Slashdot Mirror


Feds Have Access To Cellphone Tracking On Request

Mike writes "According to a Washington Post article, federal officials are routinely asking and getting courts to order cellphone companies to furnish real-time tracking data on subscribers. The data is used to pinpoint the whereabouts of 'criminal suspects', according to judges and industry lawyers. In some cases, judges have granted the requests without even requiring the government to demonstrate probable cause that a crime is taking place or that the inquiry will yield evidence of a crime 'Privacy advocates fear such a practice may expose average Americans to a new level of government scrutiny of their daily lives. Such requests run counter to the Justice Department's internal recommendation that federal prosecutors seek warrants based on probable cause to obtain precise location data in private areas. The requests and orders are sealed at the government's request, so it is difficult to know how often the orders are issued or denied.'"

140 comments

  1. This just in by pwnies · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...and in unrelated news, Reynolds America Inc. ( http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=RAI ) reported a rise in their stock price following record sales in their aluminium and tin foil divisions.

    1. Re:This just in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hint to mods: it's not a troll, it's a tinfoil hat joke.

    2. Re:This just in by garbletext · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Tinfoil hats are for conspiracy theorists. When your fears of an abusive government prove to be true, you're a liberal.

    3. Re:This just in by anagama · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When your fears of an abusive government prove to be true, you're a liberal.

      Or a conservative constitutional scholar.
      http://www.americanfreedomagenda.org/
      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    4. Re:This just in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's strange how those who very conservative are clamoring to protect their assault gun rights, to protect them from an abusive government.

    5. Re:This just in by garbletext · · Score: 1
      I support their ideas, but

      conservative
      I'm not a fan of killing puppies. Why spawn an organization to reconstruct the right, when it's clearly too far gone. Desire for change is a leftist attribute. Substantially changing American conservatism isn't conservative.
    6. Re:This just in by neomunk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's cute.

      The biggest problem with your attempt at humor is the fact that people used to talk about tinfoil hats when people SUGGESTED something like this could happen, now people are delegated to the tinfoil hat crowd for COMPLAINING about this stuff happening.

      When will it get to the point where the people who AREN'T paranoid about being constantly watched are mocked as the fools? Or is this subtle transition between 'you're crazy, that'll never happen' and 'what are you worried about, you're not a terrorist are you?' all the recognition the tinfoil hat people get for being right all along?

    7. Re:This just in by anagama · · Score: 1

      The issue seems to be that current "American Conservatism" is neither. True conservatives and true liberals have cause for concern with both the neo-con and neo-liberal positions as neither advocates personal liberty or responsibility.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    8. Re:This just in by MarsDefenseMinister · · Score: 0, Troll

      >Desire for change is a leftist attribute.

      I knew it. The dirty begging hippies at the traffic lights that glare at me in my car are leftists.

      --
      No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
    9. Re:This just in by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I don't think he was delegating them to the tinfoil hat crowd, he was just remarking at how many people are attempting to "foil" the feds.

    10. Re:This just in by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Here is a question about those beggars, how many of them are conservative? And why do you think that might be?

      There is no right or wrong answer. I'm curious to what people really think when presented with an opinion like this.

    11. Re:This just in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +10 Insightful

    12. Re:This just in by MarsDefenseMinister · · Score: 1

      None are conservative, because all have their hand out. End of story, guess there was a right answer after all.

      --
      No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
    13. Re:This just in by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      From my experiences, some of them believe a god talks directly to them and tells them what to do, particularly when it's raining. They are neo-cons. The others think the government is out to get them. I'd say that makes them liberals.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    14. Re:This just in by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      So a relationship with God makes them Conservative,

      and the "being scared of the government" conspiracy theorist delusions makes then liberal? That's an interesting take on it.

    15. Re:This just in by mi · · Score: 1

      The biggest problem with your attempt at humor is the fact that people used to talk about tinfoil hats when people SUGGESTED something like this could happen, now people are delegated to the tinfoil hat crowd for COMPLAINING about this stuff happening.

      And the biggest problem with your attempt at a scare is the failure to articulate, what "this stuff", actually, consists of.

      The Executive government requires the Judicial branch's approval for getting the data from cell-phone companies. Sometimes it gets it and sometimes it does not. The decisions are taken by judges, who make them based on the merits of presented evidence and on their convictions and interpretations of the law.

      None of this is particularly different from the practices of the past decades and centuries.

      Do note, that the "expectation of privacy" is not even there — or should not be. The judge described in the article, who said "cell phones should not be tracked, while the suspect is at home, where there is expectation of privacy" is simply an idiot — on the level of the moron, who did not know, what spam is. First, there is no point in tracking, while the suspect is at home — because you already know, where he is. Second, a tracking (and an eavesdropping even) device is quite trivial to put together — expecting nobody to be using one is quite unreasonable.

      The police could build such devices themselves and blanket the country (at great expense) — it would be legal, even if politically suicidal. So they choose instead to ask cell-phone carriers to provide the information, which they collect anyway.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  2. so they can protect you by User+956 · · Score: 0, Troll

    The data is used to pinpoint the whereabouts of 'criminal suspects', according to judges and industry lawyers. In some cases, judges have granted the requests without even requiring the government to demonstrate probable cause that a crime is taking place or that the inquiry will yield evidence of a crime

    And if we put everyone in jail, then there would be no criminals on the street. Problem solved!

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    1. Re:so they can protect you by nametaken · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm normally the first to whine, but I was pleasantly surprised to see that Judges are required. Isn't that how we want surveillance to work?

    2. Re:so they can protect you by ReeceTarbert · · Score: 1
      Yes, but the summary says:

      judges have granted the requests without even requiring the government to demonstrate probable cause that a crime is taking place or that the inquiry will yield evidence of a crime
      Of course is for our own protection but, as discussed in the Skype thread, once you have the technology in place and when you start granting too much power without any real oversight, who's to prevent them to abuse both technology and power?


      RT
      --
      Your Bookmarks. Anywhere. Anytime.

  3. Wow by 2bitcomputers · · Score: 0, Troll

    You guys are so fucked. No oversight, no probable cause. Land of the free eh? Good luck with that.

    --
    -- Please insert another quarter
    1. Re:Wow by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
      But your physical location, your comings and goings, that's not a "person" or a "thing" to be "seized", so no worries, right? And the fact that the government asked for this information, and whether it was granted or denied, well, you don't really need to know that, do you?
      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:Wow by m2943 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And you seriously think this is different anywhere else? Western European nations, for example, were routinely tapping phone conversations of their own citizens behind the iron curtain, without probable cause or any other justification and nobody even raised much of an eyebrow about it. In the US, people at least make a fuss about it.

    3. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you were both right & graciously provided an example of a real troll post.

      Thanks!

    4. Re:Wow by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey now, don't raise a voice of reason just yet. It is too early in the thread. If you point something insightful like this out, you might deny someone the chance for a mindless rant and bashing session. They might explode!

      Do you want to be know as the guy who made someone explode? Somebody do humanity a favor and mod this down for another ten minute or so.

      If you didn't get the tongue in cheek there, Good point.

    5. Re:Wow by utnapistim · · Score: 1

      Posting as AC, as I have mod points.

      I think you're (partially) missing the point: It still is illegal, the intention behind the law is ignored in lots of cases and you just compared "the land of the free" with a regime that was universally accepted as totalitarian (everything behind the iron curtain). That should tell you what "the land of the free" is on it's way to become.

      Behind the iron curtain nobody was making much of a fuss about it, because those who did got in trouble, fast (the government was the biggest bully around and it didn't tolerate dissident voices).

      --
      Tie two birds together: although they have four wings, they cannot fly. (The blind man)
    6. Re:Wow by utnapistim · · Score: 1

      So much for posting as AC :)

      --
      Tie two birds together: although they have four wings, they cannot fly. (The blind man)
  4. This is so unexpected. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How unlike the government to track us in ways we have not thought of.

  5. The truth comes out. by Caspian · · Score: 0

    Finally, the REAL reason why just about every phone nowadays comes with a built-in GPS receiver...... so the phone can tell the carrier-- and thus the government-- where it is.......

    --
    With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
    1. Re:The truth comes out. by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Finally, the REAL reason why just about every phone nowadays comes with a built-in GPS receiver...... so the phone can tell the carrier-- and thus the government-- where it is.......

      This doesn't require GPS to the best of my (limited) knowledge.

      The cell phone needs to be in contact with a tower in order to have a signal. For billing purposes, they need to know who you are.

      I think this works far more through radio triangulation than GPS. GPS, however, probably makes it easier. Of course, it makes one wonder if you suddenly noticed your battery life falling off would it tip you off that the cell tower is pinging you?

      (Anyone who knows this better or wants to correct any blatant errors feel free to chime in.)

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:The truth comes out. by memojuez · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ...and this was done under the guise of "So 911 can find you!"

      --
      Signature applied for, Patent Pending
    3. Re:The truth comes out. by bn0p · · Score: 2, Informative

      You are correct. GPS only makes it easier and more accurate to locate a phone. The location services provided by phones and carriers are *intended* for consumer applications (e.g., all those GPS applications your wireless company is willing to sell you) and emergency/911 calls.

      At least for the commercial applications, the software is designed to require a response from the phone saying in effect "Yes, you can determine my location at this time". The software will then use the GPS in the phone (if it is installed and turned on) or triangulation using the cell towers nearest the phone to determine your location.

      The software is not in and of itself bad - recently it was used to locate a mother and child attending a concert to let them know that a transplant donor had been located for the child and to get to the hospital. The issue is more that courts are approving the government's requests without requiring the government to demonstrate probable cause that a crime is taking place. This increases the potential for abusing the process.


      Never let reality temper imagination

      --
      Never let reality temper imagination
    4. Re:The truth comes out. by smithmc · · Score: 1

        Finally, the REAL reason why just about every phone nowadays comes with a built-in GPS receiver...... so the phone can tell the carrier-- and thus the government-- where it is.......

      My phone has an option to turn off GPS unless I dial 911. Are you saying that this feature doesn't really work? Or that the phone company can override it?

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    5. Re:The truth comes out. by hazem · · Score: 0

      recently it was used to locate a mother and child attending a concert to let them know that a transplant donor had been located for the child and to get to the hospital.

      Damn them! How dare they have a phone turned on during a concert! By god and all that is right those signals should have been jammed! I don't care if she has a terminal illness... nobody should be able to interrupt my enjoyment of the Teletubbies Christmas Jam! /sarcasm

    6. Re:The truth comes out. by vux984 · · Score: 1

      My phone has an option to turn off GPS unless I dial 911. Are you saying that this feature doesn't really work? Or that the phone company can override it?

      The feature to turn of GPS is likely working. Its reasonably improbable that they'd be able to remotely stealth turn it on.

      However, cellphones talk to multiple towers simultaneously. Carriers can a locate a phone relatively accurately even without GPS. Additionally cellphones regularly communicate with the towers to let the network know where it is, so that the network knows where to route an incoming call or sms. So you can assume the carrier gets regular positional updates from the phone provided its on, even if gps is off.

    7. Re:The truth comes out. by arivanov · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It does not on GSM (dunno about American specific tech).

      GSM needs to keep track of phone locations very precisely because the primary means of synchronising the phone to the network is by altering the timing advance which tells the phone when to start transmitting.

      3G is nowhere near to GSM in terms of location precision. In uses reflected signals in a positive feedback filter to improve the phone signal to noise ratio. If you look at the data before the filter you cannot make sense of it (it is combined with the rest of signal processing). If you look at the data after the filter you no longer have a true measurement of the signal produced by the phone. You have a measurement of a function of that signal combined with all reflections. As a result you no longer have the same precision on the measurement of time between the phone and the radio access network as in GSM. From there on you can no longer determine the phone locations as precisely.

      So I would not be surprised that the drive to bundle GPS in newer phones has something to do with it. For the older ones (especially GSM) it was totally unnecessary. You could get their location down to a meter in some places.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    8. Re:The truth comes out. by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Damn them! How dare they have a phone turned on during a concert! By god and all that is right those signals should have been jammed! I don't care if she has a terminal illness... nobody should be able to interrupt my enjoyment of the Teletubbies Christmas Jam! /sarcasm

      Uh... you realize nearly all phones have both a silent and a vibrate mode.

      Moreover, that the ability to locate them like this would be *needed* at all suggests that the phone was at least either silent or off. (Otherwise, they would have just CALLED them repeatedly to let them know.)

      But since the phone was either silent or off, they looked up its position. (either its current reported postion if "silent" or last reported position if "off") and sent someone over to physically find/get them.

    9. Re:The truth comes out. by Damarkus13 · · Score: 1

      Reasonably improbable? I think not. Most (all newer?) phones can even have just their microphone turned on remotely. I think it is actually "Highly Probable" that GPS features have the same override.

    10. Re:The truth comes out. by plover · · Score: 1
      **** whoosh ****

      That was the reference flying right over your head, just above hairline level.

      A few weeks ago, /. had a front-page story called Cell Phone Jamming on the Rise, talking about how establishments are jamming cell phone frequencies so their customers can have an evening in peace without some idiot yapping away on his cell phone. The sarcasm above was a parody of many of the comments.

      --
      John
    11. Re:The truth comes out. by Aetuneo · · Score: 1

      Could the same logic be applied to why high-end phones (the iPhone is the only one that comes to mind) don't have user-removable batteries? After all, if you can't cut the power to the phone, the only way to stop being tracked is to throw it away.

      --
      Everything is subjective.
    12. Re:The truth comes out. by hajus · · Score: 1
      I used to work for a company that provided location calculation software to cell companies. Only some companies use GPS for GPS sometimes has a problem in buildings. Some use "Time Difference of Arrival" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multilateration which means that your location is calculated by the difference in time that your cell signal takes to hit different cell towers (4 are needed, depending on geometry). Hyperboloids are generated, and their intersection is your position.

      When I worked in this field, it was (as far as I knew) only used to find your location when you called 911.

    13. Re:The truth comes out. by txelky · · Score: 1

      Not only is there crazy GPS going on, but there was an article about 3 months ago that stated that anyone with a decent radio transmitter can listen to a conversation as long as your cell is on diagnostic mode. The phone doesn't need to be on either.

      If you don't want people to know where you are then don't buy a cell, don't have ccards, don't have an internet connection, don't use a land line. Live in a shack in North Dakota and talk to your family in a set of cans connected by a string.

    14. Re:The truth comes out. by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1

      The bottom line: the government will use whatever information resource it can, be that people, phone call records, GPS, etc... Create more information, the gov't is automatically interested in having at their fingertips.

      Keep in mind, the government can make the right *environment* for all sorts of
      new information to be tracked and provided, by creating laws, incentives, etc... so while the companies generating the information may not have any evil motives, some people in the government (and in criminal organizations) can.

    15. Re:The truth comes out. by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      The software is not in and of itself bad - recently it was used to locate a mother and child attending a concert to let them know that a transplant donor had been located for the child and to get to the hospital. Gee, I wonder how the next matching child on the recipients list felt about that, and if that child ever got the donor organ he/she required.
      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  6. Can we just have a revolution and get it over with by MadHatter2005 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Every day it's either some government agency or some giant corp that is tightening the screws on US citizens. When will there be a tipping point where Joe Apathetic says "enough!" and takes to the streets? It's alarming that so many people are so docile.

  7. Another Reason by ewhenn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Another reason I prefer not to own a cell phone. Modern ones all have at least rudimentary location tracking built in. With the way the US Govt. abuses powers it shouldn't have, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that they will try to exploit it so they can track people "in need of public safety"... because we all know how the average American (and yes, I'm an American citizen, so I'm bashing my own country, not yours) will roll over and play dead anytime the Govt. pulls out the safety card. It's pathetic.

    1. Re:Another Reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I stuffed my big fat American mouth last night with big fat American turkey and big fat American potatoes with a couple of big ladles of fatty American gravy. And then pounded a couple of big fat American mouthfuls of sweet potato pie down there for good measure.

      this morning I took a big fat American shit the size of a big fat American toddler

      I'm getting ready to go out in a couple of hours to have a big fat American steak and some big goblets of American beer

      Q: what does cellphone tracking matter to me?
      A: not one big fat American thing.

      life is good. I have nothing to hide, and I, for one, am glad to see our law enforcement doing everything they can to keep our American lifestyle safe and secure from terrorism. Don't like it? leave.

    2. Re:Another Reason by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Another reason I prefer not to own a cell phone. Modern ones all have at least rudimentary location tracking built in.
      On my phone (a Motorola Razr V3 serviced by Verizon), tracking can be turned on or off. For me, I leave it on so that when I'm out and about on country roads and Forest Service roads, which I am a lot, they can find me when I call 911.

      But I wonder, can "they" track me even when I turn the "feature" off? Maybe "they" see through the little camera on the phone? Can "they" hear waht I'm saying even when the phone is "closed"?

      Anyway, I'm off to the store to buy more aluminum foil (with cash in coin form, of course)...

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    3. Re:Another Reason by ewhenn · · Score: 1

      Even if you have it off, 911 has permission to override it to get your location. With systems in place that allow them to bypass your lock, it wouldn't be a shock at all if "law enforcement" (I use that term loosely) and the Govt. will try to use this bypass feature to their advantage, even if it tramples on your rights or is of questionable legal status.

      Even on older phones without GPS features, they still have an idea where you are by which cell tower your phone is connected to. sure, its not as accureate, but it will give them an X mile radius of your whereabouts on demand. Not something I'm interested in.

    4. Re:Another Reason by rueger · · Score: 4, Interesting
      But I wonder, can "they" track me even when I turn the "feature" off? Maybe "they" see through the little camera on the phone? Can "they" hear waht I'm saying even when the phone is "closed"?

      Yes. From 2006.

      Cell phone users, beware. The FBI can listen to everything you say, even when the cell phone is turned off. A recent court ruling in a case against the Genovese crime family revealed that the FBI has the ability from a remote location to activate a cell phone and turn its microphone into a listening device that transmits to an FBI listening post, a method known as a "roving bug." Experts say the only way to defeat it is to remove the cell phone battery. "The FBI can access cell phones and modify them remotely without ever having to physically handle them," James Atkinson, a counterintelligence security consultant, told ABC News. "Any recently manufactured cell phone has a built-in tracking device, which can allow eavesdroppers to pinpoint someone's location to within just a few feet," he added.
    5. Re:Another Reason by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Even if you have it off, 911 has permission to override it to get your location.
      The "feature" is spacifically tied to 911, in other workds the manual spacifically says if you want 911 tracking you *must* turn it on. Are you saying that when I turn it off, Verizon is out and out LIEING to me?

      Sometimes paranoia == talking out of one's ass.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    6. Re:Another Reason by ewhenn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, they can ignore your preferances. I'm not saying they do it to everyone just to mess with them, but the technology allows for it.

      http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/12/can_you_hear_me.html

      ......Any recently manufactured cell phone has a built-in tracking device, which can allow eavesdroppers to pinpoint someone's location to within just a few feet..... The court ruling denied motions by 10 defendants to suppress the conversations obtained by "roving bugs" on the phones of John Ardito....Experts say the only way to defeat it is to remove the cell phone battery.....

    7. Re:Another Reason by jc42 · · Score: 0

      Cell phone users, beware. The FBI can listen to everything you say, even when the cell phone is turned off.

      Actually, it's hardly a secret that this has pretty much always been true, even for the old rotary "black phone" from the 1940s and 50s. Unlike modern phones, those didn't have any internal power source, and couldn't be plugged into wall power. They were powered by the 50 volts that the phone company provided on the phone line. And (except for a few rare models) it was openly admitted that they were "always on", usable as a microphone by anyone with the political clout or bribe money to get someone inside the phone company to set up the connection.

      Of course, back in the analog days, doing this required having several humans handy to do it and manage the recording equipment, so listening in on more than a few citizens was beyond the logistical capability of any government. These digital days, the main difference is that it's a whole lot easier to automate.

      Voice processing is still sufficiently intractable and expensive to limit the monitoring to a somewhat larger but still small percent of the population. Thus, as a prominent example, the US government has admitted to having recordings from a lot of calls by the perps in the 9/11 WTC attack, but didn't have the personnel (who could understand Arabic) to analyze the recordings. But we can look forward to this becoming cheaper and more practical as time and technology progresses.

      How long until they can actually record and analyze everything within range of all our phones?

      Here's an idea: Can we extend this to all government employees, too? And put the transcriptions online? It would be the ultimate democratic tool for feedback from the government to the citizens.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    8. Re:Another Reason by Threni · · Score: 1

      If only there was a cheap way of getting some sort of `pay as you go` phone, and only phoning your dodgy friends who also only use `pay as you go` phones...

    9. Re:Another Reason by rueger · · Score: 1

      Here's an idea: Can we extend this to all government employees, too? And put the transcriptions online? It would be the ultimate democratic tool for feedback from the government to the citizens.

      Ooooh! Try this: since all calls "may be monitored for quality," how about a random process that connects random government employee's phones to a 900 number that anyone can call? $1.99 a minute, and maybe you get to listen in on an IRS auditor, or a petty drone, or maybe, just maybe, your own Senator or Congressperson!

      Imagine tens of thousands people each day calling in and listening in on tens of thousands of people in government without warning.

    10. Re:Another Reason by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      Verizon is lying to you and they get an immunity from prosecution for it,

      Grow up kid. This is not your 1960s USA.
      This is 2007. What the companies and government say is false.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    11. Re:Another Reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How long until they can actually record and analyze everything within range of all our phones? Total Information Awareness is dead, long live the Information Awareness Office.

      ECHELON is dead, long live AUSCANZUKUS.
    12. Re:Another Reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with all those stories is that they never provide any technical details. Sometimes it is even claimed that all cellphones can be remote manipulated, which is absurd. Most cellphones don't even allow downloading software, or it would have to be a super secret backdoor installed at the federal agencies' request years ago by all manufacturers, most of which are not US but East Asian.

      I'm not trying to minimize the danger, I'd just like to hear something more substantial.

      As to TFA, I have no doubt that they track people's location through their cellphones, with or without warrant. (I even think that cell triangulation is generally much more precise than the stated "3 miles".) Still, why should I trust any information from a source that pretends that E911 tracking systems read signals sent to satellites from a phone's Global Positioning System (GPS) chip? What else did that obviously clueless reporter get wrong?

    13. Re:Another Reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, the nippers would never do us wrong

      good call there, sherlock

    14. Re:Another Reason by compro01 · · Score: 1

      How long until they can actually record and analyze everything within range of all our phones?

      not too long i'd imagine.

      16-bit, 44.1khz (CD quality) mono sound is ~11KB/s

      with ~300 million Americans, presuming all of them use the phone for 3 hours a day:

      300,000,000*11*3600*3=33,000 terabytes per day

      a 1TB drive costs $402 currently, and assuming three copies of every call (for redundancy purposes) that's about $40 million per day or $14.6 billion per year, which isn't a whole lot given government spending.

      of course, analysing all that would take considerable resources, but they could feasibly record every word said by everyone on every phone RIGHT NOW if they put their minds to it.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    15. Re:Another Reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anyone know if there exists a small device for sale that alerts on communications to/from a device? I guess it would have to handle all the supported carrier frequencies, plus GSM/GRPS/EDGE/3G, and be able to flag traffic based on phone number/IMEI above the level of traffic associated with maintaining connectivity.

      It seems like unfortunately the constitution truly is a worthless scrap of paper in the eyes of the US Government and related agencies these days, and such things may become necessary.

    16. Re:Another Reason by MacDork · · Score: 2, Insightful

      life is good. I have nothing to hide, and I, for one, am glad to see our law enforcement doing everything they can to keep our American lifestyle safe and secure from terrorism. Don't like it? leave.

      If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.--big fat American patriot, Samuel Adams

    17. Re:Another Reason by MadUndergrad · · Score: 1

      Hmmph, this is a good argument against having a built-in battery, a la the iPhone. If you want your privacy, you should be able to remove the battery (otherwise I guess you'd have to wrap it in metal...)

    18. Re:Another Reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Sorry to burst your bubble here, but the infrastructure to do something like that does not simply consist of throwing hard drives at it:
      • Server-grade hard drives cost a lot more than your average desktop drive. For decent SCSI or SAS drives, you need at least double that figure. That brings us up to $30 billion
      • I get the 3-redundant copies thing, but your drives themselves are probably going to have some sort of redundancy set up. There's another 30-100% disk space overhead for your RAID setup or whatever you're using. Minimum of $39 billion, tops of $60 billion.
      • Hard drives need to be connected to something (physical computer/server, SAN, etc.), which can be a substantial cost. The cost here becomes variable, so I'll exclude this from the figures.
      • The solution to do it needs to be developed and the infrastructure designed and deployed. Again the cost is variable, so we'll leave that out.
      • To make the whole thing of any use, you will need a system that's capable of reviewing/searching/tracking 33 Petabytes of new data per day (as you alluded to in the last line of that post). Good luck with that bit!
      • Somebody, actually a whole lot of somebodies, needs to maintain the thing (and be paid enough to keep their mouths shut about it, if they even know what the hell they're doing). Let's be generous and just assign one DBA or equivalent staffer for 10 terabytes of data (poor bastards...) that's 3,300 NEW highly-skilled employees per day if all the data is retained. Even if you just keep 1% of all new data recorded, you have 120+ Petabytes of new data every year. Keeping our 1 DBA per 10 TB assumption, that's 12,045 new DBA's every year. With an average salary of at least $60K, that's another $722.7 million a year. And that's with VERY conservative estimates.
      Even without throwing in the cost of a storage solution to which your drives are connected, the design/implementation of the infrastructure, and the development of a system capable of tracking it all, you're already at more than $40 billion a year, and you're hiring a helluva lot of people. Possible? Sure, I guess. But there's no freakin' way you can get it done for just the cost of some desktop hard drives.
    19. Re:Another Reason by JonathanR · · Score: 1

      Given the amount of interference that a GSM phone typically causes to most analog radio reception, it wouldn't be too hard to determine if your phone was being used as a bugging device when you're about to have a non-phone conversation of sensitive nature.

    20. Re:Another Reason by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1
      Beautiful put-down - pity I don't have mod points today.

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    21. Re:Another Reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called triangulation. It doesn't matter if you have GPS in you phone or not. Your phone is constantly trying to figure out the best tower to connect to.

    22. Re:Another Reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to do a lot more than that. You need a separate phone for each friend. You only want to turn it on (or perhaps keep it in a faraday cage) when you want to talk. You don't want to use it from anyplace associated with you (especially your home). You don't want to use two of the phones from the same location (especially not around the same time). You don't want to use a phone near surveillance cameras. You don't want to use them from the same place repeatedly (or if you are really of interest some surveillance cameras may appear in that location).

    23. Re:Another Reason by mrhartwig · · Score: 1

      Interesting. On my phone (Palm Centro from Sprint) I have the option of turning tracking on, or turning it on *only* for 911. In other words, I can't turn it totally off.

      The phone (I suspect this is Sprint's text, not Palm's) tells me this when I select the "911 only" tracking:
      Turning location on will allow the network to detect your position using GPS technology, making some Sprint PCS applications and services easier to use. Turning location off will disable the GPS location function for all purposes except 911, but will not hid your general location based on the cell site serving your call. No applicatoin or service may use your location without your request or permission. GPS enhanced 911 is not available in all areas.

      This seems quite clear -- Sprint is telling me that my "general location" is always known, and how that information is acquired (cell site). There doesn't seem to be any ambiguity.

      otoh, I don't know if Sprint is one of the companies that have turned over location info to investigators without a proper warrant. If so, that would violate the "...without your request or permission." clause, of course.

  8. Inevitable by TheMeuge · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think we have to realize that a surveillance society is an inevitable consequence of surveillance capability. If anything, history should show us that when groups of people are granted powers over other groups, they tend to abuse them (see the "Stanford Prison Experiment" for psychological evidence). Thus, any monitoring, surveillance, or other oppressive capabilities, are likely to be realized. As technology removes the barriers to total surveillance, in terms of both the monitoring itself, as well as information processing, I do not see any option rather than for a total surveillance society to emerge.

    Call me paranoid, but I still think that the above is a rational assessment given historical evidence.

    1. Re:Inevitable by foobsr · · Score: 1

      I think we have to realize that a surveillance society is an inevitable consequence of surveillance capability.

      Given the emphasis that is put on technical development, yes.

      If humanities had the same weight as science, perhaps no.

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    2. Re:Inevitable by User+956 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If humanities had the same weight as science, perhaps no.

      Humanities doesn't have the same weight as science because they haven't found a way to kill people with it yet. Yet.

      --
      The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    3. Re:Inevitable by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      I think we have to realize that a surveillance society is an inevitable consequence of surveillance capability.
      Yes, it is unfortunate (probably not inevitable though). What doesn't help is that for every person saying "New surveillance tech will bring down our society", there are two more saying "New surveillance tech? Why haven't we implemented it yet?"
      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    4. Re:Inevitable by N3Roaster · · Score: 1

      The alternative is a panoptic society where everybody has equal access to the surveillance infrastructure. Well, either that or going off to live in a cave. I'm not a huge fan of any of these options.

      --
      Remember RFC 873!
    5. Re:Inevitable by conan1989 · · Score: 1

      revolution!

    6. Re:Inevitable by AVee · · Score: 1

      I think we have to realize that a surveillance society is an inevitable consequence of surveillance capability. If anything, history should show us that when groups of people are granted powers over other groups, they tend to abuse them (see the "Stanford Prison Experiment" for psychological evidence). Thus... it is necesary to replace the people in power regularly, to spead power across more persons and across several groups of people, to grant the population of a country a certain amount of control over what people with power can and cannot, do and to enforce proper sactioning of those who abuse there powers. It's a nice system, they call it democracy.

      The US seems a good candidate to try this, just drop the whole president thing, create a system with more than two parties of which none can have a full majority and fix the access to information e.g. no 'sealed orders' and proper independant journalism. Who knows, it might work.
  9. Re:Can we just have a revolution and get it over w by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's alarming that so many people are so docile.
    What did you do about it today?
  10. Re:Can we just have a revolution and get it over w by lionheart1327 · · Score: 1

    What exactly makes you think that a revolution will help in any way?

    Meet your new boss, same as old boss. But with bigger guns.

  11. Re:Can we just have a revolution and get it over w by ewhenn · · Score: 1

    Not happening. Joe Apathetic is more worried about his dumb ass ring tones.

  12. Re:Can we just have a revolution and get it over w by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This will occur when you try to pry the cheeseburger from his cold dead fingers... or would, if he wasn't already dead at that point. But not before.

  13. Re:Listen up by starman71taylor · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Gee you watched Fight Club one too many times...

  14. Re:Listen up by wordsnyc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is an element of truth to this. The practical effect of this is to spread fear and apprehension among "innocent nobodies" who happen to be paying attention. The myth of government omniscience (and, by extension, omnipotence) is a powerful tool of preemptive social control.

    It's like torture. Newsflash: the people who torture know it doesn't really "work" on (i.e., produce valuable information from) the victims. It's a form of state terrorism -- it works best on the rest of us.

    --
    Sent from the iPad I found in your car.
  15. Re:Can we just have a revolution and get it over w by denis-The-menace · · Score: 1

    Probably when they get too impatient to grab ALL the power that's left in one shot like Musharraf did in Pakistan.

    The Corps and the rich folks behind them are trying to sneak control and $ away from the people gradually so that Joe Apathetic doesn't see anything wrong until it's too late. When they'll be done, the US will look like the Alphaverse in Charlie_Jade. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Jade)

    I doubt it will happen because Greedy people can only hold back for so long...

    --
    Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
  16. About time by VonSkippy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Good. It's about time they weed out the criminally stupid.

    What moron doesn't know they can buy a throw away cell from Walmarts for cash?

    If you're dumb enough to be a crook AND use a traceable (i.e. contracted) cell phone you deserve what you get.

    1. Re:About time by fat+man+with+a+monke · · Score: 1

      Except that now you have to provide personal information nowadays when you get a "disposable" phone. Older ones without the GPS are being phased out, and if i recall correctly, the providers no longer supported them after January of this year. Face it, there are no anonymous cell phones. That's what you get for using any wireless device. Eventually it has to communicate somewhere if you intend to use it, and from there it's a matter of triangulating signal even if it doesn't use GPS.

    2. Re:About time by Snuhwolf · · Score: 1

      Simply take the battery out of the cell phone and put it in when you need to make a call and take it out when you're done. The phone dosent ping the cell tower unless it has power.

    3. Re:About time by anagama · · Score: 1

      My phone has no GPS. Three or four years ago, Qwest wrote me saying they were "upgrading" their network and my phone wouldn't work anymore. They sent me a free replacement -- was worthless because I used my phone in a semi-remote area in which the internal antenna was not beefy enough. I looked around for a good phone with an external antenna port -- brick shape because I'm hard on phones -- but found nothing. I then went to the Qwest kiosk and asked them to make my phone work (it was supposed to be tri-band blah blah blah compatible everywhere or something like that). They fiddled with it for a while and voila, it worked.

      Last year, the keyboard numbers 8 & 9 stopped working. I bought the same phone off ebay for $3 and swapped keyboards. Perhaps I should buy a couple more spares for when other parts go -- I spent $180 on the phone originally and now I could probably get 60 of them for that cost. The phone has great battery life, a workable speaker phone, and an external antenna port. No camera, no gimmicks, and no GPS. It's worth holding on to, if for no other reason than bragging rights on the oldest cell phone still in use among anyone I know (5.5 years).

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    4. Re:About time by sponga · · Score: 1

      You obviously never watched the show on HBO 'The Wire'.

      This method is known by police and the feds for a long time with the disposable phones; they even got smart and started buying them from another state to throw off the authorities.

      The drug dealers in Baltimore know a lot more about privacy and keeping their conversations private than a lot of people around here sometimes.

    5. Re:About time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you make it a crime to be stupid, only the criminals will be stupid. ...or something like that...

    6. Re:About time by swillden · · Score: 1

      If you're dumb enough to be a crook AND use a traceable (i.e. contracted) cell phone you deserve what you get.

      What makes you think this technology is only used to track crooks? RTFS.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  17. and for how long have I been saying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that the requirement of a warrant from a judge is a worthless safeguard?
    Judges are just officials, they just happen to wear stupid gowns and effeminate wigs.

  18. somebody log in and repeat this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I *just* heard a news story about this a day or so ago- take it seriously!
    A car was stolen by three guys, and the guys rammed a police car during the chase.
    The police opened fire on the vehicle, killing the driver. They also wounded one of two other guys in the car who bailed and ran off into the night.

    Here's the part that made me take notice: The news guy said that by using the cellphone number of the driver, they located and captured the other two guys within 20 minutes... by using location tracking of the fugitive's cellphones.

    Considering that a) the driver was dead and b) they didn't know who the other two guys were when they bailed out of the car and took off, 20 minutes seemed awfully fast. But how can you track down a cell phone's location without knowing the number or who the owner is?

    This means (obviously) that there must be an easily accessible database tracking both caller history (to find out who you called, or called you) AND those people's current locations. I knew things like this were in place for DHS and the FBI (a lot of bank robbers get caught because they have cell phones on them or in their cars), but that local LE had access to this stuff was a surprise.

    That means that you and I, joe geek guy, are already in this thing.
    Pretty cool, huh? It's *way* too late for tinfoil.

    1. Re:somebody log in and repeat this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This means (obviously) that there must be an easily accessible database tracking both caller history

      No, it means (obviously) that the police will testify that they have such a database, but that nobody can see it.

      In reality, they pulled two guys that looked at them funny off the streets and handed them cellphones and said "tag, you're it".

    2. Re:somebody log in and repeat this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This means (obviously) that there must be an easily accessible database tracking caller history (to find out who you called, or called you)

      That would be much scarier if the dead guy wasn't carrying the database in his pocket. As for locating two wounded guys on foot--can you say "redial"?

    3. Re:somebody log in and repeat this by AySz88 · · Score: 1

      This means (obviously) that there must be an easily accessible database tracking ... caller history (to find out who you called, or called you) ...maybe the dead driver's cell phone, in this case?
  19. Re:Can we just have a revolution and get it over w by garbletext · · Score: 1, Funny

    duh, he posted about it on slashdot. and maybe his blog.

  20. Re:Listen up by garbletext · · Score: 4, Funny

    As a radical drug-dealing terrorist pedophile, I have to disagree.

  21. what I really wish... by spacefem · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I feel like privacy issues are incredibly important... and that I'm the only one who feels this way. Well, me and my friends who read slashdot. And the four libertarians I know.

    The government only does this stuff because they feel like they can get away with it, that's what kills me.

    1. Re:what I really wish... by grassy_knoll · · Score: 1

      The government only does this stuff because they feel like they can get away with it, that's what kills me.


      Seems like they can.

  22. Re:Can we just have a revolution and get it over w by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    government agency or some giant corp

    Why the redundancy in that expression?

  23. Re:Can we just have an election and get it over wi by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When will there be a tipping point where Joe Apathetic says "enough!" and takes to the streets?
    It'll probably be when the most important parts of running a country are seriously neglected, when people are no longer comfortable and happy. When people feel that the mountainous benefits of living in the US aren't enough. Then they'll take to the streets, and by god, there will be an election like none other for hundreds of years.
    --
    You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  24. Re:Can we just have a revolution and get it over w by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You fucks are too fat to move.

  25. Re:Can we just have a revolution and get it over w by garcia · · Score: 1

    Every day it's either some government agency or some giant corp that is tightening the screws on US citizens. When will there be a tipping point where Joe Apathetic says "enough!" and takes to the streets? It's alarming that so many people are so docile.

    When the actions of the government affect the TV viewing and high fructose corn syrup eating of the American public. Until then? Everyone will continue to sit on their asses smiling that they did "great work" at their pointless jobs and consider themselves successful.

  26. "on request" by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Hey, im bored today lets track down soandso and see where that hot girl is today.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:"on request" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's called "RUNNING A PLATE FOR A DATE" http://www.copwatch.org/sheehanmichigandatabase.html Hey sorry, if you thought you were being slezier than a cop, well... the pros are amused by the amatures

  27. What I want to know is... by esocid · · Score: 1

    when do we get our required RFID tags? I still can't believe that some companies actually require their employees to be surgically implanted with these little tracking devices under the guise of security. Hopefully the precedent that California set will stand, unless of course the Supreme Court tries to take a look at it and decides that our privacy means nothing in terms of die Staatssicherheit (national security).

    --
    Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
  28. crime shows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just curious, why does every US crime show say that they found the person via GPS tracking ? The last time I checked no phone had a GPS system inside (unless it had tomtom or garmin inside). Do they mean tracking via cell towers ?

    1. Re:crime shows by gone.fishing · · Score: 1

      Because nearly every cell phone in use today has one of two types of GPS capability. One method does not use satellites but rather triangulation with cell phone towers. This is not as accurate as say a Garmin hand held GPS device but it can at least get the cops into the general area. The other kind uses the normal GPS satellite geolocation system or a combination of cell phone triangulation and satellite triangulation.

      These services are mandated by law and have been required for long enough so that almost all cell phones in current use have these features. To some degree they are controllable, you can choose to make the data available to anyone who wants to see it or you can shut it down so only the cops can have access to it. You can not completely disable it.

      It is an interesting system to play with. On my cell phone, I can dial 922 and get my latitude and longitude. It works even in the basement of where I work; standard GPS does not do this.

    2. Re:crime shows by mrhartwig · · Score: 1

      Uh, "GPS" does not equal "determining location". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gps.... The phone & the company's system knowing where you are via the towers is hardly new -- that's necessary for a cell phone to work in the first place.

      I don't understand your "...standard GPS does not do this." GPS doesn't do what -- give your location in lat/long? Or it doesn't work in the basement? If the latter, it sounds like your phone is either giving you the last location for which it had a GPS signal or it's giving you a estimate. Triangulation from the towers is nowhere near accurate enough to give a true lat/long.

    3. Re:crime shows by gone.fishing · · Score: 1

      Give me the location while I am in the basement. I am sure that it is an estimate but it is an estimate based on triangulation from different cell towers and is probably pretty darned close. We have tried a GPS from this location and it would not give us anything.

  29. Re:Can we just have a revolution and get it over w by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

    Every day it's either some government agency or some giant corp that is tightening the screws on US citizens. When will there be a tipping point where Joe Apathetic says "enough!" and takes to the streets?

    I'll tell you the answer, but you won't like it.

    The reason people are apathetic about these things is because it doesn't affect normal citizens to any great extent. There will ALWAYS be government abuses -- that's just the nature of power. The question is whether there are widespread enough abuses to make people notice (i.e., it happens to someone they know), and there just aren't.

    When government power really does get out of hand, then it'll be reigned in (see: the 1950s communist witch hunts). People don't care because there's nothing to care about yet.

    --
    Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
  30. Remove battery when not in use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People know they can leave me a message.

    I'm a lot less uncomfortable knowing the feds can monitor me 3-4x a day when I check messages than 24x7.

    Yes I'm an anonymous coward dammit. You would be too if the feds were trying to monitor your cell phone.

  31. Judges should demand a modicum of evidence by davidwr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A rubber-stamp judge slows things down for no useful purpose. You might as well just let the FBI write their own warrants.

    A real judge that does his job will slow things down to make sure only people who really should be under surveillance are put under surveillance.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  32. Re:Can we just have a revolution and get it over w by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Corps and the rich folks behind them are trying to sneak control and $ away from the people gradually so that Joe Apathetic doesn't see anything wrong until it's too late. When they'll be done, the US will look like the Alphaverse in Charlie_Jade. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Jade)

    Actually, controlling you is way more trouble than it's worth. We don't want control over you, we just want your money.

    There was a time when we rich people could make money by controlling poor peoples' lives, but that was a long time ago, back when your labor and your loyalty was actually worth something in the world. We'll cheerfully leave the job of "controlling" you to your priests.

    (posted A.C. due to breaking the first and second rules of Bilderberg Club)

  33. It may even be eaiser than you think by WillRobinson · · Score: 1

    I could think of this possibility.

    1. Cellphones can be tracked very accurately.
    2. Government can tap the records at will.
    3. Bank robbery happens at 4th and main.
    4. Police notify FBI.
    5. FBI calls the cell carriers and says "we need all active numbers in grid 34,53 at 12:03 pm when a robbery occurred" List please.
    6. FBI asks for the above mentioned numbers, "Which moved away from grid 34,53 at 12:05 at where are they now" List Please.
    7. FBI asks what was the duration of movement, and speed of numbers in list 2 please, and where are they RIGHT NOW.

    1. Re:It may even be eaiser than you think by MacDork · · Score: 1

      5. FBI calls the cell carriers and says "we need all active numbers in grid 34,53 at 12:03 pm when a robbery occurred" List please. 6. FBI asks for the above mentioned numbers, "Which moved away from grid 34,53 at 12:05 at where are they now" List Please. 7. FBI asks what was the duration of movement, and speed of numbers in list 2 please, and where are they RIGHT NOW.

      That would require geo-locating AND logging. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I have yet seen evidence of logging.

    2. Re:It may even be eaiser than you think by utnapistim · · Score: 1

      In this case, neither geolocating nor logging is necessary: they could have simply looked at the phone numbers through the driver's phone, then asked the mobile company to tell them under which "Location Area Code" all the numbers in the list are located, at present (a LAC usually covers a small group of neighbouring cells in a network). Then it's down to routine police work ("find two wounded guys in this perimeter").

      The location information is stored continuously by the network, in a database called HLR (Home Location Register) which has the purpose to decide through which cells to route call data, whenever somebody is trying to reach you (incoming call or SMS).

      The alternative to the HLR would be that the network did a network-wide broadcast to locate you, every time you received a phone-call (which is not feasible).

      --
      Tie two birds together: although they have four wings, they cannot fly. (The blind man)
  34. criminal or not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why again can we not see our OWN triangulations?

    1. Re:criminal or not by mrhartwig · · Score: 1

      I don't know about other carriers, but you certainly can with Sprint. Assuming you want to pay extra, of course :-( They will sell you several apps that use your location info.

      The weird thing is that the Sprint broadband card my company supplies me has access to the location data by default. I have access to a really nice search feature on any number of web mapping sites -- it can use my location & show me the closest whatever-I've-searched-for. I guess it could be just part of a separate package they've purchased; I don't know. But I don't think so.

  35. Re:Can we just have a revolution and get it over w by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    Maybe we should get a big hippy jam circle together. That will show them.

  36. Re:Can we just have a revolution and get it over w by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    Maybe Joe Apathetic has a better grasp on the situation and isn't alarmed at everything. Maybe he is one of the old school naive people who still think the government for the most part is good and that cops protect you from bad guys. Maybe every day, this idea is reinforces with him because he sees cops dealing with bad guys on the TV, hears how the government is going to protect him from something he otherwise wouldn't be able to, and he has a decent job making decent money with a halfway decent family. You know, he could just be content and liking life. Maybe Ring tones is the biggest upset in his life.

    You know, how good would you feel if ring tones was the biggest upset in your day to day life.

  37. Re:Listen up by DeadChobi · · Score: 1

    But Big Brother is always looking out for us! He sees everything! He loves us so he watches over us always, awake or asleep. He even loves us enough to bring us back into the fold when we stray.

    --
    SRSLY.
  38. On the other hand ... by PPH · · Score: 1
    ... a smart bank robber could leave his cell phone with a friend at the other end of town while holding up the bank. The FBI, tracking the device either in real time or by requesting log data, eliminate him as a suspect.

    Come on folks. We've watched enough '24' and 'CSI' to know how tracking works. We know better then to carry our own cell phones while committing a crime.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  39. Damn Stallman! by skeeto · · Score: 1

    Richard Stallman is famous for being very careful when he makes predictions. They always seem to turn out to be true. But, in one of his interviews, the interviewer's cell phone rang and RMS said "Will you please turn off your tracking device?". (sorry, couldn't find a link) He went on to talk about cell phones being used by the government to track people.

    Now, when I saw this, I was thinking, "I doubt it. He has got to be wrong about this one. This is just tinfoil-hat stuff." But it turns out Stallman was right all along... again.

  40. Well then ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Law enforcement has absolutely no interest in tracking the locations of law-abiding citizens. None whatsoever," Boyd said. "What we're doing is going through the courts to lawfully obtain data that will help us locate criminal targets, sometimes in cases where lives are literally hanging in the balance, such as a child abduction or serial murderer on the loose."

    Then law enforcement should have no problem supplying the courts with probable cause and getting a warrent legally then.

  41. encryption by a1mint · · Score: 1

    Simple encryption should make it easy to avoid eavesdropping. Encrypted VOIP, from PC, or mobile through Wifi, or else convert sound into data which is transmitted through cell phone company as data, ought to keep any eavesdropping 100% at bay.

    1. Re:encryption by sticky.pirate · · Score: 1
      The problem isn't that they're listening to you calls (well, that is a problem, but we've done that one a few times already)

      The problem is that they can tell where you are if you're using a mobile phone, even if you aren't using it. And if you are using and have some kind of whizz-bang encryption, they can still figure out who you're calling, because you can't encrypt the call setup (otherwise how would they know where to route the call?)

    2. Re:encryption by a1mint · · Score: 1

      Ok, I see. However, perhaps scattering techniques like we've been seeing in recent p2p innovations, could make it untraceable who's calling who. All they'd be able to figure out is the fact that you are making "A" call. They'd be a network/web of nodes through which information flows scattered, in pieces spread out. It'd be very slow, and you'd obvious not have a very smooth phone call. It'd be like talking to somewhere between the moon and mars ;-) My point is it *IS* possible to make it pretty much 100% anonymous. Just like how p2p is becoming 100% anonymous.

    3. Re:encryption by Masked+Phrogg · · Score: 0

      I'm a bit confused here... or is it you?
      Eavesdropping may reveal location, but location tracking via GPS DOES reveal location, which is the topic at hand. Encryption only makes it more difficult for outside parties to use the location data. Outside parties does NOT include the Police in this instance. And you certainly couldn't hide your location from the cell service provider, or you wouldn't be obtaining service. So the point is that the cell service provider not only knows and can convert this data into human readable form easily, they are readily passing this information on to LEAs on mere request.
      This story is also about Cell Service Providers aiding & abetting what very well may be LE infractions of the 4th Amendment.

      Vote Ron Paul in 2008
      BOTH the primary and the election

      r1bb17

    4. Re:encryption by Masked+Phrogg · · Score: 0

      What are you saying?
      P2P technologies are one to many - many to one
      they are not [one] to [many] to [one]
      which is why they are referred to as "sharing" technologies
      and not private communications technologies.
      Is there a way to use P2P for End-to-End transfer w/o exposing data to [a] middlem[ae]n?

      Vote Ron Paul 2008
      Primary AND Election if you please

      r1bb17

    5. Re:encryption by sticky.pirate · · Score: 1
      It's hard to see how P2P techniques could make a phone call anonymous. If you're using any kind of a public switched phone network, once the call leaves the internet and enters a phone company, there will be call records, and you can't really hide who you are and who you are talking to.

      For true anonymity, I think you'd have to steal a phone, or buy a pay-as-you-go phone with cash.

      Now, if you avoided the public telephone network altogether, then it would start to get interesting... something like Skype, but open source so we can all see what's going on inside (I want to see the source; I'm not sure I believe the latest disinformation). The only real problem there is that you end up having to trust everybody; what if the Bad Guys start running one of these P2P applications? Unless their domain name ends in something like .nsa.gov, you might end up routing a call through them and not realizing it. You can encrypt end-to-end, but routing information can still be extracted even if the encryption itself isn't broken.

    6. Re:encryption by a1mint · · Score: 1

      Aha, but that's the magic of encryption. It absolutely guarantees that only point A and point B sees the messages. Anything in between, including the cell company, or some agency trying to eavesdrop, can not make out the contents of the call. This is possible through either a public/private/signature scheme, or just straight symmetrical encryption. The newer parts of P2P that handles the scattering could be duplicated in cell phones. You join a network (it's a data call, so you need a data plan obviously), and it'd have to take the sound from the microphone, and play back through the speaker. Not sure if a little Java or native program even can handle all that. I don't know enough about cell phone's cpu's what is and isn't possible. But if there is at least somewhat of a capable cpu inside (Nokia N800, N95, iPhone, OpenMoko, etc), the ability to record sound from the microphone and play back through a speaker, and acquire an ip address and transfer data, then absolutely it can become very much anonymous. They can only see the fact that you're make "A" call, not where to, and the content is completely hidden.

  42. Duh... by tacocat · · Score: 1

    I've been saying this for about five years. This is pretty much a So Nineties article.

    The FBI, at least the pre-Bush FBI, required a search warrant to tap into the GPS signaling that phones and OnStar provides. So as a work around they employed the cellular companies to provide them with regristration information on the cell and node that your phone has recently passed into/out of as you travel. This won't give the resolutions to 10 feet, but they certainly know when you are one the move and where you are going. It makes building out your social network rather trivial.

    And the best part about this is that they never need to actually touch the phone. The phone provides all the information that they need without violating the legal definition of privacy.

    If you want your where abouts unknown, turn off your phone while you go to your local neighborhood crack house. Even Bin Laden knows this much.

  43. Even judges are intimidated by these guys by OSPolicy · · Score: 1

    From the story to which the link goes:
    /=============
    Another magistrate judge, who has denied about a dozen such requests in the past six months, said some agents attach affidavits to their applications that merely assert that the evidence offered is "consistent with the probable cause standard" of Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The judge spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
    \=============
    Regardless of which side of the question you're on, how can you not frightened by the idea that judges will talk about important current issues of law only under cover to anonymity?

  44. Re:Can we just have a revolution and get it over w by jdjbuffalo · · Score: 1

    I'd feel pretty damn good if the biggest upset in my day to day life was a bad ring tone. Unfortunately that is not the reality we live in.

    Whether someone chooses to stick their head in the sand about the problems we face in our society is their business. But when enough of them do it then it become my business and everyone else's for that matter. "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing" - Unknown, but often attributed to Edmund Burke.

    We see this happening in our society today (much like the Romans before their fall) where apathy and "Bread and Circuses" take over society. Several years ago, I used to be blissfully ignorant of the country we live in. Other than what appeared to be some minor problems here and there (nothing endemic), I didn't see anything majorly wrong with this country and the direction it was heading. I saw this country for what it has been idealized in the media rather than what it actually was. Now things are coming into focus.

    The road we currently walk as a country is one that's going blindly over the cliff. We are such a strong nation but like strong nations before us, it is ultimately the internal problems that destroy us not the external threats.

    There will have to be some event, or series of events, for people to wake up and see the decaying corpse for what it is. But it will have to be something that affects their everyday lives or it won't work. That is what it will take for "Joe Apathetic" to realize that it does matter what the government does.

    I realize that most of my post has been very "doom and gloom" but you have to look for the light to keep going. I know there are still plenty of good people in the world and I do what I can to help them get into the right positions to help change things for the better.

    We should all do the same where ever we can.

    *Steps off the soap box*

    --
    We have four boxes with which to defend our freedom: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.
  45. Re:Can we just have a revolution and get it over w by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    I think your missing the point. Your in the minority of opion for a reason. Now the questions can be is that reason because you see things differently then others do and it isn't near as bad as you want to make it, or somehow, did you all the sudden wake up and become smarter then everyone else and now are able to spot immoral acts and bring them to everyone else's attention.

    I'm going to put my money on a combination of both to some degree. You seem to be at an extreme end of the spectrum. This typically means that you are going overboard. The chances of being right in the face of all the other eyes on the picture is mindbogglingly low.

  46. Re:Can we just have a revolution and get it over w by jdjbuffalo · · Score: 1

    While I'll admit that I'm in the minority, that do not mean that I can't be right about an opinion.

    In my daily interactions with people I know in person and online, I see a growing number of people waking up and seeing that things have been getting worse here as a more systemic problem and not something limited to a minor issue here or there. We talk about lots of the negative things going on in our society here on Slashdot on a daily basis. Sure, some of it is overblown or completely false and many people point out when something like this comes up.

    But overall we are faltering as a nation. We have the most terrible sock-puppet president I could imagine with several of "his" people behind the scenes trying to take away our liberties in the name of security. I believe we very well could be months away from war with Iran which will almost certainly mean a draft. We've almost doubled our national debt in the last 7 years. Our currency is in a freefall as well as our economy. More people care about American Idol than electing good leaders. Of the less than half of eligible people that do vote, most will just vote along party lines and not care who it is as long as it's "their party".

    There is plenty more which I won't get into but suffice to say we are decaying as a nation and something like what happened to Roman or Germany (post WWI) is likely to be in our future unless we can steer this country back on course. Of course it's hard to predict the future and I'm not claiming to be a profit of any kind. But it doesn't take a genius to take what you are seeing and follow it to it's most likely conclusion. A lot of people don't do this in their daily lives and that is why I made a reference to "Bread and Circuses". They just worry about their own little world and as long as nothing comes along to disrupt it then in their view they don't have to worry about it.

    --
    We have four boxes with which to defend our freedom: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.
  47. Re:Can we just have a revolution and get it over w by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    While I'll admit that I'm in the minority, that do not mean that I can't be right about an opinion.

    No, it doesn't mean you cannot be right, it just means that you aren't likely to be right. there are people a lot more intelligent then we are that don't have a bias on the situation who just don't see it in the same light as you do. Most people who see things as negetive as you have expressed, have an agenda or bias on the situation. Those that see it as a bed of roses do to. But here is something to keep in mind, if it doesn't happen 8 in years, it isn't going to happen unless it isn't as bad as you think. A lot of things, don't even effect you or anyone around you but we are led to believe it does for the simple reason of recruiting support for their cause.

    n my daily interactions with people I know in person and online, I see a growing number of people waking up and seeing that things have been getting worse here as a more systemic problem and not something limited to a minor issue here or there. We talk about lots of the negative things going on in our society here on Slashdot on a daily basis. Sure, some of it is overblown or completely false and many people point out when something like this comes up.

    Sure. You will find that it is more rare for political opposites to hang with each other then it is for like minded people to do the same. Like minded people tend to find things they have in common to talk about. But who and what you talk about can also influence your opinions and positions greatly without even knowing it.

    After reading the story of Jobe(?) in the bible, Some friends and I started talking and decided to see how loyal other people would be to the company at work. So we started trash talking some mythical guy who was supposed to be the head of current management at work. We made him sound like the devil incarnated and you wouldn't believe how many people started taking normal every day policies that they slightly questioned as the worst thing since Hitler. It only took about 6 months and they all seemed to blame it in this guy we made up. Long story short, I ended up getting fired from that job. But these people were perfectly content with the attendance policies, the amount and frequency of breaks, the selections of hot soup in the dispenser in the break room, until they had an evil genius to accuse of being behind everything. Do you think something like that is remotely working in your interactions with the people you know and talk about? I mean it starts early in life, in the schoolyard where something happens and someone isn't "liked" anymore then other tend to either like or not like them, at least to your face, they might have another opinion behind your back. And it isn't really childish, it is instinct to stay away from certain things because people that you take cues from do so. You would just be surprised at who you take cues from and who takes cues from you.

    But overall we are faltering as a nation. We have the most terrible sock-puppet president I could imagine with several of "his" people behind the scenes trying to take away our liberties in the name of security. I believe we very well could be months away from war with Iran which will almost certainly mean a draft. We've almost doubled our national debt in the last 7 years. Our currency is in a freefall as well as our economy. More people care about American Idol than electing good leaders. Of the less than half of eligible people that do vote, most will just vote along party lines and not care who it is as long as it's "their party".

    I don't seriously think someone is sitting behind the scenes rubbing their hands together going, "pretty soon, we will have all their liberties". I mean what is the end game? Eight years at the most and someone else is in office. There are as many democrats as republicans that have to somewhat support the Ideas in order for it to have some lasting effect. Otherwi