TPMMuckraker

Police Tapped Sprint Customer GPS Data 8 Million Times In A Year

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Under a new system set up by Sprint, law enforcement agencies have gotten GPS data from the company about its wireless customers 8 million times in about a year, raising a host of questions about consumer privacy, transparency, and oversight of how police obtain location data.

What this means -- and what many wireless customers no doubt do not realize -- is that with a few keystrokes, police can determine in real time the location of a cell phone user through automated systems set up by the phone companies.

And while a Sprint spokesman told us customers can shield themselves from surveillance by simply switching off the GPS function of their phones, one expert told TPM that the company and other carriers almost certainly have the power to remotely switch the function back on.

To be clear, you can think of there being two types of GPS (global positioning system). One is the handy software on your mobile device that tells you where you are and helps give driving directions. But there's also GPS capability in all cell phones sold today, required by a federal regulation so if you dial 911 from an unknown location, authorities can find you.

Sprint says the 8 million requests represent "thousands" of individual customers -- it won't say how many exactly -- and that the company follows the law. It's not clear, however, if warrants are always needed, or whether they have been obtained by police for all the cases.

We know the 8 million number thanks to an Indiana University graduate student named Christopher Soghoian, who has made headlines before for investigations of privacy and tech issues.

At a recent professional security conference attended -- and taped -- by Soghoian, Sprint Manager of Electronic Surveillance Paul Taylor revealed the 8 million figure. "[T]he tool has just really caught on fire with law enforcement," he said:

We turned it on the web interface for law enforcement about one year ago last month, and we just passed 8 million requests. So there is no way on earth my team could have handled 8 million requests from law enforcement, just for GPS alone. So the tool has just really caught on fire with law enforcement. They also love that it is extremely inexpensive to operate and easy

It's useful to keep in mind that, as Sprint spokesman Matt Sullivan tells TPM, "every wireless carrier has a team and a system" through which police can access GPS data. Sprint is the company unlucky enough to find itself the focus of scrutiny, but it reportedly controls just 18% of the U.S. wireless market, making it the third largest carrier.

Sprint says the 8 million figure "should not be shocking given that Sprint has more than 47 million customers and requests from law enforcement and public safety agencies" include missing person cases, criminal investigations, or cases with the consent of the customer. (Read the company's full statement here.)

Privacy advocates, though, are alarmed. "How many innocent Americans have had their cell phone data handed over to law enforcement?" asked Kevin Bankston, senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, in a lengthy response to the revelation. He goes on:

How can the government justify obtaining so much information on so many people, and how can the telcos justify handing it over? ...

What legal process was used to obtain this information? ...

What exactly has the government done with all of that information? Is it all sitting in an FBI database somewhere?

Bankston calls on Congress "to pull the curtain back on the vast, shadowy world of law enforcement surveillance and shine a light on these abuses."

Sullivan, the Sprint spokesman, tells TPM that for certain requests the police pay a fee to Sprint to cover costs. But it's not just a question of paying an entry fee to access the system; Sullivan says there's a legal process. "Before [law enforcement] can access any customer data, they have to show proper legal demand," and "the parameters of the information they can receive is extremely specific, including the duration they can look at it and the specific data."

It's not clear, according to EFF, that "proper legal demand" always means a search warrant.

Julian Sanchez of the Cato Institute has chimed in with a look at the current state of the relevant law, including the 2005 reauthorization of the PATRIOT act. He concludes that it's "quite likely that it's become legally easier to transform a cell phone into a tracking device even as providers are making it point-and-click simple to log into their servers and submit automated location queries."

Another key question: can customers disable the GPS on their wireless devices? Sprint's Sullivan says its his "understanding" that privacy settings on phones can be set to turn off GPS, in which case, he says, police trying to conduct surveillance would not be able to track a phone.

But Jeff Fischbach, a California-based forensic technologist who has been a technical consultant on many criminal cases over the years, tells TPM he's seen empirical evidence that the privacy settings are essentially meaningless. Again and again, he says, "I've seen GPS data from defendants who told me [the function] was switched off."

Saying there's nothing technically sophisticated about switching on GPS capability remotely, Fischbach observes that if it's really possible to switch off GPS on a phone, "it would almost be like saying license plates are optional."

We may be getting more answers soon. With buzz growing around Soghoian's report, first posted on his blog, Sprint has been forced to respond publicly. Fischbach believes it's only a matter of time before the company is forced to make more disclosures to the public.

"Sprint's going to have to calm people down," he says.

Comments (58) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (11)

December 4, 2009 6:20 PM   

to view a partial list of crimes committed by FBI agents over 1500 pages long see
forums.signonsandiego. com/showthread.php?t=59139

to view a partial list of FBI agents arrested for pedophilia see
dallasnews. com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3574

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 5, 2009 12:39 PM    in reply to msfreeh

In another bit of irony, when I lost my phone once, I immediately called my carrier and asked if they could track my phone for me. They said they didn't have that capability!
They'll track for the cops but not for customers!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 1:45 PM    in reply to trblmkr

Thats right because they want you to buy another phone. The cops pay them for each number tracked.

It is possible with CDMA devices and maybe not so much with GSM. If you have that friend finder thing on AT&T, I guess you can find a lost or stolen phone that way on your own with the aid of a friend that was tracking you.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 4, 2009 6:30 PM   

While Sprint has shown itself to be a friend of Police and Governments tracking of its clients, be assured they're not the only ones.

As to turning of GPS, I couldn't find how to disable my older T-Mobile, though GPS equipped phone. I think I read many years ago that even physically turning off the phone doesn't disable the GPS function, only battery removal would disable the device. If anyone knows the facts, please share with us.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 4, 2009 6:41 PM    in reply to Bushie



Hahahahahaha . . .

What the hell's a GPS equipped cell phone?

Sixty year old Duck's don't use cell phones.

If ya' wanna talk to me... find me in the pond.

~OGD~

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 4, 2009 8:49 PM    in reply to Bushie

I have found this quite simple on most phones, even older ones. There is usually under your "Phone Settings" menu something called "Location" or some such. It usually gives you the choice to "allow 911 only" or "Location on." (So if it's shutting off the access to 911 when you call 911 is what you were trying to do, that might be more complicated.)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 1:50 PM    in reply to artappraiser

Not that complicated, you can't turn off the 911 GPS aspect of the phone. By federal mandate, carriers carry some liability when finding users during emergencies.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 4, 2009 6:34 PM   

Another example of a great, life saving idea being taken way out of context and being abused.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 4, 2009 6:42 PM   

What bothers me the most is that this doesn't bother me. I know it should. I should be pissed off, etc. But...I just don't care. Maybe it's because I don't really think the FBI gives a damn about where I am, or will be. I didn't care when I found out they may be reading my emails or listening to my phone conversations. Maybe I have nothing to hide, or maybe I don't have enough to hide.

Does this mean I have a boring life?

I understand the basic right to privacy and that I should be concerned about where this may lead in the future. I just can't seem to dredge up enough concern to protest. I also realize this is probably a really bad attitude to have.

Maybe it's because it's Friday and I don't think they're out to get me...yet.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 10:14 AM    in reply to WaitWut?

What if it's not "You". Are you capable of putting yourself in some elses shoes?

Can you see how this kind of thing could be used against political enemies? ...against business enemies?

Imagine what could be done.

What if... one day... "They" decide to round up Left Wing sympathizers and they use TPM et.al. member lists...

I know that's a far out notion that's not likely to occur any time soon... but similar things have been done elsewhere...

I think it's dangerous to think this isn't important simply because you personally aren't (important).

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 10:47 AM    in reply to Ickyma

No, no...I didn't say it isn't an "important issue". I just meant that it doesn't seem important to me and I have a very hard time understanding the widespread implications.

I can see your point about how it "could" be used negatively against either/any side. But, has our paranoia taken control of our lives so much that we would rather jeapordize our safety in lieu of privacy? I've heard many stories where GPS has saved a lives. I haven't heard any, yet, about how it's paralyzed anyone politically or otherwise.

If it's being used to track/implicate criminals I honestly don't have a problem with it. Obviously, if innocent people are being harrassed, etc., that would definitely be an issue. I just don't see how that could happen.

I prefer to leave the conspiracy theories to the right. They're much better at it and I'm sure they'll work to keep us all "safe" from our evil government that wants to know where we go for lunch.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 12:17 PM    in reply to WaitWut?

IMO it's not enought to "Hope" they will use this only for good. There have to be built in protections (and oversight) to make sure of it.
Our gov't has NO RIGHT to know the when and whereabouts of law abiding citizens. Period. We are FREE. It's one of those "Truths" we hold 'self evident'.
It's NOT OK (IMO) for the gov't to keep tabs on us... any of us... unless there's a specific reason for it.

In lieu of exposed warrantless Bush era wiretaps I'd think it'd be obvious that this kind of thing IS abused.

Further.. Obama has claimed some form of Sovereign Immunity WRT to those wiretaps... Apparently WE have NO recourse it the contents of one of those warrantless wiretaps is "accidentally" revealed. The only way we can have any recourse is if those taps are willfully revealed.

Phooey.

From what I've read throughout the rest of this thread, however, it looks like this whole article is just a wee bit out of line and overblown... Not millions... more like Thousands...

Even still.. Thousands of Citizens having their movement monitored by the Gov't without warrants is wrong. IMO.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 4, 2009 6:42 PM   

And the telcoms get paid an undisclosed amount for each tap.

Follow the money, muckrakers.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wyt

user-pic

December 4, 2009 6:52 PM   

The other interesting questions:

1. Can law enforcement switch on the microphone on your phone at any time? (My understanding is at least the wireless companies can.)

2. Can law enforcement specify a location and time, and get a record of all the cell phones which were in that vicinity at that time, along with their owners. (Useful to see who's attending services in a subversive church, for instance.)

3. Can law enforcement specify a current location, find any cell phones in that location, and switch on one of the microphones?

People knowledgeable in tech tell me all of these are near certain current capabilities - at least well within current technology. Now, post 9/11 if law enforcement hasn't actually implemented this, it would show a constitutional restraint often not typical of them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

JBS

user-pic

December 4, 2009 7:32 PM    in reply to wyt

I think the answer to question number 1 is Yes, if you have the power turned on. They can't switch phone power on remotely. And technically it requires a valid warrant.

As to #2 and #3, the answer is "law enforcement can ask", again with a valid warrant, but I don't think the cell phone providers can deliver - yet. The real problem with such a request is getting the warrant, convincing a judge the probable cause to suspect the few over-weighs the privacy right of the many.

Even if they can get the warrant, they wouldn't be allowed to use extraneous information against non-target population to prosecute unrelated crimes.

The GPS capability built into cell-phones is part of an enhanced-911 system. Every phone is supposed to be able to identify its location within 100 meters to aid dispatch of emergency services.

100 meters is not very accurate, locates you within a city block. That's why when you call 911 on a cell phone they ask for your location, even when they have the GPS data in front of them.

That "8 million times a year" needs to be seen with some perspective. It means that 47 million Sprint customers have made 8 million 911 calls ... minus whatever number of calls are being monitored under search warrants.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 4, 2009 7:47 PM    in reply to JBS

The GPS function I've seen on late model smartphones is much more accurate that 100 meters. I would say it's closer to 10 meters. A friend of mine recently got one of the new Droid phones and got an app that allowed us to trace a route as we walked it. At its least accurate it had us on the wrong side of the street at one point. On average, it had us within 10 feet of our actual position.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 4, 2009 10:14 PM    in reply to Joe Bob

Those have a real GPS system. Calling the E911 locator "GPS" is a misnomer. It actually triangulates your position using the cell phone towers that receive your signal, not GPS satellites, which is why it's so inaccurate. And if you're in a remote place, it's useless.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 4, 2009 8:54 PM    in reply to wyt

what do you think the NSA and other such agencies do all day every day all around the world? And I think that the constitution has long since been relegated to the scrap heap in the name of 'security' for these fine folks.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

JBS

user-pic

December 4, 2009 6:58 PM   

I don't think you've made the case for abuse.

Providing GPS data for 911 calls is automatic. Calls made from land-line telephone numbers automatically bring up GIS data identifying the location the call is from. It makes it just that much faster to get emergency help on the way.

If you have data showing the police are receiving GPS data from calls that did not go to 911, and where they did not do so in accordance to a valid warrant issued by a court of law, I would like to see it.

But it doesn't bother me for the police to find where I'm calling from when I call 911 for help no matter what phone I'm using.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

ema

user-pic

December 4, 2009 8:18 PM    in reply to JBS

I think the Sprint executive made the case when he mentioned that police pay for access to this information. That's not something you would expect for info related to 911 calls.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 10:18 AM    in reply to ema

Good point.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 4, 2009 9:20 PM    in reply to JBS

I agree that it's probably mostly 911 calls.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 2:06 PM    in reply to southernwayfarer

No this is not 911 calls being referred, too. Sprint could possibly handle 8 million 911 calls a month. They are talking about intercepts which should concern you all.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 4, 2009 7:04 PM   

8 million.

Only way there can be this many is if this system essentially became the Reverse Facebook for law enforcement personnel. That is, get a log-in to Sprint's "I SEE YOU" cellphone tracking interface. Perhaps the page has some form where a number and/or personal information (name, address) can be entered and voila: Every single Sprint customer is wearing a tracker tag.

Seems pretty obvious this is how you get 8 million hits in just a year. No way there's anything even vaguely resembling a requirement for tap/trace warrants, else the number might've been 10-20 thousand, tops.

8 mil strongly suggests cops & feds and everybody else with a Sprint LawCo login was using it for stuff like tracking ex-girlfriends, famous people, and to check on absolutely anybody they felt like spying on.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 4, 2009 7:07 PM   

You know there was a long thread on the website reddit on this 2 days ago, and some of the tech geeks figured out that it probably would be about 150-200 individuals.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 4, 2009 7:26 PM    in reply to rbeats

8x10^6 / 200 = 40,000 calls per individual. Not having reddit, I can't see the sense of that conclusion. If I make 16 calls a day for the next nine odd years I might match that quota, but I'll lose some self respect.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 4, 2009 8:06 PM    in reply to mentata

It is not calls, did you read the actually article?

It is ping requests from law enforcement individuals for location data. NOT CALLS.

By law they can get a ping request every 5 min for each phone they are tracking.

Read the article first please.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 4, 2009 9:03 PM    in reply to rbeats

And read the comments section. The 8
million number is confusing and sensational.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 12:08 PM    in reply to rbeats

Sorry. I did read the article, but was under the mistaken impression they only did this during conversations. 40K pings per individual is still excessive though, so I would continue to argue the 150-200 number is less than reasoned speculation. Is law enforcement tracking somebody every five minutes for 140 straight days? I would expect an eventual, you know, arrest before that point.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 4, 2009 11:46 PM    in reply to rbeats

Sprint is declining to give an exact number of how many individuals are affected. However, as I say in the article and they say in the statement I linked to, it's not in the hundreds, it's in the thousands.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 5, 2009 1:32 PM    in reply to Justin Elliott

And yeah, sorry, but there's just plain not enough information here to know if this is a story or if it's just a John Solomonesque no there there story. If you're talking 5,000 or 50,000 people out of 47 million customers, I'm just not going to get my panties in a bunch about it, but if "thousands of individual customers" means 900,000 that might be another matter. And, more importantly, until we know what percentage of those requests pertain to 911 calls, what percentage are made subject to search warrants and what percentage are just cops logging onto a computer and snooping, you don't know whether there's a story here. Even as to the latter, if they're using it to track a suspect in a criminal case, I'm not really seeing how it's more abusive or disturbing than putting a tail on someone.

On the other hand, dump all of the GPS data for everybody into a single database and set a supercomputer crunching away at it looking for "patterns of interest" to generate leads out of nothing, and, yeah, you're in Scary Techno-Dystopia territory. It's really hard to imagine that not happening at some point unless it is specifically forbidden by law. It's not hard to imagine it having already happened under Bush, for that matter.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 4, 2009 7:16 PM   

The Now Network becomes the Where Network.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 4, 2009 7:38 PM   

If this had happened under the Bush administration, everyone here would be blaming it on him.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 4, 2009 8:36 PM    in reply to masanf

Without evidence indicating it wasn't a practice started under George W. Bush, I imagine most people will assume that's when it did start and it's possible someone appointed by him is responsible for the cavalier attitude they have towards peoples personal liberties.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 6, 2009 12:19 AM    in reply to Insy

Reading all the posts about how the Constitution is supposed to protect us from unauthorized surveillance, I am reminded that W is on record as saying that the Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper. That is an attitude that seemed to permeate his administration and undoubtedly has seeped into the present one, at least to some extent.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 4, 2009 8:49 PM   

I guess half those requests are law enforcement personnel keeping tabs on their "significant others," colleagues engaged in office romances and bosses.

But yes - the mobile phone is a superior snitch.
Your text messages, your voicemail, your voice calls, e-mail - etc, is all available. And not just for law enforcement officials - phones can be programmed to deliver this info to another party. Private investigators like to have their client install it in the phone of their wives/husbands, for instance.

And yes - not only can mobile phone microphones be activated by remote command, but you really do need to remove the battery to be certain.
I have participated in many meeting where we first remove the batteries from our phones, and then have to leave them outside the meeting room we are in.

Now - can anyone confirm that the cameras/microphones in our laptops can be activated without the user being aware of it (no light turning on, etc.)?
I do know that keystroke-recorders are common in computers, and that these are transmitted.

Enjoy the technology - and do read Zamjatin's "We" when you have the chance. He wrote about a society with glass walls, where everyone kept everyone else under surveillance. Fixed it for ya, Evgenij!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 4, 2009 8:54 PM   

And the GPS-data the phones deliver is made more accurate by the fact that you are in motion, and that the phones are reporting constantly. That way, you track travel lines with time-stamps, and you can correlate with roads, pavements, etc - to get a very accurate fix on where you have been, how long you were there, etc.

The US used this technology to decimate the Sunni-resistance and other elements in Iraq. A variation on the artillery round spotting radars used on battlefields - these spot the round as it is leaving the gun, calculate its speed and trajectory, as well as where it will impact. In many instances, the artillery piece which fired the round is obliterated before its round has landed.

The joys of tech-war.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 4, 2009 8:59 PM   

While I still completely agree that major restrictions and oversight are necessarry , I also agree with several previous posts that the 8 million number is sensational. My guess is that the pings will largely fall into two groups - one group of many individuals with very few pings. This will be easily greater than 75% 911 calls. The second group will be very few individuals with thousands, maybe tens of thousands of pings. These are individuals under surveillance. I suspect that such a surveillance could easily generate hundreds of pings in a single day (if not more) So while the number of individuals will be an important number, the distribution will be equally important.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 4, 2009 9:42 PM   

It would be great if somebody would put a stop to this

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 4, 2009 10:17 PM   

Assuming we are not talking calls to 911 why is this being done and to whom. 8 million is a big number to process.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 4, 2009 10:21 PM   

I cannot believe that I hit two real big screw ups today. I stumbled across another blog that was mentioning how much the telecoms are charging "law enforcement" for these trackings. The cheapest was a telecom that only charged $500 for each month of tracking.

Now take the number of trackings and multiply it for $500 for 12 months and that is probably what the minimum amount that the telecom is ripping off the taxpayers for.

Now that is almost as much as the US spent on drug law enforcement last year.

Something is totally out of whack here. If this is true and the US government is actually paying this much for GPS tracking, which I can believe, given that I once worked as a temporary for a federal office. I got bored and took the telephone bill and dialled every single number on the bill. Literally hundreds of phones charged for and never shut off. I told the boss about it but he didn't seem to care. Probably something like 500 lines out of 2000 were not connected, just nobody bothered to drop the service.

This literally needs to be audited ASAP.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 4, 2009 10:53 PM   

In 2002, Nextel's Guide for Law Enforcement listed its "Communications Standard Fee" for "Real Time Location/Ping" at $150 "per request". $150 x 8 million is a billion dollars. Now (if the fee hasn't changed) that's a profit center. I hope the fee has come down with the advent of GPS, but it's hard to imagine a telco voluntarily reducing such a fee, they've never reduced my phone bill.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 4, 2009 11:50 PM   

They've reduced mine. When I was a kid you wouldn't believe what long distance calls cost compared to now. But I digress.

Let's look at that 8 million figure. Let's assume that, as somebody said, they can ping a phone every five minutes. That's 12 times an hour, or (if you assume they don't ping much while the subject's asleep) 192 pings in a 16-hour day.

That's 70,080 pings in a year for one subject, if there are no days off and it's not leap year. Divide that into 8,000,000 and you get about 114 subjects.

That has the ring of plausibility about it, if you'll pardon the expression.

Moral: When you get a surprising number, do the arithmetic. Other moral: If you want to do something private, leave your cell phone at home.

Peace,
Paul

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 5, 2009 1:36 AM   

A couple dozen CIA agents found out the hard way that if they do not want to be tracked, they should remove the battery from their cell phone. As a result of their negligence a court in Italy found them guilty of kidnapping in abstensia.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 5, 2009 10:05 AM   

Check out a book called "No Place to Hide: Behind the Scenes of Our Emerging Surveillance Society" These databases are tied together in a perfect blend of law enforcement and corporatism.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 5, 2009 10:22 AM   

Can you find me now?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 5, 2009 11:06 AM   

Don't forget your OnStar or other such systems are tracking you every day as well. People have already been convicted using data from car computer systems.

Throughout the history of Man, technological innovation has been turned from it's intended use into a weapon.

Weapons are what we do best!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 5, 2009 11:27 AM   

I think this article may be misleading in suggesting that the location capability the carriers are required to provide somehow originates with the cell phone.

From what I have read, the location capability is enabled through the carrier network. There are two means to fix a location - by time differencing signals recevied at towers in the vicinity of the cell phone, or by calcualtion of azimuth, a form of triangulation. Either technique relies on normal cell phone operation and the cell network, and not on a special GPS feature that can be turned on or off on the phone.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 5, 2009 12:55 PM   

Been going on for years...Bush/Cheney and Congress made it "legal" with the Patriot Act.....and the birthers, deathers, teabaggers are so stupid they think that the Obama Administration are the ones who our taking away our Constitutional rights.....granted, Obama has done little to give them back....but thats what happens when you fall into apathy for thirty years...you wake up in the middle of a nightmare that started a long time ago....

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 5, 2009 2:42 PM   

"The courts ruled in 2005 that law enforcement doesn't need to show probable cause to obtain your physical location via the cell phone grid. its for your safety you know!!!

You don't have to turn on or off gps thats not the only way they track you.
The grid is not gps it is just the towers that you take a call on it doesn't give the the exact meter but they can triangle the towers and get within meters

Smart money buy 7/11 throw away phones like the CIA/Drug cartels do.
Only safe way to not be accused falsely of something,or followed.
Verizon ATT Sprint all the carriers in USA are not your friends they are about making lots of money off you.
If they used the same plans in the European market they would be fined for unfair competition just like Microsoft.
But the congress doesn't even go there because of all the "contributions"
The only person that ever talked about it in a campaign everyone discounted.
Who was that?
You tell me.
I'll give you a clue I am not taking about Ron Paul but he would be a good choice!


Its yours and my freedoms that are being taken away.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 5, 2009 4:40 PM   

They're definitely out to get you.

Enjoy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 5, 2009 4:56 PM   

Taking the battery out is the only way to be even close to sure that GPS and microphone are not operating from remote control. What does this mean for iPhone users, then? The iPhone is designed to prevent the user from replacing the battery. Accordingly, there is no battery cover to slip off and allow one to pop out the battery. Instead, one must unscrew the iPhone's cover and, essentially, dismantle the device. So, make sure to always carry your micro-screwdrivers! Not that you'd need to ... we've always been at war with Eastasia.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 5, 2009 6:40 PM   

Most of America cannot even begin to imagine why this would be important.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 5, 2009 9:56 PM    in reply to Necro Justice

Sure we can. All we had to do was follow the Iranian Greens this summer on twitter.

BTW, a lot of them thought that removing the battery didn't disable the GPS function. Not sure if they were right or just paranoid.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 6, 2009 7:19 AM   

A few months ago Glenn Beck was attacking one of his former sponsors GM/OnStar and warning his audience about how Gummint Motors (GM) can now track them all and eavesdrop thru OnStar. Since GM is no longer paying money to Glenn Beck he doesn't have to say nice things about them any more and now he can tell his fans the TROOTH!

But the truth is relative and Glenn completely failed to mention that every single tracking and eavesdropping technical capability OnStar has is identically present on each of his fans' cellphones. Guess he didn't want to lose focus.

And the truth is never quite good enough for Glenn Beck and he claimed that OnStar/GM can even deflate their car's tires if they wanted to!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 9:27 AM   

Can they track you when you can't get reception? If not then I'm safe at home where cell phones don't seem to reach.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 2:13 PM    in reply to An Outhouse

Yes, they can. The quality of signal is lower for registration. If you can still see the carriers call letter on the phone display, then that carrier sees you for delivery of a call or sms, pending signal strength of required application.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 1:42 PM   

FYI....

To be clear, you can think of there being two types of GPS (global positioning system). One is the handy software on your mobile device that tells you where you are and helps give driving directions. But there's also GPS capability in all cell phones sold today, required by a federal regulation so if you dial 911 from an unknown location, authorities can find you.

All,

Here is the problem with what Sprint is doing. The question that needs to be asked of Sprint is whether they are using the User initiated GPS functionality:

"the handy software on your mobile device that tells you where you are and helps give driving directions". Or, the federally regulated "so if you dial 911 from an unknown location, authorities can find you".

The "handy software" can be turned off by the user and remotely toggled by network operators, but it is limited in accuracy of location fixes. This user function will report back last known position until the user requests an update by the network. This functionality is implemented to regulate the amount of network resources to support a user generated requests for content.

Please note that all phones sold does not have the GPS capability. GPS is required by CDMA carries (Verizon, Sprint, etc.) by the federal government for location fixes on 911 calls. GSM carriers (AT&T, T-Mobile, etc.) use triangulation to approximate a 911 callers location. Newer GSM phones do have an assisted-GPS functionality, but is not required, federally, and it is not as efficient as CDMA carriers because of the nature of its implementation, hence the term assisted-GPS.

The problem for Sprint would be, if they are leveraging the 911 GPS aspect of the mobiles to acquire this data, because that functionality can not be turned off by the user and user have effectively no control of this aspect of their mobile device. One can turn the phone off, but if it is a smartphone the battery would have to be removed and possibly in some hybrid/feature phones. This lack of control is the crux of Sprint's argument if they are using this aspect of the phone's functionality. They have essentially turned all of their mobiles into tracking devices for what ever authorities whim.

For the laymen, Sprint may be able to drowned you in technical speak, but if the right questions are asked, it will reveal the true nature of this application. Another question is: Does the phone lock up after one of the location requests had been initiated on the device? Sprint will probably blahzay through this question by speaking general to all devices, but if the question is quantified by identifying a certain percentage of requests where they saw the device lockup during testing.

If the phone locks, they have a serious CPNI problem exposing their entire customer base to being tracked by authorities or who so ever can hack the "web interface", like an ex-fiance, jilted lover, or your general run of the mill crazy police officer.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!