4 ms·

> It depends on the KIND of GPS metadata - the GPS that is generated when I call happens is attached to the call metadata. The Metadata that is generated just b

by bmelton 13y ago

> It depends on the KIND of GPS metadata - the GPS that is generated when I call happens is attached to the call metadata. The Metadata that is generated just by having your phone on is not. I'm ok with things attached to calls, I'm not OK with blanket tracking of peoples locations. Maybe I'm fully mistaken here, but I think that's the exact same KIND of GPS metadata, which is that generated by tower triangulation. The way you phrase it, I interpret the latter type of GPS data as that which is generated by the internal GPS chip on a smart phone, but to be sure, the police can track the location of a dumb phone through triangulation when a phone is just 'on', without the requirement that calls be made, and the mechanism is the same. Why is the former special, when the mechanics are exactly the same?

Aloha 13y ago
Because you have to do something beyond having your telephone ready to use, like making a call - and the call associated Metadata is a given, location is somewhat inherent to a landline.
- bmelton 13y ago
  > Because you have to do something beyond having your telephone ready to use, like making a call - and the call associated Metadata is a given, location is somewhat inherent to a landline. Concerning cellphones, that is a distinction that only you make. Network-based location service doesn't make it, nor do the authorities, nor do the telcos, nor does your phone. Network-location can be done even on dumb phones, and if they can capture your location from making a call, they can capture your location without you making a call. Regarding handset-based GPS technology also does not depend on whether or not you're actively making a call or not. Obviously, this excludes dumb phones that don't have GPS, but location tracking is done anytime your phone is on and the GPS radio is active. if the GPS radio is inactive, network-based location still works. If your phone is on, your GPS radio is active, if someone is tracking you based on that information, it makes no difference to them whatsoever whether your phone is making a call or not -- you are just as trackable either way. Beyond this, again, I fail to see the distinction anywhere. If we're just talking about what's in Smith v MD, which was decided in 1979, then we can exclude all cell phone data whatsoever, as they weren't in use then. If we're talking about just landlines, then the content of the calls would be excluded anyway. Either way, none of it is necessarily conclusive without the content of the call itself, because anybody could have made the call. I'm just confused as to where you chose to draw the line specifically, as there really isn't a line there. You're of course welcome to make the distinction however you like, but if you're basing it on some precedent, I'm afraid there isn't any. If you're basing it on technological limitations, then again, there isn't any. If it's just your personal preference on how trackable you think you ought to be, then I'm worried you're dramatically underestimating the implication of what you're saying.
  - Aloha 13y ago
    For what its worth - I didnt read the decision because when I started this thread, I was commenting on an NBCNews article. That said, I largely agree with the judge - I think I didn't know the full details - I didn't know the government kept historical data for 5 years. Based on the early reports, I presumed they kept the last 90-180 days on hand in an indexed database and if not needed it was aged out. So I made some assumptions of what was going on, and they were much more limited than reality.
    - bmelton 13y ago
      I think that moment has hit all of us at some point. I remember seeing the first of the Snowden documents roll out, and thinking "Well, duh, of course they are." It wasn't until probably months later that I realized how much greater the scope was in reality than even the worst of what I'd assumed... that this[1] had been built, basically, to accommodate all the data they were acquiring... that they had hooks not just into the telcos, but into the ISPs, and into service providers like Google, Facebook, et al.. It wasn't until well later that I realized that, now that the public has heard about this and exclaimed how against it they are, that nothing would be done without fierce political pressure. Also, I'm betting the 5 years is just a target figure, or, more qualified, I bet what they actually mean is "at least" 5 years. Of course, having seen everybody involved with this lie at least once, and brazenly too. This is the first step in making all this go away, or at least paring it back to something reasonable. I'm not comfortable with every communication being tapped that the government just happens to be able to get their hands on. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center

by bmelton 13y ago

Aloha 13y ago

Because you have to do something beyond having your telephone ready to use, like making a call - and the call associated Metadata is a given, location is somewhat inherent to a landline.

bmelton 13y ago
> Because you have to do something beyond having your telephone ready to use, like making a call - and the call associated Metadata is a given, location is somewhat inherent to a landline. Concerning cellphones, that is a distinction that only you make. Network-based location service doesn't make it, nor do the authorities, nor do the telcos, nor does your phone. Network-location can be done even on dumb phones, and if they can capture your location from making a call, they can capture your location without you making a call. Regarding handset-based GPS technology also does not depend on whether or not you're actively making a call or not. Obviously, this excludes dumb phones that don't have GPS, but location tracking is done anytime your phone is on and the GPS radio is active. if the GPS radio is inactive, network-based location still works. If your phone is on, your GPS radio is active, if someone is tracking you based on that information, it makes no difference to them whatsoever whether your phone is making a call or not -- you are just as trackable either way. Beyond this, again, I fail to see the distinction anywhere. If we're just talking about what's in Smith v MD, which was decided in 1979, then we can exclude all cell phone data whatsoever, as they weren't in use then. If we're talking about just landlines, then the content of the calls would be excluded anyway. Either way, none of it is necessarily conclusive without the content of the call itself, because anybody could have made the call. I'm just confused as to where you chose to draw the line specifically, as there really isn't a line there. You're of course welcome to make the distinction however you like, but if you're basing it on some precedent, I'm afraid there isn't any. If you're basing it on technological limitations, then again, there isn't any. If it's just your personal preference on how trackable you think you ought to be, then I'm worried you're dramatically underestimating the implication of what you're saying.
- Aloha 13y ago
  For what its worth - I didnt read the decision because when I started this thread, I was commenting on an NBCNews article. That said, I largely agree with the judge - I think I didn't know the full details - I didn't know the government kept historical data for 5 years. Based on the early reports, I presumed they kept the last 90-180 days on hand in an indexed database and if not needed it was aged out. So I made some assumptions of what was going on, and they were much more limited than reality.
  - bmelton 13y ago
    I think that moment has hit all of us at some point. I remember seeing the first of the Snowden documents roll out, and thinking "Well, duh, of course they are." It wasn't until probably months later that I realized how much greater the scope was in reality than even the worst of what I'd assumed... that this[1] had been built, basically, to accommodate all the data they were acquiring... that they had hooks not just into the telcos, but into the ISPs, and into service providers like Google, Facebook, et al.. It wasn't until well later that I realized that, now that the public has heard about this and exclaimed how against it they are, that nothing would be done without fierce political pressure. Also, I'm betting the 5 years is just a target figure, or, more qualified, I bet what they actually mean is "at least" 5 years. Of course, having seen everybody involved with this lie at least once, and brazenly too. This is the first step in making all this go away, or at least paring it back to something reasonable. I'm not comfortable with every communication being tapped that the government just happens to be able to get their hands on. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center