Slashdot Mirror


Cell Phones: Tracking Devices That Happen To Make Calls

An anonymous reader writes "An article in the NY Times argues that the devices we call 'cell phones' should instead be called 'trackers.' It would help remind the average user that whole industries have sprung up around the mining and selling of their personal data — not to mention the huge amount of data requested by governments. Law professor Eben Moglen goes a step further, saying our cell phones are effectively robots that use us for mobility. 'They see everything, they're aware of our position, our relationship to other human beings and other robots, they mediate an information stream around us.' It's interesting to see such a mainstream publication focus on privacy like this; the authors say that since an objects name influences how people think about the object, renaming 'cell phones' could be an simple way to raise privacy awareness."

196 comments

  1. Only smart phones? by cvtan · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I assume this only applies to smart phones where people have paid extra for enhanced tracking "features".

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    1. Re:Only smart phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      It has been mandated by the FCC since 2001 that every cell phone has to be tracked.

    2. Re:Only smart phones? by zAPPzAPP · · Score: 4, Informative

      The most basic tracking function is achieved by monitoring the RSSI and cell ID of surrounding signal masts. Possible on any phone.
      Uploading this data can be done over GSM or even SMS, which any old phone can do too. They too have some personal information about you to link with this, but of course not as much as smartphones.

      People often forget that the phone is an autonomous device that can do things on it's own and without showing any of that activity on it's UI side. They only see it do things when they push buttons, so they assume that pushing buttons is a required part for the phone to be able to do things.

    3. Re:Only smart phones? by cpu6502 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Supposedly for 911 locating, but I suspect a secondary reason is for 9/11-related locating.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    4. Re:Only smart phones? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1, Informative

      of course, that does not work when the battery is out.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    5. Re:Only smart phones? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      I assume this only applies to smart phones where people have paid extra for enhanced tracking "features".

      No, see, that's the point: they don't need you to enable some extra enhanced paid-for tracking feature for them to use your cell phone to track you.

      If you pay for some extra enhanced tracking feature, then you're basically saying, "Go ahead, assholes. Track me as I go from my favorite taco stand and to my grocery store and then home. But if you're going to do that, know that I no longer respect you or any institution that allows you to do that. And given half the chance, I will work to subvert your little peeping tom perversion. So make goddamn sure you stay in power because if this thing every goes topsy turvy, you're going to be in the first group going to the guillotine.

      Either that, or go get a warrant and play by the rules. Not the super-secret double probation rules that you have written on a piece of paper in your locked cabinet, but by the rules of the social contract."

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:Only smart phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happens if I buy a cell phone but get no plan? I.e, I don't associate it in any way whatsoever with a phone company, just buy a phone and use it through my home 802.11, and as an offline device when out and about?

      Granted I'm losing out on the "phone" part of it much of the time, but I really want it more as a portable computer than a phone. Seems like they wouldn't be able to track it if they don't know about it, but I'm not 100% sure that it's not still talking to the cell towers...

    7. Re:Only smart phones? by sjames · · Score: 1

      It still tracks you! While it won't let you place general phone calls without a valid account, it WILL make a 911 call for you. That necessarily means it routinely handshakes with the tower just in case you call 911.

    8. Re:Only smart phones? by PAjamian · · Score: 2

      More and more cellphones today have batteries that cannot be removed by the consumer, though.

      --
      Windows is a bonfire, Linux is the sun. Linux only looks smaller if you lack perspective.
    9. Re:Only smart phones? by 0123456 · · Score: 0

      I'm trying to decide whether you don't know what 911 means, or are just trolling. It's so hard to tell here these days.

    10. Re:Only smart phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm trying to decide whether you don't know what 911 means, or are just trolling. It's so hard to tell here these days.

      You don't say.. OP was referring to 9/11 in addition to 911, claiming "9/11 related tracking" was a secondary reason for this mandate. As 9/11 happened September 2001 and this article was from August 2001, that would mean that this particular conspiracy theory includes FCC knowing about 9/11 in advance.

    11. Re:Only smart phones? by rsborg · · Score: 1

      of course, that does not work when the battery is out.

      Of course, neither does the phone. Which invalidates half it's usefulness - to get calls.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    12. Re:Only smart phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm, trying to decide if you know what 9/11 was or if you are just trolling.

    13. Re:Only smart phones? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      Why would you waste time getting the phone to report RSSI back? You already know the RSSI that the BTS is seeing and can tie that to the phone's IMEI number.

    14. Re:Only smart phones? by zAPPzAPP · · Score: 1

      It depends on who 'you' are in this case.

      If 'you' are the service provider, then you know the RSSI of the phone as seen from it's connected cell. You would still like to know other cell RSSIs as seen from the phone, to be able to do a triangulation for a more precise positioning. You need a databank on cell IDs/locations to do this. Google for example has a very good one, that you can gain access to under certain contracts. I'd assume service providers have them anyway. There are also some open databases out there for this purpose.
      I don't know if the connected cell is authorized to request such information from a phone. It would make sense, as this might be useful information for some use cases.

      If 'you' are someone else, who is just running software on the phone, ie the phone vendor, you will need to make the phone report this data to you first, in order to use it.

    15. Re:Only smart phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go back and reread gp. They mention 911 *and* 9/11. Now say you're sorry.

    16. Re:Only smart phones? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      Ah, yeah, I guess if you're a third party then you'd need some way to report the information back.

      Incidentally, have you seen OpenCellID?

    17. Re:Only smart phones? by nukenerd · · Score: 1
      PAjamian wrote :

      More and more cellphones today have batteries that cannot be removed by the consumer, though.

      But I can switch mine off - can't you? I have a non-smart phone though, if that makes a difference.

      Rsbog wrote :

      Of course [removing the battery] invalidates half it's usefulness - to get calls.

      No, 90% of their usefulness to me is making calls, not receiving them, so I only switch on to make a call. Of course I will switch on if expecting a call, and occasionally to see if I have missed any. So I guess tracking me must be very frustrating for them.

      OTOH, I am not so paranoid as to imagine a marketing droid or policeman is sitting crouched over a screen all day trying to follow what little unimportant me is doing. If any of my activities they do manage to spot get melded into some averaged-out database of consumer habits it will probably do no more than very slightly skew the results in an entirely untypical way and they will be the worse off for it..

    18. Re:Only smart phones? by turkeyfeathers · · Score: 1

      But they did know. The FCC has pals in the NSA.

    19. Re:Only smart phones? by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      But I can switch mine off - can't you? I have a non-smart phone though, if that makes a difference.

      You have to remove the battery, though. Just switching off does not suffice. Any brand of mobile phone can be used as a tracking device and transmit voice data even when it appears to be switched off. They can even reflash your phone's operating system without you noticing.

      I'm not making this up, there are plenty of companies who offer this service to authorized law enforcement and government agencies all over the world. But, of course, we're talking about you being the target of an ongoing investigation, which is probably not what you had in mind when you've made your commentary.

    20. Re:Only smart phones? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      More and more cellphones today have batteries that cannot be removed by the consumer, though.

      Caveat emptor.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  2. Dude! by masternerdguy · · Score: 1

    They're out there, maaaaan!

    --
    To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
  3. Nope. All mobile phones. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    They can triangulate you without gps.

    1. Re:Nope. All mobile phones. by CheshireDragon · · Score: 1

      Not very well though.

      --
      "That's right...I said it."
    2. Re:Nope. All mobile phones. by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      The posts on /. are starting to look like the headlines on rense.com

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    3. Re:Nope. All mobile phones. by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I regularly see a five-mile variance on location with mine when I do anything without GPS turned on (which is any time I am not actively using a navigation app).

      And since I live three miles from the Ohio River and my work on the other side of the state line, it often doesn't even know if I'm at work or at home. Which is extra funny, since I don't get a signal inside the plant.

      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
    4. Re:Nope. All mobile phones. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're driving down a major road, they can watch you jump between cells and get a pretty good guess where you are, no triangulation required.

    5. Re:Nope. All mobile phones. by Inda · · Score: 1

      Anyone with Google Latitude can confirm this. And since I renamed my SSID, Google doesn't even know when I'm home.

      Storm in a tea cup, as always.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    6. Re:Nope. All mobile phones. by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      They can trilaterate you(r position) without gps.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  4. Nope by FranTaylor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Honestly you really think they aren't putting tracking devices in disposable phones? Wake up and smell the espionage

    1. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your face is an abstract data type!

      haha lmao
      got u now

    2. Re:Nope by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      Obviously a cellphone has to track you in order to route the calls to your location, but I can't imagine my free phone from VirginMobile "sees everything... my relationship to other human beings and other robots." My phone just makes calls. The end.
       

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    3. Re:Nope by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Honestly you really think they aren't putting tracking devices in disposable phones?

      No, I don't think they're putting tracking device in disposable phones, but using DTOA from a single sectored antenna is enough to place your location in a pretty narrow arc, and with two antennae you can be located within 30 feet or closer even in very crappy conditions. The phone plus the network is a tracking system whether there's any tracking-specific hardware in the phone.

      However, super-crap phones like the LG I got from tracfone don't have a camera, magnetic sensor, or a lot of other things, so the only things they can do are track my location and maybe listen in on me whether I'm using the phone or not. That's offensive enough, but it doesn't leak as much information as a cleverer phone could.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Nope by Phrogman · · Score: 2

      And then the purchases you make with your credit card can be matched to your cellphone location, and the stores you purchase things in, along with what you purchase can be used to build up a profile of the things you like and do etc etc. Individually each thing means nothing but collectively they add up, geolocation is an important factor in that data. Once a company has your data they can sell it - oh they might say they are going to preserve your privacy but nothing prevents them from doing so other than laws which may or may not be enforced.
      Trackers is a good name. Making phone calls is about 10% of what my smartphone is capable of doing at most I am sure.

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    5. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhmmm...do you only call yourself? Even a simple phone knows who you called, when you called and where you were at the time.

    6. Re:Nope by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nope. The very fact that you've made the call will give a rough geolocation, typically within 20m or so in a city. Other calls can be similarly located, also texts and any other time the phone pings the base stations. Your daily route can be tracked and analysed from day to day. That's just with a basic phone. Connect to the internet and install a Facebook app, well, say goodbye to your privacy in theory.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    7. Re:Nope by symbolset · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You don't have to make a call to be triangulated. That bars signal level indicator, what is it doing? It's pinging every tower in range.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    8. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      20m is overly optimistic.

    9. Re:Nope by CheshireDragon · · Score: 2

      20m IS optimistic. Maybe the neighborhood you are in, but not down to 20m.

      symbolset: it's RSSI(Received Signal Strength Indicator) :)

      --
      "That's right...I said it."
    10. Re:Nope by postbigbang · · Score: 2

      It depends on the density of cell towers and your relationship to them, but 20m in urban areas is not unreasonable. If a phone has gps on, you're screwed: you can be placed in a chair.

      Or at least your phone, anyway. Reasonable inferences can be made with a lot of accuracy.

      If you don't want to be tracked with your phone, turn it off and remove its battery. If you want to be tracked really well, any recent Samsung phone with GPS turned on can be very highly geolocated. This isn't to do a put-down on Samsung phones, but they're quite consistent in their firmware implementations.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    11. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it really does not matter if they are putting tracking devices in disposables or other ” basic “ phones.

      any phone can be a tracker even without the cooperation of the handset. e911 implementation required carriers to be able to locate handsets to within a few hundred meters so that phones without GPS chips can still be located with enough accuracy to dispatch emergency services even if a caller does not or can not give their location to dispatchers. since that particular method of tracking is completely done from the carriers end, whether the phone spies on your location or not becomes largely moot - it amounts to the difference between 5 feet and 300 feet of accuracy on average - still way too much information to be available.

    12. Re:Nope by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Well, a list of the yard sales I've stopped at ain't gonna tell them what I've bought, and the vast majority of stuff I own has come from yard sales and flea markets. Almost all of the remainder was mail ordered or bought via the internet, so they are pretty clear on what kind of computer I've got and what calibers of firearm I own, but then again, I live in California so they know what kind of guns I've got anyway.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:Nope by jpapon · · Score: 1
      What exactly are you doing that you're so worried about people knowing your location?

      I don't really care if people know where I am. What I care about is if they try to contact me or interfere with my movements. Simply having knowledge of my location doesn't really amount to much.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    14. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is because your instinct for self-preservation is questionable. You don't understand how privacy is a component of dignity, and you let yourself become callously robbed of it. You may have some kind of altruistic belief that people and corporations are benign, and would never mess with you, and never make associative mistakes.

      Your blanket statement that it really doesn't amount to much is only for you. Others have sentiments that are strongly different than yours, and for what they believe to be excellent reasons.

    15. Re:Nope by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You've clearly never been stalked by an ex.

      The big point here isn't what can be done, but what is done. All of this technology exists, and can be very useful in, for example, locating missing people. It could also be used to track people at protests to identify ringleaders. The technology is already here, we can't close the box, the important thing is whether suitable laws are in place to prevent misuse.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    16. Re:Nope by SternisheFan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What exactly are you doing that you're so worried about people knowing your location?

      I don't really care if people know where I am. What I care about is if they try to contact me or interfere with my movements. Simply having knowledge of my location doesn't really amount to much.

      Why should you be worrie about people knowing your location? Ask the kid in Long Island, NY, who, after leaving a party one night, was 'tracked' by thugs who used easily purchased 'tracking apps'. He was shot and killed on a highway miles away from that party. All those thugs had to do to track him was to enter his phone into a $30 app. Oh, you can ask that kid, but he can't answer you, because he's DEAD. Dead because he somehow pissed off some thug with an app and a gun somehow. What if one day that kid is you, will 'ease of tracking' still be a non-issue for you?

    17. Re:Nope by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>Nope. The very fact that you've made the call will give a rough geolocation... and any other time the phone pings the base stations

      I know. I just SAID that: "Obviously a cellphone has to track you in order to route the calls to your location". What are you saying 'nope' to me for? Learn to read the words in front of your face.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    18. Re:Nope by jpapon · · Score: 1

      The gun was just as much responsible for that death as the app. Should we ban guns too?

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    19. Re:Nope by jpapon · · Score: 1
      I'm not being robbed of anything. I generally don't care if people know where I am... and if, for whatever reason, I don't want people to know where I am, I can TURN OFF MY GODDAMN PHONE. There. Privacy.

      Others have sentiments that are strongly different than yours, and for what they believe to be excellent reasons.

      No kidding. I wasn't claiming to have any knowledge of what anyone else believes. I was merely stating my position.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    20. Re:Nope by jpapon · · Score: 2

      The technology is already here, we can't close the box, the important thing is whether suitable laws are in place to prevent misuse.

      I agree. I also find it amusing how so many people on /. scream "information wants to be free" when talking about recordings of music made by someone, but when it comes to THEIR information, they are all up in arms about how evil corporations are for sharing their information with other corporations.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    21. Re:Nope by tapspace · · Score: 1

      The technology is already here, we can't close the box, the important thing is whether suitable laws are in place to prevent misuse.

      I agree. I also find it amusing how so many people on /. scream "information wants to be free" when talking about recordings of music made by someone, but when it comes to THEIR information, they are all up in arms about how evil corporations are for sharing their information with other corporations.

      You are my sworn enemy. Not only do I have to worry about the corporations, I have to worry about their apologists and enablers. Freedom to share music with our friends is very different than freedom to share their personal information. To lump them together is insane. It's intellectually confounded, and disastrous to society to think like this (yes, disastrous). Then, again, I don't think that information wants to be free. I certainly don't want that. OTOH, in some regards, it is best for society; free flow of information is good. The problem is we've got it backwards. All the information that is in society's best interest to flow freely or more freely (scientific publications and creative works as long as we don't destroy the industries behind them) are restricted, while that which ought to be very private (all our private digital lives, search histories, emails, phone calls, texts, GPS coordinates, social connections) are being over-shared.

      Your garbage line of reasoning is akin to saying that someone who supports libraries should also support a national biometrics database, because they support public information access. It's heavy-handed, silly and just plain dumb.

    22. Re:Nope by jpapon · · Score: 2

      You are my sworn enemy. Not only do I have to worry about the corporations, I have to worry about their apologists and enablers.

      I'm not your enemy here, buddy. I'm just trying to have a discussion.

      Freedom to share music with our friends is very different than freedom to share their personal information.

      Is it? An artist is selling you some information (a recording of them performing), while specifically telling you that you cannot distribute it without their permission. How is that any different from you giving your personal information to a company, and telling them they cannot distribute it without your permission? I'm not arguing that companies should be able to distribute your information without your consent... I'm simply questioning whether it is reasonable to restrict distribution of one type of information while simultaneously fighting to completely remove restrictions from another kind. Most, if not all, of the arguments used to promote the free distribution of music could be used by companies to promote the distribution of information they have gathered from usage statistics.

      All the information that is in society's best interest to flow freely or more freely (scientific publications and creative works as long as we don't destroy the industries behind them) are restricted, while that which ought to be very private (all our private digital lives, search histories, emails, phone calls, texts, GPS coordinates, social connections) are being over-shared.

      I agree that the former (science, creative works) should be distributed freely, but I question your logic in saying that distribution of the latter (search histories, social connections, etc...) necessarily has a negative effect on society.

      If free distribution of creative works and science has a positive effect on society, can you definitively say that free distribution of social data won't also have a positive effect? Couldn't social connection data be used to prevent the spread of disease, or study social phenomena that give us insight into the human social organism? Couldn't purchasing data be used to better allocate scarce resources? Couldn't location data be used to improve public transportation and reduce congestion on roadways?

      The truth is that most people aren't comfortable with sharing all of their information, even if doing so would have a positive impact on society. Just as an artist, developer, or scientist may not be comfortable with freely sharing their work, even if doing so would have a positive impact on society.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    23. Re:Nope by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      Of course.

    24. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it wasn't for those thugs getting a hold of a cars that never would have happened. Guns and cars should need a psych eval or something before you can buy them.

    25. Re:Nope by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      So you're incapable of distinguishing the difference between Private, and Public information?

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    26. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

    27. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learn to read the words in front of your face.

      I think you should try following your own advice sometime. Maybe then, we'll start treating you with the same respect.

      And do try to lose the 2-yearold attitude. It too is being detrimental to the respect that you receive.

    28. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. I also find it amusing how so many people on /. scream "information wants to be free" when talking about recordings of music made by someone, but when it comes to THEIR information, they are all up in arms about how evil corporations are for sharing their information with other corporations.

      And I find it disturbing how so many people on /. can't (or won't) comprehend the very important differences between the two.

    29. Re:Nope by tapspace · · Score: 1

      Meh. You're thinking is too black and white to even argue with. Sharing of information does not have any easy analogue in natural law, and therefore any laws we might make are often (at least ideally) drawn up with the intent to protect individual rights and/or benefit society. Lumping sharing of all forms of information together in this absurd absolutist view is exactly what's wrong with legislation today. There's no nuance. Just like the average Christian wouldn't understand the discussion between Luther and Pope Leo, the average human has lost sight of how and why we have many laws in the first place (especially pertaining to privacy and intellectual work, two special and *different* domains). The average person actually believes that information is property (which is insane). There's a nuance here. We need a scalpel and you're thinking at the granularity of a fireaxe.

    30. Re:Nope by jpapon · · Score: 1

      The average person actually believes that information is property (which is insane).

      So you don't own your personal information (since that would be insane), but you believe that there should be laws that prevent other from acquiring it and distributing it without your permission.

      But that same logic shouldn't apply to music (or software), because it's better for society if those forms of information can be freely distributed.

      I have no problem with that. All I am saying is that you can't say you have a "right" to keep your personal information secure, and at the same time say others don't have a "right" to keep the information they produce (such as music) secure.

      Your argument for sharing music is a purely Utilitarian one (which is fine). You have to make the same argument for personal information, ie, society will be better if we can keep our private data private BECAUSE ...

      You also have to accept that others can use the same argument against you. For instance, sharing of purchasing data could be used to improve society because it would help to allocate scare resources better.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
  5. Glacially slow news day? by siddesu · · Score: 5, Funny

    I thought that stopped to be news after the first 20 or so TV mysteries where the police requested the phone details of the murder suspect, so it MUST have been around the first half of the 80s.

    1. Re:Glacially slow news day? by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

      Yeah it's just another day when the NY Times publishes an article that implicates their best advertisers in a nefarious government plot.

    2. Re:Glacially slow news day? by AlienIntelligence · · Score: 1

      I thought that stopped to be news after the first 20 or so TV mysteries where the police requested the phone details of the murder suspect, so it MUST have been around the first half of the 80s.

      What is really difficult is going thru life 'with at least half a brain'... and then realizing
      you're a half up on everyone else around you.

      -AI

      --
      For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
    3. Re:Glacially slow news day? by siddesu · · Score: 1

      I go through life with at most half a brain, and I am in the same shoes, bro. No words to describe the hardness.

    4. Re:Glacially slow news day? by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      People carried mobile phones in the early 80s?

    5. Re:Glacially slow news day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. The first cellular networks in the US were available in the late '70's

    6. Re:Glacially slow news day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You never seen Pulp Fiction?

    7. Re:Glacially slow news day? by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      WHAT? I thought those were early CSI-type science fiction shows!

  6. Buck Rodgers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    am I the only one reminded of Dr Theopolis & Twiki from the campy 70s series?

    1. Re:Buck Rodgers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Probably, but you got me thinking of Wilma!

  7. Nope! by Greyfox · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The cellular network has to know where you are to route calls to you. Back when they first came out, someone published an article about using cellular information to locate a person with his cell phone to within 36 feet. There is a wealth of information that can be found out about you using your cell phone even if it's a 10 year old completely dumb phone (My parents are still using one of my hand-me-downs from the '90s!)

    Morale of this story is when you go off to murder that guy, leave your cell phone at home (Or stick it in the wife's glove box!) Bin Laden's courier would take the battery out of his until he was in the next town over.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Nope! by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>My parents are still using one of my hand-me-downs from the '90s!

      Thought they switched-off analog cell service? I still have the phone ATT sold me in 1999, but it no longer has any analog signals to intercept.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    2. Re:Nope! by Sipper · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The cellular network has to know where you are to route calls to you. Back when they first came out, someone published an article about using cellular information to locate a person with his cell phone to within 36 feet.

      Yes... additionally, last I recall this information is saved for a period of 7 years, which means not only does the phone system know where you are now, but it also knows where you've been. This means that you can be profiled based on the places you go, and thus there's a chance someone can predict where you're going to be at any given time.

    3. Re:Nope! by girlintraining · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The cellular network has to know where you are to route calls to you.

      Not anymore than it's necessary to know where your TV station's broadcast tower is to receive programming content. It has to know which cell tower(s) your phone can communicate with. Pinpointing someone's location to within a few feet or meters is not necessary to perform the primary function of the phone; Locating a handset to within a narrow geographic footprint is an ancilliary function, and there is no reason for a carrier to maintain logs on a handset's location, travel speed, elevation, etc., except when playing a call to emergency services, in which case that information would only need to be available during the call, and perhaps for a limited time after to assist law enforcement in responding to the call out.

      If laws were passed banning the use of such information for any purposes other than network diagnostics (knowing that a lot of calls get dropped along a certain street, etc.), or for law enforcement, there would be no discernable degregation in service for the average cell phone user.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    4. Re:Nope! by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Funny

      It knows when you are sleeping,
      It knows when you're awake,
      It knows if you've been bad or good,
      so be good for goodness sake!

      I always thought that jingle was pretty creepy.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:Nope! by Provocateur · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      And it's been modded to the MAX!

      Be afraid...

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    6. Re:Nope! by k(wi)r(kipedia) · · Score: 1

      Morale of this story is when you go off to murder that guy, leave your cell phone at home (Or stick it in the wife's glove box!) Bin Laden's courier would take the battery out of his until he was in the next town over.

      You mean moral?[end grammar-nazi-mode]

      Leaving your cellphone at home would only make you even more suspicious. What, Mr. A. Howard, you didn't have your cellphone with you during the time of the crime?

      Better would be to buy a boxed pre-paid cellphone and use that for planning the evil deed. Then you'd have to maintain radio silence for your regular phone, something which that would stick out in cellphone provider's logs if you're the type that receives calls or text messages every other minute. To remedy this, you could program a small robot that could automatically answer messages with simple responses like "Copy that". You'd leave the robot near a busy restaurant, which would give you the handy alibi of having dinner while being some place else.

    7. Re:Nope! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, there were GSM phones in the '90s, including a few in the US (Sprint's home network, later bought by T-mobile USA), and plenty of cdmaOne phones in the US.

      Just because you were using a backward carrier like AT&T, don't assume everyone was.

    8. Re:Nope! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GSM has been around since the 1990s, even in major US markets. Until they finish converting existing bands to WCDMA and beyond, I think original GSM phones will still work.

    9. Re:Nope! by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "Bin Laden's courier would take the battery out of his until he was in the next town over."

      Indeed, look how well that worked.

    10. Re:Nope! by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 2

      It worked great. They found him with a conventional wiretap.

      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
    11. Re:Nope! by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      The cellular network has to know where you are to route calls to you. Back when they first came out, someone published an article about using cellular information to locate a person with his cell phone to within 36 feet.

      Yes... additionally, last I recall this information is saved for a period of 7 years, which means not only does the phone system know where you are now, but it also knows where you've been. This means that you can be profiled based on the places you go, and thus there's a chance someone can predict where you're going to be at any given time.

      I don't suppose you have a reference source for this?

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    12. Re:Nope! by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      My parents are still using one of my hand-me-downs from the '90s!

      Are you sure they are still using it? I'd still be using mine too if it were not for the fact that the batteries fail after a couple of years and it is practically impossible to find a replacement. Every model of every make seems to use a different type of battery, sometimes forming part of the case itself.

      I once went into Car Phone Warehouse, listed as an "service agent" for my make of phone, and asked for a new battery. The guy looked at me as if I was bonkers. "But sir, he said, this phone is over two years old!".

      I asked him what being a "sevice agent" meant if they could not even provide a replacement battery (you could at least remove it, unlike an iPhone). He didn't have a clue that they were a service agent, let alone what it meant.

      So I had to trash an otherwise good phone and buy another (not from C-P-W), when politicians are telling us not to waste. Still, no doubt my phone was recycled (ie had the solder and copper picked out by 8-year olds in the backwoods of India).

    13. Re:Nope! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ideal would be for people to not bother using their cellphone for period of time. If it isn't essential to a job, turn it off, or leave it at home. The more "holes" in a tracking trail, the better it is for everyone.

    14. Re:Nope! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read about an Al-Queda guy who did 'almost' everything right. He kept his battery out of his phone crossing between towns. Put it in, made his phone call, and turned the phone off. But didn't take the battery out. Last phone call that guy made, the drone made sure of that.

    15. Re:Nope! by Sipper · · Score: 1

      I don't suppose you have a reference source for this?

      I found a reference, but it seems to indicate that the length of time the various providers store location information is shorter than I had remembered.

      http://www.aclu.org/cell-phone-location-tracking-request-response-cell-phone-company-data-retention-chart

    16. Re:Nope! by Dan541 · · Score: 2

      It knows when you are sleeping,
      It knows when you're awake,
      It knows if you've been bad or good,
      so be good for goodness sake!

      Next Christmas I'm going to hang signs like that underneath the CCTV cameras in London.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    17. Re:Nope! by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      An interesting table - good info, thanks -

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  8. Problem and solution by girlintraining · · Score: 1

    Problem: Private corporations selling our private data in order to sell us more useless shit, tracking our every move, and engaging in behavior that, if it were done in real life, would have them serving 380 million consecutive sentences for stalking.

    Solution: Make it illegal, or begin carpet bombing the offending corporations... and out of the ashes will rise a new government-controlled cellular network. It'll probably cost more, do less, and it'll still track everything you do... but at least they won't try to sell you 2 for 1 deals on toilet paper.

    ... Or, you know, we could just tell the FCC to fuck itself and build our own networks ala pirate radio... The airwaves are, afterall, a shared public resource. If it's being mismanaged, take it back. -- Abraham Lincoln.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Problem and solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Letting the FCC boff itself just means that companies will use spectrum for their things, so a cheap baby monitor would stomp on a large amount of bandwidth, or someone's rear view camera on their RV will cause any BlueTooth or Wi-Fi system to be unusable.

  9. Exocortex by VoidEngineer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Can anyone say 'exocortex'? The only thing missing are the right apps and software stack.

    accelerando
    http://manybooks.net/titles/strosscother05accelerando-txt.html

  10. Sheep by SecondCobra · · Score: 1

    All that will happen if you call them trackers is that the 'public' will quickly come to accept the idea that they are tracking devices!

    1. Re:Sheep by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

      "All?"

      How can that be "all"?

  11. You say that like it's a bad thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Thanks to "Find My Friends" I was able to track my parents when they recently visited. I could see where they were driving, and if it looked like they were headed in the wrong direction, I could give them directions to get back on the right roads.

    1. Re:You say that like it's a bad thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It also helps knowing how far the wife is from home so you can leave the bar on time.

  12. Good metaphor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Phones are like a symbiotic robotic lifeform.
    They need us to move around, to live, to feed off information in to the hivemind brain.
    We need them for their extra-sensory perception, for our turbo-charged "memory" and compact library (the internet) and communicating over distances impossible by almost every animal alive now, I think. (Whales can communicate stupid distances, and other large sealife, I am sure)

    I don't get the paranoia, here.
    Would you like to live in a world where everybody knew everything about you, including your habit of picking your nose by curving your hand up in to a claw, or your current vitals as you fainted at the cafe and the ambulance already being on the way to help you and arriving literally a few seconds after it?
    Or do you want to live in a world where nobody communicated face to face, where everything was anonymous. Basically 4chan as a reality.
    Phones are an acceptable privacy breach.
    Unless you are some sort of triple terrorist pedo human trafficker drug dealer murderer person, you are fine.
    Your worth to an advertiser is only for money.
    If you don't want to be stalked by society, go live in the woods already. Go take over a bit of Africa with all your wealth of knowledge and resources and build a super society and make it better than everywhere else. No? Then quit your bitching.

    1. Re:Good metaphor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'll take the 4chan one please.

    2. Re:Good metaphor by Volguus+Zildrohar · · Score: 2

      I am not sure why the options must be one extreme or the other. I'm sure this is a logical fallacy, but I don't know the name of it. It is possible to live in a world where people don't know *everything* there is to know about me without me also being anonymous.

      I would like to live in the world of acceptable tradeoffs, please.

      --
      When confronted with one problem, some think "I'll use recursion". Now they are confronted with one problem.
    3. Re:Good metaphor by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      Well, here's the acceptable tradeoff. You have a phone, which is effectively a computer more powerful than the size-of-a-fridge-cost-more-than-a-car graphics workstations of a decade ago, and runs for two days off a battery that takes two hours to charge, and is connected to other computers by a global network. It fits in your pocket, and it fits in your life, and you can afford it because it subsidised by the information sold on to marketing companies that are trying to sell you stuff you probably don't care about.

      You could pay full price, but you probably don't want to.

    4. Re:Good metaphor by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      I'm sure this is a logical fallacy, but I don't know the name of it.

      It's called "false dichotomy" or "false dilemma" and, more generally, "fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses."

    5. Re:Good metaphor by Volguus+Zildrohar · · Score: 1

      Thanks! :) One day I will go through the list and learn them properly...

      --
      When confronted with one problem, some think "I'll use recursion". Now they are confronted with one problem.
  13. I suggest a new term for them. by toygeek · · Score: 1

    MoBot. ie Mobile Robot.

    1. Re:I suggest a new term for them. by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>MoBot

      Mighty OrBots. Theyâ(TM)re joining together to fight for whatâ(TM)s right everywhere. Mighty Orbots. Protecting the world from the shadow of evil and doom, Orbots. Champions of justice and truth. (Ohno) (Tor) (Bort) (Bo) (Boo) (Crunch). Go, Mighty Orbots

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
  14. RMS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like RMS was right all along.

    1. Re:RMS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah and we laughed at him for good reason. Anyone but an idiot knows that cell towers have to know your position so you can receive calls. Taking people on cell networks isn't new in any way.

  15. Just say No by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    There is a simple solution. Don't have a cell phone.

    1. Re:Just say No by BitterOak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is a simple solution. Don't have a cell phone.

      That's not as easy as it used to be. When's the last time you saw a phone booth or a pay phone? There are a couple left in the city where I live, but not many. So, what happens when you have an emergency or your car breaks down and you need to call AAA? With the demise of pay phones, cell phones are no longer a luxury, they are a necessity.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    2. Re:Just say No by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      When's the last time you saw a phone booth or a pay phone?

      Dr. Who fans see one quite frequently.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:Just say No by Pascal+Sartoretti · · Score: 1

      That's not as easy as it used to be. When's the last time you saw a phone booth or a pay phone? There are a couple left in the city where I live, but not many. So, what happens when you have an emergency or your car breaks down and you need to call AAA? With the demise of pay phones, cell phones are no longer a luxury, they are a necessity.

      Even if you need a phone in case of emergency, you don't need to keep it active all the time. Turning it off might be risky (you wouldn't known when the batteries are empty), but "airplane mode" is fine.

    4. Re:Just say No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When's the last time you saw a phone booth or a pay phone?

      Dr. Who fans see one quite frequently.

      Except it's a police box and not a phone booth.

    5. Re:Just say No by pubwvj · · Score: 1

      We still have pay phones around here.

      Break downs? Same as before cell phones. There's a reason, cell phones don't work around here except in pockets around the cities. Mostly there is no coverage.

      We get along fine without cell phones. They are not necessary. You are welcome, of course, to carry one and perhaps in your location they work but cell phones are not a necessity. One of the big problems with society is people are confusing needs with wants.

  16. turn off the phone when not in use by alen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    i know someone who used to do that when he had his first cell phone years ago. no law says it has to stay on all the time

    1. Re:turn off the phone when not in use by Eightbitgnosis · · Score: 1

      And how are people supposed to call me then?

    2. Re:turn off the phone when not in use by nurb432 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Turning off may not be enough. Pulling the battery, would be. Or a 'Faraday' bag in your car to drop it in

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    3. Re:turn off the phone when not in use by w_dragon · · Score: 3, Informative

      I suspect off is enough, even airplane mode should be enough. If any common cell phones kept broadcasting anything when turned off I suspect the FAA and FDA (some medical equipment is radio-sensitive) would be aware, and probably not amused.

    4. Re:turn off the phone when not in use by c0lo · · Score: 1

      And how are people supposed to call me then?

      Can they call you... Eightbitgnosis?

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    5. Re:turn off the phone when not in use by nurb432 · · Score: 2

      On my apple ( which no longer has a sim card ) turning on flight mode only disabled the cell radio, and wifi still runs.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    6. Re:turn off the phone when not in use by Hartree · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They can call you just fine.

      They'll get forwarded to voice mail.

      I consider this a feature, not a problem.

    7. Re:turn off the phone when not in use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last time I used an iphone, turning on flight mode with disable both the cellular radio as well as the wifi. It would, however, allow you to subsequently re-enable the wifi while keeping the cell radio in flight mode.

      That's an important distinction.

    8. Re:turn off the phone when not in use by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "And how are people supposed to call me then?"

      At least turn it off when you visit your dealer.

    9. Re:turn off the phone when not in use by fnj · · Score: 1

      Ding ding ding ding ding. Right answer.

    10. Re:turn off the phone when not in use by Eightbitgnosis · · Score: 1

      You really want to get all your phone calls hours past when people tried to call? That's terribly unhelpful if my friends or family call to me hangout.

    11. Re:turn off the phone when not in use by Eightbitgnosis · · Score: 1

      That's not one of my usual nicknames, but you know I can roll with it if they want to call me that

    12. Re:turn off the phone when not in use by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      And how are people supposed to call me then?

      Why do you want random people to call you at random times?

      My cell phone is off unless I'm on call, need to make a call or expect someone to need to call me. Otherwise I rather like not having everyone on the planet think they can waste my time at any moment by dialling a number.

      I wouldn't even have the phone if the company didn't provide it for free.

    13. Re:turn off the phone when not in use by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      I'm going to preempt the unthinking masses out there and assume you meant the company you work for, and not the service provider.

      Phones that are packaged in a service plan aren't "free".

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    14. Re:turn off the phone when not in use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I am not at home, its generally because I am occupied with some activity. So.. not getting calls to see if I want to hang out is not a problem.

    15. Re:turn off the phone when not in use by Eightbitgnosis · · Score: 2

      I have this thing called friends and family. They call me, and sometimes we hangout.

    16. Re:turn off the phone when not in use by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      Some people are saying they really only "need" a phone for some situations where they'd be the initiator. So they have a problem and a phone with an off button is the solution. You OTOH are saying you want to be tracked, because being findable by friends/family is critical to you. So what's the problem? You leave your phone on; they leave their phone off. Everyone wins.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    17. Re:turn off the phone when not in use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell them to not call during certain periods when your phone is off (e.g. when you're sleeping).

      Alternatively, find something more interesting to do than hang out with them.

    18. Re:turn off the phone when not in use by Hartree · · Score: 1

      Exactly. My job and lifestyle are such that not being interrupted is often more valuable than constant connectivity. For a lot of other people that wouldn't work well.

    19. Re:turn off the phone when not in use by Eightbitgnosis · · Score: 1

      Oh by all means turning off their phones are the prerogative of others. I just find the logic presented for turning a portable phone off to be kinda silly.

  17. Personal tracking device. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's what I call my phone.

    And have done so for the last 10 years or so.

  18. GTD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GTD - noun

    â"abbreviation for

    1. Government Tracking Device

    Example Usage:
    Oh, excuse me, I've got a call on my GTD.
    I hope you didn't bring your GTD, that'll ruin all of the fun.
    The government caught Abimail Guzman by tracking him on his GTD.

  19. Caught on finally by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    The bit where the outage in the UK cell network caused electronic ankle monitors to fail really gives you some thought...

    The "making calls" stuff is really only an extra feature, and the only reason it's included is in order to listen in.

    1. Re:Caught on finally by raodin · · Score: 1

      Not sure why this should be a shocker. Ankle monitors need to report somehow or they aren't much use. Makes sense to use existing infrastructure rather than build a new network.

    2. Re:Caught on finally by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      Yeah, in that article everyone was banging on about how they shouldn't use mobile networks, they should use PMR frequencies. Right, because inventing your own half-assed network is going to be just so quick and easy and utterly reliable.

      That said, maybe if they had the trackers transmit on VHF lowband it would make it easier to spot tagged offenders - the metre-long aerial sprouting from their ankle would give them away...

  20. it was a good read by circletimessquare · · Score: 0

    the chilliest passage:

    If we are naïve to think of them as phones, what should we call them? Eben Moglen, a law professor at Columbia University, argues that they are robots for which we — the proud owners — are merely the hands and feet. “They see everything, they’re aware of our position, our relationship to other human beings and other robots, they mediate an information stream around us,” he has said. Over time, we’ve used these devices less for their original purpose.

    creepy!

    but it is true. as time evolves, and these ever present ever necessary devices invade more of our social and cognitive existence, we're basically talking about the fact that we are going to be following instructions from these things

    and we can't separate ourselves: all of the positive feedbacks of gaming: endorphins, our entire social existence mediated through them... we are becoming cyborg worker ants controlled by cellphones... for what purpose? is anyone in control?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  21. okay i'm creeping myself out now: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    if we have a device that knows all of our routines, all of our friends, all of our habits, etc., and this predictability can be fed into algorithms to engage us to foster "positive" behavior according to some external agenda, then if we were to engage in new activity, or new social contacts, or go to new places.. then the device we are basically addicted to could discourage us: load our favorite games slower, prevent us from contacting people we really want to talk to, change even our cognition with the types of news stories and ads we see...

    i'm not a paranoid schizophrenic, but we are talking about an amazing fantastic control device for locking our behavior into that of perfect little worker bees. maybe not even in overt ways, ie, somebody with an agenda: i'm talking in subtle, unpurposeful ways only visible by analyzing the overall effects of overlapping algorithms

    super creepy dystopian thoughts here

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:okay i'm creeping myself out now: by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      i'm not a paranoid schizophrenic, but we are talking about an amazing fantastic control device for locking our behavior into that of perfect little worker bees. maybe not even in overt ways, ie, somebody with an agenda: i'm talking in subtle, unpurposeful ways only visible by analyzing the overall effects of overlapping algorithms

      super creepy dystopian thoughts here

      You mean we could evolve into something like this?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yBnl_krN_U

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    2. Re:okay i'm creeping myself out now: by lennier · · Score: 1

      i'm not a paranoid schizophrenic, but we are talking about an amazing fantastic control device for locking our behavior into that of perfect little worker bees

      Nonsense! That will never happen. Humanity will always remain fully in control of all our cybernetic infrastructure. Now, hurry and click your Mafia Cow, it's five minutes overdue for a drive-by milking on Seventh and Vendetta. Plus you get a free Corrupt Orcish FDA Administrator if you send this email to all your friends.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  22. The point of this article by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Is to remind people that we're ALL Boiled Frogs.

    There's MAny (many many) quotes about the slow erosion of freedoms but the following is one of my favorites.

    First they came for the communists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

    Then they came for me
    and there was no one left to speak out for me.

    --
    Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    1. Re:The point of this article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI, the boiled frog story, while usually presented as fact is not true.

      A frog will jump out of the pot once the heat becomes uncomfortable.
      http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.asp

      That said, will we jump out when the heat becomes uncomfortable? I doubt it.

      On a positive note, quoting George Dyson:

      Unpredictability means that there can never be a complete digital dictatorship with one government or corporation controlling our entire digital lives.

      Not because of politics but because of mathematics - there will always be codes that do unpredictable things.

    2. Re:The point of this article by fnj · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I bet until they came for you, things didn't seem so bad. Crime was down, the trains ran on time, the economy was under control, banks paid interest, and you had a job.

    3. Re:The point of this article by khipu · · Score: 1

      There's MAny (many many) quotes about the slow erosion of freedoms but the following [wikipedia.org] is one of my favorites.

      And your freedom is being eroded by having the choice of carrying a cell phone... how? This must be the same sense in which you get poorer when Zuckerberg makes an extra million.

      Seems to me you're driven more by FUD than actual civil liberties concerns.

    4. Re:The point of this article by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 1

      It depends on how fast you raise the temperature. It's been shown (discussed/cited on /. recently), that if you raise the temperature slowly enough, the frog will indeed sit there and boil...

      --
      A house divided against itself cannot stand.
    5. Re:The point of this article by lennier · · Score: 1

      how? This must be the same sense in which you get poorer when Zuckerberg makes an extra million.

      I keep hearing this argument repeated from free market advocates, and it doesn't make any more sense than when I first heard it. Let me explain why.

      Money is not a measure of absolute wealth. Wealth is actual, practical things which exist: food, water, housing, goods, viable ecology. We are all richer when we have these things. But a money ticker going upwards has absolutely nothing to do with wealth.

      What money measures is social power: someone who has a million dollars can command the resources of other people to do things for them. This means that money is a relative measure, not an absolute measure: it exists only because other people offer to place themselves in a socially inferior position relative to the money-holder.

      We know this because money is predicated on, and created as debt - nobody creates money for free, they require real goods in trade. That this is true is obvious from the panic re debt repayment in the Eurozone: bankers are starting to worry that money they created might have inadvertently been given away for free, accidentally creating rather than merely transferring money! This accident, we are told - ie, the potential that people could have been made rich without someone else becoming poor in equal measure - could endanger the entire global money system, and the system now requires harsh sacrifices - "austerity" - from those made accidentally rich. The money-creation system nearly became non-zero-sum - it must be made to balance again.

      Therefore the possession of money creates a differential of power; it does not create wealth, it creates a soft form (and sometimes hard forms) of enslavement. So yes: we do all get poorer when the Zuckerbergs of this world get richer. Because that's how money is constructed.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    6. Re:The point of this article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not very inspiring.

      If there was someone left (like there was for the communists, the unionists, the Jews), they either did just like you (not speak up)
      or they did speak up and it made no difference. Why would it be any different for you?

    7. Re:The point of this article by khipu · · Score: 1

      While I'm generally sympathetic to the view of money as "shares" in something, your particular analysis still fails. First, wealthy as Zuckerberg is, even if his money represented a share in a fixed pot, his share is still so small that it doesn't affect you in any practical way. Rich people haven't driven up the price of important scarce resources like land or resources. In fact, in all the areas in which rising prices are a problem in our society (primarily, medicine and education), the rising prices are due to artificial scarcities created by special interests. Furthermore, Zuckerberg's wealth is not part of a fixed pot; our economy is growing, which means that effectively that new stuff people want to pay money for is being created all the time.

      As for the Eurozone, your analysis also doesn't work. While one may muse about the deeper meaning of the money owed in the European crisis, in the end, the losses of European banks aren't about some abstract system, they are real in the same way as if you or I lose $1000. Bizarre as moving those little numbers and pieces of paper around may seem, in the end, the numbers still have reality because that's what we still agree on. If we ever were to lose trust in those numbers, we have a name for that: inflation or hyperinflation.

      No, you are not Zuckerberg's slave. You are slave to reality, however: you used to have to hunt for food, worry about starving, and hope that your social group didn't arbitrarily kick you out. Money has greatly reduced those constraints to the point where you enjoy a lot more individual liberties than people used to. The system may seem arbitrary, capricious, and oppressive, but it is still a lot less so than what it replaced. And until someone comes up with a better system, that's what we're going to stick with.

  23. only cell phones? by mechanicaladvantage · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure they knew where you were when you were making call with your land line, too. Heck, even when you weren't making a call, they knew where your phone was. Apparently the conspiracy goes waaaaaay back.

    1. Re:only cell phones? by SternisheFan · · Score: 1

      Pre cell phones, landline phones could be tapped using the 'infinity device'. Google it, here is one link I found. http://www.tscm.com/phone/infinity_transmitter.html All you had to do was plug it in between a phone and a phone line, then dial any phone#. The phone dialed would not ring and an open connection was made, allowing the 'tapper' to hear anything via the 'tapees' phone microphone. No loacating function to it, but if you had the phone number, information via reverse lookup phonebooks gave the address of even 'unlisted' numbers.

  24. off the mark by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    An article in the NY Times argues that the devices we call 'cell phones' should instead be called 'trackers.'

    I think it would be more appropriate that police and corporate trackers should instead be called "domestic spies".

    Phones don't track you, people who want to know what you're doing track you. They're the ones that should be called "privacy violating domestic terrorists and trackers".

    I'm sorry, but if someone is tracking you without your expressed, overt permission, they are terrorists.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:off the mark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      seriously? Invasion of one's privacy is a serious matter, but your definition of terrorism is so wrong-headed as to deprive the term of any relevant meaning. By your criteria stalkers are terrorists.

    2. Re:off the mark by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      seriously? Invasion of one's privacy is a serious matter, but your definition of terrorism is so wrong-headed as to deprive the term of any relevant meaning.

      No, the term "terrorism" has been deprived of any relevant meaning when "anti-terrorism" measures started including more than 1.5 million domestic warrantless wiretaps and FBI requests for phone records per year. Once the FBI started using anti-terrorism laws to do surveillance on groups of nuns protesting the Iraq War, the term has had zero meaning.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:off the mark by lennier · · Score: 1

      Phones don't track you, people who want to know what you're doing track you.

      That's a little like saying that hidden cameras don't invade privacy but people who look at photographs taken by hidden cameras invade privacy.

      There's an obvious device with an obvious function which generates a huge dataset which, once it's out in the wild, the purposes for which it's then used can't be easily controlled. It seems like it's fairly simple to assign causality to the big obvious device rather than the fuzzy nebulous cloud of potential onlookers.

      But then, using common sense is why I'm not a lawyer.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    4. Re:off the mark by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      That's a little like saying that hidden cameras don't invade privacy but people who look at photographs taken by hidden cameras invade privacy.

      Or like saying, "Guns don't kill, people do".

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:off the mark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If someone is tracking you without your expressed overt permission, they're possibly some sort of spies. But that is not enough to make them terrorists.

      This is terrorism. Or this, or this. Don't cheapen it.

  25. What about GPS on/off? by epp_b · · Score: 1

    What about smartphones on which you can switch the GPS receiver off? I don't know if this is possible on iOS (wouldn't surprise me if it's not), but my Android phone can switch it off at my discretion.

    Or is this a placebo button?

    1. Re:What about GPS on/off? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      What about smartphones on which you can switch the GPS receiver off? I don't know if this is possible on iOS (wouldn't surprise me if it's not), but my Android phone can switch it off at my discretion.

      Or is this a placebo button?

      Despite what you see on TV cop shows, GPS is itself a passive technology.

      And yes, you can turn it off in iOS. That was a rather silly statement on your part.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:What about GPS on/off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will revert to using AGPS or even just signal strenght off of multiple towers.

    3. Re:What about GPS on/off? by Shoe+Puppet · · Score: 1

      That statement wasn't all that silly. Most users will never manually control this.

      --
      (+1, Disagree)
    4. Re:What about GPS on/off? by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      His comment was addressed to "you", ie the /. crowd. We are not "most users".

      I found epp_b's comment useful, not silly. I still have a non-smart phone, and when I upgrade it to a smart phone (one day) I now know that it is possible to look for one I can turn off. Many of the comments here have given the impression that you cannot.. Your comment that you can turn off an iOS is also useful, thanks for that, though I won't be buying it.

      I don't give a sh#t that the average person might not bother.

  26. turn off GPS by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    Granted, they can still triangulate your position with the towers, but only within the sphere of the towers. GPS on the other hand can pretty much narrow that down to within 1 acre or less.

    1. Re:turn off GPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, I don't think there's a single correct statement in any of that.
      You can't really "turn off" GPS. The phone turns it on when it needs to know your location, whether you've 'disabled' it or not. Try calling 911 and see how fast it gets a fix, on or off. 1 acre?? Network-assisted GPS can quickly figure out which side of the crosswalk you're standing on.

    2. Re:turn off GPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My blackberry GPS is consistently 2KM off of where I am. What a pile of crap. Track me you jews !

  27. dont pickup lost cell phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it can be a trap. they can purposely install spyware on the phone, watch who you call, text, where you are, and download ur nude pics

  28. PROTIP: If it doesn’t have a firewall... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that you can fully configure... ...don't ever buy it!

    If you can't replace the bootloader, kernel, OS... ...don't ever buy it.

    If there are no Linux drivers... ...don't ever buy it.

    That's why I'll be waiting for what that team of ex-Nokia people will come up with.

  29. How to commit the perfect crime by Snotnose · · Score: 2

    1. Leave cellphone on coffee table
    2. ???
    3. ???
    4. Profit!

  30. RMS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RMS wrote an article calling them Stalin Trackers. Pretty sure most of us laughed at him. Not that the NY Times necessarily gives an idea credibility any more.

  31. Just say Gotcha bastards by fnj · · Score: 1

    But you can carry an old model, the kind you can turn fully off and even remove the battery, and keep it turned off except if you have to make a call to AAA, the police, or the paramedics. Call friends when you are at home or someplace you don't care if anybody knows you're there.

  32. Burner phones? by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 1

    I understand what they are and that they exist but I thought that "burner" was just TV-cop jargon. Still, as long as the article mentions them, which are best? What's the best way to get one? Assume a maximally-paranoid consumer.

    1. Re:Burner phones? by blake1 · · Score: 1

      >which are the best?
      Any $25 Nokia or LG phone would qualify.

      >best way to get one?
      By exchanging one for money at a store that sells pre-paid phones.

    2. Re:Burner phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pay cash, have a straw man buy them for you, never use the same strawman twice, try not to buy from the same store multiple times. The biggest risk with burner phones (the the ultra paranoid) is that once they learn about the first burner they go looking for the rest of your burners. The weak link in your supply chain is the physical acquisition of said burners; that is where a physical location and person can be tied to a particular phone. /this is all idle speculation based on watching way too much NCIS

  33. E911 by khipu · · Score: 3, Informative

    No, "enhanced 911" (i.e., the ability of authorities to determine your location) needs to meet these requirements:

    95% of a network operator's in-service phones must be E911 compliant ("location capable") by December 31, 2005. (Several carriers missed this deadline, and were fined by the FCC.)

    Wireless network operators must provide the latitude and longitude of callers within 300 meters, within six minutes of a request by a PSAP. Accuracy rates must meet FCC standards on average within any given participating PSAP service area by September 11, 2012 (deferred from September 11, 2008).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_9-1-1

  34. not pinging by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's just measuring their signal strength. The pinging happens if the phone wants to change to a different base station, or if it wants to inform the base station it's currently connected to it's still alive. Not that it matters a lot, since they will have a rough log of where you've been for months/years after the fact, depending on how long your cell phone company is required to keep the records. The roughness is because they'll only have the base station you're logged onto and no triangulation, plus the fact that there are multiple minutes in between the time stamps, especially if you're not moving a lot. Once the police has a warrant, the cell phone towers will start pinging you and triangulation will take place with a frequency that can easily be once a minute. Depending on cell density, they might be able to locate you almost as precise as with a GPS.

    With a smart phone, it's a different story. If you have apps that call home regularly to check for messages, you'll typically be exchanging data with base stations much more often. If you have GPS enabled (battery hog, so unlikely for a lot of users) and an app that stores your data (like google on android does themselves), it's dead easy to track you. The alternative, wifi base stations that get logged by google for every android phone unless switched off, is much more common since most people leave wifi on on their phone. Not so accurate as GPS, but within cities, usually sufficient.

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
    1. Re:not pinging by StripedCow · · Score: 5, Funny

      What they can't check: if it is you who is carrying the phone.

      Therefore, I suggest to regularly swap phones with random people on the street/in the subway/etc.

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    2. Re:not pinging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Specifically, the bars measure the signal strength received from the tower on the control channel, which is always active and which receives a signal from you roughly every 4 milliseconds. If you block that signal you lose GSM. Many "base stations" are also collected into a larger geographic region for the purpose of minimizing the number of database transactions between the HLR and the VLRs at the base station. What this means is that they're really only able to gauge distance between the device and the cell its currently connected to, and they typically are only able to nail your location down to maybe a few city blocks in suburban areas.

  35. "Global" by cstacy · · Score: 1

    We could call cell phones "globals". Say, I hear I'll be able to get a CVI from Google soon! I wonder what "motivational imperative" it will come with?

  36. Dear Faceless Conglomorate Tracking Me by Grimbleton · · Score: 1

    Please continue to tailor the world to my interests, make products I enjoy, and use the data you collect about me to show me things I may enjoy owning/partaking of in the future.

    Sincerely,

    Someone who isn't insane and paranoid.

    P.S. Bring back Firefly, you guys really missed the mark there. Come on.

    1. Re:Dear Faceless Conglomorate Tracking Me by turkeyfeathers · · Score: 1

      Enjoy spending all your paychecks on products you don't really need, Mr Faceless Exploitable Consumer.

    2. Re:Dear Faceless Conglomorate Tracking Me by Grimbleton · · Score: 1

      Oh I will.

    3. Re:Dear Faceless Conglomorate Tracking Me by turkeyfeathers · · Score: 1

      That's what we want you to think. -Faceless Comglomerate Tracking You

  37. Suggested solution - flight mode scheduling by jago25_98 · · Score: 1

    - Android phone with Tasker.
    - Set Tasker to toggle on & offline flight mode in intervals - more online time for quicker response to messages, more offline time for more privacy
    - use Replicant as your ROM distro or Cyanogen if that's not an option. Bear in mind Replicant isn't fully secure due to the binary modem blob but afaik it's the best we have (other than Symbian?)
    - collect your SMS and voicemails when you feel like it ... miss a few important contracts :/

    1. Re:Suggested solution - flight mode scheduling by cheros · · Score: 1

      Starting with Android for a privacy device is planning to design a prison by choosing cheesecake as building material..

      Google made it very clear that they no longer needed Streetview WiFi slurping because the Android handsets would now do it - see item 47, which kinda suggests the Wifi thing was no accident after all, just a beta test that leaked..

      So thanks, but no thanks. I am rather more interested in the attempts by some ex Nokia people to revive Meego..

      --
      Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
  38. better name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like the idea. You all can reach me at my tracker if you need to speak.

  39. Not trackers - Shekel Generators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The purpose of the tracking is so the jews can suck as many shekels as possible from you. The shekel stream is enormous The biggest jews are your jewphone provider. Then there are other jews chipping away at you, the Jewpple Jewphone being notorious for jewing huge amounts of shekels out of you.

    BEWARE JEWPPLE AND JEWOOGLE

  40. Point taken by jago25_98 · · Score: 1

    I see your point. It's a terrible starting point and the trust of the company is broken anyway so why give them the business.

    However, that viewpoint is directly against Replicant just a little too quickly:
    http://replicant.us/faq/
    You're also going against the companies out there advising and customising phones including Android for corporations.

    I was thinking of going back to Symbian. I had a E55 and E71 before this Galaxy and prefered the battery and maps coverage but is that any better? What phone do you use?

    Other best plan I have is carrying 2 phones; an old phone for phone operations and then something bigger but somehow definitely offline somehow, that can be made online quickly if I need it (quicker than a battery pull). I think breaking the usefulness into separate devices is another strategy. How's about putting the darn things in a metal box?
    Another strategy I can think of is to act like a businessman with corporate secrets to protect and go with whatever they use. Can you comment on Blackberry?

    I don't know why I take such an interest in privacy, it's thankfully feels like an intellectual exercise. But by doing it we learn things that are useful in less paranoid situations. For example, saving battery when there's no source of power for days... or when innocent but on the run.

    1. Re:Point taken by cheros · · Score: 1

      It depends what risk you're defending against. Tracking: if it's a government organisation, you're out of luck as they will track from inside the telco. If it's a foreign agency you still have a problem if they know your number, because a black SMS will still come back to any global telco who can generate his with location data - the intercompany SMS exchanges do not strip that data. The only way you can prevent location data being disclosed there is by simply not using a phone at the location you don't want tracked. Using 2 phones is only ever going to be effective if you never kill/power up both at the same location, because the IMSI correlation is quickly made (this is how they catch insider traders in London who use a separate phone).

      Intercept gets a bit more involved. A government agency taps inside the telco. A spy/PI/hacker is more likely to mimic a local cell and grab your data that way, but that requires local presence and $1k worth of kit (that's the amateur version, the real stuff you don't get for less than a 6..7 digits number)..

      When it comes to data and GPS data, this gets tricky. I have location services off on my phone unless I need them, and I watch VERY carefully what an app does with data on my phone. I don't use Viber because it doesn't encrypt vioce, I don't use WhatApp because it wants to export my address book to the US and EVERY comms is via a US core server (iMessage is the same).

      At present, I have found it easier to get secured comms set up on an iPhone than on any other platform. As for Blackberry, I know government deployment always involves a local, national server with local key handling. The affair with India was enough to ruin trust in that platform..

      I like Symbian, and it's a shame it got abandoned..

      --
      Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
  41. idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "....could be an simple way to raise privacy awareness." Ever heard of A,E,I,O,U and sometimes Y??? Idiot. It should be "...could be a simple way to raise privacy awareness." You're probably an American...the product of such an awesome education system. Way to show off your ignorance.

  42. Compare to a satellite dish by tepples · · Score: 1

    Not anymore than it's necessary to know where your TV station's broadcast tower is to receive programming content.

    I thought a parabolic antenna had to be pointed at the broadcast tower when the broadcast tower is far away, especially when it is tens of thousands of miles away in geostationary orbit. Likewise, cellular providers use directional antennas on their towers to make cells smaller so that they can add more subscribers on each tower.

  43. Should people move for pay phone coverage? by tepples · · Score: 1
    BitterOak wrote:

    When's the last time you saw a phone booth or a pay phone? There are a couple left in the city where I live, but not many.

    pubwvj wrote:

    We still have pay phones around here.

    Around where? There may be enough pay phones where you live, but apparently this is not the case where BitterOak lives. Or are you recommending that people where BitterOak lives move to where you live?

  44. Negotiate over voice mail by tepples · · Score: 1

    Then arrange these hangouts a week in advance through voice mail. They call your voice mail and offer a play date, and then you call their voice mail and accept, reject, or counter-offer. Spontaneity is a luxury, not a necessity

    1. Re:Negotiate over voice mail by Eightbitgnosis · · Score: 1

      Hey if that works for you, go for it. But I find it very strange and a bit disrespectful to my family require a week's notice to even have a conversation with me