point out where your rant contradicts my description? Here's what I originally said:

Cellphones for all modern popular standards do little but listen every few seconds for a paging signal when they're not in use. They do not generally transmit anything unless they're getting out of range of the tower or system of towers (depending on the standard) they're registered with, are turned off, or are about to become active (make a call, send a text message, etc)

That's factually correct. It's also enough activity that the mobile system knows enough to know which towers to transmit pages from in order to contact a cellphone. It does not constitute continuous communication with a cellphone, and as I said in my comment also:

At best, without the cellphone engaged in a call, you might be able to determine that a cellphone is within a few miles of a particular tower. That kind of precision isn't exactly useful if you're running anything but the most rural road networks.

which is also factually correct. So either the story is an exaggeration, or is plain wrong.

Or do you really believe that cellphones are in constant communication with the towers, giving towers completely unnecessary exact location information, as the GGP seems to think? If you do think that, you better start quoting chapter and verse from the respective standards. I can tell you that it's not true. Forget battery life, the towers would be swamped with entirely unnecessary bandwidth use. The networks do not need data of the form "Tower 2 is in range. Tower 2 is in range. Tower 2 is in range". They just need "Haven't talked to you in a while, I think Tower 3 is a little closer than Tower 2." once in a while.

Re:what?

[rk]

"Or do you really believe that cellphones are in constant communication with the towers, giving towers completely unnecessary exact location information, as the GGP seems to think?

Not at all. You're totally right. It seemed as though you were saying there was no two-way communications going on when you're not actively using the cell phone. If I misinterpreted, then I apologize. The data is certainly only transmitted when there's a status change. I was wrong about the power thing, and unclear in my description of cell tower switching. It was late. Sorry I wasn't more clear-headed.

I need to quit posting after 11pm. I always seem to be apologizing the next morning. :-)

But, your original claim about a billion levels up still doesn't hold. It would be a pretty straightforward matter to take the aggregate tower switching data from various towers and come up with an approximate value of area freeway speeds. Implementation for a real-time summation of this data would be a bitch (the devil's in the details), but certainly feasible. The article's claim that you would know "instantly" is crazy, but this could be made to work fairly well with some good statistical work up front.

Re:what?

[squiggleslash]

I apologize for the strength of my comment. I was getting pissed off. I need to stop ranting at 8am.

But, your original claim about a billion levels up still doesn't hold. It would be a pretty straightforward matter to take the aggregate tower switching data from various towers and come up with an approximate value of area freeway speeds. Implementation for a real-time summation of this data would be a bitch (the devil's in the details), but certainly feasible. The article's claim that you would know "instantly" is crazy, but this could be made to work fairly well with some good statistical work up front.

Freeway speeds? I guess it might work under certain circumstances. Given a cell will generally cover more than a freeway, that's a lot of hard work, and realistically, if you're trying to get an idea of that, rather than amounts of people (as has hithertoo been claimed) I can think of easier methods, including just driving on these roads at rushhour.

Re:what?

[rk]

I apologize for the strength of my comment. I was getting pissed off. I need to stop ranting at 8am.

It's all good. I think what people sometimes forget on slashdot is that most of us care about technology and that we're passionate about the Right Thing. Sometimes that leads to some heat, but that's always a by-product of work, right? I've been in face-to-face meetings with other engineers where we get boisterous with one another, but when we get out, we know we've probably got the best ideas we can come up with. We know that ideas didn't get overlooked just because someone was timid and didn't speak their mind. I prefer someone speak up, even if they're wrong. You never know but that a wrong idea will trigger something that's even more right that otherwise wouldn't have come up at all.

Freeway speeds? I guess it might work under certain circumstances. Given a cell will generally cover more than a freeway, that's a lot of hard work, and realistically, if you're trying to get an idea of that, rather than amounts of people (as has hithertoo been claimed) I can think of easier methods, including just driving on these roads at rushhour.

Oh, you're right. It's not trivial work. But you can derive a fair amount of flow data just by watching things move from one general zone to the next. With some cars per day statistics for freeway and arterial roads, you might be surprised with the accuracy a good statistical model would give regarding traffic flow on the roads in an area.

How about using "search" to track dupes?

[Gothmolly]

For instance, a simple search would have uncovered This Page.

Re:How about using "search" to track dupes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, but that page doesn't mention how you can use your cell phone to track traffic.
(provided you're in one of the metropolitan areas covered by this free site)

http://www.wiresoft.net/about/free_public.html

Re:How about using "search" to track dupes?

[hackstraw]

But typing something like site:slashdot.org cell phone traffic and looking at the first link is a bit much.

I know there are two camps about dupes. One is a little more benevolent, "Yeah, they do it, we know it, but that is pretty much OK". The other is, "Why don't the people who run this site know their content or are to dumb or lazy to do a simple search like the one above?"

I fall in the later category. The slashdot guys might actually be that dumb or lazy to know how to use google. If thats the case, oh well.

To me, its simply unprofessional and I am embarrassed for the editors. They apparently lack this emotion.

The thing is -- I don't have a problem with dupes. Hell, 99% of the articles are dupes. Anything close to mentioning the RIAA is going to be about the same, any Linux vs Windows TCO article is about the same, there's the tin foiled hat stuff, SCO, etc.

I'm just saying, that all the slashdot guys have to do is either read their daddypants mail that we paying members of this site send to you before an article is released in the wild, do a 10 second google search, or something, and just put a blurb to say "Yeah, we covered this before here and here is new information.

One of two of those simple things that are already in place. That is all I ask.

Its different when you have a conversation with someone and you repeat a story because you don't remember telling the story to that particular person. But this is an electronic document that is searchable.

To me, this really does negatively affect the slashdot experience that I love so much. To me, this is unprofessional. To me, this is completely unnecessary. To me, it is important.

After all this time, and it still keeps happening. I really wonder if this is some kind of a joke or attention getting trick. I don't know because I have not discussed this with any of the editors, but this appears to be some kind of collective behavioral/psychological problem of the editors. Clearly, it is not a technological one.

Re:How about using "search" to track dupes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Slashdot is not FOR US, they are just for using us. How do they do this? By giving us slightly what we want, which buys us in to keep on generating them hits which makes them more money, which goes to pay people like Linus to develop software for us which generates them more free advertising as open source software sites link back to slashdot.

Well will people learn? Don't let other take control of you and things that should be in the hands of the public and not in the hand people that can use it for personal benefit and disadvantage others!!

Everyone is getting used in this world and it could be at first the person/group/org/foundation they least expect but after some time they might start to realize it, so maybe in 5 year time the slashdot community will grow up and realize they are being used as Slashdot is not in their hands its in the hands of VA Software... that now is in the hand of some greedy corrupted jerks, they may of not been like this before they had money... but the second they did they 'evolved' into these greedy corrupted jerks that still do a LOT of good things but that's just to make them more money. Bill Gates. Steve Jobs, Larry Augustin (Founder of VA Software, currently chairman), Ali Jenab (CEO of VA Software)... ARE ALL THE SAME!!

Sorry if I didn't explain my self in the best possible way but I have been up all night and I have to goto school in about 1hr so...

Now they will really know where we are

[Barkley44]

So they will know where we are, where we stop, how long we spent at location XYZ... Great!!! It's a great idea, so old problem with privacy and how much they track/retain on specific details.

Re:Now they will really know where we are

[Barkley44]

I know they say they won't track it, but I find that hard to believe.

Re:Now they will really know where we are

[Joe Random]

It's not that they won't track it, it's that they likely can't. The DoT is being provided aggregate data by the cell phone company. If the cell company decides to give them specific enough data, then the DoT could probably use it to track individuals. However, it's highly unlikely that the cell companies would hand over that much data, and just as unlikely that the DoT would want to have to handle such a large amount of specific data when a smaller batch of aggregate data would do just as well.

Re:Now they will really know where we are

[Bob3141592]

And how fast you're going. If the proposal was to use cell phones to track speeders, the public reaction would be much different. If that's a concern, the time to object is now, or it will soon come to pass (corry, the pun was irrestible).

Re:Now they will really know where we are

[tompaulco]

I don't care if they know how fast my cell phone is going unless they also know whose car my cell phone is in and who is driving at the time.

Re:Now they will really know where we are

[pilgrim23]

Does this mean if I "Shut up and Drive" I am invisible?

I'll save them some money

[stlhawkeye]

Traffic is bad on 40 East in the morning and 40 West in the afternoon. 270 is often packed too. Source: me. I drive it every day.

Re:I'll save them some money

[windows]

Traffic might be predictable somewhat in Saint Louis. I used to live there. I know this.

That being said, I do see some uses for this. I can't count the number of times I've seen the 70 backed up in rural Missouri because of accidents. Maybe it's not that much use in the city of Saint Louis, but it might be worthwhile in, say, Montgomery or Callaway counties which the 70 runs through.

Re:I'll save them some money

[stlhawkeye]

True dat. Also, if it's raining outside, or it LOOKS LIKE IT MIGHT RAIN SOON, everybody in St. Louis county slows down to 45 miles per hour. They also brake while going uphill. This causes traffic problems that are usually confined to within a 2-mile radius of major interchanges, such as 40/170 and 40/270 to run all the way into Illinois. I'm not sure why this is. Despite the fact that it rains here like every other day in the fall, St. Louisans react to every weather phenomenon as if it were the first time they've ever encountered it. There are two basic philosophies.

Weather Driving Philosophy #1: Denial
It's not really pouring rain with lightning strikes every 1.9 seconds. I will continue to drive 80 miles per hour and weave in and out of traffic in my H2 and honk at people who don't do the same.

Weather Driving Philosophy #2: Abject Terror
Oh my god, it's the end of the world, I am going to die in this rain storm if I creep this hulk along any faster than 30 miles per hour in the left lane, nevermind the six miles of furious motorists behind me, don't they understand that it's my life we're talking about?

Amazingly, despite this, there are rarely any major weather-related accidents here. I have learned, however, to not even bother going to work if it snowed over night. First, the roads are jammed, even if there's not actually any snow on the road itself. The mere thought of snow paralyzes this entire metropolitan area. They cancel school at 4:00pm the day before when it's not even snowing, it's just predicted to snow. This has resulted in "snow days" when it's 49 degrees and sunny. Second, even if you manage to get to work, nobody else will show up until 11:30 and everybody leaves at 3:00 to "beat the traffic" which is still getting sorted out from the morning snow snarl.

Perhaps it's too easy for me to be critical, having grown up, "in the north" where a 12 inch snowfall isn't uncommon, there's school the next day (at worst, it's delayed for an hour while they shovel the buses out of the lots and all the drivers get there), and life goes on. Still. It'd be nice to log into a web site in the morning and see a density-map of traffic activity and try to plan an alternate route that, while getting me work no faster, feels faster because I'm not staring at the Kerry/Edwards 04 sticker on the bumper of the Volvo in front of me for an hour.

Re:I'll save them some money

[Buran]

Amen. I bought drivethru takeout on my way home last night, and it was raining. It was cold by the time I got there and I live half a mile from the food place. The highway was jammed. The side road was jammed. I finally took a residential street to get home. I saw no accidents. It was not fully dark. WHY was the road jammed solid at 4pm on a Monday!?

I don't condone speeding. I don't do it myself most of the time. But it's NOT that unsafe to do the limit in the rain as long as you have working headlights, wipers, and tires that aren't bald!

I work just east of Forest Park. I live in Brentwood. It's not that long a drive and it shouldn't take that long!

Re:I'll save them some money

[GreenK]

Yep, daily commuter to STL here too, and rain can double driving time. On Halloween we had a traffic mess. ( first rain in a while, first business day of being off DST, and people rushing home early for halloween parties, etc. )

My 43 mile I-70 commute has improved over the years, the backup gets pushed further and further out. At the times I drive it's usually ot to Mid Rivers / St. Peters.

Re:I'll save them some money

[Anonymous Coward]

Move outta stinkin' St. Charles.

Re:I'll save them some money

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's another good one: "If there's snow on the road, just put your car into neutral to go downhill and you won't slide off the road." I've actually had people tell me to do that.

Let's clear this up. Rule #1 is that you must keep your car under control at all times. Not doing so is illegal. So when you drop it into neutral and careen down a snowy hill, you are breaking the law and deserve to get a ticket at the very least. This is why traffic sucks in St. Louis. Almost nobody knows how to actually drive. They simply know how to work the controls of a vehicle. It's like the difference between knowing your ABC's and knowing how to write a novel.

Add to this the unfortunate fact that there's no public transportation to speak of and a huge area of urban sprawl, and you have a recipe for insanity and frustration. When I say "sprawl" I don't just mean your usual wasteful use of land area that most cities see. I mean that the St. Louis metro area is at least 70 miles in diameter and is home to only about 3 to 5 million people.

Re:I'll save them some money

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in STL. Maybe the fact that you drive 43 miles has something to do with how bad traffic is. How can you stand to waste that much time in the car every day?

Re:I'll save them some money

[karnal]

Depending on where you're at, 270's not all that bad.

I've lived in Columbus for the past 12 years, and traffic here is never as bad as some other "big" cities. Of course, still doesn't help me from cursing when there's a traffic jam on 270 for 15 minutes.

Re:I'll save them some money

[paulbiz]

Three things to do if you want to look like a real St. Louis driver: 1. When merging into a highway or other fast moving traffic, you must slow down to a speed of at least 20mph slower than the traffic you are merging into. This is especially important to do if there is a lot of dense traffic on the highway and a group of cars stuck behind you. 2. You must never use your blinker. Ever. 3. Stop signs with white borders are optional, right?

Re:I'll save them some money

[tony1343]

From my experience, St. Louis schools don't cancel too much b/c of snow. I am 21 so I'm not too far out. Now I'm in Nashville, and they cancelled school b/c they thought it might flood, and then it barely even rained. My high school rarely cancelled until one day two buses got in accidents. Then I think they were a little more scared because of potential law suits. You see a lot of closings for the more rural areas, because it takes forever for their roads to be cleared. The street I lived on would be cleared within hours. St. Louis is also a very spread out city, which means a lot of roads to clear, but really they do quite a good job with that. St. Louis traffic sucks really only during rush hour and when there is construction, with lanes closed. That seems to be quite often though, because MODOT is completely incompetent. I watched a worker sit on the curb on my street for 4 straight hours without doing a single thing but eat his lunch. My only complaint with St. Louis drivers are that they don't seem to know that the left lane is for passing. At least they know that a red light means stop. In Nashville, TN, the first 3 seconds mean you can keep going.

Re:I'll save them some money

[GreenK]

Because most of the time it's only a 50 minute drive. I plan to move at least halfway closer so that my drive is only 30 minutes. The problem is that it's hard to find a decent house that's private and cheap enough for a first time buyer.

Slippery Slope

[Renraku]

This time next year:

"Your honor, the defendant's cell phone was detected half an hour after the crime was committed, heading away from the crime scene along I-85 doing 65MPH. Clearly, he was speeding to try to get away from the crime scene."

Re:Slippery Slope

[heinousjay]

Wow, you really lubed it up to come to that kind of conclusion. I can only hope you forgot the sarcasm tags.

Re:Slippery Slope

[AKAImBatman]

From Lectric Law Library:

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - Circumstantial evidence is best explained by saying what it is not - it is not direct evidence from a witness who saw or heard something. Circumstantial evidence is a fact that can be used to infer another fact..

Circumstantial evidence is generally admissible in court unless the connection between the fact and the inference is too weak to be of help in deciding the case.

You need a lot more than a single circumstantial fact to "prove" that someone committed a crime. Rather, you need a large number of such facts that close in on the case and provide a single, inescapable conclusion. Even if you have done that, be prepared for the defense to argue each point under a "hypothetical" context, thus convincing the jury that the "evidence" is nothing more than a set of coincidences presented in such a way as to make the defendent look guilty.

Re:Slippery Slope

[alecks]

Yeah, versus "Your honor, the defendant's CAR was SEEN ON TRAFIC CAMS half an hour after the crime was committed, heading away from the crime scene along I-85 doing 65MPH. Clearly, he was speeding to try to get away from the crime scene

Re:Slippery Slope

[shawn(at)fsu]

Only on /. would this be modded insightful.

Where is the +5 paranoid moderation. I'm just wonder do a group of posters just sit around and try to figure out how to turn any topic in to a potential privacy issue?

Re:Slippery Slope

[Anonymous Coward]

sarcasm tags are deprecated in the new slashdot templates.

Re:Slippery Slope

[Anonymous Coward]

And that would require storing the information, wouldn't it?

EZ-Pass aleady used for this...

[marcsiry]

Automated toll collection tags used in the Northeast ("EZ-Pass") are already being used to monitor traffic flow. Not only are these tags traceable to you, they are connected to your credit card, which is auto-debited for tolls. Currently they are not being used to auto-ticket speeders (you wouldn't even need to use 'sophisticated' math to figure that one out), but they do warn that the EZ-Pass info will be used for traffic monitoring and monitoring 'violations of your agreement.'

Here it is in the service agreement (search onpage for 'monitoring'):

https://www.ezpass.csc.paturnpike.com/paturnpike/t erms.asp

Re:EZ-Pass aleady used for this...

[barzok]

Not only are these tags traceable to you, they are connected to your credit card, which is auto-debited for tolls.

You are not required to tie the E-ZPass account to a credit card. You can have them bill you monthly. Even if you do tie the account to a CC, you aren't debited for the toll amount every time you pass through. You put $25 or $35 on account with E-ZPass, and the amount is debited from that. When you reach $10, your CC is billed that $25 or $35 again. I'm sure they make a ton of money on the interest/investment on this money.

Currently they are not being used to auto-ticket speeders (you wouldn't even need to use 'sophisticated' math to figure that one out),

In NY, last I checked, an officer must first observe you, think that you are speeding, then verify that you are via radar gun or similar. A location for the offense is also required - how would they know at what point you were speeding? In addition, the on/off ramps are long enough (again, this is my experience in NY) that anything but a really blatant offense, like 10+ MPH over the limit, will be negated by the slowdown at the entry & exit. Not to mention what happens to your average speed when you sit in line for 5 minutes at the toll plaza. So far, they can't legally issue a ticket based on E-ZPass data.

Re:EZ-Pass aleady used for this...

[The Outbreak Monkey]

"Currently they are not being used to auto-ticket speeders..."

Why is everyone so concerned about this?

They don't need an EZ-Pass to determine if you were speeding or not. All of the information that they need (time stamps) is also available on the paper ticket. One could even argue that auto ticketing paper ticket holders would be a more effective means of ticket distribution as the toll booth collector could even hand you your ticket back with your change. With an EZ-Pass auto-ticketing system, you'd have to go through the trouble of mailing the ticket.

Furthermore, where I live, they have the ability to take a photograph of the license AND the driver at every toll booth. So my point is, if they were going to start auto-ticketing speeders, having an EZ-Pass isn't going to make it any easier for them to give you a ticket.

Re:EZ-Pass aleady used for this...

[cayenne8]

Forgive me that I'm not familiar with the toll roads up north...they must be more pervasive than down here in the southern US.

You're not required to get one of these EZ passes are you? Do you have to interact with people at the toll booths? The ones I've seen here, just have a booth at one end...you either throw the money in the basket, or hand to attendent...and drive on. There's no booth at the end of the thing...so, do you have to check in at one end and check out at the other?

I was looking at some web sites out there, that have 'clear' plates you can put over your license plate(s) that is clear to the eye, but diffuses camera images to make the number illegible. Would this not work for the toll booths like it does for photo radar?

I wouldn't have a much of a problem with speeding tickets being handed out if it were indeed for safety...however, today..it is ONLY for revenue generation.

I guarentee, if you didn't give the $$ to the cops, that they'd not be as gung-ho to enforce them as much. I say lets take all the speeding ticket dollars collected...pool them, and distribute back to the community to everyone that did NOT get a ticket for that year. Would be incentive there....but, I doubt that the police would be as adament about enforcing it. Maybe then, they'd spend more of their time patrolling looking for real violent crime...and not mess with people going +10-30 over trying to get to work and pay taxes...

Re:EZ-Pass aleady used for this...

[cayenne8]

Geez..I gotta start spell checking before I hit the send button...

:-)

Re:EZ-Pass aleady used for this...

[Iphtashu Fitz]

You're not required to get one of these EZ passes are you?

Nope. It's offered as an incentive to pass through tolls much quicker. It can be quite useful if you drive toll roads on a regular basis, especially if there's a lot of traffic backed up at tolls.

Do you have to interact with people at the toll booths?

Nope. You don't interact with people at all if you have an EZ Pass.

The ones I've seen here, just have a booth at one end...you either throw the money in the basket, or hand to attendent...and drive on. There's no booth at the end of the thing...so, do you have to check in at one end and check out at the other?

Precisely (about booths at both ends). We do have some single toll booths in a few places (heading up to NH, bridges/tunnels that enter cities like NYC & Boston, etc). CT got rid of all of theirs years ago. But toll roads like the New York State Throughway, the Massachusetts Turnpike, etc. have toll booths both at their entrances and exits. You get a ticket when you enter, and pay when you exit. The toll amount varies depending on where you enter & exit. The cost increases the longer you stay on the highway. Going one exit might only cost $0.50 but going the entire length of the road can cost a few dollars. The EZ Pass is a little box you mount on your windshield behind the rear view mirror. If you have one then you can drive through specially marked lanes at the toll booths that will read a serial number from that box. In some cases you don't even have to stop - you can drive through at up to about 15mph. It sure beats waiting in line to get a ticket or pay your toll!

Re:EZ-Pass aleady used for this...

[The Outbreak Monkey]

This is how it works on the PA turnpike...

No you aren't required to get an EZ pass, it is just a convenience that makes it so you don't have to deal with the toll booth operators. If you don't have an EZ pass, you have to pay the toll booth collector.

There are some toll roads around here that do have the "money in the basket" option avialable at the end, but they aren't part of the "main" PA turnpike. The good thing is that they don't require a paper ticket. The bad thing is, "Exact change required." ;)

Re:EZ-Pass aleady used for this...

[krbvroc1]

Automated toll collection tags used in the Northeast ("EZ-Pass") are already being used to monitor traffic flow.

Can you be more specific? Do you mean monitoring flow at toll plazas or are they tracking flow with EZ-Pass at non-toll plaza locations. In Maryland I have noticed solar operated sensors on the side of the highways in various locations. I've wondered if these are collecting EZ-Pass info or just counting cars in general, but I'm not sure. Any ideas?

Re:EZ-Pass aleady used for this...

[barzok]

Tollbooth operators are not law enforcement officers. For them to issue tickets, they'd need to be trained appropriately and their standing in the world significantly upgraded. I'd wager many wouldn't even qualify.

Re:EZ-Pass aleady used for this...

[elbowboy]

Anyplace with a high enough population of EZ-Pass or other transponders could in theory calculate travel time with it. It isn't very useful to count cars though because unless you are on a toll road the percentage of the population with tags is very low and readers aren't cheap (about 30k per 3 lanes of traffic).

Even when EZ-Pass data is collected it's not directly linked to your credit card, only the authority you have your tag through (NY, NJ, MD, VA, MASS etc) has your credit card info, and all of them have privacy agreements that keeps your info with that agency alone. If you go through a plaza or somewhere they use tags for traffic monitoring all they see is tag number, who issued it, and the status (Good, Bad, Stolen...) I use to work for an issuing agency and even if i had a tag that ran our booths without paying there was no way that other agency was giving me any personal info without a search warrant.

Oh and you didn't get a ticket because EZ-Pass caught you speeding, tags are only read once and can't calculate speed. You want to blame something blame the treadle you drove over.

hypocritic

[p2sam]

Aren't they a bit hypocritic when they discourage cell phone use on the road on one hand, and then try to use cell phone usage to track traffic?

Re:hypocritic

[mblase]

Aren't they a bit hypocritic when they discourage cell phone use on the road on one hand, and then try to use cell phone usage to track traffic?

No. It would be hypocritical if they discouraged cell phone use, and then used cell phones themselves while driving.

Re:hypocritic

[SComps]

You don't actually have to *use* your cell phone on the road, just being powered on is enough to track it's location. The phone does all the "Hi! Here I am!" stuff all by itself.

Re:hypocritic

[Joe Random]

You don't need you to actually be talking on the phone, it just needs to be turned on.

Re:hypocritic

[Tackhead]

> Aren't they a bit hypocritic when they discourage cell phone use on the road on one hand, and then try to use cell phone usage to track traffic?

Not hypocritical at all.

A cell phone is trackable even when its owner is not talking on it.

This article provides a good outline on what happens. Basically, there's a control channel, through which your phone communicates whenever it's got a battery in it. Your phone listens for an SID (System Identification Code) on this channel, and tells the appropriate MTSO (Mobile Telephone Switching Office) "Hi, I'm here". The MTSO has to know where you are, so that it can route incoming calls to the device.

All that's happening here is that the traffic monitoring folks are listening in on the back-channel communications between a large number of cell phones and base stations, and using the changes in location (as averaged over a large number of devices) to guesstimate the average speed of traffic. Individualized cell phone tracking is useless for a traffic flow application, so it's actually highly likely that the traffic folks are telling you the truth when they say that individual data isn't being logged, and that only aggregate data is being recorded.

The technology's nothing new - a system like this is necessarily a part of any wireless phone system, otherwise your phone couldn't ring when someone called you. No such agency is now permitted to do such a thing domestically (a sentence that can be parsed in at least eight ways, all of which are true), but they probably don't, because everyone else who's also interested in individualized tracking, is already doing this, has been doing this for years, and is using other tricks in software to locate their targets to within a few meters, all in real-time. They aren't using the traffic-control folks' data, because they don't need it.

Re:hypocritic

[CaptainSpud]

Who are "they"? Missouri has no laws about cell phone use while driving. Yack away!

Re:hypocritic

[Anonymous Coward]

Or perhaps this is a sneaky way of telling everyone who is worried about privacy to not use cell phones while driving. Myself I hate cell phones AND I worry about my privacy so I'm already covered. :)

Now if only they could have a giant laser home in on the cell signal and zap the driver....

Re:hypocritic

[mobets]

How would they know you changed location if they didn't keep your previous location to compair it to. Wouldn't they have to keep personal information for at least a little while? What is to stop them from saving this data in the future? I'm not all that concerned, but it is something that should be considered.

Re:hypocritic

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting from work so AC... (not that that will help much, but still)

The article you cite is a very very very very simplified version of how cell networks work, so don't draw any specific conclusions from it, lest you be, well, wrong.

First of all, the process that you're talking about is "registration." This process does NOT happen when the phone is off. Yes, this process does happen when the phone is powered on, but not very frequently in most systems (minutes apart). Also, all you get with registration is a very rough estimate of distance from the cell. If the site is sectorized, you'll get a very (VERY) rough estimate of the azimuth.

Alse be aware that registration only will pin your location down to an area, not to a specific cell site. That is to say, the system will know you're in the general vincinity or area, but that's all it cares about. If you're called, the switch will send out a page to every cell in the area, if it doesn't find you, it will use a larger area.

Re:hypocritic

[msh210]

KMOX's guest, from the company that will be doing it for MoDOT, said it will only work with cell phones in use. But the driver doesn't have to be using it, of course.

Privacy concerns

[Mostly a lurker]

The concept of tracking cell phone movements to assist in optimising traffic flow seems to me a good one. I expect other similar good ideas to be forthcoming. Surely, there ought to be technological solutions to allow tracking while reliably protecting individual privacy. Perhaps, each cell phone could generate a short term session identifier (24 hours in duration and not tied in an obvious way to the phone number) for use in such tracking applications? It might also be feasible to allow paranoid phone owners to opt out.

Re:Privacy concerns

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure. Unless you log the session ID, date it was used, and the phone number it was associated with in a database.

Nothing to see here, please move along

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just the government's way of beowulf clustering our cellphones.

Re:Nothing to see here, please move along

[greenguy]

A Beowulf cluster of phones? The horror!

what?-Under pressure.

[Anonymous Coward]

Since they're looking at aggregate data. Those roadside pressure sensors can give you the volume and rate.

Re:what?-Under pressure.

[bdcrazy]

IDOT in the chicago area uses microwave and inductor loop detectors to determine traffic flow and has been doing this for a long time. If you want up to the minute traffic flows, you can go to http://www.gcmtravel.com/

Re:what?-Under pressure.

[cayenne8]

What is the great need to monitor traffic in real time? Who does this information go to?

The only traffic info I've ever seen given to drivers is via the radio...from helicopter reports, and that's only during rush hour...

What is the need at all for all the cameras and tracking?

I can see that traffic data over time might be useful for city planning and all...seeing where roads need to be widened and such....but, why is it needed in such detail in real time?

Re:what?-Under pressure.

[bdcrazy]

and that url should have been:
www.gcmtravel.org

bad me.

Re:what?-Under pressure.

[kannibal_klown]

Not every radio station has a chopper. They have to get their traffic info from somewhere. Some rely on people calling in information, some listen to other stations, etc.

While a cellphone counter might not be the best route, having a system to provide realtime traffic info is definately a good idea. The strategy would be to place some sort of automated realtime traffic sesnor around all of the major and secondary routes. This reduces dependency on choppers that might not go everywhere or people kind enough to call in.

Besides possibly providing info to the radio stations, people could hopefully have access to it. Say you want to go somewhere, but you want to plan out your root. Look at the traffic of the different routes and pick the best one. Sure, you could listen to the radio, but the traffic is looped slowly so by the time you hear the area you want you might be too close to change your plans. Then there's always the fact that some routes you may want to take aren't covered.

There are systems in place, but none are perfect. What we need is a simple and automated system we can place throughout the major and secondary roads/highways/etc.

When I needed to drive to college, my commute could range from 25 minutes to 2 hours depending on traffic and weather. The quicker I can find out the information and/b the more I have access to, the better.

Re:what?-Under pressure.

[tompaulco]

From what I have seen in the aviation world, I would say that we could soon see real time traffic updated on your NAV system in probably the next several years.
The aviation world already has real time satellite broadcast weather and other updates.

Re:what?-Under pressure.

[bdcrazy]

You touched on the long term uses of these and other traffic monitoring devices, it may not be needed or necessary but it is rather helpful for me.

I use the real time data every morning to determine whether i take i90 to the office, or i290. I use whichever is the least congested, and or change the time i leave for work. This is one of the main uses of the data i can think of.

Another is from the traffic data they can usually determine there was an accident before it has even beeen reported, and use the cameras to find out what is happening. They have overhead signs every so often on all main highways. If they post there is an accident ahead, people will be more cautious and/or find alternate routes.

Re:what?-Under pressure.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because if congestion is detected traffic light operation can be changed to ease pressure on clogged roads. We have electronic signs on the sides of the roads here that candisplay messages indicating alternate routes well ahead of the congestions so that the problem is not compounded. Basically, the monitoring is the first step in fully utilizing the existing roads so that we don't have to widen roads as often.

Re:what?-Under pressure.

[mzwaterski]

Maybe something like this product from Garmin: http://www.garmin.com/products/gtm10/index.jsp using their service for 60$/year?

Re:what?-Under pressure.

[Eccles]

I believe the Acura RL's navigation system claims to have real-time traffic monitoring already, and it would definitely be a popular feature in future nav systems.

Re:what?-Under pressure.

[newcombe]

The need to monitor traffic info in real time is demonstrated by the fact that it is already done here in UK. The data captured is non-personal and relates to the cell location of the mobile (i.e. it is detected as on a Motorway (freeway) or other major road and the speed at which the mobile is travelling. The results of the analysis basically shows that mobile cellular phones on a major road that are travelling slowly or not at all indicates a traffic jam. This is called "floating car data". The results (i.e. knowing where the traffic jams are) is then fed to motorists over a number of media so that they can replan their route to avoid the jam. Media incluse radio (as you say) but more importantly is also fed to real-time navigation devices already fitted to many cars, or available as after-market add-ons (e.g. TomTom Go). The important thing is that this can be done without the cost of installation and maintenance of road sensors/traffic cameras.

What they will find out...

[TheOtherAgentM]

is that cell phones are the cause of much traffic. People on cell phones slow down or even get into accidents.

Re:What they will find out...

[fdrebin]

is that cell phones are the cause of much traffic. People on cell phones slow down or even get into accidents.

I remember the good old days, before cell phones.....
No trafic jams!

Actually, I agree that it can contribute to traffic problems. I just have to be snide sometimes.
/F

Re:What they will find out...

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually drive safer when I am on the cell phone.

Re:What they will find out...

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose you also think that you're the best driver on the road and "it's everyone else that's the problem, LAWLZ"?

"Seatbelts stop me from getting out quickly." "Alchohol makes me drive better." "My tires are inflated, I just kicked them." "MY SUV is safer then your car."

Stupid
Dumb
Idiot
Moron

Does powering off work?

[Karma_fucker_sucker]

Cell phone users may be able to accomplish the same thing by turning off their phones - but at the cost of not receiving what might be important calls from spouses, children, elderly relatives and others.

I once read, here I beleive, that powering off a cell phone doesn't keep it from transmitting. You have to remove the battery or put it into a foil bag. Is this correct?

What is the best to protect your privacy with regard to location with a cell?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

As a St. Louis commuter...

[fak3r]

As a St. Louis commuter I can see some value in this, since almost everyone on the road is too focused on the mobile device in their right hand to use any lane change indicators! Still, I can see the privacy concerns, however, if all they're doing is monitoring how much traffic (radio waves) are in the area, it's far different than them listening in. Think about all the radio waves flying around you right now, if you had a device to tell you how much of that energy is moving around, what's the big?

Re:As a St. Louis commuter...

[fdrebin]

It'd be a hell of a lot cheaper to put a few webcams and/or simple traffic counters on the road. What IDIOT would come up with this overcomplicated... oh, wait, this is Mizzourah. Nevermind.
/F

Re:As a St. Louis commuter...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you had bothered to check, the region already has so. This is a cheaper way to monitor traffic outside of heavy metro areas. Piggyback on existing infrastructure instead of having to run data lines to each and every counter you want out there. Overcomplicate things? heh.

I'm not going to post the url, but do a simple search for "gateway guide". There's the stuff your looking for.

BTW, as someone who deals with STL traffic, this tech won't help anything, the roads need to be upgraded. All the traffic cams, sensors and cellphone reports still will not save you from the daily backup on 270/70/40/44/55.

If anything, I'd rather see all the money in this project go towards this MO/IL bridge they've been fighting over.

Re:As a St. Louis commuter...

[hebie]

I am calling in from my cell...please keep this brief, but what is a lane change indicator

Re:As a St. Louis commuter...

[LoP_XTC]

As a St. Louis commuter ....

Oh yeah? What high school did you go to?

Sorry inside joke ...

lopxtc

Re:As a St. Louis commuter...

[fak3r]

Nice one, after living in Austin for 9 years, the move BACK to St. Louis is an eye-opener. Seeing folks I haven't seen since High School (not always a good thing!) I went to Ladue btw, but don't hold it against me. Hey, I was in the Computer Club!

Old News: Cell Phones Have Been Used To

[Anonymous Coward]

Track Al-Qaeda.

Patriotically,
Kilgore Trout, M.D.

My state makes me sad

[MacFury]

They do boneheaded things like this all too often. They are seriously considering shutting down HWY40, a major highway that connects the suburbs to the city. HWY40 doesn't have exit and on ramps that are the proper length, so they want to do construction to fix all that. If they shut that highway down it will double or triple many peoples morning commute.

Of course, if people would simply stop trying to cut everyone else off, and not drive like total pricks, there wouldn't be any problem. Not to mention the fact that the white flight has caused all these upper middle class jerks to move out of the city but still work there, burning gas for hours each day just to drive back and forth to work.

Re:My state makes me sad

[lpangelrob]

Ever think that maybe, just maybe, deficient highway design leads to more accidents?

Case in point — Interstate 74 in Peoria, Illinois. Worst urban highway I've ever driven on. The signs specifically tell you to keep left so that you don't collide with merging traffic. This is after you have to keep right... so that you don't collide with merging traffic coming in from the left. This is because the ramps in this area are about 500 feet long (most modern Interstates give you about a quarter of a mile... 1600 feet) because of space issues in the 1970's. A handful of ramps were marked as 15 mph exit ramps. One of the ones I frequented had a 10 mph dead-man's U-turn.

3/4ths of the way into rebuilding, I can already tell that, thanks to modern highway design, there will be far fewer accidents, injuries, and fatalities on the road because drivers won't have to do crazy things to get on and off the highway.

Re:My state makes me sad

[Anonymous Coward]

"white flight"

The whole reason people don't want to live in the city is because of the crime. Point your web browser to the Metro PD website and pull the crime stats. Then make a few calls to find out the crime stats from St. Louis County.

The worst crime is in the city, and in North County. Heck, even U City is starting to take a dive.

Hate to tell ya, I'd rather know I can come home to a nice calm neighborhood, versus living in the city with daily drug deals, theft, police, fire, etc... It sucks.

I guess that's why more and more businesses are "fleeing" to West and South county.

Until you get respectable landlords and landowners, St. Louis will continue to see an exodus into the county and IL.

I like movements like mstl.org and "save the city", but if you actually look at the people behind most of them, it's people who have large amounts of land who stand to grab a great windfall from property values increasing.

HWY40 is way overdue, closing the interstate or not during constructiong is ALREADY going to double and triple peoples commute times.

It's too bad that Metro is so stupidly run, if they had better routes, the system would be utilized so much more. Instead, we've got this north/south route that won't be completed for another 5 years, if the lawyers even approve it.

Re:My state makes me sad

[cayenne8]

"Not to mentin the fact that the white flight has caused all these upper middle class jerks to move out of the city but still work there, burning gas for hours each day just to drive back and forth to work."

Well...if they could make the city safe again, and provide upscale living units, better city services, and schools...you'd not see people leaving for suburbia. And don't kid yourself..it isn't just white flight any more. Pretty much anyone regardless of race that starts to reach middle/upper middle class, will naturally move to safer communities where quality of life is better. Where would you rather raise a family? In an area where you kids can play safely in the yard or a neighborhood pool, or somewhere where they might easily get run over by a bus, or get shot by a crack dealer?

Actually, most cities NEED to get those 'jerks' you refer too...that my friend is your TAX BASE that the city needs...to provide for those on the dole...

We're about to see this in New Orleans soon. They are taking so long to get $$ and utilities for housing, that they predict that the minority of middle class earners that were here...won't come back...if you lose that tax base...what will the people in the projects do for support? Gonna be an interesting social 'experiment' down here...

Re:My state makes me sad

[Anonymous Coward]

Except where the ramps are long enough people only get up to 30 or 40 and stay there, even though traffic is moving at 60 (Olive to 170S), or try to get over right away instead of using the length to merge in gracefully (170S to 40E). I hate that some many homes in Richmond Heights will be lost to ramps that people won't use to their full purpose.

Re:My state makes me sad

[Buran]

For non locals, this is Interstate 64.

See http://www.thenewi64.org/ for details.

If they shut it down I'm screwed since I live at the beginning of Forest Park Parkway near 170 and work at FPP & Euclid.

Guess which section is completely shut down? Yes, that's right. From where I live to where I work. Great, "it's only part of it" but it doesn't help me get to work if the bit I need is precisely the bit they won't let me use.

I'm screwed if they don't reopen the road before 64/40 goes away. Sure, they claim it will be back, but it should have been open RIGHT NOW and it isn't -- they keep pushing back the open date!

Re:My state makes me sad

[lamp540]

Don't worry, the forces of _gentrification_ have started to counter-act white flight in st. louis. ;) now if we could just find a place to put all those damn negros...

Not clean! Must wash again!

[TheTranceFan]

Ack!! The unclosed parenthesis at the end of the OP is compelling me to wash my hands over and over. And it's not helping.

Re:Not clean! Must wash again!

[msh210]

The way I submitted it, there was more text, and a close-parenthesis, after what actually made it through.

My first thought

[Control Group]

I can't be the only person whose first thought was of Doctorow's Eastern Standard Tribe, can I?

Not that this has anything to do with music...but it's certainly a step in the direction of Doctorow's future.

Not exactly "news"...

[Anonymous Coward]

...considering that this story broke...what? Over a month ago?

Not quite a "dupe" but not "news" either.

Next I expect to hear about how Harriet Meiers isn't going to the Supreme Court...

Re:Does powering off work?

[GigsVT]

If it transmits when off, it must only be tiny bursts spaced way out, because most phones I've seen can last months on one battery charge when powered off.

It couldn't be doing much transmitting and not sap the battery.

That data is already tracked

[bigtrike]

Your cell phone carrier already tracks that information. I don't know if it's saved, but tracking your movements via your cell phone was doable at least 15 years ago, probably much longer. This used to require a warrant, which probably went away with the "patriot" act.

Be careful what you assume

[LaughingCoder]

So then, a bus full of high school teenagers with cell phones will look like a major traffic jam?

Re:Be careful what you assume

[Anonymous Coward]

Not when sophisticated math is involved..

Re:Be careful what you assume

[Michael Wardle]

Surely they would derive information based on traffic movement, not just traffic density.

I thought your comment deserved a Funny instead. ;-)

Re:Be careful what you assume

[eurobendel]

No, it will look like many cars are driving with the same speed as the bus. Which is not critical for the algorithm.

At least the similar project that I work on here in Norway focus on travel speed, not the number of cars (read: cellphones).

Re:Does powering off work?

[MarkByers]

What is the best to protect your privacy with regard to location with a cell?

Leave it at home.

Ever more glad I don't have a cell phone

[CiXeL]

Tracking people in traffic, tracking individual users for crimes, etc.

I gave up my cell phone awhile back and haven't been happier. If a company gives me a cell phone to use i'll use it but at least it doesnt have MY name on it.

My growing weary of cell phones began when i worked for a company who would pay you an extra amount each month to upgrade you to the higher plan and then proceed to give your personal cell phone number to all the users. (this was a desktop support position)

Suddenly you have users calling you at all times of the day and youre constantly reminding them they cant call you off hours.

Later on the layoffs came but not all of the users realized i was gone. At this point I cancelled my service (i wasn't happy with the signal quality in my area from sprint anyhow)
and I haven't been happier. ie. I no longer get those chills everytime i hear the cell phone go off.

Now with everything I hear about tracking individual users I may never own one again. I am quite happy with my landline and unlimited long distance plan. I suppose if i need it for whatever reason i can always get a prepaid cell phone.

Re:Ever more glad I don't have a cell phone

[honeypotslash]

Suddenly you have users calling you at all times of the day and youre constantly reminding them they cant call you off hours.

That is what the off button is for... Either that or caller ID, so you can only answer if it's the boss.

Re:Ever more glad I don't have a cell phone

[marcsiry]

Lucky you! Now you can go back to the exciting days of sitting at home because you are 'expecting a call!'

You get to be one of those fortunate jobhunters who 'wait by the phone!'

For some bizarre reason, when my cellphone goes off I am somehow able to ignore it... in fact, I rarely pick up my phone for any caller unless it's someone I *really* want to speak with. No caller ID? You're welcome to leave a voicemail that I may review at some point in the future.

To me, a cellphone is an enabling technology- it enables me to make and receive phone calls at my convenience. It does not force me to take work calls after hours, nor does it force me to answer it everytime it rings in a movie theater. Those are human behaviors that I can control. I guess if you can't control your own behaviors, then getting rid of the technology that enables bad behaviors is the only answer...

Re:Ever more glad I don't have a cell phone

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but don't you know "the man" can track you to your landline!

Re:Ever more glad I don't have a cell phone

[pirho666]

If your Cell Phone ever "Rings" in a movie theater it deserves to be smashed into your forehead at a rapid speed. Then you will learn eventually to shut it off while you are at the movies. You might be able to ignore it, but I cant.

Re:Ever more glad I don't have a cell phone

[CiXeL]

1. who goes driving around when theyre unemployed? gas prices are ridiculously expensive

2. if i need a cell phone i can borrow my girlfriends for a little bit but i find ive only needed it once.

3. the chills from the ringing have to do with a boss that didnt accept poor reception as an excuse for not answering a call and would yell at you for not immediately returning the call even if it took awhile for the voicemail indicator icon to show up with sprint.

Re:Ever more glad I don't have a cell phone

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess if you can't control your own behaviors, then getting rid of the technology that enables bad behaviors is the only answer...

Sometimes the benefits simply don't outweigh the cost - even when the cost is very low. As my friend used to say "That was a ripoff, even for free."

Now you can go back to the exciting days of sitting at home because you are 'expecting a call!'

My life is simple enough that I don't get calls that are important enough to wait for. Nor do I have an ego to believe that I need to be in contact with the world all the time.

It doesn't matter

[rancmeat]

It doesn't matter what they say the info will be used for. The fact is they will be storing it, and as long as it exists there is the certainty that a lawyer will be able to convince a judge to use it for what it was never intended for.

Let's say the neighbor of a good friend is busted selling drugs. The DA could subpoena records that show you visiting that location on a regular basis, and suddenly you find yourself with a lot of unwanted and unwarranted attention.

It doesn't matter what the data is intended for, the collection of it opens a Pandora's box and the sincerity of the original party collecting the data becomes meaningless when the data vultures show up at the feast.

Skewed Results

[rubberbando]

The makeup of the passengers of a vehicle could greatly effect the results.

Think about it, a car full of teenagers will show several cell phone signals versus a car full of seniors or nuns which would probably have 0 cell phones inside.

Re:Skewed Results

[belg4mit]

True, but in a simplified model all you care about is how fast the blips are moving, vis a vis posted speed limits.

Re:Skewed Results

[MCraigW]

The makeup of the passengers of a vehicle could greatly effect the results. Think about it, a car full of teenagers will show several cell phone signals versus a car full of seniors or nuns which would probably have 0 cell phones inside.

As I said (keyed in) in an earlier post, it doesn't matter how many cell phones there are. You can track how quickly they move from one cell to another, and know if traffic is jammed or not on a specified area of highway.

Re:Skewed Results

[rubberbando]

As I said (keyed in) in an earlier post, it doesn't matter how many cell phones there are. You can track how quickly they move from one cell to another, and know if traffic is jammed or not on a specified area of highway

Well, going that route. Wouldn't it look like a traffic jam if a bus full of teens broke down and was pulled over beside the road?

Problem with the slashdot article.

[way2trivial]

I doubt that it's just trackin 'in use' cellphones, but rather all phones that can connect to a tower (powered on)

Re:Does powering off work?

[Detritus]

All of the cell phones that I have seen turn off the receiver and transmitter when they are turned off. The only things that stay on are the clock, keyboard scanning, battery charger controller and backup power for volatile memory.

Privacy concerns-BadTechnology.

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember people:

Technology:==good.

People:==Bad.

Place blame accordingly.

In Solvat Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

Traffic track you!

Re:In Solvat Russia...

[SComps]

What particular Russian region is Solvat? Very agressive phones there.

Dupes

[adinu79]

Dupes are wonderful.

missing the point...

[PoPRawkZ]

You don't have to be using the cell phone for the cell phone to be used to monitor traffic. There is no hypocrasy here as nobody is promoting talking on cell phones while in traffic. Also, with monitoring such a large number of signals, I find it hard to believe they will be able to simultaneously figure out who is speeding. That would require multiple triangulations on each signal, requiring a much larger infrastructure. We can put away our fears of Big Brother for the moment.

Re:missing the point...

[Red Flayer]

"We can put away our fears of Big Brother for the moment."

I would disagree. We should never put away our fears of Big Brother. What we consider innocuous today would have been considered outrageous breaches of privacy a couple decades ago. Incremental intrusions on our privacy are hard to stop, and saying that we can let one go because it seems harmless is exactly how that happens.

Re:Does powering off work?

[voice_of_all_reason]

You gotta shut it down, lock it up, and dig a moat around it

Already live in the Netherlands

[Anonymous Coward]

For a live version somewhere else in the world, check http://actueleverkeersinformatie.brabant.nl/. This shows traffic density between Breda and Tilburg in the southern part of the Netherlands. Don't forget to enter the image verification code on the left!

Re:Already live in the Netherlands

[Anonymous Coward]

Verbroken!

Microsoft VBScript runtime error '800a000d'
Type mismatch: 'SPLITRECT(...)' /parameter.asp, line 92

Re:Does powering off work?

[Charcharodon]

Nope they don't broadcast when off, that's just the voices in their heads talking. An easy test is turn on the phone next to some cheap computer speakers. You should hear alot of garabage being picked up by them. It'll sound different and be different lengths of time for powerup, incoming calls, voicemail/text message alerts, or standby. Turn it off and leave it there and you wont hear a peep out of the speakers, no noise=no signal.

In Soviet Missori

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Missori cell phones track YOU!

Missouri is dumb....

[mc900ftjesus]

Why do you want to spend all of this money on something like this when the condition of the highways in MO is extremely poor at best. This is a state where road work is 99.9% asphalt patches and 0.1% repaving horrible roads.

As for sophisticated math, 1 car + 1 car + 1 car = 3 cars. That's as good as MO ever got at math anyway.

You can put your tinfoil hats away too, if a private company is doing this there's no way cell providers are going to let them find out what name goes to what number. All they'll end up doing is picking out how many individual signals they pick up over time. Or they could use a lot less money and put those black hose wheel counters down and count the exact traffic volume, or guess using some made-up cell phone calls per car theory, but that would leave spare budget to actually fix a street from time to time.

Re:Missouri is dumb....

[stlloftstyle.com]

Your absolutely right. Missouri's roads are not in the best of condition and this money should be spent on roads and I would highly reccomend lighting. The roads lack lighting to large stretches of I-64. Cell phones and traffic is the least of our worries. It is just anectdotal information. That is it.

Re:Does powering off work?

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

Put it under your tinfoil hat.

Google maps with traffic

[Barkley44]

I don't have time, but I've always thought it would be neat to integrate google maps with the latest traffic info for the city, so when u leave in the morning, you load your city and it will lists all the locations (ie. like the radio does as your drive in) with current traffic problems. So they could easily pull this info from the cell phones and show where there is heavier traffic. Perhaps someone has already done this though.

Re:Google maps with traffic

[Anonymous Coward]

Yahoo Maps already has an option to overlay traffic info. They show current avg speed along all highways and major roads using color codes, and its nearly real time too.

Incredible waste of money and invasion of privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Kansas City, they've installed cameras at many of the intersections on the Kansas side of town. These cameras are for monitoring traffic flow, which is absurd because KC has very little traffic congestion. I lived in Washington for years, where there was traffic all over town during many hours of the day. In Kansas City, the highways are clogged during the predictable rush hours, but at other times it's incredibly easy to get around.

I understand that St. Louis has some severe traffic problems, but why do we need this technology to tell us what we already know? That when you drive to and from work at the same time as everybody else you will get stuck in traffic.

This money could better be spent on improving bus service and convincing employers to stagger work hours.

so what

[dlt074]

i always get a kick out of new things to detect and report traffic... when you live in an area where traffic is always bad for every route, what's to detect? you know it's going to suck and take forever to get to work. leave early.

RFID's?

[Anonymous Coward]

everyone is worried about RFID's for tracking - this is the way big brother will do it.

What will google do?

[hal9000(jr)]

Use it to provide targeted, local ads on the radio and billboards?

What you say?

[eno2001]

I'm sorry but there is only one solution to all statistical problems that require tracking data. The Count from Sesame Street:

"One!! One car travelling down i90!!! Ahahahahah!!! Two!! Two cars travelling down i90!!! Ahahahahaha!!!..." ;P

You see son...

[Eli Gottlieb]

this is why we keep our cellular phones powered off whenever we're not using them. So the retarted tyrants can't find us.

Re:You see son...

[It doesn't come easy]

Keeping your cell phone powered off defeats part of the purpose of having it (someone can contact you wherever you are). A better solution is to also have a pager. Keep the phone off, receive a page, turn on the phone and return the call.

Re:You see son...

[hackstraw]

Keeping your cell phone powered off defeats part of the purpose of having it (someone can contact you wherever you are). A better solution is to also have a pager. Keep the phone off, receive a page, turn on the phone and return the call.

Argggg.

First, it is unsafe and soon to be illegal to talk on the phone when your driving. Second, every cell phone service I know of has the option of having voice mail which works when the phone is off or on. Third, I think its obnoxious when people have 15 different phone numbers and pagers in order to get in touch with them. Anything beyond one is unnecessary. The only exception would be for those that want to separate work/personal or something similar.

Last. If anybody is that important that they need to stop what they are doing at any given time while driving (presumably to somewhere for some reason), then I respect your importance, and you should just stay at home or some other safe location where you are less likely to get hurt or injured (driving is about number one there). I can't believe that anybody that important is allowed to drive a car. That makes no sense to me.

Re:You see son...

[It doesn't come easy]

Wow, interesting response...

First, it is unsafe and soon to be illegal to talk on the phone when your driving. -- Who said you had to keep driving? If you want, pull over. If you don't, then don't. The point is you can't be tracked by cell phone if it is off, but then you can't be reached either. Solution? Have some other way to be reached.

Second, every cell phone service I know of has the option of having voice mail which works when the phone is off or on. -- Who said anything, one way or the other, about voice mail? Voice mail is a solution, just not real time. However, it may work well enough for some.

Third, I think its obnoxious when people have 15 different phone numbers and pagers in order to get in touch with them. Anything beyond one is unnecessary. -- Really? I have 4 right now (home, office, cell, fax). Maybe I should quit work. That would at least eliminate one number...

If anybody is that important that they need to stop what they are doing at any given time while driving (presumably to somewhere for some reason), then I respect your importance, and you should just stay at home or some other safe location where you are less likely to get hurt or injured (driving is about number one there). I can't believe that anybody that important is allowed to drive a car. That makes no sense to me. -- Hmmm...and I thought the timing for receiving a call was up to the caller, not the person receiving the call. I guess I could always tell my wife to schedule any important calls so as to not call while I might be driving. Yes, that sounds like it might work...

Re:You see son...

[hackstraw]

Really? I have 4 right now (home, office, cell, fax). Maybe I should quit work. That would at least eliminate one number...

You have a dedicated fax line at home? (I don't count that as a phone number, but other's may differ in opinion).

Personally, I recommend quitting work, but that's your call.

I dunno, we are talking about having the "connection lines open". Your office phone only works when your in your office. Unless its a general company number, and then its only valid when your at work. Your home number only works, when your home, unless you have a PBX or something.

At least for me, my cell phone in my pocket works when its turned on, and when its off or I ignore the call, its for a reason. I have caller ID. Calling my cell and another number right after that is not going to work. Tried many times, failed every time. Pissed me off every time too. Doubly so if you leave a voice mail at both numbers.

My land line is only for outgoing calls, and long distance incoming calls when I'm going to be on the phone for a while. These people know proper phone etiquette. Otherwise, people try the phone that is in my pocket. Seems to make more sense to call the most likely phone that is nearest to me, but others can be more creative if they try.

I guess I could always tell my wife to schedule any important calls so as to not call while I might be driving. Yes, that sounds like it might work...

Granted, I'm not married and never have been probably never will be, but I've _never_ received an important phone call. Other people thought it was important enough to leave 10 voice mails saying the same unimportant thing ("call me, its important!"), but other than that I don't know what an important phone call could consist of. Somebody dying, I guess. But if I'm driving the opposite direction and am more than 10 or so minutes away, I don't see where I can do anything. I'm not that important I guess.

Re:You see son...

[It doesn't come easy]

Love the conversation.

Last comment: I dunno, we are talking about having the "connection lines open". Your office phone only works when your in your office. Unless its a general company number, and then its only valid when your at work. Your home number only works, when your home, unless you have a PBX or something. -- You say this inferring my comment about multiple numbers - a response to your comment that one number is enough -- is misleading in that these numbers don't count. But your comment was in response to adding a pager and you said one number was enough. Unless you meant that one cell phone number was enough (which I would agree with you on), your comment about multiple numbers included all numbers wherever they may surface. Therefore my response is valid. The truth is, one number is not enough, as you yourself indirectly point out by discounting all of the other phone numbers mentioned. It's the way we live today. Now, if we ever go back to a pre-1950's sort of life then I would agree that one phone would be all that's required.

Re:You see son...

[hackstraw]

Love the conversation.

Thanks.

My indirect points through my initial reply are twofold.

1) Its ironic that it is now more difficult and easier to get a hold of people at the same time. More numbers to know or dial. People can be more selective with caller id. etc. I try to be as simple as I can. I tell almost everybody that my phone number is my cell. Many times, they keep asking for more phone numbers. Work? My work gives me a cell phone so they can reach me, that is my work number. Home? I take my cellphone home with me, isn't that good enough? I have a home phone because my cell is owned by my work. Its stupid to have 2 cell phones. I would go nuts! Also my home phone is good for general gabbing, although I only do that with my family (their choice not mine) and one friend that lives out of the state. Its cheaper and more reliable than a cell.

2) The "important" thing that I kept bringing up. I'm just as guilty as the other guy that thinks that other things besides having food, shelter, and people are important. They are not, but we sometimes get wrapped up, angry, frustrated, and depressed over these unimportant things. I find it amusing when all of this "important" stuff is going on, and how all of it comes to a halt when something like a hurricane comes through. Its only at times like these, when people realize what is really important. At least for a short period of time.

65MPH is fast?

[narl]

..heading away from the crime scene along I-85 doing 65MPH. Clearly, he was speeding to try to get away from the crime scene

65MPH is speeding? Normal traffic on the freeways in town here (Phoenix, AZ) is 70-75MPH. Going anything less than 65 will get you run over. 55 is suicidal. The occasional 45MPH speed limit signs for construction are obviously someone's idea of a sick joke.

Ever more glad I don't have a burner.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I guess if you can't control your own behaviors, then getting rid of the technology that enables bad behaviors is the only answer..."

All you pirates ditch your burners.

Re:Does powering off work?

[Red Flayer]

'What is the best to protect your privacy with regard to location with a cell?'
Leave it at home.

Leave it at smoeone else's home.

Re:Does powering off work?

[hador_nyc]

wrap it in tinfoil!

Legal for private companies?

[It doesn't come easy]

The federal government has been twice told they cannot use cell phones to track individuals without showing probable cause...I would think this would apply to state governments equally as well. Wonder how it might affect commercial applications?

Re:Legal for private companies?

[s31523]

Well, I would bet that soon it will be OK to say, use the cellphone to track speeds and send a speeding ticket to the user. I have heard of EZ pass holders being given tickets for speeding based on an EZ pazz reading, and what about automatic photo traffic lights. If this gets approved, watch how it transforms into something the authorities can use.

Already in place in other states

[Anonymous Coward]

The wireless carrier I work for is already working on harvesting this kind of data to trend traffic patterns for the DOT in multiple states.

Important statistic

[benhocking]

But the statistic that's most relevant to traffic is the number of drivers who are yakking on their cell phones. Good drivers are less likely to be responsible for traffic problems. ;)

Yeah, I know - in theory it's possible that the people using the cell phones aren't driving. But, what percentage of the time have you seen someone on the cell phone in a car who is not driving that car? That, and the unfortunate fact that most cars are carrying only the driver. :(

Re:Important statistic

[Trevahaha]

Although funny, I don't think that's the point of this system. It's just to detect the flow of traffic.

SONNOVA!!!

[His name cannot be s]

I worked for a company in 2000 where we had done exactly this.

We built an entire set of services around tracking cellphones and the first thing we demo'd was a videowall anon tracking cell users on freeways.

We did a bunch of work for the NRC (National Research Council) here in Canada and got a grant to study it further.

Then the bubble burst, VC funding dried up and they sold off their assets.

*sigh*

What about airplanes?

[jmcwork]

What happens when someone on an airplane turns on their phone? Does it it look like some car is doing 500 mph cross-country?

Re:What about airplanes?

[ScottForbes]

In almost all cases, nothing happens: Cellular networks are designed to send and receive signals at ground level, or at most a few stories above it. The antennas that listen for your cell phone's signal are usually directional, and they're aimed a few degrees downward to maximize the coverage "footprint" -- unless you're in one of those bowl-shaped cities that give RF engineers recurring nightmares (e.g., Denver), the antennas aren't pointed in the right direction to receive any signals from five miles above ground level.

Cellular networks are also optimized for ground speeds: The software algorithms make certain assumptions about how quickly your signal will fade over time, all of which are invalidated if you're moving at 500mph. Plans to support cell phones on airplanes will work by putting a specially-designed "cell" on the plane, not by re-engineering all the ground networks to support flying users.

Re:What about airplanes?

[voice_of_all_reason]

The plane suddenly explodes without warning, taking out all other aircraft in a 50-mile radius. And if you're in a hospital, the patients all spontaneously combust, hemmorage, and implode at the same time. Actually, simply thinking about a cell phone causes cancerous cells to rampage unchecked throughout your body.

Too much tech ..

[it_waaznt_me]

Sheesh ..I was thinking this was about tracking your website traffic from cellphone .. I should get a break; ..

Murphy's Law

[petantik f00l]

These kind of schemes always end in tears for everyone. Sounds like a good idea on paper but the system complexity will end up being enormous.

1. The information will be organised and recorded at one central location - which will break
2. It uses the latest technology and, i assume, some stastical/mathematical techniques - which will probably be
incorrect and will end up giving false results anyway
3. 1 and 2 will cause extra congestion and extra cost - yippee!!!




http://petantik.blogsome.com/ - A Lucid Look at Reality

That's one way to cut down on cell phone usage

[Anonymous Coward]

Since I'll have my phone off while in Missouri it's that much less cell traffic.

Damn I hope they don't do this in my home state or I'll have to go back to using pay phones to check my voice mail.

In the words of C.W. McCall...

[Overzeetop]

...We Got Us A CONVOY..."

Funny part...

[ari_j]

Wanna know the funny part? I sort comments by highest scores first. This is currently the highest-ranked comment on this story. The story it links to has as its highest-ranked comment a link to a quasi-dupe. And the highest-ranked comment on that story is also a link to a quasi-dupe.

Re:Funny part...

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell us something we haven't heard before.

cellphones WAY less expensive

[SethJohnson]

Video cameras? That's the most expensive and least effective way to guage traffic. For starters, you've got falliable humans watching video output from the cameras. These humans require salaries, healthcare, retirement, paid vacation, etc. At most, with human-video camera implementations, you get, "Yeah, that street looks clogged up. Maybe you should take that other one."

With modern cellphones reporting GPS coordinates, you get computer-measured flow data from the roadways. This is where a program can actually be written to give real-time routing suggestions to emergency vehicles. If you need to get to the hospital quick, coordinating a bunch of civil servants watching monitors 8 hours a day to decide on the best route is not what I think is the best method.

Seth

Re:Does powering off work?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't own one. Like me.

Fly in your Chardonnay?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like raaaaaain, on your wedding day! It's a traffic jam (caused by a stupid cell phone user) when you're already late...

That's Alanis Morisette ironic, not "I read books" ironic. Another Alanis Morisette irony would be slashdot users arguing about all those other idiots with cell phones, when 90% (or more) of slashdot users are cell phone users. Obsessed with tech, gotta-have-the-latest, you know. But I guess that's why only they know how to use them properly. Even while driving. and everyone else is a n00b.

who would have thought, it figures.

News for nerds? Nerds don't talk this dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe the crap I'm reading here.

First off, use some logic. The ability to track your movements already exists and is used by law enforcement. The proposed system uses existing everything. What is being planned is to help people navigate traffic jams, not prosecute. The ability to prosecute based on your location or conversation already exists and is in no way connected to whether or not this traffic monitoring capability is deployed. If you ACTUALLY are concerned that the government is tracking you and listening to your conversations because you broadcast your content and ID, YOU ARE TOO LATE. That discussion was 15 years ago.

Second, I've seen multiple instances of "We already know where the traffic is" or "All roads are tied up at rush hour." Those are silly comments. I live in the Boston area and my commute to work via the turnpike can be anywhere from 35 minutes to 150 minutes. When I know it is over 80 minutes, I take back roads which get me there in about 70 minutes. I can't tell you how many times I and my co-workers have WISHED WISHED WISHED that the state would just track cell phone speeds and give me the data so I can choose a different route. In Boston, in only takes 10 minutes for a turned over tractor trailer to change my commute from 35 minutes to 150 minutes. And it happens several times a year. Other incidents, like car fires, fatal accidents, and construction, produce transient delays far exceeding the normal patterns. This system would be really useful for me.

Re:News for nerds? Nerds don't talk this dumb

[voice_of_all_reason]

We already have this. It's called Traffic Watch on about 12 different tv channels and at least one radio station.

2 of more cell phones in the same car

[justinpfister]

I wonder if having two or more cell phones in the same car will effect the data. Many people commute together and chances are good they both have cell phones.. Also, in heavy traffic areas the cars all go pretty much the same speed. I'm curious how sensitive the tracking is. My guess is that it will have to be acrurate to 5-10 ft. OR they could just calculate a statistic and assume every 1.01 cell phones = one car.. The 1.01 is just a number I made up.

Re:2 of more cell phones in the same car

[rbrewer123]

I think they're mainly interested in the average speed of vehicles in a given section of roadway. So two phones in the same car will not affect the data at all. They may also be able to get some measure of traffic volume, such as "there seems to be a lot more trackable phones on the road than is typical for this time of day." Etc...

Re:2 of more cell phones in the same car

[justinpfister]

That actually makes sense, although traffic density definately effects the speed. Density would allow me to understand when most people are leaving/going to work. High density probably increases the probability for accidents. Accurate real-time density statistics will help me plan the best time to leave for an easy commute. Unfortunately, I'd consider myself a professional commuter since I drive over 10 hours a week. This number could easily skyrocket to about 15-20 hours if I left at the worst times everyday. I really hope this traffic/cell phone tracking technology comes to Connecticut.

Privacy when Broadcasting Radio Signals

[THotze]

I've always thought that it was interesting that people expect privacy when they're litterally broadcasting something in every direction - I don't expect privacy when I'm yelling out something on a crowded city street. Why does changing the medium from audible sound to EM waves give you an expectation of privacy?

Not that I don't want privacy when I'm talking on a cell phone - in fact, I'd pay more for say, some reasonable level of encryption on my cell phone.... I just don't think its some sovereign right of mine to have privacy when I'm sending signals of any kind out in every direction.

You might think I'm wrong about this but consider satellite TV signals - DMCA concerns (which most of us don't agree with anyways) aside, I've always just thought.... you want me to pay for satellite service, fine. But to say that I can't interpret the signals YOU are beaming in to MY house in any way I want (by using a decoder, etc.) is ludicrous - if you don't want me to do something with them, DON'T BEAM THEM INTO MY HOUSE. Or try and use proprietary technology, encryption algorithms, etc. to prevent me from reading them - but its your job to make sure I can't.

What do people think?

Tim

Re:Privacy when Broadcasting Radio Signals

[Cyphertube]

I'm in firm agreement. Broadcasting is broadcasting.

If I want a true expectation of privacy, then I need to secure my network. That means physical security. If you tap into my line and read my data, then I'll be relatively upset, and I think you've done something wrong. If you overhear what I'm saying, then that's my stupid fault.

Granted, there are limits to this. I think it's wrong to go around with laser microphones and try to listen in on people's conversations when there is an expectation of privacy. I don't think trying to overhear someone's mobile phone conversation is a good use either.

But if you think you shouldn't be able to be tracked by your broadcast of EM waves, then you're stupid. The towers need to hear you. If you're looking at people in the aggregate by EM, it's no different than using other camera that measure visual or infrared.

Re:Privacy when Broadcasting Radio Signals

[MCraigW]

You might think I'm wrong about this but consider satellite TV signals - DMCA concerns (which most of us don't agree with anyways) aside, I've always just thought.... you want me to pay for satellite service, fine. But to say that I can't interpret the signals YOU are beaming in to MY house in any way I want (by using a decoder, etc.) is ludicrous - if you don't want me to do something with them, DON'T BEAM THEM INTO MY HOUSE. Or try and use proprietary technology, encryption algorithms, etc. to prevent me from reading them - but its your job to make sure I can't.

Wow -- I agree completely. In fact, when I read the first paragraph of your post, about cell phone privacy, I was going to respond with exactly this example. So there are other people who think like I do... scary.

Re:Incredible waste of money and invasion of priva

[digitalcaffeine]

I can give you the traffic report for every weekday late afternoon/early evening in Saint Louis (morning is pretty much the opposite directions). Hwy 40 Westbound moving slow from Kingshighway to 270 and from Mason to the bridge. Hwy 270 South moving slow. Hwy 70 westbound slow from the airport through Hwy 94. Slow across the Poplar Street bridge. And if it is sunny, there will be delays because it is too bright. If it is raining, accidents everywhere. So predictable. Ciao

re "sophisticated"

[mkcmkc]

Speaking as a resident, let me give you an example of what passes for "sophisticated". For several years, after people complained about tax forms being sent out with their SSN's on them, they started encrypting them. How? Using a substitution cipher (e.g., 4 for 1, 7 for 2, etc.) Now that's sophisticated...

Re:Does powering off work?

[Anonymous Coward]

I once read, here I beleive, that powering off a cell phone doesn't keep it from transmitting. You have to remove the battery or put it into a foil bag. Is this correct?

Cause we all know if you read it on /. it must be true!

Want privacy? Don't broadcast!

[dillon_rinker]

I was going to say more, but, yeah, the subject is pretty much it.

Good Idea

[agahtan]

I first heard of this idea a while ago. In my view, the privacy concerns that have been raised relate more to the mechanics of the implementation rather than the technique. The cellular providers can already track each user's approximate location. All that we're talking about here is using that information, in real time, to extrapolate traffic congestion. So long as the data is not stored, and is kept anonymous, it should not raise privacy concerns.

Why are you saying they are jerks?

[Anonymous Coward]

For white flight? So on principle, when should we expect you to be moving to the ghetto?
For being upper middle class? Again on principle, when should we expect you to be giving away your income? This partly ties in with white flight as no one wants to pay for leeches. As it should be in my view, I'm Libertarian.
For driving back and forth? Wait a sec, you are complaining about the traffic, so either you're commentating or apart of it. Hypocritical? But I agree in part on the gas burning bit, which is why I commute by bicycle almost everywhere; for three years now. I've found most things I do can be handled by bike, like going to the grocery store; backpack, otherwise I'll drive my car; battery has to stay hooked up to a charger lest it goes dead as I use it too infrequently.
For another reason unspecified?

Missouri?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good god. Traffic? In Missouri? Ok, maybe KC and STL, but that's about it. Oh yeah, Branson.

Big deal.

"We won't track you"

[beagle]

He is a fool who thinks this type of thing won't one day be used to track individuals.

Re:"We won't track you"

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you've never heard of

TruePosition

or the e911 requirements for the FCC. Basically, the FCC requires that you can be tracked from your cell phone. Currently the FCC requires accuracy around 100m, but these tolerances will be pulled in. You will see 5m accuracy within the decade in large markets.

As someone who knows the technology, I can tell you, it's a non-trivial process, and you can be safe in knowing that it takes a significant amount of precessing to perform a location. (Locations/second vary based on cell size, geography, number of cells receiving information, etc.). But it is possible. In fact it is happening.

Big brother is watching. You're safe though. No one cares about you.

Re:Does powering off work?

[crabpeople]

"Don't own one. Like me."

hey gramps, 1971 called, they want their mindset back.

wow man

[rdunnell]

You sound just like Capn' Roger Brandt!

You forgot I-55 though. That's always moving fine. Go figure.

Re:Incredible waste of money and invasion of priva

[hibiki_r]

And, for extra detail, 270 North will be jammed as you get close to 170, and the southbound jam starts between Dorsett and 40, depending on the time of the day and the weather conditions. Outside of a few accidents here and there, St louis traffic is very predictable.

Besides, hasn't some TV station had installed sensors all over the metro area anyway? What a waste.

Re:Does powering off work?

[NivenMK1]

It would seem to me that placing it in a foil bag would be a bad idea. Lithium batteries don't much like to be short-circuited, remember the exploding Nokia phones of yore? Same concept. Granted they may have electronics inside the pack to prevent this, but if they don't you could end up with a pocket full of flaming lithium...

Aggregation, and inference controls

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone is only using "aggregated data" - you have to ask yourself what is the size of the sample? If it's 100 cars, then hey - the chances of knowing that "I" was the one speeding is slim. If it's 10 cars or less, that chance goes up markedly. If it's 1 car, well then do the math.

My point is that I don't want to be part of any sample size because then I don't have to give any thought whatsoever to any of the possibilities.

Tracking with sensors in the road might be more expensive, but it works and doesn't shift the burden to me. I have a cell phone for making and receiving calls that I want to make and receive - and for no other purposes.

That someone else has decided that they can use the information leaked by my phone to infer something doesn't automatically give them the right to use that information.

For my money - since the government is taking this information w/o just compensation, I think it'd be a a violation of the 5th Amendment against unreasonable takings (read up on emiment domain and how they have to compensate you for your property).

All you need to do to improve traffic on the highways is this:

1) Reduce the number of on-ramps. Here in Chicago we have an expressway known as the Kennedy which has a fucken on-ramp every block...

2) Increase the ramp lane length of the on-ramps you do have. When they're short - people tend to chicken-out in entering the highway, or can't figure out that they need to get behind the cars and MERGE in... so traffic gets 'herky jerky' in those lanes. Hence, everyone moves into the middle or left lanes to avoid that bullshit. Check out Willow Road southbound on the Edens in Chicago to see what I mean...it's a freekin nightmarishly short on-ramp...

3) Raise the damn speed limit. Everyone's going 75-80 anyway - I've even been behind loaded school busses going 75 mph. And everything goes great until one jerk decides to go 55 in the left lane... then everyone has to pass that asshole. Of course the people in the middle lane then speed up to block those in the left.... If you can't handle 75-80, stay off the expressway.

4) Make it impossible to cut across from the far left lane all the way to the far right lane to catch that exit you're about to miss... This happens EVERY day at the Edens Northbound to I-294 tollway spur... fucken cheeseheads should just stay home...

4) Try actually driving on the highway every day for a month at the rush hour periods. HAve a passenger note where the hangups are, and WHY - then address the fixes...

5) Fix the timing of the stop lights at the end of the exit ramps - if cars are backing up onto the highway, well, that's gonna cause a problem... Change the style of the ramp to increase the queue size, or fix the light, or the issue with the street people are dumping onto....

But tracking where the cars are by cell phone... yawn.... doesn't give you the real info on what's actually happening there...

Captchas suck

You can "hear" this stuff, too.

[jpellino]

At least with any Cingular phone I've run across, get it within a few feet of any powered speakers (the unplugged signal but powered on mini-stereo to my Cambridge PCWorks is the test on my desk, my Sony clock radio suffices at home) and you'll hear a wicked chatter when anything comes across - sms, call, etc., and every so often when the phone's doing "nothing".

Re:Does powering off work?

[Anonymous Coward]

'I once read, here I beleive, that powering off a cell phone doesn't keep it from transmitting. You have to remove the battery or put it into a foil bag. Is this correct?

What is the best to protect your privacy with regard to location with a cell?'

Place your phone in a glass of beer.

My dad got a ticket from EZ Pass

[Anonymous Coward]

My dad got a ticket from them for going too fast through the toll booth (goint 15 in a 5) using EZ Pass. The ticket was automated and sent from EZ Pass, and included a warning that if he kept doing it he'd no longer be allowed to use EZ Pass.

See it in realtime ... in the Netherlands

[louisfreeman]

Nice, but you don't get to see it in action .... the Dutch do the same thing in the provice of Brabant and the info is published online instantly: http://actueleverkeersinformatie.brabant.nl/ -- use the capcha to see realtime traffic flow and speed.

Personal Experience

[xsspd2004]

I normally wouldn't reply to a dupe, but since I have personal involvement with this one here goes. Also, since I work for one of these organizations and I have full confidence the average Slashdot reader can figure out which one: I in no way speak for my employer in this matter.

I had a Cingular cell phone before all this came about and I basically chose not to participate in this program so I canceled my phone. I went through several levels of phone company BS trying to get my contract termination fee eliminated.

Basically, especially since my employer is involved, I don't want the possibility existing that I'll call in sick one day, only to have my employer track me to the bar. (Not that that possibility exists. O-:-) If they want this capability the least they can do is provide the phone. ;) Yes, I know, I'm a paranoid whatever. I just choose not to participate and I think that should be my choice.

My ordeal with Cingular included listening to one of their reps go on and on [cue Star Spangled Banner] about how Cingular would in no way collect any information that could personally identify me blah blah. And they would NEVER do such a thing, blah, blah. And the best part, how whenever they get the opportunity to help with an *American* problem like traffic they feel it is their duty as an *American* company to come to the aid of the citizens blah blah....... After about ten minutes of the speach he finally took a breath giving me the opportunity to "(Cou. Bullsh@#, cough cough)". This response seemed to really upset him.

They finally decided to partially credit the fee. Which between that and selling the phone that I got free because of the contract, I broke even. So, I feel that is fair. In the Christian sense of the word. Just kind of a pain in the rear, but I guess that's my choice.

My alternative was a T-Mobile prepaid phone with 1000 minutes for $100. Not a bad solution considering I paid cash and they don't have my name or any other PI2.

I think some of the responses on here make very good points about the pitfalls of this type of program. I think the intentions of all involved are good, but I don't think this concept is as well thought through as it could be.

I wonder what Judge James Orenstein would say?

[davidwr]

Judge Orenstein is the judge that rebuffed the fed's attempt to track a user by his cell phone without a warrant.

Judge Orenstein for one does NOT welcome our new cell-phone-survellance overlords. It helps that he's in a position to stop them.

Completely stupid idea.

[WebCowboy]

Determining auto traffic based on cellphone use seems like quite a dumb idea to me. And if it actually worked that's a bit frightening.

People ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO JAW ON THEIR CELLPHONES WHILST DRIVING! I personally hate compulsive cellphone-drivers and I seldom use my phone in the car at all even as a passenger, and I never answer it while I'm driving. The danger of such behaviour seems obvious to me. I'd expect that automotive cellphone use will taper off as more people realise this and more juristictions make it illegal.

I question the ability of even the most sophisticated math to accurately determine the percentage of all drivers actively using their cellphones at any given time. Seriously, what is wrong with cameras or strategically-placed pressure-sensors on the road? Seems a whole lot less complicated and more effective. It makes me suspicious about the true intentions of such surveillence technology when it is touted over more common-sense alternatives.

Re:Does powering off work?

[ohmypolarbear]

if by "off" you mean "not making a call"....

with the receiver off, how will your phone know it's getting a call?
with the transmitter off, how will the towers know where to route the signal?

if by "off" you mean "powered off"...

what is accomplished by leaving the clock on? It's trivial to receive a timecode as part of the initial handshake with a tower.
why would the phone need to scan for keyboard input?
why would it be storing instructions or data in its volatile (working) memory?

Missouri Libertarian Party somewhat concerned

[knobboy]

Press release (generated due to discussion partially involving previous Slashdot story) here:

http://www.lpmo.org/media/releases/2005/PR-2005102 2-01.shtml

California

[axonal]

In California we have sigalert (sigalert.com). Which basically is a bunch of detectors implanted into the road (the same kind used for stop lights). And it measures the time where something moves from detector A to detector B. This would seem to be a much more cost-effective approach.

The corrupt state of Missouri.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we trust a state government whose Highway Patrol steals a person's property and destroys it in violation of the state constitution? I don't think so.

Re:Does powering off work?

[Detritus]

if by "off" you mean "powered off"...

Yes.

what is accomplished by leaving the clock on? It's trivial to receive a timecode as part of the initial handshake with a tower.

It allows the user to set the clock to the time zone of his choice. That's the way my current phone works. It asks if you want to reset the clock to the value broadcast by the base station. You can say no. It also provides for valid handset time in areas with poor or no signal.

why would the phone need to scan for keyboard input?

Because the power switch isn't a traditional power switch. It's just another switch connected to an I/O port. The software running on the CPU is what actually turns things on and off.

why would it be storing instructions or data in its volatile (working) memory?

Because it is cheap and simple to store user data in battery-backed CMOS RAM. The current drain is tiny when it is in an idle state. High-end calculators have done this for decades.

Re:Does powering off work?

[ohmypolarbear]

ok, I'll buy that. Thanks.