6 ms·

As an amateur radio operator, I would expect nothing less for carrying a highly networked radio transceiver with loads of sensors including geopositioning. Sim

As an amateur radio operator, I would expect nothing less for carrying a highly networked radio transceiver with loads of sensors including geopositioning. Simply put: don't want to be tracked? Put your phone in a lead sealed box or leave it at home. Tracking only tracks the phone , not your person.

sp332 8y ago
Yeah they know where you are at any given moment, but they don't have to record it. And they especially don't have to sell it to third parties. That's what we mean by "tracking".
codedokode 8y ago
So basically either give up your right for privacy or don't use any new technology? That doesn't look practical. A better idea would be to ban cell carriers (and anyone else) from using location data for anything except explicitly permitted by law, like help in emergencies or conducting investigations.
- mindcrime 8y ago
  A better idea would be to ban cell carriers (and anyone else) from using location data for anything except explicitly permitted by law, like help in emergencies or conducting investigations. That doesn't do anything to protect your data from being accessed by the State, which is actually the bigger problem.
  - ad-hominem 8y ago
    That doesn't mean banning corporations from exploiting your location is a bad idea, even if it's not the optimal privacy-enabling solution.
    - mindcrime 8y ago
      I don't think we want an outright ban. I certainly have the right to allow a corporation to access my location if I choose to. There may be cases where an individual would judge it in their interest to allow a corporation to have such access. The problem with the current setup is that we don't know who's gaining access, when they're gaining it, what they're doing with it, etc. Once the cell carriers have it, there's no easy way of knowing who they are selling the data to, and who that entity sells it to in turn, and so on. Sadly, I don't see a good way to resolve this at the moment. If you use a cell-phone the carrier can always get your (at last approximate) location through triangulation. And regulation only makes sense if you trust the State, and I would like to think we've all learned better than to do that by now. So what do we do?
  - pacala 8y ago
    Whataboutism. Yes, there is a bigger problem. No, that should not prevent us from solving the smaller problem first. With regard to the bigger problem, we build checks and balances in the legal system.
  - rectang 8y ago
    If it does great harm for the state to have this data, and also great harm for the cell carriers to have this data... Why thwart one great harm yet happily tolerate the other?
    - mindcrime 8y ago
      Does it cause "great harm" for private businesses to have access to this? I'm not sure sure. After all, there is a qualitative difference between the State, which employs men with guns and arrogates to itself the right to use force to impose its will on people, the right to jail people, etc. If Starbucks knows my location, they can send me a coupon if I enter a Dunkin' Donuts store. If the State knows my location they can falsely accuse me of a murder that I just happened to be near the location of and - if I'm unlucky or have a bad lawyer - execute me for it. That's not, of course, to say that there aren't some cases where a private business having access to my location could have a deleterious effect. But here's the rub: if you rely on regulation to prevent those cases, you're right back to needing to trust the State, which is - IMO - a foolish proposition.
      - newnewpdro 8y ago
        It doesn't really matter, if a business has the data and the state wants it, the state gets access to the data via the business. The division is so trivially violated it's pretty much irrelevant.
        newnewpdro 8y ago
        Securus is in the news today [1], an excellent example of how irrelevant it is that the private sector vs. the government is performing the surveillance. It's just information, information knows no boundaries. But those largely cosmetic boundaries certainly play a large role in public perception and acceptance of living in a surveillance state. [1] https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/gykgv9/securus-phone-tracking-company-hacked https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/gykgv9/securus-ph...
      - rectang 8y ago
- crankylinuxuser 8y ago
  Define me the following then about the metadata: Who does your cell phone's location belong to? Who does the tower's connection data belong to? Who does the multitude of tower signal strengths belong to? Who does the user's cell phone data belong to if allowing multiple apps to use it? Answer: User's location data belongs: to the user, 3rd party apps they have allowed, and terrestrial cell companies that run towers with the appropriate frequencies for your phone. The technology isn't the right area to change it. In the end, you're doing stupid stuff with encryption and still emitting point-source radiation that can and will be triangulated.
- AndrewKemendo 8y ago
  So basically either give up your right for privacy or don't use any new technology? I think this is probably correct. The problem with the ban you suggest is that it will degrade service in many instances. Some level of location tracking is necessary for all cellular phones to make a smooth handoff between towers or for example to load balance connectivity between different towers. In the end the more personalized the service you want to have, the more "invasive." Opt in is probably the best total solution, however it quickly becomes an education game if you want it to be effective, and most people don't have the time or technical understanding to put up with a dozen different opt ins.
  - wcarron 8y ago
    Uh, not really. They can still utilize location data to make smooth handoffs and the other services you mention without bending us over and fucking us with a rusty chainsaw. They do not need to sell location data to other parties in any way, shape, or form.
- fixermark 8y ago
  For communications technology: yes, that seems to be the norm. Don't like the rules of the road, don't drive. Don't like that your data goes over a third-party's network to get to its destination, don't put your data on a third-party's network. Bans "by law" only work until the people making the law become people interested in your location and they change the law.
  - codedokode 8y ago
    Doctors for example are not allowed to tell everyone about your health problems. I don't see why the same rules cannot work for telecoms.
- mdhardeman 8y ago
  What would be most effective would be a pair of rules in tandem: 1. Allow the location data to be utilized by the cellular carrier only for legitimate engineering purposes relevant to the delivery of the cellular services. (The network needs to know your location in real time in order to route calls to you.) Also, allow the use of real time location data for emergency services in response to an emergency call. Potentially also allow the use of emergency services initiated real time locations, with a non-suppressible UI required to be presented to the user if this is performed. 2. Require that the cellular service providers purge / NOT retain this location data for any longer than is literally required to provide proper service. The data retention policy #2 item here is essential in preventing temptation to come up with end-runs for the first rule. It's important that historic data that has no legitimate use under rule #1 not be preserved so that there isn't a mound of accumulating data of theoretically increasing value if only we could change / get rid of rule #1. That sort of thing will create ever mounting incentive to repeal / replace rule #1.
  - apk17 8y ago
    > The network needs to know your location in real time in order to route calls to you. At least for GSM, that isn't as true as you say it. It only needs to know in wich group of cells you are, as as re-registering with each cell change was deemed too heavy on the battery, and they rather page for your phone in the entire location area. Likewise, triangulation requires the phone to send something, which means that you can notice that, and also that continuous triangulation will drain your battery. (Which brings up the question of how often and how smartly google sends updates for the traffic density map.)
- wilsonnb 8y ago
  The best option would be to require the data be properly anonymized before being stored, used, or sold. That way the companies can still sell it for profit, the buyers can still gain useful insights from the data, and the users location is not available to anyone with enough money. I'm not sure how possible it is to anonymize that kind of data in a way that prevents it from being deanonymized, or how useful the anonymized data would be to the buyers, but this seems like a better solution than a blanket ban to me.
aquadrop 8y ago
There's no need for lead sealed box, Faraday cage will do. :) I think they even sell phone casing Faraday cage nowadays.
- ballenf 8y ago
  Empty potato chip bag will also do: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/27/australian-sacked-skipping-work-using-crisp-packet-hide-whereabouts/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/27/australian-sacke...
gebeeson 8y ago
Even simpler: don't want to be tracked? Don't have a mobile phone.
- jstarfish 8y ago
  It doesn't help. Your next car will support telemetrics. Your insurer will know how fast and how often you drive. Your wife will know where you've been going after work. The cloud will gather and retain everything else of non-obvious value, up to the point where it all magically disappears when your self-piloting car drives itself through a schoolyard at recess and the company claims they don't have enough data to determine their responsibility, and insinuates that perhaps it was your fault. All your future appliances will be factory-bugged so Amazon can listen to you arguing with your wife and sell you marital counseling books. Or they sell you imported counterfeit electronic shit, leaving bored interns with unchecked privilege (or strangers poking around on SHODAN) to activate those products' extraneous cameras to spy on your daughter undressing. The ubiquity of cellphones in the hands of the masses mindlessly recording every droll moment of their lives in public for a chance at YouTube fame, combined with better and better facial|licenseplate|whatever-recognition algorithms means you're always on a camera somewhere, your movements being tracked and your identity easily annotated. Your wife's divorce lawyer will have a field day with this. Don't want to be tracked? Hoard cash and modify the serial numbers. Throw away everything with a network interface or bidirectional antennas of any kind. Don't leave the house. Slap tinfoil on your windows. Make yourself a nifty pirate hat with the remainder. Your friends and neighbors will think it's endearing for a while, then they'll stop coming around for some reason. Just don't take a selfie of yourself in your fortress of solitude without scrubbing the geolocation data from the EXIF tags!
  - bscphil 8y ago
    Parts of your analysis are hyperbole, clearly, and I think that undercuts what are several very important points. There are still areas in which you can make choices. You can still buy appliances with no internet connections at all, or buy open hardware and run open source software. This is what I currently do. Surely inexpensive and/or used cars will dispense with GPS and other high tech features; in addition, I wouldn't be surprised if (should this become a regular problem) a modding community develops around car ownership (ownership in the sense of right-to-modify). This doesn't change the fact that it is incredibly concerning that always on tracking run for-profit is becoming the default, but I think it's too early to say we can't opt out. That's why I think cell phones are qualitatively more worrying. They're quickly becoming necessary devices for anyone in a salaried job, and they represent an always-on tracking device that's effectively glued to my hip. It is absolutely crucial that something be done abut these privacy violations, if not through legal means, then through hacking. If that turns out to be impossible I'm going to have to find a way to stop carrying a phone. It would be nice to see Purism respond to this report given their work on the librem 5.
Jill_the_Pill 8y ago
Unless your car has similar technology.

sp332 8y ago

Yeah they know where you are at any given moment, but they don't have to record it. And they especially don't have to sell it to third parties. That's what we mean by "tracking".

codedokode 8y ago

So basically either give up your right for privacy or don't use any new technology? That doesn't look practical. A better idea would be to ban cell carriers (and anyone else) from using location data for anything except explicitly permitted by law, like help in emergencies or conducting investigations.

mindcrime 8y ago
A better idea would be to ban cell carriers (and anyone else) from using location data for anything except explicitly permitted by law, like help in emergencies or conducting investigations. That doesn't do anything to protect your data from being accessed by the State, which is actually the bigger problem.
- ad-hominem 8y ago
  That doesn't mean banning corporations from exploiting your location is a bad idea, even if it's not the optimal privacy-enabling solution.
  - mindcrime 8y ago
    I don't think we want an outright ban. I certainly have the right to allow a corporation to access my location if I choose to. There may be cases where an individual would judge it in their interest to allow a corporation to have such access. The problem with the current setup is that we don't know who's gaining access, when they're gaining it, what they're doing with it, etc. Once the cell carriers have it, there's no easy way of knowing who they are selling the data to, and who that entity sells it to in turn, and so on. Sadly, I don't see a good way to resolve this at the moment. If you use a cell-phone the carrier can always get your (at last approximate) location through triangulation. And regulation only makes sense if you trust the State, and I would like to think we've all learned better than to do that by now. So what do we do?
- pacala 8y ago
  Whataboutism. Yes, there is a bigger problem. No, that should not prevent us from solving the smaller problem first. With regard to the bigger problem, we build checks and balances in the legal system.
- rectang 8y ago
  If it does great harm for the state to have this data, and also great harm for the cell carriers to have this data... Why thwart one great harm yet happily tolerate the other?
  - mindcrime 8y ago
    Does it cause "great harm" for private businesses to have access to this? I'm not sure sure. After all, there is a qualitative difference between the State, which employs men with guns and arrogates to itself the right to use force to impose its will on people, the right to jail people, etc. If Starbucks knows my location, they can send me a coupon if I enter a Dunkin' Donuts store. If the State knows my location they can falsely accuse me of a murder that I just happened to be near the location of and - if I'm unlucky or have a bad lawyer - execute me for it. That's not, of course, to say that there aren't some cases where a private business having access to my location could have a deleterious effect. But here's the rub: if you rely on regulation to prevent those cases, you're right back to needing to trust the State, which is - IMO - a foolish proposition.
    - newnewpdro 8y ago
      It doesn't really matter, if a business has the data and the state wants it, the state gets access to the data via the business. The division is so trivially violated it's pretty much irrelevant.
      - newnewpdro 8y ago
        Securus is in the news today [1], an excellent example of how irrelevant it is that the private sector vs. the government is performing the surveillance. It's just information, information knows no boundaries. But those largely cosmetic boundaries certainly play a large role in public perception and acceptance of living in a surveillance state. [1] https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/gykgv9/securus-phone-tracking-company-hacked https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/gykgv9/securus-ph...
    - rectang 8y ago
crankylinuxuser 8y ago
Define me the following then about the metadata: Who does your cell phone's location belong to? Who does the tower's connection data belong to? Who does the multitude of tower signal strengths belong to? Who does the user's cell phone data belong to if allowing multiple apps to use it? Answer: User's location data belongs: to the user, 3rd party apps they have allowed, and terrestrial cell companies that run towers with the appropriate frequencies for your phone. The technology isn't the right area to change it. In the end, you're doing stupid stuff with encryption and still emitting point-source radiation that can and will be triangulated.
AndrewKemendo 8y ago
So basically either give up your right for privacy or don't use any new technology? I think this is probably correct. The problem with the ban you suggest is that it will degrade service in many instances. Some level of location tracking is necessary for all cellular phones to make a smooth handoff between towers or for example to load balance connectivity between different towers. In the end the more personalized the service you want to have, the more "invasive." Opt in is probably the best total solution, however it quickly becomes an education game if you want it to be effective, and most people don't have the time or technical understanding to put up with a dozen different opt ins.
- wcarron 8y ago
  Uh, not really. They can still utilize location data to make smooth handoffs and the other services you mention without bending us over and fucking us with a rusty chainsaw. They do not need to sell location data to other parties in any way, shape, or form.
fixermark 8y ago
For communications technology: yes, that seems to be the norm. Don't like the rules of the road, don't drive. Don't like that your data goes over a third-party's network to get to its destination, don't put your data on a third-party's network. Bans "by law" only work until the people making the law become people interested in your location and they change the law.
- codedokode 8y ago
  Doctors for example are not allowed to tell everyone about your health problems. I don't see why the same rules cannot work for telecoms.
mdhardeman 8y ago
What would be most effective would be a pair of rules in tandem: 1. Allow the location data to be utilized by the cellular carrier only for legitimate engineering purposes relevant to the delivery of the cellular services. (The network needs to know your location in real time in order to route calls to you.) Also, allow the use of real time location data for emergency services in response to an emergency call. Potentially also allow the use of emergency services initiated real time locations, with a non-suppressible UI required to be presented to the user if this is performed. 2. Require that the cellular service providers purge / NOT retain this location data for any longer than is literally required to provide proper service. The data retention policy #2 item here is essential in preventing temptation to come up with end-runs for the first rule. It's important that historic data that has no legitimate use under rule #1 not be preserved so that there isn't a mound of accumulating data of theoretically increasing value if only we could change / get rid of rule #1. That sort of thing will create ever mounting incentive to repeal / replace rule #1.
- apk17 8y ago
  > The network needs to know your location in real time in order to route calls to you. At least for GSM, that isn't as true as you say it. It only needs to know in wich group of cells you are, as as re-registering with each cell change was deemed too heavy on the battery, and they rather page for your phone in the entire location area. Likewise, triangulation requires the phone to send something, which means that you can notice that, and also that continuous triangulation will drain your battery. (Which brings up the question of how often and how smartly google sends updates for the traffic density map.)
wilsonnb 8y ago
The best option would be to require the data be properly anonymized before being stored, used, or sold. That way the companies can still sell it for profit, the buyers can still gain useful insights from the data, and the users location is not available to anyone with enough money. I'm not sure how possible it is to anonymize that kind of data in a way that prevents it from being deanonymized, or how useful the anonymized data would be to the buyers, but this seems like a better solution than a blanket ban to me.

aquadrop 8y ago

There's no need for lead sealed box, Faraday cage will do. :) I think they even sell phone casing Faraday cage nowadays.

ballenf 8y ago
Empty potato chip bag will also do: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/27/australian-sacked-skipping-work-using-crisp-packet-hide-whereabouts/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/27/australian-sacke...

gebeeson 8y ago

Even simpler: don't want to be tracked? Don't have a mobile phone.

jstarfish 8y ago
It doesn't help. Your next car will support telemetrics. Your insurer will know how fast and how often you drive. Your wife will know where you've been going after work. The cloud will gather and retain everything else of non-obvious value, up to the point where it all magically disappears when your self-piloting car drives itself through a schoolyard at recess and the company claims they don't have enough data to determine their responsibility, and insinuates that perhaps it was your fault. All your future appliances will be factory-bugged so Amazon can listen to you arguing with your wife and sell you marital counseling books. Or they sell you imported counterfeit electronic shit, leaving bored interns with unchecked privilege (or strangers poking around on SHODAN) to activate those products' extraneous cameras to spy on your daughter undressing. The ubiquity of cellphones in the hands of the masses mindlessly recording every droll moment of their lives in public for a chance at YouTube fame, combined with better and better facial|licenseplate|whatever-recognition algorithms means you're always on a camera somewhere, your movements being tracked and your identity easily annotated. Your wife's divorce lawyer will have a field day with this. Don't want to be tracked? Hoard cash and modify the serial numbers. Throw away everything with a network interface or bidirectional antennas of any kind. Don't leave the house. Slap tinfoil on your windows. Make yourself a nifty pirate hat with the remainder. Your friends and neighbors will think it's endearing for a while, then they'll stop coming around for some reason. Just don't take a selfie of yourself in your fortress of solitude without scrubbing the geolocation data from the EXIF tags!
- bscphil 8y ago
  Parts of your analysis are hyperbole, clearly, and I think that undercuts what are several very important points. There are still areas in which you can make choices. You can still buy appliances with no internet connections at all, or buy open hardware and run open source software. This is what I currently do. Surely inexpensive and/or used cars will dispense with GPS and other high tech features; in addition, I wouldn't be surprised if (should this become a regular problem) a modding community develops around car ownership (ownership in the sense of right-to-modify). This doesn't change the fact that it is incredibly concerning that always on tracking run for-profit is becoming the default, but I think it's too early to say we can't opt out. That's why I think cell phones are qualitatively more worrying. They're quickly becoming necessary devices for anyone in a salaried job, and they represent an always-on tracking device that's effectively glued to my hip. It is absolutely crucial that something be done abut these privacy violations, if not through legal means, then through hacking. If that turns out to be impossible I'm going to have to find a way to stop carrying a phone. It would be nice to see Purism respond to this report given their work on the librem 5.

Jill_the_Pill 8y ago

Unless your car has similar technology.