Cell Tracking on the Rise

An anonymous reader writes "ZDNet is reporting that with the recent advances in cell phone tracking tech more and more companies are using it to keep track of their employee's movements. From the article: 'The gains, say the converted, are many, ranging from knowing whether workers have been "held up" in the pub rather than in a traffic jam, to being able to quickly locate staff and reroute them if necessary. Not everybody is happy about being monitored, however, and civil rights group Liberty says the growth of tracking raises data privacy concerns.'"

Comments

Easy solution

[sane?]

Turn the phone off before you go somewhere you don't want to be tracked.

Re:Easy solution

[ajs318]

Not quite.

The SIM is "your" identity. You used to be able to pop any SIM in any phone, and that phone would answer to your number and show your credit level. {But then, phone companies started locking phones to accept only their own SIMs; fortunately there are ways around this.} But the phone itself has an identity of its own; its IMEI, which is basically a kind of serial number. IMEIs are hard to falsify properly {though if you do ever want one for some purpose, you can always put a bag in a public place with a sign "RECYCLE YOUR USED MOBILE PHONE HERE" -- not many people report the scrapping of their mobile to the appropriate authorities, so its old IMEI is most probably still valid}. You will need to give a phone a new IMEI if it has been reported stolen.

If the phone is powered off {battery removed if absolutely paranoid} or inside a Faraday cage, then it cannot report its whereabouts. Calls will start going to voicemail until the SIM next registers with a base station.

The best way to avoid being tracked is to leave your phone in a known safe place, and just divert all your calls to another phone that nobody knows about. However, you will then have to pay for the second leg of the diverted calls. Worse, if the phone runs out of credit, they will all go to voicemail -- and then you'll have to put on credit just to listen to them!

Tracking. Good? Bad? Ugly?

[PastAustin]

Well personally I don't mind the idea too much.

As much as I don't like the idea of being tracked I think that being able to locate cell phones locations would be something with a lot of benefits from being able to find missing children to me being able to find out how long (in hours / minutes) it will be before my ups package comes.

While I think this would be a powerful device and I would love using it in tracking workforce I do understand that the idea of it being used for such is frightening to some (mostly because they are the ones who do hang out at the pub instead of doing actual work). I am not afraid of my company being aware of my location. I would just have a separate phone for work and home. I don't want them to know where I went to dinner with my girlfriend.
It's going to happen no matter how much we like it the question is when and to what scale.
Mainly the thing I want is delivery times for UPS to not be "Somewhere in between 8 am and 9pm"... those estimates suck.

Just because you have a mobile doesn't mean

[Biotech9]

Just because you have a mobile doesn't mean that it has to be turned on.

I'd gotten very used to always having a mobile on, being able to be contacted anywhere and at anytime. But I got rid of my mobile 3 years ago and haven't bothered getting a replacement, and it's been very refreshing to have to make appointments to meet people and so on.

More realistically, if you have your own mobile, you can leave it on and have it with you 24/7. But a mobile from your job should be set to turn on at 9 and off at 5, if those are your hours. I'm shocked by how many people I work with allow their bosses to make them work outside of office hours by ringing them up and getting them to do errands in their own spare time. It's bad enough with European companies slowly moving towards the American model of unpaid lunch breaks that aren't even 30 minutes long, without also copying the 24/7 worker ethic.

Re:Just because you have a mobile doesn't mean

[Eivind]

But even that ain't ok. I expect a certain level of trust in me from my employer -- there's really no alternative to this anyway because *any* employee can screw the employer over (atleast somewhat) if he wants to anyway.

An employer who is not willing to take my word for, for example, that it took 20 minutes longer from the airport back to work today than it does on the average is an employer I have no wish to work for. End of discussion.

Re:Just because you have a mobile doesn't mean

[Keruo]

Your colleagues are not the problem, your customers are.
Once they learn that you answer your work phone after office hours, they won't hesitate to call again.
Of course this relates widely to the business you work in, but if it's any service-related field, chances are, some customer might call you during out-of-office hours and ask some trivial matter that could be solved by simply RTFM or by someone else at the office who actually might be working at that time.

Re:Of course i'd complain

[shotgunefx]

It's one thing for the police to locate you, it's another for employers to do so.

I'm not concerned with people getting busted for doing things on work time that they should not, but it's the precedent it sets.

The problem is..

[Sir Pallas]

That (more and more) companies think they own employees, rather than that they pay for their time. If someone never shows up to work on one time or has bad performance reviews, that's one thing; and if it gets bad, let them go. But where that employee is and what that employee does (when not working) is normally not the company's business. Not that any of this is a new idea on their part --- think company towns or migrant worker camps --- but technology now is making the "dream" a possibility, though hopefully not a reality.

Re:The problem is..

[rlauzon]

Welcome to the wonderful world of salary employment.

If you are salary, you aren't paid by the hour. You are paid to perform a job. To protect themselves, companies have always defined jobs rather "fuzzily." In my company, every job description has something like "and misc. tasks as assigned." (Which means that your boss can change your job description anytime he wants - for a short term.)

Historically, management knew what this meant: if they need you to do something outside your job description once in a while, this was a way to make you do that without a big fight. But too many managers today seem to think this means that you are at their beck and call 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.

In my case, I made my management clearloy say what they expected from me (i.e. on call after hours, but not to put my life on hold for it). So...

1. My cell phone number is not given to anyone at work. If the company wants my cell phone number, they have to provide a cell phone (and pay the monthly charges). My company is too cheap to do that.
2. My pager stays at home after hours and on the weekend. If I am not at home, I am not available (i.e. I have to put my life on hold to answer it) and I will return the call when I get home.
3. I keep my expectations realitic. I know that I will need to provide off-hours support once in a while. If I get more than 3 after hour calls in a week, I will hit my management up for some sort of one-shot compensation (like an extra day off). If I get calls consistently over a month, I will renegotiate my compensation with my management.

If management doesn't want to compensate, then it's time to seriously think about leaving Dilbert's Company.

July Bombings?

[Chris Kamel]

From TFA:
There is increasing awareness about the importance of knowing where your staff are in case of incidents like the July London bombings.

So what good exactly is businesses tracking employees on an incident like that?
The range of things you can justify in fear of terrorist attacks never stops widening.

Re:Simple Solution

[jargonCCNA]

That's like saying, "if you're not saying anything bad, then you should send all your mail on postcards". Bad theory. The issue here isn't that people want to avoid getting in trouble for nicking off to the pub when they should be working, it's that people think--and rightly so!--that their employers have no business being able to find out where they go, on a whim. After all, something that just puts a foot in the door. You let them have this, then it isn't unreasonable to ask for something else. Then the same with something else and something else until the people with the money and the power--so, the money--can do whatever they want, because you let them. And they're going to try to do it in the name of "keeping you safe"--did you notice the brief nod to the Underground bombing in July? It's like every civil liberty that's been revoked in the States in the name of "not letting the terr'ists win". Bullshit. When you take away any freedom, you're doing exactly what those same terrorists want you to do.

But enough about how incredibly, incredibly stupid I think the Bush administration is. That has nothing to do with this. Or does it?

Re:Of course i'd complain

[Jason1729]

Good, then let's install cameras throughout your house, bedrooms and bathrooms too. If you've got nothing to hide, you won't object. The cameras will make sure you aren't a pedophile with kidnapped children hidden in your house.

If you object, clearly you are guilty since you said you wouldn't object if you had nothing to hide.

Of course in keeping with the story, not only would the police have access to the cameras but your employer and coworkers as well.

lame excuses

[layer3switch]

"An employee has to consent to having their mobile tracked. A company can't request to track a phone without the user knowing,"

WTF? So if I DON'T consent, of course, on my annual employee's review, I won't be marked down with "TEAM PLAYER: -1" Riiiight....

"Some businesses want to keep an eye on their staff. Some feel they have an obligation to know where staff are in case of emergencies,... There is increasing awareness about the importance of knowing where your staff are in case of incidents like the July London bombings."

Huh? It's nice to know employers care about well being of emplyees, but seriously, what business of employer to track employees when something like "train bombing" occurs instead that of police? If that is the case, then health benifit and life insurance shouldn't be optional, but mandatory at work. Other wise, what does that really say? "We really care about your safty, but not really so much that we have to pay for your medicals."

"Knowing where your nearest employee is to a customer is also important. It allows a company to improve efficiency."

What? Any profession which requires (in my opinion) radio contact at all time may be useful in this case (such as EMT, police, fire fighters, cab drivers, doctors, field techicians, etc), but to improve efficiency on already shrunk-to-death workforce such as IT and sales (with high turnover)? Exactly how will that improve efficiency?

Jim the employer: Tom, I know you are by 3rd St. Get over to 5th and 7th, the nearest customer site ASAP.
Tom the employee: Jim, if you know where I am, you should know that I'm on a break and taking shit in a restroom.

TReating employees like cattle

[Confused]

In my experience, employer try to treat their employees as cattle but very often they're very shy to put it in writing. Also, very often the low- and mid-level managers are on the power trip and most abusive - the upper management usually can't be bothered with such details while on the golf course.

This often boils down to the situation, that if those requests and abuses are ignored, they have no serious consequenses. If my employer abuses the privilege of knowing where I can be reached outside business hours, it simply will be revoked. I left in such situations my business mobile phone in a drawer in my desk when I left in the evening.

Last time it took only two incidents until my boss understood, that I'm not his personal slave and that outside business hours it's up to my good will only if I do his bidding. Most catastrophes can wait until monday morning anyway or are caused by bad planning.

For this reason, having a mobile phone that gives my location while at work is no problem for me.

Re:Of course i'd complain

[malsdavis]

This IS a real problem. You acknowledge it but then say people just accept it! ...Why should they? Its only by the actions of organisations like Liberty that an appropriate solution (which considers the rights of all parties rather than just the employer) will hopefully be found.

Just because your willing to let your employer keep tabs on your location all day everyday doesn't mean everyone is or should be willing to adhere to your consent. For example: as it stands at the moment, if you use a company phone and keep it in your car and dont make a point of turning it off at the end of the workday. Then it is effectivly legal for your employer to track your location before and after work. Something most people would probably not be willing to concede to.

Re:Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

The argument the employer will have is that they are legitimately tracking their property (i.e. the mobile phone). I don't see it as being a huge issue, as a lot of organisations would be able to build location awareness into their business process. For example, a services organisation being able to send a message to all technicians in the area of a customer fault. Something that would traditionally have meant ringing all technicians who *might* be in the area from guesswork. With consumer services like buddyPing and Dodgeball gaining acceptance, it doesn't seem like the consumer is too bothered about publishing their location to their friends as long as privacy issues are taken care of, and it does add an interesting extension to your mobile for Location Based Services. Mobile services are becoming better because of LBS, and from a consumer point of view, the mantra, "If you don't like it, don't use it" comes to mind. Companies doing it is a little bit different, and they still have to follow stringent data protection rules when using the data.

Re:Of course i'd complain

[AkA lexC]

Ok, and i give the same answer to people who whine about DNA databases.

make it voluntary, but everyone who doesnt will immideately be locked up for any crime committed untill they can find a better way of proving their innocence. let see who gets bored 1st.

Im not unreasonable, and i wouldnt seek to make it compulsary, but as a person who doesnt mind, i naturally feel suspicious of those who do, what are you hiding? equally, i dont feel that we are given enough say (like a vote) in what freedoms we are and are not prepared to sacrifice for greater security. otherwise its just a question of who is the most outraged liberal shouting out at the time-- thats not democracy, thats propaganda

Re:Unions For High-Skill Workers

[NBarnes]

You chose to have a distance between you and your job, so why should the employer pay for your time commuting? They dont get anything productive out of it, so whats their money going toward? Want to spend less unpaid time commuting? Move closer, or get a job closer to home.

The employer chose to have a distance between itself and centers of population that would provide its source of labor, so why should I waste my time commuting without being paid for it?

I've had employers move from convenient, accessible downtown locations out to suburban work parks in the middle of nowhere in the sprawl. Why? Well, you see, the company felt it could save on rent, so it decided to shift that cost from itself to the employees. My commute tripled, but somehow my wages and hours stayed the same....

The live to work rather than work to live attitude on /. sometimes baffles me. I'm not here to provide you with a tame little drone you can stuff into mass transit or some Goddess-awful metal box on wheels for two hours (or more!) of my day, unpaid, and expect me to be grateful for the privilege of commuting to your no doubt fine job. Every decision is a trade off between costs to the worker and costs to the business; pretending that somehow the employer is entitled to unpaid commute times is, well, precisely how employers would like you to view the situation.

Re:tis the classic freedom-for-security tradeoff

[Anonymous Coward]

You use an example like this, but you don't realize that ubiquitous tracking of individuals also makes it easier for criminals to locate victims.

What are you going to do when rapists and stalkers use the networks to track their victims? What are you going to do when burglars watch for people on vacation to rob their homes and businesses?

You may believe that criminals will never have access, legal or illegal, to these tracking systems.

The people who support surveillance because it "fights crime" usually believe, mistakenly, that everyone down to the janitor who works at the data center is a good person, while bad people roam the Earth elsewhere. In truth, there are good people and bad people in all parts of society.

If you're going to set up a surveillance system like this, you need to build in extreme safeguards so that it doesn't give more power to the abusers than it does to the average, good person.

What about the stalker who works ....

[rben]

...in the same office? The one who uses the company phone location service to pursue and harass women in the office. What about the abusive husband who works for the same company as his wife and locates the women's shelter because of the company cell phone? As can be demonstrated by many abuses, companies aren't very good at keeping this kind of data protected from people that shouldn't have it. It's going to end up causing a certain amount of grief and accompanying lawsuits.

I'm sure that many people will accept this kind of intrusion into their privacy, simply because it will be a condition of employment. That giant stick that has been bashing holes in our personal privacy for some time now.

This technology will undoubtedly provide some useful services, but it will also be abused. My guess is that it will take quite a lot of abuse before proper rules and restrictions are put in place so that people can control when they are being monitored.

Ummm. Weird.

[Anonymous Coward]

"from being able to find missing children"

Yes, because missing children generally carry cell phones. Moreover, child molesters will all be too dumb to just throw the cell phone away the second they nab a child.

Not everything should be about "protecting the children". And yes, I have several of them.

Privacy is dead, join the fishbowl....

[jjh37997]

This wouldn't be such a bad thing if I could track the cell phones of the people who are tracking me. I really don't see what's so bad about letting my boss track me as long as I'm able to follow him around. It's the imbalance of power that's the main problem with typical surveillance. Want to track my movements with a camera? Go ahead.... but only if I get to know who's watching me and I have the ability to watch them back. An open and transparent society can make the world both safe and free. As it is now the powerful, well-connected and criminal can invade your privacy any time they want... privacy laws only prevent us from spying on them.

Re:Solution

[Kadin2048]

I would think that the company could tell you that they want you to use their phone during business hours. Whether you take that home with you at night or not is your business (assuming they allow you to).

It would be like offering to use your own notebook computer in lieu of the company one. Although I haven't personally tried (I use a Mac, anyway), I can imagine they might not be too keen on the idea. It's not too much of a stretch to imagine that they could track my position, based on the laptop, if they really wanted to. (Using reverse DNS lookups would give an approximation, or they could install a cellular Internet card that's GPS capable and do it that way.)

I have no problem in theory with my employer tracking my location during the working day. I could even see how it might be convenient (preventing a lot of "hey, are you working at site xyz today?" emails). I admit it has a certain potential for obnoxious use, but in the end, I think smart companies will realize that pestering their employees is counterproductive. If your most productive employee spends three hours a day eating lunch, who cares? As long as he or she is generating revenue for the company, a smart manager knows when not to get in the way. It's the same issue as Internet access. I think companies have the right to censor or filter their corporate intranets, but if they're smart, they won't.

I've worked for a bunch of high-tech firms, and none of them were laid-back, granola-munching hippie enterprises, yet none of them censored or blocked their Internet. How you got your work done was your business; if that included reading Slashdot or NFL News or whatever in the morning, more power to you. If you didn't perform, you got fired. That's the way it should be.

If you only do two hours of 'real work' a day, and spend the rest of the time reading Somethingawful, but do more in that two hours than everybody else does in eight, more power to you. If you work your butt off for ten hours a day, but do less in ten hours than most people do in two, you're fired. Nobody wants to know -- or cares -- how hard you work; what really matters is what you turn out at the end of the day/week/month/project.

If my company started getting on me about my Internet use, or (getting back to the article here) complaining because of where I was during the day based on cellphone-tracking data, and I was otherwise doing my job and generating revenue for the company, I'd quit. Not just out of spite because they're cutting into my Slashdot time, or hang-out-at-the-diner time, but because it would be indicative of a serious problem with how they were measuring performance.

So in short, the technology (cell phone tracking) isn't a problem. It's the companies who would use such a thing obnoxiously that are a problem, but in the end all they're going to do is hurt themselves by driving away good people to firms that have real performance-based metrics. I have some sympathy for somebody who works at a company that treats them like that, but only if it's a new situation. If you've been dealing with it for a while and it doesn't seem like it's going to change, dust off your resume and move along.

Re:Shivers!

[Kadin2048]

I see it as the other way around.

Right now, you pay for a cell phone if you want one. It's yours, it's private.

Nothing in this article proposes changing that. Nobody would be able to get tracking data off of your personal mobile phone.

What's basically happening is that companies are going to have ways of tracking THEIR mobile phones, which they give to employees. Nobody is saying that you have to carry this phone with you on the weekends, or use it for personal calls, or anything else.

However, there seems to be as assumption being made here that people will carry their employers' free phones with them everywhere, after work hours, and use them in lieu of a personally-owned phone. To me, that's basically like saying "we'll give you $25 a month in exchange for your privacy!" The assumption is that people will take their employers up on this offer, and stop paying for their own phones.

I think it's a stupid bargain -- I value my privacy more than $29 a month or whatever I pay for my personal cell service. But some people might not, and they ought to be able to make a pact with the devil, metaphorically speaking, if they so choose.