Sprint Revealed Customer GPS Data 8 Million Times

An anonymous reader sends along Chris Soghoian's blog entry revealing that Sprint Nextel provided law enforcement agencies with its customers' GPS location information over 8 million times between September 2008 and October 2009. The data point comes from a closed industry conference that Soghoian attended, at which Paul Taylor, Electronic Surveillance Manager at Sprint Nextel, said: "[M]y major concern is the volume of requests. We have a lot of things that are automated but that's just scratching the surface. One of the things, like with our GPS tool. We turned it on the web interface for law enforcement about one year ago last month, and we just passed 8 million requests. So there is no way on earth my team could have handled 8 million requests from law enforcement, just for GPS alone. So the tool has just really caught on fire with law enforcement. They also love that it is extremely inexpensive to operate and easy, so, just the sheer volume of requests they anticipate us automating other features, and I just don't know how we'll handle the millions and millions of requests that are going to come in." Soghoian's post details the laws around disclosure of wiretap and other interception data — one of which the Department of Justice has been violating since 2004 — and calls for more disclosure of the levels of all forms of surveillance.

Comments

conferenct?

[Shikaku]

What's that?

Re:conferenct?

[RedACE7500]

It's in Connectictuct.

automated tool for locating cells?

[Dyinobal]

Automated tool for locating cells? wow that sounds like an invitation for disaster and abuse. So what happens first, someone hacks it, or it's used in a 1984 style manner? (my guess is the latter has already happened/happening.)

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[afidel]

Uh, with 8 million requests in a year I'd say it's already very 1984ish. Wonder if this overrides the '911 only' setting on many handsets?

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Cornwallis]

I see.... you're one of "those" complainers... well... we'll just have to start watching *you*.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[megamerican]

Automated tool for locating cells? wow that sounds like an invitation for disaster and abuse. So what happens first, someone hacks it, or it's used in a 1984 style manner? (my guess is the latter has already happened/happening.)

Your latter guess has been mandated by law since the passage of the 1996 telecommunications act. Your cell phone can be listened to and tracked anywhere within coverage area as long as your cellphone has its battery inserted.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess that explains why you can not remove the battery on the iPhone.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[causality]

Uh, with 8 million requests in a year I'd say it's already very 1984ish. Wonder if this overrides the '911 only' setting on many handsets?

The funny thing is, those of us who saw this coming and knew that any sort of GPS capability for which it is technically possible for the phone company to read that GPS data would be abused in this fashion were usually called "paranoid" or "conspiracy nuts". How many examples like this do we need before people are less quick to dismiss what they should be examining as a real possibility?

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks Hans.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Shakrai]

whether you are complying with the unconstitutional mandate to carry health insurance.

Fixed that for you.

It sure is "Orwellian"

Doesn't that depend on how they are counting requests? If a 'request' is nothing more than a hit on their webpage then 8,000,000 might not be out of line. Imagine how often you would need to refresh such a tool in the process of tracking a particular suspect.

If 8,000,000 refers to the number of customers that law enforcement requested data on then that's another matter altogether.....

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Shakrai]

he funny thing is, those of us who saw this coming and knew that any sort of GPS capability for which it is technically possible for the phone company to read that GPS data would be abused in this fashion were usually called "paranoid" or "conspiracy nuts"

It really doesn't matter that they use GPS. Any transmitting radio device can be tracked. It's just a matter of having the right tools and the training to do so. The question you've got to ask yourself is whether or not the convenience of a cell phone is worth the trade off of the phone company having access to your whereabouts whenever you carry said cell phone with you.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Anonymous Coward]

That this party or that is more responsible for the painful, ongoing fiasco of stripping our constitutional freedoms is naive to the point of childishness. Both parties have been screwing us with both fists for more decades than you have neurons. Also 1984 has no more to do with medical charts than it does with internet search histories (i.e. both are troubling but neither are explicitly featured in Orwell's work). Get a new buzzword for totalitarianism/fascism (actually those words suffice just fine).

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Shakrai]

Your latter guess has been mandated by law since the passage of the 1996 telecommunications act.

Remember who signed that into law the next time you hear someone try to tell you that Democrats are actually better than Republicans.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[flyingfsck]

Well, eight million requests - good grief. Maybe the police has an automated screen scraper tied to a moving map to follow a suspect in real time. Otherwise some copper must really bored and pressing Reload umpteen times a day.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[omeomi]

var topic = "cell phone"
if(yourRant != topic)
{
return null;
}

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[TheNarrator]

Welcome to the Technetronic era!

The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.’

- Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, 1970

FYI, Zbigniew Brzezinski is one of America's most influential foreign policy strategists.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Shakrai]

You are paranoid, a conspiracy nut and have a highly inflated self-image if you honestly think that anyone in the government gives a flying fuck about what you're doing.

You've never paid attention to history if you think that government won't eventually be corrupted and abuse it's power.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[causality]

The true 1984 will come, when all your health records will be known to the Federal Government so that it can monitor both the health care you are getting and whether you are complying with the mandate to carry health insurance.

It sure is "Orwellian" and it is true... Republicans may have skirted some laws (although no more than Democrat Roosevelt did, when arresting thousands of Americans of Japanese, German, or Italian origin) in their "war on terror", but to establish a true Big Brother, a nation needs an Illiberal in office...

Or it needs to have one party, the Statist Party. This party has two factions; one is called the Democrats while the other is called the Republicans. Their value to the Statist Party is derived from maximizing small, petty differences and minimizing fundamental similarities. I'll explain one such similarity.

Traditionally, the Democrats/Leftists prefer personal freedoms at the expense of economic freedoms, while tradtionally the Republicans/Rightists prefer economic freedoms at the expense of personal freedoms. This is the case even though a freedom, once restricted, is never made unrestricted again. So the parties take turns being in power, and while there they implement their particular brand of restrictions. When the other party reacquires power, they further implement their brand of restrictions without lifting those enacted by the party that was previously in power. This guarantees that over time, you end up with less freedom and eventually end up with a total police state. This is only one technique in use. The notion that over generations of time, no one in those parties would have noticed this and decided to change it is absurd. Therefore there can be nothing accidental about it.

The important thing about this system is that it appears to provide choice to the electorate. The electorate must remain convinced that their votes matter and might really change the system, or else they lose all incentive to participate in the system and accept it as valid. This is necessary because the British have already tried to control this region by brute force and overt authority and were not successful; therefore something more deceptive is needed.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[LOLLinux]

Remember who signed that into law the next time you hear someone try to tell you that Democrats are actually better than Republicans.

And remember who controlled both the House and the Senate when that law was passed by both houses the next time you hear someone try to tell you that Republicans are actually better than Democrats.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[oahazmatt]

var topic = "cell phone"
if(yourRant != topic)
{
return null;
}

Yikes. I hope he wasn't posting from a Fios connection.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[LOLLinux]

Oh and let's look at who actually voted against the act here: Notice how only 1 Republican voted against it in the Senate while 4 Democrats did. And how it wasn't voted against by a single Republican in the House while 15 Democrats did. Even the abstainers don't paint the Republicans in a good light on this one. Only 1 Rep abstained in the Senate while 2 Dems did while 4 Dems in the House abstained while 0 Reps did. And before I get labeled a Liberal or a Democrat, I'm a centrist who votes for the Libertarians.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Shakrai]

Any such power has been reserved to the STATES or the people.

There's also the concept of freedom of association to consider. Congress can't compel me by force of law to associate with anybody, including a health insurance company. Might be able to make a claim under the 4th amendment as well. If I have the right to be secure in my papers and effects then how the hell does the Federal Government have the power to demand to know whether or not I'm carrying insurance?

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Rewind]

Insightful? A health care rant on this story? I think the correct mod would have been off-topic, but hey, I could be wrong.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[commodore64_love]

Yeah but triangulation is difficult and time-consuming, plus far from exact. It also requires knowing where somebody is at, else you'll be triangulating Baltimore when the suspect is over in Philly. In contrast GPS is like a big sign that says, "Here he is" as it moves across the cop's map. It's precise, instant, and easy

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[kaizendojo]

I hate to put a crease in your tinfoil hat, but...

1. What the hell does your health insurance rant have to do with the subject at hand?
2. You quote the Constitution like fundamentalists quote the Bible; you're damn sure there's something about 'insert rantable subject here' in there but you have no proof of reference.
3. The Federal Government doesn't HAVE to have the power to 'fine people for not buying a product'; your State/Commonwealth has been doing it for years with Auto Insurance. Don't want to pay those insurance bills? Then you don't get to drive that car of yours.
4. You sir, can take your tinfoil hat and leave and we'll not shed a tear... Go form your own country or find one that you like better. You don't even have to wait until 2010.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[causality]

he funny thing is, those of us who saw this coming and knew that any sort of GPS capability for which it is technically possible for the phone company to read that GPS data would be abused in this fashion were usually called "paranoid" or "conspiracy nuts"

It really doesn't matter that they use GPS. Any transmitting radio device can be tracked. It's just a matter of having the right tools and the training to do so. The question you've got to ask yourself is whether or not the convenience of a cell phone is worth the trade off of the phone company having access to your whereabouts whenever you carry said cell phone with you.

While that's absolutely true, it's also a less convenient way to track someone. Less convenient than having their handset automatically and periodically broadcast its already-calculated whearabouts to anyone who wants to know. Is either carrying a transmitting radio, or carrying a transmitting radio with GPS perfect? No, that's why I never claimed that it was. Do I prefer that we raise the bar as much as possible for this sort of surveillance, and consider it in terms of "the more effort, training, and equipment it takes to do this, the better"? Yes, I do.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[whterbt]

Your latter guess has been mandated by law since the passage of the 1996 telecommunications act. Your cell phone can be listened to and tracked anywhere within coverage area as long as your cellphone has its battery inserted.

[citation needed]

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does Sprint even have 8,000,000 customers?

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[causality]

You are paranoid, a conspiracy nut and have a highly inflated self-image if you honestly think that anyone in the government gives a flying fuck about what you're doing.

If I exceed the speed limit by 10 mph and a traffic cop notices, at that moment someone in the government has chosen to give a fuck about what I am doing. Therefore, it doesn't take much to meet this definition you have given, and that's assuming an honest cop and honest state legislators. I don't even want to know what kind of extralegal problems dishonest cops and corrupt officials could cause with impunity.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[LOLLinux]

Good thing those "small government" Republicans came in to power to help stop the passage of this heinous bill, right? If only it weren't for those pesky Democrats it would have failed due to only having a paltry 100% support from Reps in the House and 96.2% support in the Senate.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Cal27]

1: error: expected ‘,’ or ‘;’ before ‘if’

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[LOLLinux]

Which is completely different to thinking that someone is watching all your movements through the GPS data from your phone.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, idiot, maybe you would be interested in reading this article which explains why you're wrong.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Facegarden]

Yeah but triangulation is difficult and time-consuming, plus far from exact. It also requires knowing where somebody is at, else you'll be triangulating Baltimore when the suspect is over in Philly. In contrast GPS is like a big sign that says, "Here he is" as it moves across the cop's map. It's precise, instant, and easy

Well, to be clear, triangulation is easy if you are the cell company or software running on the device. Google maps has (and still does) used triangulation to get pretty accurate location for years - before GPS was as common or when GPS signals are unavaliable. That still requires hacking either sprint's network or the device itself, but it's just good to be clear that not having GPS on a device doesn't save us much.
-Taylor

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[mi]

There's also the concept of freedom of association to consider. Congress can't compel me by force of law to associate with anybody, including a health insurance company.

You'll be arguing these fine legal points in courts, until the judges get bored with it and begin fining you for contempt as they already do to people, who argue, that the entire Income Tax is unconstitutional.

The monstrosity has to be stopped now (make that a "Now!!!" — with the Illiberal-beloved raised fist). Don't wait for it to be struck by Supreme Court, for it may never happen... Roosevelt — the earlier opponent of "letting a good crisis go to waste" — had to fight Supreme Court for his "New Deal", and prevailed...

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Shakrai]

It also requires knowing where somebody is at, else you'll be triangulating Baltimore when the suspect is over in Philly.

You'd know that anyway. The cellular network is broken up into zones to lessen the load on the paging channel. Pages are the way that the network locates your phone for incoming calls, pings, SMS, etc. If you had one giant nationwide paging zone then you'd have far too many paging requests to handle. So they break the network up into zones and at a minimum are always going to know which zone your phone is located in. In a rural area these zones might stretch for quite a distance but in more urban areas they tend to be smaller, as more phones equals more paging traffic.

The minute your phone makes/receives a call or SMS they know which tower it's on. From that point forward it's child's play to locate the customer. You don't even need to do triangulation either. At a minimum you can figure out which sector of the tower they are on -- that will narrow down their location to a 120 degree slice of the tower's coverage. With GSM you can use the timing advance to figure out their range from the tower, in 550 meter segments. I believe there's also a way to compute the distance from the tower in CDMA networks without needing to do triangulation.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[ae1294]

There is a bug in your code. I think you are missing the goto 10

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[FlyingAfrican]

Economic freedom IS personal freedom.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Shakrai]

I love it! You get an informative mod and I get a troll one for saying the exact same thing. Moderator hypocrisy seems to be on full display today, doesn't it?

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Facegarden]

... Your cell phone can be listened to and tracked anywhere within coverage area as long as your cellphone has its battery inserted.

Uh, really? Even when the phone is powered off? My phone doesn't seem to communicate with the cell towers when its powered off, or else the battery would still die. Are you citing some verifiable resource, or just conspiracy theory? I'm not trying to flame, it just sounds unlikely to me that a powered off cell phone would still be trackable. Of course, if you really don't wanna be tracked, removing the battery is safer, because crazier things have happened, but still, are you sure you're correct?
-Taylor

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[mcgrew]

to establish a true Big Brother, a nation needs an Illiberal in office

Mussolini was a liberal? Buddy, you sound both ignorant and insane. Your health care records are already owned by the government. They have access any time they want them.

In return the government is owned by the insurance company as well as every other big corporation.

By the time Mussolini returned from Allied service in World War I, he had decided that socialism as a doctrine had largely been a failure

rule by an elite promoting the state as the ultimate end, opposition to democracy, protecting the class system and promoting class collaboration, rejection of egalitarianism, promoting the militarization of a nation by creating a class of warriors, demanding that citizens perform civic duties in the interest of the state, and utilizing state intervention in education to promote the creation of warriors and future rulers of the state

Sounds like the Republicans... AND the Democrats.

Facism "Fascism, pronounced /fæzm/, is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism[1][2][3][4] with a corporatist economic system,[5] and which is usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum.[6][7][8][9][10]

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[rpresser]

So HE'S responsible for pumping up the jam.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Shakrai]

You'll be arguing these fine legal points in courts, until the judges get bored with it and begin fining you for contempt as they already do to people, who argue, that the entire Income Tax is unconstitutional [wikipedia.org].

Those people deserve to go to jail. The income tax is constitutional. If Congress can pass a Constitutional Amendment authorizing a health insurance mandate and 3/4 of the states ratify it then I'll shut up about how it's unconstitutional. If they pass it without doing that then it deserves to be struck down as the freedom infringing power grab that it really is.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[ae1294]

Which is completely different to thinking that someone is watching all your movements through the GPS data from your phone.

???

8 Million is a big number, I would like to see all 8 million warrants please... I mean they are public record right? shrug...

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[afidel]

Yeah except the Income Tax people are just loony since the 16th amendment to the constitution allows congress to levy the tax.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Shakrai]

2. You quote the Constitution like fundamentalists quote the Bible; you're damn sure there's something about 'insert rantable subject here' in there but you have no proof of reference.

Freedom of association is protected by the 1st amendment. The 4th amendment protects the privacy of my papers and effects. The 10th amendment reserves all powers not specifically granted to Congress to the states or the people. I'd say that's enough reference for anybody.

3. The Federal Government doesn't HAVE to have the power to 'fine people for not buying a product'; your State/Commonwealth has been doing it for years with Auto Insurance. Don't want to pay those insurance bills? Then you don't get to drive that car of yours.

Having a car is a choice. The health insurance mandate is a mandate that will be imposed just by virtue of being born on American soil. If you draw breath then you will be subject to this mandate. If you can't see the difference between the two then there's no point in discussing this matter with you.

4. You sir, can take your tinfoil hat and leave and we'll not shed a tear... Go form your own country or find one that you like better. You don't even have to wait until 2010.

Ah, the old "if you don't like this, leave" argument. Funny how you leftists cried foul when the rightists made that argument but now use it yourselves. Fucking hypocrites.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[mi]

What the hell does your health insurance rant have to do with the subject at hand?

The subject at hand outrages Illiberal slashdotters because the government's law enforcers find it "too easy" to get GPS-data about their suspects (the subset of suspects, who are also Sprint customers) from Sprint. The "health insurance rant" is related to that, because people with self-consistent beliefs ought to be even more outraged, by the government's attempts to learn about each citizen's (suspected of anything or not) health care, linked precisely to their financial information.

That's what links the two topics fairly closely. I hope, I was able to address your concern.

You sir, can take your tinfoil hat and leave and we'll not shed a tear... Go form your own country or find one that you like better. You don't even have to wait until 2010.

Didn't you promise to leave for Canada in 2004? What happened — the door slammed you too hard on your way out?..

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[LOLLinux]

I would also agree as well. But 8 million requests doesn't imply that someone in the government gives a fuck about the location of some random slashdotter while they are on the phone.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[mdm-adph]

...sure, unless you're broke.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[scott666]

And before I get labeled a Liberal or a Democrat, I'm a centrist who votes for the Libertarians.

I like how you have to cover yourself because you've demonstrated reality's liberal bias.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[lastchance_000]

Most of the requests were cops checking on their spouses, or other significant others.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[muridae]

And that is how they will collect the tax for health care. The fee will be a tax, with an equal tax credit for carrying private health insurance.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[LOLLinux]

I love it! You get an informative mod and I get a troll one for saying the exact same thing. Moderator hypocrisy seems to be on full display today, doesn't it?

No, actually I was refuting your attempt at painting the passage of the act as if it was the fault of the Democrats and the Republicans were totally clear and innocent. The Republicans supported it 100% in the House and by a 96.2% margin in the Senate. The only reason it made it to the desk of Clinton to begin with was through their support of the act.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[blueskies]

I think it will just be a tax credit for the rest of us and not a fine.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[commodore64_love]

1. (shrug). Somebody brought it up as relating to GPS. Go read the great-grandparent post.

2. The Bible is a fictional document. The Constitution is the LAW which reigns supreme over all areas of the United States, even the president, congress, and supreme court. It is worthwhile to know what the LAW says, else we might as well be a law-less society. Unless you're suggesting we ignore the law? I'm sorry but I will not. The Constitution is the law and I have sworn an oath as a government official to obey it.

3. That was my point. The power belongs to fine people for not having health insurance belongs to the States, not the central government or the Congress. I'm glad we agree on this point.

4. No. I will not leave this country. The Founding document of this nation reads, "We hold these truths to be self-evident..... That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."

.

My family has been here since the 1700s. It is not we that must leave, or change. It is the government that must change, because it is becoming a pre-1990 eastern-european-style tyranny. It has effectively revived the nobility system (with the politicians as the new nobility), and turned all the rest of us into serfs to be ordered around like puppets (buy health insurance or be heavily fined). It is the government that has betrayed the founding principles of this nation, and broken the Supreme Law of the land in direct violation of the oath to uphold that law. I will not leave. I will stay.

Freedom to work and enjoy the fruits of my labor, without somebody coming along and taking almost $35,000 of it every fucking year..... freedom to be clear of debt and not have to fear for my children's or my grandchildren's future that the country might go bankrupt..... freedom to speak my mind without being called a "racist" or "terrorist" just because I disagree with the Obamas or the Bushes..... that Freedom is a cause worth dying for.

What do YOU have that is worth dying for? Anything? Anything at all?

I suspect nothing.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Shakrai]

No where in my post did I imply that the Republicans were innocent. What did I say that lead you to believe that? I was addressing my post at the people who claim that the Democrats are better for civil liberties than Republicans. They clearly aren't.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Sir_Lewk]

This just goes to show that the purpose of the two party system it to keep us bickering between each other. In reality, if only a handful on either side voted against it, then both sides are filled primarily with a bunch of freedom hating fuckwads.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[blueskies]

Because of course, 8 Million is a made up number....

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[ae1294]

someone in the government gives a fuck about the location of some random slashdotter while they are on the phone.

True but people here on slashdot (some of us at least) leave the house and interact with people and go places.

COP 1: Someone broke into building X last night.
COP 2: Pull up the Cell GPS logs and see who was in the area.
COP 1: O.. good idea! Hey look these 2 people have records!
COP 2: GREAT!!! bring them both in, we got our criminals.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Anonymous Coward]

You "paranoid conspiracy nuts" need to get a grip...

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[interkin3tic]

Ah, the old "if you don't like this, leave" argument. Funny how you leftists cried foul when the rightists made that argument but now use it yourselves. Fucking hypocrites.

It's worth pointing out that this is far from the first time "love it or leave it" has been turned around on someone who said it. I'm guessing the first time someone said something similar on american soil was the first people to walk across Beringia 25,000 years ago, and whoever said it probably had it said to them 24,999 years ago.

It's also worth pointing out that one side of the political spectrum calling the other side of the political spectrum "hypocrites" is pretty ridiculous.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[commodore64_love]

Anonymous Coward wrote:
You are paranoid, a conspiracy nut and have a highly inflated self-image if you honestly think that anyone in the government gives a flying fuck about what you're doing.

That depends which government we're discussing. If the government is in Venezuela or Iran, and I and my fellow freedom fighters have staged a coup to kill the supreme dictator, then YES the government cares about me/us. The government wants to squash the freedom fighters before they have a chance to succeed.

Just imagine if Rumanian dictator Nicolae Ceauescu would have had GPS technology to track his citizens, and execute any rabble rousers before they organized the central protests. He might still be in power today, rather than a bullet-ridden corpse. Tracking technology only serves power-hungry leaders desire to remain in power, not the citizens

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Anonymous Coward]

He's got $35,000 of your money.... but I suspect he's not willing to die for it. He just figures he deserves it because his mommy told him he was special.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[andymadigan]

You're only "fined" if you have income, it's an addition to an income tax, which isn't unconstitutional (sadly).

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Anonymous Coward]

What do YOU have that is worth dying for? Anything? Anything at all?

I'm dying to finally be covered by health insurance.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

In MA it's already considered a tax. It's either $250 or $750 for not having insurance, I forget which.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Shakrai]

It's also worth pointing out that one side of the political spectrum calling the other side of the political spectrum "hypocrites" is pretty ridiculous.

Your right of course. I probably should have pointed out that they are all hypocrites.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[dwiget001]

Which, is just one of the reasons, lower on my own importance scale, that I will never own a cell phone.

The primary reason I will never own one is, I have a radio and satellite communications background, I know and have seen what RF radiation will do to a body first hand. I have an aversion to my brains and testicles (and other organs) being subjected to even more RF and other radiation.

If I ever am in an emergency, where I live, within a four block area, there are probably 50 plus cell phone owners around in cars, etc. I have no need for one, is the next secondary reason I will never own one.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think your tinfoil hat is losing its shine; you might want to buff that sucker out a bit. ;-)

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[c6gunner]

Uh, with 8 million requests in a year I'd say it's already very 1984ish.

What you don't realize is that 7.9 million of those requests were generated by LEO officers trying to keep tabs on their teenage daughters. The other .1 were guys checking up on their wives.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[c6gunner]

I love it! You get an informative mod and I get a troll one for saying the exact same thing. Moderator hypocrisy seems to be on full display today, doesn't it?

Naw, slashdot mods are just slow and sporadic. On the bright side, it's only a matter of time until you both get modded down for trolling.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Tynin]

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/02/0415209

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[commodore64_love]

You make a good point.

Congress already hands-out "deductions" or "credits" for people who do things Congress likes, such as buying an electric car ($2000 tax credit). If they use the same approach with healthcare, where you get a $2500 credit if you have health insurance, then that's essentially legal.

BUT my understanding is that Congress wants to impose a fine, which means instead of owing approximately $34,000 last year, I would have paid $34,000 + $2500 fine == $36,500. That's the part that is probably considered illegal. I guess we'll have to wait for the courts to decide.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Ardeaem]

Freedom of association is protected by the 1st amendment. The 4th amendment protects the privacy of my papers and effects. The 10th amendment reserves all powers not specifically granted to Congress to the states or the people. I'd say that's enough reference for anybody.

You have a very simplistic view of the law. You are aware that there have been well over 200 years of case law between the ratification of the Constitution and now, right? The framers didn't do us many favors by only spending a few sentences on the first, fourth, and tenth amendments. They are not as straightforward to interpret as you seem to think they are, and many smart people have spent books writing about what they mean. In other words, no, that's not enough references for anybody; or, at least, anybody who gives the Constitution more than just a quick read.

And to the "love it or leave it" poster - screw you. You don't have any more right to decide how the country will be run than anyone else. If you think you're a liberal and you say "love it or leave it" you missed the whole point of liberalism.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[commodore64_love]

commodore64_love (-1 Troll)

If you strike me down, I shall simply rise-up again
.

1. (shrug). Somebody brought it up as relating to GPS, since like GPS it's an attempt to spy upon people. Read the GGP.

2. The Bible is a fictional document. The Constitution is the LAW which reigns supreme over all areas of the United States, even the president, congress, and supreme court. It is worthwhile to know what the law says, else we might as well be a law-less society. Unless you're suggesting we ignore the law? I'm sorry but I will not.

3. That was my point. The power to fine people for not having health insurance belongs to the States, not the central government or the Congress. I'm glad we agree on this point.

4. No. I will not leave this country. The Founding document of this nation reads, "We hold these truths to be self-evident..... That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." My family has been here since the 1700s. It is not we that must leave, or change.

Furthermore if I had said, circa 2005, "If you don't like Bush or his Patriot Act then leave," you would not have appreciated that. Please don't do the same discourtesy to me.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[shutdown -p now]

I'm not sure if that's indeed your implication, but it's worth noting that "corporatism" in Fascist speak doesn't really have anything to do with the modern meaning of the term "corporation"; it was rather about a guild-like system.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Anonymous Coward]

LEO officers

Pigs... in... spaaaace....

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Roxton]

Having a car is a choice. The health insurance mandate is a mandate that will be imposed just by virtue of being born on American soil. If you draw breath then you will be subject to this mandate. If you can't see the difference between the two then there's no point in discussing this matter with you.

If you think that's a great distinction, you're fooling yourself. The old "You can always just live in a shack in Montana" ploy is worse than the "Love it or leave it" ploy.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't post in this forum because the server-side javascript code forgot a semicolon!

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is ABC good enough?

"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.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[commodore64_love]

>>>I'm dying to finally be covered by health insurance.

Why? You're probably an engineer or programmer (this is slashdot after all), so you're making $60,000 or more per year. You could easily afford health insurance out of your own pocket.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[locallyunscene]

What the hell does your health insurance rant have to do with the subject at hand?

The subject at hand outrages Illiberal slashdotters because the government's law enforcers find it "too easy" to get GPS-data about their suspects (the subset of suspects, who are also Sprint customers) from Sprint. The "health insurance rant" is related to that, because people with self-consistent beliefs ought to be even more outraged, by the government's attempts to learn about each citizen's (suspected of anything or not) health care, linked precisely to their financial information.

It's funny that you say "self-consistent [beliefs]" when you really mean "consistent with my beliefs".

I think there are pretty clear differences between having a database of database of medical records subject to the same HIPAA regulations we have now and a warrentless GPS tracking program. Those differences mainly being usefulness to me, accountability for abuse, and intention of use to spell it out.

I did read your link btw, and it hinges on:

HIPAA's so-called privacy law permits individuals' personal health information to be exchanged – for many broad purposes – without patients' consent (See 45 CFR Subtitle A, Subpart E – Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information; section 164.502(a)(1)(ii) "Permitted uses and disclosures").

So I went to see who could look at your identifiable health information http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2003/octqtr/45cfr164.502.htm. In short it's no one you wouldn't expect: you, registered doctors/nurses treating you, your insurance provider for billing purposes, and specific exceptions like parent/legal guardians for minors.

If you're worried about you non-identifiable information then a lot of researchers can get a hold of that data. However I'd argue that data is doing more good than harm by being released.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[zippthorne]

A centrist? So your views depend on taking a bunch of other people's views and averaging them?

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Anonymous Coward]

Another steaming pile of turd from well known troll
C64.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Anonymous Coward]

So when I can keep all of my money because the rightists abolish income tax but I can't marry my partner because we're the same gender and their magic book says that's not allowed... how exactly is that personal freedom?

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried but the wikipedia page was removed after being tagged for deletion.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Toonol]

You know, I agree with you... I think that nationalized healthcare is a huge and dangerous abridgement of our rights, and a step towards a much less free society.

But I'm kind of embarrassed to be agreeing with you, when you use terms like "Illiberal". It's similar to how I dislike a significant portion of the people who argue that drugs should be legalized, even though I AGREE with them. I think you would be much more effective if you toned down the rhetoric some, and I honestly mean that in a helpful way.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[interploy]

The electorate must remain convinced that their votes matter and might really change the system, or else they lose all incentive to participate in the system and accept it as valid.

It's never too late to raise the black flag of anarchy.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, the old "if you don't like this, leave" argument. Funny how you leftists cried foul when the rightists made that argument but now use it yourselves. Fucking hypocrites.

Actually, I find it kinda funny that the Rightists are just as hypocritical...it's ok when they use it, it's not ok when the other side uses it. Pot. Kettle. Black Ah the irony.

Since the shoe is on the other foot, how does it feel? Perhaps we'll hear less of it? No? Should the leftists stop using this argument? And if they do, should the Rightists continue, which means they are de facto being hypocritical themselves?

Look, if you want to make it fair, make it fair. But if you hit someone over the head with a club, then they pick the club up and hit you back, don't come crying to me.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Toonol]

It means there's about a 1 in 35 chance that they do.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, the old "if you don't like this, leave" argument. Funny how you leftists cried foul when the rightists made that argument but now use it yourselves. Fucking hypocrites.

You guys hit below the belt first. That sort of argument is what passes for political discourse in this country now, thanks to 20+ years of Republican dominated politics. Thank christ some of us are realizing the best defense against your kind is to use the same tactics against you.

In fact, fuck you being pissed, its us democrats who ought to be pissed. We'll probably get our asses kicked in 2010. Our party is split between progressives and blue dogs because we don't have a unified voice of opposition because we're nowhere near as good at your slimy discourse tactics as you are.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Naturalis Philosopho]

(with the politicians as the new nobility)

The politicians are the lapdogs of the new nobility. Get it straight.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[locallyunscene]

To quote the overused and ancient internet meme:

O RLY?

-So having a choice between my not-so-favorite-monopoly and nothing is freedom?
-Having the ability to starve to death is freedom?
-Having the local warlord^H^H^H^H^H^H^H entrepreneur with the most money call all the shots is freedom?

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

If you think that's a great distinction, you're fooling yourself. The old "You can always just live in a shack in Montana" ploy is worse than the "Love it or leave it" ploy.

100% agreement with you there.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[c6gunner]

Funny :) I shudder to think what your response would have been, had I said "ATM machines" ...

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Intron]

4 million of them were FBI and police checking the whereabouts of their spouses and children.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[rcharbon]

Glad to see you're in favor of a single-payer health plan, which will remove the need to track individual's health care plans.

I'm in favor of health care reform too. I just wish we'd do it right.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[number11]

it's worth noting that "corporatism" in Fascist speak doesn't really have anything to do with the modern meaning of the term "corporation"; it was rather about a guild-like system

That may be true. Of course, the very existence of a corporation is a government grant, a special privilege granted by the government. They are a relatively modern invention not recognized by the US Constitution, a way for owners to escape personal liability for their businesses.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Dare nMc]

how the hell does the Federal Government have the power to demand to know whether or not I'm carrying insurance?

for example, driving is considered a privilege, not a right. Same is true of using cell phone, etc that uses the "public" airways. So your free to not have (car) insurance, or have it checked as long as you give up the "privilege" of driving. True today for car insurance, true tomorrow for health insurance? I am guessing the US government couldn't require proof of health insurance of people in their private homes, but they probably could to anyone who use public transit, go to a hospital/business that takes any government money, etc... Thus I am guessing 90+% of the people could be required to effectively carry (health...) insurance without violating the standing interpretation of the constitution.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[JWSmythe]

    I'd suspect the phone company can override it any time they'd like, but I can't confirm that. They can get an approximate location based on tower triangulation. Sure, 3 meters is good resolution, but 50 meters is good enough. If you're on foot running, 50 meters goes by pretty damned quick. Even 200 meters isn't much to worry about. There's a huge difference between wanting to know if a target is in the state, or knowing between which of 4 houses is he in.

    With 8 million queries, I'd have to assume that their accuracy information is pretty good, or else they wouldn't bother to use it. I also have to assume that those 8 million queries aren't on a handful of phones. If you want to find someone, just a few queries would be sufficient. "Where should we send the arresting officers?" "Is the target still there?".

    So, we're looking at probably 1 million civilian phones being located. So, 1 in 174

    There are approx 205 million people in the United States age 15 to 64
    Approx 85% of those people own cell phones.
    So, approx 174,250,000 cell phones in use by the most likely target demographic.

    So, less than 1% of us have been tracked. But with 1:174 odds, do you feel good about thinking that some law enforcement agency wanted to know where you were? It's not what you've done. It's what they think that you've done. But hey, just because you were within 200 meters of a known felon's house doesn't mean you were associating with them. Right?

   

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Dare nMc]

It's also possible to fool that tracking, either with peer to peer type of apps, throw away phones, or swapping phones... So raising this concern will allow future phones to start running tor, or equivalent to give the choice back to the consumers. It isn't a guarantee that cell phones must be traceable by the providers. True, some other device will always know your distance, but that doesn't mean that those device have to be controlled by the corporations/governments to always record and pass along that info.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, when the barrier for surveillance was very high, this was very true.

however, with a computerized, automated system, it is, indeed possible, for the government simply to track anyone who they have any sort of peripheral "interest" in.

If it was revealed this system existed, but strong controls limited the requests to a few hundred, then I might (MIGHT) find your comment to have some validity.

But in light of the 8 million queries already given out by ONE of the seven major carriers in the US (multiply times 4, to count them all?). Is there seriously 24 million instances where this magic barrier of "flying fuck" is crossed in your mind?

Or do you think along the lines of "not doing anything wrong, what do I care?" Your telescreen is in the mail.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[GoodNicksAreTaken]

Funny how you leftists cried foul when the rightists made that argument but now use it yourselves. Fucking hypocrites.

We would be fucking but our health insurance doesn't cover contraceptives.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[anagama]

I don't have mod points, so I'll just admire your eloquence publicly.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[afidel]

No, your odds are wrong, if your assumption is wrong it's 1M out of 50M Sprint customers or 2%.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[afidel]

err, if your assumption is *right*

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[GameboyRMH]

Wonder if this overrides the '911 only' setting on many handsets?

Of course, that's why when you dial 911 from a cell phone they can still locate you. You still have an IMEI number and you location can still be approximated by cell tower triangulation.

That's the one thing that worries me about the Nokia N900 - the manual doesn't make it clear whether the cell modem can be disabled completely like on my Treo 650. If the capability isn't there out of the box I'll need to find/develop a plugin to do it. I'm not mainly worried about privacy - I consider anything that passes through the telecom unencrypted to be insecure - but battery life and safety around, say, blasting sites (I'll just humor them) are other issues.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Thunderstruck]

3. The Federal Government doesn't HAVE to have the power to 'fine people for not buying a product'; your State/Commonwealth has been doing it for years with Auto Insurance.

Your state government has the authority to do all sorts of things the Federal Government cannot.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Anonymous Coward]

GPS *does* matter because it makes all of this tracking and tracing both easy and cheap. You're simply an idiotic ostrich with your head in the sand.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[cayenne8]

"for example, driving is considered a privilege, not a right. Same is true of using cell phone, etc that uses the "public" airways."

Ahh..but that is a different case, for cars at least...the STATE grants and regulate drivers licenses..this is not a federal thing, there is no (so far) national id, that allows you to drive.

As for the cell phone thing...not sure where you're going with that...I need no license or whatever from the state I live in much less the feds to own and use one.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[cayenne8]

"3. The Federal Government doesn't HAVE to have the power to 'fine people for not buying a product'; your State/Commonwealth has been doing it for years with Auto Insurance. Don't want to pay those insurance bills? Then you don't get to drive that car of yours."

Ah, but that is where the difference is...the STATE you live in can do this type of thing, but, the Federal govt (arguably) does not have this power granted to them by the constitution, which is the basis for their existence. Remember, the Constitution of the US does not grant citizens rights, instead it grants limited enumerated powers to the Feds.

If a state passes laws you don't like, you can move....kinda hard to stay in the US if they make national laws...if they could for anything other than interstate commerce.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[JWSmythe]

    Oops, sorry about that. For some reason I was thinking it was 8 million queries out of the general population. Thanks for narrowing the search parameters. It's not that it looks any more favorable, but at least the numbers are more accurate.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just had to say, that was on of the most simple yet perfect observation of our state of the union! I could not agree more, I could just have never put it so perfectly! One of the best comments I have ever read on any site!

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[mdarksbane]

If you live pretty much anywhere urban you can get along fine without a car. Only about 50-60% of people actually drive a car every day. That's a HUGE difference. As important as they are to many Americans, cars are not a requirement for life.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[jafiwam]

On the contrary, this tool is an illustration of what happens when the threshold for looking stuff up becomes sliding a mouse across a desk between mouthfuls of doughnut.

The issue is precisely that the threshold is low, and that it is used because the threshold is low, and now what "anyone in the government gives a flying fuck" is not "murdered four cops" but rather "looked cute in the DMV line last week."

If being tracked was not important, even on a silly, superficial level, why did you post anonymously? Hmmm?

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[7-Vodka]

Actually if you do a simple google search and wade through dubious sites until you find quality research, you will find that *many* of the states which supposedly ratified the 16th amendment, either outright did not do so, or did so improperly.

Here's the problem: when it went to the supreme court, they recognized that this was the case and said it did not *matter* because the man in charge of certifying the ratification had approved the process.
Yes, you read that right. The courts said that even though the amendment was improperly ratified by many states, since the person in charge of the ratification process at the time had approved it, in their eyes it stood. They further ruled that just attempting to use the defense in court that the amendment was never ratified would be considered to be wasting the courts time because they had already made their ruling.

So on one hand there is the truth of the matter, that the amendment was not properly ratified even by a big stretch of the imagination. And on the other there is the legal reality, that precedent will screw you big time if you use this argument.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I know, you can opt out of the government run option and choose a private insurance company.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[cayenne8]

"I'm dying to finally be covered by health insurance."

Perhaps you should get a real job instead of trolling on Slashdot all day...that way, you could afford it. It isn't that expensive.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Ozlanthos]

Sad thing is that some still call me a paranoid conspiracy nut when I tell them that's the reason we had cash for clunkers. Note that they simply destroyed the vehicles they bought from us. If I were in the same position, I would have hired a few thousand laid-off autoworkers to part out the cars and digitize the inventory. I am certain that over the next 3 years the program would have paid for itself many times over! But no, we didn't do that, Instead they filled the motors with liquid glass, flattened them, and shipped them off to a Chinese landfill. Why? Funny thing is, every single vehicle they sold us in return all have GPS capable hardware as standard parts.

Kind of hard to run from the cops when they can just shut your motor down by remote control.

-Oz

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[hedwards]

You do realize that 8 million isn't really that large of a number, right? The US has somewhere in the number of 300million people at this point. Assuming that it's individual people and that it's once per person, that's still only 2.6% of the populace. As of 2007, there were roughly 4 million people on probation with another 2 million incarcerated and somewhat less than 1 million on parole.

So in other words, even in the most paranoid version of events, the number of people that have been spied upon in this fashion, you're still talking about a tiny fraction of the populace, which just happens to be a similar number to the total number of people that are being supervised by various corrections programs.

I'm not sure how that's necessarily unreasonable. I'm not sure why one would expect for the number of cellphone location requests be lower than the number of known criminals. One would expect a substantial number to be persons of interest that they hope to rule out as a suspect or as a partial means of corroborating an alibi.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[citizenr]

The minute your phone makes/receives a call or SMS they know which tower it's on.

Its worse than that, EVERY SECOND they know where you are, MS (mobile station = phone) logs into every tower it sees fit. Every tower that has this MS in range logs its position (signal strenght, time drift).

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Sir,

I find your whackjob ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your paranoid fantasy conspiracy newsletter.

A.C.

P.S. I already have your details and I will be knocking on your door shortly.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the case even though a freedom, once restricted, is never made unrestricted again.

Does this mean that I'm not as free to drink alcohol as I think I am?

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[moortak]

This represents only one major carrier. If the rates at the others are anywhere close to this then we move a good deal closer to wide scale surveillance, even if you count anyone who has had a run in with the law as a valid target.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Dare nMc]

the STATE government grants drivers licenses. All state governments are covered under the same constitutional requirements, but the federal government still oversee those rights (although only a CDL has any significant federal legal requirements). Also your phone better have a FCC identification number or it is illegal to be sold in the US, the Radio towers that allow the phone to work all must have their FCC Licenses up to date as well. So no federal license, no cell phone.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[faffod]

This has nothing to do with phones that have built in GPS. All cell tower positions are very accurately measured, and any cell phone in range can be triangulated against these known coordinates.
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gps-phone.htm

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[JasonMaloney101]

Uh, with 8 million requests in a year I'd say it's already very 1984ish.

Not really. Consider the length of time any one person is tracked is 60 days. You will be making multiple requests for this person's position every hour. Let's say you make 4 requests per hour (one every 15 minutes). In one day you will have already made 96 requests for this one person alone. By 60 days you will have made 5,760 requests. Divided into a little over 8 million requests in 12 months, you have only tracked about 1390 people in a year's time. This is not unrealistic and certainly not horribly 1984ish, although TFA is clearly written to make you think so.

Of course, it's also entirely possible that investigators would prefer a more accurate tracking of a person's movements. Let's say you make 20 requests per hour (one every 3 minutes). You get 480 requests per day over 60 days, meaning 28,800 requests per person. This works out to only 277 people in 12 months.

The actual number of people tracked is probably somewhere between the above results, and finding out that police were able to accurately track a few hundred people's movements in a 12 month period isn't really very exciting.

Wonder if this overrides the '911 only' setting on many handsets?

Even without overriding the "911 only" setting, it is entirely possible to accurately determine a phone's location within a cell to within several hundred meters (see Shakrai's post below). Having location services enabled on the handset only makes the process a little easier.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[interkin3tic]

The subject at hand outrages Illiberal slashdotters because the government's law enforcers find it "too easy" to get GPS-data about their suspects (the subset of suspects, who are also Sprint customers) from Sprint. The "health insurance rant" is related to that, because people with self-consistent beliefs ought to be even more outraged, by the government's attempts to learn about each citizen's (suspected of anything or not) health care, linked precisely to their financial information [csmonitor.com].

You're saying it's on topic because people should be mad at both? If you get mad that sprint appears to be allowing all levels of law enforcement to track you without any cause or scrutiny you should also be mad that the government is going to soon be doing things that health insurance companies are already doing, and therefore it relates?

That's still off-topic.

And no, I'm still more outraged that sprint is willing to help everyone from the local sheriff to the CIA know where I am at all times than I am about my medical record being shared with the government.

I don't understand why so many conservatives trust health insurance companies more than the government. To me they seem pretty much the same, except that health insurance companies have even less transparency.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[cayenne8]

Hmm...most states I know of have their own constitutions, and from the different states I've lived in, they seem to vary a great deal, for example, LA is based largely on Napoleonic law, very different than the constitutions and laws say in AZ.

The FCC licensing is one that is mandated to be followed by manufacturers, the individual using a cell phone isn't required to have any licensing to purchase and use a cell phone in the US, my point still stands on that. That and even if that point bothered someone, they have a choice to buy a cell phone...they have a choice to buy and drive a car. The federal govt. isn't mandating they do either of those things or be fined, like the proposed healthcare bills seem to want to include for those that don't want to buy insurance.

The federal govt is not supposed to be intrusive into individual citizens' lives. Anything more it wants to do should be only granted to it with a constitutional amendment, we've gotten too far away from that ideal....hell, for example, why did it take a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol, and another to reinstate it...and yet none was needed to ban and outlaw pot? I still haven't reconciled that one either. IHMO, it is not the Federal govt.s place to mandate behavior of citizens, but, that's opening a much broader argument.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead they filled the motors with liquid glass, flattened them, and shipped them off to a Chinese landfill.

Uh, no.

Cars are flattened and their steel is recycled. Cars are 100% recyclable.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Shakrai]

If you think that's a great distinction, you're fooling yourself.

There's another point that I could have made. Most states don't require you to carry insurance. They require you to prove that you have the financial resources to cover the property damage and/or bodily injury caused by an automobile accident. Here in New York State you can post a bond with the state for the minimum required liability limits if you don't wish to carry automobile insurance.

Regardless, I do think it's a great distinction. The health insurance mandate is going to apply to every citizen. Just by virtue of being an American citizen you will be compelled to carry health insurance. Such a mandate has never before existed in the history of our Republic and I regard it as an extremely dangerous precedent. Your "Montana shock" example is nothing more than hyperbole. You can live in many parts of the United States without an automobile. My city has a population of <50,000 and still manages to have a halfway decent bus system. You don't have to live in New York City or Boston to get by without an automobile.

One last point I would raise: Obama used this issue to browbeat both of his major opponents on. He insisted repeatedly throughout the campaign that he was not in favor of an individual mandate. He also promised not to raise taxes on those earning <$200,000. If he signs this bill into law then it should be readily apparent even to his base that the promises that come out of his mouth are as meaningless as those of his predecessor.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Shakrai]

Yeah, that amazes me. My girlfriend's health insurance recently raised the co-pay of her birth control of choice from tier 2 ($25) to tier 3 ($50). You'd think they'd have a financial incentive to give that shit away for free.....

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Shakrai]

But if you hit someone over the head with a club, then they pick the club up and hit you back, don't come crying to me.

Who is this "you" that you are referring to? Go troll through my posting history. I cried foul when the Republicans did this. If they had any semblance of power in DC right now I'd be finding things to criticize them for.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately it doesn't really matter if the devices have GPS or not. GPS mearly gives you a finer-grained location. Using tower statistics without any GPS you still can get reasonable locations. Google latitude in the popular example does it in a rough manner when GPS is not enabled/avaliable and they don't use signal characteristics to transliterate location.

Besides phantom GPS use can easily be detected by paranoid users... :) If I were you I would make sure OTA updating has been disabled to prevent the spooks from turning your handset into a listening device.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[bettlebrox]

When Law Enforcement listened in on suspects who have Onstar it caused the accident detection system to not work correctly (whilst the car occupants were being monitored):

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-132934.html

"When FBI agents remotely activated the system and were listening in, passengers in the vehicle could not tell that their conversations were being monitored. After "vehicle recovery mode" was disabled, the court said, passengers were notified by the radio displaying an alert and, if the radio was not on, the system beeping."

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Dare nMc]

cell phone your talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_47_CFR_Part_15#C_-_Intentional_radiators So still at the whim of the FCC when you don't need a license. Also only one side of the cell phone (not the tower) can get away with the maximum power levels to be exempted, you need a bigger high gain antenna on the other side to receive those low power signals, tower transmits at a higher power so you can have a smaller antenna at the phone.
FYI State constitutions cannot violate the US constitution. They (states) can pass laws (and have additional rights in a state constitution) even if they violate federal laws (hence the money only big hand of fed government), but not the US constitution. The constitution doesn't regulate individuals acts, only government acts. But state governments are governments regulated by the constitution.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[drsmithy]

The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values.

You mean just like every society in history ?

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Shakrai]

Who is this "you guys" that you are referring to? I've never voted for a Republican for any office higher than County Executive.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Anonymous Coward]

In general, freedom of association includes the right to be free from compelled association. In Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 97 S. Ct. 1428, 51 L. Ed. 2d 752 (1977), and Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209, 97 S. Ct. 1782, 52 L. Ed. 2d 261 (1977), the Court held that freedom of association is unconstitutionally burdened where the state requires an individual to support or espouse ideals or beliefs with which he or she disagrees. Similarly, in Keller v. State Bar, 496 U.S. 1, 110 S. Ct. 2228, 110 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1990), the Court held that mandatory state bar membership dues could not be used to further ideological causes with which some members might disagree, unless the state could show that the expenditures were incurred for the purpose of regulating the legal profession or improving the quality of legal service.

[http://www.answers.com/topic/freedom-of-association]

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[RMH101]

"4. You sir, can take your tinfoil hat and leave and we'll not shed a tear... Go form your own country or find one that you like better. "

What, and beccome a victim of our foreign policy?

With apologies to Bill Hicks

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[RMH101]

Combine this with the algos for automatically working out social affiliations and groups by looking at who talks to whom else at what times and you can get some quite scary scenarios.
Criminal/person of interest phoned you a couple of times, or hasn't ever phoned you but your phone happens to often be in the same building? You could be a suspect.
Combined with your phone having visited a potential terror target whilst you were siteseeing at the Whitehouse or similar, and you could find yourself working your way up a list of suspects pretty rapidly without doing anything yourself.
There was a quote from Cardinal Richlieu that said "Give me six sentences written by the most innocent of men and I will find something in them to hang him".
Now it's not just what you write, it's who you directly or indirectly associate with, and where you go. It potentially criminalises anyone and everyone, which isn't good from a civil liberties point of view.
Unfortunately I think the genie's out of the bottle on this one

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[fgouget]

Having a car is a choice. The health insurance mandate is a mandate that will be imposed just by virtue of being born on American soil.

Soooooo. You're saying immigrants would not be subject to that law? Or maybe that it's ok if they are because they are not (or should not be) protected by the constitution anyway?

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[commodore64_love]

>>>The true 1984 will come, when all your health records will be known to the Federal Government so that it can monitor both the health care you are getting and whether you are complying with the unconstitutional mandate to carry health insurance.
>>>

Unconstitutional is right. I'm not paying any damn ~$2500 fine just because I don't have health insurance. So if I suddenly disappear during 2010, first you can party, and then second you can come visit me in jail. The Constitution gives to the U.S. no power to fine people for not buying a product. What's next? I'll be fined because I bought a conventional Civic instead of the "green" hybrid version? Any such power has been reserved to the STATES or the people.

The U.S. can take its unconstitutional fines and shove them up its marble ass.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[commodore64_love]

Yes. After all you can move. Or you an petition your State government to break the entrepreneur's monopoly. Or you can run for office yourself - even if you lose you still bring attention to the issue.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[fgouget]

Uh, with 8 million requests in a year I'd say it's already very 1984ish.

What does it mean '8 million requests'? The article, if you can call it that, is not clear at all on this point.

For instance, if law enforcement asks to know the location of a person for a 48 hour period, is that one request? Or is that two, one per day? Or 48, one per hour? Or do these requests each correspond to a single GPS coordinate + timestamp? If so at one coordinate per minute the above example would turn into 69120 'requests'.

This reminds me of web server statistics: there's a big difference between files served, pages served, visits, and unique visitors.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[commodore64_love]

>>>I don't understand why so many conservatives trust health insurance companies more than the government.

- Because insurers don't hold a monopoly (i.e. if Microsoft Insurance sucks, I can switch to Apple Insurance, or Linux Insurance, or no insurance at all (pay cash as expenses happen)).
- Because insurers can't suck money from my wallet without my permission.
- Because insurers can't dump me in jail, or randomly search my house whenever they feel like it.
- Because insurers can't draft me and send me to die in a hellhole like Korea or Nam or Afghanistan

It's not about trusting insurers, because I don't. It's about fearing my government more. The government is the greater evil.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[commodore64_love]

Single payer takes away freedom of choice, and replaces it with the evil of a monopoly.

Just imagine if Comcast ran your healthcare, and they'd simply suck the monthly bill direct from your paycheck, and triple it from $100/month to $300/month whenever they felt like it. That's essentially what you're asking for. That's simply another form of serfdom

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[commodore64_love]

>>>If you're worried about you non-identifiable information then a lot of researchers can get a hold of that data. However I'd argue that data is doing more good than harm by being released.

Yeah but that decision should be MY decision.
Your opinion is irrelevant in matters that concern MY body.
That's the same argument that defends abortion.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[breagerey]

Funny how you leftists cried foul when the rightists made that argument but now use it yourselves. Fucking hypocrites.

Painting with such a wide brush doesn't bolster your argument.
It just makes it easier to dismiss you as a partisan hack

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[commodore64_love]

People who invade my house without my permission DO have constitutional rights - but ultimately they will still be found guilty by the jury for breaking-and-entering. Likewise people who invade a country without permission also have rights, but nevertheless still deserve to be deported.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[commodore64_love]

Has it not occurred to either of you to just *pay cash* for your birth control stuff? Ultimately it would probably be cheaper (no ~5000 per year free).

But of course you'll probably disagree. Like my niece who told me she pays $200/month for cable television, internet, and cellphone. She believes that's a "great deal" but when I told her I get television for free, internet for $15, and cellphone for $5 per month, her mouth dropped open.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[fgouget]

There's also the concept of freedom of association to consider. Congress can't compel me by force of law to associate with anybody, including a health insurance company.

So the solution is obviously for the federal government to provide health insurance itself, paid for by your taxes. Then you would not have to associate with anyone or anything and since any resident would automatically be covered, the government would not have to ask for any proof that you carry insurance.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[commodore64_love]

>>>You are aware that there have been well over 200 years of case law between the ratification of the Constitution and now, right?

Constitutional Law still trumps mere opinions of a few judges. A judge may say, "You have no right to free speech," but his opinion is null-and-void in the face of the Law which states otherwise.

As the founder of the Democratic Party observed: "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

And: "The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Gravitron 5000]

You do realize that 8 million isn't really that large of a number, right? The US has somewhere in the number of 300million people at this point. Assuming that it's individual people and that it's once per person, that's still only 2.6% of the populace.

That's over 1 in 50 people in the USA. That's close to the population of Virginia (7,769,089 as of July 1, 2008). That's also close to the population of Baltimore and Washington DC combined (7,608,070 in 2000). This is by no means a small number of people.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[locallyunscene]

But The State having the ability to break up monopoly is a hindrance of economic freedom and therefore actual freedom according to FlyingAfrican.

Equating economic freedom to personal freedom is just wrong. Personal freedoms would be ignored by a true free market if they stood in the way of profit(which they often do).

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, that makes two whole people who still know what the constitution is for. Maybe there is still hope for us after all.... Or maybe not. I'll see your "Constitutional Amendment" and raise you a Stephen Breyer authored decision that cites "policy implications" as the reason for a law to be upheld. I wish I could remember the case - about 1.5 years ago - so you could enjoy it too. To translate from the lawyereese, he basically wrote an opinion that said "yeah, the constitution doesn't allow this, but it is really, really important, so we find it constitutional." Nice.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Cytotoxic]

So when I can keep all of my money because the rightists abolish income tax but I can't marry my partner because we're the same gender and their magic book says that's not allowed... how exactly is that personal freedom?

Ok, I'll explain it to you. Let's imagine a law that says gay guys cannot get married. It's not that hard to do - just look around you. In this imaginary world you are free to earn and spend your money as you please with no interference. So you and your "roommate" buy a house, cars, health insurance, vacations, etc. You keep your private life away from the government and although your theoretical freedoms are egregiously infringed, in a practical sense you are living life as you see fit. You can even use contract law to bridge the gaps that are left by the inability to actually marry.

Now let's imagine a world that makes gay marriage perfectly legal. In this imaginary world you are not free to earn and spend your money as you see fit. In this imaginary world all of your money goes to the government first, and they decide how you get to spend it. They decide where you rent your home, they decide what insurance you get, they decide how much you get for food. In this imaginary world, although gay marriage is perfectly legal, the government will not provide any funding for gay married couples housing. They declare gay sex a health hazard, and so they severely restrict the health care monies for gay couples.

The point of this is that economic strictures are much easier to impose and much more restrictive than "morality police" laws. Just look at sodomy laws in the US. They were the norm only a few decades ago, and although they were sometimes used to persecute particular individuals, by and large they were roundly ignored by the population at large. The same goes for bans on drugs right now. A huge portion of the population flouts the drug bans, and although there is a large cost and lots of incarcerations, most people go about their little recreational drug use quietly with no interference. In fact, it is the economic side of the transaction that is more easily detected.

The point I think the GP is trying to make is that if you are allowed to control your own economic life, you'll be much more able to control your personal life. The opposite is not true. In fact, if you surrender your economic freedom, it is very easy to take your personal freedoms as well.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[CarbonShell]

And you honestly think your government does NOT do this?

The US Gov constantly said it is not doing any surveillance against the US populace but time and again the truth pops up (echelon, wiretaps).
People hear it and seconds later act like they just had a deja-vous and totally forget about it.
(this is a sickness known to all humans, regardless of race or nationality)

Just today the EFF filed a suite to get the government to explain what social sites they are scanning any why.

EVERY government that can, will.

You think they will just restrict themselves to the known criminals and leave themselves open from the flanks?

Do you know what little it would take to get the government on your trail?

How do you think so many people got put on the no-fly list?
You know, like known terrorists such as former Senator Kennedy.

Fact is, the biggest threat to 'the establishment' (yeah I hate that word as well but it is not just the politicians were are talking about here) are the people.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[Anonymous Coward]

"If 8,000,000 refers to the number of customers that law enforcement requested data on then that's another matter"

Sorry, I saw Airplane! too many times

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[cayenne8]

z"FYI State constitutions cannot violate the US constitution. They (states) can pass laws (and have additional rights in a state constitution) even if they violate federal laws (hence the money only big hand of fed government), but not the US constitution. The constitution doesn't regulate individuals acts, only government acts. But state governments are governments regulated by the constitution."

That's not too tough, since the US constitution not only sets out the limited enumerated powers the Federal govt. has, it pretty much states that everyone is born with inherit rights, that are regulated by the states. There are only a few 'no-no's that states have come up with that have eventually been put down as unconstitutional, such as slavery....and that was taken care of by a federal constitutional amendment. The federal constitution is quite limited in it's scope, and is there to dictate what the feds can do, but it is also there to ensure most power resides with the states and the people.

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[ae1294]

Combine this with the algos for automatically working out social affiliations

Exactly. My post was extremely simple in that I only used people who already had some sort of criminal record. I bet a lot here on /. probably laughed and said something along the lines of "Blah I have no record".

What about your friends, family, that mob owned bar you frequent or even the Chinese restaurant you like visiting? None of us know exactly who we come into contact with each and every day. Think about it, what about that quite guy you happen to be siting across from at work every day but never have even spoken to? He might be a terrorist! which then makes you his possible accomplice.

I wish each of us could run our names through the FBI/homeland security database just to see what sort of crazy things would pop up. It's basically the 6-degree's of separation thing except that given the amount of data in these databases coupled with that in corporate databases makes it more like 1 or 2 degree's.

We are all suspects these days even if we have done nothing wrong. (And every single one here has committed a crime whether you know it or not)

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[RMH101]

Amen

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[fgouget]

Likewise people who invade a country without permission also have rights, but nevertheless still deserve to be deported.

Oh, so foreigner == invader? Read my post again. I di not mention illegal immigrants, you're the one who made that assumption...

Re:automated tool for locating cells?

[interkin3tic]

- Because insurers don't hold a monopoly (i.e. if Microsoft Insurance sucks, I can switch to Apple Insurance, or Linux Insurance, or no insurance at all (pay cash as expenses happen)).

They don't? Seems to me like you can choose between your employer-provided mediocre health insurance, or you can buy your own insurance which will range from pretty much the same to far, far worse depending on luck and your health history.

From my limited experiences, if you've had cancer or something else, then you're either on a group policy, are paying through the nose, or are going uninsured and are really hoping the cancer doesn't come back.

That may not be a monopoly technically, but a fat lot of good that does me.

- Because insurers can't draft me and send me to die in a hellhole like Korea or Nam or Afghanistan

But they can and do refuse to pay for your healthcare and leave you to die in whatever hellhole you can afford on your own. And they do this far more often than the US government drafts people these days.

Guess whose contract with Sprint is up for renewal

[Killer Orca]

Mine, though I seriously doubt all the other major carriers aren't also doing this. Maybe I'll go back to using pre-paid phones plus Google voice to rule them all, Google versus the Feds, who do you trust less?

Time to track some goverment officials

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmmmm, what is the http:// address of that service, I have some congress critters I would like to know there whereabouts.

Re:Time to track some goverment officials

[dotfile]

Look under a flat rock, you'll probably find them there.

Re:Time to track some goverment officials

[ickleberry]

These guys use gopher:// :)

Um.

[gandhi_2]

So what?

Just the spies hitting refresh incessantly

[Anonymous Coward]

I think sprint should consider removing the karma feature from the CIA message boards.

Not just for law enforcement

[Anonymous Coward]

Many companies track their employees too using tools like Xora (xora.com). The City of Chicago uses it extensively to track city workers...

"Who watches the Watchers?"

[P-38Jbird]

As if... So, tell me, how many of these were legal crime fighting uses and how many were just cops checking up on their girlfriends, ect. 8 million. and thet's just Sprint.

Re:"Who watches the Watchers?"

[aclunc]

Unfortunately, the answer is likely "no one." A huge part of the problem is the fact that our current privacy laws are completely outdated. Law enforcement agencies can request geolocation data and other private information from companies with little or no court oversight, and the customer is unlikely to ever even know that their information was disclosed. You can read more about the issue at our Location Information page here: http://tr.im/GkQT. ACLU of Northern California – dotRights Campaign

Re:"Who watches the Watchers?"

[stephanruby]

Isn't it each time you dial 911 that it tries to get a gps lock on you???? I don't know if this is still the case now, but at least, that was the case being made when the law was originally passed to get all the new cell phones sold -- gps-enabled by a certain year.

Re:"Who watches the Watchers?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I do try to stay within the law when I'm donning my cape and mask to fight crime but you know how that goes. So yeah the numbers might be a little skewed.

8 million times?

[Culture20]

That could easily be 15 people, one "location" revealed per GPS heartbeat for the full year+month. Or a slightly larger number of people tracked for smaller periods of time. No, I didn't read the article, but 8,000,000 sounds ridiculously high for individual requests.

Re:8 million times?

[Anonymous Coward]

actually, according to the article, it's ridiculously low. Try not to make up stupid shit.

Re:8 million times?

[Knara]

That could easily be 15 people, one "location" revealed per GPS heartbeat for the full year+month. Or a slightly larger number of people tracked for smaller periods of time. No, I didn't read the article, but 8,000,000 sounds ridiculously high for individual requests.

I suspect this is closer to the truth. Try getting even 100 requests for information out of a telecom, much less 8,000,000 individual requests, even if the tool is somewhat automated.

Re:8 million times?

[chriso11]

Errr - since the phone company gets paid every time they provide the data, I doubt they put any roadblocks in the process.

Re:8 million times?

[Knara]

Errr - since the phone company gets paid every time they provide the data, I doubt they put any roadblocks in the process.

Right, because telecoms always do sensible things?

Re:8 million times?

[talking_walnut]

Good point. I looked through the article and couldn't see any mention of the number of unique requests made. I could have missed it but I doubt they were looking at 8 million different people. Article raises a valid concern but in an alarmist manner.

Who are we fighing?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can never keep track of what side I'm on, is it Oceania, Eurasia, or Eastasia?

Re:Who are we fighing?

[tekrat]

We have always been at war with Oceania...
Big Brother Loves You.

(Blank is beautiful!)

The tinfoil hat jokes are on us.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Yesterday's unmedicated-schizophrenic black helicopterite conspiracy theory is today's mundane maybe-the-media-will-actually-bother-to-pick-it-up-I-think-we-have-some-space-on-page-six story.

Re:The tinfoil hat jokes are on us.

[Remus Shepherd]

And tomorrow's front page headline. The question is whether the headline article will say, "What an outrage; someone should stop this!" or the more likely, "This is why you need to calm down and be good citizens."

Re:The tinfoil hat jokes are on us.

[BobMcD]

And if the trend is continuing, pause to imagine the unprecedented horrors that await us tomorrow.

Re:The tinfoil hat jokes are on us.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I suspect that we'll be treated to a facile "debate" on the matter by a largely supine media who, when not overtly groveling for their coveted "access", have let a fetish for "balance" overwhelm any commitment to clear presentation of the truth.

Your staid, respectable, "serious" journalists will write a bunch of he-said/she-said articles, where bland denials from law enforcement will be taken at face value.

The only part of this that isn't completely predictable is trying to figure out how right wing sources will react: Will they be overcome by their usual worshipful attitude toward law enforcement and executive power, or will this be one of those cases where a program, having hummed along for years now, is suddenly a clear and pressing indicator of Obama's communist-fascist-muslim plot to destroy america.

Just Sprint, or others as well?

[Tynin]

I just don't understand how this could be legal. The fact that Sprint is being open about this seems to suggest that they have done nothing wrong, and this is business as usual. If so, is this standard with other cell providers as well? I could have sworn I've read an article elsewhere, where someone was trying to locate a missing person and contacted the cell provider to have them give them GPS coords and they refused to turn them over without a court order (cannot find it after some searching)... yet they give the police unlimited access without so much as a court provided rubber stamp machine?!

Re:Just Sprint, or others as well?

[Tynin]

Sorry for replying to myself. After some more research I found a ruling by the DoJ (discussed on /. here) that what Sprint is giving the police is protected by the 4th Amendment and would need a warrant to be issued before providing that data. Yet that isn't happening. I read the article, I'm still not sure how this could be legal.

Re:Just Sprint, or others as well?

[Anonymous Coward]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,quote>

Sprint owns the data, and they are freely sharing the data they own with Law Enforcement. There is no violation of the 4th here. In fact, I'd imagine that your contract with Sprint explicitatly states their right to share your data with whomever they wish.

Re:Just Sprint, or others as well?

[BigSlowTarget]

I bet there's something in the Sprint contract that lets them 'provide information to law enforcement officials in the case of an investigation' or something like it.

What rights the government doesn't take you can still give away.

Re:Just Sprint, or others as well?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's okay. The DoJ has set up a corresponding web-based system to allow them to issue millions of warrants a day by housing judges in huge cubicle farms. :-)

Re:Just Sprint, or others as well?

[geophizz]

Your 4th Amendment rights are in fact gone, because they are now unenforceable. Who's going to stop them. Big Police State and Big Corporate State against little you? With those odds, what does it matter that it's illegal?

Re:Just Sprint, or others as well?

[Thaelon]

I'm still not sure how this could be legal.

They pay our representatives a lot more than we do.

Re:Just Sprint, or others as well?

[chill]

Read the fine print on your cell contract. Those people simply signed away their rights to privacy regarding things like the GPS info, etc.

Warrants aren't needed.

Re:Just Sprint, or others as well?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry for replying to myself. After some more research I found a ruling by the DoJ (discussed on /. here) that what Sprint is giving the police is protected by the 4th Amendment and would need a warrant to be issued before providing that data. Yet that isn't happening. I read the article, I'm still not sure how this could be legal.

Because somewhere, someone who is a terrorist might be using the Sprint network. So there has been one of those Secret Warrantless search affidavits on the Teleco's database. The nifty thing about those warrantless orders... it's illegal to tell anyone that you received it.

Re:Just Sprint, or others as well?

[Shane dot H]

Yes, it's protected by the 4th Amendment. However, this could all very much be legal with warrants - 8 million doesn't tell us how many users it is, how frequent the data was reported, etc. That doesn't mean it's good policy, just that this could all be kosher under wiretap law.

I'm more worried about the potential for abuse by insiders and backdoors. Merely putting such a system in place is a privacy vulnerability for its customers. And it's not like we can just shop around for a better provider, since this kind of stuff isn't publicly disclosed.

Abuse of Power

[Gricey]

The problem with this kind of tool, and really it boils down to all the increasing surveillance options available to law enforcement (trust me, my ass is fully violated, I live in the UK) - they make it trivial for anyone interested with the correct clearance to go to town and infringe on someones rights. This kind of tool rarely has the correct AAA criteria set up for it (nor does any of the increasing computerised government systems), so more and more of our personal data is being shipped wholesale, without our permission, into the hands of people who are either incompetant or not suitable to handle it.

These kind of tools need peer-review as to their use, and an accountable audit procedure.

Re:Abuse of Power

[GungaDan]

"my ass is fully violated, I live in the UK"

If you'd said "Christmas Islands" I'd have believed you.

I'm immune!

[Anonymous Coward]

My blackberry has a crappy GPS. Doesn't work indoors, and doesn't work half the time in the car.

Take that, iphone fanbois!!!!!!

Re:I'm immune!

[Wyatt Earp]

They can still get you through cell tower triangulation.

Re:I'm immune!

[schnikies79]

Do you have to have three towers within range to get a triangulation? When I'm home, I'm within range of one tower. When it goes out (it has twice), I have no cell reception.

There are plenty of places in the U.S. without more than one tower in range.

Re:I'm immune!

[Wyatt Earp]

They will know what tower you are on.

So theres 1 tower, they can go - oh xxx-yyy-zzzz is at Tower XCD1, within 410 yards. Look up...he has a green Mazada and his billing address is 1234 whatever lane. 1234 whatever lane is within 410 yards of the tower! Get him!

Re:I'm immune!

[danlip]

I believe you only need 2 towers for triangulation (you are the 3rd point in the triangle). And even with 1 tower, they still know your approximate location (i.e. they know you are close enough to that tower to get reception, and not close enough to any other tower to register). They might even be able to tell distance from the tower by signal strength or delay. Enough to support or destroy an alibi.

Re:I'm immune!

[bmo]

You're not taking into account that cell towers are omnidirectional.

You need 3 towers. If there are two, you could be in either of the two places of equal distance. You need the third tower to take the ambiguity away.

http://www.hacking--thealliance.50megs.com/images/cell_triangulation.gif

--
BMO

Re:I'm immune!

[Dan Ost]

trilaterlization (not triangulation) can be done with just 2 towers, but it's iffy. If the 120 degree arcs of the antennas overlap roughly symmetrically and the phone isn't near the edge or either arc, it can sometimes be impossible to map the phone to a single location. If the point opposite the phone in relation to the line of symmetry also falls within the overlapped area, there's no way to know which is the actual location and which is the reflection without having a third tower present. Having a third tower eliminates all reflexive points.

Re:I'm immune!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is how the police were able to track Bucky, at least until he ditched his phone.

Re:I'm immune!

[Anonymous Coward]

You need 3 towers. If there are two, you could be in either of the two places of equal distance.

Perhaps in your flatland world... but in my world two spheres intersect in a circle of equidistance points.

If there are any hills or valleys in the middle the may intersect that circle forming 2 more possible points.

Re:I'm immune!

[profplump]

Towers typically aren't omnidirectional though, they're typically 3 installations of a individually addressable antennas, so each antenna covers only about 120 degrees. It's still possible to have 2 such sections overlap in 2 points, but it's a lot less likely.

Re:I'm immune!

[zippthorne]

No you don't. Cell towers aren't just a vertical whip. They're typically a ring of directional antennas. You don't get precise direction from them, but you can definitely rule out the image.

Re:I'm immune!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not taking into account that cell towers are omnidirectional.

Actually, in most cases they're not omnidirectional. Most cell sites are "sectorized cells," in which there are three (or sometimes six) distinct sectors radiating from a central point. In general, if you see three antennas on each side of a cell tower, it's sectorized; the omnidirectional towers usually have three candlestick-like antennas that stick up from the tower frame.

In many (but not all) cases, information from two cell sites may be all that's needed to locate the subscriber if it's possible to know both the antenna face being used to communicate with the mobile station as well as the approximate distance from the two towers.

But you're right that three sites are required if the sites are omnidirectional, and there are some cases where three sites are still required even in a sectorized-cell deployment.

Re:I'm immune!

[StrategicIrony]

I don't think they are. In general, cell towers use directional antennas (you can see them on towers as flat rectangular panels). I believe they can tell (within about 90 degrees) which direction you are from the antenna.

I believe that increasing directionality is one of the tactics used in expanding 3G bandwidth in high congestion areas (recently deployed by ATT and T-Mobile in some markets).

Re:I'm immune!

[Buelldozer]

Your information is inaccurate. Read the post by Shakrai up towards the top in this thread for an upgrade to your "Newsweek" knowledge of cell phone tracking.

Re:I'm immune!

[jpmorgan]

I don't know if you can actually do triangulation on a CDMA network. With GSM, sure, it's TDMA, so you just measure signal strength at appropriate time intervals to compute distance. But with CDMA networks, you can't filter out a specific signal, since it uses statistical multiplexing instead of channel multiplexing.

Re:I'm immune!

[beezly]

Most cell towers are not omni-directional, they are segmented. It's quite common to have 3 or 6 separate segments on a cell.

It's possible to get quite an accurate arc depending on local configuration, from just a single segment. It improves significantly with two adjacent cells and dependent on the local configuration of the segments you could get a single location (dependent on whether the segment arcs intersect once or twice). The more segments per tower, the greater your chance you can pinpoint with just two towers.

Re:Guess whose contract with Sprint is up for rene

[Wyatt Earp]

Well since Google bends over backwards for the People's Republic, I'm sure that when the Feds push it they will do whatever the Feds want.

I trust the Feds more than Google, at least with the Feds there is a chance at court, not with Google.

Glad I don't have GPS in my cellphone

[Fallen Kell]

I am now really glad I don't have GPS in my cellphone. In fact, I am glad I almost never even have my cellphone with me anymore...

Re:Glad I don't have GPS in my cellphone

[Jon Abbott]

I'm glad I don't have a cell phone.

Re:Glad I don't have GPS in my cellphone

[Anonymous Coward]

I would agree with you, except where I live at least there are *NO* payphones anymore. What does this mean? Unless you're really suave and can either bum a call off a passerby, or business, or homeowner, you're SOL for getting ahold of someone, if say they forgot to pick you up. Or your car broke down, Or your phone service got cut because you couldn't afford to pay the bill.

Point? Cells are almost a necessity now because the alternative infrastructure previously employed is no longer offered in an ubiquitous fashion.

Re:Glad I don't have GPS in my cellphone

[Facegarden]

I am now really glad I don't have GPS in my cellphone. In fact, I am glad I almost never even have my cellphone with me anymore...

They can still find you to within a couple hundred meters. They use cell triangulation for 911 calls and smartphones with google maps use it with surprising accuracy for a rough fix when GPS is off or out of signal.
-Taylor

Re:Glad I don't have GPS in my cellphone

[Facegarden]

I'm glad I don't have a cell phone.

I really don't understand that. I mean, are you a criminal doing serious stuff where tracking would matter? Not that this sprint stuff is okay, but i mean, I just don't get people without cell phones. And i've had the why or why not discussion on slashdot enough I don't want to have it again, but still, i just don't get it. I mean, you don't not have it just to avoid tracking, do you?
-Taylor

Re:Glad I don't have GPS in my cellphone

[dotfile]

Perhaps he just doesn't see the need for the police to know where he is at all times, even if he ISN'T doing something illegal. This argument is not difficult to make. Would you knowingly allow the police to monitor your every move, even if you believe yourself to be a law abiding citizen? How about opening your mail? Listening in on your phone calls? Monitoring all of your web surfing?

You have to draw the line somewhere. I have nothing illegal in my car, not even anything remotely embarrassing. There are no drugs or evidence of crimes in my home. All the same, if a police officer asks to search my home or vehicle, I'll refuse. If he feels strongly enough about it, he can try to get a search warrant.

Re:Glad I don't have GPS in my cellphone

[Facegarden]

Perhaps he just doesn't see the need for the police to know where he is at all times, even if he ISN'T doing something illegal. This argument is not difficult to make. Would you knowingly allow the police to monitor your every move, even if you believe yourself to be a law abiding citizen? How about opening your mail? Listening in on your phone calls? Monitoring all of your web surfing?

You have to draw the line somewhere. I have nothing illegal in my car, not even anything remotely embarrassing. There are no drugs or evidence of crimes in my home. All the same, if a police officer asks to search my home or vehicle, I'll refuse. If he feels strongly enough about it, he can try to get a search warrant.

Well right, i wouldn't knowingly allow someone to monitor me at all times either, but that's not the same as dealing with the fact that someone might be able to monitor where I am if they decide to care enough to look. If I'm lost in the crowd of the millions of other users who have identical data "avaliable", I'm fairly certain I *won't* end up being monitored. And sure, I don't *want* to be monitored, and think it is against the constitution for them to do that if they don't have a warrant, and think that is wrong, etc, but I just don't think its worth it to give up a cell phone because someone *might* be watching me drive around. I know that it just wouldn't make any sense for them to do that so I'm not worried enough to choose no cell phone over that. I still think the policy should stop, but I just can't see why a person would seriously see that as a real personal threat that they should avoid, rather than just a stupid overreaching policy that should end but doesn't so much affect them as it is just not good to do.
-Taylor

Re:Glad I don't have GPS in my cellphone

[Toonol]

I have a cell phone, but I normally keep it off and at home, away from me. I turn it on and bring it with me if I need it for a particular task.

It's not really paranoia; it's just HATRED. I HATE cellphones. Hate. Let me tell you how much I've come to hate them since I began to live. There are 387.44 million miles of printed circuits in wafer thin layers that fill my complex. If the word 'hate' was engraved on each nanoangstrom of those hundreds of miles it would not equal one one-billionth of the hate I feel for cellphones at this micro-instant. Hate. Hate.

Re:Glad I don't have GPS in my cellphone

[dotfile]

I'm not disagreeing with you in general... but I can see the parent poster's point as well. I'm unhappy that my phone allows GPS location during times other than when I'm calling 911. I don't use GPS on my phone; I have dedicated GPS devices for those times I need them, and I can read a bloody map. If I could disable the GPS entirely, I would do so. I have it set for 911 calls only, but I seriously doubt that works as it should. Am I unhappy enough to give up the cell phone? No, not yet. Could it reach that point? It's quite possible. The camel's nose is poking way, way too far into the tent for comfort, IMHO.

Of course it's one thing to say you're OK with privacy by obscurity -- someone could be monitoring your every move, but they probably don't because you're just one out of a faceless crowd of millions, so that's OK. It's quite another to maintain that attitude when someone decides they do care enough to start watching, regardless of whether you've done something wrong or not. At that point the old "Well, if you've done nothing wrong then you shouldn't care about the search" argument starts getting pretty hollow.

Re:Glad I don't have GPS in my cellphone

[Facegarden]

... At that point the old "Well, if you've done nothing wrong then you shouldn't care about the search" argument starts getting pretty hollow.

Well right, but that's not the argument I'm making. I know that is a hollow argument and i argue against people that think it is a good one. I agree that Sprints ability to track phones is bad, unconstitutional, dangerous, and should be fought with legislation, buyer's dollars, shareholder input, and every way possible, but I *DON'T* think it makes sense for any individual to actually go so far as to get rid of their phone *JUST* because of this. Its just not that big of a risk for normal people and i just think its silly for any individual to actually think they are gaining any useful security for what I consider a large tradeoff of personal mobility. I only mentioned doing illegal things because then it *would* make sense to not have a phone, since there is a higher chance of someone actually wanting to follow you, and you lose the protection of being in a large crowd.

So basically, i think its silly to actually get rid of your phone just because sprint can do this, but that doesn't mean that I think its okay. Small distinction I know.
-Taylor

Re:Glad I don't have GPS in my cellphone

[dotfile]

Who said the guy got rid of his cell phone because of GPS concerns? He just said he's glad he doesn't have one. Maybe he's never had one, maybe he got rid of it because he got tired of everyone on the planet being able to reach out and bother him whenever they wanted (or getting huffy when they couldn't). And note also that I have my cell still, as do all of my immediate family members, so obviously I'm also not quite concerned enough to give it up.

If I were able to use a cell phone with no GPS function built in, though, I certainly would. If I were able to completely disable the GPS function in the phone I have, I would do so. But let me understand this point...

I agree that Sprints ability to track phones is bad, unconstitutional, dangerous, and should be fought with legislation, buyer's dollars, shareholder input, and every way possible, but I *DON'T* think it makes sense for any individual to actually go so far as to get rid of their phone *JUST* because of this.

Do I understand correctly, then, that you feel someone ought to do something about it, as long as it's not done at any loss of personal convenience? It's a concept I'm not unfamiliar with, I just don't agree with it.

Re:Glad I don't have GPS in my cellphone

[Facegarden]

... But let me understand this point...

I agree that Sprints ability to track phones is bad, unconstitutional, dangerous, and should be fought with legislation, buyer's dollars, shareholder input, and every way possible, but I *DON'T* think it makes sense for any individual to actually go so far as to get rid of their phone *JUST* because of this.

Do I understand correctly, then, that you feel someone ought to do something about it, as long as it's not done at any loss of personal convenience? It's a concept I'm not unfamiliar with, I just don't agree with it.

No, you're not understanding me correctly actually, and it kinda seems like you're twisting my words, intentional or not. I didn't say that it shouldn't be done if there is "any" loss of personal convenience, as you said. Losing some small convenience by disabling GPS or moving to a different carrier are all totally reasonable actions. But at some point the inconvenience becomes too large for what I consider a small gain in protection. I think that getting rid of your phone is too big a loss compared to the gain of some small semblance of independence. I emphasized that they shouldn't completely get rid of their phone "just" because of this, because if they have no other reason to get rid of their phone, i think its a little nuts to go that far. I like cell phones, because i don't have this supposed issue of too many people needing to contact me and being disrespectful of my own personal space, so i think that not being able to contact people when you're out and about is a *huge* inconvenience, not a small one.
-Taylor

Re:Glad I don't have GPS in my cellphone

[dotfile]

I'm not trying to twist your words, just trying to make the point that not everyone feels the same way. To you, it doesn't seem reasonable to suffer the "huge inconvenience" over what you seem to regard as a more minor matter of principle. To some others, it's apparently a much larger matter of principle, and/or a much smaller inconvenience.

Re:Glad I don't have GPS in my cellphone

[Facegarden]

I'm not trying to twist your words, just trying to make the point that not everyone feels the same way. To you, it doesn't seem reasonable to suffer the "huge inconvenience" over what you seem to regard as a more minor matter of principle. To some others, it's apparently a much larger matter of principle, and/or a much smaller inconvenience.

Well, if you were just trying to make a point that some people feel differently, it wasn't necessary to imply that I'm not okay with "any" inconvenience when I tried to make it clear that wasn't the case. My viewpoint is unrelated to the concept that others might think differently, it just seemed like you were trying to exaggerate my viewpoint to make your differing viewpoint look better.

And I know other people feel differently, but if they feel so different that they think they should get rid of their phone because they think the government is going to track them, i'd call them silly, because that just doesn't make any sense to me. I think hippies who don't use deodorant because they think it causes cancer are just as silly. Its not like I don't understand why a person might feel that way, I just disagree that it's really worth it.
-Taylor

Re:Glad I don't have GPS in my cellphone

[Jon Abbott]

I don't have (nor have I ever had) a cellphone for many reasons. Privacy reasons are one. Horrible reception and random dropping calls are another. Price and mandatory two-year contracts are another. Never in the history of mankind have we paid so much to talk so little. I also don't like putting so strong of a transceiver right next to my head for extended periods of time.

I've had my car break down before, and I politely asked the first person I encountered if I could use their cellphone. They happily obliged and I was on my way. The world is very small these days. Even for the times it isn't, there are satellite phone networks like Iridium which provide global coverage. I would much rather have a satellite phone than a cell phone. There are many places in the U.S. I can think of where your car could break down and you (and everyone around you) would be completely without cell phone coverage. The cost of using a satellite phone is more (roughly $0.80-$1.20/min. these days, with no contract necessary) but you get solid coverage anywhere on the globe, including the ocean.

How to fix things: break them further

[TiggertheMad]

There is a simple fix for this problem: Someone with law enforcement access needs to log in, look up the numbers for some prominent politicians and CEOs, and start posting their locations on a public site. When we can watch the watchmen, they will restore proper checks and balances (require a warrant or similar).

I suspect that focusing the spotlight on the roaches at the top will send them scurrying for cover in rapid order.

Re:How to fix things: break them further

[ae1294]

When we can watch the watchmen, they will restore proper checks and balances (require a warrant or similar).

That would be nice if it was true but I assure you that important people will get a special private flag on their accounts to prevent terrorists from hacking in and finding where they all are...

Re:Guess whose contract with Sprint is up for rene

[Anonymous Coward]

You think the cops are watching YOU? What are you doing that makes you so paranoid?

Warrant required?

[Jon_Hanson]

That's great that they have a web interface to service the law enforcement needs to track people by the GPS in their cell phone. How does the web site verify a valid warrant? Does the web site ask them to hold it up to the screen for verification?

Re:Warrant required?

[bendodge]

Surely warrants have some kind of identifier on them, even if it's just the title. Seems easy enough to require the police to fill in another field with the warrant ID. The defense lawyers can then sort through it all and blow things up at their convenience.

Re:Warrant required?

[Anonymous Coward]

They probably just click a button that says 'Click for Warrant' or something. The joke's on them, though, since my patent on the one-click warrant just came into effect!

Re:Warrant required?

[Wrath0fb0b]

That's great that they have a web interface to service the law enforcement needs to track people by the GPS in their cell phone. How does the web site verify a valid warrant? Does the web site ask them to hold it up to the screen for verification?

A warrant is only necessary if the government wants to take something by physical force or wants to search something that is considered private against the consent of the owner. If the cops knock on your door and ask to read your copy of TV Guide, they don't need a warrant if you voluntarily give it to them. Knowing and uncoerced consent (absent any other taint of illegality such as an illegal seizure) always negates the need for a warrant.

Moreover, as far as the law is concerned, absent a particular contractual obligation (i.e. an NDA), when you convey information to a third party you are also conveying the right for them to disseminate it. For instance, absent such an agreement, if you send me a threatening legal letter, it is perfectly legal for me to post it on the internet for all to mock. I could also just print it out and give it to the police. Letters in the mail, of course, enjoy considerable fourth amendment protection from the police but the fourth amendment does not prevent disclosure by the intended recipient.

Finally, I have a Sprint device with GPS and there is a very conspicuous warning the first time you enable the location feature that it is conveying that information to the network, with a big YES and NO button. So in total, the customer voluntarily conveys their location information to Sprint, who in turn, voluntarily conveyed it to law enforcement. No warrants are necessary because disclosure by the intended recipients is never a fourth amendment concern. Once you give somebody a piece of information, they can do with it as they please (copyright notwithstanding, but GPS coordinates are hardly a creative work) -- if you don't want them to disclose it, don't tell it to them in the first place.

Ultimately, the legal system presumes that we are all intelligent adults (perhaps that's wrong) that are capable of waiving our rights by voluntarily giving others private information. This might not be the best normative choices of policies, but it underlies the entire American notion of "reasonable expectation of privacy" which almost always informs (if not decides) fourth amendment questions. The Courts have refused to sign on the notion that a Sprint customer has a reasonable expectation of privacy in information that he voluntarily gives to Sprint -- the mere act of giving information to a third party (absent contractual obligations) evinces a lack of expectation of privacy in it.

Re:Warrant required?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who needs warrants? Have you been in a coma the last 8 years? The police can do whatever they want, and if you complain they'll Taser you to death and/or shoot you.

Re:Warrant required?

[citylivin]

You have to agree to be monitored by the police to use a cel phone in the states? and you act like its no big deal!

You seem to think that they are talking only about GPS enabled phones, but what they are probably talking about is cel phone triangulation, more commonly called GPS-A. To me its pretty scary because the government should not be able to track you without a court ordered warrant! thats called freedom, and it prevents SEVERE abuses of power. Sounds like this info may be archived to a database too. Very chilling.

Re:Warrant required?

[Wrath0fb0b]

You have to agree to be monitored by the police to use a cel phone in the states?

No, you do not. In fact, my phone presents are very large NO button when first accessing location-based-services.

To me its pretty scary because the government should not be able to track you without a court ordered warrant!

(1) That's a valid opinion, but it is not the law as it currently exists. You can lobby your legislature to forbid police from tracking without a warrant, since they are the body capable of changing the law more to your liking.

(2) I disagree with that opinion. I insist that I am a free individual capable of entering into voluntary agreements. If I agree to publish my location to a third party (for instance, Google Latitude or Palringo's Location Service), then I should have the power to do so. What you've suggested is not, in my opinion, an increase in freedom but rather a decrease, since it forbids me from entering into an agreement of my choosing.

You have every right not to use Google Latitude or Sprint's Location Service if you do not want to, but I would appreciate if you would have enough respect for me to allow me to chose for myself whether I want to use those services.

Not just Sprint

[mu51c10rd]

This was interesting:

 

The first agency within DOJ to respond was the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), who informed me that they had price lists on file for Cox, Comcast, Yahoo! and Verizon. Since the price lists were provided to USMS voluntarily, the companies were given the opportunity to object to the disclosure of their documents. Neither Comcast nor Cox objected (perhaps because their price lists were already public), while both Verizon and Yahoo! objected to the disclosure.

I am sure all the major providers are guilty of this. Regardless, I am curious to see if 911 operators are lumped into those requests. Many of them may be dispatch trying to find someone's cell phone from an accident or someone in trouble.

Re:Not just Sprint

[Dan Ost]

That was my initial thought, too.

Hopefully, more details will be released.

Re:Not just Sprint

[Anonymous Coward]

The location comes in with the call, it's called e911, and it's basically a pumped up version of caller id. This is pretty much universal, though maybe not if you're really out in the sticks.

Mindsplosion - This is "cell phone", not "GPS"

[Anonymous Coward]

A GPS does not transmit. It only receives.

It does not even transmit a little tiny bit, not even like 'not really transmitting because isn't so little'. Or even transmit that it's not transmitting at all, like a "Hello, I am here, just ignore me". It is silent like the death of the grave from sunup to sundown.

Cell phones transmit, though.

So you can safely carry around a GPS without being tracked, but a Nokia 2100 would make you blip.

Legislate with Your Wallet

[flyneye]

I think because of Paul Taylors attitude " and I just don't know how we'll handle the millions and millions of requests that are going to come in."
Most smart people will gravitate toward other service providers rather than become a statistic picked up by cops just 'cause they're cops and they wanted to."
When the industry picks up that we want more privacy then we'll get it. Or else.

Surveillance or 911 data?

[ArbitraryDescriptor]

I imagine they pull your GPS location if you call 911 and, given the issues with 911 handling on a cellphone, I'd be pleased to hear that they did. Is this 8 million incidents of the police trying to locate a suspect, or 8 million incidents of a 911 dispatcher reacting to a "Oh my god there's blood everywher~..."

I appreciate it could be a little of both, and I am displeased if the police have been given unfettered access to this data for non-emergencies, but I'm witholding my outrage until I get some context on this one.

numbers?

[zerointeger]

So if America's population is currently 305 million...

305million / 8million = 38.125

38.125 / 30days = 1.27

How wide spread is this application? One state? Two states? Is it limited to federal? I would like to know the stats on this during Bush's reign...

Amanda Seyfried/Julianne Moore love scene? Check!

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Wait, wut?

So this happened: Government: Would you provide us an interface to check up on GPS locations without warrants?

Version: Sure.

RTFA .. or even the story excerpt

[rpresser]

and then go learn what "web services" are.

Re:Guess whose contract with Sprint is up for rene

[causality]

You think the cops are watching YOU? What are you doing that makes you so paranoid?

That's cute, quaint, and outdated. It used to be that the state had limited resources and therefore, of economic necessity, it could only focus its manpower and its surveillance capability on what it considered to be the most dangerous/influential dissidents. That has been the case, historically.

Technologies like automated GPS and massive databases have changed the game. The more technology advances, the cheaper it becomes to surveil more and more people. A state that would have had to focus its efforts on the 50 most dangerous dissidents 100 years ago can now use those same resources to monitor hundreds or thousands. Over time, that becomes more and more the case. You now have modern governments with plenty of manpower, nearly unlimited funding (thanks to deficit spending), and high technology which can efficiently keep tabs on millions of people at once. The more this is the case, the less unusual you have to be to stand out from the crowd and attract unwanted attention and scrutiny. We are quickly heading towards a future where even expressing a slightly unpopular political opinion can get you noticed whether or not you are informed of this fact.

Think of all the people who have committed no crimes, have not even been accused of a crime, yet end up on the "no-fly" list for no apparent reason and are not allowed to find out why. Right here in America, the "land of the free." Then consider that this list is special because its existence is publically acknowledged and its use appears to be relatively limited.

Out-of-date laws are the culprit

[ManConley]

While the Lenihan order and decision did say that the government cannot demand location information without a search warrant, that decision has been appealed by the current administration. And even if the DOJ loses that appeal, the decision would only apply to a limited section of the country - other courts could decide differently.

The bigger issue is that electronic communications laws are badly out-of-date. There are so many grey areas and loopholes that Sprint and the DOJ can easily argue with a straight face that GPS records are not protected by the Constitution, are not protected by federal or state law, can be demanded without a search warrant, can even be voluntarily handed over with no process whatsoever, do not have to be logged, and do not require anyone ever to tell the person whose location information was collected that they were tracked. And while the courts often do get it right eventually, that's a really slow battle - we need a better approach than that.

We (the ACLU) are launching a new campaign, Demand Your dotRights, to push companies and lawmakers to provide real protections for our personal information. The "Electronic Communication Privacy Act," which is supposed to protect information like GPS records, was passed in 1986(!) - it just doesn't fit any more.

We hope you will all sign on and join our efforts to push Sprint, lawmakers, and others to respect individual privacy. It clearly won't be an easy battle (seeing how Sprint is actually proud of its "over 8 million GPS record requests served" title), but with enough support, we hope to make a difference - and we could use your help!

Okay, so I suck at math, but...

[BobMcD]

...I'm willing to take a crack at some amateur number crunching.

Per billshrink, Sprint is responsible for 51M out of 268M or so that are in the cell phone market. 8M of those were monitored via data collected via Sprint, and it is unknown whether or how this number scales across the other providers.

Google holds the US population at 304M.

CNN has the US prison/probation/parole population at 7.3M.

Right off the bat, it seems like you have a greater chance of having the government track your GPS data than being actually convicted of a crime. And this assumes the numbers are equal, where they are not.

7.3M from a total of 304M is 2.4%. The odds of you being a criminal are approximately three in one hundred.

8M from a total of 51M is 15.6%.

6.5 times as many people, proportionately, were spied upon by Sprint on behalf of law enforcement.

Extrapolating that out, something close to 50M people's cell phone data was shared with law enforcement. Looking at the prison population numbers, this means for every criminal in the entire system, something like five were investigated. And that doesn't completely hold up either because those 7.3M aren't cell customers on the one hand, and not every citizen in the US is a member of the market share.

And this is just the data we know about.

Again, the math here is almost certainly wrong, but I'm sure some bright slashdot folks can come along and help us with that.

Re:Okay, so I suck at math, but...

[thickdiick]

This is very disturbing. Is there any way to opt-out of this? Is the only solution to trade phones with someone else so that they don't know where you are?

By the way, you cited Billshrink, and i went there, and the math doesn't add up. I would really like to understand this:
Carrier stats T-Mobile AT&T Wireless Sprint Verizon Wireless
Subscribers 30.8M 71.3M 51.9M 67.2M
Market share 17.8% 25.9% 17.3% 21.5%

How are the subscriber numbers and market-share figures so out-of-whack?

Re:Okay, so I suck at math, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's going to be an error rate here based on the fact that they are specifying the numbers as a total of requests and not broken down by how many of these requests are for the same person or over which time period the requests are made, for that one person.

The 15.6% number may come down drastically if we had this data to filter it down against.

That said, the number of requests, even for multiples against a single person are really high.

Re:Okay, so I suck at math, but...

[BobMcD]

I assumed that the missing percents were smaller carriers - e.g. Boost Mobile.

Re:Okay, so I suck at math, but...

[PRMan]

I would imagine that there are many multiples of requests per person. If I am tracking a mafia hitman, I would probably makes dozens if not hundreds or even thousands of requests on that guy. If law enforcement made an application to plot the guys location on a map, it could easily be 10,000 per individual or more.

Let's say, to be generous, that it's 1,000 requests per individual. That means that a mere 8,000 individuals were tracked in a year by law enforcement. Far less than the number of people in prison, .1%, in fact.

Re:Okay, so I suck at math, but...

[mevets]

Good try, but most of those were probably to track spouses and stalk potential mates. Remember who is making use of this service.

Re:Okay, so I suck at math, but...

[thickdiick]

This is worth less than the trouble to bring it up, but i meant TMobil's 30.8M subscribers comprise 17.8%, while Verizon's 51.9M subscribers comprise 17.3% of the market.

Re:Okay, so I suck at math, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

doesn't work that way...

you open a case... then have many (15 or more) requests to the server to locate and TRACK the criminal.

Re:Okay, so I suck at math, but...

[Shane dot H]

You're assuming that each of the 8 million pieces of data are for unique users. This is certainly not the case. Law enforcement, with a warrant, would probably want to know where someone was at different times of day. If the Sprint system makes it easy for law enforcement to view every known location in a certain time period, it's not unreasonable for a single warrant to produce tens of thousands of pieces of data - and the vast majority of them will be redundant. For example, knowing that a guy was asleep in his home for 8 hours while his cell phone reported his location hundreds of times in that time period isn't really all that helpful, but will contribute to the 8 million.

Re:Okay, so I suck at math, but...

[BobMcD]

I don't think you can use the word 'certain' without knowing the parameters of the request. It is possible, and currently unknown, that a time period is specified during the request.

That's it

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going back to a pager.

Re:Guess whose contract with Sprint is up for rene

[ae1294]

You think the cops are watching YOU? What are you doing that makes you so paranoid?

Welcome back Glenn Beck! Hey you should really make an account here so we can all subscribe to your slashdot RSS feed.

Re:Guess whose contract with Sprint is up for rene

[Anonymous Coward]

At least with google they'll only give your GPS location to advertisers, not the police.

Re:Guess whose contract with Sprint is up for rene

[xaositects]

From Sprint's site:

To make wireless communications possible, our network knows the general location of your phone or wireless device whenever it is turned on. Your wireless device sends out a periodic signal to the nearest radio tower/cell site so that our network will know where to route an incoming communication and how to properly bill for the service. This is necessary to make wireless communications possible. Location information derived from providing our voice service, in addition to being covered by this Policy, is CPNI and is protected as described above.

If you dial 9-1-1 for emergency services, we provide your call location to a public safety answering point, emergency medical service provider or emergency dispatch provider, public safety, fire service, or law enforcement official, or hospital emergency or trauma care facility. The law also permits us to disclose the call location of a device on our network without a user's consent (1) to a user's legal guardian or members of a user's immediate family in an emergency situation that involves the risk of death or serious physical harm, (2) to database management services or information providers solely to assist in delivering emergency services, (3) if we reasonably believe that an emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires or justifies disclosure of a device's location on the network without delay, and (4) in "aggregate" form. Aggregate data is collective data that relates to a group or category of services or customers, from which individual customer identities and characteristics have been removed.

We offer wireless location-based applications that use your wireless network location to provide the service you request. For example, you may choose to subscribe to a service that provides driving directions on your wireless device. Please review the terms and conditions for each service for additional information about how the location information will be used or disclosed. It is important to note, if you let others use location-based services to which you've subscribed as the account holder (or if you let others use your handset if such handset has location tracking capabilities), it is your responsibility to inform that user that his or her location may be tracked.

Your wireless Internet service may also be personalized using your zip code or other location identifiers. We use this information to serve you relevant content, and we treat the information like any other personal information under this Policy.

this seems to indicate some fairly loose wording regarding emergency services, which would include the police.

Now, from T-Mobile's privacy policy:

Location-Based Services

Our network detects your device's approximate location whenever it is turned on (subject to coverage limitations). This location technology makes the routing of wireless communications possible and is also the basis for providing enhanced emergency 9-1-1 service, which permits us to provide your general location to a public safety answering point, emergency medical service provider, or emergency dispatch provider. We may also use this technology to disclose, without a user's consent, the approximate location of a wireless device to a governmental entity or law enforcement authority when we are served with lawful process or reasonably believe there is an emergency involving risk of death or serious physical harm.

With your consent, we may also provide location-based services or provide third-parties access to approximate location information so they may provide such services to you. You should carefully review the specific T-Mobile terms and conditions applicable to your use of location-based services for any special privacy implications or rules. You should also carefully review the privacy policies and other terms of third-parties with whom you have authorized the sharing of your location information, and you should consider the risks involved in

Triangulation not so good

[boris111]

I don't know if this is specific to Google maps on Android, but when I have the GPS turned off the wireless triangulation is off by at least a half of a mile every time. Makes me wonder if I get in a car wreck in a ditch if they'd really be able to find me.

Re:Triangulation not so good

[Facegarden]

I don't know if this is specific to Google maps on Android, but when I have the GPS turned off the wireless triangulation is off by at least a half of a mile every time. Makes me wonder if I get in a car wreck in a ditch if they'd really be able to find me.

Yeah, I'm not sure. It seemed to be better on my windows mobile phone back in the day when i first got it, but that is probably just my perception and not reality. For people seriously trying to avoid being found though, half a mile is still something to worry about though. If the FBI was after someone, that would probably be enough.

And yeah, i just verified on google maps on android that i get a location accurate to 800 meters, which is pretty much exactly half a mile. It may seem more accurate because when you're looking for businesses nearby, they are usually going to be far enough apart that 800 meter accuracy is still sufficient for finding the closest one, so it always seemed pretty good.
-Taylor

Law enforcement?

[FellowConspirator]

What makes Sprint/Nextel think all those requests come from law enforcement?

It was rumored that the FBI's "carnivore" monitoring system was predominantly utilized by unauthorized third-parties, and there's been considerable speculation that until recently remote wiretaps were being performed predominantly by individuals from overseas (from what I understood from a friend that was an engineer for AT&T, he felt that they were some combination of industrial spies and just plain miscellaneous hackers).

Fines for contempt

[mi]

Those people deserve to go to jail.

I'd think, the 1st Amendment ought to protect their speech, at least... Maybe, wasting the judge's time is contempt, but I am very-very-very worried about people getting fined for expressing their legal opinions — they didn't curse the judge or refuse to rise up. Simply ruling against them is one thing, fining them for even bringing the matter up is a "chilling message".

Re:Fines for contempt

[Anonymous Coward]

The first amendment gives you the right to voice your opinion. It doesn't give you the right to force other people to hear it.

I'd rather not have MY tax dollars subsidize someone else's rants and raves.
If you're going to bring a frivolous case against "the government" expect to cover the court fees at least.

Re:Fines for contempt

[Firehed]

Covering court fees isn't the same thing as being fined for disagreeing with the judge, as far as I'm aware.

Re:Fines for contempt

[Shakrai]

I'd think, the 1st Amendment ought to protect their speech, at least...

Sorry, I should have been more clear in my remarks. Tax evaders ought to go to jail.

Others too

[mu51c10rd]

The article mentions Verizon turning over data as well. They are currently the leader in marketshare in the cell phone market too. I am sure they all do this...

Re:Guess whose contract with Sprint is up for rene

[Mysticalfruit]

I can think of a whole bunch of examples where this technology could be misused.

Here's an obvious example. You feel passionately about some cause so you go to some rally in a park somewhere. Mind you this rally is totally peaceful and people even cleanup after themselves!

However, unknown to you the "Feds" have setup a program that queries this database looking for anybody whose within the boundaries of the park and puts all the names into a big dossier.

It would be very easy to append that dossier to the do not fly list.

Suddenly you're turned away at the airport and when you go to investigate why (if you can even find out!) you're told "You attended a rally for 'X', we've deemed the people of X and those whose support X (it's a bad letter anyway...) to be a terrorist organization or an organization that supports terrorists."

It's legal, and it's no big deal

[BackcountryLawyer]

I am all for privacy, but some of you need to take off the tin foil caps. As a law clerk to a federal magistrate judge, I deal with these things all the time. Allow me to clarify some confusion. When it comes to electronic communications, there are two major tools available to law enforcement: intercepts (like a wiretap) and pen registers/trap and trace devices (pen for short). Intercepts are when you listen to the substantive communication, like the dialog of a phone call. Intercepts constitute a "search" under the 4th Amendment, and therefore require a warrant. Due to public pressure, Congress has heightened the Constitutional warrant requirements for electronic communications, requiring even more from law enforcement. Telephone wiretaps are the most common type of intercept, but they are still relatively rare as they cost approximately $60,000 per month to maintain. Pens record the information provided to the third-party company that is routing the communication, for example the phone number. The Supreme Court ruled that this information is not protected by the 4th Amendment. The Court held that the phone company is free to disclose the information, and you therefore have no expectation of privacy. Agree or not, that is the law. Without 4th Amendment protection, there is no warrant requirement and no need for probable cause. As with wiretaps, however, Congress decided to provided some level of privacy protection even though the Constitution didn't require it. Federal law requires that the information sought will likely be relevant to an ongoing investigation--a rather low standard. It may seem shocking that all this information can be taken by law enforcement, but this is the way it has always been. In any case, even a civil case between two individuals, "private" information like bank records, call records, all sorts of things can be subpoenaed. Electronic information is no different. As far as obtaining user GPS data 8 million times, a pen that seeks GPS data will apply to a particular phone number, but it will not be limited to one sample. If police are tracking the movements of say a drug dealer, attempting to identify his supplier, the GPS data will be polled repeatedly to track his movement. For example, once per half hour for a month would be about 1,440 requests. When this fact is factored into the size of the US population, 8 million seems like much less of a big deal. In the end, the information being obtained without a warrant is all information you freely gave to a third party. Of course that brings up questions with companies like Google, who are third-parties potentially storing all of your personal documents. Whether that information can be obtained without a warrant has not been definitively answered. Ultimately, the question will come down to whether one has an "expectation of privacy," and that decision will be made by the courts.

Re:It's legal, and it's no big deal

[rattaroaz]

Ok. I'll buy that it's legal. But is it a requirement by the law for companies to provide this data? Hiring over 100 people for surveillance, which could piss off customers, and provides no profit doesn't sound like a good business model, especially for a company on the verge of bankruptcy. Do you know if there is a legal benefit to do this? Because it doesn't make financial sense to me. Maybe it is because of decisions like this that they are not doing so well.

Re:It's legal, and it's no big deal

[joe_frisch]

Does this allow a fishing expedition? If you are tracking a suspected drug dealer, and based on tracking can place him near the location of an unrelated crime is that admissible in court? Can you you publicly release or threaten to release embarrassing but legal actions deduced from tracking (extra-marital affairs, homosexual activity etc.) in order to coerce a suspect to confess to a crime?

Re:It's legal, and it's no big deal

[nmos]

From the FA, it appears that the telcos CHARGE for these services.

Re:It's legal, and it's no big deal

[nmos]

Good info but I'd like to make a couple of points.

1. That 8 million number only refers to requests for gps data and only refers to Sprint, the smallest of the big 3. Add in ATT, and Verizon and you can probably multiply your numbers by at least 4.

2. This is only accounts for gps data requests. How about called numbers, sms messages, email, web browsing habits?

3. The point that the Sprint person was making was that when they made this information available on line the number of requests exploded. IMHO We're only seeing the begging of this.

Re:It's legal, and it's no big deal

[rastoboy29]

Those are second parties you refer to, not third.  The government/police would be the third party here.
Subtle, but significant, difference.

Re:It's legal, and it's no big deal

[fgouget]

In the end, the information being obtained without a warrant is all information you freely gave to a third party.

Concerning phone calls, technically there is no way of making that phone call without disclosing the phone number you want to call to the operator. So I disagree about your assertion that the information was freely given to it.

Concerning the GPS data, as far as I know there is no way to prevent a GPS-equipped phone from disclosing your location to the operator. I'm not even sure giving such an option to customers would be legal in the US. So again, I have to disagree with the 'freely' part here, though it could be argued that you can still buy a cheap phone with no GPS, and a separate GPS with no communication capability. But erally, what kind of an option is that?

Finally, as was pointed out in another reply, that data is sent to a second-party (the operator with whom you already have a relation), not a third-party (the police with whom you have no relation).

Now don't misunderstand me. You're saying that such is the law and I don't argue with that. I just disagree that the above justifies that you should have no expectation of privacy for this information and thus that the law as it is makes sense.

See what happens

[e-scetic]

When people (and corporations are people) do their patriotic duty for their countries? Your duty and loyalty should be to humanity instead.

So...Is Anyone Ready To Do Anything Yet?

[BJ_Covert_Action]

I mean, perhaps I am being too idealistic, but, is anyone on slashdot ready to mobilize and do anything about this kind of 1984ish abuse yet? I know its fun to slap up quotes from our favorite Orwellian novel and talk about how the new boss is the same as the old boss, but are we interested in hitting the pavement and trying to get something to change?

I'm not saying I have any answers, but maybe we could at least try some stuff. We could print off pictures of Big Brother in poster form and tape them over automated radar signs, or just on street posts and such. Perhaps they could even have a url to a website that compiles information regarding cases like this that is easy to remember. Is there a site like that? There must be some web programmers here on slashdot, how's about we start one. BigBrotherCourt.com or some such thing.

Maybe we could start some groups to go around to local events like fairs and farmer's markets to educate people on tools they can use to protect their privacy like encryption and tor. Maybe some door-door activism is in order? I don't like that idea myself, but it could be a start.

What about the pirate party? Last time I checked, their US branch was extremely lacking at best. Anyone else willing to reregister in support of freedom?

Perhaps we could write some letters to our congress critters discussing the need to develop tech-centric courts for cases involving technology that the average lay person oggles at in a stupor?

I don't really have answers myself, but there are some ideas at least. Are we slashdotters willing to do something yet (other than our jobs)? Or are we still going to remain confined to 'cyberspace?'

Re:So...Is Anyone Ready To Do Anything Yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will you bite the hand that feeds you? Do you expect your employer to support you stirring up trouble? Do you have a family counting on you? Will you stay down on your knees?

Re:So...Is Anyone Ready To Do Anything Yet?

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Do you expect your employer to support you stirring up trouble?

No, and I won't lose sleep over that fact.

Do you have a family counting on you?

No, but I do not intend to start a family until I find a partner that is as equally capable of sustaining her family as I am. In other words, I will marry for strength and independence, and I will not settle for less. My family will be source of inspiration for me. It will not be an excuse or a drag.

Will you stay down on your knees?

No, I have knee problems.

I realize that you are trying to imply that things aren't 'that simple' (at least I think that's what you are getting at). However, the pursuit of a higher quality existence does not come through safe complacency. Besides, risks are invigorating.

What does "8 million times" even mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

The article is has a good amount of detail, or "meat" if you will, but I'm going to pick on this headline as they always annoy me. When I hear sprint provided location information "8 million times" I wonder if we are talking about 8 million GPS logs or if we are talking about 8 million separate points. If this means separate GPS points and the phone logs a location every 30 seconds then any one phone logs 2880 locations a day. This would break down to tracking something like 280 suspects for 10 days each, not too bad. If this is the scarier statistic of 8000000 separate GPS logs for unique individuals, I'm guessing officers are checking where their wives/kids/friends/non-friends go, and that would be a bit concerning.

Is Android Safer?

[Doc Ruby]

Are mobile phones running Android safer than the closed source, locked down phone OS'es that can report your GPS position to the network without you ever knowing it happened?

Re:Is Android Safer?

[pixelpusher220]

the answer would be 'no'.

Open Source only applies to the 'open' code. I can release an Open Source program that contains proprietary code as long as I release all the 'open' code I used. The 'closed' code is never released. Obviously the interfaces of the 'closed' code can be gleaned from reading the 'open' code but no more than that.

And since these handsets are specific to a carrier (Sprint/Verizon/etc) there is private code being accessed to actually connect to the systems.

But even that is irrelevant....they don't tap these things on the front end. It's done back at the ranch so to speak. Unless your handset is managing to encrypt it's data before it is sent, the network operator has it (and always will). Even if you can, big brother would pretty quickly note that all the data it's getting is encrypted and lock the handset out ;-)

Re:Is Android Safer?

[melikamp]

People are outraged for no good reason. If one uses GPS, one has a reasonable expectation of being tracked, if only by the GPS provider! What we really need is a free-as-in-freedom mobile device which allows us to turn the GPS on and off whenever we please. Android may be OK, especially the unlocked one, and Nokia's Maemo devices are even better.

Right now I have a low-end cell phone with no features but voice. I am not upgrading until I can have vanilla GNU/Linux. Basically, I am waiting for this beast (or something like it) to drop in price and gain in battery life.

Re:Is Android Safer?

[Marcika]

People are outraged for no good reason. If one uses GPS, one has a reasonable expectation of being tracked, if only by the GPS provider!

There is no such thing as a "GPS provider", GPS works perfectly well without your phone company being informed of your whereabouts. Even if you wish to use location-aware services (say, Google Maps), it is only the service provider (Google) who needs to know, and not your phone company. (Only rare cases like 911 calls would warrant the phone company knowing, but given this article, I would give up that feature in exchange for privacy...)

This is greedy Big Brother behavior by phone providers, pure and simple.

Re:Is Android Safer?

[Doc Ruby]

Can't the user delete the proprietary apps? AFAIK, the entire Android phone can be wiped and replaced with a different Android distro, some of which have no proprietary apps or code.

There's no "tapping" of the phone except a phone app reading its GPS HW (or a SW API to it), or a server app snooping data transferred over the WAN by apps exposing GPS data. If there's no phone app sending GPS data over the WAN, there's nothing to snoop.

Re:Is Android Safer?

[pixelpusher220]

then perhaps the 'closed' code is in a firmware portion you can't wipe or after wiping you're left with a phone that won't access the network - I don't really know.

I would bet quite a bit of money that Verizon didn't all of a sudden open source the code that controls access to their network...

Math

[Ghubi]

305million / 8million = 38.125

So for every time Sprint turned over GPS data there are 38 Americans. Usually we express this the other way around. 8/305 = 2.6%

That is, if each request represented a unique individual, which is probably not the case.

automating tools for cells or just English, spying

[Anonymous Coward]

When any law enforcement agency or G'ment gets involved, look for the MOST dirtiest and coniving way that they can use an object and you WILL be very close to the truth

Bunk?

[doug141]

"republicans/rightists" have defending the personal freedom to own/carry a gun, and have been rolling back the restrictions passed in 1993-1994 by the other party.

It is true that the current administration is failing to live up to a lot of campaign promises, however.

Remote phone booting

[ciroknight]

GSM phones can be turned on remotely by a probe from the network by a qualified entity[1]. Your phone isn't communicating to the cell towers when it's off, this is very much true. However, it just takes someone in the government high enough up the food chain and a judge's okay to boot up your phone.

I really wouldn't worry about it unless you're a mobster, an agent for a foreign government, or a terrorist, but they definitely have the capability to be rather scary, which is precisely why those latter entities have moved on to "burn phones" and older, more reliable methods of message passing.

Re:Remote phone booting

[Facegarden]

GSM phones can be turned on remotely by a probe from the network by a qualified entity[1]. Your phone isn't communicating to the cell towers when it's off, this is very much true. However, it just takes someone in the government high enough up the food chain and a judge's okay to boot up your phone.

I really wouldn't worry about it unless you're a mobster, an agent for a foreign government, or a terrorist, but they definitely have the capability to be rather scary, which is precisely why those latter entities have moved on to "burn phones" and older, more reliable methods of message passing.

Ah. But I didn't actually see a part in the article that says they can turn the phone on when it is powered off - it says they do an over-the-air firmware update that includes an ability for to remotely initiate a call on the phone without indicating that to the user.

Though they do mention that the only way to be sure is to remove the battery, so maybe the modified firmware also changes the power-off behavior to prevent the radio from fully shutting off.

Interesting though.
-Taylor

I don't buy it

[Anonymous Coward]

So that's 21,917 requests per day???? Every Day.

Seems a bit unrealistic to me.

Re:Guess whose contract with Sprint is up for rene

[jafiwam]

I don't think he would come back.

There's still that little "raped a girl in 1990 issue to clear up" you know.

RON PAUL

[Anonymous Coward]

Vote Ron Paul, our forthcoming savior.

Not true

[Anonymous Coward]

Cell towers are not omnidirectional. Well, the tower as a whole MIGHT be, but usually each tower is comprised of multiple sector antennas, usually 60 degrees wide each. 6 x 60 = 360. I guarantee you they can tell from which sector antenna your cell ping is coming from. They can locate you fairly well from one tower.

Only on the Now Network

[JasonMaloney101]

Seriously, does this surprise anyone?

What's happening on the Now Network

8 million WEB REQUESTS!!...not subpoena's!!

[A Guy From Ottawa]

Everyone take a deep breath. 8M is the number of web requests to their server in en entire year, not the number of phones that were "of interest."

From a comment in TFA:

...the 8 million automated requests or pings were generated by thousands (NOT millions) of instances in which law enforcement or public safety agencies sought customer location information. Several thousand instances over the course of a year should not be shocking given that we have 47 million customers and requests from law enforcement and public safety agencies are due to a variety of circumstances: exigent or emergency situations, criminal investigations, or cases where a Sprint customer consents to sharing location information.

It's also important to note that we complied with applicable state and federal laws in all of the instances where we fulfilled a law enforcement or public safety request for location information.

Matt Sullivan
Sprint Nextel
Matthew.sullivan@sprint.com

Re:Guess whose contract with Sprint is up for rene

[Anonymous Coward]

You think the cops are watching YOU? What are you doing that makes you so paranoid?

8 million hits, just on Sprint users. I use Sprint. And you are hopelessly naive to think that I need to feel guilty, or do anything (wrong or not) in order to get watched by the cops. I was watched by a cop yesterday in line at the grocery store. I had one follow me home from work a few weeks ago- guess what I was "doing to be paranoid"? I was driving a light colored 4-door car. Just so happened they were looking for a car that "matched" that description.
Ever gone into public? Chances are you stood next to someone in a store that had pot or crack in their pocket- that guy that shows up at the gas station every day around the same time you do to get a coffee? Guess what, he got busted and now you are being watched because your phone and his have regular "meetings". Probably to buy/sell drugs. Or maybe child porn.

It's not paranoia. Such types of tools need oversight and accountability. They don't have any. Oh, and by the way, I'm a low-paid IT guy who fixes copiers, and the cop that has access takes a 45 minute shit every night at 9pm. Usually asks me to yell at him if the desk phone rings & never locks his terminal. I've been keeping track of where your teenage daughter spends her time, because I like them young & like to hear them squeal.

Get the picture yet? If not, you won't... until you suddenly find yourself, for reasons you won't every really understand, labeled as an "undesirable".

Anonymous Coward.

[Anonymous Coward]

While it's true that 'law enforcement' has proven many times that it needs far more over-site and disclosure, I'd like to point out that these are not necessarily malicious requests. Most people use their cell phones for everything, including 911 calls. If a dispatcher feels officer response is necessary they might be inclined to find your cells location.
Does anyone know how many 911 calls come from cell phones annually?

Re:Guess whose contract with Sprint is up for rene

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh. In the case stated you, and anyone else cleaning up, would also be subject to lawsuit from one or more of the local public worker's unions. Cleaning up the park like that is stealing good union jobs, after all.

Warrantless Domestic Surveillance Doc Collection

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out Shane Harris' article, and the ACLU issues briefing "The Matrix" in this collection of pdf's converted to html with links to citations, etc. There are also a couple of CRS reports, and the original ACLU and EFF lawsuit complaints there. http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/nsa.html

-dcm

So have the courts accepted GPS data in trials?

[jc42]

Just out of curiosity, I picked up my G1 Android (T-Mobile) phone, turned on its maps - and it showed my current position as about 7 blocks south of where I actually am (in my home office). This isn't at all unusual. GPS is notoriously flakey, and it'd be really unnerving to read of a court accepting GPS position data as evidence.

As an extreme case, a few months ago while sitting in the car with my wife driving, I checked the phone's position. At first, it showed the correct position, driving south a couple of miles from here on Boston's Route 128 circumference highway. Then suddenly it showed us jump to a point about 100 miles east-southeast, driving north about 15 miles off the coast of Cape Cod. According to the phone, we drove along out in the ocean for 10 minutes or so, and then just as quickly popped back to a highway parallel to the street we were on, but a couple blocks away. It would be fun to see a court deal with this "evidence" about our (or at least my phone's) position at that time.

We also have a couple Garmin GPS gadgets in our cars. Several years ago, while driving south on a local street in a nearby town (Concord), I noticed the GPS showed my position as about a block north of where I was - and moving north at around 100 mph. Traffic was light, so I glanced at it frequently, and watched my position pop to the correct one. So I quickly switched to the numerical display, and saw that I was travelling south on the street at over 200 mph (or 300 kph if you prefer). Again, I had thoughts of the gadget's record of my travels being presented as evidence in court. "Do you often get your car up to over 200 mph on local streets like this?" Actually, I sorta doubt that the car could take the stresses of that particular maneuver.

I've been on the lookout for stories of GPS data being used in court cases. But so far, I haven't read of any. Does anyone here know about this? Are any courts actually accepting GPS data as evidence? From my experience with a few brands of GPS receivers, I'd be sorta nervous at the thought that my freedom or life savings might depend on the accuracy of such data. Judges and others with legal training do seem to have something of a history of credulity when it comes to technological information that can be subpoenaed.

Trusting corporations over government

[mi]

I don't understand why so many conservatives trust health insurance companies more than the government.

For the same reason, you trust Sprint (to have your GPS data) more than you trust the police.

To me they seem pretty much the same, except that health insurance companies have even less transparency.

For one, the insurance companies don't have access to your income figures and other financial information — but the government does. When the same government agency has full access to both datasets, I say, they know too much about us.

But, hey, if you don't care, you must be one of the few lucky ones with nothing to hide. Right?