
How GPS became a human tracking mechanism - steven
https://backchannel.com/how-gps-became-a-human-tracking-mechanism-257b5cba8f3a#.5jlaf1pg5
======
imglorp
It's worth pointing out that modern phones have at least a half dozen other
means to determine your location. Not all methods require the phone to
participate. Here's a few off the top.

    
    
      * CGI/CGI-TA/UTDOA via the cell network
      * bluetooth discovery
      * wifi AP's
      * audio via both mic and speaker, possibly ultrasonic: listen and emit to other devices in environment
      * NFC
      * magnetic field
    

If you don't like this, you should turn it off and keep it in a metal box.

[http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/bluetooth-
surveillance2...](http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/bluetooth-
surveillance2.htm)

[http://www.skyhookwireless.com/about-
skyhook](http://www.skyhookwireless.com/about-skyhook)

[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/11/beware-of-ads-
tha...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/11/beware-of-ads-that-use-
inaudible-sound-to-link-your-phone-) tv-tablet-and-pc/

[http://newatlas.com/magnetic-anomaly-indoor-
positioning/2325...](http://newatlas.com/magnetic-anomaly-indoor-
positioning/23253)

~~~
rmxt
I see the "if you don't like it, don't use it" suggestion quite a bit. Can't
we advocate for better public understanding of, and decentralization of,
location services while also acknowledging that the best way right now is to
leave it in a metal box turned off? The concepts of privacy and location
services _are_ at odds with one another, but reducing it to "love it or leave
it" leaves the potential middle ground of preserving some privacy while
reaping the benefits of location-aware information unexplored.

~~~
snoman
> Can't we advocate for better public understanding of, and decentralization
> of, location services...

No. It's a futile effort. There's too much to know about too many things in
this world, and of the important things that people should know, this is
pretty low on the list. It's up to the professionals (ie. us) to make
decisions on behalf of those who can't, don't, and won't be able to understand
the ramifications of those decisions (be it because they don't have the time,
capability, capacity, or willingness to understand).

~~~
hackuser
> There's too much to know about too many things in this world, and of the
> important things that people should know, this is pretty low on the list.
> It's up to the professionals (ie. us) to make decisions on behalf of those
> who can't ...

Agreed. That also is what government is for, to protect citizens from abuse
and dangers, via regulation. Banks and automobile companies can't sell
fraudulent or dangerous products to everyday consumers, for example.

~~~
dhimes
I think this is so far beyond what your average professional politician is
capable of understanding that it is hopeless. Their only choice is to believe
the loudest voice.

~~~
hackuser
> Their only choice is to believe the loudest voice.

Almost everything politicians - as well as other decision makers from CEOs to
investment advisors to you and I - decide is outside their personal expertise.
We all retain experts, one way or another, to research and report on the
technical details, and our analysis isn't at all limited to the loudest voice.

Governments regulate airplane safety, but the politicians aren't aeronautical
engineers and pilots. It doesn't just regulate but operates entire militaries,
soup-to-nuts, with incredibly advanced technology, complex situations, and
high stakes, yet it is civilians who are in charge (in the U.S. and most
advanced countries) - the likely next U.S. Secretary of Defense will be the
first ex-military officer since 1951.

~~~
dhimes
_Almost everything politicians - as well as other decision makers from CEOs to
investment advisors to you and I - decide is outside their personal expertise_

That's not the same. It's one thing to have advisors, it's another to be so
far out of your league that it's not even debatable nor discussable for you.
So you try (ideally) to put people in their best positions to make the best
decisions, and hope you have critically thoughtful people. But at some point
they don't even know what questions to ask any more.

Military: We have a bunch of super expensive airplanes that nobody wants.
Security: We have a former presidential candidate who though she was "above"
security protocol and kept her own email server. Personal privacy, Finance:
Well, you get my point.

These bad decisions come about because the interested parties have access
"loudest voice" and can spin the conversation. Such has always been the case,
but now we are getting to an age where a preponderance of decisions require
some sort of technical understanding.

I'm certain sometime in our past the leaders went from being the ones who
could yell the scariest to the ones who could write. In this age we will be
better served, IMHO, if we require our leaders to have some numeracy and some
technical literacy.

~~~
hackuser
> Military: We have a bunch of super expensive airplanes that nobody wants.
> Security: We have a former presidential candidate who though she was "above"
> security protocol and kept her own email server. Personal privacy, Finance:
> Well, you get my point.

I disagree with these claims. Ironically, do you know anything about them, or
are you repeating what has been said with the 'loudest voices'? For example, I
actually do know a little about the F-35, which I assume you are referring to,
and though there are reasons to criticize it most in the U.S. military (and in
others) desperately want it.

Also, what about other things I mentioned such as airplane safety? Food
safety? Public health? These are unqualified successes, though of course
flawed.

Problems and flaws are the nature of every human enterprise and institution;
there is no solution that won't result in them. But we still accomplish a heck
of a lot. Sure, more numeracy and technical literacy would be great, but the
idea that our government can't function has little foundation - it's just
someone yelling loudly.

~~~
dhimes
_I actually do know a little about the F-35_

Fair point: I only know what I read in the paper.

 _airplane safety? Food safety? Public health?_

That's the funny thing about transition- sometimes you don't see it coming.
And it's hard to argue with the fallacy of the consequent: we are here,
therefore it's the right answer.

But I'll try to articulate it from something small and (hopefully) that we can
relate to and leave aside public health questions like climate change and so
on. Again, this isn't the world-beater issue, but it's just an illustration of
why I think that we should try to have more scientifically literate people in
our government.

When I go to a gas station, there is a sign that says things like "don't
smoke, discharge static electricity, fill portable tanks on the ground" and
such with is all good advice. But they also have one that says "turn off your
cell phone." Now, one of the stations I use that has this sign actually has a
_television_ atop the pump. But the kicker is, the whole gas-station-blowing-
up thing was an _urban legend._ The original story was in the '90s, circulated
via email, and was about a BP station in Britain blowing up because of someone
using a cell phone. I have a tendency to check up on these things (IIRC
"snopes" wasn't "snopes" back then; I think they changed their name or else
the site I relied upon went out and snopes came in) and found that yes, the
story was bullshit and there was no truth to it.

Nevertheless, it became a regulation to turn off your cell phone. Even though
they don't cause sparks. And there's a TV set atop the pump.

 _more numeracy and technical literacy would be great_

Agreed.

 _but the idea that our government can 't function has little foundation_

Maybe that's why nobody said it.

 _it 's just someone yelling loudly._

Um, yeah, ok.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Nevertheless, it became a regulation to turn off your cell phone.

Gas stations put up signs because there is little cost to them if the advice
is unnecessary, and a high cost if it is necessary. These signs do not
indicate a "regulation". (Usually, when they do, they don't merely tell you
not to do X, but specifically reference the fact that it is illegal to do the
particular prohibited thing.)

~~~
dhimes
Have you ever paid to have a sign made? It's not willy-nilly. There is a cost.
And, I believe, there were regulations. It was ubiquitous- nearly every
station had it. Probably still do.

------
kazinator
GPS isn't possibly tracking mechanism because it works via passive reception
of a satellite signal.

Wireless networking in mobile devices is a tracking mechanism. It works to an
extent without help from GPS data. Even with GPS off, your device can know
quite accurately where you are based on other environmental information.

~~~
hackuser
> GPS isn't possibly tracking mechanism because it works via passive reception
> of a satellite signal.

That's only one component of the GPS system. It also pulls data from the
network based on your location; look up Assisted GPS.

EDIT: I don't mind the downvotes, but someone please educate me and everyone
else if the statement is incorrect.

~~~
diggernet
GPS works entirely through passive reception from satellites. No other
connectivity is required. With true GPS, it is impossible for the satellites
to know where you are, or even that you are using it. (That also makes it
infinitely scalable, as users consume no satellite resources.)

Assisted GPS is an "improvement" which depends on additional data from the
cellular network. Which means the cellular network knows you are using it,
knows where you are, and can track you.

Edit: Back in my Nokia days, I had phones with true GPS and 100% offline maps,
which would work perfectly well for navigation far from any hint of
connectivity. No idea whether Android's "Device only" mode is GPS or aGPS.

~~~
duskwuff
There's two types of assisted GPS.

In one type, the cellular network (or some other network) is used to download
a copy of the GPS almanac faster than it would have been received from the
satellites. The almanac is globally valid (it's just a bunch of high-precision
data about the GPS satellite orbits, the signals they're transmitting, and
ionospheric conditions), so this doesn't leak any information about the
receiver's location, beyond what's inherent from being active on a cell
network.

In another type, the receiver sends a portion of the GPS signal it's received
to a server, which calculates a position fix and returns it. Obviously, this
lets the server discover the client's location.

My understanding is that the second approach is largely obsolete -- modern GPS
chipsets are small and cheap enough that there is no advantage to offloading
the calculations.

------
fimdomeio
I just read a part of the text, eventually started searching for the GPS
keyword. couldn't find the connection between the title and the article other
that the ad for a book thing.

------
nacs
And now we carry a GPS-enabled device on our person all day allowing us to all
be tracked.

------
aw3c2
Advertisement for a book:

> Excerpted from PINPOINT: How GPS is Changing Technology, Culture, and Our
> Minds.

~~~
ffggvv
Is this a problem? Better than filling the page with heavy ads.

~~~
singlow
I'd rather have commercial speech be confined to identifiable areas of the
page, than have the content of a "news story" actually be commercially
motivated.

~~~
ffggvv
Then disable your ad-blocker. We want: \- to block ads \- not have sponsorized
pieces \- not pay or donate

~~~
yarou
Sponsored content is OK if I'm told in advance that it is. It's extremely
deceitful and disingenuous to suggest that ad blocking justifies these sorts
of shady journalistic practices.

