Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

GPS Meets PCS 212

Posted by timothy from the big-brother-on-call-waiting-can-you-hold dept.
The Donald writes: "According to an article at News.com, Sprint PCS will be starting to implement E911 calls in Rhode Island sometime in October. The FCC required that all cell phone providers have an improved E911 system in place by October first. This is the first step in making the E911 a reality, with Sprint being the first major company to actually put a phone on the market that will work with E911; instead of just filing papers with the FCC saying the implementation is just to hard. The Samsung N300 phone will use GPS to track the people down. I like the idea, I just hope the phone will display the GPS information, and there is a way to opt-out for all of the location based advertisements you will get with your GPS enabled phone."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GPS Meets PCS More

GPS Meets PCS

Comments Filter:

  • GPS location (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RedOregon ( 161027 ) <redoregon AT satx DOT rr DOT com> on Sunday September 30, 2001 @11:00PM (#2372220) Homepage Journal
    How about enabling a switch to disable GPS except during 911 calls?

    • Re:GPS location (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It should be able to be turned off AT ALL TIMES. Except with the one built-in capability that upon completion of a 911 phone call the GPS sub-function is enabled (whether or not tracking has been turned off). This needs to be a user switchable function, or else our privacy is meaningless (and I will not use these phones).

  • only for 911?? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by wwest4 ( 183559 ) on Sunday September 30, 2001 @11:01PM (#2372223)
    I wonder if the positional info could be used by the owner of the phone for some purpose - maybe tracking a fleet of drivers realtime or coupled with Wireless Web to provide navigation. There are some neat possibilities here that Sprint could capitalize on.
    • Actually, the capability of tracking a fleet of trucks, buses, police cars, etc. has been around for a few years. I've seen some cities that use it with their bus systems that have a timer at bus stops that tells how close the bus is to the stop.

    • Re:only for 911?? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Twiki ( 471742 )
      Symbol Technologies has a device called a MG+ (see link below) that is designed for mobile data access and tracking of vehicles, specifically some type of company fleet. It's basically a RIM modem (aka BlackBerry) with an optional GPS attached.

      The company I work for develops custom Proof of Delivery applications for use with these devices, and having been out with some of the drivers I know the majority of them use cell/radio phones to communicate with their home base. If a normal cell phone had basic GPS functionality in it, we could probably save our clients a decent amount of money.

      All we need now is a cell phone with a RIM modem and a GPS. That'd be perfect.

      MG+ Link - http://www.symbol.com/products/mobile_computers/mo bile_stationaryvmt_gateway_p.html
    • Yep. I'd use it to find my pants.

  • Opting out (Score:1, Redundant)

    by garbuck ( 303365 )
    I like the idea, I just hope the phone will display the GPS information, and there is a way to opt-out for all of the location based advertisements you will get with your GPS enabled phone.


    There should also be a way for the user to disable transmission of the GPS information or limit it to 911 calls only.

    • With the current anti terrorism mood, I doubt you'll be able to opt out.

      In fact, if they weren't going to continuously log your whereabouts before, they probably will now. After all, we're just using this data retroactively to investigate terrorist attacks.

      And they probably are only using the data that way. Today. But what about ten years from now when things are different, but they still have much greater access to things they should not? What about when we're no longer in a war against terrorism? Our government agencies don't have a great track record of not abusing power.

    • Re:Opting out (Score:2, Funny)

      by J.C.B. ( 141141 )
      It's called tin foil, my good man. Tin foil will block the GPS signals, and as a bonus, it will prevent aliens from monitoring your calls.

  • Ads??? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by swordgeek ( 112599 ) on Sunday September 30, 2001 @11:04PM (#2372231) Journal
    "So, um...like...second post d00dz!!!"

    OK, now that I've got that out of the way (and probably pushed myself to 10th post as a result) here's a real comment.

    Ads. Ads on the phone that *I* pay for. Quite simply, there won't be any. If any company tries to advertise themselves on my phone for which I pay per-minute charges, they'll find themselves on the ugly end of a lawsuit involving the "junk fax" law and some very bloodthirsty lawyers.

    If you want to advertise to my phone, then someone else will be paying my damned monthly charges. Otherwise, beware.

    As an aside, I've been around long enough to see that advertisers have pushed the boundaries far enough that the pushing back we see now is an inevitable result of what's been going on for the last two decades. The end result is that we're not going to stand for much in the way of blatant advertising in anything we buy, do, or watch. All that means is that the advertisers will become sneakier.
    • I'm sure there will be (or already is) a clause in the contract stating that by signing it, you accept the advertisements, which Sprint will attempt to use to defeat any lawsuit you bring.
      • You're probably right. HOWEVER, a company (Sprint) can't enforce a clause in their contracts that contravenes the law, and there IS a law against shite like this.

        We'll see how it all pans out.
    • You're right - there won't be any. No network is going to make any money if the word gets out customers are on the hook for an open-ended bill that they can't control - all of the subscribers would cancel.

      You're probably paying per-minute charges only on voice calls and data connections that you initiate. I've never heard of a network provider charging for anything that's pushed to your phone without your OK, like SMS, email, or whatever else comes down the radio pipe.

      That's where the "first minute free on incoming calls" clause that seems to be ubiquitous - gives the customer a chance to opt-out of the airtime charges.

      • In fact, when I bought a new Sprint PCS phone a year ago, that business went away when I switched to a newer plan.

        It's my understanding that common practice in Europe (and Japan?) is no charge for incoming calls. It sure ain't so here. I figure they are going to get a certain price per minute, whether they double the Tx charge or have separate Tx and Rx charges. BUT, again as I understand it, Eurpoean practice is that land lines charge by the minute too, so there's no big discrepancy. In the US, however, local landline calls are unlimited with the basic monthly plan, so a landline call to a cell phone makes it hard to charge the Tx end. There is NO WAY the US regulatory bodies would allow Tx surcharges for landline calls to cellphones. Customers would howl bloody murder!
        • It's my understanding that common practice in Europe (and Japan?) is no charge for incoming calls.

          In Sweden, there are providers that give you money when you receive a mobile call. This has really boosted the mobile phone usage in some groups.

  • Idea after being mugged last year... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Geek Dash Boy ( 69299 ) on Sunday September 30, 2001 @11:08PM (#2372243) Homepage
    After getting mugged last year, I wrote down an idea for installing panic buttons [geek-boy.com] in my blog.

    I was 1.5 blocks from my apartment in Brooklyn when the guy grabbed my left arm and pressed a knife into my ribs.

    As I reached into my right back pocket to get my wallet, my arm was pressing against my phone (Sprint PCS). It would have been very easy to activate some sort of panic button.

    He only took about $60, but what if I were getting the shit kicked out of me, or raped, or whatever...

    • There is a panic button. It's called speeddial. On my sprint pcs phone if you hold a button down it'll call whatever you set it to. In the case that you being assaulted, have it set to dial '911' ('400' in Canada) and press the button.

      Of course, if you keep your keypad locked, then your are SOL.

    • Some cell phones have gone with holding 9 down to call 911. The result? People would have their phone in their pocket and would somehoe hold the 9 button for a few seconds, wasting 911 services.

      http://www.ludingtondailynews.com/Archive/2000/4 26 /News/911/911.htm

      A panic button would be all the worse. Maybe charge people $100 for any false alarms.
    • Very intersting idea... if the punk had grabbed my left arm and pressed a knife to my ribs, he would have been rewarded with a .40 in diameter, rifled barrel with Federal Hydra-shocks occupying the other end pionting at his face... but a panic button's not totally a bad idea.
    • If I may ask, exactly what do you expect that panic button to do? Transmit to the 911 operator your dying gasps? Scare the would-be mugger with a faint muffled voice saying "Hello, 911. Is anyone there? Hello?"? Unless you're being mugged in direct sight of a cop (and a near-by one at that), you're already SOL by the time you're being mugged.

      Prevention might work. Deterrence might work (i.e., arm yourself, unpopular in some circles but effective). But no button can bring the cops to your side in anything less then five minutes... and usually much more then that.

    • Instead of these other posts that sound "nagging" in nature, I'll give you a real life story as to why these things once existed, and now rarely do.

      911 gets a call from a cell phone. They answer, and all they hear is a constant loud roar. After a minute or so of not being able to communicate, the line is dropped. The call comes in again, 5 to 10 minutes later. The same roar, yet no communication with anyone. The 911 operator gets curious, and makes a few calls. The line drops. Yet another call, minutes later, same roar, no human. A unit is deployed to find where this signal is coming from. Strangely enough the signal was traced to the Pontiac Silverdome (in Michigan, over 60,000+ seating).

      They traced the signal to a man who was watching a Detroit Lions game. The man was quite large, probably a little too large for the seat that was given to him. Anyways, his cell phone was pressing up against the arm rest of the seat, and pushing the emergency button every time he shifted. This story is true, and there are several of these stories in existance if you take the time to talk to 911 operators.

      This is the reason that cell phones now rarely have 911 buttons. This is also the reason most phones will now come with a "keyguard" function that ignores all button pushes until a certain key combination is pressed. It's just not feasible, with how easily buttons can be pushed in a pocket, on a belt, or in a purse. Cell phones may be good for many things, just not this.
    • Fumbling around in your pockets to push a panic button on a device while someone is mugging you qualifies you for the Darwin award. Not only is it likely to get you killed, by the time help arrives, whatever was going to happen would already have happened. Do what the guy with the knife says or fight; don't indulge your geekdom in that kind of situation.

  • The good and the bad of it (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Private Essayist ( 230922 ) on Sunday September 30, 2001 @11:09PM (#2372245)
    The example always given for this locater technology is 911 calls. Now, when you are calling 911, you do want them to know your location -- the sooner the better really. And I can see how this could serve a useful purpose. Politicians certainly pushed this application when stating their requirement to cell phone manufacturers.

    The downside to this, of course, as we at /. are well aware, is that this is yet another step toward Big Brother. Insert the usual arguments here ["Oh c'mon, stop being so paranoid!" "Yeah, but why give them the power to abuse in the first place?"]. How far will this technology be extended? Will they start to track your location on the highways, to see if you are speeding if you get from location A to location B faster than you ought? If someone corrupt within some government agency decides they don't like you because of your idealogy (whatever it may be), can they start to track your locations at all times?

    I would like this technology if it can be turned off when desired, even if it's only out of principle. I don't like having a choice taken from me, even if it is "for my own good."
    • You don't have to carry a cellphone, and you could always disconnect the battery. Just a thought.
      • You don't have to carry a cellphone, and you could always disconnect the battery. Just a thought.

        Of course you don't need a cellphone. You don't need a home phone, a credit card, or a bank account. You don't need a car, electricity or mail-order shopping. There are lots of things you don't have to have...

        On the other hand, why can't we have those things along with the guarantee that they won't be used in ways that aren't in our best interests? I dislike the "you don't have to have..." argument, because it seems like over time it pushes you closer and closer to a broken-down cabin in Montana.

        What sort of things will we have to give up ten years from now in order to guarantee anonymity and privacy? Will they all be optional, or will life without that set of things become increasingly unpleasant?

    • It's not an "example" -- it is the entire reason for the legislation. The wide adoption of personal phones has resulted in a huge number of untraceable calls coming in on the emergency lines.

      You won't be traceable when your phone is turned off, or if you leave the damn thing at home in the first place.

      I don't own a personal phone, 'cause I don't *want* to be reachable 24/7 -- why anyone would want to be hung on a tether like that escapes me.

      Considering that cell phone users have volunteered for the shackle, I don't quite understand what they fear in GPS.

      • The reason that I have a cell phone is because I dont like to be tied to the teather of my email (checked from home, where i work) and because I dont want to be teathered to my home phone either. Being a computer consultant is a job where you dont want to HAVE to be at home to get a call.

        • I understand there are good reasons to use cell phones; if, for instance, I was a young person with family responsibilities, sure, I'd need that lifeline.

          But I think the level of paranoia we are seeing in the posts on this subject is unwarranted by legislation that merely asks for E911 systems to be better equipped to locate the origin of calls.

          The idea that phone manufacturers, many of them based outside of this country, are in collaboration with the telcoms and with our government to spy on personal phone users, strikes me as a fever-dream born out of resentment for our high-tech chains.

          I would not be surprised if, at some point in the future, localized advertising is offered as a means to offset phone costs. At that time, those who value their privacy will "just say no."

          But I don't think our government's recently-empowered kick for keeping tabs on everybody, all the time, has as yet infiltrated the telecom infrastructure.
      • I was of the same mindset until I found out that all cell phones come with an off switch. I bought one, and the convenience was undeniable. The current model I have I can set to forward to another number, or voicemail, making me as unobtainable as I feel like being. But not having to wander around for a payphone should I need to call, that truly rocks. You're only as tethered as you let yourself be...

      • and yer right just turn it off when you don't wish to be disturbed. I find the convenience
        to be very nice and since I keep it off I keep my privacy as well :)
      • The wide adoption of personal phones has resulted in a huge number of untraceable calls coming in on the emergency lines.

        I'm not sure I understand this. Are the untraceable calls a problem because emergency personnel can't locate the caller to help him/her... Or are they a problem because lots of untraceable prank calls are coming in?

        Presuming it's the former, there's a very simple solution that does not involve letting Big Brother in on all of my movements. When I make a 911 call, the phone transmits my GPS location. When I call someone else, it doesn't. Perhaps I could even opt-in on the "always transmit my location" option. Everybody's happy, right? The fact that this solution doesn't seem to be what's going to be implemented is what makes me nervous-- I can't see any good reason why any other solution would be adopted.

        On the other hand, if the problem is nasty people phoning in bomb threats (which I doubt is what you're talking about), there are still payphones for such people to use. The two zillion bomb threats that have been phoned in in the NYC area should be proof enough of that...

        • On the other hand, if the problem is nasty people phoning in bomb threats (which I doubt is what you're talking about), there are still payphones for such people to use. The two zillion bomb threats that have been phoned in in the NYC area should be proof enough of that...

          And they already know exactly where the payphone is. I suppose they could even be made with a hardwired geo-location in them to make it easier to tie into this new system. How is that a better choice (for anonymity) than a cell phone?

          I don't see the relevance to bomb threats or whatever though - I can go into a supermarket, buy a pay-as-you-go phone for less than 100 UKP, use it once and bin it, or just give it to someone, it's not tied to me in any way, AFAIK. If I were the sort of person that might make bomb threats, it concievable I might not be averse to braking the law, and could therefore waive the 100 UKP cost of the phone too.

          However, unless there is a cop or similar at or near the payphone, the effect is the same - you know where someone was 10 minutes ago by the time you get there.
    • So there would be no need to compare time from point a to b. The sat does that for you. So they coud INSTANTLY know if your're speeding.

      Hell, they could even SMS you your ticket. And charge the fine to your phone bill.

      :)

      OR your wife could use the GPS in your phone to verify that you ARE working late in your office and not someplace else.

      OR your boss to check you are sick at home and not at the beach.

      That is the best thing about technology, the possibilities to get screwed with it are endless.

      ---
      T

  • Not quite the first.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by PenguinX ( 18932 ) on Sunday September 30, 2001 @11:10PM (#2372248) Homepage
    Disclaimer: I work for TeleCommunication Systems Inc. - we provide nationwide E-911 service.

    During the FCC mandate for Phase I - which most carriers still have not fully deployed was based on cellsite/sector / some other general location. For Phase II E-911 the requirement is a PDE. As there are literally hundreds of ways to get this information (GPS handsets are only one). Under the TCS solution for Phase II we query a "pluggable" PDE for the location information - so the only time that anyone gets your specific location information is only when it is needed (as in during a 911 call). The only real difference with the Sprint solution is that they have brought the PDE functionality in-house.

    Just to try to help clarify...

    • the only time that anyone gets your specific location information is only when it is needed (as in during a 911 call).


      Define "needed". Today John Ashcroft is again [yahoo.com] asking Congress to please approve his "Liberty Revocation Act", which among other civil rights takeaways will eliminate that pesky requirement to get court approval for all wiretaps (once he has the right to tap one of your phones, he wants that to cover every phone you now use, ever did use, or may ever possibly use in the future. which means if he's after me he can tap your phone without a court order just because he thinks I might call you).

      What happens when the Justice Department asks Sprint PCS or Verizon or AT&T Wireless or any of the others to please give them a direct feed from your cellphone's GPS so they can crack another terrorist ring. Perhaps the terrorist ring that blew up the WTC. Perhaps the terrorist ring that's attempting to scratch-build garage door openers in violation of the SSSCA [slashdot.org]. Does that sound "needed" to YOU? If so, go right ahead and carry an E911 cell phone.

      I'll keep my pre-E911 phone as long as I can, but the minute they tell me I must buy an E911-enabled phone is the minute I drop my service altogether and go back to pagers and payphones.

      • I think you miss my point. The E-911 mandate is for all phones & customers. Sprint is going to say "for these select phones we can provide it..." which will just not fly this will not fly with the FCC.

        However with technologies like TruePosition, and Snaptrack's WARN services, Grayson, and Lucent's SS7 PDE technologies you are able to get within a few meters with currently implemented technologies. Hell even the mandate for Phase I (cellsite/sector) is VERY accurate in densely covered (metro) areas.

        I see your point though, write your congress-people :)

        Thanks!

  • E911 is very important (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TheTwoBest ( 317203 ) on Sunday September 30, 2001 @11:10PM (#2372249)
    I can tell you as someone who volunteers for both a fire department and an EMS service, how important E911 is. There are very often times where passing moterists will call 911 and report a car fire on the expressway, somewhere around exit 30 eastbound. Now often this is enough information and we can easily respond to the call. However, if they tell us its after exit 31, and it turns out to be before exit 30, then that means we have to continue down the expressway, turn around at the next exit, circle back at least to the exit before the accident, then turn around again and get back on in the right direction. This has just caused a delay in our response by at least a couple of minutes which can often mean the difference between some insulation burning under the hood, or the total loss of a car. On the other hand (EMS side) a five minute delay can mean the difference between saving a life. If someone is involved in an accident and loosing blood quickly, every second counts.
    • How much does deployment of E911 cost? A few billion dollars in equipment costs for the operators, plus, say, $20 per phone? Now, among all the deaths in the nation, how many are due do the kind of scenario you describe? I bet with billions of dollars and a $20 tax on each cell phone sold, we could save a lot more lives than by implementing E911 service.

      E911 service could have been addressed by the market: you are worried about it, you want the feature, you buy a GPS-enhanced cell phone that transmits your location using a simple audio code. I think consumers would not have gone for it.

      The fact that E911 service was legislated and made a requirementand the fact that phone companies didn't fight it harder suggests to me that it isn't about saving a few lives, it's a combination of a desire by law enforcement to be able to track mobile phone users as part of crime fighting, and a desire of phone companies and advertisers to locate users and stolen phones.

  • Is GPS necessary? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by stuffman64 ( 208233 ) <stuffman@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Sunday September 30, 2001 @11:16PM (#2372261)
    This winter, when coming home from the grocery store, I witnessed someone on a motorcycle take a turn just too sharply. The bike fell over on him and crushed his leg. I called 911 to report the accident on my cellphone (Verizon), and I didn't even have to tell the kind lady where I was, she told me. I went home that night and did some reseach, and found out that they can in fact pinpoint the location of a call. I beleve the company responsible for some of this is Cell-Loc (or something like that).

    Hopefully, though, they won't use this to 'magically' close the store early on the day my bill is due, because they traced my calls and found out I am heading their way....
    • Yea, I just checked, Cell-Loc [cell-loc.com] is one of the companies providing this technology. There tech page can be found here [cell-loc.com]. My favorite quote:
      Measurements are made on transmissions from the cellular phone or other wireless device. At the Network Controller (Host Server), Cellocate's software performs the TDOA analysis and interpolation followed by hyperbolic multilateration using expert systems and neural network techniques.
      Not trying to impress the investors, are you now?

      • No matter what kind of techno-babble they use to describe the process, triangulating the signal will only give an approximate location, and in a large city, with tons of buildings interfering with the signal, it just won't be good enough, unless 'somewhere on the southside' is good enough.

        Having worked at a wireless company (RIM), on this exact problem, I know first hand that it sounds simple, but once you factor in the real world, and the inherant flaws with wireless communication, you very quickly find out that it is next to impossible to implement in a major urban environment.

        In an ideal situation, lets say that the phone is latched onto cell A, with 90% signal strength, Cell B is at 40%, and cell C is at 30%. Clearly using simple mathematics and a geographical map of the area you can figure out where the phone is. But add a building in between Cell A and the phone, and the location is still the same, but the signal strength may be down to only 60%... Move over 2 feet, get a clear veiw of Cell A again, and your back to 90% (and now imagine this with hundreds of buildings all over the place)... It would be way too difficult to map out every area of every possible position in just the urban centers of the US to make this work. I don't buy this companies claims...
        • I wouldn't be using signal strength from cell towers to calculate position, I'd use latency (which is how GPS works). Measure the time it takes to send a signal from tower A to the phone & get a response. Repeat for towers B & C. Multiply the times by the speed of light to get the distances, then triangulate. This should be much more accurate (assuming reflections off of buildings can be distinguished from the straight-line signals.
    • This winter, [...] I witnessed someone on a motorcycle

      Apparently he had it coming... [darwinawards.com]
  • The FCC needs to put that into writing -- seriously... companies are like little kids with toys -- unless you tell them to not do something, they'll go ahead and do it; the companies won't care so long as they get their positive reinforcement of profits. It is important to realize this and to push the FCC to make sure that there is no abuse of this system or to stop any more abuse -- they are the ones that must establish controls for this area of the industry.

  • Why not cell triangulation? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    GPS relies on direct line-of-site to at least three GPS satellites. With many mobile calls eminating from inside a building, line-of-site to satellites will be obstructed and phones will not be able to properly report location.

    A more reliable solution should include triangulation from cell phone towers, and then a 'lookup' to provide Global Position coordinates.

    • Re:Why not cell triangulation? (Score:4, Informative)

      by morcheeba ( 260908 ) on Sunday September 30, 2001 @11:43PM (#2372337) Journal
      That's the other method people are proposing.

      GPS advantages/disadvantages:
      + precise
      + works great outdoors
      - extra cost, extra weight, extra bulk (another antenna), less battery life
      - doesn't work indoors or in cars

      Triangulation advantages/disadvantages:
      + low cost
      + phones remain the same size/weight/battery life (triangulation can be mostly done in infrastructure)
      - generally less precise
      - in urban environments, multipath interference and distortion caused by buildings is a problem
      - in rural environments, you're lucky to get a signal from one tower, much less 3!, so it doesn't work too well.

      Note that the GPS implemntation doesn't need to be a full one-- some of the processing smarts can be located in the cell towers. Unfortuantly, this doesn't buy you much as the radio section is still the major size and power draw.
      • Another possibility would be to use some of the technology that is used to determine the orbital elements and positions of satellites. The base station can transmit a carrier modulated with a PN code or ranging tones. The cell phone modulates its transmitter with the output of its receiver. The base station can use the cell phone's signal to determine the range and doppler (relative speed) of the cell phone.
      • I think the GPS precision is what they're after. After all, they're not trying to locate you in a normal emergency. Where a 100 foot or so location would be adequate.

        They're trying to solve other problems. Correlate your location with other data. Anti terrorism, today. Other uses tomorrow. You got in this taxicab at 9:07 AM. See? Your gps coordinates match the cab's coordinates for 39 minutes. Then you used a pay phone at 27th and Crawford -- specifically, the third phone booth from the end. At that exact time, the phone records show you made a call to your mistress. Nine minutes later, she went to the bank, the 2nd teller window, and withdrew $200,000 in small bills. Photographic bank records coroborate this. Then 13 minutes later, she went to see a woman she is sleeping with, that you don't know about, who lives at 119 Somewhere St., and gave her half the money. etc., etc. [Filling in remainder of story, left as exercise for slashdot trolls.]

        If they were just worried about "normal" emergiencies, such as fire, traffic accident, shooting, etc., 100 foot accuracy would be fine.
    • An explanation of why not can be found in a previous post. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=22134&cid=2372 347

  • GPS + PCS, Garmin GPS Phone with RealTime Map (Score:3, Informative)

    by __aawwih8715 ( 4861 ) on Sunday September 30, 2001 @11:23PM (#2372282)
    GPS and phones aren't that new.
    Garmin had their gps phone a couple of years ago.
    When you put in an emergency call it would send
    your coordinates along with it.

    It was nifty, i almost got one for my birthday.

    If you're looking for a link here it is..
    http://www.garmin.com/products/navTalk/

  • How very convenient (Score:3, Funny)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Sunday September 30, 2001 @11:24PM (#2372289)
    "The Samsung N300 phone will use GPS to track the people down"

    ... and if you happen to have a name that doesn't sound quite right, such as Al-something or Ben-something, you won't even have to dial 911 for the authorities to know where you are and where you're headed at all time.

    Am I the only one to find the idea of mixing a wireless communication device and a very precise position locator undesirable ?

    • I think wireless communication devices are, most of the time, a "bad idea" for anyone who values privacy.

      Having chosen to carry one, however, it's up to you to take responsibility for knowing what the phone's capabilities are, and how to turn them off.

      Always-on GPS is not required by the law (at least not yet, and I doubt if ever), only locator services for E911. If your phone is doing more than that, change phones.
    • To be clear, you don't need GPS technology to track people down using their cell phones. The feds have plenty of ability to do this already. With the help of the FCC and three trucks (or possibly with no trucks and good access to the cell towers), you can be tracked down with great accuracy. That's because your cell phone communicates with a base every few minutes - more often if you're traveling.

      Also, though it's not as good as triangulation, tracking you down to a within a relatively small radius is even easier, since your phone is only communicating with one base station at a time.

      I imagine that most modern pagers (the ones with a transmitter so you never miss pages) could be used like this too.

      Spooky, huh? I've always wondered why E911/GPS couldn't just be implemented by upgrading the cell switches to do auto-triangulation. This gets rid of any GPS antenna issues.
      • Is this true only when the phone is in use, or can a cell phone be tracked as long as it is powered on?

        -Mars

  • GPS Coverage (Score:4, Informative)

    by Detritus ( 11846 ) on Sunday September 30, 2001 @11:28PM (#2372298) Homepage
    I see one big problem with using GPS. It only works when you have a clear view of the sky. It doesn't work inside buildings or other places where the view is obstructed.

    911 service can also be screwed up by PBX systems. I know of several cases where someone called 911 and the ambulance responded to the company headquarters building, where the PBX was located, instead of the building where the emergency occurred.

    • We had this problem all the time where I used to work... except it was the pizza delivery guy, not ambulances. They had our address on file, so they would never ask where we were -- at least I'd hope that 911 would ask.

    • Re:GPS Coverage (Score:4, Informative)

      by PatJensen ( 170806 ) on Monday October 01, 2001 @02:35AM (#2372624) Homepage
      Good post. Let me see if I can clarify why this is (as a PBX rookie of course) PBX's do not send location data unless your company has what is called a CAMA trunk. It is a special trunk that connects directly to 911 call centers to pass in-building location information that is in your switch translations.

      I think digital PRI trunks can pass this information as well. When an emergency call is made, switch translations are read to find all sorts of useful information about your location. i.e. campus building, room number, office number, wiring jack number or whatever is programmed.

      This information then shows on the screen of the 911 call center person that gets the call, so that office 911 calls can be routed properly. Hope that helps, that is what I learned in my Avaya training. Woohoo.

      -Pat

  • Can you say "targeted" virueses? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by garoush ( 111257 ) on Sunday September 30, 2001 @11:28PM (#2372299) Homepage
    "...to opt-out for all of the location based advertisements you will get with your GPS enabled phone"

    Just like adds that can now be targeted at you based on where you are (thanks to the GPS enabled phones), there is something else that is also inevitable. Think about "targeted" viruses.

    Those "smart" viruses would scare me more than those dull adds.

  • Performance of gps phone / Privacy protection (Score:4, Informative)

    by morcheeba ( 260908 ) on Monday October 01, 2001 @12:12AM (#2372407) Journal
    Here's a very-old press release [snaptrack.com] (12-Apr-99) from the people who did the GPS portion of the phone. Some highlights:


    Using prototype handsets from Motorola and Samsung, more than 8,000 test calls were made over a period of days and under a variety of conditions including clear skies, inside moving automobiles, inside homes and large buildings, and in wooded areas. The tests were conducted on GTE Wireless' 800MHz network and on Sprint PCS' 1900MHz network. Preliminary results show SnapTrack typically located callers with an accuracy under 25 meters. In optimal conditions, callers were located within five meters. In calling environments with extreme signal blockage, such as indoors where conventional GPS will not work, SnapTrack located callers within 90 meters, well below the FCC's 125-meter accuracy requirement.
    ...
    A variety of miniature antennae also are being tested with each phone, and testing is conducted at all times of day in order to measure effects from GPS satellite constellation variation.


    On their site, they have a spiel about privacy protection [snaptrack.com]. Here's a quote:


    Only when a subscriber dials 9-1-1 or requests a location service will the location be determined. Callers can initiate location requests the same way they control other phone functions.


    Of course, who knows if this will be respected by the OEM's who implement the snaptrack technology in the phones. There's always the tin-foil-over-the-gps-antenna solution... maybe those people with the tin foil hats are on to something!

  • Can't wait... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by gibbonboy ( 162143 )
    I work at a 911 center, and all advertising concerns aside, I can't wait for this to happen. Most cell-911 callers have absolutely no idea (plus or minus 20 miles) where they are; some don't even know what state they're in! It may help to convince some people to activate the keypad lock on their phones (no "rump dialling"), if they know they can be located. The phone companies just see this as a profit-eater, and want to use every means necessary to delay its implementation.
  • It was probably bad enough for Sue RandomTeenager that her father could get a hold of her at any time through her metallic pink cell phone, which wasn't so bad with the advent of caller ID.
    Now Sue's father knows exactly when she's at J.RandomPlaya's house, or at school for that matter.
    I don't think teenagers will carry cell phones any more. Either that or their parents will force them to.

  • Jamming the GPS unit (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Since GPS is so weak, couldn't a tiny device be constructed that would jam all GPS recievers within say, 3 inches? It could be placed on the phone, and removed if the user ever wished to use 911. There is no way the cellular system could tell the difference between deliberate blocking and being in a GPS "dead zone". GPS doesn't usually work within buildings anyway, so to require GPS would mean that the cellular phone could only be used outside, when there is sattelite coverage. Since this would be stupid, there would be no way the phone companies could do anything about it. The jamming device would have to be extremely short range (again, about 2-3 inches, just enough to disrupt the GPS reciever in the phone) to avoid interfering with other people's phones.

  • Another big brother checking in. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 01, 2001 @01:08AM (#2372494)

    I work for SignalSoft Corp (http://www.signalsoftcorp.com) on their Wireless 911 product (http://www.signalsoftcorp.com/products/911/911.ht ml). Some of my cow-orkers used to laugh at me when I constantly refered to the place as "BigBrotherSoft." They stopped laughing a while ago, when we acquired a company called BFound, which does location tracking of trucks by cell phone-like equipment. And just if you want a taste of the future, go visit the mobilePosition AB website (http://www.mobileposition.com), which was also recently acquired by SignalSoft. Ever wanted to know where your friend was? Well, sooner or later it will probably happen.

    I see good and bad in all this. The good is that the E911 service is probably very useful. And in benign applications, cell phone tracking is not necessarily terrible. The bad is that I'm pretty sure that sooner or later, this technology WILL be abused. We attempt to build safeguards into our software to prevent abuse (http://www.signalsoftcorp.com/newsroom/pressrelea ses/q2_2001/press_sgsfam.html) but the fact of the matter is, PDEs (cell phone location tracking systems) exist and they are out there and working right now. Some of them work by calculating the angle that your cell phone signal arrives at multiple towers, some work off the time it takes your cell phone signal to propogate to multiple towers, some work off GPS, but all of them can geolocate you to some extent or another. And those PDEs can be tapped before our software even gets its hands on the location data. Our safeguards will do nothing to stop a cell phone company from tracking you. They will only prevent our software from doing so.

    So, here's the scoop. If you are worried that you are worth tracking by powerful government agencies or very, very rich people, do one of two things: A) don't carry a cell phone or, B) take the battery out of your cell phone. B) is not foolproof, but it should be good enough until cell phone manufacturers are required by law to include a small backup battery in the guts of a cell phone large enough to run a GPS receiver. Fortunatly, current batteries are very bulky and expensive, and including a nonremovable secondary one in cell phones big enough to run a GPS receiver is likely to be many years in coming.

    Second, push for privacy legislation. I don't know the laws governing cell phone tracking, but I bet they're a lot laxer than they should be. A court order (like a search warrant) should be necessary for any government agency to track the cell phone of any US citizen. If this is currently the case, great. If not... let's get a bill like this passed post-haste.

    -Anonymous Coward who doesn't want to lose his job right now.
    • I'd like a big switch on the phone to turn it on. Otherwise, I don't want it. When it comes time to choose between this and not having a cell phone, the gadget may lose.

      Some half measures may include: leaving the cell phone home; unplugging the battery; trading out phones with my wife and friends.

      Legislation will be difficult here. No one needs a freaking cell phone, much less one with GPS, so complaints will be lost on the general public. Right now, people are willing to give up their credit reports (periodically, not just as a check on purchase!) and social security number to get one of these gadgets. It may be possible to force providers to behave in return for spectrum rights, but we see how well public service laws have done in TV and radio. Elements of the government itself have an interest in tracking people, and they have the upper hand right now. They will be getting a big helping hand from big corps like On Star. What a nightmare.

      The reality is that this does not really help people find you when you need it. Think about it. If you are aware of your problem, you can call for help and tell where you are. If you are not and no one knows that your are in trouble, who's going to bother to look for you? Your wife? Hopefully, she knows where you were going and help will be on the way anyway. In practical terms, very little extra security is gained for a massive loss of privacy. I could live with that if I could turn it off.

  • Cool idea, but anybody who's used a GPS knows they have serious limitations. They don't work indoors or next to buildings. So unless you're standing in a field somewhere, your phone's going to send the cops a bunch of question marks. My GPS, a Garmin Etrack, worked great on my road trip from DC to Florida. But now I live in Singapore and it sits on a shelf. If I'm lost it's a lot easier to ask for directions than to go find a football field and stand in the middle of it waiting for it to find the satellites.

  • Does PCS *need* GPS for positional data? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Shanep ( 68243 ) on Monday October 01, 2001 @01:36AM (#2372536) Homepage
    In Australia, with GSM, you call 000 or the international GSM emergency number (I forgot it), and it will automatically call the Fire/Ambo/Police number through your network provider (Telstra, Optus, Vodaphone or a reseller), if you have no signal to your own provider it will allow usage of any provider you have signal with for your emergency call. Even without a SIM card inserted in the phone. This is a legal requirement and seems to be a feature built in to GSM itself.

    Due to the very precise time division multiplexing used with GSM, the distance you are from the base station you are currently subscribed can be gleaned down to a metre. If they can force your phone to switch to 2 other cells after an emergency call, they could probably pin point you without GPS. With the hidden Network menus in Motorolla StarTac GSM and Nokia phones, you can see how far you are from the base station in metres.

    • the international GSM emergency number (I forgot it)

      112 will get you the authorities in every country with a GSM network. North America's 911 is 999 in England, for example, but 112 will get you there no matter where you are.

      Handy little number to know...

    • Due to the very precise time division multiplexing used with GSM, the distance you are from the base station you are currently subscribed can be gleaned down to a metre.

      I really, really, really doubt this. The whole of Europe is trying to find out how to position yourself with mobile phones to get down to one metre precision. The solution of just using GSM with the cells information and distance information gets you in about 400 metres accuracy (depending of the density of cells etc.). Combine it with GPS, you can try to get it to 10 metres in ideal situations. Of course GPS doesn't help you much in cities like New York with their high buildings blocking the satellites signal and having multi path effects.

      So, if this is really true, tell your telco to come to Europe and earn shit loads (actually Vodaphone is British)... Don't believe everything that companies say.

  • But will 911 work from Sprint phones? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Monday October 01, 2001 @01:38AM (#2372539) Homepage
    What you want is to get the 911 dispatching center you'd get if you called 911 from a wire-line phone at the same location. The way Sprint works now, 911 calls go to some call center somewhere, typically after some hold time. Then the call center asks where you are and connects you to somewhere useful. The last time I called 911 from a Sprint PCS phone, I gave up while on hold, called 411 (which has better response time), got the CHP's regional dispatch number, and dialed them directly.


    Freeway-side phones in Californa are even worse. Not only do they put you on hold, I once stopped at one to report an accident i'd witnessed and got a message indicating that the phone had been disconnected.

  • Glad I bought my nifty new phone before the GPS rollout. My natural paranoia tells me that precise location/movement tracking is *far* too tempting to government just to be used for E911 calls, regardless of claims to the contrary.

    Max

  • We can find you, anywhere, anytime. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by KFury ( 19522 ) on Monday October 01, 2001 @02:03AM (#2372583) Homepage
    Part of the gov't mandate [fury.com] is that the cellphones must be equipped to transmit requested GPS data even if they aren't turned on.

    But they're only going to use it to find people making 911 calls. Right. Absolutely.
  • Here in Finland they have been using the WGS84 system for triangulating your (the GSM phones) location when you call emergency services.
    You can also make use of it by sending a textmessage and in about 30 seconds time you'll get a message back giving your coordinates. No more getting lost in the woods!
    Here's a message I got back when getting my position at home:
    PARAINEN (town)
    Skräbböle (part of town)
    22.16'55'' E,
    60.17'11'' N

    No ICBM's please!

    Linus

  • I'm not sure I trust Sprint with info like that (Score:3, Informative)

    by Guppy06 ( 410832 ) on Monday October 01, 2001 @02:52AM (#2372639)
    Looking over at Spamhaus [spamhaus.org], we find that Sprint is working hard to be in the top 3 spam-friendly ISPs, currently hosting 18 sites of known spammers and spam software and ignoring all complaints. If this is what their policy is on personal information, I don't think I want them to know where I am.
  • Now THIS is scary. I can see a new market for lead cellphone cases.
    Of course, you couldn't receive calls, but you can't with it off, either.
    At least off means off, dammit.

  • SPCS Cell location- not GPS but still useful (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sodergren ( 15567 ) on Monday October 01, 2001 @09:57AM (#2373357)
    If you have a Sprint TP2200 (and probably other touchpoint models), try this:

    ##33284 (scroll down to SAVE)
    select SERVICE SCREEN and hit Scroll all the way down to the bottom of the
    debug screen.

    Last two lines are labeled LT and LG- those are
    the lat/lng of the cell your phone is talking to.

    Don't know how accurate it is; the cell my phone
    picks up at home is (according to these numbers)
    in the middle of the Detroit River.

  • ... may not understand that GPS has pretty crappy accuracy when you're down in the middle of a downtown area surrounded by tall buildings. GPS signal availability (L-band requires direct SV-to-user line-of-sight) and severe multipath reception problems made it fairly useless in the downtown canyons. I remember tests done in city environments where the receiver could get fooled into providing a position solution that it was a considerable distance from its true location; all because of the reflected signals one finds in cities. Or did someone rewrite the laws of physics since I've been out of the GPS arena?

    All this does is provide someone with a false sense of security that the police will know where you are when you call. I wonder how many times we'll hear about the police showing up on the wrong side of Central Park when responding to a mugging? Or that the call came from 1000 feet over the river, etc.?

Slashdot Top Deals

Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.

Close