Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Jeremy Portzer <jeremyp AT pobox.com>]

On Fri, 2003-10-31 at 09:46, Tanner Lovelace wrote:
> Ilan Volow wrote:
> 
> > 
> > To evade the catch-22 of needing a signal to record the location of a 
> > signal that doesn't exist, you'd either have to rely on the cell phone's 
> > GPS (which most phones don't yet have) or have the phone record the last 
> > location it had a viable signal. With enough people's phones 
> > automatically sending in data on the last location where their phones 
> > had a decent signal, the cellular providers can average that data out 
> > and get a rough idea as to the shape of the dead zone.
> 
> Of course the privacy implications of this are just incredible.
> Do you really want the cell phone companies knowing exactly where
> you went?  It's bad enough now with the new mandated 911 service.
> 

The privacy implications are there anyway with the E-911 service, which
will result in GPS receivers in all cell phones.  Why would adding this
additional service be an more of a "privacy implication" ?  The cell
phone companies will already have full access to exactly where their
customers are.

The real question is how the courts will treat this -- will they be very
careful in allowing subpeonas for this information?

--Jeremy

-- 
/---------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Jeremy Portzer        jeremyp AT pobox.com      trilug.org/~jeremy     |
| GPG Fingerprint: 712D 77C7 AB2D 2130 989F  E135 6F9F F7BC CC1A 7B92 |
\---------------------------------------------------------------------/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part