Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Technology

Privacy in the Woods? 824

Posted by Cliff from the sometimes-tracking-can-be-a-lifesaver dept.
Rorschach1 asks: "I work with a local Search and Rescue team, and for some time I've been thinking about the possibility of installing sensors at a few critical trail junctions in the local back country. The sensors would detect passing hikers and report timestamps to an Internet gateway in near real-time. When a hiker goes missing, this information could be very valuable in determining where search efforts should be directed. However, I've spent enough time on Slashdot to know that whenever you start monitoring or tracking people and their activities, someone's going to get upset. So I'd like to hear from the tinfoil hat brigade - what are your objections to such a system, and how might your concerns be addressed?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Privacy in the Woods? More

Privacy in the Woods?

Comments Filter:

  • keep it anonymous and private. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @04:39PM (#9120865)
    I wouldn't have a single objection if it was a voluntary system. Make it known that you offer the service and have them wear some sort of tag that would be detected by the system (make sure it's light and not physically intrusive). It could even have a unique ID (which could be disabled at the request of the hiker).

    I don't think I would have much of an objection to one being in place as long as there is no requirement for a permit to be camping/hiking in the park. If you are able to place a specific hiker in the area to the timestamps then that's too intrusive for me. I get out into the woods to get away from people. I don't want people being able to track me in real time out there. I really don't see a need for it either.

    I would have serious reservations unless someone made sure that the statistics are kept private, very, very, very private. Who knows what person would have access to it (not everyone in law enforcement is all that friendly). Say they notice a hiker *alone*? They could go out there and get a good idea of where the person might be headed (or staying). Knowing where the points are for tracking they themselves might be able to bushwhack around the sensors and do things I don't care to mention.
    • From the sound of it, there system would have no way of correlating data to a particular person. It would just be a bunch of motion sensors which would log a timestamp whenever something crossed the path. The data would be fairly useless unless you're specifically looking for someone, then you could use it to narrow down the candidate locations in a search/rescue situation.

      I like this idea!

    • no ... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by SvendTofte ( 686053 ) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @04:57PM (#9121092)
      keep it anonymous and public.

      hand out some sort of tag to the hikers when they arrive. if the hiker wants it, they can carry it along. when they come within reach of a sensor, the tag gets a session id of sorts.

      this way, you can track individual persons about the woods, but have no actual knowlegde of who they are, other then "some person".

      when the hikers leave the area, they hand in the tag, which is reset and then given to someone else.

      public disclosure in a system, which cannot expose individuals is a good thing :)

      • Re:no ... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by drinkypoo ( 153816 )
        How would you address the issue of being able to track a lonely hiker for nefarious purposes? Personally I think the only way to do this is to have two classes of RFID tag or similar, ones which all have the same ID and ones which have unique IDs. Let users of the unique IDs specify whether they want their information public or not. But, being able to track people around the woods is a liability until you're lost.

      • Re:no ... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by XaXXon ( 202882 ) <xaxxon@gmaGIRAFFEil.com minus herbivore> on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @05:45PM (#9121650) Homepage
        Errr, if it's anonymous, doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose? The idea isn't to track usage, the idea is to find people when they're lost.

        If Joe goes missing, what tag do I look for if I don't know what tag Joe has? Do I wait for everyone else to turn theirs in maybe? I'm not sure if people would be expected to do that..

        Doesn't really seem to make sense.

        In my mind, as long as it's optional -- TRULY optional -- then there's no problem tracking people. The other thing to be done is to not keep records of the data for extended periods of time. Not sure exactly what that definition would be, but presumably some duration longer than when people get reported missing.

        • a thought (Score:5, Interesting)

          by morgajel ( 568462 ) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @07:10PM (#9122501)
          look for the one you can't account for?

          if you have 30 blips on the map, then that's only 30 places to check.
          it's a little bit more work, but much less than a full-on search and rescue.

          if you really wanted to get advanced, have the tracker contain 2 buttons- "help!" and "I'm ok"
          if someone is lost, beep the tracker- if someone responds back with I'm ok, don't investigate it. if they don't respond back or send "help" investigate it.

    • Re:keep it anonymous and private. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @05:13PM (#9121285)
      such voluntary system alreayd exist, it is called
      a Personal Locator Beacon (PLB); as they say, it
      removes the 'search' part of S&R. There is a
      very good FAQ about PLB on this web site:
      http://www.equipped.com/plb_legal.htm

      --Sylvain

    • Re:keep it anonymous and private. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by dnoyeb ( 547705 ) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @05:14PM (#9121299) Homepage Journal
      Just put a footpad in the area and let hikers know what its for. Thats much simpler than requiring them to wear something. When hiking past all they need to do is step on it in passing...or not.

    • Re:keep it anonymous and private. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rowanxmas ( 569908 ) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @05:16PM (#9121329)
      So it turns that they already have a system like this... you are supposed to fill out a tag that you wire to your pack, and a carbon copy goes into the box that is sitting out.

      Seems to work well enough, I question the need for a high-tech solution. If people want to be dumb, let 'em. Otherwise there is non-intrusive, low-tech, easy to use system already working.

      The problem with the proposal is there is no user ibput so you don't know when to start worrying.
    • Excellent points. Two things I can think of:
      1) The set of people who forget to bring their RFID tags and get lost probably intersects with the set of people who today forget to tell the forest rangers where, and for how long, they are planning on hiking. That's not a flaw in your system, just Murphy's Law.
      2) Once people start thinking there's some sort of radio tag capable of linking them back to civilization, they'll start clamouring for cel-phone access.

    • Re:keep it anonymous and private. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DunbarTheInept ( 764 ) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @05:21PM (#9121401) Homepage
      Whenever someone who understands personal rights talks about carefully refraining from using a potientially invasive technology in a damaging way, it's promising - but they often forget to design a system that will work well when the NEXT guy takes over the job. They tend to design systems for which the only safeguard against them being misused is that those in charge (the ones inventing the system) agree not to use them that way. Then when the system expands to be used by others, or when the original guardians of privacy leave the job and new people take over, the technology is there, the system is in place to make abuses happen, and the people who are then in charge of them are not the ones who thought long and hard about avoiding their misuse. So the system gets abused.

      So when designing this sort of thing, it's important to think of the damage that can be done when someone less scrupulous than yourself is in charge of it, and try to design the system around that scenario. (This is also a good safeguard to keep yourself from falling into the temptation of misusing it later on.)

      So to be fair, hikers MUST be told that they are being watched. (I think there's actually a law about that, but IANAL.) And they must be told where the watchpoints are (not by law, but in the interest of fairness). And the information gathered should not be private, far from it. It should be completely transparent. Surveillence data is an unbalancing of power only when it's data that only one group has. When it's data that everybody has, then it's not so unbalancing. Joe average should be able to find someone's sensor trail on a website just as easily as the ranger sitting in the search-and-rescue booth.

      And if you think that would amount to too much information given out, and too much invasion of privacy to have that data in the public, then that's a clue that you're being too invasive.

      Basically, if the data you want to collect is data that would be considered an invasion of privacy if it was published to the public, then it's also an invasion of privacy to collect it and keep it to yourself.

      • Joe average should be able to find someone's sensor trail on a website just as easily as the ranger sitting in the search-and-rescue booth.

        Hmm.

        As long as Joe Average can't connect that data to a individual identity, I'm ok with that. (JA: "Hey, look, my neighbor Charlie is out hiking in Yellowstone. He really pissed me off last week; he's hiking all alone, and I know where he was an hour ago or so"....)

        The system could still work well for it's intended purpose - "74 hikers in, 73 out. Uh oh. We

    • dream on (Score:4, Insightful)

      by twitter ( 104583 ) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @05:24PM (#9121437) Homepage Journal
      I wouldn't have a single objection if it was a voluntary system.

      Show me a voluntary system paid for by tax dollars. The more elaborate the system, the greater the cost and the more likely it would be forced. After all, unless the rescue team is a volunteer organization, you are already paying for the service.

      Every dinky camera system erected so far has been used in exactly the manner the foil hat people said it would be. Once the tool is paid for it will be abused by the state. The only way to prevent the abuse is to realize that the tool does not satisfy the stated goals and to not build it in the first place.

      This kind of thing reeks of statism. Taken to it's extreme, you won't be allowed to walk in the woods without permission and careful monitoring. Your enjoyment of the woods takes a back seat to society's costs of your potential injuries. You don't own the woods because the state owns your hide by providing you with all of these nifty services. I already see signs about not being able so spend the night in areas and other mindless restrictions that assume the park belongs to the park service rather than the park service belongs to me.

      It's for your own good, they say. Sure it is. Like cameras that give you speeding tickets, keep people from driving in Central London and can be used to track any political opponent are for my own good - too bad they have been proven useless for their stated purpose of crime prevention.

      The devil is in the details. A system that would really be useful would also have to be very invasive. Even then the value will be negligible. The world is a large place and people are small in it.

      The park rescue officer will complain that narrowing the search lowers his own risk of injury. The other way to lower that risk of injury is to not search at all. How many young men have died on wild goose chases? Does it all add up when you figure out how many people were actually saved?

      Wired woods are not for me.

  • Should be ok (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Oculus Habent ( 562837 ) * <oculus.habent@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @04:39PM (#9120870) Journal
    As long as your sensor isn't a video camera of some sort, the anonymity of the technology should be fine for most.

  • Identity (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kinzillah ( 662884 ) <douglas.price@nOSpAm.mail.rit.edu> on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @04:40PM (#9120880)
    It isn't as though it would be idintifying the people, it would just know someone/thing passed there. I don't see any privacy issues with something like an IR beam that logs traffic on the trail.

  • How about making the sensors voluntary? (Score:5, Informative)

    by foidulus ( 743482 ) * on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @04:41PM (#9120890)
    If possible, create a system with highly visible sensors. If the hiker wants the info to be taken(knowing what it will be used for), they can hit a button and the sensor will register(what are you using for power btw?) If the hiker doesn't want anyone to know where they are, they just don't trigger the sensor.
    Plus, make sure to have a good privacy policy, dictating what the info will be used for!
    • Highly visible sensors are highly visible vandalism targets. Especially in hunting areas, people will shoot at anything.

      Candidate sensor types are through-beam IR, passive IR, and seismic. Retroreflective IR has the disadvantage of requiring a very visible reflector, and can be confused by reflective clothing. Seismic sensors have the advantage of being almost undetectable when they're buried under or beside a trail, and they can probably be calibrated to not trigger on lighter animals.

      Power will be ei

  • It's a good idea (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rylfaeth ( 138910 ) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @04:41PM (#9120891)
    2 days ago this redneck I know flipped his quad over in a creek and tore his ear off. He called a friend's mom and cussed her out when she didn't believe he was hurt. It took a little while to find out where he was. If only he had had sensors in the trees to track his flowing mullet...

    -Rylfaeth

  • Carry on (Score:3, Interesting)

    by fiannaFailMan ( 702447 ) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @04:41PM (#9120892) Journal
    As long as it doesn't record my bank details and party affiliation, I don't see what harm it would do. It would do more good than harm IMHO.

  • Some like the risk. (Score:3, Informative)

    by theophilus00 ( 469290 ) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @04:42PM (#9120899)
    A lot of folks who go into the woods do so because they relish the element of risk involved. Idiot-proofing the wilderness experience will not appeal to most of them.

    • Re:Some like the risk. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by twnth ( 575721 )
      A lot of folks who go into the woods do so because they relish the element of risk involved. Idiot-proofing the wilderness experience will not appeal to most of them

      I don't care what appeals to you. If you expect S&R to bail you out of a mess, a little RFID tag is not too much to ask.

      Believing that "Darwin doesn't apply to me" is often the first step in proving that it does.

  • Simpler, quicker, and exists already (Score:5, Funny)

    by Grax ( 529699 ) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @04:42PM (#9120903) Homepage
    Make sure the area has good cell phone coverage. Require all missing hikers to carry a cell phone.
    • 1. Make sure the area has good cell phone coverage.
      2. Require all missing hikers to carry a cell phone.
      3. Spam them with text messages. r u short on wood? msg me!!! c14Iis wrks!!!
      4. Profit!

      -Adam
    • Make sure the area has good cell phone coverage. Require all missing hikers to carry a cell phone. ... And then you find out that your carrier started sucking real bad, and you are screwed. Let me elaborate. A few years back I chose AT&T as my carrier because they were offering the best outdoors coverage, largely due to the fact that their phones worked in both analog and digital modes.

      Then one day they decided to just turn off the analog part. Apparently, this is a part of some big transition where t

  • Only me (Score:5, Funny)

    by Dawang ( 611122 ) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @04:42PM (#9120904)
    I'll be fine with it as long as it only counts me, and not the body I'm carrying through the woods.

    attn echelon and other busybodies: that was a joke.

  • No Worries About Privacy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by The_Rippa ( 181699 ) * on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @04:43PM (#9120908)
    You'll be tracking more deer than humans I imagine

  • To paraphrase an old saying: (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @04:43PM (#9120911)
    With adequate surveillence, we will finally have a definitive answer to the question of what a bear does in the woods.

  • Smash 'em (Score:3, Interesting)

    by NineNine ( 235196 ) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @04:43PM (#9120912)
    I have a personal policy that if I see anything manmade in the woods other than a basic signpost, it comes down. Trash, sensors (never seen those), signs ("bike race this direction!"), etc. If I ran across anything like this in the woods that was public property, I'd rip them out in a heartbeat and throw them away, no questions asked. The woods are becoming a precious, quiet, away-from-the-things-of-man commodity. This shit doesn't need to be in the woods. If a hiker gets lost, that's their problem.

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @04:50PM (#9120989)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • If I ran across anything like this in the woods that was public property...

        if you do that on land that's not your own, then you're a vandal.

        Public property does belong to you and I and to him. We are 'the public' after all. If I see garbage in the woods, I pick it up. If I saw signs nailed to a tree, I would tear them off.

    • Re:Smash 'em (Score:5, Insightful)

      by the_mad_poster ( 640772 ) <shattoc@adelphia.com> on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @04:50PM (#9120998) Homepage Journal

      Funny, I was about to demolish your house since it was a blight on the land. Y'know. Just in my personal opinion, which, of course, makes it okay to destroy property.

      If you're ripping down private garbage that was put on public land, fine. But if you're ripping down shit that my tax dollars paid to put up on public land, and will pay to repair after you decide that your word is suddenly law, I'd really appreciate it if you could stick your head in the toilet and flush it a few times.

  • Please don't. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @04:43PM (#9120914)
    I'd rather see that the forest remains the sole place where one can escape all that resembles modern technology, society etc. It's really one of the few places left where one can go to be completely alone and unreachable. Don't touch my forest.

  • Depends what you're detecting... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jdreed1024 ( 443938 ) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @04:43PM (#9120918)
    Are you detecting that a hiker passed a specific location, or that a specific hiker passed a specific location? If the former, it's no different from loop detectors in roads that count the number of cars. If the latter, well, it needs to be voluntary. Just like you can decide to take emergency flares and a radio with you hiking, you can decide to sign up for the tracking system or not.

  • Different angle on the idea... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by iiioxx ( 610652 ) <iiioxx@gmail.com> on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @04:43PM (#9120923)
    Instead of tracking hikers on trails with sensors (and how do you know it's a hiker anyway, and not a bear/deer/extraterrestrial?), offer hikers the ability to check-out an emergency transponder that they can turn on if they need assistance. Hell, you could even offer it as a service that people might be willing to pay for, and that would offset your equipment costs.

  • Anonymity. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DAQ42 ( 210845 ) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @04:44PM (#9120929)
    The main worry of privacy advocates is anonymity, plain and simple. You can set up sensors all you want, they don't have any way of identifying me as me. If I don't want you knowing I'm somewhere, a sensor is just going to tell you that a man sized creature passed by this location at this time. Great, could have been a grizzly for all you know. That's plenty private. Now if you were to put a camera in that sensor pod, and have it snap a photo of the passing object, not only would it help you identify me, it could also be used as evidence of my being at a certain place at a certain time. The law of privacy is kind of like the law of uncertainty. I'd like to be an electron to the government and everyone else out there. Until you bump into me, you'll never know exactly where I am.

  • And so in a puff of smoke (Score:5, Funny)

    by Eudial ( 590661 ) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @04:44PM (#9120930)
    And so in a puff of smoke Your Rights Outdoors appeared.

    12H>look yro.
    You see a small box on the floor.
    12H>take yro
    The YRO zaps you and you immediately let go of it.

    eh... better cut down on my MUD dosage.

  • Tin Foil Poisoning (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cyberlotnet ( 182742 ) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @04:46PM (#9120959) Homepage Journal
    Those with tin hats would rather die in a snow storm them anyone know where they are.

    Give me a break. Its a life saving tool. It would not know who the hiker was so I say screw it. If they don't like it let them go get lost somewhere else..

    Since in this case they do have a choice.. Your not forcing them to walk down your monitored trail, they are choosing to do it on there own then forget it.

    I would be midly surprised if you had one person go home because they where afraid you might be able to track them when the next snow storm hits and there to stupid to come back.
    • This could be a problem not from a privacy standpoint so much as from a dependency standpoint. One problem with rescues lately has been the use of cell phones as a sort of insurance for backcountry travelers. For every person who uses one to legitimately save themselves there seem to be 2 or 3 others who wander out unprepared or naively and then use the cell phone to call for help to bail them out (sometimes risking their life as well as the rescuers). These monitoring stations could have the same effect

  • Make it low-tech (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DeanFox ( 729620 ) * <spam.myname@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @04:47PM (#9120966)
    As a card carrying member of the local chapter of the Atlanta Georgia Tin Foil Hats of America (AGTFHA), I have absolutely no problem with your proposal. So long as it's voluntary. In fact I have even a low-tech solution. Put up weather protected boxes on poles. Let them (who don't have a GPS) write their name, date and time on a sign in sheet. You don't have to spend a bunch of tax payers money (we need it all for Bushies holy war), they (your backpackers) don't have to have high-tech equipment. Simple solution. Participate if you want. Sign in at strategic points and if you get lost we'll have an idea of where to start looking.

    This is assuming your campers do what I've had to do every time I've gone to the back country. Is to sign in, give member counts, get fire permits, etc... Inform them to sign in at each box and explain why. They do or they don't.

    Somehow this isn't a tin hat problem for me and I'll even show you my card.

    -[d]-

  • Trail Head Log Book (Score:3, Informative)

    by MtbRocket ( 748338 ) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @04:48PM (#9120970)
    A system to track people on trails already exists. It is called the Trail Head Log Book. You know, you open the box, sign in and then when you get back you sign out. There are also weight sensitive pads that get buried under the trail that counts the number of people who pass it.

  • Is It Necessary? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @04:48PM (#9120976) Homepage Journal

    Going for a walk in the woods is one of the few escapes from the intrusions of modern society still available.

    Leave the control over information disclosure in the hands of the hiker. Let them take a cell phone, leave an itinerary with a friend, start a fire if they're in trouble. Besides, if you really need to find people you can get the police helicopter with IR sensors to comb the woods with your search and rescue team in an emergency.

    I know you mean well, but this is where you ought to let people assume special risks and precious responsibilities - Don't take them away so lightly.

    Rather, put your efforts into an education program for students. How to enjoy the woods, hike safely, avoid hypothermia, etc. Sponsor some hikes and let them get a feel for how wonderful it is to be in the wilderness away from civilization.

    • Re:Is It Necessary? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Bifurcati ( 699683 )
      That's fine to say, but often there isn't cell reception in the woods. Starting a fire (as another poster pointed out) may not be the smartest thing; it may not even be practical (no matches on a day walk?) And searching with a chopper is fine, but the point of this question was to SAVE time (and money!)

      I understand what you mean about preserving the woods, and I agree in principle. But we still put in signs, we still mark trails and make sure that they're clear. If there are unobtrusive sensors on pa

    • Re:Is It Necessary? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by zokrath ( 593920 )
      [quote]Besides, if you really need to find people you can get the police helicopter with IR sensors to comb the woods with your search and rescue team in an emergency.[/quote]

      So instead of a tracking system, law enforcement in the area has to go on full alert every time an inexperienced moron gets himself into trouble in the wild? Hunting for a single person in even just a few dozen square miles is difficult and time consuming.

      And generally the type of people that get lost or injured are the type that fa

  • It is optional (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MrIrwin ( 761231 ) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @04:49PM (#9120981) Journal
    Hikers can opt to book out "tags" for thier own safty, they are not obliged to carry them.

    Privacy objections to RFID tags involve subliminal usage (shop tags etc.), or inclusion in items that must be carried such as drivers licencse.

    BTW, there are allready tracking solutions in use that use GPS in conjuction with satellite comms. Users only need switch on devices when they want. When they do the device periodically sends an SMS like message giving the current coords read from the GPS. Likewise such devices can be used to send an SOS that includes the exact coords.

  • wildlife cameras (Score:3, Interesting)

    by zboypiccoro ( 592412 ) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @04:49PM (#9120984)
    The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has been setting cameras triggered by infrared motion detectors for years. They are used to photograph animals that use certain water holes and other areas where there is interest in animal movements. They are unmarked and generally well hidden. Many outdoors folks are photographed by them every year, and altough I'm not sure what is done with the data it would be interesting to contact the ODFW and see what legal steps they take to cover themselves.

  • I worked for a company that made these (Score:5, Informative)

    by dexterpexter ( 733748 ) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @04:49PM (#9120986) Journal
    As a person that worked for a company that designed people tracking and intrusion detection/defense systems for military and govenment agencies, I can tell you that there are devices available (not commercially, though) that do this without saving information about the person who passed, only that there was a human that passed. Our main customers were the DOD, Border Patrol, and Special Ops, as well as several "friendly" countries.

    And, for all of the tin-foil hatters out there, you might be suprised to know that the forestry service already uses such devices. So does border patrol. We have also sold units that have been deployed at Area 51. These are passive infrared detectors, vibrational sensors (some contained within air-droppable cones that burrow into the ground), and magnetic sensors among others.

    I can't go into specifics about design, but I would be happy to answer any questions (non-design related) that anyone has.

    I worked at this company up until last December, when I quit. However, I might be doing consulting work for them in the future.

    Privacy aside, these are already in use in some cases, and no one even realizes it because they are highly covert. Privacy concerns, IMO, do not come into play with devices deployed on government land, especially when no identifying information is given. Its like walking through a door beeper in a store, except that this one counts direction of travel and the presense of movement. Stuff that has more information tagged on, however, gets shaky in the privacy area, I will admit.

  • Why not use... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Inda ( 580031 ) <slash.20.inda@spamgourmet.com> on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @04:50PM (#9120999) Journal
    Why not use bread?

    Give each person a loaf before they set out on their hike. Instruct them to sprinkle the bread behind them as they walk. If they have the misfortune to get lost, the trail of bread will show them the way home.

    Hyperlink withdraw is my problem.

  • My input? It's a waste of time. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Awptimus Prime ( 695459 ) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @04:51PM (#9121005)
    So I'd like to hear from the tinfoil hat brigade - what are your objections to such a system, and how might your concerns be addressed?

    This is less of a tin-foil hat issue and more of your idea being redundant and a waste of money. First off, hikers are already tracked. Before you go on any long distance hike, you should typically sign in at a local ranger station. These are usually where the best drop-off points and parking lots are. Plus, it's just good to be face to face with a ranger before hitting the woods. At least then, they will have a face in memory, just in case you turn up missing.

    Anyway, tax dollars are already being spent on tracking hikers through a paper log, there is no benefit to doing it digitally, and considering costs of managing the electronic system, it's pointless and doesn't deserve much attention.

    No offense, just an honest thought on the issue. I grow weary of people searching for technical solutions to mundane things that can be done better through arcane methods.

    In other words -- "Keep it simple, stupid."

  • how might your concerns be addressed? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kfg ( 145172 ) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @04:52PM (#9121015)
    EPIRB.

    Let me carry one or not, as I choose. If I wish to go out in the woods alone and get lost, that's my business.

    If I wished to be tracked I'll carry a beacon, simple as that.

    Having someone to come after me if I get in trouble is one thing. Having my mommy watch me all the time to make sure I don't get into trouble is another.

    KFG

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @04:53PM (#9121029)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • The opposite problem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NoData ( 9132 ) <_NoData_@nOspAM.yahoo.com> on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @04:53PM (#9121039)
    There's obvious answers to this "Ask Slashdot" like "keep it voluntary," but perhaps giving people technological security blankets for outdoorsmanship is actually a disservice? I remember reading an article a while back how cell phones have become, paradoxically, both a lifesaver for lost hikers, and a bane for search and rescue teams. The problem is that novice hikers/climbers push themselves farther than their abilities because they feel like they can just fall back on their cell phones if they get stuck--and they do. People overextend themselves either physically or in terms of terrain, and then waste search & rescue resources by calling in for an extraction. One example in this article was a hiking party that just got "too tired" and didn't feel like recouping for the return trip. The first step in not getting stuck in the wilderness is adequate training and knowing your limits, not simply constructing a better (and more abusable) safety net.

    • Re:The opposite problem (Score:4, Interesting)

      by jefu ( 53450 ) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @05:49PM (#9121688) Homepage Journal
      I've done the SAR thing and cell phones are interesting.

      I've been on searches where the lost person has a cell phone. More than once the person has reported being lost to someone else and then stayed on the line for a while draining the battery completely - but not giving us any information that would really help us to find him.

  • Search and Rescue? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by steveha ( 103154 ) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @04:54PM (#9121048) Homepage
    Somewhat offtopic, but I'd like to ask about search and rescue. Specifically, are S&R teams typically fully staffed, or are they likely to be looking for additional volunteers? (Is S&R purely volunteer, or do S&R guys get paid anything?)

    And if they are looking for volunteers, what are the qualifications? Do you need an amateur radio license? First aid certifications? How much time does it take to be a member of an S&R team -- I presume there are training sessions, meetings, and of course the occasional actual S&R assignment.

    I've sometimes thought that I should join an S&R team, because my life is set up so that if I had to suddenly take a day off, I could do so. But I have no idea if an S&R team would even want me.

    steveha

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • I've heard of some full-time SAR teams, but they're mostly in places like Yosemite.

      More often, they're all (or mostly) volunteer, run by the Sherriff's department or maybe the county fire department.

      Being in decent physical shape is probably the biggest requirement. My team requires a six-month academy, with two to five days of training a month, before you start doing callouts. An EMT certification might also be required - depends on the team.

      You should be prepared to spend at least two full days a mon

  • You will track more deer than hikers (Score:4, Insightful)

    by osjedi ( 9084 ) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @04:55PM (#9121060)


    Deer, elk, moose, etc. will frequent those trails more than humans will. (They get out of the way when they hear us coming). You'll get a bunch of traffic on your sensors at dusk and dawn. I don't think you'll have very good data - too much noise.

  • Falling Hikers (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rherbert ( 565206 ) <slashdot@org.ryan@xar@us> on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @04:56PM (#9121083) Homepage
    Would it be able to detect a hiker falling off a 54-foot waterfall, like I just did [therepublicannews.com]?

  • No. No no. No. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rev.LoveJoy ( 136856 ) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @04:57PM (#9121094) Homepage Journal
    Please rethink your ideas.

    The "safer society" club of America is getting in my way of having a good time.

    I do not want you to look out for me, watch over me, make sure I don't smoke in a bar. I do not need you to tell me my kids should wear helmets on bikes, nor do I require your input on just how much protective gear I should wear when I use my weed whacker on the lawn. I certainly do not reuquire you and your supporters forcing my car to have things like a GPS (in case I get lost, yes, I know) or insisting that my cell phone can be found in the middle of the Mojave (for that one in 100 million of us who stumbles headlong into the barren desert, sure).

    We, the free thinking and self-aware people of north America are really sick and fucking tired of you looking out for us. We are not your children nor your keep. Please kindly fuck off and take your mother-hen make the world a safer place excuse for butting into my lifestyle back into your own living room where it squarly belongs.

    A society without risks is a society who cannot place a tangible value on the rewards afforded to some risk takers.

    -- RLJ

  • ummm... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hak1du ( 761835 ) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @05:05PM (#9121211) Journal
    you can't just go around installing computer hardware on trails. While it may be "public" land, it really is no different from someone's back yard: some specific institution (part of the government in this case) ultimately has responsibility for managing it, no different from a home owner or a private land owner. That institution will also have lawyers and administrators whose purpose in life is to figure these things out.

    Installing such sensors sounds harmless enough, but even there may be things to watch out for: wildlife impact, liability, pollution, litter laws, fire hazard, etc.

    I mean, they are powered devices, right? They can short out? They do contain some heavy metals? They need to be maintained and they need to be removed when they no longer work, etc.

  • Options (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Openstandards.net ( 614258 ) <slashdot@@@openstandards...net> on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @05:11PM (#9121263) Homepage
    I think that since you aren't identifying people, but just that someone ran through an area, you are at least preserving anonymity.

    However, one person made a good point that this does run counter to why some of us go to the natural areas. I had two places I went to when I grew up. Both of those places represented "God made" areas barely touched by people. Thus, the escape for me was to be somewhere where God was and civilation had virtually no impact.

    One of those places was changed to permit public access, which ruined it, because they had to destroy 90% of why we went there in order to make it "safe."

    The other place put cameras in the trees, again in the name of safety. This, again, ruined it. I went there to be away from civilization, but cameras just bring civilization to you, just knowing that someone behind some TV can watch.

    I had nothing to hide; wasn't a criminal or a fugitive. Heck, these were place I went to since age 7 to enjoy some time in a God created recreation area with rivers, trees, mountains and wildlife that people didn't ruin yet. I simply didn't want civilation to be at a place where I went to enjoy time away from civilation.

    Yours is less intrusive, but clearly you are bringing in the presence of technology in the name of safety to a place where people go to get away from technology and other totems of civilization.

    Thus, I'd have to consider other options that might be possible, and even more effective at your goal. One option might be to offer beacon devices that are off unless someone turns them on. The person can choose to:

    • Not use the beacon device
    • Carry it, and only turn it on when needed
    • Carry it, and leave it on all the time

    This way, you have the ability to locate a person to an exact location. Yet, the system is truly voluntary, and people even have the option of only turning the beacon on if they actually need it, meaning that for those people, they have increased safety over no beacon, without having to sacrifice any privacy unless they actually have an emergency.

    With radio technology dirty cheap, I imagine that such a beacon device can be quite cheap.

  • Much better idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gerardrj ( 207690 ) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @05:12PM (#9121279) Journal
    The method you used would be unreliable and would probably do nothing to reduce the search time of the S&R mission. Why?

    Unless you only allow one hiking team in the park at a time, you will have multiple logs/hits of movement from multiple trail monitors, assuming the monitors manage to effectively send a signal each and every time a human (and only a human) passes the monitor.
    Once you have all the data logged, how do you know where a hiker party went? Was that them on trail "A" or were they on trail "F"? Are the hikers going to be required to file a hiking plan from which they may not deviate?

    So we have: unreliable sensor data and unknown parties with unknown destinations. I don't see where a system such as you proposed would provide any data that an S&R team could use to locate missing people faster.
    And there's still the whole "you don't know they're missing/in trouble until they don't show up for a few hours/days and someone else calls you.

    A far better method would be to use emergency locator transmitters (ELTs) carried by each party or person in the park, and do it on a voluntary basis. When someone gets need help they would activate the ELT which would be "heard" at a central station and S&R teams would be dispatched to home in on the signal. With the right type of box the holder could even press one of several buttons to tell authorities what type of help they need: lost, medical emergency, fire.

    This method has the following advantages:

    1. There is little to no delay between a person needing assistance and that assistance being dispatched.
    2. The search portion of the S&R is virtually eliminated, with beacons you can home in very quickly
    3. No-one has to submit to tracking, but they still can have the security it can provide
    4. Costs can be recouped by charging a small fee for the transmitters, or for the loss of them
    5. The system is probably less complex than the anonymous tracking and reporting/loging
    6. No chance of false alerts from large animals moving through the forest
    7. Higher chance of successful rescue when you don't have to wait for the person to go missing before trying to find them

    Disadvantages:
    1. not everyone will want to take an ELT, so S&R will still need to do it the "old fashioned" way at times
    2. Potentially higher initial cost depending on how the ELT signal is tracked an the number of units deployed

    • Re:Much better idea (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Ixitar ( 153040 ) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @05:21PM (#9121396) Homepage
      A better rate structure is to give a reduced rate for carrying an ELT and charge a refundable deposit for the unit.

    • Re:Much better idea (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Rorschach1 ( 174480 ) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @06:34PM (#9122152) Homepage
      The people I'm concerned with tracking don't bother to carry a compass or jacket. Carrying an EPIRB or PLB is out of the question.

      Yes, there will be false hits, and high traffic will make it hard to spot what you're looking for. But then, if there's heavy traffic on that trail segment, chances are someone's going to find your victim before you even get the call.

      Traditionally, we track people by footprints and sign - broken twigs, discarded trash, that sort of thing. It's tedious and hard to do in a heavily travelled area, but it's done all the time. An electronic timestamp serves basically the same purpose as this sort of clue, only more reliably.

      Also, you often wind up commiting a lot of people to containment - posting people at trail heads to make sure the victim doesn't walk out unnoticed on their own, for example. This might help reduce the number of people required.

  • I do not support this idea. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pclminion ( 145572 ) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @05:19PM (#9121381)
    I don't support it, not because I fear invasion of my privacy, but because I think that spending time in the outdoors should encompass some degree of risk.

    When I go deep into the mountains, a large part of the joy I experience comes from the knowledge that my life is in my own hands, and that my judgment and decisions will get me out of (or into) any life and death situation that may arise. Every time I go out, I relish the small idea in the back of my mind, the idea that this might be the time I never come back.

    There is a certain exhiliration associated with being completely disconnected from the real world, from our social and technological support structures, fending for yourself.

    I do not support this idea because:

    1. It encourages people who are not physically and mentally ready for wilderness travel to enter the wilderness
    2. It provides a false sense of security, because the devices may stop functioning at any time, or the devices may not cover a particular area
    3. It will cause people to take risks they would not take under standard conditions, for example they may ford a stream they would otherwise avoid because they feel they have "backup."
    4. It will invite technological development to the wilderness, an area specifically set aside for the exclusion of those technologies.
    Simply put, the wilderness is, and should remain, a wild, volatile, and dangerous place. While I am all for advances in personal safety in remote regions, I also believe that the tools for personal safety should remain personal, in your own hands. Carry a radio or other beacon to signal with if you get into trouble. Learn the skills of relying on yourself that have been taught and relied upon for hundreds of years. This is the spirit of the wilderness.

  • Both as a Hiker and a former SAR member (Score:3, Insightful)

    by npsimons ( 32752 ) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @05:29PM (#9121475) Homepage Journal
    I say, keep it anonymous. I know damn well what I'm getting into when I go outdoors (as should anyone who goes outdoors), and I can take care of myself, thank you. If I do something stupid like get lost or die due to lack of planning, that's my fault.


    OTOH, I am not above helping people and donating my time to searching for hapless souls who didn't know better. Dead (wo)men don't tell tales; they also don't learn from their mistakes. Everyone should be free to enjoy the great outdoors, but it should also be known that it's not always a picnic, and part of the attraction of such an activity is getting away from it all - "it all" being civilization and all it's trappings, for better or for worse.

  • Checkpoints (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Spazmania ( 174582 ) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @05:38PM (#9121585) Homepage
    The simples answer is: don't engineer it as a Big Brother device.

    What you describe is a big brother device. It automatically detects all passing hikers so that when the damn fools get themselves lost they can be found again.

    So build it a different way. The same technoogy you described could be put together like this:

    You install "checkpoints" along the trail.
    Hikers optionally rent an RFID wriststrap for a buck or so.
    The checkpoint is also a map station, etc.
    When they hit the checkpoint, they swipe their wriststrap in front of the checkpoint and it emits a beep to let them know it recorded their passage.
    At the end of the day, your system sends an email to the hikers to give them a record of when they reached each checkpoint. He/she can race against himself in order to best his previous time.
    And as a happenstance side-benefit, if the damn fools get themselves lost, you know which checkpoint they reached last. ;)

    Some folks won't want a record of their passage and won't rent a wrist strap. If they get lost, you'll have more trouble finding them and they may suffer avoidable injury or even death. But you know what? That's OK too.

  • I can see it coming (Score:5, Funny)

    by jjoyce ( 4103 ) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @05:46PM (#9121660)
    People get dehydrated out there as well. I think we need bottled water available for sale every 300 feet. Someone might also ruin his or her shoes -- there ought to be niketowns out in the woods. And sometimes people camp and they forget their silverware. There should be an establishment that sells silverware. And what if those mountains and waterfalls start to seem a little dull? There needs to be a Blockbuster video accessible with all the latest releases.

    Gee, the forests seem so inconvenient and intimidating. I think you've stumbled onto something.

  • Just print numbers on cards (Score:5, Interesting)

    by KalvinB ( 205500 ) on Tuesday May 11, 2004 @07:37PM (#9122704) Homepage
    with "speed pass" or even just a bar code they can swipe in front of readers and give them to hikers who want them. The hiker can then choose who to give the identifying number to.

    When the card gets read the system just gets a number and location. If the hiker gets lost, the people who have the lost hiker's number can identify which one they're looking for.

    If people steal the cards, who cares. It's just a bar code with a long sequence of numbers and letters. The manufacturing costs should be negligable and just lumped in with cost of operations.

    You could also charge hikers for the card which they can keep indefinitly. They never have to give personal information to get the card because it doesn't matter. They just need to make sure an emergency contact knows the number. And that the emergency contact isn't someone who's going to be lost with them.

    Ben

Slashdot Top Deals

In practice, failures in system development, like unemployment in Russia, happens a lot despite official propaganda to the contrary. -- Paul Licker

Close