Some People Still Can't Seem To Question Their Car's GPS

from the out-of-the-frying-pan-and-into-germany dept

Welll, it's been over two years since we've had one of these stories here at Techdirt, but some people will still follow their GPS blindly despite every bit of common sense available telling them to do otherwise. Admittedly, for my money, the Darwin-Awards-esque fashion in which some folks will literally follow their GPS over a cliff, up a mountain, or into a drowning-inducing resevoir provide some of the best entertainment bang for the click as far as I'm concerned. And while, for comedy purposes, it may be tempting to litigate against Tom Tom under the notion that these drivers were seriously seeking out Bespin, Mount Olympus, and a mini-Atlantis respectively, the unfortunate truth is that these drivers were just dumb.

Pictured: what happens when you type 'Hoth' as your GPS destination
Image source: CC BY 2.0

Now we can add a lovely elderly woman from Belgium to the list of people who toss common sense to the curb in favor of their GPS, though she admittedly performed this action in such distinctive fashion as to separate herself from the pack.

The woman identified by Het Nieuwsblad as the 67-year-old Sabine Moureau told the paper: "I was absent-minded so I kept on putting my foot down."

Sabine started her journey in Erquelinnes on the morning of last Saturday week. "I was going to pick up my friend in the Brussels North Station" she told the paper. The journey should have taken just over an hour, but she ended up 1,450km from her starting point.

Yes, instead of reaching her destination in Brussels, which Google informs me is in Belgium, she concluded her GPS-led journey in Zagreb, which Google likewise informs me is in Croatia. For those of you who are as European-geography-challenged as I am, this means she essentially drove from the North Sea to the Adriatic Sea. If that doesn't help you much (And why would it? You've already said you're geography-challenged, dummy!), consider that Sabine's trek caused her to touch Belgium, Germany, Austria, Slovenia and finally Croatia, taking something like 12 hours. Perhaps this Google Maps link will really drive home the point. Point C is where she began. Point B is where she wanted to go. Point D is where she did go. Think about that for a bit...

To Sabine's credit, she provides more than just the driving skills of an otter to laugh at. She has quotes, too!

"I saw tons of different signposts, first in French, later in German, but I kept on driving." Sabine had to fill up twice and slept a few hours by the wayside, but claims she never really caught on to the fact that she might be on the wrong track. "It was only when I ended up in Zagreb that I realised I was no longer in Belgium."

Well, I say bless your heart, you wonderfully trusting woman. Were it not for you, Techdirt may have gone 3 full years without a silly GPS story. On the other hand, one has to wonder if the friends you keep are cut from the same cloth as you, because I'd hate to think that your friend is still waiting at the Brussels North Station, wondering where the hell you are.

 

Filed Under: blind following, europe, gps

Justice Department 'Complies' With FOIA Request For GPS Tracking Memos; Hands ACLU 111 Fully Redacted Pages

from the the-answer-is-none;-none-more-black dept

Just recently, we learned that the EFF had been handed what appeared to be several pages of severe formatting errors and faulty Morse code in response to its FOIA request for the secret interpretation of the FISA spying law. There were also the "sobering findings" faux-released by the NSA, which left in only enough unredacted wording to open speculation on these "sobering findings," as well as to publicly lament the surely misguided public debate on the super-secret agency's actions. Now, the news comes to us that the FBI has handed the ACLU a stack of papers that would make any toner supplier very happy.

The ACLU filed a FOIA request last July in hopes of receiving some insight into the FBI's tracking of US citizens via GPS devices. Two months later, it filed a lawsuit against the FBI, forcing the issue. At long last, the FBI has responded... with 111 pages of black ink.

Two key memos outlining the Justice Department's views about when Americans can be surreptitiously tracked with GPS technology are being kept secret by the department despite a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the ACLU to force their release. The FBI’s general counsel discussed the existence of the two memos publicly last year, yet the Justice Department is refusing to release them without huge redactions. 

The word "see" is obviously some sort of joke because there's absolutely nothing to "see" here, unless you consider To, From and Subject fields to be the "smoking gun." Oh, and this one paragraph that leads into 56 straight pages of black ink.

In United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012), the Supreme Court affirmed the suppression of location data generated by a GPS tracking device surreptitiously affixed to a car without court authorization and monitored continuously over a 28-day period.

Yep, that's the power of the FOIA. All the black ink (or blank pages) you could possibly want, delivered months after they're requested. The redactions on these two documents obviously goes far beyond simply protecting sensitive information that might jeopardize ongoing investigations. This is nothing more than the DOJ covering up unconstitutional practices.

The Justice Department's unfortunate decision leaves Americans with no clear understanding of when we will be subjected to tracking — possibly for months at a time — or whether the government will first get a warrant. This is yet another example of secret surveillance policies — like the Justice Department's secret opinions about the Patriot Act's Section 215 — that simply should not exist in a democratic society.

The ACLU is asking the court to order the DOJ to release these memos in full. The Fourth Amendment's reasonable expectation of privacy is undermined by these secret memos, which limit knowledge of law enforcement tracking efforts solely to the executive branch.

The implications of these withheld documents go even further than discussing GPS tracking. FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissman's explanation of the second memo ("Guidance Regarding the Application of United States v. Jones to Additional Investigative Techniques") leaves the door open for tracking via other technology.

[The] second memoranda [sic] is going to be about guidance about what this means for other types of techniques, beyond GPS, because there's no reason to think that this is going to just end with GPS and some of that is going to be very much a judgment call.

It's already common knowledge that law enforcement agencies are using cell phone tracking. As the ACLU points out, wireless carriers already receive 1.5 million requests for data every year, most of which is used for location tracking. Additional technology, such as drones or license plate readers, make endless surveillance a logistic reality, and all without a warrant.

A fully-redacted document doesn't seem to indicate that the FBI is operating within the constraints of United States v. Jones. It signals the very opposite and provides us with another example of how government agencies, when faced with constitutional limitations, are more than happy to simply "interpret" their way around them -- and keep these interpretations out of public view, perhaps indefinitely. It's extremely hypocritical for the FBI and DOJ to sit in a position of law enforcement when they clearly believe abiding by the law is optional.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed Under: doj, foia, gps, redacted, spying
Companies: aclu, eff

Nestle: Buy Our Candy So We Can Hunt You Down

from the and-scare-the-nougat-out-of-you dept

Corporate contests. They so often lead to hijinks at the hands of technology, such as that time the internet decided Mountain Dew's new flavor should be "Gushing Granny." Oh, and there was that one online promotion that sent something called Taylor Swift to sing at a school for the deaf. But, lest you think that this volatile mixture of technology and corporate contests is good only for laughs, picture the following.

You're walking down a street in a European city, reading about how something someone did somewhere upset a major world religion, and you decide you need respite from the madness of the news. So you walk into a corner store, buy a candy bar, and tear it open, ready to bite into a soft, gooey explosion of stress-melting flavor-gasm. That, of course, is when the black helicopters and MiBs appear out of nowhere, rushing you with an ominous black suitcase. If someone froze you right there in that moment, what do you think you would likely expect to happen next?

Image source: CC BY 2.0

Well, you'd be wrong (probably). Because those aren't darkly dressed neo-terrorists that have for some reason decided to specifically blow you up with a neutron bomb (dear lord, you're self-centered). No, it's your friendly folks at Nestle, responding to the GPS technology in your treat to hand you £10,000 in cold, pants-crappingly terrifying cash. It's all part of the new Nestle contest to reward customers by tracking them down via GPS technology in their candybars within 24 hours of being consumed. They named this campaign "Nestle: we will find you!", because apparently "Nestle: we could find and kill you for eating our products anytime we wanted to" didn't strike quite the right tone.

Now, I know what you're thinking. You're thinking that there's no reason for me to think this contest will play out the way I described above. Well, here's Nestle's own ad for the contest.

Now, I'm generally all for creative promotions, but this all seems terrifying. A private company is going to track me down via GPS and throw a suitcase at me in a major city? Well, not me, since not only am I not European, but I'm one of the six people on the planet that absolutely hates chocolate...but you, sweet Euro-reader! It could be you who fudges your pants after eating fudge! So, in conclusion, the article gives a listing of the candy bars you should avoid if you don't want to be hunted down.

The grand prizes for Nestle's We Will Find You promotion, involve these four chocolate products: KitKat 4 Finger, KitKat Chunky, Aero Peppermint Medium and Yorkie Milk.

($10 says there's a porno parody of those candy names out there somewhere.)

Filed Under: candy bar, gps, location, promotions, scary
Companies: nestle

Court: If Violating Your Privacy Helps The Police, It's Not Violating Your Privacy

from the say-what-now? dept

In a horrifyingly bad ruling, the 6th Circuit appeals court has said that the owner of a prepaid phone has no 4th Amendment rights in protecting his location info from law enforcement. There have been a number of cases touching on this subject, with a few different rulings back and forth, including more than a few in the federal courts that argue tracking someone's location isn't a 4th Amendment violation. But, even if you grant that, this particular ruling is egregiously bad and poorly argued. The EFF highlights some of the more brain-numbing aspects of the ruling:

In what can only be described as a results-oriented opinion, the court found Skinner had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the cell phone location data because "if a tool used to transport contraband gives off a signal that can be tracked for location, certainly the police can track the signal." Otherwise, "technology would help criminals but not the police." In other words, because cell phones can be used to commit crimes, there can't be any Fourth Amendment privacy rights in them. If this sounds like an over-simplistic description of the legal reasoning in an opinion we disagree with, the sad reality is that the court's conclusion really did boil down to this shallow understanding of the law.

Yes, you read that right. Basically, if you've broken the law, according to the court, you have no 4th Amendment rights. And, then it goes further, by basically noting, because anyone might be a criminal, we might as well remove all of their 4th Amendment rights as well, because doing so might help the police. Of course, this goes against the very basis of the 4th Amendment.

The story involves police tracking a guy accused of being a drug runner, via the GPS in his pre-paid phone, without getting a warrant. The guy, Melvin Skinner, pointed out that this violated his 4th Amendment rights, but, as noted above, the court disagreed.

Julian Sanchez walks through the many ways the court got some rather basic things wrong in their ruling:

The court proceeds through a series of lazy and underdeveloped analogies:

Otherwise dogs could not be used to track a fugitive if the fugitive did not know that the dog hounds had his scent. A getaway car could not be identified and followed based on the license plate number if the driver reasonably thought he had gotten away unseen. The recent number of cell phone technology does not change this. If it did, then technology would help criminals but not the police. It follows that Skinner had no expectation of privacy in the context of this case, just as the driver of a getaway car has no expectation of privacy in the particular combination of colors of the car’s paint.

But it does not follow at all. “What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection,” the Supreme Court explained in the seminal case of Katz v. United States, “But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.” Any member of the public can buy a dog and follow a scent. Any member of the public can view and copy down a license plate number. Any member of the public can view the external paint job of a car. But any member of the public cannot just track the GPS signal of a random cell phone—and if they could, most of us would be extremely wary about carrying cell phones. Unlike all these other examples, GPS tracking as employed here depends crucially on the ability of police to invoke state authority—a seemingly salient distinction the court fails to take any note of.

That's not all. The court seems equally confused about other cases, and both the EFF and Sanchez's link above details other mistakes concerning other case law. This isn't just a case of people having different interpretations. This seems like a clear case of a court not really bothering much with the details or the case law and just seeing one thing: this guy was a criminal and the GPS info was useful in finding him, therefore it must be okay. This is a very troubling precedent to have on the books no matter how you look at it.

And it will impact many Americans. While the focus in the ruling is on the "but he's a criminal!!!!" aspect, it applies across the board to pre-paid mobile phone users (well, at least those covered by the 6th Circuit). And that's about a quarter of mobile phone subscriptions. As the EFF put it, in an effort to make sure criminals get no privacy location privacy rights, the court has killed such rights for everyone else as well -- which is exactly the opposite of how our system is supposed to work.

Filed Under: criminal, drug dealing, gps, prepaid, privacy

Boston Shuts Down Uber Because Massachusetts Doesn't Approve Of The GPS

from the no,-seriously dept

We've written plenty of stories about ridiculous (and ridiculously slow to adapt) government policies that simply don't keep up with the times, which then hinder new, innovative and disruptive services. One company that seems to be running into such things all the time is Uber, who is taking on local state and city regulations around the country as it tries to offer its innovative (and quite useful) transportation service in various metropolitan areas. You may remember the big fight in DC about some regulations that would have hindered Uber by forcing it to charge high prices. Up in Boston, things are even more bizarre. The company has been effectively told to cease and desist from offering its service. This has happened elsewhere, due to various silly regulations regarding cab and livery services, but in Massachusetts they seem to do everything in an especially screwed up manner and this is no exception.

The reason Uber can no longer serve the Boston region: Because they were making use of this crazy newfangled technology called "GPS" to measure the distances that cars traveled for the purpose of billing users.

It seems that the Massachusetts Division of Standards, and its laws covering "weights and measures," is so out of date that it has not been updated to recognize GPS as an appropriate "weight and measure" system for distance. As if to prove just how incredibly out of touch these folks are, in the official letter ordering Uber to stop service, they repeatedly refer to the iPhone as an "I phone." They also refer to the Global Positioning System as the Global Positioning Services. These are the people in charge of killing off innovation. Incredible.

Basically, the state had someone sign up for Uber, take a ride in the car as a "sting" (one of the people in the car's job title is -- and I'm not joking -- the "Sealer of Weights & Measures") and then cite the driver after seeing that he (*gasp*!) used a GPS device on his phone to measure the distance traveled. When Uber pointed out that GPS has been around and widely used for decades, the Massachusetts Division of Standards argued that may well be... but since GPS is not for commercial purposes they can't accept it. Seriously.

Global Positioning Services (GPS ) technology is not an issue as it is and has been widely used in non-commercial applications for a number of years. However, GPS has not been used in commercial applications for assessing transportation charges until Uber Technologies, Inc. introduced its use for this purpose. The major problem at this time is the fact that there are no established measurement standards for its current application and use in determining transportation costs similar to that of approved measurement systems for taximeters and odometers. Massachusetts law does not sanction unapproved devices for use in commercial transactions.

The idea that GPS isn't used in commercial applications is silly. GPS has been widely used by the military for decades and has been used in commercial applications for quite some time as well. It's beyond silly to think that because some clueless "Sealer of Weights and Measures" is still focused on last century's technology that GPS is not a viable (or even common) technology for this purpose. This seems like a clear case of a totally out of date bureaucracy actively hindering innovation for no reason other than general luddism.

Filed Under: boston, cabs, gps, livery, massachusetts, rides, weights and measures
Companies: uber

UK Ministry of Defence Close To Gaining Patent On Key GPS Technology; US Not Amused

from the so-much-for-special-relationships dept

Normally, we think of the US as the champion of patenting "anything under the sun that is made by man," while the UK is generally more reticent. So it's rather surprising to find the roles reversed in the following story about a new standard for the GPS navigation system:

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is weeks away from approving a controversial British patent that could force American consumers to pay more for GPS navigation devices and even affect the operations of the American military.

The patent is one of dozens filed around the world by the British defense establishment asserting ownership of technology developed jointly by the United States and the European Union (EU). The patents lay claim to a signal structure crafted by American and European experts to make Europe’s still-emerging Galileo satellite navigation system interoperable with GPS and improve service for users of both systems.

This is no ordinary patent spat -- it could have global consequences: according to the article quoted above, US officials are so incensed about this unsporting move that they might drop the interoperability plans altogether. What's ironic here is that the US was assuming that the new standard's technology formed a kind of commons -- available to all, but owned by no one -- and it was the UK that decided to enclose part of that commons using patents, a move which now risks destroying it for everyone.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: gps, navigation, uk

Senator Franken Questions Legality Of DOJ Having Mobile Operators Reveal Where People Are

from the that-ol'-4th-amendment-thing dept

It's long been known that law enforcement relies heavily on mobile phone providers to give them data on where people are, based on the location info on their mobile devices. Back in 2009, a Freedom of Information Act request revealed, for example, that Sprint had provided law enforcement officials with GPS data a staggering 8 million times in the previous year. Now, it's important to note that many of those times were apparently multiple "pings" on the same person/device. But, still. You can bet those numbers have only gone up. Last year, Senator Wyden proposed legislation requiring that law enforcement get a warrant. He has also hinted strongly at the idea that part of the government's secret interpretation of the PATRIOT Act involves access to location info on just about anyone with a mobile device.

It appears that others are taking some interest in the possibility of widespread government tracking without a warrant as well. Senator Al Franken has sent a letter to Attorney General Holder asking some pretty pointed questions about how frequently the government gets location data from mobile service providers, and what legal standards it uses. He points to the Jones ruling, which suggested there could be a 4th Amendment violation for placing a GPS device on a car, as one of the reasons for his concern.

I was very concerned to read recent reports suggesting that state and local law enforcement agencies may be working around the protections of Jones by requesting the location records of individuals directly from their wireless carriers instead of tracking the individuals through stand-alone GPS devices installed on their vehicles. I was further concerned to learn that in many cases, these agencies appear to be obtaining precise records of individuals' past and current movements from carriers without first obtaining a warrant for this information. I think that these actions may violate the spirit if not the letter of the Jones decision.

I am writing to ask you about the Department of Justice's own practices in requesting location information from wireless carriers. I am eager to learn about how frequently the Department requests location information and what legal standard the Department believes it must meet to obtain it. I would also like to know how the Department may have changed these practices since the Jones decision.

While I certainly appreciate this effort and line of inquiry -- I'm not sure that Jones really makes that much of a difference. As we said when it came out, the Justices really danced around the larger issues, with an extremely narrow ruling, which left open the question of how it applied to GPS devices that weren't put on the cars by law enforcement. That is, the ruling focused almost entirely on whether or not the placing of the device constituted a search -- not about the use of such a device. Still, the government's actions need much greater scrutiny here, as there's an awful lot of evidence suggesting that law enforcement is using the power to get people's locations from their mobile phone providers at an incredible rate, and with little to no oversight. I doubt that AG Holder will provide useful answers to this request, but it's still good that Senator Franken is asking.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, al franken, doj, eric holder, gps, patriot act, ron wyden, tracking
Companies: sprint

National Highway Transportation Safety Agency Says You Can Keep Your GPS -- As Long As It's Completely Useless

from the to-continue-map,-please-eject-and-turn-to-Side-'B' dept

The National Highway Transportation Safety Agency (hereafter "NHTSA" or "OMG,SRSLY?") just published its recommendations and guidelines for reducing driver distraction, America's number one cause of traffic accidents.* Universally hailed as a "dense document" and "full of minutia," the NHTSA's lengthy tome provides car makers with numerous diagrams and sub-paragraphs to aid them in building distraction-free vehicles for the Americans everywhere who wish to live a long, prosperous life full of road safety and optimal viewing angles.

*There are no statistics available to back up this claim, but obviously it must be true or this might seem like some sort of colossal overreaction.

Now, there are many drivers who feel that having a GPS system in their vehicle is a necessity. Much more "user-friendly" and less distracting than its predecessors, the multi-paged atlas and the impossibly-folded road map, the GPS has made it possible for travelers to drive into unfamiliar areas with confidence and ease. No longer forced to squint at 4-pt font road names or extrapolate from under-detailed inset maps, drivers can now receive easy-to-follow instructions delivered in plain English (or local language), whether the destination is the San Diego Zoo, Grandma's house, or a quick drive off a cliff/into a lake.

Well, the NHTSA has decided that the GPS might possibly be too convenient, what with its moving display and modulated vocal instructions. According to the guidelines published in the VMNDDGIVED (Visual-Manual NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines for In-Vehicle Electronic Devices), GPS devices are welcome to act as co-pilot on your trip(s) so long as they don't do anything distracting -- like move, for instance.

Section V.5.b of the document titled Visual-Manual NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines for In-Vehicle Electronic Devices says that "Dynamic, continuously moving maps are not recommended."

The section, which deals with photographs or videos, says that static or near-static maps for the purpose of driving directions are acceptable. Near static is defined as being updated every few seconds.

Considering your vehicle is in motion, it obviously makes the most sense that your map wouldn't be. Updating "every few seconds" almost seems like it would be useful, but when you're driving in fast-moving traffic, a Rand McNally slideshow just isn't going to cut it. Those of us familiar with electronic devices would likely be prone to chalk this up to "lag" and take to the internets to bash the metropolitan area's "framerate."

But the NHTSA isn't done bricking your GPS. It actually has more suggestions!

Every current installed navigation system uses the car as a fixed point, and shows the map moving around it. NHTSA wants that changed so as to keep the map fixed. Even showing the position of the car moving on the map could be considered a dynamic image. The recommendation seems to suggest that the position of the car could only be updated every couple of seconds. Likewise, the map could be refreshed once the car has left the currently displayed area.

So, now drivers will be battling choppy framerates and the "fog of war driving." The previously-useful GPS system will be neutered into a "safe for driving" dashboard Rotoscope, offering directions moments after you need them and a view of the surrounding area just as you exit it. Somehow the NHTSA believes that this crippled technology would be better and less distracting for drivers.

[A]lthough NHTSA includes the results of driver distraction studies in the guidelines, it has no testing directly related to using a navigation system. Instead there are more general conclusions against any tasks that require looking at a device for periods of more than 2 seconds, or a series of glances that amount to more than 12 seconds at at time.

I would think that looking at a static map, and trying to find the particular street which you are on, would by much more time-consuming than seeing your exact position on a dynamic map.

But, wait! There's (oh dear god) more!

The NHTSA guidelines also conclude that drivers can not comprehend more than 30 characters of text with a quick glance. Here is an example of 30 characters of text: "The new NHTSA guidelines make navig".

Along with recommending that in-vehicle electronics display no more than 30 text characters at a time, the guidelines also take a position against scrolling text, so you could not read the rest of that sentence by having it roll on by.

The CNET post contains an image of an in-dash mp3 player which displays more than 30 characters, clearly violating these guidelines: As Wayne Cunningham points out, the NHTSA thinks all drivers are hypnotized by the siren text of LCD screens.

Most people might merely glance down to read the current song title off the screen as they drive, but the NHTSA guidelines assume that when text is displayed, we drivers will be compelled to read all of it.

Now that we've got a better idea of how the NHTSA views the public (as compulsive morons), it explains why the agency feels compelled to handle every single aspect of driving. If all of these distractions are removed or rendered useless, traffic accidents will decrease astronomically, resulting in a new Golden Age of Driving, ushered in by the aggressive nannying of thousands of well-meaning bureaucrats. Of course, the NHTSA doesn't actually have much in the way of evidence to back up its heavy meddling, but that's so unsurprising I may as well have skipped writing this sentence at all:

The NHTSA document offers some figures that do not necessarily support the hours of work that must have been put in to come up with the guidelines. The document shows the number of accident reports for 2006 to 2010.

In 2010, the number of police-reported accidents amounted to 5,409,000. Of those, 17 percent were reportedly caused by driver distraction, an ample amount. However, only about half of one percent of the total crashes were caused by distraction from an in-vehicle system.

Let's give the NHTSA the benefit of a doubt. Let's say it's right, even though it has no evidence to back up its assertions. GPS systems are rendered useless but people still need directions. Here are two possibilities:

• The return of the accordioned road map, unfolded across the lap/passenger seat, scanned quickly between swerves and curses by the not-distracted-at-all driver who only occasionally has to drag the whole works across the steering wheel to pinpoint the difference between 1st Street and 1st Ave. at 45 mph.
• People turn to their smartphones, most of which have built-in GPS apps or have any number of them available to download. Instead of quickly glancing at a large screen at dashboard level, they'll be glancing furtively downward towards their non-driving hand in order to avoid being ticketed for Distracted Driving via Cellphone Usage.

Win-win! Or maybe the NHTSA could throw its weight behind something that might actually help, as Cunningham suggests:

My recommendation to NHTSA would be to spend its work hours drawing up a good driver training curriculum. Good, well-trained drivers are the best way to minimize the number of accidents.

It's so crazy, it might work.

Filed Under: gps, nhtsa, safety