Slashdot Mirror


Why Uber Can Find You but 911 Can't (wsj.com)

Accurate location data is on smartphones, so why don't more wireless carriers use it to locate emergency callers? From a report, shared by a reader: Software on Apple's iPhones and Google's Android smartphones help mobile apps like Uber and Facebook to pinpoint a user's location, making it possible to order a car, check in at a local restaurant or receive targeted advertising. But 911, with a far more pressing purpose, is stuck in the past. U.S. regulators estimate as many as 10,000 lives could be saved each year if the 911 emergency dispatching system were able to get to callers one minute faster. Better technology would be especially helpful, regulators say, when a caller can't speak or identify his or her location. After years of pressure, wireless carriers and Silicon Valley companies are finally starting to work together to solve the problem. But progress has been slow. Roughly 80% of the 240 million calls to 911 each year are made using cellphones, according to a trade group that represents first responders. For landlines, the system shows a telephone's exact address. But it can register only an estimated location, sometimes hundreds of yards wide, from a cellphone call. That frustration is now a frequent source of tension during 911 calls, said Colleen Eyman, who oversees 911 services in Arvada, Colo., just outside Denver.

35 of 200 comments (clear)

  1. Because gubbermint! by asylumx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Admittedly posting this having only read the headline, but the answer is obvious:
    Because people apparently trust corporations like Uber, Facebook, etc. with all kinds of sensitive data, but for God's sake don't trust the government with the time of day!

    1. Re:Because gubbermint! by dAzED1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Or, and just stick with me a sec, this will be complicated - it's because you contact UBER VIA A DATA STREAM THAT CAN SEND LOCATION INFORMATION and regular telco systems were not orignally designed to have a data carrier signal. Caller ID was strapped on at some point, but EVERY SWITCH ALONG THE WAY has to be updated, and the entire 911 center changed from being a telephone line, to a data endpoint on the internet.

      It boggles my mind that anyone, anywhere, with any degree of a tech background, could ever ask "why can Uber find me but 911 can't?" Walk over to a payphone and call Uber. Can they find you then? Is there even a number to call? 911 mapped your number to your address via info from the phone companies. Mobile phones are mobile. They move around. They can't be just mapped via a simple lookup. And unless you can send a datastream to the person you're calling and give them your gps info...why in the holy hell would you think they can just know here you are? ALSO, think hard before you give the police the ability to always track your location, independently of the phone company. Whatever solution you do, might be best as one that only works for the 911 call itself, not just in general (some solutions suggest the former, for "simplicity," since it would require less infrastructure changes on the local gov).

    2. Re:Because gubbermint! by Rob+Y. · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, yeah. But the assumption was that the mobile company does know your location - or at least the location of the tower you're connected to. And if it knows your distance from two separate towers, then bingo. But they don't have a standard way to let the 911 system know that. Presumably, the mobile operator knows you dialed 911, and so could forward what location info it has to the 911 operator. But that's a big system upgrade.

      And yeah, Uber has a much easier job - since it's app on your phone send your location info to them directly. As others have stated, an app on the phone could send 911 info. But who is that app going to connect to. There's a whole different internet-based 911 system that would need to be developed to handle that. And maybe it should be...

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    3. Re:Because gubbermint! by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 3, Funny

      Walk over to a payphone and call Uber.

      What is this "payphone" of which you speak?

    4. Re:Because gubbermint! by SandorZoo · · Score: 2

      The dialer on the phone knows that 911 is 'special'. Or at least, that is trivial to program. So it can turn on the gps and try its best to get a position. Then the problem is to get the information across. It could send the coordinates to 911 by SMS. They would need to have a mobile phone there receiving 911 SMSes, not that hard.

      The funny thing is that every Android phone since Gingerbread (2010) can already send an SMS with location data when an emergency call is made. That's 99% of all Android phones. Google call it Emergency Location Service although it's actually Google's implementation of Advanced Mobile Location. It's currently used by the emergency services in the UK, Estonia, Lithuania, Belgium, Iceland, Finland, Ireland, New Zealand and parts of Austria. All it takes is for the mobile providers to configure a number to send the SMSes to, and to forward them to the 911 responders.

    5. Re:Because gubbermint! by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      It boggles my mind that anyone, anywhere, with any degree of a tech background, could ever ask "why can Uber find me but 911 can't?"

      Indeed. Mobile phones and services haven't changed since the early 90s. .... wait... actually even in the early 90s there was a way to get a Short Message to someone. We could have called it a Short Message Service of sorts and have a phone automatically send GPS to responders via a Short Message Service to pre-defined number. That's to say nothing of modern phone systems which allow simultaneous data streams.

      But we don't need to say anything of modern systems. The systems in place in the UK (AML for various handsets, ESL for Android version 2.3 and above) do precisely that. You dial 112 or 999 and your phone will automatically force enable GPS, get a fix, and SMS that along with an ID for the call to emergency services, all using that early 90s era technology that seems to boggle your mind.

      Honestly after that post we should revoke your geek card.

  2. Funding by Bigbutt · · Score: 2

    The technology is out there but if the government doesn't want to buy it or can't due to funding, then it isn't going to be available. I work in the industry and there's quite a bit of new tech being created but it still costs money to implement (not to mention infrastructure upgrades by the towns, etc).

    [John]

    --
    Shit better not happen!
  3. Solution by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Write an app that transmits your location when 911 is being called. Advertise it to people to install it on their phone for the times when they need it. Watch people not install it because they are afraid their government might track them, but they're more than happy to hand the very same information to Uber, Facebook and everyone else giving them ... well, basically nothing.

    If I was your government, I'd probably shit on you, too.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  4. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  5. 911 in a sad state of affairs by quetwo · · Score: 5, Informative

    I used to install 911 systems. The biggest problem is the RBOCs (phone companies). They've refused to upgrade their systems to allow any meaningful data to directly reach their systems. Many 911 systems out there today rely on old analog connections that can't carry enhanced data except for caller-id. The 911 systems simply use the caller-id to match a location.

    Want to know how cell phones work when you call 911?

    The user dials the number associated with emergency services on their phone. The phone gets handed to the cell company. At the same time, the GPS unit is activated on the phone and the phone attempts to get a lock. GPS information is sent to the cell company emergency services "smart router".

    Meanwhile, the call gets routed to the PSAP. It uses the address of the closest tower to find out which correct PSAP is supposed to answer. The PSAP answers and gets connected to an operator. There, they are given the location of the antenna/tower that the user called through. SOME cell providers offer a link (depending on the software they are using) to get additional information about the call, which often requires pulling up seperate software and/or a website to get the location from the smart router. The location /may/ be updating in real time, or it may not be. I've seen many cases where the GPS didn't get a lock at first and the location pulled up in the smart router never gets updated beyond that. Oh, and if you use a cell company that hasn't directly partnered with your local PSAP, the operator may only get the street address of the closest tower.

    The phone companies have the technology to make this work, and make it work well. It would require the RBOCs to upgrade their networks a bit and provide advanced services to the 911 centers. It would also require the police, phone companies and 911 centers to want to work together and do things the right way. Right now there are a lot of people who think their technology is right and that everybody else should just simply use it. What ends up is that we have a bunch of different software, all cobbled together in ways that make the system really, really bad.

    Consumers tend to like apps as the solution to get to 911 services. Sure, they can get advanced services (like a real GPS location), and other nice things, but it relies on a bunch of technologies that are designed to work "at best effort". If you don't have data service and you launch the app, it won't work. If you call 911 and don't have phone service, your phone will actually roam to anybody and everybody's network you have a radio for and place the call.

    1. Re:911 in a sad state of affairs by infolation · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Forcing mobile handsets to use GPS for 911 calls was supposed to have been enshrined in US law since 1996 (The E911 program). But...

      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.

      The order also laid out milestones for implementing wireless location services. Many carriers requested waivers of the milestones, and the FCC granted many of them. By mid-2005, implementation of Phase II was generally underway, limited by the complexity of coordination required from wireless and wireline carriers, PSAPs, and other affected government agencies; and by the limited funding available to local agencies which needed to convert PSAP equipment to display location data (usually on computerized maps).

      In July 2011, the FCC announced a proposed rule requiring that after an eight-year implementation period, at some yet-to-be-determined date in 2019, wireless carriers will be required to meet more stringent location accuracy requirements. If enacted, this rule would require both "handset based" and "network based" location techniques to meet the same accuracy standard, regardless of the underlying technology used. The rule is likely to have no effect as all major carriers will have already achieved over 85% GPS chipset penetration, and are thus able to meet the standard regardless of their 'network based' location capabilities.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    2. Re:911 in a sad state of affairs by McFortner · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Meanwhile, the call gets routed to the PSAP. It uses the address of the closest tower to find out which correct PSAP is supposed to answer.

      Having worked 911 for 8 years, I can vouch for this. And you have no idea how PISSED people get when they get connected to the wrong 911 center and have to be transferred to another one. I worked for a county 911 center here in the Atlanta Metropolitan area and the centers here (when I worked there) were only connected to the surrounding centers. I actually had to relay through THREE centers to get them to the correct PSAP, either through a really long distance connection or the cell phone tower misrouting the call.

      I am so glad I don't have to put up with that anymore. It was hell enough a lot of times when it was had to be transferred to the next county over. And if there was a major accident on the Interstate the phone lines would go crazy.

      --
      Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
    3. Re:911 in a sad state of affairs by jonwil · · Score: 2

      It seems like the wireless carriers have got it right in terms of collecting E911 information (assuming phones have the E911 GPS capability in them) and moving it through their network and the big problems are with fixed line carriers who are unwilling to spend the money needed to upgrade their networks so they can get that E911 data through to the 911 call centres.

  6. There are reasons for this by wonkavader · · Score: 4, Informative

    Telco equipment can be very modern (imagine a single rack of DC-powered commodity blade computers with OC3's coming in the back, taking just 30 inches of rack space to handle thousands of lines) or very old (imagine rows of racks, mostly empty with each line handles by four twisted wires going to a large, sparsely populated board featuring, I am not making this up, Zilog Z-80 SIO chips -- depending on the age other the boards they may feature other SIO chips -- remember your phone call is just a stream of 64kbps 8 bit data at the switch level). A technical change which requires anything different from how things currently work is easy on the new stuff, but impossible on the old stuff and obsoleting the old stuff would put some smaller telcos out of business.

    The current 911 model (at least in the midwest) is a database with the phone number as the index key. This doesn't get seen/used at all from the person-to-switch level. There's NO meta-information. The rows and rows of ancient equipment do feed into one rack of slightly more modern stuff which can actually use a DB to look up info when the call is to the number 911. That looks in the DB to figure out what call center to send the call to. The call center can then look up that same record when the call comes to them based on caller-id.

    That's why you don't get magical data-passing about location. It would be trivial to do, but everything would have to be modern.

    Now, let's just talk about that database for a moment. I haven't looked at it in five years, but last I checked, it was a colossal pile of crap, filled with misspellings, illogical data, non-contained overlaps, etc. This has been the case since day one, and has never been improved. This means you need to have humans make a judgement call on where an address should actually be whenever a new person gets a land-line. If you get someone else's old phone number, it could be bound to the wrong address. A more likely situation would be that your 911 call would be routed to the wrong emergency call center, which either causes a scramble to reroute your call or a long drive from the wrong firestation. There's automatic checking to make sure someone signs off on your 911 info, but no checking to make sure it's right.

  7. FUD that costs lives by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because at the end of the day I can uninstall Uber but once the government mandates phone tracking for safety they'll know where you are forever for whatever reason they want.

    They don't have to track your phone unless you dial 911. This is baseless FUD. Uber doesn't need your location unless you call for Uber. It is a trivial exercise to prevent either Uber or the government from receiving location data unless you contact.

    If the government starts proposing a law to track you at all times then by all means get worked up about it. (yes that includes the NSA) That's a very different discussion. If I'm calling 911 I WANT them to have an accurate fix on my location. This should be a non issue. Fears about government overreach in this case are misplaced and demonstrably costs lives.

    1. Re:FUD that costs lives by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2

      Uber and Lyft get your location information, tied to your cell phone, when you look at the map to get the price of the ride. This is _before_ you order anything. They may protect it via anonymizing their records, but it _is_ tired to your individual cell phone client installation. So is information about access points near your cell phone, if you have wi-fi enabled, since that's one of the technologies used to enhance your location information.

      > If the government starts proposing a law to track you at all times then by all means get worked up about it.

      I'd like to point out the "First they came" message, about creeping government power and abuses?

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/......

    2. Re:FUD that costs lives by Barsteward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      i think i'd prefer the 911 services to get to me earlier than later, after all its just a location request.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    3. Re:FUD that costs lives by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      How about we make the phone software only send the information if 911 is dialed.

      That would work, yes.

      But ... the government will want more than that because terrorists and babies.

      --
      No sig today...
    4. Re:FUD that costs lives by jeff4747 · · Score: 2

      I'd like to point out the "First they came" message, about creeping government power and abuses?

      Why do you believe that a nefarious government agency out to track all citizens would require notifying you or a law to install their software?

      If they truly are that bad, they aren't going to get a law passed. They're just going to install it, without any prompting on the phone so you have no idea it is there.

      Your claim requires believing that they are super-competent and evil, and also so bumbling and incompetent that they need a law and the public discussion surrounding that law. They can't be both super-competent and incompetent at the same time.

  8. Because Americans won't spend by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    On infrastructure. We just took on $1.5 trillion in debt to do a bunch of tax cuts. If we want these things we have to pay for them.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  9. Because the FCC screwed up the requirements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The underlying problem is https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub... . As best I can tell, those were the new standards for E911 location precision from 2015, which completely screwed up the working E911 system by requiring more precision than was physically possible with the existing, stable system from TruePosition, in use by most cell phone vendors. That system involved bolting hardware onto the cell phone towers, hardware that worked pretty well. They had a nice display of the system that survived the 9/11 bombings and helped provide location date to rescuers, including people who were underground in places with the doors covered with rubble.

    Sadly, the updated regulations required even more accuracy. The cell phone companies are now pursuing "evaluation" projects for independent systems, none of which work. And Trueposition is *gone*. They got absorbed into a locaiton company called Skyhook, but kept their old management that failed to keep them intact. They're supporting only a few legacy systems E911 systems, and have since had two rounds of layoffs.

    It should be possible to use other location systems, such as Skyhook's or Google maps or iPhone recovery tools to make some working location services for E911. Even Wayz would be a starting point. Getting the companies to play well with the data, or allow sharing of that data just for emergency services, is a software integration problem and an ethical morass due to privacy concerns.

  10. remebmer when... by dAzED1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Remember when Slashdot was a place for people slightly more tech saavy than the average? Bloody hell, my elderly relatives understand the answer to this question - it's pretty simple really. The answer is "because Uber and 911 don't communicate the same way." Another fun question to ask is why is it possible for me to mail a feather to someone via USPS, but there's no place to put a feather on my cell phone to sext it to my wife for kinky-time. The possibilities are endless, when you compare completely different things that work in completely different ways! Why can my stove cook food, but my iphone can't? Why does my dog bark, instead of doing my taxes? The second biggest reason is 911 isn't consistent...I'd say "standardized" but there is a standard available, it's just not overwhelmingly used. Check out John Oliver's segment on this like 2 years ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  11. There is no government overreach by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Uber and Lyft get your location information, tied to your cell phone, when you look at the map to get the price of the ride.

    So they get your location when you use their app which you have to explicitly allow. I fail to see the problem. It is trivial to restrict 911 services to not worrying about your location unless you dial 911. Stop looking for problems where they don't exist.

    I'd like to point out the "First they came" message, about creeping government power and abuses?

    Knock yourself out but if that is the basis of your argument against good location identification for 911 then you have no argument. Worse you are arguing that people should die because you have a hypothetical concern about 911 location information being used for something other than an emergency response despite there being no evidence that such activity is or will occur. Seriously take off the tinfoil hat. There are plenty of places to worry about government overreach. This is clearly not one of them.

    I pray you don't have a heart attack and need 911 tell first responders how to find you in a hurry.

  12. Blood on your hands by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They don't have to, but based on past behavior, they will.

    Take off the tinfoil hat please.

    What makes you think the NSA or any of the other three-letter agencies will bother with a law?

    So we're supposed to live with shitty 911 service because you are paranoid about the NSA breaking the law? Newsflash dummy, they can already track your phone so all you are doing is costing lives to improve NOTHING. You aren't improving your privacy by slowing first responders. If the NSA wants to break the law, handicapping 911 service won't stop them from watching you legally or illegally. It just means a guy having a heart attack will die when he didn't have to.

    1. Re:Blood on your hands by Barsteward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      so do you prefer for ambulances/fire brigades/police not to be able to find you in an emergency?

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    2. Re:Blood on your hands by plague911 · · Score: 3, Funny
      "So we're supposed to live with shitty 911 service because you are paranoid about the NSA breaking the law? Newsflash dummy, they can already track your phone so all you are doing is costing lives to improve NOTHING."

      I agree 100%. Their statement is we cant do "A" because they declare "If A then B" and their their justification for their declaration is because they think "B" is already true. This is asinine

      Sometimes I wonder how these conservative retards can take a break from smearing their own feces all themselves and manage to actually log in here and type.

    3. Re:Blood on your hands by mrsquid0 · · Score: 2

      A good example of a quote that is often used completely out of context.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
  13. Re:Because by Miles_O'Toole · · Score: 2

    Yeah, that works so well in the many, many cases where there is no real choice.

    Thanks for the laugh, though. Much appreciated.

    --
    Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
  14. Re:honest answer: by omnichad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You really don't understand how state pensions work. I, for one, used to have one (I cashed my non-vested money out when I quit my job because I don't trust Illinois). You pay into it instead of Social Security (My share was 8% at the time). That money is supposed to be invested and earn a return. The state government has been robbing that money for years (yes, for the "general fund") - so not only is it not earning dividends, it's losing value to inflation.

    And then the state governor blames the people that paid into the pension for being "greedy" when the reality is that it was always supposed to be a separate, completely solvent fund. No, there are a few cherry-picked outliers, but the reality is that the money is gone because of state mismanagement, not because of the people who paid a large share of their paycheck into it for decades.

  15. Re:I'm quite stupid but... by rjstanford · · Score: 2

    Sure, in fact that already works today. And as soon as all 911 offices and intermediate phone switches can accept and pass along that information, this problem will be fixed. Until then, however...

    --
    You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
  16. Such app does exist in Czech: Zachranka by short · · Score: 2

    Zachranka app is successfully cooperating with emergency services. But it works only in Czech Republic now, reportedly they are deploying it in some other EU countries.

  17. Re:honest answer: by jbengt · · Score: 3, Informative

    Pensions are a Ponzi scheme, pure and simple.

    Says someone who obviously has no idea what a Ponzi scheme actually is.

  18. Re:Coventry by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

    Perhaps they have issued a warrant to the suspects carrier and are getting the information from them?

  19. Re:honest answer: by plopez · · Score: 2

    Sales taxes are regressive, and the rich make sure property and income taxes remain artificially low.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  20. Re:Huh? by quetwo · · Score: 2

    You might thing that it's trivial to put an app on everybody's phones, and that may be the easiest part of this entire problem.... By the way, only about 60% of the cell phones in the USA, in use, run Android 4.0 or later OR iOS 5.0 or later. 40% either don't run either operating system or are that old. Yes, that is a problem when you start to talk to develop an app that everybody has. And, the app would need to work on all models, even flip phones and the 6 phones left out there that run that Microsoft OS.

    So, all that aside, you still need to figure out a way to communicate this data to the PSAP. Over TCP/IP? Well, what if the person doesn't subscribe to data service. Or you are driving down the road in the boon-docks and you don't have good data service. How about over the cellular connection? Well, how does the PSAP get that data once you've sent it... over the highly-compressed audio connection that will strip out most bandwidth from the conversation?

    So, once that data makes it to the PSAP, you still have to read that data. If it is inband, then you have a machine trying to parse that data. Will everybody use the same standard? One vendor is going to make that equipment? That sounds like a sweet contract. What about all those analog PSAPs out there (and yes, there are still a LOT of them). Are you going to force them to upgrade their software / hardware / telco connections? With what money?