https://news.yahoo.com/cellpho...tM7L9yQgE3NlcI-Y-4Qn

It seems that our gubbermint has been not only capable of tracking our every move, but also know exactly where we are when we are doing it. And have been doing it for some time. As I recall, one judge declared it unconstitutional. Will that stop them from doing it? I doubt it.

It's not the government tracking our movements, it's the cellphone companies. It's done to target advertising more precisely and to allow our phones to connect to the appropriate cell towers. They've been doing this since cellphones went on the market. If they didn't, the phones wouldn't work, or at least not work as well. A side effect is that, if the 'government' get a warrant, they can obtain that data from the cell phone providers. Law Enforcement realized some time ago that this would allow them to 'place' a suspect at or near the scene of a crime absent other leads.

The judge has stated that since the warrants spread so wide, that innocent people are being swept up in the same net and this contravenes their 4th amendment rights.

If you don't want the cellphone companies to have this information, get rid of your phone - all your cellphones, not just 'smart' phones.

Some years ago, when OnStar was first showing up in new vehicles, the local game wardens were able to find an elk poacher similarly.

They determined the model of tire from the tracks in the snow, matched that to a newer vehicle (GM of some type as I recall), and on a whim asked OnStar to discover if any of their subscribers had been in that area. Figured out who it was and found a dead elk hanging in their garage.

It's just not fair. A fella can't even poach an elk any more.

I'm curious, if you turn off Location Services, are they still able to track the phone? (Probably a dumb question.)

When courts throw out convictions obtained as a result of this, the police and DAs will quit using it. And judges should stop signing warrants for the blanket requests to the cell companies for the data.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

I'm curious, if you turn off Location Services, are they still able to track the phone? (Probably a dumb question.)

Supposedly they can't track you if you turn it off. I know I can't track Mrs. Flash if I turn off location services in her phone.

It isn't "the Government" arbitrarily scooping up data if it's based on a warrant issued by an impartial magistrate. The concept of a legitimate governmental interest in apprehending criminals applies in situations like this. This case needs to go to the Supremes.

Yes, be because the phones always ping to the towers so the system knows how to route calls. Turning of location services just means apps can't access GPS.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
Some years ago, when OnStar was first showing up in new vehicles, the local game wardens were able to find an elk poacher similarly.

They determined the model of tire from the tracks in the snow, matched that to a newer vehicle (GM of some type as I recall), and on a whim asked OnStar to discover if any of their subscribers had been in that area. Figured out who it was and found a dead elk hanging in their garage.

It's just not fair. A fella can't even poach an elk any more.

I'm curious, if you turn off Location Services, are they still able to track the phone? (Probably a dumb question.)

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
Some years ago, when OnStar was first showing up in new vehicles, the local game wardens were able to find an elk poacher similarly.

They determined the model of tire from the tracks in the snow, matched that to a newer vehicle (GM of some type as I recall), and on a whim asked OnStar to discover if any of their subscribers had been in that area. Figured out who it was and found a dead elk hanging in their garage.

(Probably a dumb question.)

I'm pretty sure they had Mona Lisa Vito as a consultant.

I like my privacy but I'm not certain I'm for the ruling.

A crime was committed in an area. Before the electronic "witness" was available, they would ask witnesses who might have been in the area around the time the crime was committed and they would investigate those people along with the witnesses they found.

Now, they ask the company who has the electronic records of who might have been in the area around the time the crime was committed and those poeple get investigated.

That technology makes it more efficient to find out who was at the crime scene is the only difference.

That one man was wrongfully arrested for simply driving his bike by the crime is no different from other innocent people getting wrongfully arrested or even convicted.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Yes, be because the phones always ping to the towers so the system knows how to route calls. Turning of location services just means apps can't access GPS.

As I understand it, the tower pinging isn't very precise though, correct? You could triangulate somewhat, but even then it'd be nowhere close to GPS.

The only way you will ever have privacy is to go low tech. Your cell phone and your computer will both allow you to be tracked.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:
I like my privacy but I'm not certain I'm for the ruling.

A crime was committed in an area. Before the electronic "witness" was available, they would ask witnesses who might have been in the area around the time the crime was committed and they would investigate those people along with the witnesses they found.

Now, they ask the company who has the electronic records of who might have been in the area around the time the crime was committed and those poeple get investigated.

That technology makes it more efficient to find out who was at the crime scene is the only difference.

That one man was wrongfully arrested for simply driving his bike by the crime is no different from other innocent people getting wrongfully arrested or even convicted.

This should necessarily be difficult information for the government to obtain, and should absolutely not be obtained in an unlimited or nearly unlimited manner. The fact a crime was committed within an area isn't a valid excuse to violate the rights of everyone in the area.

What ever happened to the idea it is better that a thousand criminals go free rather than violate the rights of a single innocent person? We've strayed so far afield from that original notion as to make the very notion nearly inconceivable to most people.

This type of information should only be acquired and used very surgically once a suspect has been identified to check whether the suspect had been in the area.

Note to self: Leave phone at home when planning nefarious activity...

"Turning off Location Services" is a misnomer, the cell operator can still see where every phone in their network is located through triangulation from their cell towers. They are monitoring network operations not an intentional signal sent by the phone. As noted in previous posts, this is an inherent part of provision of cell services. I am not certain that even turning off the phone would disable it, although pulling the SIM chip, and the battery might do so. So called "burner" phones can be tracked the same way, but in this case there is no link (e.g. in the accounting records) to a subscriber party (unless the burner was bought with a credit card or some other traceable method). One thing to note, the cell service won't work without this monitoring, but there is no inherent requirement to maintain historical records of location monitoring, this is for marketing purposes, at some point I am sure that this data will be for sale to interested parties (if it isn't already).

What you are doing turning off location services is keeping the phone from sharing location data, that the phone itself derives from interaction with GPS satellites, and the cellular network. This is far more precise (feet to yards) than the data derived by the cell operator (a hundred feet or so, but potentially closer using many cell towers).

PHPaul gets it! Cell phone use by idiot criminals gets them nabbed. Leave your phone at home so you can later say "see"? "I was home when that happened"!
Geo Fencing is just one more tool to investigate crime. It will come down to how and when its used as to its legality.
And your privacy? Its gone the way of the Dodo.

quote:

Originally posted by PHPaul:
Note to self: Leave phone at home when planning nefarious activity...

Duh. But a lot of criminals aren't real bright.

quote:

That technology makes it more efficient to find out who was at the crime scene is the only difference.

The problem with this is that your/my definition of a crime may be radically different than that of others. Look at what happened on January 6th, 2021.

quote:

Originally posted by the_sandman_454:

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:
I like my privacy but I'm not certain I'm for the ruling.

A crime was committed in an area. Before the electronic "witness" was available, they would ask witnesses who might have been in the area around the time the crime was committed and they would investigate those people along with the witnesses they found.

Now, they ask the company who has the electronic records of who might have been in the area around the time the crime was committed and those poeple get investigated.

That technology makes it more efficient to find out who was at the crime scene is the only difference.

That one man was wrongfully arrested for simply driving his bike by the crime is no different from other innocent people getting wrongfully arrested or even convicted.

This should necessarily be difficult information for the government to obtain, and should absolutely not be obtained in an unlimited or nearly unlimited manner. The fact a crime was committed within an area isn't a valid excuse to violate the rights of everyone in the area.

What ever happened to the idea it is better that a thousand criminals go free rather than violate the rights of a single innocent person? We've strayed so far afield from that original notion as to make the very notion nearly inconceivable to most people.

This type of information should only be acquired and used very surgically once a suspect has been identified to check whether the suspect had been in the area.

Why should it be necessarily difficult? And, no, I've not come across the idea that it's better for a thousand criminals go free. Also, I know this one court decided the 4th amendment rights of uninvolved innocent parties were violated which then threw out the conviction of the criminal. But the news is that it was this one court versus other courts who previously allowed such polling. I honestly don't quite buy that the government getting a list of people who were in an area at a given time which may include me is a violation of my 4th amendment. We have cameras in a lot of locations. I've even seen different videos from different cameras spliced together to track a person from the scene of a crime to another point. They can look at the video and see who were in the area if the crime happen to be committed off camera and investigate the people who were there. Even before cameras, police would ask people of interest, "Where were you on such a date and a given time?"

I'm open and willing to be persuaded.

quote:

Originally posted by Graniteguy:

quote:

That technology makes it more efficient to find out who was at the crime scene is the only difference.

The problem with this is that your/my definition of a crime may be radically different than that of others. Look at what happened on January 6th, 2021.

I had that in mind too when I was typing my response. The problem in that case is not polling the cell phone transmissions, the problem is the reaction or even planned reaction of the government to the event.

If your cell phone is on, you are being tracked. Which means, if you own a cell phone, you are being tracked. Even if you only turn it on at home, even if you only turn it on at work, you are being tracked.

There is no setting on the phone that you can change that will stop it. If you own a cellphone that you ever turn on, you are being tracked.

Advertising is behind much of the tracking technology that is created. I cannot speak to how much the government takes advantage of that technology, but like most things profit is the driving force. Around a decade ago I spent several months consulting for a company that was using cellphone info to track users, and then selling that to advertising companies. I quit after finding out how unsecured the data was, but that was a decade ago. I can only imagine how much better their algorithms are today.