Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Government Your Rights Online

Beijing To Track Citizen's Cell Phones 120

Posted by samzenpus
from the following-the-signal dept.
wan9xu writes "Purportedly to help alleviate Beijing's traffic congestion, the new initiative, literally translated as 'Platform for Citizen Movement Information,' proposes to track individual citizens' movement in real time via cell phone signals. Cell phones will be automatically registered at cell towers as soon as they are switched on. The rest is just like the phone tracking you see every week on CSI."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Beijing To Track Citizen's Cell Phones

Comments Filter:
  • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Thursday March 03, 2011 @06:30AM (#35366922) Homepage Journal

    U-TDOA [wikipedia.org] except it should probably be named DTOA [wikipedia.org] instead. I like how they keep changing the names of this stuff so you don't catch on.

    Nothing to see here.

    • by naz404 (1282810)
      The more common term in the mobile industry is LBS [wikipedia.org] (location-based service). It's supposed to be opt-in with some carriers, but I hear it's turned on by default on some.

      So what's new? Everyone already knows that anyone who carries a mobile phone is tagging himself with a GPS.

      Don't have any illusions of privacy either with your calls and SMSs.
      • by gl4ss (559668)

        not everyone is tagging himself with a gps.

        however, if the operator wants, it's pretty easy to build a system that matches the cell towers sightings of the phones to a database and after that you have a "live" map. some operators in the world already did this with gsm years ago, for example in finland you could opt in to the service so that you could share your location real time - with just a regular gsm phone and without having to run any application on it. however around here they stopped promoting that

      • GPS tracking like in the US would be a great deal more difficult in China, I'd think. Unlike the US, which is predominately done by cellular service contracts so that it's easy to make a 1-to-1 match from the subscriber to the phone to the GPS location tagging, China handles most cell phones by means of pre-paid SIM cards. A person's telephone number and IMSI can change quite often, from month to month or whenever they run out of minutes. Tracking it by the phones themselves isn't assured, either, since pho

    • by asvravi (1236558)
      Here [www.btis.in] is an extensive implementation of traffic tracking using mobile phone density for Bangalore and other Indian cities.
    • That's the problem with a whole raft of modern technologies: They Just Don't Work without(entirely incidentally) generating a lot of potentially useful(or dangerous) data.

      It would be pretty difficult to connect a call if you didn't know that handset A, in close vicinity of tower B, wants to talk to handset C in close vicinity of tower D. With non latency-critical applications you can add a lot of proxies(tor style) to make following the trail slightly more difficult; but that doesn't really work for cell
      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        There's no reason an IPv6 mesh-network of phones and other devices could not be successful, with VoIP delivered via SIP from your choice of provider, decoupling the infrastructure from the service. There are of course numerous reasons this is not the situation we're in. E-911 can then be provided by GPS, and only when necessary (provided you have as much control of your phone as you think.)

        • There's no reason an IPv6 mesh-network of phones and other devices could not be successful, with VoIP

          1) Latency.
          2) Privacy.
          3) Coverage.
          4) Bandwidth

          Those are just a few off the top of my head. Mesh networks look good on paper, but not so much in practicality

          • by drinkypoo (153816)

            Wow, you just stated four non-issues and then left out the only real issue, battery life.

            Latency: Not a serious problem in a voice conversation, you can afford half a second or so without even noticing.
            Privacy: Not a serious problem with strong cryptography, although we are not using that on phones today
            Coverage: Improved by mesh networking, not harmed by it. Utter fail.
            Bandwidth: Ditto. Fail, fail.

            • Latency: Hopping through three dozen phones to reach a tower, then hopping off the other tower and hopping another three dozen devices ... no latency at all.

              Privacy: both the start and endpoints of the call have to have the same protocol. And if you pass credentials at all over the six dozen hops in step one, anyone of them can listen in.

              Coverage: Works in high density areas NYC or LA, not so well in Wyoming or Idaho.

              Bandwidth: You're assuming that a poor device stuck somewhere between endpoints has enough

              • by drinkypoo (153816)

                Latency: Hopping through three dozen phones to reach a tower, then hopping off the other tower and hopping another three dozen devices ... no latency at all.

                Not enough latency to be a problem. Have you seen how many hops the typical packet takes to get anywhere these days?

                Privacy: both the start and endpoints of the call have to have the same protocol. And if you pass credentials at all over the six dozen hops in step one, anyone of them can listen in.

                It's called IPSEC. Nobody in the middle can listen in.

                Coverage: Works in high density areas NYC or LA, not so well in Wyoming or Idaho.

                The whole point of such a system is that it helps coverage anywhere. Any phone which can see the cell network and an open AP is now a microcell.

                Bandwidth: You're assuming that a poor device stuck somewhere between endpoints has enough bandwidth to pass the four dozen calls trying to pass through it, because it is the choke point of the mesh.

                That's a real concern, but it's still easier to provide coverage; you log where there's no coverage and you add microcells there.

                Battery power is the least of my worries with Mesh.Mesh power will have multiple points that are plugged into power, be it 110/220 wallwarts or car lighter power or even solar power.

                The thing that makes mesh networking of cellphones attractive at all

  • fun with tracking (Score:5, Informative)

    by Torvac (691504) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @06:38AM (#35366952)
    www.zeit.de/datenschutz/malte-spitz-vorratsdaten
    german politician got his tracking data from telekom and visualized it, just press play.
    • by nospam007 (722110) *

      Better than the CSI version.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      A bit of background info, since Google translate is hardly understandable:
      German telecom providers had to store communication data of every citizen (currently suspended by the constitutional court but politicians and law enforcement already work on getting it reinstated). That data includes cell phone data. A politician sued his provider to hand over data they stored on him and then contracted a data visualisation company to create an interactive map that tracks his path on a map. Aside from his location it

    • Holy crap, that is awesome!

      I love how his first overnight stop is in Erlangen.

  • Another patriotic naming convention (i.e. Patriot Act). It will be an easy sell. It's all about control. Nothing more than control.
  • Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by netsharc (195805) on Thursday March 03, 2011 @06:46AM (#35366990)

    "Cell phones will be automatically registered at cell towers as soon as they are switched on." ... err, as they usually do? Since otherwise, how would the cell company know how to route a call for you?

    Of course TFA is in Chinese, and I don't know what it really says, but yeah, the very design of the cell network allows for such tracking, and there's a lot of potential for abuse there, whichever government does it.

    I guess this is in response to the Arab protests, if you as the authority can see where people are gathered/gathering, you know where to send the skull-crackers to.

    Oh, and logging individuals would make it easier to see which people (phones) show up at these things regularly, for whatever reason, so we can crack their skulls too!

    I wonder what sort of techniques can be used to fight this; multiple phones (useless since afaik you need an ID card to get a SIM card), leave your phone at home, go to "airplane mode" at a random time before the planned demo? Should the protesters buy walkie-talkies and tune to xy frequency? (The police would then just skull-crack anyone caught with a walkie-talkie).

    • by Jahava (946858)

      "Cell phones will be automatically registered at cell towers as soon as they are switched on." ... err, as they usually do? Since otherwise, how would the cell company know how to route a call for you?

      Of course TFA is in Chinese, and I don't know what it really says, but yeah, the very design of the cell network allows for such tracking, and there's a lot of potential for abuse there, whichever government does it.

      I guess this is in response to the Arab protests, if you as the authority can see where people are gathered/gathering, you know where to send the skull-crackers to.

      Oh, and logging individuals would make it easier to see which people (phones) show up at these things regularly, for whatever reason, so we can crack their skulls too!

      I wonder what sort of techniques can be used to fight this; multiple phones (useless since afaik you need an ID card to get a SIM card), leave your phone at home, go to "airplane mode" at a random time before the planned demo? Should the protesters buy walkie-talkies and tune to xy frequency? (The police would then just skull-crack anyone caught with a walkie-talkie).

      There are still ways for critical people to remain safely anonymous under this circumstance. For example:

      • Leaders could receive donated phones from their supporters and remain anonymous.
      • A person could easily steal a phone from someone else and use it until it's deactivated, then steal another. If this person had a following, part of that group of followers could be tasked with maintaining a constant influx of stolen phones.
      • People could steal the phones of high-ranking officials or their families, or just r
      • * Leaders could receive donated phones from their supporters and remain anonymous.

        Leader that is important enough for this to happen is already target of BB.

        * A person could easily steal a phone from someone else and use it until it's deactivated, then steal another. If this person had a following, part of that group of followers could be tasked with maintaining a constant influx of stolen phones.

        Participating in crime is nice way to alienate general population. Especially w

      • "A person could easily steal a phone from someone else and use it until it's deactivated, then steal another"

        I gather this method is already used by drug dealers and such organised criminals.
      • by AlecC (512609)

        The trouble with all these schemes is that they are fine for those who are already criminals, but they push those who want to campaign peacefully for political change into criminal or criminal-like behaviour. You should have an assumption of privacy: until you appear to be something nefarious, your comings and goings should be your private business. This means that the authorities can, at their choice, track your recent movements and get a good idea of your contacts. Of course, this can be used for good, bu

    • Custom GSM firmware could theoretically connect to a less than ideal base station and fool the trackers as to the location. Maybe preferentially use towers with low signal strength. Maybe somebody could come up with a broad band frequency hopping walkie-talkie. Perhaps a unit which uses a lot of commercial frequencies at very low power. Such a device might be useful all over the place.

      • *Custom GSM firmware could theoretically connect to a less than ideal base station and fool the trackers as to the location*

        You can still track at that point, but with reduced accuracy. The neighbouring Cell towers will still record your mobile phone as it attempts to enumerate its neighbours.

      • by Sabriel (134364)

        Your mobile's ID needs to be registered with the cellular network to use it to make calls (how else can they know who to bill). As soon as it broadcasts that ID, so long as there's at least two stations in range it doesn't matter which one your mobile "talks" to, all of them can still "hear" and triangulation solves the rest (to whatever accuracy the local environment allows; a signal that's bounced off a few skyscrapers on its way to the towers may be problematic, but there's nothing stopping the governmen

        • by drinkypoo (153816)

          Don't forget that with just one cell tower they can get a decent idea of where you are, because cell towers use sectored antennas.

    • >>>I wonder what sort of techniques can be used to fight this

      Laws. - "The right of the people to peaceably assemble shall not be infringed," so it won't matter if you're being tracked to a demonstration because the police cannot stop you. - Of course to pass such a law in China or Egypt or elsewhere, one needs to first overthrow the government and make it part of the new constitution. A bit of a catch-22.

    • by Mia'cova (691309)

      "Cell phones will be automatically registered at cell towers as soon as they are switched on." ... err, as they usually do? Since otherwise, how would the cell company know how to route a call for you?

      Sort of. I think the new part of this is the aggregation of the data. Taking data from multiple companies, doing it live, anonymized, and into a central database/server farm for analytics. It takes a lot of work from a technical and political perspective to make that all work without huge privacy questions. But the improvements to traffic monitoring, route-finding, civil engineering, academic research, etc are huge. I hope they're able to do great things.

    • by nobodie (1555367)

      Sorry, you don't understand the situation here:

      Of course we are tracked, but only if they know who you are,and they don't.

      "(useless since afaik you need an ID card to get a SIM card),"
      my SIM card is registered to the manager of the local China Mobile office because i "forgot " to bring my passport. Most cards are bought at streetside vendors who register the phones in their own name (so there are hundreds of phones listed in one individuals name). At least here where I am near Shanghai.

      What you don't know i

  • Hell, this is well known from military airplanes . . . if your radar is on, you can see them . . . but they can see you! So if you are doing some Secret Squirrel stuff, and think that you might be tracked, turn the damn thing off.

    • by dtmos (447842) * on Thursday March 03, 2011 @07:17AM (#35367056)

      ...and pull the battery out.

      • by krenaud (1058876)
        Sorry, no can do. iPhones have a fixed battery and special screws.
        • by MarkRose (820682)

          A design flaw that shouldn't be overlooked when buying.

          • A design flaw that shouldn't be overlooked when buying.

            Comrade! You won't buy an iPhone because you can't remove the battery to thwart surveillance activities?

            Please to come this way.

        • No problem, just stick it in a metal baggy. Real engineers don't buy toys they can't take apart.

          • by gstoddart (321705)

            No problem, just stick it in a metal baggy. Real engineers don't buy toys they can't take apart.

            'Real' engineers won't be deterred by a custom screw head.

            It was designed by an engineer, it's not like it's alien technology we couldn't even begin to figure out how to get into.

  • It is set in the (then) futuristic year of 2004, when Earth has been enslaved by a race of aliens known as the Orbs. The Orbs, who look like giant floating eyeballs, have implanted all humans with global tracking devices, forced them to wear nondescript robes and forbid them from speaking or communicating. The protagonist has been assigned by the Orbs to track down fellow humans who are believed to be forming an underground resistance.

  • for all phones sometime since 9/11 (IIRC) under the guise of helping you (ie - helping the 911 emergency service locate you). Not sure when it was implemented though.

    With the microphone, camera, and other sensors plus ubiquity - cell phones is one of the most insidious government spy tools around. Tiny little trojan horses we pay for.

    • by Omniskio (1153619)
      Bad in USA. Bad in China.
    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      No they didn't. You have to provide E-911 services with a certain level of positional accuracy but how you achieve it is up to you. GSM providers overwhelmingly went with TDOA (Timed difference of arrival) which is like GPS in reverse; instead of one receiver figuring out the position of multiple transmitters based on their synchronized and highly accurate clocks, multiple receivers figure out the position of a single transmitter on the same basis. Since cell cites have sectored antennas, only one cell site

  • and You THINK the US GOVT DOES not? lolL
  • You could moan about this; but when they caught the guys in the 2008 Chinese milk scandal they stuck a bullet in their heads. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal [wikipedia.org] You can't like the régime; but they do tend to win me back from time to time. Of course I don't condone the death sentence; but now that I have a child I'm very irrational about these things. Also being in the UK, I'm so tracked when I walk around YET STILL THERE BE CRIME It doesn't bother me. My lord I'm off topic!
    • The majority of people in most western countries (according to surveys I've read about) are quite happy with an eye for an eye - even non religious people. Its only the libtard agenda thats been promoted by vested interests for the last 50 years that has tried to paint the death penalty as some sort of neanderthal throwback when in fact its the most just penalty for certain crimes including the one you mention.

      • by Cyberax (705495)

        Actually, it's not true.

        http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/international-polls-and-studies [deathpenaltyinfo.org] - support for death penalty in most progressive countries is either low or declining.

        And yes, death penalty is a neanderthal throwback.

        • by Viol8 (599362)

          Yes, I'm really going to believe a webpage that is clearly anti death penalty.

          "And yes, death penalty is a neanderthal throwback."

          Care to explain why or is it just for the usual spurious "it makes us no better than them" or its "state murder" or whatever other drivel people like yourself dish up to try and explain your point of view?

          • by drinkypoo (153816)

            Care to explain why or is it just for the usual spurious "it makes us no better than them" or its "state murder"

            Spurious? "Do as I say, not as I do" has never worked.

            • by Viol8 (599362)

              Doesn't it? So people who are executed re-offend then do they? The thought of being executed doesn't make some people hold off the violence compared to the through of 20 years in prison?

              You see, this is the spurious logic people like yourself work by. Its all bullshit.

              • by drinkypoo (153816)

                Doesn't it? So people who are executed re-offend then do they?

                The question is not whether they re-offend but whether the total number of offenders is reduced.

                The thought of being executed doesn't make some people hold off the violence compared to the through of 20 years in prison?

                Studies have shown that the threat of punishment does not, in fact, stop crime, especially when you fail to address social inequality that produces it.

                You see, this is the spurious logic people like yourself work by. Its all bullshit.

                You want an excuse to satisfy your bloodlust. You will find none here.

                • by Viol8 (599362)

                  "Studies have shown that the threat of punishment does not, in fact, stop crime, especially when you fail to address social inequality that produces it."

                  Social inequality my arse. A huge proportion of crime is white collar such as fraud or hacking or tax evasion or even street violence and is commited by middle class types. So wheres the inequality my friend? Your argument is just the standard issue left wing nonsense trotted out to explain why their liberal prison policies don't work.

                  "You want an excuse to

                  • by drinkypoo (153816)

                    "Studies have shown that the threat of punishment does not, in fact, stop crime, especially when you fail to address social inequality that produces it."

                    Social inequality my arse. A huge proportion of crime is white collar such as fraud or hacking or tax evasion or even street violence and is commited by middle class types.

                    So now we're talking about white collar crime?

                    There we go , hyperbole again. Its not about bloodlust, its about justice for the victims.

                    Justice is subjective. Killing helps no one.

                    Something sorry little bleeding heart hand wringers like you have no concept of.

                    When you have to resort to Ad Hominem then it's clear you have no argument worth making. Thanks!

                    • by Viol8 (599362)

                      "So now we're talking about white collar crime?"

                      You were talking about the threat of punishment. You didn't limit it to murder. And was OJ Simpson poor (we know he's guilty)? What about those rich boy terrorists?

                      "Justice is subjective."

                      Of course its subjective , its not a law of physics, its a human desire. And if the victims family wants the death penalty for a murder they should get it.

                      "Killing helps no one."

                      Really? Got anything to back that up with or are you just resorting to vague handwaving now?

                      "When

                    • by drinkypoo (153816)

                      Of course its subjective , its not a law of physics, its a human desire. And if the victims family wants the death penalty for a murder they should get it.

                      I feel victimized for having to listen to your nonsense, and I think you should get the death penalty for spouting it. If I want you to have the death penalty, you should get it. My argument is every bit as rational as yours since nothing gets better if you murder a murderer.

                      "Killing helps no one."

                      Really? Got anything to back that up with or are you just resorting to vague handwaving now?

                      Since there is no evidence that killing helps anyone, but there is plenty of evidence that killing is harmful, I think you're the one with the burden of proof.

                      "When you have to resort to Ad Hominem then it's clear you have no argument worth making. Thanks!"

                      Truth hurts?

                      Who's hurt? I'm only filled with pity for you.

                    • by Viol8 (599362)

                      "I feel victimized for having to listen to your nonsense, and I think you should get the death penalty for spouting it. If I want you to have the death penalty, you should get it. My argument is every bit as rational as yours since nothing gets better if you murder a murderer."

                      Oh dear, getting a bit silly and desperate now arn't we. The punishment has to fit the crime.

                      "Since there is no evidence that killing helps anyone,"

                      Well it prevents reoffending, it gives closure to the victims relatives and it means t

                    • by drinkypoo (153816)

                      Oh dear, getting a bit silly and desperate now arn't we. The punishment has to fit the crime.

                      And I simply don't feel that the punishment of murder fits any crime. Killing someone just lets them off the hook. They don't suffer like survivors suffer. Meanwhile, the dead do not suffer. It's not about the dead (the crime) but about the living (revenge) and while punishment may be appropriate, a society of revenge quickly ends up with no members.

                      "but there is plenty of evidence that killing is harmful"

                      Cite.

                      Are you serious? Go kill yourself, then try to make that comment again.

                      "Who's hurt? I'm only filled with pity for you."

                      Well let me tell you, the feelings mutual.

                      What will you tell me about mutual feelings?

                    • by Viol8 (599362)

                      "Killing someone just lets them off the hook. They don't suffer like survivors suffer. Meanwhile, the dead do not suffer."

                      Thats a valid point of view , but I think losing your life is worse than spending time behind bars unless the prison includes torture as part of its daily regime and I don't think anyone would advocate that.

                      "Are you serious? Go kill yourself, then try to make that comment again."

                      I assumed you meant harmful to society. Of course its harmful for the person who's executed, thats the whole p

                    • by drinkypoo (153816)

                      Thats a valid point of view , but I think losing your life is worse than spending time behind bars unless the prison includes torture as part of its daily regime and I don't think anyone would advocate that.

                      Prison in the USA (or many other nations) is a neverending regime of torture.

                      "Are you serious? Go kill yourself, then try to make that comment again."

                      I assumed you meant harmful to society. Of course its harmful for the person who's executed, thats the whole point.

                      Right, your whole point is to follow harm with more harm. That person could potentially be useful to society if we actually tried to help them instead of putting them into the rape box.

                    • by Viol8 (599362)

                      "Prison in the USA (or many other nations) is a neverending regime of torture"

                      Yeah , whatever...

                      "That person could potentially be useful to society if we actually tried to help them instead of putting them into the rape box."

                      There are plenty of unemployed who could be useful to society. We don't need to involve prisoners who deserve punishment. And don't start wittering on about rehabilitation, that comes after the punishment.

                    • by drinkypoo (153816)

                      "Prison in the USA (or many other nations) is a neverending regime of torture"

                      Yeah , whatever...

                      That's seriously your response? "Yeah, whatever"?

                      There are plenty of unemployed who could be useful to society. We don't need to involve prisoners who deserve punishment.

                      You talk a lot about what people deserve, but that is totally subjective once again. You feel qualified to determine what people deserve. I think you are not.

                      And don't start wittering on about rehabilitation, that comes after the punishment.

                      Again, punishment helps nobody, throwing people in prison just creates hardened criminals, this has been shown again and again. Killing people helps nobody either. So you want to do things which help nobody. In our system it costs more to kill someone than it does to incarcerate them for life anyway. Cle

          • Because it kills innocent people. That's why.

            It's quite simple.

            • by Viol8 (599362)

              Thats why it should require a higher standard of proof than incarceration and why theres a huge wait before conviction and execution in a lot of places in case more evidence comes to light.

              • by Cyberax (705495)

                Standards of proof are already as high as they get. Yet still innocent people are killed by the death penalty.

                You can argue that relatively few innocents are killed or that the ends justify the means.

                But you can't argue with the fact that not only criminals are executed.

      • All I can say is that these "eye for an eye" people must have a great deal of faith in the infallibility of their justice system. Personally I can't understand why anyone would want to give the state the right to take it's own citizen's life, weather said citizen deserves to die or not is irrelevant.
  • Don't have enough experience with this....but can you turn off the actual phone functions, incl. the regular checking-in at the nearest cell tower, and just use (smart) phones for their apps in quasi local-only offline mode?

    All phones I know/owned turned on everything when you turned on the phone itself...

    • by Onuma (947856)
      If you turn off all Blackberry signals, the next time you reboot you will still find them in the "off" position. It may still be able to receive signals (GPS, etc.) but it will not transmit unless you reactivate those functions ... in theory.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Sooooo... how long until it becomes a crime in China not to carry a switched-on cell-phone with you at all times...?

  • Toy Size Spy Drones [slashdot.org], Live government cell phones tracking, ACTA, Arbitrary domain names seizing, Law mandated year-long ISP data retention policies. Innocent citizens detained at airports [wikimedia.org] (during which agents copy and/or seize their laptops and cellphones).

    It sure is nice living in the future.
  • And i'll tell my boss, i might not be able to answer because i'm at indoor.

  • Once they have all those phones registered and ready to track, the Chinese Big Brother will have to conquer one more obstacle: Convincing all those people to keep their phones turned on all the time in order for this tracking system to actually work.
  • I am a bit paranoid and don't like the idea of being trackable. For this reason I typically have my phone in airplane mode and turn off this mode when I expect phone calls or want to browse / check mails. I still do not fully trust the proprietary firmware not to transmit any signals. I would really like to check whether it still transmits anything in airplane mode. Does anybody know an easy and inexpensive way of how to do that?
    • I am a bit paranoid and don't like the idea of being trackable. For this reason I typically have my phone in airplane mode and turn off this mode when I expect phone calls or want to browse / check mails. I still do not fully trust the proprietary firmware not to transmit any signals. I would really like to check whether it still transmits anything in airplane mode. Does anybody know an easy and inexpensive way of how to do that?

      1) Remove battery if possible (iPhone users skip to 2)
      2) Cover unit in high quality tin foil, using at least three separate layers and orienting each layer 60 degrees clockwise from the previous layer.
      3) Follow your normal daily activities. Remember to stop occasionally to look in picture windows for agents tailing you. Carefully note the license plates of all vehicles you see. Avoid any vehicle with a camera mast and / or antennas. Now.
      4) Put the battery back in phone and remove the tin foil. Repeat

      • by asnelt (1837090)
        Thank you very much for your advice. This is exactly what I had in mind. A few points remain unclear though.

        2) Cover unit in high quality tin foil, using at least three separate layers and orienting each layer 60 degrees clockwise from the previous layer.

        I can do that. I have high quality tin foil at home. But can the tin foil of the unit interfere with my tin foil hat?

        3) Follow your normal daily activities. Remember to stop occasionally to look in picture windows for agents tailing you. Carefully note the license plates of all vehicles you see. Avoid any vehicle with a camera mast and / or antennas. Now.

        For that I would have to leave my basement. This is none of my normal daily activities and not an option. Is there an alternative? I have two agents at my disposal: my mom and my cat.

  • I read TFA on Google Translate, and while the resulting English was a mess, it is clear that the article is about measuring traffic flow from cell phone signals, a thing that has been tried here in the U.S. No mention was made of whether they intend to anonymize the data. In the U.S. project that I read about, there was some amount of concern raised about privacy, even though the article I read made clear that there would be anonymization.

    I'm not saying that the Chinese government wouldn't use cell phones

  • What makes this one citizen so important that he/she gets the whole city's attention? It's some mega-celebrity right?

    Oh, the apostrophe's supposed to be after the s
  • As part of the implementation of the EU data retention direcitve, the Swedish government wants to go even further and require operators to retain the location of every phone at the beginning and end of a call.

  • ...you're very, very naive.

The shortest distance between two points is under construction. -- Noelie Alito

Working...