4 ms·

What percent of the time is the location totally wrong? Greater than 50% of the time? If not then it's totally justified.

cortesoft 11y ago
Wait... you are saying you are willing to have a 49% chance that the police hold you in custody and search your house when you are totally innocent?!? Think about that.... there are LOTS of stolen phones and tablets, and if the police end up searching the wrong house nearly HALF the time that would be hundreds of innocent people. Fuck that I am SO not willing to live in a society where that happens.
- Houshalter 11y ago
  It was a missing girl, not a random stolen phone. Yes I'd absolutely be willing to risk inconveniencing one person to save a kidnapped girl. The 50% number was made up anyway, it's likely higher than that. GPS especially is pretty accurate, and these tracking systems probably use it when available. For a single stolen phone, probably not. Though you can still go to their house and then call the phone right as they answer the door. If you hear ringing then that's probable cause.
  - darklajid 11y ago
    Think of the children? Either a location is enough for the police to search your place or it is not. Don't pull the kidnapped big eyed little girl card, please.
    - Houshalter 11y ago
      What are you talking about? The standards should definitely be lower for missing children. Finding your missing phone is a lot less important than finding a kidnapped girl. Are you really saying the police shouldn't have been allowed to do that search?
      - darklajid 11y ago
        I'm saying that the same indicator ("location service claims this is the spot") should have the same result (probable cause?). If crime1 w/ probable cause means you enter the building and crime2 w/ probable cause means you enter the building then there's no reason to bring up tiny girls or puppies.
        Houshalter 11y ago
        Your argument works equally well against you. Most people agree the search is justified if it's a missing girl, therefore it should also be justified for any trivial crime as well. But obviously there is a difference between trivial crimes and kidnappings. Inconveniencing a few people to save a life is acceptable. The expected utility is positive. It likely is not for more trivial crimes.
gnopgnip 11y ago
That it not how statistics work. Assume it is correct 90% of the time. There are 700 million iPhones worldwide. Assume 1% of them use the app, that is 7 million friends found, and 700k incorrect locations.
- Houshalter 11y ago
  And only 1% of those users will have their phones stolen, and only 0.01% of those users will be suspected kidnapping victims. So only a handful of people would actually be actually be inconvenienced by such a policy.
  - wang_li 11y ago
    The way this would work out in a proper world, is that the search would take place, they'd realize it was fruitless and that the location information provided was incorrect and then the phone manufacturer and the cell phone company would each cut a check for $1,000,000 to the person who was false accused. And this would happen each and every single time a person's civil rights were violated because some product developer did a shitty job. A 1% failure rate is pretty low quality.
    - Houshalter 11y ago
      You aren't owed a million dollars because your house was falsely searched. That's absurd. The police have a right to do searches if there is decent evidence or suspicion of a crime, and 99% is way more than enough for probable cause. A 1% failure rate is actually incredibly good and means it will be very very rare for innocent people to get searched at all.
PhantomGremlin 11y ago
What percent of the time is the location totally wrong? As I discussed in my other post, I'd say that: 10% of the time, no location at all 60% of the time, highly accurate location 30% of the time, accurate to a general area, a few hundred feet up to a few miles 2% of the time, totally haywire. Location jumps around randomly, or stays wrong for an extended period of time. (Statistics are my SWAG, and don't total to 100%).

cortesoft 11y ago

Wait... you are saying you are willing to have a 49% chance that the police hold you in custody and search your house when you are totally innocent?!? Think about that.... there are LOTS of stolen phones and tablets, and if the police end up searching the wrong house nearly HALF the time that would be hundreds of innocent people. Fuck that I am SO not willing to live in a society where that happens.

Houshalter 11y ago
It was a missing girl, not a random stolen phone. Yes I'd absolutely be willing to risk inconveniencing one person to save a kidnapped girl. The 50% number was made up anyway, it's likely higher than that. GPS especially is pretty accurate, and these tracking systems probably use it when available. For a single stolen phone, probably not. Though you can still go to their house and then call the phone right as they answer the door. If you hear ringing then that's probable cause.
- darklajid 11y ago
  Think of the children? Either a location is enough for the police to search your place or it is not. Don't pull the kidnapped big eyed little girl card, please.
  - Houshalter 11y ago
    What are you talking about? The standards should definitely be lower for missing children. Finding your missing phone is a lot less important than finding a kidnapped girl. Are you really saying the police shouldn't have been allowed to do that search?
    - darklajid 11y ago
      I'm saying that the same indicator ("location service claims this is the spot") should have the same result (probable cause?). If crime1 w/ probable cause means you enter the building and crime2 w/ probable cause means you enter the building then there's no reason to bring up tiny girls or puppies.
      - Houshalter 11y ago
        Your argument works equally well against you. Most people agree the search is justified if it's a missing girl, therefore it should also be justified for any trivial crime as well. But obviously there is a difference between trivial crimes and kidnappings. Inconveniencing a few people to save a life is acceptable. The expected utility is positive. It likely is not for more trivial crimes.

gnopgnip 11y ago

That it not how statistics work. Assume it is correct 90% of the time. There are 700 million iPhones worldwide. Assume 1% of them use the app, that is 7 million friends found, and 700k incorrect locations.

Houshalter 11y ago
And only 1% of those users will have their phones stolen, and only 0.01% of those users will be suspected kidnapping victims. So only a handful of people would actually be actually be inconvenienced by such a policy.
- wang_li 11y ago
  The way this would work out in a proper world, is that the search would take place, they'd realize it was fruitless and that the location information provided was incorrect and then the phone manufacturer and the cell phone company would each cut a check for $1,000,000 to the person who was false accused. And this would happen each and every single time a person's civil rights were violated because some product developer did a shitty job. A 1% failure rate is pretty low quality.
  - Houshalter 11y ago
    You aren't owed a million dollars because your house was falsely searched. That's absurd. The police have a right to do searches if there is decent evidence or suspicion of a crime, and 99% is way more than enough for probable cause. A 1% failure rate is actually incredibly good and means it will be very very rare for innocent people to get searched at all.

PhantomGremlin 11y ago

What percent of the time is the location totally wrong? As I discussed in my other post, I'd say that: 10% of the time, no location at all 60% of the time, highly accurate location 30% of the time, accurate to a general area, a few hundred feet up to a few miles 2% of the time, totally haywire. Location jumps around randomly, or stays wrong for an extended period of time. (Statistics are my SWAG, and don't total to 100%).