An End To Phone Pranking (axios.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: A researcher at Carnegie Mellon University has developed an intelligent system that is helping the U.S. Coast Guard to distinguish and weed out prank mayday calls that cost it up to millions of dollars a year when it flies or motors out on pointless rescue missions, per Govtech.com. The program, created by Carnegie Mellon's Rita Singh, creates a barcode of a person's voice, deciphering whether the caller really is on a boat or actually in a house somewhere. It can unmask repeat pranksters since it can pick up telltale markers and match them up.

Comments

Whilst a really cool technology

[Oswald McWeany]

Whilst a really cool technology, I hope it never makes a mistake and says a real-life situation is really a prank.

The cost of mistake with this tech could be one or more people's lives.

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[green1]

That's my concern too. a false positive rate of even 0.0001% would still be unacceptably high for this particular application.

A much better strategy is simply higher fines and enforcement for prank calls. It won't eliminate them, but it's much lower risk.

When dealing with emergency services, you MUST treat ALL calls as valid until fully investigated. If proven false, enforcement action is warranted, but not investigating it is not.

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[jellomizer]

Many newer phone have increasingly better noise canceling technology. Or pick you speech from vibrations in your bones, then a normal over the air microphone.

Sure most calls would be from the boats radio, but increasingly it may be from a cell phone (If in range of a tower)

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[bluefoxlucid]

From an economic standpoint, wasted millions of dollars equates to a slowed economy and an increase in poverty in the general. Wasted money and waste labor really can lead to life-sustaining services not reaching the poor, resulting in poverty, disease, and death.

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[Anubis IV]

Going back to the original article, it sounds less like a black box that produces a Prank/No Prank decision, and more like a complex program that produces a list of characteristics present in the call, which the Coast Guard can then use to make the decision themselves.

For instance, it can match voices and even the sound of one's breath to previous calls, allowing the Coast Guard to recognize repeat pranksters. It can tell from the sound of a voice what sort of room the caller is in (e.g. lots of windows), enabling them to get a sense for whether the person might be lying about their location (e.g. "We're capsizing in this storm!" is a lot less believable if the person is in a concrete room).

In the meantime though, the Coast Guard indicated they're responding to about 99% of calls that they believe are pranks, despite believing they're pranks. As you said, the risk to not respond is too high. Thankfully, this software is giving them more tools to help in the post-prank investigation and enforcement side of things.

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[aardvarkjoe]

Whilst a really cool technology, I hope it never makes a mistake and says a real-life situation is really a prank.

The obvious thing to do is that if the computer says that it's a prank, to follow up further to try to determine if it's real or not.

Most of these are presumably coming from kids or really immature adults. Simply telling them that you're on to them and there are serious punishments for falsely claiming that there is an emergency will probably be enough to get most of them to hang up.

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[narcc]

That's a matter of perspective, isn't it?

If we say that the system detects fraud, a false positive would be the system detecting a real result as fraudulent.

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[jnork]

For that matter, how many rescues for real emergencies will not be mounted in a timely manner due to resources having been diverted to cover a prank call?

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[skids]

made prank pizza delivery to some LOSER FAKE NEWS magazine years ago
now LOSER 911 hangs up on me when hotel on fire. SAD! THEY ARE SO SUED. LOSERS.

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[Strider-]

On the other hand, while I would never condone prank/improper calls, in many situations they effectively serve as impromptu training for the coasties.

I'm a recreational keelboat sailor in the south-west coast of Canada/PNW USA, and it's both hilarious and frustrating to listen to VHF 16 on summer weekends. The number of ill-prepared people, those who don't know proper radio procedure, etc... is mind blowing. It's like what September was back in the golden era of Usenet. I much prefer sailing in the winter; the winds are better, and there are fewer idiots on the water.

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[Strider-]

Sure most calls would be from the boats radio, but increasingly it may be from a cell phone (If in range of a tower)

No competent mariner/boater would make a distress call via a cell phone. One of the basic rules of being on the water is that, with a few exceptions, everyone is monitoring VHF 16, and all modern radios are also monitoring DSC. The water, even inshore ocean or lakes, is an unforgiving place, if you're in real trouble you want the closest person to respond, and in turn if you're the closest person, you respond. You can't do that if the distress was made over a cell phone. On two occasions, even in my 27' sailboat with a 9hp motor, I've put other boats under tow, or at least stood by, when they're in trouble.

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[Strider-]

There are other ways they could accomplish the same thing, not just through analyzing the audio though. The coastguard has a large network of radio receivers and transmitters to monitor their various channels. It always surprises me that they don't have directionfinding capabilities associated with that. The cutters and other larger vessels usually do, but the terrestrial network usually doesn't seem to. When someone keys up a radio and makes a call, they should be able to get a line on them pretty much instantly.

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[green1]

Having made the mistake at one point of sailing on a long weekend off of Victoria BC, I fully agree. However we aren't even talking about those people in this article. The article is talking about people sitting in their living room and pretending to be on a sinking ship. These calls have no value at all. However I really think the best course of action for those calls is to use investigative techniques to track down the caller, and then fine them enough to cover the response, the investigation, and all other related costs.

As for training. The coast guard is fully capable of arranging their own training as needed, and the types of responses they do for unnecessary calls actually detracts from, rather than contributes to that training.

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[green1]

I am not saying that prank calls should not be dealt with, only that this is not the appropriate way of doing so.

That said, I might be in favour of using such a thing as part of a triage tool, for example if you have N resources available, but N+1 calls that come in, this could be used as a small part of the algorithm that decides which calls get the resources first. But if you have N resources, and no more than N calls, I can't advocate ignoring the call based on this technology.

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[green1]

I don't think you understand what counts as a "positive" in a system detecting prank events. "positive" would be a prank, a "false positive" would be a real call that was labelled by the system as a prank.

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[green1]

Their large network is designed for increased coverage, not for direction finding. As such, a large percentage of calls only reach a single tower, not the multiple towers required for easy direction finding.
Vessels use other tricks, but they require active work with specialized gear to do the location, something not practical with a single land based repeater tower.

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[green1]

Unfortunately it's been shown that it also causes some people in real distress to hang up.

It's much better for use in post prank investigation and followup.

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[LeftCoastThinker]

It seems like it would be a better solution to set up an array of directional antennas (since most of these calls are coming from VHF radios) and ignore the calls giving a location that is more than 90 degrees off from the vectored location of the radio origination signal. Keeping a voice print of the call and nailing these asshats for felonies if/when they ever do get caught is also a good idea though. Let them enjoy PMITA prison for 6 months and they will learn not to prank emergency services.

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[aardvarkjoe]

Unfortunately it's been shown that it also causes some people in real distress to hang up.

You can't always save people from themselves. Let Darwin's law take its course.

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[Obfuscant]

On the other hand, while I would never condone prank/improper calls, in many situations they effectively serve as impromptu training for the coasties.

What an asinine statement. The "coasties", as you derisively refer to them, have plenty of training opportunities, all of them more effective than a fake mayday call.

The differences between training and actual rescue missions are several and significant. First, training takes place when there is no actual life at risk. A fake mayday call can draw resources from an area that may wind up needing them for a real mayday call. A helo that is 30 miles out to sea looking for a fake "lost person" cannot also be 30 miles away looking for someone who is actually lost at sea. A helo already tasked with a search for one lost person will not be available to search for another one, but a helo on an exercise mission will immediately divert to the real emergency when necessary.

Second, a training exercise can and will be called on account of safety without any hesitation, but a real search may proceed in less than optimal safety situations. In fact, the act of performing a search has hazards associated with it. Some of those hazards are acceptable when there is a life at stake but not when it is a fake call. You can't properly apply risk management if you don't know the rewards.

These people risk their lives to save yours, when you need it. It's a volunteer service; they could be doing any of a thousand other jobs, but they joined the Coast Guard for a reason. Trying to excuse fake mayday calls as "training" for the "coasties" is, indeed, condoning them. There is no excuse for them at all.

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[Obfuscant]

As such, a large percentage of calls only reach a single tower, not the multiple towers required for easy direction finding.

You don't need multiple towers for direction finding. You just need to have DF equipment installed there. It's not even what you see in the old spy movies with a big rotating loop anymore, it's an array of four or eight antennas and the answer is almost instantaneous.

Vessels use other tricks, but they require active work with specialized gear to do the location, something not practical with a single land based repeater tower.

The same DF gear installed on a ship can be installed on a tower. The ship can move to triangulate on the source if the call is repeated, is all. If the call is a one-off fake, however, neither a ship nor a tower alone can do the triangulation.

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[green1]

I've used DF equipment, and it's not as perfect as you make it sound.
Sure it will give you a bearing, but there's only so much precision to it, and it won't give you distance, only direction.

It's a small help, but not really enough to locate a prankster. Especially the most common kind, the ones who like to watch their prank unfold, and who are therefore by necessity somewhere relatively close to where they claim to be.

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[green1]

Do you want it to be your life that's lost on that one call?

Emergency services need to treat ALL calls as real until proven otherwise. This is however a great tool to be used in investigative work after the fact to find, arrest, and charge the perpetrators of any pranks. The goal should be to decrease the prank calls through enforcement, not to ignore calls that might be pranks.

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[green1]

If we truly believed that we'd disband the fire department, the police force, the coast guard, and any health care that still remained in your country.

As a society we've decided to move beyond that.

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[Strider-]

I've used DF equipment, and it's not as perfect as you make it sound.
Sure it will give you a bearing, but there's only so much precision to it, and it won't give you distance, only direction.

Sure, but it's good enough to tell if the radio call is coming from a plausible direction. If your repeater tower is located on shore, and it's detecting the call coming from inland...

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[green1]

I think you missed my entire second paragraph.

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[Strider-]

What an asinine statement. The "coasties", as you derisively refer to them, have plenty of training opportunities, all of them more effective than a fake mayday call.

I guess I wasn't clear enough. Around here, the term "Coastie" is a term of endearment, not derision. They're out there, working hard, often putting their butts on the line when we get into trouble.

My thought process in terms of the training comment comes from the work I've done with a volunteer fire brigade at a remote site. We respond to all fire alarms equally, and thus far all but 3 in the past 50 years have been false. However, if the alarm happens to come in on a nice afternoon, and there's not much else going on, we'll use it as a training opportunity. Pull hose, enter/search the building as though it is filled with smoke, charge the hoses and train on handling them, you name it.

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[aardvarkjoe]

If we truly believed that we'd disband the fire department, the police force, the coast guard, and any health care that still remained in your country.

As a society we've decided to move beyond that.

There's a difference between "saving people" and "saving people from themselves."

If somebody, in a real emergency, decides to hang up during their emergency call -- well, I can't muster a whole lot of sympathy if things don't turn out well for them.

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[Obfuscant]

I've used DF equipment, and it's not as perfect as you make it sound.

You're replying to someone other than me, because never said it was perfect. I said you can DF from a tower.

Sure it will give you a bearing,

That is what DIRECTION finding is.

It's a small help, but not really enough to locate a prankster.

Again, you must be replying to someone else, because I was pretty specific in talking about triangulating a location later, and only DFing when I corrected the error of claiming it couldn't be done from a tower.

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[tattood]

We respond to all fire alarms equally, and thus far all but 3 in the past 50 years have been false. However, if the alarm happens to come in on a nice afternoon, and there's not much else going on, we'll use it as a training opportunity. Pull hose, enter/search the building as though it is filled with smoke, charge the hoses and train on handling them, you name it.

The difference is that when you get to a false fire, you can quickly determine that it is fake, and then choose to use it for training, or go back to the fire house. The coast guard has to continue searching for the boat for a time because it may have drifted from the location that was reported.

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[bws111]

You're missing the point. Emergency services is not an unlimited resource. If a crew is out on a wild goose chase they are unavailable for a real emergency. No matter how many crews you have, there is always the possibility that one more will be required than is available. Do you want it to be your life that's lost because the crews were busy on a false alarm?

So the question is: would more lives be saved by filtering out false alarms (even if there are some false positives) than would be saved by not filtering out false alarms?

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[green1]

No, you're missing the point. I'm not denying that false alarms are a real problem, they absolutely are. I'm simply explaining that filtering can not be the solution to that problem.

You don't solve false alarms by guessing at which ones are legit and ignoring the rest. You solve false alarms through enforcement and deterrence. Used correctly, this technology is a great enforcement tool, and regular enforcement leads to deterrence.

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[green1]

90% of what emergency services respond to is "saving people from themselves"

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[aardvarkjoe]

90% of what emergency services respond to is "saving people from themselves"

Not to the extent that this is. Not even close.

We're talking about someone, in a real emergency, who decides to hang up on the person who can help them. Some people are too stupid to be worth bothering with.

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[apparently]

No competent mariner/boater would make a distress call via a cell phone

They would if that's the only means of communication they had left, genius. The fact that they're instituting this in the first place is proof that they receive legitimate calls via cell phone.

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[Obfuscant]

The difference is that when you get to a false fire,

The other difference is when the "coasties", those lazy bums that they are, get any time off to rest or relax they actually need the time to rest and relax, or to perform any number of shore duties that go along with being a member of a military service. They deserve whatever time they get ashore, and don't deserve to be told that they ought to be out on a fake search for training.

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[green1]

Don't forget that we're talking about a situation where the emergency services person specifically told the caller that they didn't believe that it was a real call. This changes a LOT about your scenario.

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[Strider-]

I think this got taken completely the wrong way, which definitely wasn't my intent. Like I said above, the term I used is one of endearment. It's no different than referring to a member of the RCMP as a "Mountie." They work hard, train hard, and put their lives on the line for the sake of others. Nor am I saying that this justifies things or anything else. Secondly, in many nations, the Coast Guard is an independent organization, not part of the military.

Anyhow, my sister's previous boyfriend was a SAR Tech. In his job, they had to have a certain number of hours performing their job in order to maintain their skills, and maintain official reasyness. Same for the pilots, the guys in the boats, etc... If they got sent out on a call, the hours while on the call counted towards their requirements. If they didn't get called out, they would have to go out and do exercises and what not anyway. Sometimes they would get called out, the problem would get subsequently resolved before they arrived on scene (say another boater picked up the folks in the water, or someone on scene determined it was a mistake, whatever), depending on their hours requirements, and conditions, they might continue to go through the motions anyway. That was my entire point.

How you mistook that to constue justifying false calls, I don't get. It's just the whole trying to make the best out of a shitty situation. If someone makes a false report, they deserve to have the world come down on them like a ton of bricks. There is zero excuse for it.

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[aardvarkjoe]

Don't forget that we're talking about a situation where the emergency services person specifically told the caller that they didn't believe that it was a real call. This changes a LOT about your scenario.

No. It doesn't. How the hell does hanging up on the person rather than saying, "no, I really am in trouble" make the least bit of sense?

The person you're postulating is far too stupid to be worth saving.

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[green1]

So pranksters just need to say"no this is real" and we'll now start sending real resources again? I'm sure none of them will think of that!

Telling someone who's already panicking that you won't help them and don't believe them is quite likely to get them to hang up because they see no point to staying on the line with someone who won't help them.

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[Obfuscant]

Secondly, in many nations, the Coast Guard is an independent organization, not part of the military.

The US Coast Guard is a military organization.

If they didn't get called out, they would have to go out and do exercises and what not anyway.

I've already explained why "training" and "fake emergency" are two very different things. The fact that everyone involved needs to keep well trained does not excuse in any way the idiots who make fake distress calls. "They have to put in hours anyway" is just stupid.

depending on their hours requirements, and conditions, they might continue to go through the motions anyway

The US Coast Guard does not continue executing a search for a fake distress call just so they can "go through the motions". They don't "go through the motions". Training is planned for specific goals and to be safe; a fake distress call results in a real response which can involve significant risks to life and property.

How you mistook that to constue justifying false calls,

Well, they have to train anyway, and they'll go through the motions for a fake distress call ... you figure it out.

There is zero excuse for it.

And yet you continue to give excuses for why it isn't so bad after all. You claim to be a boater. I hope you never wind up trying to get a response from the US Coast Guard to come save your life while they are busy executing a search for a fake distress call and cannot bring resources to your aid because they are already committed. Maybe then your "they have to put in the hours" excuse will seem less reasonable.

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[aardvarkjoe]

So pranksters just need to say"no this is real" and we'll now start sending real resources again? I'm sure none of them will think of that!

And with this, you've made it dead obvious that you haven't bothered to read and understand my posts.

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[green1]

More so than you who believe that people won't care if Emergency Services claim they don't believe them and are not going to send help. That will cause the vast majority of people to give up and try to find other ways of dealing with their situation. They may start phoning friends or family. But they won't stay on the line with someone who is flat-out claimed they will not help them.

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[MercTech]

I have a feeling that the article emphasized a feature it that is not he one the Coasties are really interested in.... database of caller voices to prosecute repeat pranksters.

  For the caller environment algorithms: Like 911 operators; if the caller says they are on the side of the road at an accident and you can hear the television going in the background; more questions are warranted before rolling emergency personnel. A person calling the Coast Guard from their living room and claiming to be watching a boat go down warrants more questions as well. Hopefully this tech will become prevalent with local police as well then it might be easier to incarcerate jokers who think a SWAT call on a person is hilarious.

Re:Whilst a really cool technology

[Anubis IV]

Nonsense. If CSI has taught me anything, it's that they just need to press the Enhance button a few times to get great results.

So now that this is public info...

[Penguinisto]

...what's to stop said prankster from playing audio of a boat in the background?

Re:So now that this is public info...

[aardvarkjoe]

...what's to stop said prankster from playing audio of a boat in the background?

In general, people who are prank calling the Coast Guard probably aren't terribly bright.

Re:So now that this is public info...

[thegarbz]

...what's to stop said prankster from playing audio of a boat in the background?

People who play dumb pranks with other's lives typically don't think about it in any great way. The kind of pranks that are well thought out and meticulously planned are typically those between family members or best friends.

Re:So now that this is public info...

[Salgak1]

Or Shia LaBeouf's "He will not divide us" flag.

NEVER underestimate the power of Weaponized Autism. . . .

Re:So now that this is public info...

[fnj]

In general, people who are prank calling the Coast Guard probably aren't terribly bright.

In general, making stupid assumptions is stupid. And of what use is "in general"?

Bizarre

[pubwvj]

It is amazing to me that people do this sort of irresponsible behavior.

Re:Bizarre

[sudden.zero]

Me too! As an avid boater I don't appreciate the possibility of being put in danger because some prankster caused the development of a system like this. If I am stuck on the water, in danger, I want the coast guard to come to my rescue. I definitely don't want them wasting time trying to determine if I am an actual boater in distress or a prankster. When a boat is sinking or on fire time is of the essence!!

Re:Bizarre

[Anonymous Coward]

When you take your boat out on the water, you are assuming a certain amount of risk that goes along with it. This is well known to any professional captain. You know that each time you shove off, it could be your last. The risk is small and is generally acceptable to those who enjoy the activity as recreation or rely on it as a career. You cannot rely on the Coast Guard to always save your bacon, there may come a day when they simply are unable to get to you in time or at all. This is the bargain you strike with the sea each time you put yourself at its mercy. All captains know and understand this.

Re:Bizarre

[bluefoxlucid]

They don't accept the risk of assholes, though; in general, we create a society to stop assholes from causing us harm.

Re:Bizarre

[jellomizer]

Well it is like many of the computer hackers and virus makers. They fine some stupid justification for it, and not realize the scope of the problems they cause.

Re:Bizarre

[jellomizer]

When ever I get up in the morning, there is a chance that something will kill me that day. However I welcome the verity of services and infrastructures that tries to keep me safe, and help rescue me if I am in danger.
I am well aware that these services and infrastructure may not be able to save me, but I still hope they are available. And that is why I don't abuse these services as they will then be able to help someone else, and hope others are not abusing it for the time I may need it.

Re:Bizarre

[cascadingstylesheet]

Me too! As an avid boater I don't appreciate the possibility of being put in danger because some prankster caused the development of a system like this. If I am stuck on the water, in danger, I want the coast guard to come to my rescue. I definitely don't want them wasting time trying to determine if I am an actual boater in distress or a prankster. When a boat is sinking or on fire time is of the essence!!

Precisely. "Pranksters" should get long prison sentences. This isn't something that can be solved with spam filters.

Re:Bizarre

[Calydor]

When you take your CAR out on the ROADS, you are assuming a certain amount of risk that goes along with it. This is well known to any professional DRIVER. You know that each time you DRIVE off, it could be your last. The risk is small and is generally acceptable to those who enjoy the activity as recreation or rely on it as a career. You cannot rely on the POLICE/AAA to always save your bacon, there may come a day when they simply are unable to get to you in time or at all. This is the bargain you strike with the ROAD each time you put yourself at its mercy. All DRIVERS know and understand this.

Re:Bizarre

[R3d M3rcury]

When a boat is [...] on fire time is of the essence!!

If you're on a boat that's on fire, you have a whole lot of water around to put the fire out.

Damn, nowadays these sheeple expect the government to do everything....

(And, yes, I'm kidding)

Re:Bizarre

[thegarbz]

This only looks at silly voice calls. If you were in the shit then fire up your EPIRB. It's a far better system than a mayday call anyway.

Re:Bizarre

[angel'o'sphere]

About a week a go a group of young men watched a guy drowning in a pond in Florida.

Instead of helping or calling a rescue, they made stupid comments and filmed themselves and him and posted it on FB.

Re:Bizarre

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

I am a tax payer and I am not an avid boater. I have no reason to save you at all costs. Only as long as rescue costs are reasonable, it will be funded. If the cost becomes too much, we would yank the entire rescue service. We, the taxpayers, might impose additional restrictions like demanding people provide gps coordinates etc. After the rescue, we would insist on an accident review, and if we find the boater has taken unnecessary risk, or had not followed procedure, a stiff fine might be levied. If necessary the entire cost of rescue should be charged to the user.

So it is in your own interest, people so research like this, and make the research reliable and make pranking a pointless exercise.

At some point we would insist on boating to be taxed so that boater rescue is self funding.

Re:Bizarre

[Registered Coward v2]

Me too! As an avid boater I don't appreciate the possibility of being put in danger because some prankster caused the development of a system like this. If I am stuck on the water, in danger, I want the coast guard to come to my rescue. I definitely don't want them wasting time trying to determine if I am an actual boater in distress or a prankster. When a boat is sinking or on fire time is of the essence!!

That's what an EPIRB is for; especially since the cost of one has gotten to the point where even smaller craft can have one onboard. In an emergency, I'd like to know my position is being sent to rescue craft while I deal with emergency. Personally, pranksters like those mentioned need to face large fines and long person sentences for endangering not only mariners in trouble but reduce crews who go out on false alarms. A friend flew SAR for the USCG, often in bad weather because tats when emergencies happen, to have him and his crew place themselves in danger so some punk gets their kicks makes me think an appropriate punishment would be to put them out to sea alone on a boat in extremis in bad weather and let them try to convince the USCG it isn't a prank this time.

Re:Bizarre

[Strider-]

Precisely. "Pranksters" should get long prison sentences. This isn't something that can be solved with spam filters.

On the flip side, sometimes it's hard to tell the pranksters from those who are just incompetent. Due to ancient history, there's no licensing, training, or testing requirements for those going out on the water in many nations. In Canada we have the PCOC (Pleasure Craft Operator's Certificate), but it's a pretty low bar to cross.

Anyhow, a year ago I was sailing off the coast of southern California last summer, and this guy punches his distress button because he wrapped one of his dock lines around both propellers on his boat, and was drifting out towards San Clemente island. Big boat, quiet seas. Guy didn't know how to operate his radio, change channels, and kept giving his coordinates as somewhere on land in East Los Angeles. Turns out the coordinates he was reading off were those of where the cursor on his chart plotter was, not what his GPS was reading. The guy was a moron, and didn't want to pay the $1900 bill for sea tow to haul his ass back to port. It went on for hours, and definitely wasn't a mayday situation (yet). He was fine, the boat was in no danger of sinking, he was just disabled and was too cheap to pay for a tow, or to ahve paid for towing insurance.

Re:Bizarre

[green1]

Thing is, this isn't even talking about stupid boaters (of which I have witnessed far too many!). It's talking about outright pranks, where even the person making the call doesn't believe there is any reason to do so. Generally this is some person sitting comfortably at home but claiming to be in a boat taking on water or some such.

Re:Bizarre

[green1]

Depends on the situation. EPIRB is great, but it is not as instant as a voice call, in fact there can be significant delays in getting the location and dispatching resources, and it does not allow for any description of what the emergency is, or for you to receive either acknowledgement that help is on the way, or instructions on how to help yourself in the meantime or to help prepare for their arrival.

I have been part of SAR responses for EPIRBs, they work, but they're more of a last resort option than a first choice if you're in actual trouble. (though by all means, if you are experiencing a real life threatening emergency, don't chose one option, choose ALL options available to you)

Re:Bizarre

[green1]

Should the person living on a boat pay for the fire department to be available for your house?
As a society we've decided to work together so that everyone shoulders the burden equally. They pay for you just as much as you pay for them.

Re:Bizarre

[green1]

EPIRB is great, but it's slow compared to a voice call, doesn't transmit what the emergency is, and doesn't allow for any confirmation that help is on the way, or allow rescuers to communicate with you.
I've done SAR response for EPIRBs, they work, but a voice call will always get you help faster.

Re:Bizarre

[Oswald McWeany]

I am a tax payer and I am not an avid boater. I have no reason to save you at all costs.

Ahhh... so
If you don't have kids, you shouldn't have to pay taxes for schools.
If you don't drive, you shouldn't have to pay to up keep roads.
You never want us to be at war with another country, so why should you pay taxes to fund the military.
You've never had your house robbed, why should your taxes go to pay for the police. You're not expecting to be held up at gunpoint any time soon- screw paying for a police force.
You don't go to national parks, why should you have to pay for it?
None of your family are unemployed, why should you pay taxes for benefits.
You live on a hill, why should you pay for flood control in your city.
You're not a woman, why should your taxes pay for rape prevention initiatives.

Re:Bizarre

[Strider-]

an EPIRB doesn't summon the boat half a mile away from you to come and help. EPIRBs are a godsend offshore, or in truly isolated areas, but they're not a substitute for making that call over the radio. On the water, everyone be they coastguard or not, is expected to respond to a distress call if feasible and safe to do so. One of the "good" things about being a slow sailboat is that we're rarely in a position to respond, but over the years I've done so twice. In one case, it was to bring in a disabled runabout that was lost in a fog bank with a disabled engine (we just happened onto him), and the other was picking up a kite surfer who was stranded a mile offshore with his lines all in tangles and kite under water.

Basically, it's not just the coast guard who responds, but any available boat or mariner. If I ever wind up in trouble, I hope that someone else will come and give me a hand.

Re:Bizarre

[Obfuscant]

In an emergency, I'd like to know my position is being sent to rescue craft while I deal with emergency.

Unfortunately, using just an EPIRB, you don't know that.

There is a wonderful story about an NPS ranger, I think it was, going out on a solo weekend patrol in one of the larger national parks. He had his radio, but was out of range after just a couple of hours. He had his GPS, but GPS is receive only. So the NPS was relying on a satellite service like SPOT, if it wasn't SPOT itself.

He's out recording locations of different things, and he's checking in every few hours like he's supposed to using the SPOT. It's got all the correct lights on saying it's working properly. He thinks everything's ok.

Late Saturday he hears an aircraft in the distance, which he assumes is just someone flying by.

Sunday he gets back to the office and finds that they've just started gathering a full response search team to go looking for him. It turns out that his SPOT device was not communicating with anyone and he was seriously overdue for a checkin.

So, no, you do NOT risk your life using an EPIRB as the only means of communicating that you are in an emergency. The EPIRB is a BACKUP and last resort for when other means are not available or don't work.

Re:Bizarre

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

First home owner's taxes fund a large part of our fire departments. What percentage of Coast Guard budget comes from boaters taxes? The boaters need to thank their lucky stars we non boaters fund rescue services. And stop being so demanding.

Second, whats sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander too. If the prank calls make fire service unaffordable, we need to disband fire services too. But long before it comes to that we home owners will band together and find the source of prank calls and make sure the situation does not escalate. Same thing the boaters should do. To rescue the rescue service.

Re:Bizarre

[Strider-]

I am a tax payer and I am not an avid boater. I have no reason to save you at all costs. Only as long as rescue costs are reasonable, it will be funded. If the cost becomes too much, we would yank the entire rescue service.

That would be a gross violation of over 1000 years of jurisprudence and legal precedence, not to mention the violation of any number of modern international agreements and treaties. Every seafaring nation has a duty of care for the waters they border, and every mariner be they recreational or commercial, is part of the system. This is the cost of being a nation, and of engaging in maritime trade.

Now, that said, most distress situations are only coordinated by the coastguard rather than run by them. I've responded to a couple of distress situations over the years while out sailing. In one case it was a stranded kitesurfer, in the other case a motorboat with a dead engine. In the kitesurfer, he was a mile off the beach, with a flooded kite and cold. I took him onboard, gathered up the kite, and took him to the nearest dock. In the case of the motorboat I tossed them a line, and held them off the rocks until the local tow service (commercial operation) got out there to haul him into the dock. In both cases I would never expect compensation beyond a thank-you; I just expect that the same consideration would be given to me in return should I ever run into trouble.

Re:Bizarre

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

I am a tax payer and I am not an avid boater. I have no reason to save you at all costs.

Ahhh... so If you don't have kids, you shouldn't have to pay unreasonable amount of taxes for schools. If you don't drive, you shouldn't have to pay unreasonable amount to up keep roads. You never want us to be at war with another country, so why should you pay unreasonable amount of taxes to fund the military. You've never had your house robbed, why should your taxes go to pay for the police. You're not expecting to be held up at gunpoint any time soon- screw paying for a police force. You don't go to national parks, why should you have to pay unreasonable amounts for it? None of your family are unemployed, why should you pay unreasonable amount of taxes for benefits. You live on a hill, why should you pay unreasonable amount of for flood control in your city. You're not a woman, why should your taxes unreasonable amount of pay for rape prevention initiatives.

Do you get the point? That boater dude was demanding to be rescued no matter what the cost was. That demand must be squarely and roundly rejected.

Re:Bizarre

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Home owners pay a larger part of the upkeep of the fire department. Compared to how much boaters pay for rescuing their sorry asses out of trouble.

Further, if prank calls make fire departments unreasonably expensive, we have to disband fire department too. Whats sauce of the goose is the sauce for the gander.

Re:Bizarre

[green1]

You don't think people who have boats pay taxes?
Statistically they pay more taxes on average than those who do not.

The solution to misuse of emergency services is never to disband that service. the solution is to find the pranksters and deal with them.

Re:Bizarre

[Oswald McWeany]

Do you get the point? That boater dude was demanding to be rescued no matter what the cost was. That demand must be squarely and roundly rejected.

How much do you consider a reasonable amount for saving someone's life? I'm sure for the person whose life is in danger (and remember, it could be you, even if not boating), they wouldn't be thinking, ahh... it'll cost $20,000 to save me, they should just let me die.

Re:Bizarre

[fnj]

Yes, I am depressed by the actions of stupid, evil people. But not surprised.

Re:Bizarre

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

What *I* think as reasonable completely irrelevant. But people must accept there are limits to what the government can do. We have a democracy, and we vote and we will come to some sort of agreement about what is reasonable and what is not.

But the stand taken by the original poster about the prank calls wasting resources is irrelevant and the entire coast guard must be on his beck and call to rescue his sorry ass out of water is completely unreasonable.

Re:Bizarre

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Yes, and how you would have felt after responding a distress call you find a few teenagers laughing at you?

That 1000 years of jurisprudence is just a convention. No nation or people are expected to do unreasonable or heroic things. If they do, they get praised. If not, it is just being part of the risk of going to the sea. How many boiler explosions? How many riverboats caught fire? How much was the rescue effort? Has any nation, state or municipality been ever charged with not mounting a rescue operation? Has anyone challenged the assertion by the local fire chief, "It is too dangerous, it too dark, it is too windy, let us call it off"?

Re:Bizarre

[Registered Coward v2]

EPIRB is great, but it's slow compared to a voice call, doesn't transmit what the emergency is, and doesn't allow for any confirmation that help is on the way, or allow rescuers to communicate with you. I've done SAR response for EPIRBs, they work, but a voice call will always get you help faster.

Good points. I would guess having an EPIRB broadcasting the need for help would validate a concurrent voice call.

Re:Bizarre

[Registered Coward v2]

So, no, you do NOT risk your life using an EPIRB as the only means of communicating that you are in an emergency. The EPIRB is a BACKUP and last resort for when other means are not available or don't work.

I would fully agree. My point was vessels ought to be required to have one as a means of communication; even if it is a backup. In addition, it would help validate a voice call from a vessel in distress.

Re:Bizarre

[Registered Coward v2]

an EPIRB doesn't summon the boat half a mile away from you to come and help. EPIRBs are a godsend offshore, or in truly isolated areas, but they're not a substitute for making that call over the radio. On the water, everyone be they coastguard or not, is expected to respond to a distress call if feasible and safe to do so. One of the "good" things about being a slow sailboat is that we're rarely in a position to respond, but over the years I've done so twice. In one case, it was to bring in a disabled runabout that was lost in a fog bank with a disabled engine (we just happened onto him), and the other was picking up a kite surfer who was stranded a mile offshore with his lines all in tangles and kite under water.

Basically, it's not just the coast guard who responds, but any available boat or mariner. If I ever wind up in trouble, I hope that someone else will come and give me a hand.

All good points, and certainly any mariner should respond to a distress call; and I agree there is no substitute for voice calls. Auto beacons are great as set and forget tools but as you and others point out they are a one way communication. However, they would provide validation that a voice call was coming from an actual vessel and not some prankster as you could verify the identification and the location.

Re:Bizarre

[stephanruby]

Are all these calls just pranks?

Some calls could be coming from traffickers who are about to be boarded by the Coast Guards.

Re:Bizarre

[green1]

Sort of, a voice call is ALWAYS treated as valid and real. It must be. What an EPIRB does in those situations is give an extra data point on location.
Without a voice call the EPIRB is also treated as valid, however the level of suspicion that it is a false alarm is extremely high, as most activations are in fact accidental.

Thing is, a few voice calls a year are outright false alarms (many are debatable as far as being a true "emergency", but those people do in fact believe they are in emergency situations.) But in the EPIRB realm things are reversed, the vast majority are outright false alarms, with only a few legitimate emergencies. It's easy to accidentally press a button on an EPIRB, some are also set up to automatically activate if immersed in water (which can happen accidentally due to poor maintenance) or when turned upside down (easily done when maintaining the unit) and many simply have mechanical failures that activate them. It's much harder to accidentally hold the microphone button down and repeat the word "mayday"

Re:Bizarre

[Strider-]

That 1000 years of jurisprudence is just a convention. No nation or people are expected to do unreasonable or heroic things.

No, but it is generally expected that people and nations would do reasonable things for the safety and wellbeing of those at sea. Completely terminating the search and rescue as the OP proposed would be unreasonable.

If I came across a bunch of drunk teenagers who were laughing at me for responding, you better believe that I would be making the appropriate reports, both through the coastguard and through the police.

Re:Bizarre

[Strider-]

All commercial vessels subject to GMDSS requirements (so basically anything bigger than a crew boat) are required to carry an EPIRB already. Personally, I think it's unreasonable to require someone to carry one on recreational vessels, or those engaging solely in in-harbour work (water taxis etc...) They're not cheap, and exploding the number of them would put a huge strain on the rescue system due to the number of false alerts the units can generate.

Re:Bizarre

[Obfuscant]

They're not cheap, and exploding the number of them would put a huge strain on the rescue system due to the number of false alerts the units can generate.

The system has already been stressed just due to the number of them being sold. The planners decided to allow only a certain number of them per 406 MHz channel, so they've been adding channels as time goes by.

What used to be a pair of frequencies (121.5 and 156.8 MHz) for civil emergency beacons has become half a dozen or more at 406 MHz. Unfortunately, earlier models of EPIRB and ELT receivers were built with a limited number of channels, and they won't all track all beacons. We have a set of brand new practice ELTs and only 1 aircraft out of 8 in the fleet has an ELT tracker that will receive the 406 frequency they use.

Re:Bizarre

[shentino]

I'd feel very vindicated after slapping handcuffs on them for abuse of the mayday call. Which, by the way, is, in fact a federal offense.

http://www.chinookobserver.com...

Since it already appears to be a federal felony, I think the next step is to start enforcing it more aggressively.

Re:Bizarre

[Registered Coward v2]

\ But in the EPIRB realm things are reversed, the vast majority are outright false alarms, with only a few legitimate emergencies. It's easy to accidentally press a button on an EPIRB, some are also set up to automatically activate if immersed in water (which can happen accidentally due to poor maintenance) or when turned upside down (easily done when maintaining the unit) and many simply have mechanical failures that activate them.

Funny story: I was at a watch store looking at a Breathing with a beacon and the salesperson kept repeating not to pull the button. I said i get it we don't want a resume helicopter above the mall and he said he had a customer that activated the beacon.

It's much harder to accidentally hold the microphone button down and repeat the word "mayday"

Which is what I found confusing about the article - I would guess most calls are made via radio and not a phone. We used to monitor the distress frequency when at sea just for such purposes.

For pity's sake

[Anonymous Coward]

that cost it up to millions of dollars a year

Does it cost millions of dollars a year or not? I'm willing to accept an average over a number of years or the total for the latest year or the highest in the last few years but "up to" is just crap.

It costs millions, yes or no?

Re:For pity's sake

[rjune]

Suppose the Coast Guard is responding to a prank and it delays the response to a real emergency? There are more than monetary costs to consider.

Re:For pity's sake

[green1]

Rescue costs are a bit tough to calculate. Official numbers for each rescue are astronomically high, but they usually don't account for the fact that many of those costs would have existed with, or without, the rescue.
For example, the crew needs to get paid, and that doesn't change if they are sitting at base waiting, or actually on a rescue. planes and boats cost money to operate, but often if they weren't operating on an actual rescue, they would have been operating on a training exercise instead.
That said, it's possible there was no training scheduled that day, or that more resources were called in than you'd normally have on stand-by, or that crews went in to overtime, etc, etc.
There are also many volunteer groups that don't get paid, unless on an actual rescue in which case they get honorariums or per diems. All in all it gets quite complicated, and it isn't helped by the fact that for each of the groups involved it's in their own best interest to quote as high a number as they can justify.

An individual SAR is often quoted in the hundreds of thousands to a million dollar range, but it's hard to say what the real incremental cost is. Using those numbers though, "millions" could easily happen with only a small handful of calls, so I'd say based on normal SAR accounting, "up to" should probably be replaced by "many"

Creates a barcode, step 4 profit?

[Anonymous Coward]

" creates a barcode of a person's voice, deciphering whether the caller really is on a boat or actually in a house somewhere. " No details necessary?

In the summary nor the article?

Re:Creates a barcode, step 4 profit?

[wonkey_monkey]

Like putting too much air into a balloon!

Thoughtcrime

[CanHasDIY]

Potentially it can help profile people from their voices.

I can see no possible nefarious uses of such a technology...

natch.

Re:Thoughtcrime

[thegreatbob]

Voiceprinting technologies have been around for quite a while, with efforts visible in the news in the 1960s (spectrograms, etc.) and possibly earlier (I'm too lazy to continue searching, sorry); however. in the late 70s, people started coming out against it as being not particularly useful (visual analysis of spectrograms seems quite fallible). Technology to support it has improved greatly since then. It does have its potential for abuses, just like everything else, but I have not heard of anything particularly terrible in recent history. This doesn't mean it doesn't/can't happen, and your concerns are not unfounded.

Something resembling references/sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.scientificamerican...
https://books.google.com/books...

Re:Thoughtcrime

[quetwo]

My voice is my password. Please verify me.

Heh, tell it to Rick Perry

[fustakrakich]

Those pesky Russians are at it again

Building a better fool

[grasshoppa]

An End To Phone Pranking

Challenge accepted.

Why is this even a thing?

[Baron_Yam]

Trace the damn phones!

The phone companies are mandated to provide emergency services with position information, and if GPS isn't available that's cell tower triangulation... and so far as I am aware that data is added to the stream AFTER the call, so you can't easily spoof it unless you've hacked the phone system itself.

That data comes in a second or two after the initial phone connection is made, it's not like you need a warrant and have to get through to a person at the phone company to process the request.

Re:Why is this even a thing?

[bws111]

It doesn't say anything about phones. It says 'mayday calls', which would probably be coming from a VHF radio.

Re:Why is this even a thing?

[Baron_Yam]

>Nice fantasy world you live in. I wouldn't ever rely on emergency services to know my position from my cellphone.

On land, you absolutely shouldn't.

GPS can take time to get a fix, or get it wrong. Or not get through at all, even though your phone's fine. In an urban setting it can be horribly imprecise simply because there's so much around you and to interfere with GPS. After all, you're probably not in the middle of the street with a clear view of the sky, right?

If you want help, you need to know where you are with enough accuracy to guide someone to you. That's why it's a good habit to remember street signs as you pass them, at least until you get to the next one, and why I personally take note of highway mile markers. And yes, I've used that when calling 911 to report an accident.

However, we're talking marine use. It's unusually for a boat in distress to be hidden inside a building, and vehicle density on the water (especially in situations where there's a mayday in play) is extremely low.

Either your GPS will place you more than accurately enough, or even the most inaccurate multi-tower fix will show you're not actually on the water.

Re:Why is this even a thing?

[thegarbz]

GPS can take time to get a fix

Unless you just came out of a week in a cave, or off an international flight without data connection the time to get a GPS fix is in the order of 1 second thanks to A-GPS data provided from the carrier. Mind you we're talking about carrier triangulation here. In a dense urban environment they know your location far more accurately than any other thanks to high density of towers.

It's not good enough to narrow down where you collapsed in the time taken to get you aid, but it most definitely can aid law enforcement finding a prankster. Mind you this doesn't work via VHF which is what we're talking about...

Re:Why is this even a thing?

[angel'o'sphere]

Locating your phone is not done via GPS.
It is done via your signal strength towards the surrounding cell phone towers.

Or do you really think it is legal in your country that a phone provider access your GPS on your phone????

Re:Why is this even a thing?

[LeftCoastThinker]

Ummm, wow. No and no.

Yes, your smart phone has an integrated GPS that determines your location. Triangulating from cell towers is Hollywood fantasy and due to the uncertainty of signal strength due to things like weather, terrain, time of day etc, cell triangulation by cell tower is usually only grossly accurate (something like a 300m radius), whereas your GPS can give location down to less than a foot, and include elevation (though the consumer grade GPS has limitations on the accuracy you get while moving and while not connected to a network for security reasons). And yes, your cell often sends your location via GPS to your provider (and many other companies when you use their apps) and it also provides your GPS location with the new enhancements to e911 to help make sure that your call is routed to the correct first responders.

Re:Why is this even a thing?

[Baron_Yam]

> Triangulating from cell towers is Hollywood fantasy and due to the uncertainty of signal strength due to things like weather, terrain, time of day etc, cell triangulation by cell tower is usually only grossly accurate (something like a 300m radius)

Water is pretty flat (save for the curvature of the Earth) and clear of obstructions... and 300m accuracy is fine when you're looking at the intersection of three or more towers' position estimates.

On water, 300m is CLOSE. Maybe not good enough in heavy seas, but it's still closer than you'd ever get based on a person's position estimate from landmarks.

Re:Why is this even a thing?

[green1]

Enhanced 911 service, by law, activates the GPS in your phone and relays it to the emergency dispatch centre. This is only done if you dial 911, and triggered by the phone, not the carrier (so they can't reach in and remotely activate your GPS without your permission)

This is necessary because there are many situations (especially in rural locations) where only a single tower can see your phone, and therefore can not triangulate your location. Even if you can see multiple towers, reflections from buildings, absorption by different materials, etc, mean that a triangulated fix is generally fairly low accuracy (usually a few hundred metres at best) whereas a GPS position (if it can get one) is usually accurate to withing a couple of metres.

You may want to review how 911 service actually works.

Re:Why is this even a thing?

[LeftCoastThinker]

Except on water most emergency calls are made using VHF, not cell phones which only have a practical range of a few miles (thus we have cells). My example was regarding finding a prank caller in an urban environment (i.e. SURROUNDING cell towers, you don't get surrounding towers offshore).

Re:Why is this even a thing?

[angel'o'sphere]

Enhanced 911 service, by law, activates the GPS in your phone and relays it to the emergency dispatch centre
Sorry, I doubt that. Extremely unplausible. Considering that GPS in a small device is not reliable and ordinary mobile phones have no GPS and home phones/lan lines neither.

and therefore can not triangulate your location. Even if you can see multiple towers, reflections from buildings, absorption by different materials, etc, mean that a triangulated fix is generally fairly low accuracy (usually a few hundred metres at best)
The same problem, even worth, you have with GPS.

whereas a GPS position (if it can get one) is usually accurate to withing a couple of metres.
Actually if you have clear sight, it goes down to a few decimeters, 30cm or so. Otherwise: see above.

Re:Why is this even a thing?

[angel'o'sphere]

And yes, your cell often sends your location via GPS to your provider
No it does not.
GPS is a receiver only thing.
You can not send data (your position) via GPS.
Sentences like this make your whole post inplausible.

Triangulating from cell towers is Hollywood fantasy
No it is not. I wrote software for law enforcement where we used features like this.

Your GPS ideas are fantasy, though.

Re:Why is this even a thing?

[green1]

Landlines don't need a GPS because they don't move. Cell phones have a GPS and it's automatically activated whenever you call 911. The information is relayed to the call centre.

This is federal law to deal with the fact that cell tower triangulation is low resolution and only works with multiple towers.

You can tell me I'm wrong all you want. It doesn't change the facts about how it works. As for not being plausible. It's far more plausible than the idea that the government has completely ignored the fact that you can't locate most cell phone calls any better than several hundred meters, and often more than a km. The fact that it's true makes it even more plausible.
I recommend you read this piece for more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Why is this even a thing?

[angel'o'sphere]

Cell phones have a GPS and it's automatically activated whenever you call 911.
No.
Only a few cell phones have GPS.
And no again: it is not automatically "activated" and or transferred to the calling site.

And you perhaps should read what you link:

In 1996, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued an order requiring wireless carriers to determine and transmit the location of callers who dial 9-1-1. The FCC set up a phased program: Phase I involved sending the location of the receiving antenna for 9-1-1 calls, while Phase II sends the location of the calling telephone. Carriers were allowed to choose to implement 'handset based' location by Global Positioning System (GPS) or similar technology in each phone, or 'network based' location by means of triangulation between cell towers. The order set technical and accuracy requirements: carriers using 'handset based' technology must report handset location within 50 meters for 67% of calls, and within 150 meters for 90% of calls; carriers using 'network based' technology must report location within 100 meters for 67% of calls and 300 meters for 90% of calls.

Or scroll down to "Technology" and read from here on.

So the truth is: some american network providers use GPS of phones to assist 911. Not all of them, though.

has completely ignored the fact that you can't locate most cell phone calls any better than several hundred meters
That is nonsense.

Re:Why is this even a thing?

[LeftCoastThinker]

OK, sorry, I didn't realize I was talking to a fellow engineer. To clarify your confusion, your position is determined by GPS. Your cell phone utilizes the on chip GPS circuitry to calculate your position by interpolating time stamps from at least 4 satellites, which is then sent to main CPU, which utilizes firmware drivers to read the positional information. The main CPU is then capable of sending out those position values via Wifi radio or 3G/4G cellular band radio to anyone who requests it, within the permissions built into the phone and those permissions that you allow, including but not limited to app providers, web sites, your cell provider, e911 and probably others as well that I cant think of off the top of my head.

If you want to be taken seriously, don't be disingenuously ignorant of reality.

Re:Why is this even a thing?

[angel'o'sphere]

If you want to be taken seriously, then don't write nonsense.

E.g. Webs Sites have no access to my GPS locating device or my position beyond my IP address and what ever geo position they conclude from it. E.g. if you would use my current IP address to figure my location you would probably be off by 2km or more (roughly 1.5miles).

What is actually the "main CPU"? Do you have non "main CPU"s on your phone? Interesting ....
I'm a poor guy, I only have an old iPhone 4S, it only has a single CPU, I guess that is the main CPU then?

and probably others as well that I cant think of off the top of my head.
No worries, you don't need to think. Let that be done by the horses. They have bigger heads.

Re:Why is this even a thing?

[green1]

So you don't believe me, and you didn't bother to read the article I linked. The one that states that already 85%of phones do this and that number is increasing. I'm afraid there's nothing more I can do being that I've already shown you the facts and explained what's happening and you just keep coming up with the same refusal to accept reality.

Considering that you don't care if you're right or not and have absolutely no interest in what the facts are this will be my final reply to this thread.

For anyone else still reading. Look at the link. 85% of cell phones do this right now. And more are doing it every day (the 15% represents older phones that are not capable of this feature) This is a good thing as it means help can actually find you when you call 911.

As a paramedic working on a rural service I have been incredibly grateful for this advance in technology it has greatly improved our ability to find patients who call when they are not able to give us a good location themselves. So although the other poster does not believe this technology exists I rely on it daily and it has been working extremely well.

Re:Why is this even a thing?

[angel'o'sphere]

I read the link.
And it clearly states that most networks use their network equipment to determine position.
And only 3, if I remember correctly, use GPS.

So although the other poster does not believe this technology exists I rely on it daily and it has been working extremely well.
The question never was if the technology exists, the question is wether the phone operators are allowed to access my GPS info on my Phone. I doubt e.g. in Europe that would be legal. And on my iPhone I can switch GPS completely off.

And some people argued that the GPS position is send via GPS to the phone operators, which is clearly false :D

Re:Why is this even a thing?

[LeftCoastThinker]

This will be my last post on this thread because you are clearly ignorant and I suspect trolling. On the off chance that you are just really ignorant and obnoxious:

Google maps and shopping for example on the web will use your IP address and zip code to guess your location (usually off substantially based on your zip code). However, if you allow it to on the permission request, it will use your GPS determined location, in which case it will be accurate to within 30 feet or so. Stop arguing your ignorance with me and go try it. You will have to turn on location services on your iPhone 4 and allow safari/google access to location services. I assume it will work on an iPhone 4, but it might be too old at this point. Owning antiquated tech doesn't invalidate the reality for the rest of us.

My iPhone 6s has an Arm9 dual core CPU as well as a GPU and 4 ALUs (what used to be called math co-processors). It also has a GPS processor, a GSM processor, etc. The main CPU is core zero of the Arm 9, all other processors are slaves (technically there are parallel logic pathways these days, but this is still essentially true for most operations or at least the start of operations).

Fake-Out Misdirection

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if the fake calls to the coast guard are to distract them from an incoming drug shipment. Who would call the coast guard?? It sounds like misdirection or an insider/someone close to the coast guard..

Re:Fake-Out Misdirection

[jellomizer]

Probably, there may be cases of normal prank calls, where kids may just want to see the boats and helicopters fly around.

Re:Fake-Out Misdirection

[green1]

Depends on the area. Not every jurisdiction uses the same resources for enforcement and rescue activities. I know the US coast guard does both, but the Canadian Coast Guard for instance has no enforcement role, that's left to the Canadian Border Services Agency, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and local police forces.

Phone pranking?

[msauve]

I'm guessing the article is confused.

If it's an emergency phone call to the Coast Guard, they could just use the GPS support like E911 so they get a location from the cell phone. Surely, that's the only type of phone being used on a boat these days.

I think what this is really about is people calling in on VHF (marine) radio, not a phone.

Re:Phone pranking?

[SuricouRaven]

That must be some dedicated pranking.

Re:Phone pranking?

[Baron_Yam]

>I think what this is really about is people calling in on VHF (marine) radio, not a phone.

In which case I think they need to invest in some triangulation equipment. We've been doing radio triangulation since WWII, it isn't particularly difficult.

In fact, today there's an organization pushing radio bracelets for people with dementia and a radio triangulation system to go with it that is more affordable and reliable than GPS trackers. (Though admittedly GPS trackers just tell you where they are instead of needing to be found...)

I'm surprised that triangulation equipment didn't become standard long ago for marine use anyway. I mean, you're looking for someone who is lost (or about to be) lost at sea. Depending on the victim to accurately describe their location so you can find them visually when there's a nice, strong radio beacon to track seems foolish.

Re:Phone pranking?

[swb]

Marine VHF already has a lot of this built in in the newer models.

"Distress" buttons that send your GPS location and your MMSI ID which tells the Coasties who you are, your emergency contacts, and the name of your vessel.

The larger problem is that there's no requirement to have a radio that meets this spec or an MMSI number or have your MMSI and radio paired.

IMHO, the Coast Guard should start mandating this stuff and any vessel undergoing a boarding safety check should have this checked right after the check for life vests and fire extinguishers and before checking that the macerator discharge seacock is secure. The latter seems to be their most favorite "safety" item.

Violators could be given a "fix it" ticket where they have to prove compliance by updating to a modern VHF radio with GPS and MMSI registration.

Re:Phone pranking?

[Anubis IV]

If it's an emergency phone call to the Coast Guard, they could just use the GPS support like E911 so they get a location from the cell phone. Surely, that's the only type of phone being used on a boat these days.

Even if they had location data, that wouldn't necessarily help them much. The caller could claim to be on the shore witnessing a problem, and the location data may very well back that statement up, since the article indicated that a lot of the pranksters like to post pictures of the helicopters and boats responding to their prank calls.

Moreover, even with calls, you can't count on location data being present. For instance, satellite phones are not exactly uncommon in remote locations, but from what I can gather, they're exempt from providing location information (emphasis mine):

The FCC's wireless 911 rules apply to all wireless licensees, broadband Personal Communications Service licensees and certain Specialized Mobile Radio licensees. Mobile Satellite Service providers, however, are currently excluded.

Here's Globalstar's take on the policy:

There is no current requirement that Mobile Satellite Services (MSS) user terminals provide automatic position location.

So far as I know, there's no way to distinguish between a spoofed call coming from Skype and an actual call lacking location data coming from a satellite phone, but I don't profess to have any sort of special knowledge in this area, so I could be mistaken. But, as I said, even if they had location data (which can be spoofed), it wouldn't necessarily solve anything, though it may help them to eliminate some calls as pranks if they see, for instance, a call about an emergency on the Atlantic coast from a caller in California.

Re:Phone pranking?

[Registered Coward v2]

Marine VHF already has a lot of this built in in the newer models.

"Distress" buttons that send your GPS location and your MMSI ID which tells the Coasties who you are, your emergency contacts, and the name of your vessel.

The larger problem is that there's no requirement to have a radio that meets this spec or an MMSI number or have your MMSI and radio paired.

IMHO, the Coast Guard should start mandating this stuff and any vessel undergoing a boarding safety check should have this checked right after the check for life vests and fire extinguishers

I agree. At some point people need to upgrade to the latest safety gear; especially since a new radio is not that expensive, especially when you consider other upkeep costs.It boogles my mind people will spend a few hundred on beer for a trip on the water but not the same for a critical piece of safety gear.

and before checking that the macerator discharge seacock is secure.

hay, somebody has to work about that crap...

Re:Phone pranking?

[Strider-]

With the exception of the latest radios, most DSC equipped marine VHF radios do not have an integrated GPS unit. Instead, they rely on being wired to the vessel's GPS. The reality is that i'd wager that most radios aren't connected to GPS. (For the moment, mine isn't since my old ship's GPS broke and I use an iPad for charting purposes).

The other issue is that the MMSI follows the boat, so if you sell or buy the boat, you need to modify the database with the new contact info and so forth. It's even wierder in the US, as there are two MMSI registries, the BoatUS one, and the FCC one. The coasties have access to both databases, but the BoatUS one isn't in the global database, so if you take your boat offshore (or up to Canada), no one will have your contact info.

Thirdly, I'd like to see the addition of a second non-mayday help button... Think the onstar buttons in some vehicles. Far too many times I've been out sailing, and the distress alarm comes on, only to discover that it's someone who's run out of fuel, got scared in the dark, or who's engine has failed but isn't in immediate danger. This could be alleviated by having a pan-pan button or whatever that would alert Towboat US or whatever other equivalent operators, and not bother the rest of us.

Lastly, most radios can only have the MMSI programmed twice. After that, they need to be sent back to the manufacturer to be reset, or you need to find the fancy/secret software to do so. This is to prevent spoofing, which is laudible, but also problematic.

Anyhow, could the system be improved? absolutely, it's just a matter of how to go about it.

Re:Phone pranking?

[dj245]

That must be some dedicated pranking.

Or drug/people smugglers trying to distract or divert the Coast Guard.

Something Something Crying Wolf

[RumGunner]

The Coast Guard: Making old greek parables relevant in the digital age.

Hyperbole

[backslashdot]

If a computer can detect it, a computer can fake it.

VHF calls, not phone calls

[Solandri]

TFA that the submitter linked to is a junk article written by someone who didn't understand how the Coast Guard works and assumed "calls" meant phone calls. It's so badly written the only reason I can think of for someone to use it in a submission is to drive page clicks for ad revenue. TFA links to the actual article which is much more informative and better written, although it crucially never clarifies what type of "calls" the Coast Guard responds to.

VHF channel 16 is a dedicated marine emergency frequency around the world. In U.S. waters, the US Coast Guard monitors this channel 24/7 and responds to any mayday calls. So the "calls" here are VHF radio calls, not phone calls. A mayday call is supposed to identify your vessel, provide a location, state the problem, and how many people are aboard your vessel, in that order. But things rarely go the way they're supposed to and lots of mayday calls are partial or missing crucial information. The USCG has to assume these are real and the boat sank or radio died before complete information could be broadcast, and deploy search and rescue assets.

Unfortunately there is no universal caller ID on VHF radios. Some of the newer ones will automatically identify your vessel and/or provide your location, but most VHF radios used by recreational boaters are old analog units which simply broadcast only what you say into them. So the only thing the USCG frequently gets is a voice in the RF ether claiming people are in danger of dying. (The USCG will also respond to a cell phone call if it claims to be from a boat close enough to shore to get cell phone service, or if it's from someone reporting a vessel overdue based on a float plan that was filed before leaving.)

Re:VHF calls, not phone calls

[wonkey_monkey]

TFA that the submitter linked to is a junk article

It was the "barcode of a person's voice" gem which gave it away, for me.

Re:VHF calls, not phone calls

[Strider-]

Unfortunately there is no universal caller ID on VHF radios. Some of the newer ones will automatically identify your vessel and/or provide your location, but most VHF radios used by recreational boaters are old analog units which simply broadcast only what you say into them. So the only thing the USCG frequently gets is a voice in the RF ether claiming people are in danger of dying.

DSC has been required on all fixed-mount VHF radios sold for at least the past decade, if not longer. The issue is that many of them are not connected to GPS (including mine... hides face), their MMSI isn't configured properly, or the contact information associated with the MMSI isn't up to date. We just moved my boat to Canada from the US, and as such we need to program the radio with our new MMSI. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people dont' do this.

But

[wonkey_monkey]

whether the caller really is on a boat or actually in a house somewhere

I live on a houseboat, you insensitive clod!

We use a similar system

[TJ_Phazerhacki]

There's a very popular, relatively new voiceprinting application that's managed to get inside at least 3 of the largest banks in the US. It's pretty neat, it analyzes known fraud calls and then flags calls based on the print (it also adds in some other neat carrier metadata for better accuracy and speed.) All real time, so if the system tags a call above a certainty threshold, it can do anything from notify the agent (almost no one does this, for obvious reasons) to transfer the call to a specialist to hang it up entirely. It's interesting to hear that there are practical health and safety implications for the tech, but everyone should be aware that this is getting to be commodity-level service in call centers, and they're already asking if it can do things other than just fraud. Banks have it because they save millions of dollars (mostly on overseas account fraud, which is unrecoverable) but it's getting cheaper.

Obvious exploits, now that it's announced. .

[Salgak1]

Having several different friends record prank calls on a boat, and then later calling each of them in ??

And how long will it be until someone codes a synthesizer or voice alteration software to spoof this ?

That's right off the top of my head. . .

Re:It's not a prank.

[bws111]

Yep, in a 5 word headline, three of them are wrong. Not 'an end', but a lessening. Not 'phone', but VHF radio. Not 'prank', but false alarm.

Re:false positive, missed negative?

[green1]

Which is why this is a better investigative tool after the fact, than it is filter before the fact.

The best part about this is the ability to uniquely identify and profile callers so that you can build a better profile of a criminal serial prankster, this will help better track them down so that they can be arrested and charged.

A crime, not a prank

[sjbe]

You have to be a special kind of asshat to call in a fake distress call to the coast guard. That isn't a "prank", that is a crime. Pranks are harmless or nearly so. A practical joke is a prank. When you endanger lives it's no longer funny or mischievous. Calling in a fake call should (and probably does) get you a lengthy stay in a federal prison.

Re:I Still Don't Understand The Problem

[green1]

Surely they can determine the call's position within a few miles?

Most pranksters aren't content with calling in a prank and then forgetting about it, they want to see the responders arrive at the scene. As such, most of the people probably are within a few miles of the location being described, usually on land and reporting something to be just off the coast. How accurate was your DF equipment again?

Technology already exists

[ironicsky]

This seems pointless. Coastguards & Military should have E-911 type access to anyone calling in.
-If you are calling from a landline, you clearly cannot be in the middle of the ocean, since an address will be attached to your call.
-If you are calling from a cell phone, you are probably within 45 miles of the coast (the range of a cell tower in optimal conditions), and cell phones transmit their rough GPS coordinates with all 911 calls.
-If you are calling from a satellite phone, you are probably out in the ocean and may have an actual issue. Satellite phone calls are expensive, around $1.00 per minute (+/-), so if you are pranking on one of these you have money to burn, since the phones are pricey.

Why invent sound pattern recognition technology to bust pranksters, when existing technology can already do the job?

Re:Technology already exists

[ironicsky]

Nevermind. I read other posts above that this is UHF/VHF "calls" over a radio, not a telephone.

Carry on :-)

Who pranks a government entity? That's bold!

[adosch]

I'm actually laughing out loud here. Not because it has anything to do with the government in any way, shape or form. But the flood of memories that just hit me of the casual Pizza Hut delivery, old retired couple, hated neighbor or 1-800 sales call pranks I did in my youth on a pay-phone and pre-caller-ID seem... insignificant in the collateral damage department. Having the Coast Guard go on a buoy-snipe hunt? Whoever did that, you win.

Terminology

[fnj]

I object strenuously to the term "prank call" for this sort of behavior. "Crank call" is a bit more appropriate, but still hopelessly inadequate. This is selfish sociopathic behavior of the worst, most disgusting kind.

Already a crime

[shentino]

http://www.chinookobserver.com...

Making a false mayday call is already a federal crime, and a felony at that.

Let's see...6 years in prison, 250K fine, and paying for the operating costs of the rescue.