Is It Fair Game To Track People's Movements Via Their Mobile Phones?
from the ethical-questions dept
For many years, there have been efforts under way to use data from mobile phones to determine where people are or how they travel. Often this is used with the idea of getting useful automobile traffic info (if mobile phones are moving slowly, so are their cars). However, this has resulted in some privacy concerns, with people wondering why their data is being used in this way. And stories about how the boss of a big Chinese telco regularly uses the data to spy on people's location probably don't make people any more comfortable.However, some researchers worked with an unnamed mobile phone company to get a ton of this type of data in order to get an idea of how people move around. While the researchers seem to think the results are surprising, they don't seem all that unexpected. Basically, people tend to just go to a few regular places rather than travel randomly around -- and most people don't travel far from home all that often. I'm somewhat surprised that anyone would have expected otherwise.
What may be more interesting, though, is the brewing controversy over how this data was obtained and whether or not it violated privacy rights or ethics rules. The researchers note that the data was totally anonymized, but we've all seen how any anonymized dataset can be unanonymized with a little work. In some ways, this goes back to a post we had last year from Tom Lee, questioning whether we needed new privacy norms when it came to things like mobile phone tracking. What does seem likely, however, is that we're only going to hear of more and more cases where such tracking data is used, and such questions about privacy and morality probably won't hold much weight next to the desire to get and use that kind of data.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ethics, mobile phones, movement studies, privacy, tracking
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mobile phone tracking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mobile phone tracking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
two-edged sword
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: two-edged sword
Now when it comes to corporations collecting our personal information and then selling,trading,buying it that is a whole different story. When telemarketers call, they are intruding into your space and using your equipment (phone) that you paid for. Since this is an election year, I have been getting a whole bunch of "friendly" calls from Hillary, and John (recorded calls are insulting). When a credit card solicitation arrives in the mail and someone steals it, they can use it for identity theft. Yet there is little interest in stopping these abusive intrusions into your private space.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If You Don't Want It
Problem solved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If You Don't Want It
As long as people are aware of what 'could' be done with this data then they have the choice to use, or not to use the devices.
I think this whole "Privacy" thing is constantly being taken way too far. If you want privacy, then lock your doors, close the blinds and shut off anything that runs on electricity inside your abode.
Otherwise get used to having someone else know what you are/aren't doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you really need that phone ?
For the really paranoid, remove the battery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Already given up that privacy
Yes, laws can be enacted to try to protect that information from misuse, but that information "wants to be free" (or, rather, "other forces will set that information free), free from the artificial barrier holding back its use for other purposes.
Money, persuasion, threats, deception, etc... will set that information free, towards a different purpose.
People need to understand what giving out personal identification does now that we have information technology. Data, once in electronic form, simply will not be protected from unintended use.
We may feel that computers have been around for a long time, but our culture around information is still stuck in a pre-digital age. I haven't the answer; I certainly don't want databases of information being tied together allowing data mining of my digital presence...but I don't see how this can be stopped. And "staying off the grid" doesn't appeal to me either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Though, if you look at where the phone was during normal sleep hours, you can pretty much guess their home address.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NO!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course you are being tracked.
My personal peeve was paying for the GPS chip in the phone without being able to use it myself. My mogul phone lets me use my gps chip so, eh, whatever.
Personally, if I ever needed to not be tracked I'd leave the phone somewhere that gave me a decent alibi.
However in reality I really don't care, it still doesn't make it right, but I really don't care if john law or bob researcher can tell where I spend my time.
And I agree that there is no possible way to "anonymize" that data, if you can tell where I go to sleep or where I work, you can find me.
I would like to see laws put in place that require at least as much rigor as a wiretap to access the location data on a person's phone AND some mandated limit on location data retention.
Good luck to us... we need it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Of course you are being tracked.
Your phone probably does not have GPS. e911, as it's called, is generally implemented by triangulating from cell towers, not satellites. The purpose (or at least one purpose) is to track where people are when they call 911, so no need to make it work if you're out of cell range. Of course it could still be useful if you're only in range of one tower, but since nobody lives outside of cities with lots of towers around, who cares right?
It doesn't make sense for the cell phone maker to spend the extra money putting GPS capability into the phone if nobody benefits from it. The only way that would not be the case is if they sell "different" models where the only difference is the GPS is usable or not, but that would surprise me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Answer
No. Next question.
(and the fact that one has to even ask this and not assume otherwise speaks poorly of us all)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mobile phone tracking
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=6506
My favorite comment from this
"I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?" Chief Harold Hurtt told reporters Wednesday at a regular briefing.
Give an inch they will take a mile...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mobile phone tracking
I agree that privacy is something to protect, but I also realize that as technology progresses that we need to properly understand what we refer to when we talk about "privacy" and how it relates to other things that technology brings us: convenience, security, social interaction, etc.
Blindly wrapping "privacy" around an issue so as to dismiss the potential of technology is to deny the fact that technology is here, will progress, and thus will be abused.
We need to have a greater discussion as to what we refer to as "privacy", what are the goals of "privacy" and what practical limitations we're willing to impose on ourselves in order to keep that privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mobile phone tracking
I agree that technology is here to atay, and will continue to progress, but that does not mean that we simply let it progress for progression sake, without a careful examination of the potential for abuse, and put in place safeguards against that. We shouldnt blindly accept technology either simply because its supposed to make our lives easier (dumber to in some cases)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair Game!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fair Game!
You are blankly giving up any and all technological advances and/or modern conveniences by simply stating that you'd "boycott them in perpetuity". Any and all organizations that have information about you are using them in ways that you likely aren't 100% happy about, and there is the potential (usually realized, though you aren't aware of it) of misuse of that information.
Do you know that none of your neighbours, who work for a large organization (utility, government, bank, etc...) haven't checked up on the records of everyone on their street?
Do you know that the credit card company that tracks your purchases hasn't combined your identity and/or spending patterns with some other database (IRS, law enforcement, immigration, advertising, ...)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
triangulating from cell towers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
triangulating from cell towers
His phone absolutely does have GPS. He said he had the HTC Mogul. He has network-independent GPS and can install third party apps like Garmin's, and he could run it without turning on his cellular radio.
You also said location was "generally implemented by triangulating from cell towers, not satellites." Which is false on two counts:
1) In the US, most phones are CDMA, and have a GPS chip inside from the Snaptrack division of Qualcomm. The GSM carriers tried to use tower solutions to provide location, but haven't had good accuracy, so they are adding GPS to many GSM phones, like my AT&T Tilt. If you are talking about outside the USA, you are almost.
2) There is no triangulation!! Why do people have such a hard time with this? Do you really think that a tower calculates the angle to your location, cross references that angle with other towers to pinpoint a location? Radar calculates angles, and had a rotating antenna that can identify where objects are. Ever see a rotating antenna on a cell tower? No. Current cell towers are ALL ignorant of your relative angle, but they CAN determine your relative distance by calculating signal delay of a calibrated/synchronized time stamp. This is very similar to how GPS does it, just using satellites instead of towers. This is called Time Difference Of Arrival (TDOA), or could be called trilateration.
The poster from #10 that you corrected is actually spot on. Since about 2000, about 95% of new phones sold by CDMA carriers like Sprint or VZW had GPS chips installed "for E911 compliance" but the chips were useless to the customer. You could not install an application that used it, you couldn't see a map, and you couldn't even see a display of your raw latitude and longitude coordinates. Only recently have phone makers exposed ports and APIs so software developoers can tie into the GPS chip.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How do you think they know where to call you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People Stick To Normal Routines
I actually have a small sample of research on this. I've been experimenting with aftermarket GPS like Garmin, Tom Tom, and Magellan devices for about 8 years. Whenever a guest visits me in California, I lend them my car, and teach them to use the GPS (Garmin Streetpilot 2820). Over the 8 years, EVERY person has said "Wow, that thing is awesome. I didn't get lost, and found the addresses, the winery, the museum, and even used it to find a gas station."
So I say to them, "OK, so are you going to buy one?" Four of the twelve people have said the price was too high, and 8/12 said, "Nah. It was good here on vacation, but I don't need that at home. I basically just go to work, and seldom go to places that I don't already know how to find."
I found that surprising, and asked: "Sure, but don't you go to meetings, shows, get-togethers, events at places that you've never been at least once a week?" -"No."
I disagree with my guests thoroughly about the usefulness of a GPS in the car, but that's a different topic. The point here today is that each of these people surprised me with the same reply: they have a pattern, and seldom break from it. Though it seems foreign to me, by the fourth person, I had to accept that this is normal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Informed Consent
"Anonymous" participants, like in this study, have NO such information. It is not allowed, in the US (where the university conducting the study is located) to conduct research in this manner. Period.
They are flirting with a gray area though - they conducted the actual data gathering in another "developed" nation - probably someplace in Europe where there cultural implications would be fairly similar. Are you allowed to ignore the rules just because you're doing it in another country? US Government says "yes", but just about every other governing body says "no", including the American Psychological Association, which should look at de-listing this university and revoking the licenses of the researchers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Informed Consent
We have some competing societal needs here. One need is for individual privacy. Another need is for research. Research findings help government set policy; research findings help product and service innovation.
As Brad alludes to, academia has set up a plethora of rules (including informed consent) to protect research subjects. The rules are administered by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) at University and research centers. IRBs are required at organizations that receive federal grants. IRBs have to sign off on most research that involves human subjects. But the rules are not as clear cut as Brad makes them out to be. For example, the rules are much stricter when the subjects are "at risk" populations (children, mentally ill, prisoners, e.g.) that for the general adult population. And rules are stricter for when subjects are identified rather than anonymous.
I don't know anything about this particular research study, but I know it is possible to the researchers to set up with the cell phone company for the data to already by anonymized when they receive it (that is, obvious identifying information be removed.) Dev, above, notes that GPS identification during sleeping hours pretty much kills that, though - so, agreed, 100% total anonymity is going to be impossible.
So, there is some trade off here. It is possible for a rogue researcher to misuse data (or lose data to someone else who misuses it). But in either case, it would pretty much kill the career of that researcher - so there is a strong incentive for not doing so.
Then, we (as a society) need to weigh the benefits of learning behavioral patterns of people with technology vs. absolute privacy.
My take is that absolutists are usually wrong (I'd say always wrong, but not everyone would get that as humor). What serves society best is a reasoned balance between research and privacy (just as on another front a reasonable balance between security and privacy serves society best.)
The current IRB system and rules is certainly imperfect (ask any researcher who gets government grants), but it is a fairly good protection mechanism.
And, while this particular study - according to Mike - didn't provide us with any earth shattering insights, this kind of study is what uncovers knowledge that contributes to innovation. And innovation is what we are after.
And enlightened public policy as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, I forgot, that only applies to the common person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]