Slashdot Mirror


US Telcos Are Selling Access To Their Customers' Location Data, and That Data Reaches Bounty Hunters and Others Not Authorized To Possess It (vice.com)

T-Mobile, Sprint, and AT&T are selling access to their customers' location data, and that data is ending up in the hands of bounty hunters and others not authorized to possess it, letting them track most phones in the country, an investigation by news outlet Motherboard has found. From the report: Nervously, I gave a bounty hunter a phone number. He had offered to geolocate a phone for me, using a shady, overlooked service intended not for the cops, but for private individuals and businesses. Armed with just the number and a few hundred dollars, he said he could find the current location of most phones in the United States. The bounty hunter sent the number to his own contact, who would track the phone. The contact responded with a screenshot of Google Maps, containing a blue circle indicating the phone's current location, approximate to a few hundred metres. [...] The bounty hunter did this all without deploying a hacking tool or having any previous knowledge of the phone's whereabouts. Instead, the tracking tool relies on real-time location data sold to bounty hunters that ultimately originated from the telcos themselves, including T-Mobile, AT&T, and Sprint, a Motherboard investigation has found. These surveillance capabilities are sometimes sold through word-of-mouth networks.

[...] Motherboard's investigation shows just how exposed mobile networks and the data they generate are, leaving them open to surveillance by ordinary citizens, stalkers, and criminals, and comes as media and policy makers are paying more attention than ever to how location and other sensitive data is collected and sold. The investigation also shows that a wide variety of companies can access cell phone location data, and that the information trickles down from cell phone providers to a wide array of smaller players, who don't necessarily have the correct safeguards in place to protect that data.
"Blade Runner, the iconic sci-fi movie, is set in 2019. And here we are: there's an unregulated black market where bounty-hunters can buy information about where we are, in real time, over time, and come after us. You don't need to be a replicant to be scared of the consequences," Thomas Rid, professor of strategic studies at Johns Hopkins University, told Motherboard.

Ron Wyden, a senator from Oregon, said in a statement, "This is a nightmare for national security and the personal safety of anyone with a phone."

128 comments

  1. I'm not surprised. by Z00L00K · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Aldous Huxley, George Orwell and even Ray Bradbury predicted the world that we are steaming in to. Even Max Headroom is to some extent surpassed.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    1. Re:I'm not surprised. by stilrz · · Score: 1

      Those guys were optimists.

    2. Re: I'm not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're basically living in Shadowrun, without the magic.

    3. Re:I'm not surprised. by pdclarry · · Score: 4, Informative

      Bullshit.

      You are not that important. Unless you are a criminal, on the run from the police, there are no bounty hunters looking for you.

      Bounty hunters aren't the only potential users of this "service." How about abusive spouses? Stalkers? terrorists?

    4. Re: I'm not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Political Rivals, or anyone ever thinking of running for office or holding a public office or with a modicum of influence or power (journalists included).

      Just think of the dirt that can be used for influence if money doesnt talk.

    5. Re: I'm not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not even that. It's people using private investigators that are the worst problem. They can do a lot more than just geotracking, they can also remotely access phones without the restrictions regular law enforcement face. So long as they don't get caught red handed, they can and do just about anything they want.

      Know someone who went through a nasty divorce and whose spouse is claiming has a lot more money and/or stuff they can sell to raise money, but can't find it? Congratulations, your connection to that spouse means you can and probably will be monitored until such time as the money can be found, or the PI determines its a lost cause. That can be anywhere from six weeks to a couple years.

      Know someone who has defaulted on credit. Congratulations, you will be monitored until such time as the credit agency (or the more specifically the collection agency the credit gets sold to) deems you to have no ability to pay anything for them.

      In either case it doesn't matter one bit if you have never had so much as a traffic ticket and have never done anything wrong.

      Idiots who think that so long as you do nothing wrong, no harm will come to you are going to be rudely awakened when they find out just how insanely wrong they are.

    6. Re:I'm not surprised. by LazarusQLong · · Score: 3

      How about this scenario. I am a criminal driving through a town looking at houses to potentially burgle. I see a box in the garbage in front of YOUR HOUSE for an expensive product (Computer, TV, something) and I, with a couple of hundred dollars worth of equipment, wait for a cell phone call from within your house. Now I have your cell number. I wait for a time when your location information shows you to be far away, then burgle your house. With such a setup, I can burgle many houses, all without having to worry about you being home. In addition, I can tell your automatic garage door to open (should you have one, and in a perfect world, your garage is connected to your house!), I can drive my featureless van/large SUV into your garage, break into your house through the connecting door, load the van/suv in piece and quiet, and then open the garage again and drive away. closing it as I leave. Idiots like you always think that privacy is unimportant unless you are breaking the law, you constantly are too stupid to realize that privacy means MUCH more than that. Criminals want to know where you are at any given moment too. Pedophiles want to know where your kids are, how many you have, etc... there are many use cases wherein your lack of this level of privacy can hurt you or your loved ones, either physically or financially.

      --
      "Governments have been dominated by the corporate entities and citizens have ceased to matter in public policy" true in
    7. Re:I'm not surprised. by Aighearach · · Score: 0

      Give them a break, slashdot readers aren't educated enough to understand that "Bounty Hunter" is a type of private detective, with special permission from the government to track down and apprehend people wanted by the government.

      They think it means a professional kidnapper, like Boba Fett.

      The problem isn't that "Bounty Hunters" (a type of bail bondsmen) can get this information, the problem is that the information is totally unprotected, and people who are not "Bounty Hunters" can presumably also get it. Good luck getting even 2% of readers to understand that many words in a row; they won't likely manage more than 5.

    8. Re: I'm not surprised. by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      Speaking of politics, could somebody locate Ruth Bader Ginsburg's phone and see if it's at home, in the hospital, or already in the morgue. Inquiring minds would like to know.

    9. Re:I'm not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ugg ugg...we all dum dums and you big smart man.
      Ugg...please continue explain how we simultaneous too dumb to realize shouldn't worry about bounty hunters cuz they not after us but also too dumb to realize should worry cuz information unprotected.

    10. Re:I'm not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give them a break, slashdot readers aren't educated enough to understand that "Bounty Hunter" is a type of private detective, with special permission from the government to track down and apprehend people wanted by the government.

      Slashdot readers are probably educated enough to realize that what constitutes a "Bounty Hunter", and what permission and licensing is necessary to become one, varies significantly from state to state.

    11. Re:I'm not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And those that aren't probably enjoyed watching "Dog the Bounty Hunter" and understand the meaning of the term by that means.

    12. Re:I'm not surprised. by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How about your boss ?
      You know, that day you called in sick so you could go to the ballgame instead ?

      How about your insurance company ?
      Let's take a look at where you've been eating for the past year. . . .

    13. Re:I'm not surprised. by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 2

      Bounty Hunters? How about...

      You are not that important: even though YOU are at the center of YOUR universe, you're not at the center of everyone ELSE'S. That needs to be hammered into the heads of a few people, preferably with a Smart Hammer (Google and Amazon enabled.)

      OTOH, you ARE the center for a few caring people: your spouse, your pet. The Repo Man. Flo, who likes you SO MUCH she wants to know where you are Every Single Second While You're Moving. (speed=d/t)

      Terrorists, not so much. The whole point there is to get people afraid and act accordingly; who they use in the process is mostly irrelevant.

      Sidenote: I installed Life360, an Android location and overall helpful app for my (now-ex) girlfriend so we could easily locate each other. I talked to her beforehand, and nicknamed the app "Stalker" JUST to get the point across.

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    14. Re:I'm not surprised. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      How about your insurance company ?
      Let's take a look at where you've been eating for the past year. . . .

      When I eat out with my daughter, she insists we go to the vegan salad bar. So I am looking forward to a reduction in my insurance rates.

    15. Re: I'm not surprised. by farble1670 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Idiots who think that so long as you do nothing wrong, no harm will come to you are going to be rudely awakened when they find out just how insanely wrong they are.

      Hiding money during a divorce is wrong.
      Defaulting on credit is wrong.

      I think your problem may be your understanding of right and wrong.

    16. Re:I'm not surprised. by farble1670 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sidenote: I installed Life360, an Android location and overall helpful app for my (now-ex) girlfriend so we could easily locate each other. I talked to her beforehand

      Needing to know each others' location at any time is at least one of the contributing problems.

    17. Re:I'm not surprised. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      wait for a cell phone call from within your house. Now I have your cell number.

      How can a common thief get my phone number by parking in front of my house?

      A thief is not going to have access to a Stingray. Even if he did, it is difficult to distinguish a phone call from one house from another next door or across the street,

    18. Re: I'm not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grandparent said that you might KNOW such a person. Totally innocent contacts of investigative subjects get spied on all the time.

      Furthermore, in the example given, the person's soon-to-be-ex spouse THINKS that they have assets. That doesn't mean they DO have assets. PIs will take the case regardless. And nonexistent debts get turned over to collections all the time, because lots of lenders have worthless, lazy paper-pushing drones handling these cases, and they fuck up all the time.

      You know, lazy self-satisfied dipshits. Sort of like the kind of subhuman moron who's too eager to catch somebody out and write something righteous-sounding to bother actually reading the stuff they're responding to.

    19. Re:I'm not surprised. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Funny

      They think it means a professional kidnapper, like Boba Fett.

      Bullcrap. Boba Fett was working within the legal jurisdiction of the Empire. He was just as legitimate as any other bounty hunter.

    20. Re:I'm not surprised. by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Your theories about hackers using high-tech crime and the dark web to steal your 500$ TV are only making the OP's point.

    21. Re: I'm not surprised. by pdclarry · · Score: 2

      Speaking of politics, could somebody locate Ruth Bader Ginsburg's phone and see if it's at home, in the hospital, or already in the morgue. Inquiring minds would like to know.

      You perhaps meant it as a joke. However, recently the NY Times posted a map of everywhere the mayor of NYC had traveled during the previous day, as a way of showing the risks of this technology. They did it by tracking an aide who travels everywhere with him.

    22. Re: I'm not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't call in sick and go to the ballgame, I'm not an insufferable incompetent jackoff so I just tell him I'm going and then I go.

    23. Re:I'm not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit.

      You are not that important. Unless you are a criminal, on the run from the police, there are no bounty hunters looking for you.

      Bounty hunters aren't the only potential users of this "service." How about abusive spouses? Stalkers? terrorists?

      Abusive spouses know you well enough to know your patterns and daily habits, stalkers even more so. Neither of them need location services to find your predictable ass. As far as terrorists, you would have to be someone to give a shit about first, which was exactly the parents point.

    24. Re:I'm not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [...] Bounty hunters aren't the only potential users of this "service." How about abusive spouses? Stalkers? terrorists?

      You should add bored cops to the list.

    25. Re:I'm not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about your boss ?
      You know, that day you called in sick so you could go to the ballgame instead ?

      How about your insurance company ?
      Let's take a look at where you've been eating for the past year. . . .

      When I am off work i am leaving company phone in safe place, errr my home safe, turned off.
      My private phone is very old ... like Nokia 6310 does not have even internet , GPS not WIFI.
      Yes, it can be tracked via base station triangulation ... but this is more complicated than modern phones ... I am happy, that I am free of that constant online presence addiction.

      And yes, I am working as IT professional.

    26. Re: I'm not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the way to do it. Pay bounty hunters/private investigators, track celebrities - especially politicians & law enforcement. Post their locations again and again. Especially if they visit shady places.

      Eventually, there'll be a law against this. But only if this is done to the elite, and so much they get annoyed.

    27. Re:I'm not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No? How many Stingrays have been sold? How many competitors have products that do the same thing, and how many have THEY sold? Can you account for all of those sales, to ensure that they're all in the hands of law enforcement? Can you account for every device sold, to ensure they haven't been stolen from an agency by a rogue officer? Can you account for every officer/agent/janitor who has access to the places where these devices are stored, to ensure that none of them are misusing the tech?

      Can you ensure that all of the above stays trustworthy for the next 50 years?

    28. Re: I'm not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A stingray will not give you the number of the phone. Only the IMSI and IMEI. Social engineering the customer support of the provider is probably the easiest.

    29. Re:I'm not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can drive my featureless van/large SUV into your garage

      Ha! You plan failed. You can't drive anything bigger than a bicycle into my garage.

    30. Re:I'm not surprised. by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      At his time of death his work was legal in the eyes of the empire, granted.

      But that only means that he was a Privateer for the baddies instead of a Pirate; it doesn't mean he wasn't a "professional kidnapper."

      Historically when such actions were legal, a person would still be "kidnapped" and "held hostage" until a "ransom" was paid!

      But like any Privateer, his work takes him outside the jurisdiction of the people granting his license, and the actions are often not legal in the jurisdiction they're actually operating in. So the ethics are still a bit fraught, even with a license.

  2. Not seeing an issue here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's part of the TOS you sign with your carrier.

    If a couple of criminals get burned by their phones' location, I'm not going to cry any rivers.

    1. Re:Not seeing an issue here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if your jealous ex-partner (whom you moved cross-country to get away from) burns you, we won't either.

    2. Re:Not seeing an issue here by bobbied · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's part of the TOS you sign with your carrier.

      If a couple of criminals get burned by their phones' location, I'm not going to cry any rivers.

      Until you become a criminal by violating some unfair or unconstitutional law and they track you down....

      The problem here is that it's illegal to track down a criminal using this data without a warrant. That folks can do this and bypass the need for a warrant may not be a problem to you now, but the camel's nose is in the tent if we let this happen w/o complaint and you may wish you'd said something.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:Not seeing an issue here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop making shit up faggot.

    4. Re:Not seeing an issue here by bob4u2c · · Score: 1

      So if your a criminal, trap a wild animal such as a mountain lion. Tranquilize the animal and attach your phone to it (nice heavy duty leather collar or something). Wait for the animal to wake up and run away.

      Then site back and enjoy the show!

    5. Re: Not seeing an issue here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And those in positions of power or possession of confidential or classified information will have their family and personal locations known at times for a few bucks. What could possibly go wrong...

    6. Re:Not seeing an issue here by LostMonk · · Score: 1

      You might also say: "I don't care about income tax - I'm unemployed!" or "I don't care about free speech - I've nothing to say!" or "I don't care about affordable health care - I'm healthy!"
      When the situation changes for you and you suddenly start caring - it'l be too late.

    7. Re:Not seeing an issue here by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      It's part of the TOS you sign with your carrier.

      If a couple of criminals get burned by their phones' location, I'm not going to cry any rivers.

      According to the article they don't have to be criminals. It could be creepy Steve from the night club tracking where that hottie Denise is living. Denise regretted not coming up with a fake number at the time... she's going to regret it even more when creepy Steve shows up at her door unannounced.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    8. Re: Not seeing an issue here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people are jealous without good reason. Like someone who cheats on you, you dump them, you're out with someone new, THEN they get jealous. Is it still ok?

      Security is for everyone.

    9. Re:Not seeing an issue here by thomn8r · · Score: 2
      Not leaving behind jealous ex-partners by cheating on them would be a good start.

      You don't even have to have a relationship with someone - or even know who they are - for them to stalk you.

    10. Re: Not seeing an issue here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You also need to be perfect at detecting narcissism, sociopathy and borderline personality disorder.

    11. Re:Not seeing an issue here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop being a ni gger, you dirty ni gger

    12. Re:Not seeing an issue here by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      It's part of the TOS you sign with your carrier.

      Not to mention the TOS you probably signed with your bail bondsman. When you're skipping bail, I don't think you enjoy the same rights to privacy as everyone else. Why are bounty hunters specifically "unauthorized" to access this data? It seems to me they do have a legitimate use for it.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    13. Re:Not seeing an issue here by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      It's part of the TOS you sign with your carrier.

      Not to mention the TOS you probably signed with your bail bondsman. When you're skipping bail, I don't think you enjoy the same rights to privacy as everyone else. Why are bounty hunters specifically "unauthorized" to access this data? It seems to me they do have a legitimate use for it.

      If it was only ever used to track down people who skipped bail that wouldn't be a problem. The problem is that anyone can purchase the information- and use it to track anyone, not just people who jump bail.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    14. Re:Not seeing an issue here by PPH · · Score: 1

      part of the TOS

      Even better: As of 1996 (I think), legislation changed the ownership of subscriber metadata from the customer to the telecom. It's not your data anymore, so just get over yourself.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    15. Re:Not seeing an issue here by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      So if your a criminal, trap a wild animal such as a mountain lion. Tranquilize the animal and attach your phone to it (nice heavy duty leather collar or something). Wait for the animal to wake up and run away.

      What if you're not a criminal but don't want to be tracked anyway? There just aren't enough mountain lions for everyone.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    16. Re:Not seeing an issue here by Rockoon · · Score: 0

      Why are you such a phenomenal idiot that you think you just made some sort of point?

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    17. Re: Not seeing an issue here by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 0

      None of those are reason to leave behind a jealous ex. They are good reasons to get your spouse psychiatric help though.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    18. Re: Not seeing an issue here by LazarusQLong · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I lived with a gal for 3 years, came home early from work one day and found her vigoursly giving head to another guy. I gave her the key and said I would be back for my stuff... When I returned she was physically threatening, hitting kicking, yelling, screaming at me for dumping her... You do not have to be the cheater to have a psycho come looking for you.

      --
      "Governments have been dominated by the corporate entities and citizens have ceased to matter in public policy" true in
    19. Re:Not seeing an issue here by bob4u2c · · Score: 1

      Bears, Alligators, Cougars, Wolverines, Coyotes, Bobcats, Wolves, Skunks, Eagles, or just the common stray dog. Nature provides many options for entertainment.

      If you in the urban jungle, then just strap it to a school bus or random taxi.
      I can see the news at 11 footage now. The swat team surrounds a bus of children and takes them off one by one at gun point only to find a cell phone belonging to a criminal strapped to the under carriage. Heck, you might get one of those catholic buses with nuns, or even a bus of hippies.

      And yes, I want to see the world burn!

    20. Re: Not seeing an issue here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that will end well for you. My wife of 19 years threatened me with death if I attempted to have her committed, not that I was planning to.

    21. Re: Not seeing an issue here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people are jealous without good reason. Like someone who cheats on you, you dump them, you're out with someone new, THEN they get jealous. Is it still ok?

      That's almost exactly what happened to me. My ex cheated on me multiple times with several other men, made no secret of it, but went ballistic if I so much as talked to another woman. When she physically attacked my female cousin on our doorstep who was passing through and made a surprise visit, I decided that enough was enough. And, no, I did not cheat on her. I moved across the country to get away from her, filed for divorce, and and did not even date until after it was final.

      My conscience is clear, and MH42 can go fuck himself with a rusty spoon.

    22. Re: Not seeing an issue here by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      Show me a psychiatrist or other mental health professional that has successfully treated a narcissist.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    23. Re:Not seeing an issue here by MobyDisk · · Score: 2

      No it is not. A search warrant is required to search someone's property. But if you obtain evidence through other means no warrant is required. Maybe you are thinking of how a search warrant is required to put a GPS on a car. Or how a search warrant or a subpoena is required to compel the phone company to release your locayion to them. But if a company is selling the info or releasing it for free no special process is required.

      Really, the police could start displaying banner ads on facebook and they have free legal access to everyone's location.

    24. Re:Not seeing an issue here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't leave them behind? What, you should kill them? That's a bit harsh. Well, I suppose the Kingdom of Heaven awaits... But you probably shouldn't leave the cadaver behind either.

    25. Re:Not seeing an issue here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a couple of criminals get burned by their phones' location I'm not going to cry any rivers.

      The criminals don't want your tears anyway; they want to high-five you for being on their side.

      And if your burglar service burns you, I don't even know how you can call that a burn, since it's right there in the terms of service. They said they'd track you and enter the house when you're at work, so that's what they did. What did you expect?!

      The rapist company entered when your wife was home and you were at work, and you've got the temerity to bitch about that?! Same thing: it was in the fucking (and beating) ToS!

      People need to start seeing the upsides of being able to track people. Crime was always at a disadvantage because of the getting-caught problem, but we're solving that.

    26. Re: Not seeing an issue here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      came home early from work one day and found her vigoursly giving head to another guy.

      Can you post her name and phone number? No need for her address (according to TFA).

    27. Re:Not seeing an issue here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cell companies are pretty much exclusively excluded from most of those pesky 'phone rules'. They are title II. They are considered a data service. They can pretty much do what they want *by* *law*. (source I read the law).

    28. Re: Not seeing an issue here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me, me, me, me, me, me. You can't think beyond your own particular circumstances now. Can you use your imagination to think of likely scenarios where investigative journalists, political organisers, people with very rich relatives, or people who are being targeted by organised crime or shady agencies working for dodgy corporations?

    29. Re:Not seeing an issue here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if your a criminal, trap a wild animal such as a mountain lion. Tranquilize the animal and attach your phone to it (nice heavy duty leather collar or something).

      Why so much effort?
      I am traveling over the world.
      Usually starting my trip as in couple cheap movies.
      Find pawn shop, but simple phone, buy prepaid GSM sim card ... use it.
      When leaving the country just thrown away phone and card. Or leave it in public area ...

      Contrary to what market droids (and police) believe phone is not and fingerprint of the person ...
      Unless you travel in police country like India where one have to provide ID before purchasing sim card. In such case I usually ask local bum for small cash to get sim card for me.

      Of course there is always the risk that previous phone (not sim) user
      was a person of interest for some three letter agency. At least there is good cover .. I was not here at ...point of time ... check your immigration database :-)

    30. Re:Not seeing an issue here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should take a look at "three felonies a day", where the authors show pretty convincingly that the "average law-abiding John Doe" commits about three felonies a day - without knowing they do anything wrong, without criminal intent or at least without knowing the tiny rulebreaking is in fact a felony these days. That number goes up by an order of magnitude if the average John Doe is carrying a legally obtained, licensed and lawful handgun with them, because then a ton of tiny misdemeanors suddenly turn into felonies.

    31. Re: Not seeing an issue here by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      At which point the proper reply is, if I have you committed until you calm down for your own good, then doesn't that protect me from you killing me and prevent you from ruining your life and ending up in prison for life?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    32. Re:Not seeing an issue here by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      You should get them the help they need to not be that way.

      https://www.psycom.net/personality-disorders/narcissistic/

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    33. Re: Not seeing an issue here by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1
      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    34. Re:Not seeing an issue here by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Bears, Alligators, Cougars, Wolverines, Coyotes,

      I fear that I'm too old to catch myself a cougar now.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    35. Re:Not seeing an issue here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Narcissism, socio/psychopath,you can't help those kind of people, for all the obvious reasons, they're good actors. They are why I am not against the death penalty any more. Nothing can be done for them. This is a trait we must totally eradicate by any means necessary.

    36. Re:Not seeing an issue here by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Funny, that link I provided gives you a number of things you can do about a narcissist. I think you're just giving up.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    37. Re:Not seeing an issue here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if a narcissist actually sincerely (impossible to prove) wants to be cured, then he isn't really a narcissist. A true narcissist/psycho/sociopath will just tell you to fuck off, unless he needs a favor or something, then he's an ass kisser. I'm not giving up, I'm taking a stand against a very serious problem, a problem aggravated by a society that rewards these people. If we simply stop doing that, we will make great progress.

    38. Re:Not seeing an issue here by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      And that is where involuntary commitment by a spouse comes into play.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    39. Re:Not seeing an issue here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where's a spouse when you need one? He may have killed them all...

    40. Re:Not seeing an issue here by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      I thought we were talking about divorce. Murder kind of sidesteps that, but so does involuntary spousal commitment.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  3. Can be done even cheaper. by psergiu · · Score: 5, Informative

    As long as you can find out in which mobile network that phone is registered, you can take a SIM from the same provider, pop-it into a mobile modem, enable basic network tracing and call that number. As soon as the called number begins to ring, you'll get a packet back from the network listing among other stuff the CELLID where that phone is registered.
    And there are a bunch of websites where you can plug a CELLID which will show that "hunder meter circle" where that cell's antenna has coverage.

    --
    1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
    1. Re:Can be done even cheaper. by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      So that plus an autodialer and a phone number/name database and an arbitrary person can have realish time data on everyone's location?

    2. Re: Can be done even cheaper. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or use databases available for purchase on the dark web to match individuals to cellids. And then you can use a trio of $40 usb SDR dongles and triangulate someone's location to the centimeter, and get their Wi-Fi/Bluetooth fingerprints, and use trivially available exploits of those protocols, all from the comfort of your car down the block.

      All wireless tech right now is vulnerable.

    3. Re:Can be done even cheaper. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Or even cheaper yet, just record their checkins from facebook.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    4. Re:Can be done even cheaper. by psergiu · · Score: 1

      If you have that modem dialing out to automatically play a sound file of "You have been approved for medical insured pain relief press one to talk to a operator ..." if the other party manages to pick up - then yes, you can do that. :-)
      But expect your SIM to get disconnected and the IMSI of your modem blocked the next day (if the mobile operators are smart enough to count the number of "debug" messages running over the network and report on that)

      --
      1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
    5. Re:Can be done even cheaper. by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Citation needed ... it seems unlikely.

    6. Re:Can be done even cheaper. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here are three modem AT command set documentation files for SIM modem manufacturers:

      - https://www.sierrawireless.com/resources/documents/support/2130617_supported_at_command_reference-v2.4.pdf
      - https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Interface/LTE
      - https://altitude.tech/wp-content/uploads/Simcom%20application%20notes/simcom_sim7100_atc_en_v0.12.pdf

      Here are relevant specifications from ITU and ETSI which are authoritative on this subject:

      - https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-V.250/en
      - https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gts/07/0707/05.00.00_60/gsmts_0707v050000p.pdf

      None of these seem to indicate that CELLID will ever be available as a response in +RING or +CRING incoming packets.

    7. Re:Can be done even cheaper. by psergiu · · Score: 1

      Not in the default response.
      As i said - you need to send some extra bits to enable debug responses. Those are documented in the cell's documentation and may differ from cell manufacturer to manufacturer... But there's like five of them anyways so you can try them all.
      Some old Motorola phones had them built in - you just punch a really long star code and the screen fills up with interesting numbers :) The trick was to pay attention to the cell tower servicemen and see what phone models they were using.

      --
      1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
  4. How it's done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Having worked for one of these Telco's (admitedly before LTE) I can tell you how it's likely done.

    Your cell phone must register with a tower, so the "contact" inside the wireless telco looks up the customer's phone number directly in the switching system so that they leave no fingerprints in the CRM system. So the HLR will say where the mobile device is presently located by the tower's id number, and then you cross reference that with the actual geographic location of the tower.

    That's how it's done, and customers, pre-smartphones who have had their devices lost or stolen have routinely called in to ask where their device is and at best, the rep can say it's somewhere near X (where the HLR says it was last seen) often by using a tool designed to check if the phone is roaming. If the phone is roaming on another carrier's tower, then the carrier will actually have more information available since the roaming database on the phone will only try to connect to certain towers it's been authorized to. So if your phone is in Dallas, which has a lot of cell sites, its much easier to figure out where someone is because one tower might only serve an area of 300ft, where as a tower out in Anchorage, might literately serve half the city, so the precision is much lower.

    The on-device A-GPS is more accurate because it can use multiple cell sites and actual GPS line-of-sight to determine where it is. But this information isn't typically relayed back to the cell carrier unless the carrier provides A-GPS service in the first place. LPP (LTE Positioning Protocol) is some fancy level of A-GPS that utilizes multiple sources. If the carrier has A-GPS, then yes, the carrier knows within 100ft of where the phone is.

    The question is how much data does the carrier actually need though? If you turn A-GPS off, which you typically can't do without turning all location services off entirely, then you're stuck.

    If you turn location services off, you can still be found as long as the phone is powered on since it's still registered in the HLR. Just it can only be narrowed down to the last tower seen for the most part.

    1. Re:How it's done by psergiu · · Score: 1

      Well ... the "HLR boys" can send a few network commands to force that phone to try and register with another tower ... then another one ... if they have your EIRP from at least 3 tower locations, you're triangulated to about ~15m (down to ~5m in cities with lots of towers).

      Hint: if you see the signal bars on your phone jumping up and down for a minute or two without a reason ( phone idle, no apps downloading data, no high movement of devices in network (rush hour or concert) ) - then guess what just happened :)

      --
      1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
    2. Re:How it's done by bobbied · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I believe you are mostly correct about the HLR/VLR, but I think the cell company has more information than just what tower you are hitting or which MSC you happen to be in. (BTW, it's really the MSC's VLR that has this information, the HLR is where your handset is registered and it knows what MSC you are in so inbound calls can be routed to the right MSC to be delivered to your handset. The local MSC to your handset has a VLR (Visitor Location Register) which is about where your handset happens to be right now so when that call arrives they know what cell gets the call so they can assign a slot and deliver it to your phone.

      These days they have quite a bit more information about the handset's location, including a signal strength and apparent direction from the cell tower, from which they can make a pretty good estimate of your location. They need this information to more accurately transmit and receive from your handset at the higher data rates while not consuming excessive expensive spectrum space. These days cell towers have electronically steerable arrays for antennas, so they can better use their available spectrum space to service more phones at higher data rates.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:How it's done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the trip down basic shit memory lane.

    4. Re:How it's done by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      IIRC, A-GPS can be turned back on remotely by the carrier. Theoretically, it's supposed to happen in response to something like a warrant.

      (Or at least I've read articles that make this claim)

    5. Re:How it's done by Freischutz · · Score: 1

      These days cell towers have electronically steerable arrays for antennas, so they can better use their available spectrum space to service more phones at higher data rates.

      They've had that for at least 15 years.

    6. Re:How it's done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the GPS is on the same package as the modem (which is the case for a lot of phone SOCs), it can be remotely enabled and queried by anyone capable of sending moderately low-level packets across the global phone network. If not, the phone will try to guess its location via time of flight measurements and then send that back. All without telling the user.

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

  5. unauthorised editor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we get someone who did pass "writing headlines and summaries 101" please?

    1. Re: unauthorised editor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol, no

    2. Re:unauthorised editor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be new here.

  6. Hey tony, we gotta get in on dis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Hey tony, we gotta get in on dis...thinks of the people we might finds that owes ya money.

  7. Testing their boundaries by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Warning to telecoms: if you don't like being regulated, don't invent reasons to get regulated.

    Get together and come up with a mutual industry agreement on when and how to share customer data in a way that's not confusing or misleading to customers. Sign the agreement and hold each other accountable. The alternative is that the gov't will do such for you after you play fast and loose for short-term profits and bungle it one day.

    1. Re:Testing their boundaries by SirAstral · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your logic is bad.

      If your solution to problems that businesses have is to run to regulators to solve them then you are going to lose. Or have you not looked at the past Century of the FCC itself? One hardly needs to look at only that industry either to see the same effect.

      The correct "free-market" control on capitalist monopoly is for the "consumers" to refuse to buy these product and to start up competing businesses... o wait... sorry you effectively prevented that proper "control" by letting the regulators do that for you and subsequently allowed them to be bought off by the industry to put in regulations that make it very difficult for you to challenge incumbents with new services making it difficult for even super rich businesses to compete.

      People like you are the exact reason why Google Fiber failed and the problem is that you don't know why or how that is and when you are told how or why you start calling it victim blaming. Well if you help create support an institution that is oppressing you, you are not exactly a victim.... more like someone getting their comeuppance for being taken for a fool. You can't walk off a cliff and legitimately bitch about gravity pulling you to your doom!

      In no uncertain terms... They will buy your "regulators" and "own you" as you "grin from ear to ear" thinking you put them in their places with so called "regulation". It has happened so many time they now tell you to your face how they are going to take advantage of you and you don't even believe it! Even if you substitute capitalism for socialism or even communism they will still be ruling over you, no exception, no mistake. The history is there for everyone to see! The poor endlessly whine about the bourgeoisie ruling over them and what is the first thing the poor do when a problem occurs? They run to the bourgeoisie that control their lives over here and ask them to control their lives over there.

    2. Re: Testing their boundaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what is your answer? Let them run unchecked?

      Let me guess, you think we need a wall to protect us don't you?

    3. Re:Testing their boundaries by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 2

      The correct "free-market" control on capitalist monopoly is for the "consumers" to refuse to buy these product and to start up competing businesses... o wait... sorry you effectively prevented that proper "control" by letting the regulators do that for you and subsequently allowed them to be bought off by the industry to put in regulations that make it very difficult for you to challenge incumbents with new services making it difficult for even super rich businesses to compete.

      The preferred "free market" solution does not automatically happen for free in all markets.

      Telecommunications companies started off big, because they had to have the economic muscle to negotiate with many private and gov't entities to achieve a network of sufficient scale to be economically viable. At this size, pure free market solutions are fantasy.

      Of course, we, as consumers, do have options. We could choose to not be a part of a cell system at all, and use apps that connect through wifi to make and receive calls. That is less convenient, but it can work.

      Ultimately, privacy is not yet something enough customers care about. We are in an age where it is more important than ever to vote with our consumer dollars.

    4. Re:Testing their boundaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The alternative is that the gov't will do such for you

      Not as long as we have a telco puppet (Ajit Pai) in charge of the FCC.

    5. Re:Testing their boundaries by SirAstral · · Score: 1

      "Telecommunications companies started off big, because they had to have the economic muscle to negotiate with many private and gov't entities to achieve a network of sufficient scale to be economically viable."

      This is purely specious. You are making a blind claim in this regard, does being big help? Sure does, but it is also often not a requirement like so many people think. Lots of businesses have started off small and then got big. Additionally, the government helped them to create this problem by letting them have private property on public land. The wires and poles should be public property regulated by the government and taken away from the telco's little monopoly fiefdoms. Lowering the barrier to entry in this market would seriously hurt the giants... but they need regulations that provide a high barrier to keep competition out.

      " At this size, pure free market solutions are fantasy."

      Welcome to the straw-man fallacy. Just because I told someone that their default "regulate all the things" mentality was bad, it does not mean that I am advocating for a pure free market.

      But since you brought that up as well. Let me ask you this. Would you rather face down a free-market monopoly screwing you over or would you rather face down a government monopoly screwing you over? One side gets to put you in jail for not doing what they tell you to do.

      I agree with you on your other points though. In order for things to work better, customers really do need to care about it more. It is hard to go without when you are standing by your principals but if businesses see a lot of people "just not buying" because of their antics... they will respond or the politicians will respond as well. The one thing we cannot allow is for a regulator to become our voice in what we want done... that only removes us consumers from the bargaining table. We only need regulators telling businesses what they absolutely cannot be allowed to do... like have a monopoly for starters... you get X big and you get broken up... simple as that. If you make back room deals or anything looking like anti-trust with other businesses to form an oligopoly or something similar... then you risk going to jail... no fines, no warnings... just flat out criminal prosecution of the owners or executives involved..

    6. Re:Testing their boundaries by AlwinBarni · · Score: 1

      What is this "companies accountability" for misuse of data collected about their prod..., I mean consumers I've been hearing about, you mean like the Equifax?

    7. Re: Testing their boundaries by jittles · · Score: 1

      So what is your answer? Let them run unchecked?

      Let me guess, you think we need a wall to protect us don't you?

      No, we need a wall to protect us from him and others like him Without regulation you’d end up with the streets of NYC at the turn of the century 20th - where there were countless power lines running electricity from every different provider under the sun. The reason Google Fiber failed is because running fiber is incredibly expensive and disrupts the streets in the city hosting it. So the solution is for the city to own the fiber just like it owns the streets on top of the fiber. The city doesn’t need to be an ISP like Chatanooga, TN does. It just needs to provide equal access to the fiber to any company who is willing to pay for that access and that has a customer willing to buy their service. Then you would have a legitimate free market for fiber to the home.

      However, you can’t easily do something like that with cellular service. Sure you could have each municipality own its own towers but then it gets incredibly complex to build a nationwide cellular network. Therefore you have to force the players to act in the customer’s best interest instead of their corporate interests.

    8. Re:Testing their boundaries by qubezz · · Score: 1

      And the scumbag middlemen reselling scumbag provider's customer's info are also liars. "âoeillegal access to data is an unfortunate occurrence across virtually every industry that deals in consumer or employee data, and it is impossible to detect a fraudster, or rogue customer" - it is not illegal, it at most breaks some backroom handshake deal between mobile providers and the tiers of companies that resell data. If you've got some investigative business which are already operate on the fringe of legality (like car thief tow trucks), even if directly adversarial to the customer's interests, you can buy surreptitious continuous location tracking. When questioned in Congress, T-Mobile clearly lied when they said they would no longer share customer data with these resellers.

    9. Re: Testing their boundaries by SirAstral · · Score: 1

      "However, you canâ(TM)t easily do something like that with cellular service."

      Your points are solid but I would like to expand on it and point out that... Well, you CAN easily do something if you force standards better. The real problem is that they are allowed to operate and control their infrastructure using only their own proprietary protocols which are not compatible with each other and exclusive access to "auctioned frequencies" creating more monopolies yet again as a solution to a problem that does not have to be. There are millions of WiFi routers in homes all over the stinking planet that interoperate with each other fairly well because they use open standards.

      The entire purpose of a giving a federal government power to regulate is so that ATT, Verison, Sprint, & T-Mobile would not be allowed to do exactly what they are currently doing. Uncle SAM made a killing off selling thin air just so businesses could turn around and rob you blind with their monopolies to use that thin air! How is this in the best interests of the nation?

    10. Re:Testing their boundaries by jeff4747 · · Score: 2

      This is purely specious. You are making a blind claim in this regard, does being big help? Sure does, but it is also often not a requirement like so many people think. Lots of businesses have started off small and then got big

      Didn't think this through much, did you?

      So you start your little telco, with your 10 customers.

      Why does AT&T route any calls to you? Or any calls from your customers to AT&T customers? Keep in mind we're in your ideal world without telecom regulations, so "common carrier" doesn't exist.

      Or such regulations do exist, and AT&T just decided to route a few petabytes of traffic through your network, utterly swamping your network and crippling your service. Causing 8 of your customers to cancel service. You now have to charge the last 2 enormous subscriber fees to stay in business, so they also leave. Thus putting you out of business.

      Additionally, the government helped them to create this problem by letting them have private property on public land. The wires and poles

      The poles don't belong to the telephone companies. They belong to the power companies. The telephone companies are leasing space on the poles from the power companies.

      Would you rather face down a free-market monopoly screwing you over or would you rather face down a government monopoly screwing you over? One side gets to put you in jail for not doing what they tell you to do.

      And I get to vote on who's in charge of that side. That's a rather large difference.

    11. Re:Testing their boundaries by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 2

      But since you brought that up as well. Let me ask you this. Would you rather face down a free-market monopoly screwing you over or would you rather face down a government monopoly screwing you over? One side gets to put you in jail for not doing what they tell you to do.

      Ultimately you are dependent on gov't honesty and competence to some degree, even if not exactly the same in both cases.

      In the case of more direct gov't involvement, I can vote with my vote.

      In the case of less direct gov't involvement, I vote in the hope the gov't will protect me when my little startup is visited by hired goons who rough me up and smash my equipment.

      That was not a theoretical concern, in the real world. There are two reasons that Hollywood is in California, BTW. First the land and (sun)lighting made it cheap. However there has a huge downside because all the top talent was over on the East Coast, especially NYC. Second reason is that Thomas Alva Edison, the holy saint of innovation, decided that the courts were not adequately protecting his intellectual property, so he hired goons to rough up moviemakers and smash their equipment. The distance to California suddenly became a plus, because little movie outfits were far away from the eyes of Edison.

    12. Re:Testing their boundaries by citizenr · · Score: 1

      >Warning to telecoms: if you don't like being regulated, don't invent reasons to get regulated.

      or get your puppet lead FCC, seems cheraper

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    13. Re:Testing their boundaries by SirAstral · · Score: 1

      This conversation goes better when you use your brain a little.

      "Why does AT&T route any calls to you?"

      There already are regulations that prevent that without calling up congress to for them to also stop them from invading your privacy. There really is such a thing as too much regulation but it sounds like for people like you anything less than total regulation is zero regulation at all.

      "The poles don't belong to the telephone companies. They belong to the power companies. The telephone companies are leasing space on the poles from the power companies."

      I guess what I said flew right over your head. No private company providing utilities of any kind should own private property on public lands, this naturally includes more than just ISP's, but it seems you don't get that.

      "And I get to vote on who's in charge of that side. That's a rather large difference."

      lol, You voted for Ajit Pai? Regulators are appointed moron, they are appointed for the express purpose of getting morons like you pissed off at the regulators rather than Congress and changing your vote for getting screwed. I don't think you are playing with a full deck here... a few fries short of a happy meal... you do know that there are revolving doors between these "agencies" and the industries they regulate right? Go and look up "regulatory capture". They game suckers like you to vote for it to all happen... all for a few cheap and empty promises.

      let me tell you how this works. A businesses takes advantage of you a little bit. You get angry. A politician tells you that they will solve the problem if you just vote for them. You vote for them. Politician meets with the business they are going to "protect you from" and makes a back room deal and the result of that backroom deal looks something like this...

      end result: you get fucked and lose even more bargaining power because the deal the regulators worked out with your traitor politician got that politician a lot of campaign financing and regulations making it harder for competitors to start up against them. If they are a regulator they get promised a job or something in their family gets a job at the company instead. Point is they "get paid"! And you pay that cost for being moron that wants government to solve market problems you have to solve for yourself.

      All I have to do to get your vote is sell you a lie and you will buy it every time. And when you whine to me about problems I will blame the other side for it and you will believe every drop of lies I feed you. And every time I solve a problem I will solve it in a way that "looks" like it was helping you while putting in loop holes for businesses to exploit and when you call me out on that I will promise to fix them if you vote for me again. Getting the point yet? I can play this game until I am old and gray!

    14. Re:Testing their boundaries by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      If your solution to problems that businesses have is to run to regulators to solve...

      Where did I say or imply that?

      The correct "free-market" control on capitalist monopoly is for the "consumers" to refuse to buy these product and to start up competing businesses...

      They can spend billions of dollars to keep the little guy little. It's like fighting a fire-hose with a squirt-gun. It's a wonderful ideal, but often fails in practice. I can convey dozens of historical Microsoft/IBM/AT&T/etc. shannegins (and there's probably many more under-table activities that are unknown to the public).

      People like you are the exact reason why Google Fiber failed

      I made Google screw up?

      The rest of your argument seems to be, "regulation leads to crony capitalism, and therefore we should do nothing". If that's an incorrect summary, feel free to provide specifics and evidence.

      Regulation is rarely perfect, I agree, but often better than no regulation when dealing with oligopolies/monopolies. Just because something is not perfect is not by itself a reason to throw it away.

    15. Re:Testing their boundaries by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      I guess what I said flew right over your head. No private company providing utilities of any kind should own private property on public lands, this naturally includes more than just ISP's, but it seems you don't get that.

      Without a bit more concrete details on how that framework could work for the various kinds of utilities and telecomms, I do not think you have an argument here at all.

      In the real world, these services are provided with a messy combination of public property, publicly owned easements, private property, privately owned easements, and various leases for all of the above, the exact details of which vary by state and county and city. And while you may have fine ideas of what a better approach would be, it actually has to apply to the world after the last hundred years of messy agreements already occurred, or the ideas do not have value to anyone in the real world. (Unless you can find a billionaire who will found a new city in the desert to try these ideas. I hear that not everyone has completely given up on Galt's Gulch in Chile.)

      My guess is we have areas of both agreement and disagreement. But what I am hearing from you is still too fuzzy to be useful to me.

  8. The No Shit Sherlock prize goes to by DarkRookie2 · · Score: 1

    The person who wrote the article.

    --
    http://progressquest.com/spoltog.php?name=Son+Of+Son+Of+DarkRookie
  9. Burying the lede by Harinezumi · · Score: 1

    I have no objections to the telcos making it easier for bounty hunters to track down fugitive criminals. The faster those get caught, the better off the rest of society is. The fact that there are no controls in place to keep this data from getting in the hands of stalkers, burglars, jealous spouses, and nosy neighbors is the far bigger concern.

    1. Re:Burying the lede by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like a true moron.

      The whole point of privacy is that in order to protect the average person, you sometimes have to let a few criminals go. I don't like it any more than you, but I'd much rather err on the side of privacy for innocent people.

      I know, ancient, antiquated pre-9/11 thinking. The propaganda never worked on me, so oh well, I'm old-school. Fuck wholesale tracking of everyone, period.

  10. Nice tool for burglars as well by clovis · · Score: 1

    Burglars might like to know who is traveling and on the other side of the country.
    Or people doing corporate espionage might like to poke around in the target's home computer and have time to clean up their traces.

  11. Duh! by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    People with outstanding warrants know that the police can track them, so they use throwaway phones, so that the cops don't know their number.

    I don't see how bounty hunters would get to know that number unless they criminals are so stupid to call acquaintances with it.

    Then they deserve it.

    It's simple, if you don't want to get found, don't use a phone.

  12. Airplane mode and Faraday bags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More and more, I keep it in airplane mode.

    No transmissions, though I assume the phone is still listening.

    For that, I need to get the Faraday cage bag or cell case.

    1. Re:Airplane mode and Faraday bags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No transmissions, though I assume the phone is still listening.

      The phone has to have two-way comms with a tower or Wi-Fi station to receive any calls or texts.

  13. His NAME was HARRY BUTTLE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Or if your name might sort-of kind-of look somewhat similar in some way to a deadbeat, you may have collection agencies digging into your background.

  14. Use forwarding numbers? by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

    Can't you protect yourself from this by never giving out your direct number? Just give people a number from a service like Google Voice that allows you to forward calls to your real number.

    1. Re:Use forwarding numbers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll be protected from third party companies trying to sell you stuff. But if you're talking about being protected from the government? Hahahahaha. If you have billions of dollars of resources spent trying to locate you: Good luck.

  15. Thoughts and prayers? by ChatHuant · · Score: 1

    Ron Wyden, a senator from Oregon, said in a statement, "This is a nightmare for national security and the personal safety of anyone with a phone."

    So let's hurry up and do nothing about it!

  16. Easy Manipulation by forkfail · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If nothing else, this article shows how easy it is to manipulate people's views.

    Had this article been about how anyone, such as a connected stalker, could for a few hundred dollars, track your location through your phone, there would have been almost universal outrage in the comments.

    But because it is framed in terms of bounty hunters catching bad guys, there are an awful lot of comments in support of this capability. Even if it is illegal and can be used by anyone with the dollars to buy the services.

    Does not give hope for the future.

    --
    Check your premises.
  17. People are bent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Politicians are bent
    FBI are bent
    Police are bent
    CIA are bent
    NSA are bent
    Health insurance companies are bent
    Doctors are bent
    Bounty hunters are bent
    We are all bent!

  18. Easy way to make things better. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you don't like this, just exploit this hole to kidnap the children of enough politicians. They'll pass a law forbidding this type of business within a matter of hours.