An End To Phone Pranking (axios.com) 188
An anonymous reader shares a report: A researcher at Carnegie Mellon University has developed an intelligent system that is helping the U.S. Coast Guard to distinguish and weed out prank mayday calls that cost it up to millions of dollars a year when it flies or motors out on pointless rescue missions, per Govtech.com. The program, created by Carnegie Mellon's Rita Singh, creates a barcode of a person's voice, deciphering whether the caller really is on a boat or actually in a house somewhere. It can unmask repeat pranksters since it can pick up telltale markers and match them up.
Whilst a really cool technology (Score:5, Insightful)
Whilst a really cool technology, I hope it never makes a mistake and says a real-life situation is really a prank.
The cost of mistake with this tech could be one or more people's lives.
Re: (Score:2)
That's my concern too. a false positive rate of even 0.0001% would still be unacceptably high for this particular application.
A much better strategy is simply higher fines and enforcement for prank calls. It won't eliminate them, but it's much lower risk.
When dealing with emergency services, you MUST treat ALL calls as valid until fully investigated. If proven false, enforcement action is warranted, but not investigating it is not.
Re: (Score:3)
From an economic standpoint, wasted millions of dollars equates to a slowed economy and an increase in poverty in the general. Wasted money and waste labor really can lead to life-sustaining services not reaching the poor, resulting in poverty, disease, and death.
Re: (Score:3)
On the other hand, while I would never condone prank/improper calls, in many situations they effectively serve as impromptu training for the coasties.
I'm a recreational keelboat sailor in the south-west coast of Canada/PNW USA, and it's both hilarious and frustrating to listen to VHF 16 on summer weekends. The number of ill-prepared people, those who don't know proper radio procedure, etc... is mind blowing. It's like what September was back in the golden era of Usenet. I much prefer sailing in the winter;
Re: (Score:2)
Having made the mistake at one point of sailing on a long weekend off of Victoria BC, I fully agree. However we aren't even talking about those people in this article. The article is talking about people sitting in their living room and pretending to be on a sinking ship. These calls have no value at all. However I really think the best course of action for those calls is to use investigative techniques to track down the caller, and then fine them enough to cover the response, the investigation, and all oth
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, while I would never condone prank/improper calls, in many situations they effectively serve as impromptu training for the coasties.
What an asinine statement. The "coasties", as you derisively refer to them, have plenty of training opportunities, all of them more effective than a fake mayday call.
The differences between training and actual rescue missions are several and significant. First, training takes place when there is no actual life at risk. A fake mayday call can draw resources from an area that may wind up needing them for a real mayday call. A helo that is 30 miles out to sea looking for a fake "lost person" cannot also be 30
Re: (Score:2)
What an asinine statement. The "coasties", as you derisively refer to them, have plenty of training opportunities, all of them more effective than a fake mayday call.
I guess I wasn't clear enough. Around here, the term "Coastie" is a term of endearment, not derision. They're out there, working hard, often putting their butts on the line when we get into trouble.
My thought process in terms of the training comment comes from the work I've done with a volunteer fire brigade at a remote site. We respond to all fire alarms equally, and thus far all but 3 in the past 50 years have been false. However, if the alarm happens to come in on a nice afternoon, and there's not much e
Re: (Score:2)
That's a matter of perspective, isn't it?
If we say that the system detects fraud, a false positive would be the system detecting a real result as fraudulent.
Re: (Score:2)
For that matter, how many rescues for real emergencies will not be mounted in a timely manner due to resources having been diverted to cover a prank call?
Re: (Score:2)
I am not saying that prank calls should not be dealt with, only that this is not the appropriate way of doing so.
That said, I might be in favour of using such a thing as part of a triage tool, for example if you have N resources available, but N+1 calls that come in, this could be used as a small part of the algorithm that decides which calls get the resources first. But if you have N resources, and no more than N calls, I can't advocate ignoring the call based on this technology.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think you understand what counts as a "positive" in a system detecting prank events. "positive" would be a prank, a "false positive" would be a real call that was labelled by the system as a prank.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you want it to be your life that's lost on that one call?
Emergency services need to treat ALL calls as real until proven otherwise. This is however a great tool to be used in investigative work after the fact to find, arrest, and charge the perpetrators of any pranks. The goal should be to decrease the prank calls through enforcement, not to ignore calls that might be pranks.
Re: (Score:2)
Many newer phone have increasingly better noise canceling technology. Or pick you speech from vibrations in your bones, then a normal over the air microphone.
Sure most calls would be from the boats radio, but increasingly it may be from a cell phone (If in range of a tower)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure most calls would be from the boats radio, but increasingly it may be from a cell phone (If in range of a tower)
No competent mariner/boater would make a distress call via a cell phone. One of the basic rules of being on the water is that, with a few exceptions, everyone is monitoring VHF 16, and all modern radios are also monitoring DSC. The water, even inshore ocean or lakes, is an unforgiving place, if you're in real trouble you want the closest person to respond, and in turn if you're the closest person, you respond. You can't do that if the distress was made over a cell phone. On two occasions, even in my 27' sai
Re:Whilst a really cool technology (Score:5, Informative)
Going back to the original article [govtech.com], it sounds less like a black box that produces a Prank/No Prank decision, and more like a complex program that produces a list of characteristics present in the call, which the Coast Guard can then use to make the decision themselves.
For instance, it can match voices and even the sound of one's breath to previous calls, allowing the Coast Guard to recognize repeat pranksters. It can tell from the sound of a voice what sort of room the caller is in (e.g. lots of windows), enabling them to get a sense for whether the person might be lying about their location (e.g. "We're capsizing in this storm!" is a lot less believable if the person is in a concrete room).
In the meantime though, the Coast Guard indicated they're responding to about 99% of calls that they believe are pranks, despite believing they're pranks. As you said, the risk to not respond is too high. Thankfully, this software is giving them more tools to help in the post-prank investigation and enforcement side of things.
Re: (Score:2)
There are other ways they could accomplish the same thing, not just through analyzing the audio though. The coastguard has a large network of radio receivers and transmitters to monitor their various channels. It always surprises me that they don't have directionfinding capabilities associated with that. The cutters and other larger vessels usually do, but the terrestrial network usually doesn't seem to. When someone keys up a radio and makes a call, they should be able to get a line on them pretty much ins
Re: (Score:2)
Their large network is designed for increased coverage, not for direction finding. As such, a large percentage of calls only reach a single tower, not the multiple towers required for easy direction finding.
Vessels use other tricks, but they require active work with specialized gear to do the location, something not practical with a single land based repeater tower.
Re: (Score:2)
As such, a large percentage of calls only reach a single tower, not the multiple towers required for easy direction finding.
You don't need multiple towers for direction finding. You just need to have DF equipment installed there. It's not even what you see in the old spy movies with a big rotating loop anymore, it's an array of four or eight antennas and the answer is almost instantaneous.
Vessels use other tricks, but they require active work with specialized gear to do the location, something not practical with a single land based repeater tower.
The same DF gear installed on a ship can be installed on a tower. The ship can move to triangulate on the source if the call is repeated, is all. If the call is a one-off fake, however, neither a ship nor a tower alone can do the triangulation.
Re: (Score:2)
I've used DF equipment, and it's not as perfect as you make it sound.
Sure it will give you a bearing, but there's only so much precision to it, and it won't give you distance, only direction.
It's a small help, but not really enough to locate a prankster. Especially the most common kind, the ones who like to watch their prank unfold, and who are therefore by necessity somewhere relatively close to where they claim to be.
Re: (Score:2)
I've used DF equipment, and it's not as perfect as you make it sound.
Sure it will give you a bearing, but there's only so much precision to it, and it won't give you distance, only direction.
Sure, but it's good enough to tell if the radio call is coming from a plausible direction. If your repeater tower is located on shore, and it's detecting the call coming from inland...
Re: (Score:2)
I think you missed my entire second paragraph.
Re: (Score:2)
Whilst a really cool technology, I hope it never makes a mistake and says a real-life situation is really a prank.
The obvious thing to do is that if the computer says that it's a prank, to follow up further to try to determine if it's real or not.
Most of these are presumably coming from kids or really immature adults. Simply telling them that you're on to them and there are serious punishments for falsely claiming that there is an emergency will probably be enough to get most of them to hang up.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately it's been shown that it also causes some people in real distress to hang up.
It's much better for use in post prank investigation and followup.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately it's been shown that it also causes some people in real distress to hang up.
You can't always save people from themselves. Let Darwin's law take its course.
Re: (Score:2)
If we truly believed that we'd disband the fire department, the police force, the coast guard, and any health care that still remained in your country.
As a society we've decided to move beyond that.
Re: (Score:2)
If we truly believed that we'd disband the fire department, the police force, the coast guard, and any health care that still remained in your country.
As a society we've decided to move beyond that.
There's a difference between "saving people" and "saving people from themselves."
If somebody, in a real emergency, decides to hang up during their emergency call -- well, I can't muster a whole lot of sympathy if things don't turn out well for them.
Re: (Score:2)
made prank pizza delivery to some LOSER FAKE NEWS magazine years ago
now LOSER 911 hangs up on me when hotel on fire. SAD! THEY ARE SO SUED. LOSERS.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like it would be a better solution to set up an array of directional antennas (since most of these calls are coming from VHF radios) and ignore the calls giving a location that is more than 90 degrees off from the vectored location of the radio origination signal. Keeping a voice print of the call and nailing these asshats for felonies if/when they ever do get caught is also a good idea though. Let them enjoy PMITA prison for 6 months and they will learn not to prank emergency services.
So now that this is public info... (Score:3)
...what's to stop said prankster from playing audio of a boat in the background?
Re:So now that this is public info... (Score:5, Insightful)
...what's to stop said prankster from playing audio of a boat in the background?
In general, people who are prank calling the Coast Guard probably aren't terribly bright.
Re: (Score:2)
In general, making stupid assumptions is stupid. And of what use is "in general"?
Re: (Score:2)
...what's to stop said prankster from playing audio of a boat in the background?
People who play dumb pranks with other's lives typically don't think about it in any great way. The kind of pranks that are well thought out and meticulously planned are typically those between family members or best friends.
Re: (Score:2)
Or Shia LaBeouf's "He will not divide us" flag.
NEVER underestimate the power of Weaponized Autism. . . .
Obvious exploits, now that it's announced. . (Score:2)
Having several different friends record prank calls on a boat, and then later calling each of them in ??
And how long will it be until someone codes a synthesizer or voice alteration software to spoof this ?
That's right off the top of my head. . .
Bizarre (Score:2)
It is amazing to me that people do this sort of irresponsible behavior.
Re:Bizarre (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Me too! As an avid boater I don't appreciate the possibility of being put in danger because some prankster caused the development of a system like this. If I am stuck on the water, in danger, I want the coast guard to come to my rescue. I definitely don't want them wasting time trying to determine if I am an actual boater in distress or a prankster. When a boat is sinking or on fire time is of the essence!!
Precisely. "Pranksters" should get long prison sentences. This isn't something that can be solved with spam filters.
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely. "Pranksters" should get long prison sentences. This isn't something that can be solved with spam filters.
On the flip side, sometimes it's hard to tell the pranksters from those who are just incompetent. Due to ancient history, there's no licensing, training, or testing requirements for those going out on the water in many nations. In Canada we have the PCOC (Pleasure Craft Operator's Certificate), but it's a pretty low bar to cross.
Anyhow, a year ago I was sailing off the coast of southern California last summer, and this guy punches his distress button because he wrapped one of his dock lines around both prop
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is, this isn't even talking about stupid boaters (of which I have witnessed far too many!). It's talking about outright pranks, where even the person making the call doesn't believe there is any reason to do so. Generally this is some person sitting comfortably at home but claiming to be in a boat taking on water or some such.
Re: (Score:2)
When a boat is [...] on fire time is of the essence!!
If you're on a boat that's on fire, you have a whole lot of water around to put the fire out.
Damn, nowadays these sheeple expect the government to do everything....
(And, yes, I'm kidding)
Re: (Score:2)
This only looks at silly voice calls. If you were in the shit then fire up your EPIRB. It's a far better system than a mayday call anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the situation. EPIRB is great, but it is not as instant as a voice call, in fact there can be significant delays in getting the location and dispatching resources, and it does not allow for any description of what the emergency is, or for you to receive either acknowledgement that help is on the way, or instructions on how to help yourself in the meantime or to help prepare for their arrival.
I have been part of SAR responses for EPIRBs, they work, but they're more of a last resort option than a f
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Bizarre (Score:5, Insightful)
Should the person living on a boat pay for the fire department to be available for your house?
As a society we've decided to work together so that everyone shoulders the burden equally. They pay for you just as much as you pay for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Second, whats sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander too. If the prank calls make fire service unaffordable, we need to disband fire services too. But long before it comes to that we home owners will band together and find the source of prank calls and make sure
Re: (Score:3)
You don't think people who have boats pay taxes?
Statistically they pay more taxes on average than those who do not.
The solution to misuse of emergency services is never to disband that service. the solution is to find the pranksters and deal with them.
Re: (Score:2)
Further, if prank calls make fire departments unreasonably expensive, we have to disband fire department too. Whats sauce of the goose is the sauce for the gander.
Re: (Score:3)
I am a tax payer and I am not an avid boater. I have no reason to save you at all costs.
Ahhh... so
If you don't have kids, you shouldn't have to pay taxes for schools.
If you don't drive, you shouldn't have to pay to up keep roads.
You never want us to be at war with another country, so why should you pay taxes to fund the military.
You've never had your house robbed, why should your taxes go to pay for the police. You're not expecting to be held up at gunpoint any time soon- screw paying for a police force.
You don't go to national parks, why should you have to pay for it?
None of your family are
Re: (Score:2)
I am a tax payer and I am not an avid boater. I have no reason to save you at all costs.
Ahhh... so If you don't have kids, you shouldn't have to pay unreasonable amount of taxes for schools. If you don't drive, you shouldn't have to pay unreasonable amount to up keep roads. You never want us to be at war with another country, so why should you pay unreasonable amount of taxes to fund the military. You've never had your house robbed, why should your taxes go to pay for the police. You're not expecting to be held up at gunpoint any time soon- screw paying for a police force. You don't go to national parks, why should you have to pay unreasonable amounts for it? None of your family are unemployed, why should you pay unreasonable amount of taxes for benefits. You live on a hill, why should you pay unreasonable amount of for flood control in your city. You're not a woman, why should your taxes unreasonable amount of pay for rape prevention initiatives.
Do you get the point? That boater dude was demanding to be rescued no matter what the cost was. That demand must be squarely and roundly rejected.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you get the point? That boater dude was demanding to be rescued no matter what the cost was. That demand must be squarely and roundly rejected.
How much do you consider a reasonable amount for saving someone's life? I'm sure for the person whose life is in danger (and remember, it could be you, even if not boating), they wouldn't be thinking, ahh... it'll cost $20,000 to save me, they should just let me die.
Re:Bizarre (Score:5, Informative)
I am a tax payer and I am not an avid boater. I have no reason to save you at all costs. Only as long as rescue costs are reasonable, it will be funded. If the cost becomes too much, we would yank the entire rescue service.
That would be a gross violation of over 1000 years of jurisprudence and legal precedence, not to mention the violation of any number of modern international agreements and treaties. Every seafaring nation has a duty of care for the waters they border, and every mariner be they recreational or commercial, is part of the system. This is the cost of being a nation, and of engaging in maritime trade.
Now, that said, most distress situations are only coordinated by the coastguard rather than run by them. I've responded to a couple of distress situations over the years while out sailing. In one case it was a stranded kitesurfer, in the other case a motorboat with a dead engine. In the kitesurfer, he was a mile off the beach, with a flooded kite and cold. I took him onboard, gathered up the kite, and took him to the nearest dock. In the case of the motorboat I tossed them a line, and held them off the rocks until the local tow service (commercial operation) got out there to haul him into the dock. In both cases I would never expect compensation beyond a thank-you; I just expect that the same consideration would be given to me in return should I ever run into trouble.
Re: (Score:3)
That 1000 years of jurisprudence is just a convention. No nation or people are expected to do unreasonable or heroic things.
No, but it is generally expected that people and nations would do reasonable things for the safety and wellbeing of those at sea. Completely terminating the search and rescue as the OP proposed would be unreasonable.
If I came across a bunch of drunk teenagers who were laughing at me for responding, you better believe that I would be making the appropriate reports, both through the coastguard and through the police.
Re: (Score:2)
Me too! As an avid boater I don't appreciate the possibility of being put in danger because some prankster caused the development of a system like this. If I am stuck on the water, in danger, I want the coast guard to come to my rescue. I definitely don't want them wasting time trying to determine if I am an actual boater in distress or a prankster. When a boat is sinking or on fire time is of the essence!!
That's what an EPIRB is for; especially since the cost of one has gotten to the point where even smaller craft can have one onboard. In an emergency, I'd like to know my position is being sent to rescue craft while I deal with emergency. Personally, pranksters like those mentioned need to face large fines and long person sentences for endangering not only mariners in trouble but reduce crews who go out on false alarms. A friend flew SAR for the USCG, often in bad weather because tats when emergencies happen
Re: (Score:2)
EPIRB is great, but it's slow compared to a voice call, doesn't transmit what the emergency is, and doesn't allow for any confirmation that help is on the way, or allow rescuers to communicate with you.
I've done SAR response for EPIRBs, they work, but a voice call will always get you help faster.
Re: (Score:2)
an EPIRB doesn't summon the boat half a mile away from you to come and help. EPIRBs are a godsend offshore, or in truly isolated areas, but they're not a substitute for making that call over the radio. On the water, everyone be they coastguard or not, is expected to respond to a distress call if feasible and safe to do so. One of the "good" things about being a slow sailboat is that we're rarely in a position to respond, but over the years I've done so twice. In one case, it was to bring in a disabled runab
Re: (Score:2)
In an emergency, I'd like to know my position is being sent to rescue craft while I deal with emergency.
Unfortunately, using just an EPIRB, you don't know that.
There is a wonderful story about an NPS ranger, I think it was, going out on a solo weekend patrol in one of the larger national parks. He had his radio, but was out of range after just a couple of hours. He had his GPS, but GPS is receive only. So the NPS was relying on a satellite service like SPOT, if it wasn't SPOT itself.
He's out recording locations of different things, and he's checking in every few hours like he's supposed to using the SPOT. I
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When ever I get up in the morning, there is a chance that something will kill me that day. However I welcome the verity of services and infrastructures that tries to keep me safe, and help rescue me if I am in danger.
I am well aware that these services and infrastructure may not be able to save me, but I still hope they are available. And that is why I don't abuse these services as they will then be able to help someone else, and hope others are not abusing it for the time I may need it.
Re: (Score:2)
When you take your CAR out on the ROADS, you are assuming a certain amount of risk that goes along with it. This is well known to any professional DRIVER. You know that each time you DRIVE off, it could be your last. The risk is small and is generally acceptable to those who enjoy the activity as recreation or rely on it as a career. You cannot rely on the POLICE/AAA to always save your bacon, there may come a day when they simply are unable to get to you in time or at all. This is the bargain you strike wi
Re: (Score:2)
Well it is like many of the computer hackers and virus makers. They fine some stupid justification for it, and not realize the scope of the problems they cause.
Re: (Score:2)
About a week a go a group of young men watched a guy drowning in a pond in Florida.
Instead of helping or calling a rescue, they made stupid comments and filmed themselves and him and posted it on FB.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I am depressed by the actions of stupid, evil people. But not surprised.
Thoughtcrime (Score:2)
Potentially it can help profile people from their voices.
I can see no possible nefarious uses of such a technology...
natch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My voice is my password. Please verify me.
Building a better fool (Score:4, Funny)
An End To Phone Pranking
Challenge accepted.
Why is this even a thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Trace the damn phones!
The phone companies are mandated to provide emergency services with position information, and if GPS isn't available that's cell tower triangulation... and so far as I am aware that data is added to the stream AFTER the call, so you can't easily spoof it unless you've hacked the phone system itself.
That data comes in a second or two after the initial phone connection is made, it's not like you need a warrant and have to get through to a person at the phone company to process the request.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't say anything about phones. It says 'mayday calls', which would probably be coming from a VHF radio.
Re: (Score:2)
>Nice fantasy world you live in. I wouldn't ever rely on emergency services to know my position from my cellphone.
On land, you absolutely shouldn't.
GPS can take time to get a fix, or get it wrong. Or not get through at all, even though your phone's fine. In an urban setting it can be horribly imprecise simply because there's so much around you and to interfere with GPS. After all, you're probably not in the middle of the street with a clear view of the sky, right?
If you want help, you need to know whe
Re: (Score:2)
GPS can take time to get a fix
Unless you just came out of a week in a cave, or off an international flight without data connection the time to get a GPS fix is in the order of 1 second thanks to A-GPS data provided from the carrier. Mind you we're talking about carrier triangulation here. In a dense urban environment they know your location far more accurately than any other thanks to high density of towers.
It's not good enough to narrow down where you collapsed in the time taken to get you aid, but it most definitely can aid law enforc
Re: (Score:2)
Locating your phone is not done via GPS.
It is done via your signal strength towards the surrounding cell phone towers.
Or do you really think it is legal in your country that a phone provider access your GPS on your phone????
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm, wow. No and no.
Yes, your smart phone has an integrated GPS that determines your location. Triangulating from cell towers is Hollywood fantasy and due to the uncertainty of signal strength due to things like weather, terrain, time of day etc, cell triangulation by cell tower is usually only grossly accurate (something like a 300m radius), whereas your GPS can give location down to less than a foot, and include elevation (though the consumer grade GPS has limitations on the accuracy you get while movin
Re: (Score:2)
> Triangulating from cell towers is Hollywood fantasy and due to the uncertainty of signal strength due to things like weather, terrain, time of day etc, cell triangulation by cell tower is usually only grossly accurate (something like a 300m radius)
Water is pretty flat (save for the curvature of the Earth) and clear of obstructions... and 300m accuracy is fine when you're looking at the intersection of three or more towers' position estimates.
On water, 300m is CLOSE. Maybe not good enough in heavy seas
Re: (Score:2)
Enhanced 911 service, by law, activates the GPS in your phone and relays it to the emergency dispatch centre. This is only done if you dial 911, and triggered by the phone, not the carrier (so they can't reach in and remotely activate your GPS without your permission)
This is necessary because there are many situations (especially in rural locations) where only a single tower can see your phone, and therefore can not triangulate your location. Even if you can see multiple towers, reflections from buildings,
Phone pranking? (Score:5, Interesting)
If it's an emergency phone call to the Coast Guard, they could just use the GPS support like E911 so they get a location from the cell phone. Surely, that's the only type of phone being used on a boat these days.
I think what this is really about is people calling in on VHF (marine) radio, not a phone.
Re: (Score:2)
That must be some dedicated pranking.
Re: (Score:3)
>I think what this is really about is people calling in on VHF (marine) radio, not a phone.
In which case I think they need to invest in some triangulation equipment. We've been doing radio triangulation since WWII, it isn't particularly difficult.
In fact, today there's an organization pushing radio bracelets for people with dementia and a radio triangulation system to go with it that is more affordable and reliable than GPS trackers. (Though admittedly GPS trackers just tell you where they are instead o
Re: (Score:2)
Marine VHF already has a lot of this built in in the newer models.
"Distress" buttons that send your GPS location and your MMSI ID which tells the Coasties who you are, your emergency contacts, and the name of your vessel.
The larger problem is that there's no requirement to have a radio that meets this spec or an MMSI number or have your MMSI and radio paired.
IMHO, the Coast Guard should start mandating this stuff and any vessel undergoing a boarding safety check should have this checked right after the chec
Re: (Score:2)
Marine VHF already has a lot of this built in in the newer models.
"Distress" buttons that send your GPS location and your MMSI ID which tells the Coasties who you are, your emergency contacts, and the name of your vessel.
The larger problem is that there's no requirement to have a radio that meets this spec or an MMSI number or have your MMSI and radio paired.
IMHO, the Coast Guard should start mandating this stuff and any vessel undergoing a boarding safety check should have this checked right after the check for life vests and fire extinguishers
I agree. At some point people need to upgrade to the latest safety gear; especially since a new radio is not that expensive, especially when you consider other upkeep costs.It boogles my mind people will spend a few hundred on beer for a trip on the water but not the same for a critical piece of safety gear.
and before checking that the macerator discharge seacock is secure.
hay, somebody has to work about that crap...
Re: (Score:3)
With the exception of the latest radios, most DSC equipped marine VHF radios do not have an integrated GPS unit. Instead, they rely on being wired to the vessel's GPS. The reality is that i'd wager that most radios aren't connected to GPS. (For the moment, mine isn't since my old ship's GPS broke and I use an iPad for charting purposes).
The other issue is that the MMSI follows the boat, so if you sell or buy the boat, you need to modify the database with the new contact info and so forth. It's even wierder
Re: (Score:2)
If it's an emergency phone call to the Coast Guard, they could just use the GPS support like E911 so they get a location from the cell phone. Surely, that's the only type of phone being used on a boat these days.
Even if they had location data, that wouldn't necessarily help them much. The caller could claim to be on the shore witnessing a problem, and the location data may very well back that statement up, since the article indicated that a lot of the pranksters like to post pictures of the helicopters and boats responding to their prank calls.
Moreover, even with calls, you can't count on location data being present. For instance, satellite phones are not exactly uncommon in remote locations, but from what I can ga [fcc.gov]
Something Something Crying Wolf (Score:2)
The Coast Guard: Making old greek parables relevant in the digital age.
Hyperbole (Score:2)
If a computer can detect it, a computer can fake it.
VHF calls, not phone calls (Score:5, Informative)
VHF channel 16 [wikipedia.org] is a dedicated marine emergency frequency around the world. In U.S. waters, the US Coast Guard monitors this channel 24/7 and responds to any mayday calls. So the "calls" here are VHF radio calls, not phone calls. A mayday call is supposed to identify your vessel, provide a location, state the problem, and how many people are aboard your vessel, in that order. But things rarely go the way they're supposed to and lots of mayday calls are partial or missing crucial information. The USCG has to assume these are real and the boat sank or radio died before complete information could be broadcast, and deploy search and rescue assets.
Unfortunately there is no universal caller ID on VHF radios. Some of the newer ones will automatically identify your vessel and/or provide your location, but most VHF radios used by recreational boaters are old analog units which simply broadcast only what you say into them. So the only thing the USCG frequently gets is a voice in the RF ether claiming people are in danger of dying. (The USCG will also respond to a cell phone call if it claims to be from a boat close enough to shore to get cell phone service, or if it's from someone reporting a vessel overdue based on a float plan [uscgboating.org] that was filed before leaving.)
Re: (Score:2)
TFA that the submitter linked to is a junk article
It was the "barcode of a person's voice" gem which gave it away, for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately there is no universal caller ID on VHF radios. Some of the newer ones will automatically identify your vessel and/or provide your location, but most VHF radios used by recreational boaters are old analog units which simply broadcast only what you say into them. So the only thing the USCG frequently gets is a voice in the RF ether claiming people are in danger of dying.
DSC has been required on all fixed-mount VHF radios sold for at least the past decade, if not longer. The issue is that many of them are not connected to GPS (including mine... hides face), their MMSI isn't configured properly, or the contact information associated with the MMSI isn't up to date. We just moved my boat to Canada from the US, and as such we need to program the radio with our new MMSI. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people dont' do this.
But (Score:3)
whether the caller really is on a boat or actually in a house somewhere
I live on a houseboat, you insensitive clod!
We use a similar system (Score:2)
A crime, not a prank (Score:2)
You have to be a special kind of asshat to call in a fake distress call to the coast guard. That isn't a "prank", that is a crime. Pranks are harmless or nearly so. A practical joke is a prank. When you endanger lives it's no longer funny or mischievous. Calling in a fake call should (and probably does) get you a lengthy stay in a federal prison.
Technology already exists (Score:2)
This seems pointless. Coastguards & Military should have E-911 type access to anyone calling in.
-If you are calling from a landline, you clearly cannot be in the middle of the ocean, since an address will be attached to your call.
-If you are calling from a cell phone, you are probably within 45 miles of the coast (the range of a cell tower in optimal conditions), and cell phones transmit their rough GPS coordinates with all 911 calls.
-If you are calling from a satellite phone, you are probably out in th
Re: (Score:2)
Nevermind. I read other posts above that this is UHF/VHF "calls" over a radio, not a telephone.
Carry on :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Suppose the Coast Guard is responding to a prank and it delays the response to a real emergency? There are more than monetary costs to consider.
Re: (Score:2)
Rescue costs are a bit tough to calculate. Official numbers for each rescue are astronomically high, but they usually don't account for the fact that many of those costs would have existed with, or without, the rescue.
For example, the crew needs to get paid, and that doesn't change if they are sitting at base waiting, or actually on a rescue. planes and boats cost money to operate, but often if they weren't operating on an actual rescue, they would have been operating on a training exercise instead.
That sai
Re: (Score:2)
Probably, there may be cases of normal prank calls, where kids may just want to see the boats and helicopters fly around.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the area. Not every jurisdiction uses the same resources for enforcement and rescue activities. I know the US coast guard does both, but the Canadian Coast Guard for instance has no enforcement role, that's left to the Canadian Border Services Agency, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and local police forces.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, in a 5 word headline, three of them are wrong. Not 'an end', but a lessening. Not 'phone', but VHF radio. Not 'prank', but false alarm.
Re: (Score:2)
Like putting too much air into a balloon!
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why this is a better investigative tool after the fact, than it is filter before the fact.
The best part about this is the ability to uniquely identify and profile callers so that you can build a better profile of a criminal serial prankster, this will help better track them down so that they can be arrested and charged.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely they can determine the call's position within a few miles?
Most pranksters aren't content with calling in a prank and then forgetting about it, they want to see the responders arrive at the scene. As such, most of the people probably are within a few miles of the location being described, usually on land and reporting something to be just off the coast. How accurate was your DF equipment again?