Utility or Surveillance?

[Sukerkin]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15730499

This is getting to be something of an issue of human rights, I feel; all the more dangerous because it has crept in unannounced. After all, it seems so useful and innocuous to know where your friends are (not to me but I'm one of those who rapidly starting to reject the digital 'fusion' age). But when the civil control arm of the government can do the same thing to everyone, for whatever reason, then that takes on a different shade.

If the only options are not to have one or be surveilled wherever I go, then I choose not to have one. That's not because I have anything to hide but because I find it objectionable to be tracked at every turn - it's a power that is far too open to abuse. Experience has taught us that if something can be abused then it will be abused.

 

[granfire]

Interesting read.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the article seems to ask to police to not use information individuals volunteer to the public?

Or I can use the same apps and stalk people as smart phone provided, but the police can't?

It is certainly confusing.

However, I do think it is ridiculous to expect 'privacy' in your car. After all, it is on public roadways...surrounded by glass....

The cellphone thing though...that is a bit like peaking at undies.


But with myspace (what's that?) and Facebook, people have increased their exhibitionistic tendencies.
Like in one commercial were the kids tell the parents 'lay off the twitter already!'
Is it the memory of all the important people who left diaries? Do we feel we are all important enough to let the world know when we go to the bathroom?

Confusing situation...

(I guess in the UK it is especially interesting, I mean, on top of GPS units all over the place, you also got cameras on every corner!)

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Experience has taught us that if something can be abused then it will be abused.

True statement. However, one must ask if the march of technology can be stopped, especially when people enjoy using it themselves.

With cell phones in the USA, it started with a well-meaning law that required all new phones have GPS capability in them; even when turned off (so long as they had a battery in them). This was supposed to be for the purposes of 911 emergency calls; so that emergency responders could get the general idea of where to look if a person could not identify their location. Very innocuous and probably a good idea. Soon, by law, all cell phones had GPS in them as required by law. Most people didn't even know it was in the device; it was pre-smartphones.

Then the manufacturers of phones started figuring out things they could use the GPS for, and when smartphones hit, it was off to the races. Now it was a boon to consumers and a selling point for manufacturers.

Then some smart cookies at various government investigative and intelligence agencies figured out that if all cell phones had GPS devices by law, then it wasn't terribly hard to track them as if they were wearing an ankle bracelet (which is basically the same bloody thing). The question was whether or not they could do so without a warrant.

The Patriot Act made that question moot, as law enforcement could request phone records without a warrant. However, even that had limits; a special panel had to agree to allow it (they always do, it's a rubber stamp) and it's a hassle to go through the paperwork. However, some other egg-head figured out that if the government puts what is essentially their own cell phone on your car, they can certain access their own records without a warrant; after all, they are the customer.

Add to this basic premise that in the USA, a person has no legal expectation of privacy when in public. For example, if a man is cheating on his wife and a private detective takes photos of him entering and leaving his mistresses' house, he can hardly cry foul; he was seen in public and a photo is no different than a person simply seeing them enter and leave; it's just a more definite record than a memory. However, what if the government, in order to ensure that holders of top-secret clearances are not dilly-dallying with foreign spy femme fatales chooses to spy via a GPS unit stuck on the person's car? Is that an invasion of their privacy? Well, if they were being followed the 'old fashioned way' by a cop in a car with a camera and a radio, it would just be routine police work. So is this any different?

Any of us can be legally surveilled by the police at any time, for nearly any reason, without a warrant. I'm not talking about wiretaps or that sort of thing, but just the old basic techniques of following a person about, watching where they go and with whom they meet, digging through their trash, etc. Is sticking a GPS unit to the bottom of their car essentially different? It's more precise and more cheaply and easily done, but is it doing anything that can't be done now legally by other means? I'm not saying I like it or agree with it, but breaking it down to basics, I'm not sure it is fundamentally different from routine and legal police work.

For the most part, Big Brother is not interested in or capable of tracking every citizen, either by smart phone or GPS planted on a car. It's simply a sea of data that no one would have any interest in mining, for the most part. Even for scientists interested in data mining of the mass information, it's less about you or me than it is about groups and demographics.

Consider this; since cable television companies went to 'on demand' and digital delivery, they know exactly what you are watching, when, and in what room of your house. There is no more need for Nielsen ratings, they know precisely who is watching what when. That is far more personal data in many ways than where we might be driving on any given day. The credit card companies know precisely what you buy at the grocery store if you pay with credit or debit card, and the stores know if you use a shopping affinity card for a discount! Tell me that's not deeply personal information! Do the law enforcement authorities also have access to this information, with or without a warrant? Good question, I don't know! Has anyone asked to find out?

As a person in the IT field (as you are, and by the way, I've been involved with SCADA by brushing up against it and I'm reading with interest the story about the SCADA system hacked recently), we know that too much data is as useless as too little. We also know that when you know from whence the data comes, you can also manipulate the decisions people make by manipulating the data they are fed. If a GPS unit on my car ended up on a train headed for Vermont, I'd find that rather amusing. If my shopper affinity card was given to a homeless person who buys lots of booze in a bad part of town, that's amusing too. If my cable TV box is moved from one room to another without the cable company knowing, and left to watch the cartoon network 24/7 with no TV actually hooked up to it, that's another.

I'm trying to say that I'm a bit less concerned that I'm being watched than I am that I know about it. If I know about it, I can take steps if I so desire. Culture-jamming is fun.

 

[ballen0351]

We do cell phone tracking all the time and we need a court order to do it unless its a life and death emergency. Most judges take this very serious and you need alot of Prob. cause to even get the order signed. And at least where I am you have to re apply every 15 days to continue to track it

 

[Bill Mattocks]

We do cell phone tracking all the time and we need a court order to do it unless its a life and death emergency. Most judges take this very serious and you need alot of Prob. cause to even get the order signed. And at least where I am you have to re apply every 15 days to continue to track it

Real time tracking, yes. After the fact tracking by getting cell phone records, no, under the USA Patriot Act as I last understood it. However, if the cell phone is YOURS and you stick it to the bottom of someone's car, no warrant required because you're tracking your own cell phone. And those GPS trackers are essentially that, again as I understand it.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

However, I do think it is ridiculous to expect 'privacy' in your car. After all, it is on public roadways...surrounded by glass....

There has a been a law proposed in Congress for the past couple years (it keeps dying in committee) that would require cars to have GPS devices in them just like cell phones do. The idea is that the government could start charging taxes based on 'use' rather than simply tolls for some roads and flat-rates for state license plates; those who drove more would pay more, those who drove less would pay less. Of course, a side effect is that this also means the government knows where your car is all the time. Some feel this is a bit over-the-top in terms of privacy invasion, but it's an open question. None of this stuff was anticipated when the current laws regarding privacy were written.

 

[ballen0351]

Real time tracking, yes. After the fact tracking by getting cell phone records, no, under the USA Patriot Act as I last understood it. However, if the cell phone is YOURS and you stick it to the bottom of someone's car, no warrant required because you're tracking your own cell phone. And those GPS trackers are essentially that, again as I understand it.

You need a court order to get records after the fact as well. Depending on the cell phone company some are very strict about releasing information. Some dont even keep past info so even with a court order you cant get past info. Im not sure who or why anyone would put a cell phone under a car when we have little black box just for that.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

You need a court order to get records after the fact as well. Depending on the cell phone company some are very strict about releasing information. Some dont even keep past info so even with a court order you cant get past info. Im not sure who or why anyone would put a cell phone under a car when we have little black box just for that.

The little black box is essentially a cell phone. It just doesn't make voice calls.

As to the warrentless cell phone records I mentioned:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

You are correct; the Act formerly allowed for billing records on subpoena, but it appears that has been tossed out by the courts. I stand corrected.

Of course, cell phone records can be obtained via subpoena, which does not require a warrant, and in emergency situations, on request by law enforcement (such as tracking lost children, possible abductions, etc).

 

[granfire]

There has a been a law proposed in Congress for the past couple years (it keeps dying in committee) that would require cars to have GPS devices in them just like cell phones do. The idea is that the government could start charging taxes based on 'use' rather than simply tolls for some roads and flat-rates for state license plates; those who drove more would pay more, those who drove less would pay less. Of course, a side effect is that this also means the government knows where your car is all the time. Some feel this is a bit over-the-top in terms of privacy invasion, but it's an open question. None of this stuff was anticipated when the current laws regarding privacy were written.

seems like the advancement of the toll vignettes...

(however, it seems the value card from your grocery store can backfire, I heard a while back about a guy who slipped and fell in a chain store, his buying habits were brought up against him...like the alcohol he bought in other branches of the chain...interesting)

Oh, aren't most new cars already fitted with GPS? Via Onstar and theft recovery devices?

 

[Carol]

You need a court order to get records after the fact as well. Depending on the cell phone company some are very strict about releasing information. Some dont even keep past info so even with a court order you cant get past info. Im not sure who or why anyone would put a cell phone under a car when we have little black box just for that.

Consumer use -- parents tracking children, for example.

Just as cable companies track what you watch, cell companies track your daily habits to a degree. Provisioning and Planning is a crucial segment of telecom as it determines how and where a service provider will make expen$$$ive investments in their network infrastructure.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Oh, aren't most new cars already fitted with GPS? Via Onstar and theft recovery devices?

I don't know about 'most', but yes, some are. And there was recently some brouhaha about GM using OnStar data even if the vehicle owner wasn't an OnStar subscriber; I believe they dropped the concept rather quickly. However, this is voluntary at this time; manufacturers are not legally required to put a GPS in the cars they build. And notably, it's not illegal (yet) for an owner to rip it back out again if they wish. If it becomes law, I would suspect that owners will be required to leave it on and active, just like it's illegal to remove smog-control equipment.

 

[ballen0351]

The little black box is essentially a cell phone. It just doesn't make voice call.

Ok yes they are the same i thought you were saying the cop would take his actual cell phone and tape it to a car. My mistake

 

[Sukerkin]

As a follow-up to Bill's comment about hacking into SCADA systems, which are taking more and more telecomms systems into their infrastructure (including GPS tracking of assets), here is another BBC article on the subject of the recent hack to a US water company's system:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15817335

 

[Bill Mattocks]

As a follow-up to Bill's comment about hacking into SCADA systems, which are taking more and more telecomms systems into their infrastructure (including GPS tracking of assets), here is another BBC article on the subject of the recent hack to a US water company's system:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15817335

I was a consultant to a city in Illinois that is quite close to this one; they were their own ISP and ran fiber all around the city; giving local business access to the Internet and selling citizens ISP services; but their SCADA was also on the fiber; so we had to keep 'em separated. We were worried about this issue even back in 1996, which is when we were consulting with them. That's my brush up against SCADA. I know much has changed since then.

 

[jks9199]

I don't know about 'most', but yes, some are. And there was recently some brouhaha about GM using OnStar data even if the vehicle owner wasn't an OnStar subscriber; I believe they dropped the concept rather quickly. However, this is voluntary at this time; manufacturers are not legally required to put a GPS in the cars they build. And notably, it's not illegal (yet) for an owner to rip it back out again if they wish. If it becomes law, I would suspect that owners will be required to leave it on and active, just like it's illegal to remove smog-control equipment.

OnStar dropped it.

Most new cars today are equipped with Crash Data Recorders. These track data related to your driving leading up to a crash or other significant event. The exact data and how long it's recorded depends on the manufacturer.

While OnStar and the like include GPS, that's not accessible in the same way. Honestly, having had to try to find OnStar emergency activations based on their GPS location... they can track me all they want. I don't think they'll find me! Error margins are significant. Even the newest cell phone pings and GPS tracking is often pretty vague. Consider that a 1000 meter radius is over a half mile... or about 3 3/4 sq miles!

Active pings through some other equipment is much, much more accurate. It's lots scarier what that can do...

 

[ballen0351]

. Even the newest cell phone pings and GPS tracking is often pretty vague. Consider that a 1000 meter radius is over a half mile... or about 3 3/4 sq miles!

Active pings through some other equipment is much, much more accurate. It's lots scarier what that can do...

Alot of that depends on the cell phone itself and the carrier. There are some phones I can tell what room of a house a phone is sitting in other times and carriers I may be able to fine out what county he is on if Im lucky. Ive gotten hits as close as 2 meters and as far as 3000+.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

OnStar dropped it.

Most new cars today are equipped with Crash Data Recorders. These track data related to your driving leading up to a crash or other significant event. The exact data and how long it's recorded depends on the manufacturer.

While OnStar and the like include GPS, that's not accessible in the same way. Honestly, having had to try to find OnStar emergency activations based on their GPS location... they can track me all they want. I don't think they'll find me! Error margins are significant. Even the newest cell phone pings and GPS tracking is often pretty vague. Consider that a 1000 meter radius is over a half mile... or about 3 3/4 sq miles!

Active pings through some other equipment is much, much more accurate. It's lots scarier what that can do...

Cell phone law:

http://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/services/911-services/enhanced911/Welcome.html

Under Phase II, the FCC requires wireless carriers, within six months of a valid request by a PSAP, to begin providing information that is more precise to PSAPs, specifically, the latitude and longitude of the caller. This information must meet FCC accuracy standards, generally to within 50 to 300 meters, depending on the type of technology used.

 

[ballen0351]

Cell phone law:

http://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/services/911-services/enhanced911/Welcome.html

They may just have to show they can get within that range during testing but I can assure you in general that is not the case at all. I remember one phone I was pinging for over a month every 15 min the phone would ping I never got a location with in 1000 meters then entire time. That was just a few months ago

 

[Flying Crane]

I don't own a cell phone. Easy solution.

 

[ballen0351]

I don't own a cell phone. Easy solution.

don't worry we have other ways of tracking you down.