Your Cell Phone Is Tracking You

PollGuy writes "I had never heard until this article in the New York Times (sacrifice of first born required) about services that let regular people track the locations of other regular people via their cell phones. Nor this: 'A federal mandate that wireless carriers be able to locate callers who dial 911 automatically by late 2005 means that millions of phones already keep track of their owners' whereabouts.'"

This just in...

Its possible to track the location of people who have landlines too. It's called a phone book.

Re:This just in...

Wow! Your phone book tells you where the person you are calling is, even when they are out of the house??

I gotta get me one of them!

Re:This just in...

I know pretty much all the newer SprintPCS phones have some tracking capability... they also have a "location on/off" option though, which can be used to disable the tracking on all but 911 calls.

Re:This just in...

There are old threads on alt.cellular.sprintpcs that indicte that even with the tracking turned off, the signal is still transmitted all the time. The E911 only selection tells Sprint to not release your information to third parties. Basically, that choice on your phone sets a flag on the Sprint network, not actually disabling the position xmit function of the phone itself. I do not frequent alt.cellular.sprintpcs much any more but I have not read anything that indicates that is not the case.

Re:This just in... Well, in for a while now...

Okay, when I originally got my sprintpcs-capable phone, a Sanyo 4900, I read up on the location feature and it essentially told you that if you turned it off, the only ones who would have access to your location info would be the police. I didn't like the way it sounded, and between the bad ears and Big Brother, it went back to The Shack inside a day.

I later bought the same phone again and decided to use a headset for the hearing problem.

The real problem with the technology is not that the cops can track you. As far as I know, they have *always* had that ability: the machinery knows that the signal from your phone is strongest between n points on the network and if you make a call, your approximate location is knowable by the system in realtime.

Another problem, of course, are what they keep mentioning on 'Law and Order,' your LUDs or 'Local Usage Details.' It's a record of everyone you call and everyone who calls you.

Big hint, before calling anyone for a criminal transaction from your own cell phone, try on some bright-orange clothing and make sure you look good in it. It is one of the stupidest things you could possibly do--especially when you can buy anonymous, 'pay-as-you-go' cell phone service for minor amounts of money.

The real problem that the 'Law-and-Order' people, the ones who never met a form of privacy they didn't loath, is not that the cops can track you, illegally search you, or sweat a false confession out of you. All in all, American police can be great, but they can and have done all these things at one time or another.

The problem with technology is that the law is a game and it has to be a game for it to work. It would be bad for society if it were possible to automatically find someone guilty and technology is bringing us closer to the day when that will be possible in more and more areas.

From traffic-cams to face-recognition software, technologies are bringing us closer to a national security state where you don't do only good things because you want to, but because common sense tells you you should be scared shitless of doing anything else.

Re: Turning cellphones off

This will cause people to walk around with their cellphones powered down (I know I would) and only activate it for making a call.

If people would turn their cellphones off because they don't want anyone to know that they are at the movies or in a restaraunt, then I'm all for it.

TWIT... Forget tracking, hackers can listen in!

If you have secrets, ANY secrets, especially BUSINESS secrets, under NO circumstances mention anything over the telephone!

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit2003071 0. html

"The typical CALEA installation on a Siemens ESWD or a Lucent 5E or a Nortel DMS 500 runs on a Sun workstation sitting in the machine room down at the phone company. The workstation is password protected, but it typically doesn't run Secure Solaris. It often does not lie behind a firewall. Heck, it usually doesn't even lie behind a door. It has a direct connection to the Internet because, believe it or not, that is how the wiretap data is collected and transmitted. And by just about any measure, that workstation doesn't meet federal standards for evidence integrity.

And it can be hacked.

And it has been.

Israeli companies, spies, and gangsters have hacked CALEA for fun and profit, as have the Russians and probably others, too. They have used our own system of electronic wiretaps to wiretap US, because you see that's the problem: CALEA works for anyone who knows how to run it."

Re:TWIT... Forget tracking, hackers can listen in!

I'm curious where that information came from. For a typical 5ESS installation, in my experience the Solaris box connected to it is 1) behind the same locked door as the switch itself, and 2) not connected to the 'net. Maybe the CLEC that I work for is just more secure than other telecom companies.

Indeed...

Just bought a phone for my wife tonight and I was interested to see that it has GPS included. Interesting privacy and safety issue.

Re:Indeed...

.
A <== A cell phone base station.

________ ________
/ \/ \ Here you can see how this thing works.
/ /\ 2 \ The base station one knows that you
/ / \ \ are within the range of the circle
/ . / \ . \ around it away from it. it knows it by
\ 1 A \____/_A_ / measuring the strength of your phone's
\ /\XX/ \ / signal.
\ / \/ \ / The same way, base station 2 knows
\____/___/\_______\/ your distance from it, too and can draw
/ . \ a circle, as well. Now, with these two
\ A / base stations we know that the phone
\ / user is in one of the two intersections
\ 3 / of the circles around base stations one
\________/ and two.
Then there is the base station three. It
only needs to know that its signal is not strong enough to reach the
northern intersection of circles of base stations 1 and 2. That way we
know that the user must be in the southern one of the intersections of
circles drawn by base stations 1 and 2. Please note that in this drawing
base station 3's circle doesn't tell the distance from the phone user,
but the maximum possible range it can reach. (Because I didn't think
when I drew the pic.)

Even if the distance info isn't that accurate (meaning that you're using
an old crappy analog cell phone most of you americans use), we can still
plot your location quite exactly. If we just know that the phone is
within the maximum ranges of all three base stations pictured here, the
phone must be in the area I've marked with X letters. Often there are
even more than three base stations around you. That makes getting the
location info even more accurate. So, in a city you can be located with
an error marging of only few tens of meters. In suburbs the error
margin is at least here in Finland some 500m. (Actually less, but this
distance is used by the cell phone company to make sure the phone is
100% surely in the area shown.

Here it just became legal to see where your kids' phones are going if
you've signed a contract in advance. You go to internet and give your
username and password. Then the site will plot your kid's location on
a map.

I'm really surprised that this many of the /. people didn't this in
advance. Here in Europe right about everyone knows that. And has known
since something like 1995 or so. Tracking people by their cell phones
has been possible as long as there has been cell phones.
Guess your government and media hasn't for some "odd" reason wanted its
servants to know too much of what is possible.

I don't see what damn problem it is if you can be located if you're
dying in a pit. I remember seeing in the TV program 911 how one woman
almost died when she didn't know where she was while she called the 911
from a landlined phone. I didn't understand why they didn't just look
where she was calling from and send an ambulance there. It only takes
about 0,0000000(and so on)0001 seconds to find out that info, not a
minute like in the hollywood movies.
The info about who's calling can be asked from a telephone company. It
has to know it to be able to bill someone for calling.
Before you had to know where you are to get an ambulance. If you didn't
know, you died. Cute. Now you just need to call 911 or 112 depending on
what continent you're in and say "I'm dying. Get me to hospital." and
the ambulance will come.

Re:Indeed...

Err... if this is GSM then that's not is entirely accurate in my professional opinion.

If the phone is in idle mode, i.e. not in call, it will monitor the surrounding cells and select (called camping) the cell with the best selection value which is a function of signal strength and some other parameters set by the network. Also, cells will be grouped into location areas, also known as paging areas, and it is only when the mobile moves from one area to another that it transmits to the network to inform that it has moved to a new location area. Therefore, normally it is only possible to track the user to a location area, which may span a number of cells, each of which could be upto ~35km in radius.

There is a extension called EOTD which uses neigbour cell timing and signal strength estimations to calculate positioning information, but this requires extra support in the base stations and mobile, and isn't widely deployed. Also, since the mobile has to make measurements and report them to the network, this is only done if the network requests it; it would drain your battery to constantly report position.

In dedicate mode, when making a call, the mobile does report signal strengths of the top 6 neigbour cells to the network reasonably frequently, and it would be possible to track a user in a call as you describe, but that's pretty obvious IMHO - you want to make a phone call, so something has to know roughly where you are.

I don't dispute that the network knows where you are, but the average case has a lot lower resolution than you imply.

Rape button

It seems to me that every GPS phone should have a rape button... push it, and it silently goes into alert mode, telling the police where a woman is, that she's in danger for her life, and that she can't actually phone them.

You'd have to be liable for the charges if you abused the system, and the "button" would really have to be something like a pull-out slip so i would be both permanent and hard to set off by accident, but imagine what a help it would be.

Re:Rape button

It seems to me that every GPS phone should have a rape button.

Many phones will automatically dial 9-1-1 and transmit your GPS location (if so equipped) if you simply hold down on the '9' button for a five seconds or more. This will generally work even if you don't have a contract for cell service and can't place or receive normal calls.

Re:Indeed...

It's incredibly informative that I bought a phone. How would you have known otherwise?

Non-GPS-enabled phones...

Suddenly I wish I hadn't sold my old Nokia phones on eBay recently. They might have been worth much more in the next couple years when all phones come with GPS-tracking included. Of course, it wouldn't make much of a difference if providers require the feature in the future.

Re:Non-GPS-enabled phones...

While GPS certainly helps, it is by no means necessary in order to pinpoint the location of a mobile. As long as you are within coverage of at least three cells (less than that and you lose accuracy), it is perfectly possible to triangulate the position of the mobile terminal, regardless of what support there is or is not on the actual mobile itself.

I say this with some authority, as I used to be working one floor above the guys developing the MPS (Mobile Positioning System) solution. That was, ummm, about four or five years ago. So no, this is nothing new... these aren't the droids you're looking for; move along.

Re:Non-GPS-enabled phones...

Blockquoth the poster:

it is perfectly possible to triangulate the position of the mobile terminal, regardless of what support there is or is not on the actual mobile itself.

I think you've missed the point. Your boss or parent or boyfriend (or stalker) doesn't have the ability to triangulate on you -- it's not an easy thing. If the police do it, there'll be records, and it probably falls under wiretapping statutes. The issue here is: There are no legal guidelines for the ubiquitous surveilliance mentioned in the article.

Re:Non-GPS-enabled phones...

they can look at your home using an Infra Red Camera and thereby penetrate your property.

Actually, in the US the Supreme Court says that the government can not use sense-enhancing technology (such as infrared cameras) to look into your home without a search warrant. The case is Kyllo vs. US. In the majority ruling, Justice Scalia wrote:

We think that obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical "intrusion into a constitutionally protected area" constitutes a search -- at least where (as here) the technology in question is not in general public use.

By the Kyllo test, tracking via cell phone emissions MIGHT already be Constitutional, since (as the article states) the technology is in public use. However, since this feature is (currently) in LIMITED use, it's still somewhat of a grey area. It would probably take another Supreme Court ruling to establish exactly what percentage of the population has to use something before it's use is considered "general". Unless something is done to shut this service down NOW, before it gains widespread use, it will inevitably cross the line into "general" usage, further eroding the protection of your rights offered by the 4th Amendment.

It's probably already too late. If you don't want Big Brother (or your parents, employer, or a deranged stalker) tracking your whereabouts 24/7, turn your damn cell phone off when you aren't making a call or expecting a call.

Re:Non-GPS-enabled phones...

I think GPS in phones is a great idea. Aside from the fact that it would make emergency calls much more efficient, it would be handy when using it with a PDA (you'd get both GPS and Network in one peripheral). Having a two-in-one would also simplify tracking-device projects. Don't you think it would be totally nerdy cool to be able to enter an AT command to your phone and get GPS coordinates, or throw it into a NMEA mode?

The issue of providers tracking you is a completely separate problem. As long as the user remains in control (ie, I can choose to allow my phone to transmit GPS information to my provider or caller), then we're fine. Personally I'd have it always set to never allow another party to get my (x,y) unless I was using an emergency call. The rest of the time I'd be using the GPS capability with a local device for my own needs. We just need to ensure that phones don't go "DRM-style", where they are doing things against your will.

Re:Non-GPS-enabled phones...

>I think GPS in phones is a great idea.

It may be a great idea if a mother is tracking her child. It's not such a great idea if a stalker is doing the same.

Re:That's weird...

GPS doesn't even need to come in to play. An analog phone from 1985 can give out positioning information with a little help from the service provider through triangulation. Newer cell phones, yes, use GPS systems for easier coordinate sending for 911/411 type services, it's just a cleaner system than using cell phone towers and relying on the wireless phone service providers to take the time to bounce the signal off at least three towers, get a fix, and relay it to the other end of the phone call. But it's all through the same process...GPS uses at least 3 satellites to do the same thing.

My understanding at this point is digital phones are easier to track because they're always in communication with the towers, but older analog-only phones are only trackable when they're being used, because they can go passive. I may be mistaken on that.

not new.

this service isnt really new, i bought my phone about a year ago (samsung a500, sprintpcs) and it had this feature. I disabled it, but i think that only turns off the ability for joe schmoe to track me, not the gov't.

i personally see a good use for this (911) and dont see the big deal since you could just not carry your cell with you for that ultra-top-secret-underground tinfoil hat clan meeting.

i am more worried about things you cannot opt out of, like face scanning in public places. or non-approval required phone taps etc ....

yeah but...

What if you're that person that everyone talks about when you're not around? I've found out because people tell me about these conversations.

What if you're that hot girl that everyone wants to meet, and you despise all those creepy geeks? All of a sudden you keep bumping into the same stalkers, at every club you go to, at every store you visit. Everytime you step out of the house?

Cool, so don't carry your cell-phone with you. Great solution, now that they've eliminated most public pay-phones. You too can live in a communications-free world. Hello? It's like stepping back in time a 100 years. It's particularly disabling when your car breaks down, and nobody will stop to help you - and there's no phone around to call for help. It's a problem when people *expect* to be able to reach you at anytime - you become a social pariah.

Time for a new solution. We just need to out-innovate these stupid restrictions.

-- Ender, Duke_of_URL

That argument's not new either

As so many people do, you've assumed that you have to be up to something illicit to care about privacy. Simply not true. Here's an not unlikely example: You say to your boss, "I need the afternoon off. Gotta take my kid to the doctor." "Sure!" your boss says, then runs back to his office and order a location trace on your cell. It turns out the address you go to is for a specialist in childhood leukemia. "Christ!" your boss says, "Our insurance costs are through the roof already! If this kid needs a bone marrow transplant, forget about any end of the year bonus! Better downsize this guy, stat!"

Of course this technology has legitimate uses. If you'd bothered to read the article, you would have noticed that the privacy advocates were not objecting to the technology itself, but to the absence of control over who gets access to the data.

many phones can disable this

On the few phones I've seen with this feature, they have a menu to enable it all the time, or to only have it on for 911 calls.

I think it's pretty easy for the phone to tell if you're dialing 911 or not, so when you turn it off, it probably means it's off.

Re:many phones can disable this

Just keep telling yourself that. If it's enabled for 911, it's enabled period. All it takes is a warrant (OnStar anyone?) or a clever cracker/spammer.

High standards?

Umm, what fantasy world are you living in?

They've used OnStar to eavesdrop on people. The only reason that go shut down is because the person couldn't use OnStar to call for help - which will be solvable by the cops by promising to forward any such requests immediately to the OnStar system.

In '93 they were wiretapping all public phones in 'bad' areas in my town. I don't think they even bothered to get a warrant, which is why it made the papers.

Feds have *never* turned down an application for a warrant to themselves in Patriot related matters - which is not solely related to 'terrorist' activity - even when terrorist activity was rather loosely defined. They're now using it for domestic crimes.

The federal DB of records on every citizen is moving forward, all boat registration, car registration, credit records, etc.

Yeah: "Trust us, we're from the Gubbmint", sure, sure - as long as high standards are used, it shouldn't be a problem. As long as people follow the law, you should have no hackers attacking your computer systems, no viruses will be written, and all code won't cause catastrophic failure on your machines, or data corruption.

Must be nice to live in fantasy land.

-- Ender, Duke_of_URL

Re:many phones can disable this

um, so "able to call regardless of credit" is enabled for 911/999, so "able to call regardless of credit" is enabled period?

woot, FREE CALLS FOR EVERYONE!!!!11111

Triangulation

they have been able to do this for a long time by triangulating on your location from 3 or more different cells. Every criminal knows not to leave their cell phone on exactly for this reason.

Re:Triangulation

they only need two towers

To pin someone down in 2 dimensions (that is, not considering height) you need 3 towers.

Picture it this way:

They know you are x distance from tower 1 so they draw a circle of x radius from tower 1.

They also know that you are y distance from tower 2 so they draw a circle of y radius from tower 2.

If you are along a line drawn directly between the two towers then the two circles will touch at one point. However, this is very unlikely. It is more likely that you are off to the side of a line connecting the two towers. In that case the two circles will touch in two places and they won't know which point you are at.

Now if they know you are z distance from tower 3 they can draw a circle of x radius from tower 3.

Within reason the 3 circles drawn will all touch at 1 point, that is where you are.

If they want to know your height they would need at least 4 towers. Any towers beyond what they need will add to the accuracy of finding your exact location. It is common for triangulation to use 7 or 8 points in order to increase the accuracy.

Re:Triangulation

That's not completly true. Yes, you're right when using "normal" triangulation.
With GSM base stations you also to consider the fact that a cell is divided into several sectors, which are nothing more than oriented antenas that face a certain direction. This means that in many cases you only need data from 2 base stations, because (as you mentioned) you get cross points for 2 circles, but you can discard one point as it doesn't lie in the sector my phone is in.
This also means that often records from a single base station are enough to prove me lying. If you take a micro-cell for example (having a range of up to a kilometer, I think), you can actually see whether I was north of the cell, like I'm claiming, or that I was in fact to the south, where a crime was commited... :) (this goes for any kind of cell, but a micro-cell can cover very small areas (often even only buildings), making the pin-pointing accurate enough)

Hope this makes any sense, I have to get some sleep... :)

Re:Triangulation

Triangulation requires equipment located in several places and a certain amount of nontrivial effort.

GPS allows one person to instantly pinpoint you to within two meters. Information this easily obtained is potentially valuable to abusers.

Re:Triangulation

All cellular phones require base-stations to communicate with a telecommunications system. These base-stations are quite deliberately placed as to have contiguous coverage in a given region with a reasonable degree of overlap. The region in which a base-station can service a cellular phone is called a cell; hence the term cellular.

When a cellular phone is in coverage, which is to say when you can actually use your phone to call 911 in the first place, there are usually at least three base-stations which your cellular phone can contact (though it only uses the strongest signal for obvious reasons).

It is true that it takes non-trivial effort to implement triangulation based upon the signal strength of your cellular phone, but it also would take non-trivial effort to put a GPS solution onto a cellular phone. What is more important is which system is more precise, accurate, and reliable -- that would be GPS.

No, that would be distance-based "triangulation".

It is true that it takes non-trivial effort to implement triangulation based upon the signal strength of your cellular phone, but it also would take non-trivial effort to put a GPS solution onto a cellular phone. What is more important is which system is more precise, accurate, and reliable -- that would be GPS.

No, that would probably be the cell-based system.

It's not really "triangulation". Triangulation uses the observed DIRECTION of the signal, locating the transmitter on a (hopefully) narrow fan based at the reciever. Two receivers locate the transmitter where the "beams" intersect, and the "beams" plus the baseline between the receivers form a triangle.

This system uses the round-trip transit time, much like radar, to locate the transmitter on a circle around each "receiver" (actually an active transciever), putting the transmitter where the circles intersect. (You still get the triangle of the locations. But it's a different system than "triangulation".)

You can also locate the transmitter if all, or all-but-one, of the receivers is passive, but they can compare notes on signal arrival time.

If all are passive, two receivers locate the transmitter on a hyperbola, three narrow it to two intersecting hyperbolas, four pin it (or three if one or more can distinguish the two intersections by antenna sectoring).

If one "receiver" is active, it locates the transmitter on a circle, the second adds a hyperbola intersecting the circle at two points, the third (or sector antennas) adds another hyperbola that intersects differently with the circle to distinguish the points. (This is much like LORAN.)

The accuracy depends on the angles, the accuracy of the arrival-time measurements, and the accuracy of the knowlege of the locations of the base stations. Ground-based systems have an advantage in the angles (being roughly in a plain with the transmitter). They also have better knowlege of antenna location than orbiting satellites. Both have comparable time bases (based on atomic-clock-referenced Stratum-III clocks in the cell base stations and atomic clocks in the satellites). GPS was optimized for location tracking so it MAY measure the signal arrival time more accurately. But that's a "maybe", since the base stations need it accurate, too, and can throw more electronics at the problem than the portable GPS receiver. (Anybody have the real stats?)

Now that selective availability is turned off GPS MIGHT be as accurate as cell systems. But it's still fighting some handicaps, so I'd be surprised if it's better.

Re:Limited to base station accuracy only?

Here in Holland the police was able to find a woman who was kidnapped because of triangulation. Her phone company could give them the whole route the kidnapper took her to her hiding place. IAANAMCS (also not a mobile comms specialist) but IIRC a GSM phone chooses the strongest station from three stations that are close by, so the position of the phone can in principle be determined fairly accurately.

Offtopic but funny

New York Times (sacrifice of first born required)

This just struck me as hillarious. Imagine a newbie to Slashdot reading that line and being like WTF?! because he'd never struggled through any previous articles where NYT registration fubar'd things.

Comment IDs

We're about to hit comment #7777777 (seven sevens). That's got to be lucky!

part of "phase 2" 911 services

I can't view the NYT article (my first born seems a little steep), but I found this [esri.com], which is a year and half old:

Phase II requires more precise location information be provided to the PSAP. Phase II requires the wireless service provider to provide the call back telephone number of the 9-1-1 caller, cell tower location, cell sector (antenna orientation) information, plus longitude and latitude (X, Y) information. Phase II E9-1-1 services exist today in a handful of locations, by a few wireless service providers, but these numbers will grow.

Hah, BUSTED!

Jerold Surdahl, 40, an administrator in a building management office in Centerville, Ohio, said he started using the uLocate service to communicate with colleagues. Now, he is intrigued by the possibility of stashing a location-tracking phone in the trunk of his wife's car.

"I'm not expecting or hoping or wanting to find something, but I would just like to explore the possibilities," Mr. Surdahl said. "I'd tell her about it later."

Umm.. can you say BUSTED? Having your name and your intentions printed in the NYT pretty much ensures your secret is out.

BTW, whats with all these controlling people? Relationships are about trust. If you can't trust someone to tell you where they were, then something more serious is wrong.

-molo

Re:Hah, BUSTED!

On the other hand, what's wrong with telling employees that the phone reports back to a tracking map? When they're on company time their true location should not be a secret to their boss, so there really isn't too much of a privacy concern... only those who have something to hide should be worried. If they want to go somewhere secret on their off hours, leave the business phone at home...

It will be abused somewhere down the line.

However, I cannot see how it will affect the average person on the street. I doubt the government will be keeping tabs on individuals. It seems as insidious as store loyalty cards.

The point is, they could. If they don't have the tools to do so, then they definately can't. This gives the government a easy tool to track people, especially as cell phone use becomes more and more widespread (as if it isn't already.)

While someone may not be sitting there tracking every movement, it would be feasible to assume that all your data gets dumped into a database for later use. We already store incoming and outgoing calls, why not locations?

Let's say a robbery took place at a store. You were on the other side of the building and didn't see it. However, the resolution of the GPS wasn't good enough to pinpoint which side of the building you were on, only that you were in proximity. The police come knocking on your door, and now your a suspect.

I go to public parks often to sit and read. I have no kids. I don't want some stupid computer program to assume I have no reason to be there, flagging me as a pedophile because I happen to read on kids playgrounds.

It's all described here...

For the curious, it's all described on the uLocate FAQ [ulocate.com].

Only works with Nextel now and free until the end of the year.

Another reason to hate Nextel for me. After having a boss that gave us all Nextels and having managers that would use the Instant-On feature to speak to us night and day (10:26pm Manager: "Hello, Hello, are you there?? The mail server seems to be a little slow, are you there?"), I will never consider Nextel again. I'm scarred for life!!

Cell Phoney Tracking

I am a Sheriff's dispatcher to a County of 1.5million people.

Cell phone tracking is currently available, and will always be available even without GPS. As you travel your cell phone communicates to various cell phone towers along the path.

Cell phone companies will provide Public Safety agencies with "tower" information and subscriber information for emergency situations. With the tower information, it will provide about a one mile radius to search if needed.

GPS ability is available to some beta site dispatch centers. Cell phone/GPS information is provided when 911 is dialed. Landline 911 will provide location, phone number(s) and subscriber information. Very important info for responding agencies.

GPS ability is very important to Public Safety agencies. I lost count of the number of times "we" were unable to find a cell phone caller. 911 cell phone callers often have a dificult time giving their location, especially in unfamilar areas. I've taken calls where the caller is in a trapped in a ditch or injured in the middle of nowhere. I have also taken calls where a victim or injured person has called and for one reason or another is unable to give the location. Dead battery, poor reception site, lost consciousness etc.

Put yourself or a loved one in that scenerio and think about it. You have to think of the worst case scenerio, it happens daily.

I leave my GPS data on all the time, never knowing when I myself will be involved in an emergency.

I have nothing to hide, and couldn't care less if anybody new where I was located. With hundreds of cell phones being used in any one region, the thought of somebody caring about your location is quite unrealistic.

The whole basis of the GPS cell phone data is in the interest of public safety. To assist you when you need it most.

I'd be more afraid of criminals my personal data for identity theft.

Each credit card/atm/club card transaction is telling somebody where you are and what you are purchasing. Nobody seems to be bothered with that.

I don't have an account, not because i'm a coward. I just have the desire to post here often. I'm also paranoid that somebody is going to steal my personal information.

-Ant-

Re:Cell Phoney Tracking

The whole basis of the GPS cell phone data is in the interest of public safety. To assist you when you need it most.

While I agree with most of your post, I have to disagree with this line. That is the promoted use of it, and is quite a good use. However, there's a not-so-well hidden agenda of advertising. When I got my new phone, Verizon was specifically saying that they have plans to use the system to provide "location-based services". That is, based on your location they will send advertisements and instant coupons for nearby businesses.

"John Anderton, you could use a Guinness right now."

Emergency services are also provided, as a way to convince people we need this. You want to be safe don't you? Fortunately, my phone (and many other models, I'm sure) give me the option to transmit the aGPS data with every call or just with calls to 911. This is something I can live with. The service is there when I have a real emergency, but (unless the phone is lying to me) that information isn't available to advertisers.

Someone in another thread said that the location system doesn't really use GPS. That's not quite true. The cellphone "Assisted GPS" service does use the GPS satellite system, but doesn't need a full GPS receiver in the phone itself. It also uses data from the tower. The IEEE magazine "Computer" had a good summary of the technology. A PDF of the article is at http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~postPC/docs/Geolocation_ assistedGPS.pdf [huji.ac.il]

Re:Cell Phoney Tracking

With hundreds of cell phones being used in any one region, the thought of somebody caring about your location is quite unrealistic.

If only. Listen, some people have creepily possessive boyfriends and/or girlfriends. Some people have invasive bosses or paranoid spouses. Some people just want to make phonecalls and would otherwise prefer to just be left the hell alone.

This "nothing to hide" thing is very damn tiring, too. Wait until the next terrorist attack, when suddenly cell phone location information becomes mandatory and perhaps more accurate via differential GPS or what have you.

Now you have a system that monitors everywhere you are every moment of the day (that you are with your cell phone). I'm sure the government would never be motivated to purchase this kind of information (as the FBI, etc. already buy databases that they aren't allowed to collect themselves from various companies), and that there would never be abuse or misuse. To me, this system is the very definition of a modern panopticon.

We already live in a world of near-constant scrutiny via cameras, and yet everyone seems comfortable in their fishbowls. It's frightening.

The whole basis of the GPS cell phone data is in the interest of public safety. To assist you when you need it most.

Perhaps it is now. But you know sooner or later (sooner, I'm guessing) it will be turned into another tool for investigation. They'll simply find out every person X who's been near location Y where something interesting has occured, then probe into their lives for behavior that they find suspicious (via information purchased from companies, above), and then hassle the shit out of those they find interesting, occasionally making a spectacular enough bust to quiet the fears of the bovine populance as they live under the all-seeing eye of the tyrannical Computer.

'Moo,' they'll say as they trundle off to McDonald's(tm) for a supersize fry in their Ford Excursions, 'boy it sure is good that they caught that guy stealing change from the Coke(tm) machine.' Because of course, the level of crime necessary to trigger the use of the system is lowered and lowered as people become more and more desensitized. And the radius of your life where you're allowed to make decisions is shrinking, shrinking, gone. Who will chance anything, will live the uncircumscribed life, when that will risk the Law's piercing gaze? Only the insane, as they will be classified, the suspicious. And *those* poor fools will never be allowed a security clearance or a position of prominence. What are they hiding, that they won't keep their Big Brother wrist watch on all the time? I say bring them in for questioning every couple of weeks, right? Maybe keep them under watch (har! punny!). You see, the absence of this tool will become sufficient for suspicion in a cruel, yet ironic twist of fate.

I'll trade safety for privacy any damn day of the week. I'll trade that off-chance of laying in a ditch somewhere unable to activate my emergency location system to the constant gaze of the Machine. It's like some LOTR where everyone *wants* Sauron's eye to always be on them, a warm, comforting presence in a hard land. All of them: pussies.

Thus endeth the rant.

GPS antenna?

I haven't really been up to date on the latest cell tech, but maybe a few of you who are can address what I'm wondering about -

The signal from the GPS satellites is pretty weak...How does the cell phone reliably get its coordinates? Most of the handheld GPS units I have used will lose GPS lock if you have it in the car, in buildings or even under trees because of the line-of-sight obstruction. If you require E911 service, the chances are pretty good you will be in a location that doesn't get very hot GPS reception. Is there some kind of secondary location service?

Antennas must be tuned for optimum reception of a signal, which means that in a GPS enabled cell phone there is probably two antennas - one for GPS and one for cell service. Can anyone confirm that theory? It could theoretically use the same antenna for both GPS and cell service, but either way if you wanted to disable it you could cut the trace that carries the signal to the GPS controller.

But if you do this, how legal would that be?

You know, there is another option....

To everyone who is freaking out that this will be a new way to for The Man (or government, employer, spouse, whatever) to track your every movement, I have a radical new idea:

Don't carry the cell phone

This may never have occurred to you, but if you are doing something or going somewhere and do not want to be tracked, you actually have the option of not carrying the cell phone with you. Now I know what you are thinking, but yes, your pants will stay up without the cell phone holster connected to your belt. Try it in the safety of your own home if you do not believe me. And legend has it our ancestors traveled across the country side without cell phones back in the olden days.

Or for a less radical option, just turn it off. If you still do not believe it is really off and could still be tracking you, take the battery out.

Finkployd

GPS good, triangulation BAD

For privacy freaks this is old, old news. It is also one of things that give us freaks bad dreams and sleepless nights. The 911 justification has all the ear-marks of that tried-and-true privacy buster maxim - "If it will save the life of just one child, it will all be worth it!"

BUT, after cogitating on it for a few years now, I think that the decision to go with GPS has a lot of benefits for us freaks (and the criminals out there too). Since the trend is towards embedded GPS in cell phones, it is likely that all the typical anti-privacy black hats will build their uber-spying systems on the back of assuming the GPS data is valid. It does not have to be.

In fact, I envision a GPS "relocator" device becoming somewhat popular in the same stores that sell mini-spy cams, electronic bugs and electronic bug detectors. Just attach your relocator to your phone and it will overpower the signals from the GPS birds with its own false signals and convince the phone that it is really somewhere else. Similarly, I would expect to see software only hacks to future phones to do the same thing. As long as the dark powers that be are too lazy to cross reference the phone's own reported GPS location with the actual cell towers in use (and you know that such laziness *will* prevail it is government agencies we are talking about) then those people who want to appear as if they are somewhere else can do so easily. Thus invalidating much of the benefits (beyond the stupid 911 misdirection) to Big Brother and helping to maintain the privacy of the common man (and all those criminals the Feds thought they were going to be able to use this scheme against).

Hey, just because you wear a tinfoil hat doesn't mean you can't see the brighter side.

GOOD!

When you call 911 on a cell phone, chances are good that a) you will be in a poorly-defined location (ie, "I'm underneath the tire of a car!"), and b) you will need a speedy response. Why must you be forced to describe your location well enough for police to find you, instead of simply lettimg them track your phone and show up to where you called?

Calling 911 implies it's an emergency, you need the police NOW.

This doesn't bode well

More and more parents are going to be pressured into keeping 24 hour tabs on their teenagers, due to fear of lawsuits if their kids get in trouble as well as fear due to media-hyped crime stories. I see this as a bad thing. Kids will grow up used to constant 24 hour surveillance, fully prepared to become zombies in the Big Brother society of the future where their every movement will be tracked.

I'm sorry, but an important part of growing up is getting at least a taste of true freedom and yes, sometimes the risk that it entails. . When I was a teenager I probably did a few things my parents wouldn't have approved of, and I that was an important part of my experience.

I can't imagine imposing this on my own teenager, except (1) when he actively wants it, if say he goes into a strange part of town, or (2) as punishment if he gets into trouble - part of the punishment might be that he would be monitored for the next two months or whatever. If he wants to be monitored all the time,

tin hat

Time to make a mini hat for my cell phone..

(if I had one -- a phone that is)

Ohh Great

So we can get evil spying technology but we still don't get GPS capability with our new cell phones. Fucking wonderful.

So I just got a new treo 600 and like all new cell phones it has e911. This means it has a GPS reciever and all that shit in it, however, like most new cell phones it lacks the code or chip to do the GPS processing. If you can now get commercial spying services why the hell can't they enable a GPS service without an expansion card.

Seriously though this is a somewhat worrying trend. Not so much because of the lose of privacy, although that isn't good but because of the *differential* loss in privacy. I think it was David Brin who commented that this was the real problem and while I don't know his reasons I agree with him. If corporate execs were as likely to have their minor transgressions traced as teenagers we would learn to forgive these transgression that have happened since the begining of time. As it is we will once again blame it on the moral failings of the youth.

Ironically it seems that it is our concern for privacy that will cause the problems. We will only let surveilance happen in certain specialized areas, those areas that "morally good upright" citizens won't be in. It will be okay to surveill only those people who regularly come within some many feet of a known drug hangout...but not a buisnessman who buys his coke from a friend at work.

Hmm..

We should make cell phones really small.. kinda triangular shaped.. and pin them to our chest! We can have a speakerphone system and voice recognition, you can just tap it and speak!

And now people can go "Computer, locate Liutenant Worf."

Err.

Tracking your cell phone.

I work in the telecom industry. I have been doing so for quite som time. Back in 1999, we did system test on locating in GSM. At that time, locating was based on using several measurements:
+ signal strengths measured at two or more towers,
+ the so-called timing advance measurements,
+ measurements done over several frequencies (GSM uses frequency hopping).
Usually, in urban areas, we'd get the location within 10 meters. In rural areas, it was more like 100 meter. It was a bit of a hassle to order the system to start the tracking, and there was no nice user interface for the resulting trace data. We made a few hacks to make our lives easier. Some of those hacks still lives... Today, the radio base stations comes with the option of a built-in GPS. That makes the position of the base statio very well known (that was a problem back in 1999). You can still use the measurement reports from the cell-phone to get the current location (cell-phones have to make measurement reports, or they won't work in the system). You don't need to have GPS capability in the cell-phone. But if you do, and it reports coordinates that doesn't agree with known data frpm the base stations, the cell-phones data will be ignored, and real measurements will be used. The user interfaces of today are mcu better. Using the IMSI (International Mobile Subscriber Identity) or even the equipment identity number, you can order the system to log all movements of the cell-phone. The only way to avoid this, is to keep the battery out of the cell-phone, and only put it in when you need the service.

Ingenious use of Cell phone technology

Instead of paying for LoJack for my new car, I'll just sign up for the family plan and leave a cheap Nokia in the trunk.

How it works for 911

This is in daily use at 911 centrals, at least here in Scandinavia. Whenever someone calls 911 (or our local version of it) a trace is automatically performed and the operator can see the approximate position of the caller on the map. This actually works with information from just one base station. The directional antennas will know the sector of the caller and the signal strength is used to calculate the approximate distance. The area in which the caller is positioned is highlighted on the map. No GPS, no triangulation, just one single base station. And no, the police does not have access to the same information, at least not here in Norway. Maintaining this application is part of my current assignment so I do have some first hand experience... -Allan

To block the signals...

Whats a good material to block cellular/gps signals? I think that making cellphone holders that can block the signals would be a great product to sell....

Options...

For what it's worth, many years ago when I crossed paths with some cell-phone product design types, there was a hybrid product concieved, originally to improve service and battery life -- a pager/cell phone. (We're not talking SMS here, but plain old POCSAG paging.)

Anyway, with this approach you could work if you wished to retain positional anonymity -- have a conventional pager (which is just a reciever) notify you of calls, then choose to power up the cell or not.

As practically every other post has pointed out, positioning by radio has no requirement of GPS being present. Any transmitter can be position located. Amateur radio opertators actually have contests to do this -- foxhunts -- and the equipment to do position finding of non-spread-spectrum tranmitters is pretty trivial to make or buy. [ramseyelectronics.com]

If you want your whereabouts to remain unknown, don't transmit. Simple as that.

'Do or Die' Service

Phone companies should just make it optional to use 911 with tracking or no 911 at all, they can market it as the 'Do or Die' service.

Re:Not good.

Spouses should not have the ability to spy on one another either.

Can now. It's called a private detective.

Without guidelines, tracking very well might become widespread because it is forced down the throats of people who get their cell phones through their companies, schools, or otherwise don't pay their own bill.

He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Re:how does it work?

Look no further. I don't claim to be an expert on this, but my understanding is that they use a process called triangulation. The process is simple. They collect data from three different near-by cell phone towers. The data from the three towers is then compared to determine your location.

I'd be sure to remove the battery if a I didn't want to be tracked. I wouldn't trust the on/off switch for one second. Personally, if I was going to a tin-foil hat clan meeting, I would leave the phone at home. I'd be paranoid that even with the battery removed, there might still be some tracking mechanism. I think that the recent story about the FBI being ordered by a court not to use a certain method of monitoring computers in cars because they interfered with the use of the machines by the users just goes to show how the FBI has an attitude that it is their absolute right to snoop on anything and everything and use anything possible for surveilance.

/me dons tin-foil hat.