Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Wireless Networking Hardware

Using Cell Phones to Track Traffic 246

Posted by CmdrTaco from the simple-and-brilliant dept.
msh210 writes "The AP has reported (with additional information from KMOX-AM) that the Missouri Dept. of Transportation will be teaming up with a private company to track in-use cell phones on Missouri highways and state roads in an effort to monitor traffic flow. Individual information will not be stored, they say -- only the aggregate will be studied, using "sophisticated" math. (See also findlaw.com's commentary on privacy concerns. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Using Cell Phones to Track Traffic More

Using Cell Phones to Track Traffic

Comments Filter:

  • Better idea (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:30PM (#13924555)
    Using cell phones to track dupes [slashdot.org].
    • Someone should, using "sophisticated" math, figure out the the stories most duped are the ones that get the most comments... More comments = more page reloads/serves and more ad revenue....
      Does no one else notice this? Stories about some small niche thing with limited interest gets posted once, and only once. Anything that engenders comments mentioning A: Big Brother, B: Bush/Repubs or Democrats or C: Europe/Asia/America/France (especially france) sucking get posted again and again. Because guess what, eve

  • what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by conJunk ( 779958 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:31PM (#13924563)

    is it just me, or does this sound like a complete waste of money? privacy concerns aside (i'm not convinced there are any), what will this accomplish that video cameras don't already do?

    so we'll use mobile phone signals to monitor traffic? seems heaps less efficient that actually looking at real traffic volume...

    • Re:what? (Score:3, Informative)

      by LordNimon ( 85072 )
      Video cameras can't count cars. A device which detects cell phones can.

      • Re:what? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Surt ( 22457 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:55PM (#13924799) Homepage Journal
        I think you got that backward: a cell phone detector can only count cell phones. For example, a bus with 18 people using cellphones on it is not 18 cars. A video camera, on the other hand, can tell you exactly how many cars are on the road, and what types and sizes, and their speeds.

        • As an aggregate, X cell phones will mean Y cars. It would take very little money to do such a study and figure out what the rate is.

          You'd probably need to reevaluate it each year or after any laws go into effect that could effect the rate (such as laws saying you can't talk on a cell phone while driving - either in Missouri or in a neighboring state.)
        • a cell phone detector can only count cell phones. For example, a bus with 18 people using cellphones on it is not 18 cars. A video camera, on the other hand, can tell you exactly how many cars are on the road, and what types and sizes, and their speeds.

          It isn't the number of cell phones, it is how fast they move from cell to cell -- thus telling you the speed that traffic is moving on that section of highway. Estimating the number of cars and trucks in the traffic jam is an exercise left up to the reader.

        • Re:what? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by mspohr ( 589790 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @02:29PM (#13925571)
          A cell phone tracker can tell how fast traffic is moving by knowing how fast each particular phone traveled from point A to point B. You don't really need to know how many cars/busses/trucks are on the road. You only need one cell phone traveling to tell the speed of the traffic which is the important information here.
        • This system is using statistical analysis to cheaply determine traffic volume.

          I am fairly sure that the mix of cars, trucks, busses, etc is more or less constant during the workweek and probably different on weekends and holidays. Similarly, I am also fairly certain that the percentage of riders with turned on cellphones is also more or less constant. So... I count the number of cellphones in the area and can calculate the speed they are traveling and I can get fully automated real-time traffic data.

          A cellp
      • Right.. but there are many other sensors in use that detect traffic flow, speeds and roadway conditions on major highways. Look for odd boxes on the side of the road with antennas and camera-shaped objects pointed at the road but with no lenses.

        This is simply unnecessary.
      • Actually, analyzing the video streams would allow you to count cars. So, video cameras can count cars.
    • I would say that cellphone antenna towers are already in place, depending on the area, traffic cameras might need to be installed.

      A traffic camera also has a limited scope and would cost more to run a series of cameras to provide continuous coverage along a single stretch of road. Presumably, if there's cellphone coverage in a given area, there could be traffic monitoring with no need to deploy extra hardware and technicians.

      So from a procurement and deployement angle, this could actually save money and pro

    • Re:what? (Score:4, Informative)

      by GoodOmens ( 904827 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:39PM (#13924641) Homepage
      This has been going on for the past 6 months in Maryland.

      http://www.mddailyrecord.com/pub/5_398_friday/busi nessnews/172883-1.html [mddailyrecord.com]

      MMTIS uses the movement between towers, without collecting personal information, and uses that data to determine speed and movement in specific areas.

    • Re:what? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by honeypotslash ( 927312 )
      They must be trying to get people to stop using cell phones while driving by making them paranoid that they are being tracked.
    • The hope is to use existing infrastructure, so you dont have to spend money to build up a network of video cameras, and instead just tap off the cell companies network

    • Re:what? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by thelexx ( 237096 )
      "privacy concerns aside (i'm not convinced there are any)"

      Really. Would you like a personally assigned police officer to trail you around 100% of the time you aren't in your house or on your lawn, taking notes on what you are doing? Once pervasive enough, remote surveillance accomplishes the same exact thing. A velvet cage is still a cage.
    • Video cameras? That's the most expensive and least effective way to guage traffic. For starters, you've got falliable humans watching video output from the cameras. These humans require salaries, healthcare, retirement, paid vacation, etc. At most, with human-video camera implementations, you get, "Yeah, that street looks clogged up. Maybe you should take that other one."

      With modern cellphones reporting GPS coordinates, you get computer-measured flow data from the roadways. This is where a program can ac

    • None of this is for monitoring traffic volume. It is for monitoring speed and density (or flow). The available technology for evaluating speed and density from video cameras is extremely poor. I've been testing this stuff since 1995 and it is totally unreliable. Right now, the best point source of speed and density is radar scanners by a company called wavetronix [wavetronix.com]. The biggest drawback, however, to both these and video monitoring is that both are expensive to deploy, require extensive communications in

  • How about using "search" to track dupes? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Gothmolly ( 148874 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:32PM (#13924565)
    For instance, a simple search would have uncovered This Page [slashdot.org].
    • But typing something like site:slashdot.org cell phone traffic [google.com] and looking at the first link is a bit much.

      I know there are two camps about dupes. One is a little more benevolent, "Yeah, they do it, we know it, but that is pretty much OK". The other is, "Why don't the people who run this site know their content or are to dumb or lazy to do a simple search like the one above?"

      I fall in the later category. The slashdot guys might actually be that dumb or lazy to know how to use google. If thats the case,

  • I'll save them some money (Score:5, Funny)

    by stlhawkeye ( 868951 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:34PM (#13924597) Homepage Journal
    Traffic is bad on 40 East in the morning and 40 West in the afternoon. 270 is often packed too. Source: me. I drive it every day.
    • Traffic might be predictable somewhat in Saint Louis. I used to live there. I know this.

      That being said, I do see some uses for this. I can't count the number of times I've seen the 70 backed up in rural Missouri because of accidents. Maybe it's not that much use in the city of Saint Louis, but it might be worthwhile in, say, Montgomery or Callaway counties which the 70 runs through.
      • True dat. Also, if it's raining outside, or it LOOKS LIKE IT MIGHT RAIN SOON, everybody in St. Louis county slows down to 45 miles per hour. They also brake while going uphill. This causes traffic problems that are usually confined to within a 2-mile radius of major interchanges, such as 40/170 and 40/270 to run all the way into Illinois. I'm not sure why this is. Despite the fact that it rains here like every other day in the fall, St. Louisans react to every weather phenomenon as if it were the first
        • Amen. I bought drivethru takeout on my way home last night, and it was raining. It was cold by the time I got there and I live half a mile from the food place. The highway was jammed. The side road was jammed. I finally took a residential street to get home. I saw no accidents. It was not fully dark. WHY was the road jammed solid at 4pm on a Monday!?

          I don't condone speeding. I don't do it myself most of the time. But it's NOT that unsafe to do the limit in the rain as long as you have working headlights, wi

  • Slippery Slope (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Renraku ( 518261 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:35PM (#13924601) Homepage
    This time next year:

    "Your honor, the defendant's cell phone was detected half an hour after the crime was committed, heading away from the crime scene along I-85 doing 65MPH. Clearly, he was speeding to try to get away from the crime scene."

    • Re:Slippery Slope (Score:5, Informative)

      by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) * <<moc.liamg> <ta> <namtabmiaka>> on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:43PM (#13924683) Homepage Journal
      From Lectric Law Library [lectlaw.com]:

      CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - Circumstantial evidence is best explained by saying what it is not - it is not direct evidence from a witness who saw or heard something. Circumstantial evidence is a fact that can be used to infer another fact..

      Circumstantial evidence is generally admissible in court unless the connection between the fact and the inference is too weak to be of help in deciding the case.

      You need a lot more than a single circumstantial fact to "prove" that someone committed a crime. Rather, you need a large number of such facts that close in on the case and provide a single, inescapable conclusion. Even if you have done that, be prepared for the defense to argue each point under a "hypothetical" context, thus convincing the jury that the "evidence" is nothing more than a set of coincidences presented in such a way as to make the defendent look guilty.
    • Your cell phone carrier already tracks that information. I don't know if it's saved, but tracking your movements via your cell phone was doable at least 15 years ago, probably much longer. This used to require a warrant, which probably went away with the "patriot" act.
    • Yeah, versus "Your honor, the defendant's CAR was SEEN ON TRAFIC CAMS half an hour after the crime was committed, heading away from the crime scene along I-85 doing 65MPH. Clearly, he was speeding to try to get away from the crime scene

  • EZ-Pass aleady used for this... (Score:5, Informative)

    by marcsiry ( 38594 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:35PM (#13924603) Homepage
    Automated toll collection tags used in the Northeast ("EZ-Pass") are already being used to monitor traffic flow. Not only are these tags traceable to you, they are connected to your credit card, which is auto-debited for tolls. Currently they are not being used to auto-ticket speeders (you wouldn't even need to use 'sophisticated' math to figure that one out), but they do warn that the EZ-Pass info will be used for traffic monitoring and monitoring 'violations of your agreement.'

    Here it is in the service agreement (search onpage for 'monitoring'):

    https://www.ezpass.csc.paturnpike.com/paturnpike/t erms.asp [paturnpike.com]

    • Not only are these tags traceable to you, they are connected to your credit card, which is auto-debited for tolls.

      You are not required to tie the E-ZPass account to a credit card. You can have them bill you monthly. Even if you do tie the account to a CC, you aren't debited for the toll amount every time you pass through. You put $25 or $35 on account with E-ZPass, and the amount is debited from that. When you reach $10, your CC is billed that $25 or $35 again. I'm sure they make a ton of money on the

    • Automated toll collection tags used in the Northeast ("EZ-Pass") are already being used to monitor traffic flow.

      Can you be more specific? Do you mean monitoring flow at toll plazas or are they tracking flow with EZ-Pass at non-toll plaza locations. In Maryland I have noticed solar operated sensors on the side of the highways in various locations. I've wondered if these are collecting EZ-Pass info or just counting cars in general, but I'm not sure. Any ideas?

  • hypocritic (Score:2, Insightful)

    by p2sam ( 139950 )
    Aren't they a bit hypocritic when they discourage cell phone use on the road on one hand, and then try to use cell phone usage to track traffic?
    • Aren't they a bit hypocritic when they discourage cell phone use on the road on one hand, and then try to use cell phone usage to track traffic?

      No. It would be hypocritical if they discouraged cell phone use, and then used cell phones themselves while driving.
    • You don't need you to actually be talking on the phone, it just needs to be turned on.

    • Re:hypocritic (Score:5, Informative)

      by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @01:02PM (#13924870)
      > Aren't they a bit hypocritic when they discourage cell phone use on the road on one hand, and then try to use cell phone usage to track traffic?

      Not hypocritical at all.

      A cell phone is trackable even when its owner is not talking on it.

      This article [howstuffworks.com] provides a good outline on what happens. Basically, there's a control channel, through which your phone communicates whenever it's got a battery in it. Your phone listens for an SID (System Identification Code) on this channel, and tells the appropriate MTSO (Mobile Telephone Switching Office) "Hi, I'm here". The MTSO has to know where you are, so that it can route incoming calls to the device.

      All that's happening here is that the traffic monitoring folks are listening in on the back-channel communications between a large number of cell phones and base stations, and using the changes in location (as averaged over a large number of devices) to guesstimate the average speed of traffic. Individualized cell phone tracking is useless for a traffic flow application, so it's actually highly likely that the traffic folks are telling you the truth when they say that individual data isn't being logged, and that only aggregate data is being recorded.

      The technology's nothing new - a system like this is necessarily a part of any wireless phone system, otherwise your phone couldn't ring when someone called you. No such agency is now permitted to do such a thing domestically (a sentence that can be parsed in at least eight ways, all of which are true), but they probably don't, because everyone else who's also interested in individualized tracking, is already doing this, has been doing this for years, and is using other tricks in software to locate their targets to within a few meters, all in real-time. They aren't using the traffic-control folks' data, because they don't need it.

  • Privacy concerns (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mostly a lurker ( 634878 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:38PM (#13924629)
    The concept of tracking cell phone movements to assist in optimising traffic flow seems to me a good one. I expect other similar good ideas to be forthcoming. Surely, there ought to be technological solutions to allow tracking while reliably protecting individual privacy. Perhaps, each cell phone could generate a short term session identifier (24 hours in duration and not tied in an obvious way to the phone number) for use in such tracking applications? It might also be feasible to allow paranoid phone owners to opt out.

  • Nothing to see here, please move along (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This is just the government's way of beowulf clustering our cellphones.

  • What they will find out... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TheOtherAgentM ( 700696 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:39PM (#13924643)
    is that cell phones are the cause of much traffic. People on cell phones slow down or even get into accidents.
  • Cell phone users may be able to accomplish the same thing by turning off their phones - but at the cost of not receiving what might be important calls from spouses, children, elderly relatives and others.

    I once read, here I beleive, that powering off a cell phone doesn't keep it from transmitting. You have to remove the battery or put it into a foil bag. Is this correct?

    What is the best to protect your privacy with regard to location with a cell?

  • As a St. Louis commuter... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by fak3r ( 917687 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:40PM (#13924654) Homepage
    As a St. Louis commuter I can see some value in this, since almost everyone on the road is too focused on the mobile device in their right hand to use any lane change indicators! Still, I can see the privacy concerns, however, if all they're doing is monitoring how much traffic (radio waves) are in the area, it's far different than them listening in. Think about all the radio waves flying around you right now, if you had a device to tell you how much of that energy is moving around, what's the big?

  • My state makes me sad (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MacFury ( 659201 ) <me@nOsPAM.johnkramlich.com> on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:41PM (#13924667) Homepage
    They do boneheaded things like this all too often. They are seriously considering shutting down HWY40, a major highway that connects the suburbs to the city. HWY40 doesn't have exit and on ramps that are the proper length, so they want to do construction to fix all that. If they shut that highway down it will double or triple many peoples morning commute.

    Of course, if people would simply stop trying to cut everyone else off, and not drive like total pricks, there wouldn't be any problem. Not to mention the fact that the white flight has caused all these upper middle class jerks to move out of the city but still work there, burning gas for hours each day just to drive back and forth to work.

    • Ever think that maybe, just maybe, deficient highway design leads to more accidents?

      Case in point — Interstate 74 [upgrade74.com] in Peoria, Illinois. Worst urban highway I've ever driven on. The signs specifically tell you to keep left so that you don't collide with merging traffic. This is after you have to keep right... so that you don't collide with merging traffic coming in from the left. This is because the ramps in this area are about 500 feet long (most modern Interstates give you about a quarter of a mile.

    • "Not to mentin the fact that the white flight has caused all these upper middle class jerks to move out of the city but still work there, burning gas for hours each day just to drive back and forth to work."

      Well...if they could make the city safe again, and provide upscale living units, better city services, and schools...you'd not see people leaving for suburbia. And don't kid yourself..it isn't just white flight any more. Pretty much anyone regardless of race that starts to reach middle/upper middle cla

  • Ack!! The unclosed parenthesis at the end of the OP is compelling me to wash my hands over and over. And it's not helping.

  • My first thought (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Control Group ( 105494 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:42PM (#13924675) Homepage
    I can't be the only person whose first thought was of Doctorow's Eastern Standard Tribe [craphound.com], can I?

    Not that this has anything to do with music...but it's certainly a step in the direction of Doctorow's future.

  • Be careful what you assume (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LaughingCoder ( 914424 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:45PM (#13924700)
    So then, a bus full of high school teenagers with cell phones will look like a major traffic jam?
  • Tracking people in traffic, tracking individual users for crimes, etc.

    I gave up my cell phone awhile back and haven't been happier. If a company gives me a cell phone to use i'll use it but at least it doesnt have MY name on it.

    My growing weary of cell phones began when i worked for a company who would pay you an extra amount each month to upgrade you to the higher plan and then proceed to give your personal cell phone number to all the users. (this was a desktop support position)

    Suddenly you have users cal

    • Re:Ever more glad I don't have a cell phone (Score:4, Insightful)

      by marcsiry ( 38594 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:59PM (#13924839) Homepage
      Lucky you! Now you can go back to the exciting days of sitting at home because you are 'expecting a call!'

      You get to be one of those fortunate jobhunters who 'wait by the phone!'

      For some bizarre reason, when my cellphone goes off I am somehow able to ignore it... in fact, I rarely pick up my phone for any caller unless it's someone I *really* want to speak with. No caller ID? You're welcome to leave a voicemail that I may review at some point in the future.

      To me, a cellphone is an enabling technology- it enables me to make and receive phone calls at my convenience. It does not force me to take work calls after hours, nor does it force me to answer it everytime it rings in a movie theater. Those are human behaviors that I can control. I guess if you can't control your own behaviors, then getting rid of the technology that enables bad behaviors is the only answer...
      • 1. who goes driving around when theyre unemployed? gas prices are ridiculously expensive

        2. if i need a cell phone i can borrow my girlfriends for a little bit but i find ive only needed it once.

        3. the chills from the ringing have to do with a boss that didnt accept poor reception as an excuse for not answering a call and would yell at you for not immediately returning the call even if it took awhile for the voicemail indicator icon to show up with sprint.

  • It doesn't matter (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rancmeat ( 924113 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:47PM (#13924724)
    It doesn't matter what they say the info will be used for. The fact is they will be storing it, and as long as it exists there is the certainty that a lawyer will be able to convince a judge to use it for what it was never intended for.

    Let's say the neighbor of a good friend is busted selling drugs. The DA could subpoena records that show you visiting that location on a regular basis, and suddenly you find yourself with a lot of unwanted and unwarranted attention.

    It doesn't matter what the data is intended for, the collection of it opens a Pandora's box and the sincerity of the original party collecting the data becomes meaningless when the data vultures show up at the feast.

  • Skewed Results (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rubberbando ( 784342 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:48PM (#13924728)
    The makeup of the passengers of a vehicle could greatly effect the results.

    Think about it, a car full of teenagers will show several cell phone signals versus a car full of seniors or nuns which would probably have 0 cell phones inside.
    • True, but in a simplified model all you care about is how fast the blips are moving, vis a vis posted speed limits.
    • The makeup of the passengers of a vehicle could greatly effect the results. Think about it, a car full of teenagers will show several cell phone signals versus a car full of seniors or nuns which would probably have 0 cell phones inside.

      As I said (keyed in) in an earlier post, it doesn't matter how many cell phones there are. You can track how quickly they move from one cell to another, and know if traffic is jammed or not on a specified area of highway.

      • As I said (keyed in) in an earlier post, it doesn't matter how many cell phones there are. You can track how quickly they move from one cell to another, and know if traffic is jammed or not on a specified area of highway

        Well, going that route. Wouldn't it look like a traffic jam if a bus full of teens broke down and was pulled over beside the road?
  • I doubt that it's just trackin 'in use' cellphones, but rather all phones that can connect to a tower (powered on)

  • missing the point... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by PoPRawkZ ( 694140 )
    You don't have to be using the cell phone for the cell phone to be used to monitor traffic. There is no hypocrasy here as nobody is promoting talking on cell phones while in traffic. Also, with monitoring such a large number of signals, I find it hard to believe they will be able to simultaneously figure out who is speeding. That would require multiple triangulations on each signal, requiring a much larger infrastructure. We can put away our fears of Big Brother for the moment.
    • "We can put away our fears of Big Brother for the moment."

      I would disagree. We should never put away our fears of Big Brother. What we consider innocuous today would have been considered outrageous breaches of privacy a couple decades ago. Incremental intrusions on our privacy are hard to stop, and saying that we can let one go because it seems harmless is exactly how that happens.

  • Already live in the Netherlands (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    For a live version somewhere else in the world, check http://actueleverkeersinformatie.brabant.nl/ [brabant.nl]. This shows traffic density between Breda and Tilburg in the southern part of the Netherlands. Don't forget to enter the image verification code on the left!

  • What you say? (Score:2, Funny)

    by eno2001 ( 527078 )
    I'm sorry but there is only one solution to all statistical problems that require tracking data. The Count from Sesame Street:

    "One!! One car travelling down i90!!! Ahahahahah!!! Two!! Two cars travelling down i90!!! Ahahahahaha!!!..." ;P
  • The federal government has been twice told they cannot use cell phones to track individuals without showing probable cause [wired.com]...I would think this would apply to state governments equally as well. Wonder how it might affect commercial applications?

  • SONNOVA!!! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by His name cannot be s ( 16831 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @01:22PM (#13925019) Journal
    I worked for a company in 2000 where we had done exactly this.

    We built an entire set of services around tracking cellphones and the first thing we demo'd was a videowall anon tracking cell users on freeways.

    We did a bunch of work for the NRC (National Research Council) here in Canada and got a grant to study it further.

    Then the bubble burst, VC funding dried up and they sold off their assets.

    *sigh*

  • What about airplanes? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jmcwork ( 564008 )
    What happens when someone on an airplane turns on their phone? Does it it look like some car is doing 500 mph cross-country?
    • In almost all cases, nothing happens: Cellular networks are designed to send and receive signals at ground level, or at most a few stories above it. The antennas that listen for your cell phone's signal are usually directional, and they're aimed a few degrees downward to maximize the coverage "footprint" -- unless you're in one of those bowl-shaped cities that give RF engineers recurring nightmares (e.g., Denver), the antennas aren't pointed in the right direction to receive any signals from five miles ab

  • Murphy's Law (Score:2, Interesting)

    by petantik f00l ( 926671 )
    These kind of schemes always end in tears for everyone. Sounds like a good idea on paper but the system complexity will end up being enormous.

    1. The information will be organised and recorded at one central location - which will break
    2. It uses the latest technology and, i assume, some stastical/mathematical techniques - which will probably be
    incorrect and will end up giving false results anyway
    3. 1 and 2 will cause extra congestion and extra cost - yippee!!!




    http://petantik.blogsome.com/ [blogsome.com] -
  • I've always thought that it was interesting that people expect privacy when they're litterally broadcasting something in every direction - I don't expect privacy when I'm yelling out something on a crowded city street. Why does changing the medium from audible sound to EM waves give you an expectation of privacy?

    Not that I don't want privacy when I'm talking on a cell phone - in fact, I'd pay more for say, some reasonable level of encryption on my cell phone.... I just don't think its some sovereign right

    • I'm in firm agreement. Broadcasting is broadcasting.

      If I want a true expectation of privacy, then I need to secure my network. That means physical security. If you tap into my line and read my data, then I'll be relatively upset, and I think you've done something wrong. If you overhear what I'm saying, then that's my stupid fault.

      Granted, there are limits to this. I think it's wrong to go around with laser microphones and try to listen in on people's conversations when there is an expectation of privacy.

    • You might think I'm wrong about this but consider satellite TV signals - DMCA concerns (which most of us don't agree with anyways) aside, I've always just thought.... you want me to pay for satellite service, fine. But to say that I can't interpret the signals YOU are beaming in to MY house in any way I want (by using a decoder, etc.) is ludicrous - if you don't want me to do something with them, DON'T BEAM THEM INTO MY HOUSE. Or try and use proprietary technology, encryption algorithms, etc. to prevent me

  • re "sophisticated" (Score:3, Funny)

    by mkcmkc ( 197982 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @02:18PM (#13925471)
    Speaking as a resident, let me give you an example of what passes for "sophisticated". For several years, after people complained about tax forms being sent out with their SSN's on them, they started encrypting them. How? Using a substitution cipher (e.g., 4 for 1, 7 for 2, etc.) Now that's sophisticated...
  • He is a fool who thinks this type of thing won't one day be used to track individuals.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Don't tell me I'm burning the candle at both ends -- tell me where to get more wax!!"

Close