Does Verizon's Monitoring Of Customer Behavior Violate Wiretap Laws?

Does Verizon's Monitoring Of Customer Behavior Violate Wiretap Laws?

http://j.mp/OFR4fJ (Consumerist)

At an industry conference, a VZW exec touted the both how easy it is
to acquire all this data and how much money can be made from it.
"We're able to view just everything that they do," he told the
audience. "And that's really where data is going today. Data is the
new oil." He added: "We're able to analyze what people are viewing on
their handsets. If you're at an MLB game, we can tell if you're
viewing ESPN, we can tell if you're viewing MLB, we can tell what
social networking sites you're activating, if you're sending out
mobile usage content that's user-generated on video."

On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 00:17:21 -0500, NotMe wrote:

> Does Verizon's Monitoring Of Customer Behavior Violate Wiretap Laws?
>
> http://j.mp/OFR4fJ (Consumerist)
>
> At an industry conference, a VZW exec touted the both how easy it is
> to acquire all this data and how much money can be made from it.
> "We're able to view just everything that they do," he told the
> audience. "And that's really where data is going today. Data is the
> new oil." He added: "We're able to analyze what people are viewing on
> their handsets. If you're at an MLB game, we can tell if you're
> viewing ESPN, we can tell if you're viewing MLB, we can tell what
> social networking sites you're activating, if you're sending out
> mobile usage content that's user-generated on video."

That's nothing really new. Comcast can see whatever you're doing, too.

"hachiroku" <haciroku@e86.GTS> wrote in message
news:5085f9f8$0$60699$c3e8da3$5d8fb80f@news.astraw eb.com...
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 00:17:21 -0500, NotMe wrote:
>
>> Does Verizon's Monitoring Of Customer Behavior Violate Wiretap Laws?
>>
>> http://j.mp/OFR4fJ (Consumerist)
>>
>> At an industry conference, a VZW exec touted the both how easy it is
>> to acquire all this data and how much money can be made from it.
>> "We're able to view just everything that they do," he told the
>> audience. "And that's really where data is going today. Data is the
>> new oil." He added: "We're able to analyze what people are viewing
>> on
>> their handsets. If you're at an MLB game, we can tell if you're
>> viewing ESPN, we can tell if you're viewing MLB, we can tell what
>> social networking sites you're activating, if you're sending out
>> mobile usage content that's user-generated on video."
>
> That's nothing really new. Comcast can see whatever you're doing, too.

First time I've seen where someone inside commented openly on the subject.

"NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:k5qnp7$f4$2@dont-email.me...
> Does Verizon's Monitoring Of Customer Behavior Violate Wiretap Laws?
>
> http://j.mp/OFR4fJ (Consumerist)
>
> At an industry conference, a VZW exec touted the both how easy it is
> to acquire all this data and how much money can be made from it.
> "We're able to view just everything that they do," he told the
> audience. "And that's really where data is going today. Data is the
> new oil." He added: "We're able to analyze what people are viewing on
> their handsets. If you're at an MLB game, we can tell if you're
> viewing ESPN, we can tell if you're viewing MLB, we can tell what
> social networking sites you're activating, if you're sending out
> mobile usage content that's user-generated on video."
>
>

If you are at an MLB game, or NFL for that matter, or any other sporting
event, they can tell which section of the stands you are in and send you a
coupon for the concession stand in the concourse that is nearest to your
seat. If you are at the mall, they can send you ads for the store you are
walking past, or for one of the snack stands in the food court.

As you drive down the highway advertisers can send you stuff JUST BECAUSE
you drove past a cell tower. (This happened to me almost ten years ago.)

I don't think this is wiretap, and is not in violation of any laws. That is,
it ought to violate a law or two (or more), but it does not violate wiretap
law.

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:k66ghj$h7m$1@dont-email.me...
>
> "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:k5qnp7$f4$2@dont-email.me...
>> Does Verizon's Monitoring Of Customer Behavior Violate Wiretap Laws?
>>
>> http://j.mp/OFR4fJ (Consumerist)
>>
>> At an industry conference, a VZW exec touted the both how easy it is
>> to acquire all this data and how much money can be made from it.
>> "We're able to view just everything that they do," he told the
>> audience. "And that's really where data is going today. Data is the
>> new oil." He added: "We're able to analyze what people are viewing on
>> their handsets. If you're at an MLB game, we can tell if you're
>> viewing ESPN, we can tell if you're viewing MLB, we can tell what
>> social networking sites you're activating, if you're sending out
>> mobile usage content that's user-generated on video."
>
> If you are at an MLB game, or NFL for that matter, or any other sporting
> event, they can tell which section of the stands you are in and send you a
> coupon for the concession stand in the concourse that is nearest to your
> seat. If you are at the mall, they can send you ads for the store you are
> walking past, or for one of the snack stands in the food court.
>
> As you drive down the highway advertisers can send you stuff JUST BECAUSE
> you drove past a cell tower. (This happened to me almost ten years ago.)
>
> I don't think this is wiretap, and is not in violation of any laws. That
> is, it ought to violate a law or two (or more), but it does not violate
> wiretap law.

I'm basing my comment on experience. In one case where I was indirectly
involved this was done in the Miami market and the user file legal action
and the carrier settled.

I expect the racking action may also violate one or more of the stalking
laws. Kay Bailey Hutchison put one on the map and to my understanding it
does have teeth.

If I received such a coupon I'd give the company that paid for the game an
ear full might not make much difference but it would put snap in their
shorts. BTDT and had a court order to back it up.

On 10/23/2012 12:02 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:k5qnp7$f4$2@dont-email.me...
>> Does Verizon's Monitoring Of Customer Behavior Violate Wiretap Laws?
>>
>> http://j.mp/OFR4fJ (Consumerist)
>>
>> At an industry conference, a VZW exec touted the both how easy it is
>> to acquire all this data and how much money can be made from it.
>> "We're able to view just everything that they do," he told the
>> audience. "And that's really where data is going today. Data is the
>> new oil." He added: "We're able to analyze what people are viewing on
>> their handsets. If you're at an MLB game, we can tell if you're
>> viewing ESPN, we can tell if you're viewing MLB, we can tell what
>> social networking sites you're activating, if you're sending out
>> mobile usage content that's user-generated on video."
>>
>>
>
> If you are at an MLB game, or NFL for that matter, or any other sporting
> event, they can tell which section of the stands you are in and send you
> a coupon for the concession stand in the concourse that is nearest to
> your seat. If you are at the mall, they can send you ads for the store
> you are walking past, or for one of the snack stands in the food court.
>
> As you drive down the highway advertisers can send you stuff JUST
> BECAUSE you drove past a cell tower. (This happened to me almost ten
> years ago.)
>
> I don't think this is wiretap, and is not in violation of any laws. That
> is, it ought to violate a law or two (or more), but it does not violate
> wiretap law.
>
>
>
If you don't like the advertising, DO NOT BUY the products and/or
services being advertized.

Previously on alt.cellular.verizon, Jeff Strickland said:

> If you are at an MLB game, or NFL for that matter, or any other sporting
> event, they can tell which section of the stands you are in and send you a
> coupon for the concession stand in the concourse that is nearest to your
> seat. If you are at the mall, they can send you ads for the store you are
> walking past, or for one of the snack stands in the food court.

GPS technology may be accurate enough to locate your section of a
stadium - if you are in an outdoor stadium - but it is NOT accurate
enough to tell you're walking past a The Gap or TCBY store in the local
mall.

Outside, in good weather and in the open (ie, not in an "urban jungle"
where big buildings cause signal reflections) GPS accuracy is good for
about a 30 foot diameter, but indoors it's not even that accurate due
to interference of the building itself.

If you're thinking of geolocation using cellular tracking, that MIGHT
locate you within a few hundred feet, most likely within a mile or two.

> As you drive down the highway advertisers can send you stuff JUST BECAUSE
> you drove past a cell tower. (This happened to me almost ten years ago.)

The only time something like that has happened to me is via my Garmin's
FM based traffic receiver, never on my phone.

--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
Double ROT13 encoded for your protection

"Home is where, when you have to go there, they have to take you in."
(Cordelia Vorkosigan [Lois McMaster Bujold, "The Vor Game"])

"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:
>if you don't like the advertising, DO NOT BUY the products and/or services being advertised.

I tried that. But the damn stuff still just keeps coming...

"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Kv2dnSdpStGtbBrNnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@giganews.com ...
> On 10/23/2012 12:02 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>
>> "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>> news:k5qnp7$f4$2@dont-email.me...
>>> Does Verizon's Monitoring Of Customer Behavior Violate Wiretap Laws?
>>>
>>> http://j.mp/OFR4fJ (Consumerist)
>>>
>>> At an industry conference, a VZW exec touted the both how easy it is
>>> to acquire all this data and how much money can be made from it.
>>> "We're able to view just everything that they do," he told the
>>> audience. "And that's really where data is going today. Data is the
>>> new oil." He added: "We're able to analyze what people are viewing
>>> on
>>> their handsets. If you're at an MLB game, we can tell if you're
>>> viewing ESPN, we can tell if you're viewing MLB, we can tell what
>>> social networking sites you're activating, if you're sending out
>>> mobile usage content that's user-generated on video."
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If you are at an MLB game, or NFL for that matter, or any other sporting
>> event, they can tell which section of the stands you are in and send you
>> a coupon for the concession stand in the concourse that is nearest to
>> your seat. If you are at the mall, they can send you ads for the store
>> you are walking past, or for one of the snack stands in the food court.
>>
>> As you drive down the highway advertisers can send you stuff JUST
>> BECAUSE you drove past a cell tower. (This happened to me almost ten
>> years ago.)
>>
>> I don't think this is wiretap, and is not in violation of any laws. That
>> is, it ought to violate a law or two (or more), but it does not violate
>> wiretap law.
>>
>>
>>
> If you don't like the advertising, DO NOT BUY the products and/or services
> being advertized.

I pay for the phone and the service. I am not paid to receive their
advertising.

I value my privacy and likewise take the necessary steps to prevent abuse.

On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 17:51:32 -0500, "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>I am not paid to receive their advertising.

In many cases you are paid to receive advertising by getting a reduced
price in the product you buy. For example newspapers and magazines.

I kind of like the Amazon Kindle approach. If you don't like the
embedded advertising you can pay extra to get rid of it. Likewise with
many phone apps.

"AaronL" <56987fff34@fakeemail.com> wrote in message
news:m77h88hrb9oi029acgte95ob23v6uadpsp@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 17:51:32 -0500, "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>I am not paid to receive their advertising.
>
> In many cases you are paid to receive advertising by getting a reduced
> price in the product you buy. For example newspapers and magazines.

Weak analogy. Yes the newspaper/magazines know the address where the rags
are delivered but do not and cannot track where I might be when I read them.

> I kind of like the Amazon Kindle approach. If you don't like the
> embedded advertising you can pay extra to get rid of it. Likewise with
> many phone apps.

Kindle has sufficent other problems that that eventuality is extrealy
unlikely in either mode.

"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Kv2dnSdpStGtbBrNnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@giganews.com ...
> On 10/23/2012 12:02 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>
>> "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>> news:k5qnp7$f4$2@dont-email.me...
>>> Does Verizon's Monitoring Of Customer Behavior Violate Wiretap Laws?
>>>
>>> http://j.mp/OFR4fJ (Consumerist)
>>>
>>> At an industry conference, a VZW exec touted the both how easy it is
>>> to acquire all this data and how much money can be made from it.
>>> "We're able to view just everything that they do," he told the
>>> audience. "And that's really where data is going today. Data is the
>>> new oil." He added: "We're able to analyze what people are viewing
>>> on
>>> their handsets. If you're at an MLB game, we can tell if you're
>>> viewing ESPN, we can tell if you're viewing MLB, we can tell what
>>> social networking sites you're activating, if you're sending out
>>> mobile usage content that's user-generated on video."
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If you are at an MLB game, or NFL for that matter, or any other sporting
>> event, they can tell which section of the stands you are in and send you
>> a coupon for the concession stand in the concourse that is nearest to
>> your seat. If you are at the mall, they can send you ads for the store
>> you are walking past, or for one of the snack stands in the food court.
>>
>> As you drive down the highway advertisers can send you stuff JUST
>> BECAUSE you drove past a cell tower. (This happened to me almost ten
>> years ago.)
>>
>> I don't think this is wiretap, and is not in violation of any laws. That
>> is, it ought to violate a law or two (or more), but it does not violate
>> wiretap law.
>>
>>
>>
> If you don't like the advertising, DO NOT BUY the products and/or services
> being advertized.
>
>


More to the point, if you don't want to be spied upon, turn your phone off.

"Jeffrey Kaplan" <nomail@gordol.org> wrote in message
news:bc1g88hfbmpkn9t57p9etbtg6g4pl0srt3@gordol.org ...
> Previously on alt.cellular.verizon, Jeff Strickland said:
>
>> If you are at an MLB game, or NFL for that matter, or any other sporting
>> event, they can tell which section of the stands you are in and send you
>> a
>> coupon for the concession stand in the concourse that is nearest to your
>> seat. If you are at the mall, they can send you ads for the store you are
>> walking past, or for one of the snack stands in the food court.
>
> GPS technology may be accurate enough to locate your section of a
> stadium - if you are in an outdoor stadium - but it is NOT accurate
> enough to tell you're walking past a The Gap or TCBY store in the local
> mall.
>
> Outside, in good weather and in the open (ie, not in an "urban jungle"
> where big buildings cause signal reflections) GPS accuracy is good for
> about a 30 foot diameter, but indoors it's not even that accurate due
> to interference of the building itself.
>
> If you're thinking of geolocation using cellular tracking, that MIGHT
> locate you within a few hundred feet, most likely within a mile or two.
>
>> As you drive down the highway advertisers can send you stuff JUST BECAUSE
>> you drove past a cell tower. (This happened to me almost ten years ago.)
>
> The only time something like that has happened to me is via my Garmin's
> FM based traffic receiver, never on my phone.
>

Sadly, or not, it was reported two years ago that stores in the mall could
track patrons as they moved from one store to the next. If somebody walked
out of the hobby store, then the game store, the local outlet of Sid's Suit
City would not be interested in sending a coupon for a free shirt if you
bought a suit. They know where you are shopping. Trust me. The idea was that
mall security could leverage the data on general crowd behavior to know
where to place the security personnel. The downside was that mall patrons
could be tracked on an individual basis. Perhaps watching a blip on a screen
go from the hobby shop to the game store would not prevent an ad from Sid's
Suit City, but it was indeed possible that there could be large numbers of
people moving from one area of the mall to another, and advertising could be
(and was) sent to phones depending on which way they were moving inside of
the mall.

Just because you have not received an email from the local whore house does
not mean that what I said is inaccurate. I'm telling you, they can and do
send messages to people for no other reason than they drove past a cell
tower. Maybe they have stopped doing this, which would be a good thing in my
opinion, but just because they stopped does not mean it cannot be done. It
has been done and it can still be done.

I gave two examples from my personal experience that supports the basic
ideals of the article that was referred to in the original post. It is my
opinion that while these may be viewed as intrusive -- I believe it is
intrusive and ought to be stopped -- it is not a violation of wiretap laws.
A private dick can sit on the corner outside of your house and follow you as
you drive across town to your girlfriend's house -- which I assume your wife
would object to -- and this is not wiretap. The cops can follow you around
town as you distribute heroin to school kids, and this is not wiretap. The
phone company can track you as you stroll through the mall, and this is not
wiretap. GPS isn't needed. A phone talks to a tower, and it can be
calculated that the phone is moving southwest at 3mph based on the signal
strength and other information that has nothing to do with GPS.

I don't see the phone company's following us as wiretap. I see it as
offensive, and I do not support it in any way, but it's not wiretap.

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:42:49 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlrjeff@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Jeffrey Kaplan" <nomail@gordol.org> wrote in message
>news:bc1g88hfbmpkn9t57p9etbtg6g4pl0srt3@gordol.or g...
>> Previously on alt.cellular.verizon, Jeff Strickland said:
>>
>>> If you are at an MLB game, or NFL for that matter, or any other sporting
>>> event, they can tell which section of the stands you are in and send you
>>> a
>>> coupon for the concession stand in the concourse that is nearest to your
>>> seat. If you are at the mall, they can send you ads for the store you are
>>> walking past, or for one of the snack stands in the food court.
>>
>> GPS technology may be accurate enough to locate your section of a
>> stadium - if you are in an outdoor stadium - but it is NOT accurate
>> enough to tell you're walking past a The Gap or TCBY store in the local
>> mall.
>>
>> Outside, in good weather and in the open (ie, not in an "urban jungle"
>> where big buildings cause signal reflections) GPS accuracy is good for
>> about a 30 foot diameter, but indoors it's not even that accurate due
>> to interference of the building itself.
>>
>> If you're thinking of geolocation using cellular tracking, that MIGHT
>> locate you within a few hundred feet, most likely within a mile or two.
>>
>>> As you drive down the highway advertisers can send you stuff JUST BECAUSE
>>> you drove past a cell tower. (This happened to me almost ten years ago.)
>>
>> The only time something like that has happened to me is via my Garmin's
>> FM based traffic receiver, never on my phone.
>>
>
>Sadly, or not, it was reported two years ago that stores in the mall could
>track patrons as they moved from one store to the next. If somebody walked
>out of the hobby store, then the game store, the local outlet of Sid's Suit
>City would not be interested in sending a coupon for a free shirt if you
>bought a suit. They know where you are shopping. Trust me. The idea was that
>mall security could leverage the data on general crowd behavior to know
>where to place the security personnel. The downside was that mall patrons
>could be tracked on an individual basis. Perhaps watching a blip on a screen
>go from the hobby shop to the game store would not prevent an ad from Sid's
>Suit City, but it was indeed possible that there could be large numbers of
>people moving from one area of the mall to another, and advertising could be
>(and was) sent to phones depending on which way they were moving inside of
>the mall.
>
>Just because you have not received an email from the local whore house does
>not mean that what I said is inaccurate. I'm telling you, they can and do
>send messages to people for no other reason than they drove past a cell
>tower. Maybe they have stopped doing this, which would be a good thing in my
>opinion, but just because they stopped does not mean it cannot be done. It
>has been done and it can still be done.
>
>I gave two examples from my personal experience that supports the basic
>ideals of the article that was referred to in the original post. It is my
>opinion that while these may be viewed as intrusive -- I believe it is
>intrusive and ought to be stopped -- it is not a violation of wiretap laws.
>A private dick can sit on the corner outside of your house and follow you as
>you drive across town to your girlfriend's house -- which I assume your wife
>would object to -- and this is not wiretap. The cops can follow you around
>town as you distribute heroin to school kids, and this is not wiretap. The
>phone company can track you as you stroll through the mall, and this is not
>wiretap. GPS isn't needed. A phone talks to a tower, and it can be
>calculated that the phone is moving southwest at 3mph based on the signal
>strength and other information that has nothing to do with GPS.
>
>I don't see the phone company's following us as wiretap. I see it as
>offensive, and I do not support it in any way, but it's not wiretap.

Current technology can't do what you claim it's been doing for several
years. Cellular technology falls short and GPS technology falls short.
If you seriously think you're being tracked (by cell or GPS or
whatever) as you walk through a mall, something else entirely is going
on. Maybe someone is following you as you walk?

--
Paul Miner

"Paul Miner" <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote in message
news:ffui881ci9c37k1i599mcsbl5ngnbukis3@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:42:49 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
> <crwlrjeff@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jeffrey Kaplan" <nomail@gordol.org> wrote in message
>>news:bc1g88hfbmpkn9t57p9etbtg6g4pl0srt3@gordol.o rg...
>>> Previously on alt.cellular.verizon, Jeff Strickland said:
>>>
>>>> If you are at an MLB game, or NFL for that matter, or any other
>>>> sporting
>>>> event, they can tell which section of the stands you are in and send
>>>> you
>>>> a
>>>> coupon for the concession stand in the concourse that is nearest to
>>>> your
>>>> seat. If you are at the mall, they can send you ads for the store you
>>>> are
>>>> walking past, or for one of the snack stands in the food court.
>>>
>>> GPS technology may be accurate enough to locate your section of a
>>> stadium - if you are in an outdoor stadium - but it is NOT accurate
>>> enough to tell you're walking past a The Gap or TCBY store in the local
>>> mall.
>>>
>>> Outside, in good weather and in the open (ie, not in an "urban jungle"
>>> where big buildings cause signal reflections) GPS accuracy is good for
>>> about a 30 foot diameter, but indoors it's not even that accurate due
>>> to interference of the building itself.
>>>
>>> If you're thinking of geolocation using cellular tracking, that MIGHT
>>> locate you within a few hundred feet, most likely within a mile or two.
>>>
>>>> As you drive down the highway advertisers can send you stuff JUST
>>>> BECAUSE
>>>> you drove past a cell tower. (This happened to me almost ten years
>>>> ago.)
>>>
>>> The only time something like that has happened to me is via my Garmin's
>>> FM based traffic receiver, never on my phone.
>>>
>>
>>Sadly, or not, it was reported two years ago that stores in the mall could
>>track patrons as they moved from one store to the next. If somebody walked
>>out of the hobby store, then the game store, the local outlet of Sid's
>>Suit
>>City would not be interested in sending a coupon for a free shirt if you
>>bought a suit. They know where you are shopping. Trust me. The idea was
>>that
>>mall security could leverage the data on general crowd behavior to know
>>where to place the security personnel. The downside was that mall patrons
>>could be tracked on an individual basis. Perhaps watching a blip on a
>>screen
>>go from the hobby shop to the game store would not prevent an ad from
>>Sid's
>>Suit City, but it was indeed possible that there could be large numbers of
>>people moving from one area of the mall to another, and advertising could
>>be
>>(and was) sent to phones depending on which way they were moving inside of
>>the mall.
>>
>>Just because you have not received an email from the local whore house
>>does
>>not mean that what I said is inaccurate. I'm telling you, they can and do
>>send messages to people for no other reason than they drove past a cell
>>tower. Maybe they have stopped doing this, which would be a good thing in
>>my
>>opinion, but just because they stopped does not mean it cannot be done. It
>>has been done and it can still be done.
>>
>>I gave two examples from my personal experience that supports the basic
>>ideals of the article that was referred to in the original post. It is my
>>opinion that while these may be viewed as intrusive -- I believe it is
>>intrusive and ought to be stopped -- it is not a violation of wiretap
>>laws.
>>A private dick can sit on the corner outside of your house and follow you
>>as
>>you drive across town to your girlfriend's house -- which I assume your
>>wife
>>would object to -- and this is not wiretap. The cops can follow you around
>>town as you distribute heroin to school kids, and this is not wiretap. The
>>phone company can track you as you stroll through the mall, and this is
>>not
>>wiretap. GPS isn't needed. A phone talks to a tower, and it can be
>>calculated that the phone is moving southwest at 3mph based on the signal
>>strength and other information that has nothing to do with GPS.
>>
>>I don't see the phone company's following us as wiretap. I see it as
>>offensive, and I do not support it in any way, but it's not wiretap.
>
> Current technology can't do what you claim it's been doing for several
> years. Cellular technology falls short and GPS technology falls short.
> If you seriously think you're being tracked (by cell or GPS or
> whatever) as you walk through a mall, something else entirely is going
> on. Maybe someone is following you as you walk?
>

I'm just sayin' that I read about it two years ago. They know where the
phone goes, and they can use the information to send that phone an ad. They
can also use it to gauge crowd behavior. You can deny it if you want, but
the technology works and they use it. I could be wrong about them using it,
but if I am then it's because legislation bars it, not because technology
cannot support it.

The issue isn't IF they can do it, the issue is whether they should do it or
not. I think they should not do it, but I know they can. The question is
whether this is wiretap or not.

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 13:57:02 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlrjeff@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Paul Miner" <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote in message
>news:ffui881ci9c37k1i599mcsbl5ngnbukis3@4ax.com.. .
>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:42:49 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
>> <crwlrjeff@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Jeffrey Kaplan" <nomail@gordol.org> wrote in message
>>>news:bc1g88hfbmpkn9t57p9etbtg6g4pl0srt3@gordol. org...
>>>> Previously on alt.cellular.verizon, Jeff Strickland said:
>>>>
>>>>> If you are at an MLB game, or NFL for that matter, or any other
>>>>> sporting
>>>>> event, they can tell which section of the stands you are in and send
>>>>> you
>>>>> a
>>>>> coupon for the concession stand in the concourse that is nearest to
>>>>> your
>>>>> seat. If you are at the mall, they can send you ads for the store you
>>>>> are
>>>>> walking past, or for one of the snack stands in the food court.
>>>>
>>>> GPS technology may be accurate enough to locate your section of a
>>>> stadium - if you are in an outdoor stadium - but it is NOT accurate
>>>> enough to tell you're walking past a The Gap or TCBY store in the local
>>>> mall.
>>>>
>>>> Outside, in good weather and in the open (ie, not in an "urban jungle"
>>>> where big buildings cause signal reflections) GPS accuracy is good for
>>>> about a 30 foot diameter, but indoors it's not even that accurate due
>>>> to interference of the building itself.
>>>>
>>>> If you're thinking of geolocation using cellular tracking, that MIGHT
>>>> locate you within a few hundred feet, most likely within a mile or two.
>>>>
>>>>> As you drive down the highway advertisers can send you stuff JUST
>>>>> BECAUSE
>>>>> you drove past a cell tower. (This happened to me almost ten years
>>>>> ago.)
>>>>
>>>> The only time something like that has happened to me is via my Garmin's
>>>> FM based traffic receiver, never on my phone.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Sadly, or not, it was reported two years ago that stores in the mall could
>>>track patrons as they moved from one store to the next. If somebody walked
>>>out of the hobby store, then the game store, the local outlet of Sid's
>>>Suit
>>>City would not be interested in sending a coupon for a free shirt if you
>>>bought a suit. They know where you are shopping. Trust me. The idea was
>>>that
>>>mall security could leverage the data on general crowd behavior to know
>>>where to place the security personnel. The downside was that mall patrons
>>>could be tracked on an individual basis. Perhaps watching a blip on a
>>>screen
>>>go from the hobby shop to the game store would not prevent an ad from
>>>Sid's
>>>Suit City, but it was indeed possible that there could be large numbers of
>>>people moving from one area of the mall to another, and advertising could
>>>be
>>>(and was) sent to phones depending on which way they were moving inside of
>>>the mall.
>>>
>>>Just because you have not received an email from the local whore house
>>>does
>>>not mean that what I said is inaccurate. I'm telling you, they can and do
>>>send messages to people for no other reason than they drove past a cell
>>>tower. Maybe they have stopped doing this, which would be a good thing in
>>>my
>>>opinion, but just because they stopped does not mean it cannot be done. It
>>>has been done and it can still be done.
>>>
>>>I gave two examples from my personal experience that supports the basic
>>>ideals of the article that was referred to in the original post. It is my
>>>opinion that while these may be viewed as intrusive -- I believe it is
>>>intrusive and ought to be stopped -- it is not a violation of wiretap
>>>laws.
>>>A private dick can sit on the corner outside of your house and follow you
>>>as
>>>you drive across town to your girlfriend's house -- which I assume your
>>>wife
>>>would object to -- and this is not wiretap. The cops can follow you around
>>>town as you distribute heroin to school kids, and this is not wiretap. The
>>>phone company can track you as you stroll through the mall, and this is
>>>not
>>>wiretap. GPS isn't needed. A phone talks to a tower, and it can be
>>>calculated that the phone is moving southwest at 3mph based on the signal
>>>strength and other information that has nothing to do with GPS.
>>>
>>>I don't see the phone company's following us as wiretap. I see it as
>>>offensive, and I do not support it in any way, but it's not wiretap.
>>
>> Current technology can't do what you claim it's been doing for several
>> years. Cellular technology falls short and GPS technology falls short.
>> If you seriously think you're being tracked (by cell or GPS or
>> whatever) as you walk through a mall, something else entirely is going
>> on. Maybe someone is following you as you walk?
>>
>
>I'm just sayin' that I read about it two years ago. They know where the
>phone goes, and they can use the information to send that phone an ad. They
>can also use it to gauge crowd behavior. You can deny it if you want, but
>the technology works and they use it. I could be wrong about them using it,
>but if I am then it's because legislation bars it, not because technology
>cannot support it.
>
>The issue isn't IF they can do it, the issue is whether they should do it or
>not. I think they should not do it, but I know they can. The question is
>whether this is wiretap or not.

I agree, the question is IF they can track you to that degree, inside
a building such as a mall. They can't.

--
Paul Miner

"Paul Miner" <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote in message
news:7iaj885i9mcoabh0uh810t8vl8lq9lo4gi@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 13:57:02 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
> <crwlrjeff@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Paul Miner" <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:ffui881ci9c37k1i599mcsbl5ngnbukis3@4ax.com. ..
>>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:42:49 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
>>> <crwlrjeff@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Jeffrey Kaplan" <nomail@gordol.org> wrote in message
>>>>news:bc1g88hfbmpkn9t57p9etbtg6g4pl0srt3@gordol .org...
>>>>> Previously on alt.cellular.verizon, Jeff Strickland said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you are at an MLB game, or NFL for that matter, or any other
>>>>>> sporting
>>>>>> event, they can tell which section of the stands you are in and send
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> coupon for the concession stand in the concourse that is nearest to
>>>>>> your
>>>>>> seat. If you are at the mall, they can send you ads for the store you
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> walking past, or for one of the snack stands in the food court.
>>>>>
>>>>> GPS technology may be accurate enough to locate your section of a
>>>>> stadium - if you are in an outdoor stadium - but it is NOT accurate
>>>>> enough to tell you're walking past a The Gap or TCBY store in the
>>>>> local
>>>>> mall.
>>>>>
>>>>> Outside, in good weather and in the open (ie, not in an "urban jungle"
>>>>> where big buildings cause signal reflections) GPS accuracy is good for
>>>>> about a 30 foot diameter, but indoors it's not even that accurate due
>>>>> to interference of the building itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you're thinking of geolocation using cellular tracking, that MIGHT
>>>>> locate you within a few hundred feet, most likely within a mile or
>>>>> two.
>>>>>
>>>>>> As you drive down the highway advertisers can send you stuff JUST
>>>>>> BECAUSE
>>>>>> you drove past a cell tower. (This happened to me almost ten years
>>>>>> ago.)
>>>>>
>>>>> The only time something like that has happened to me is via my
>>>>> Garmin's
>>>>> FM based traffic receiver, never on my phone.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Sadly, or not, it was reported two years ago that stores in the mall
>>>>could
>>>>track patrons as they moved from one store to the next. If somebody
>>>>walked
>>>>out of the hobby store, then the game store, the local outlet of Sid's
>>>>Suit
>>>>City would not be interested in sending a coupon for a free shirt if you
>>>>bought a suit. They know where you are shopping. Trust me. The idea was
>>>>that
>>>>mall security could leverage the data on general crowd behavior to know
>>>>where to place the security personnel. The downside was that mall
>>>>patrons
>>>>could be tracked on an individual basis. Perhaps watching a blip on a
>>>>screen
>>>>go from the hobby shop to the game store would not prevent an ad from
>>>>Sid's
>>>>Suit City, but it was indeed possible that there could be large numbers
>>>>of
>>>>people moving from one area of the mall to another, and advertising
>>>>could
>>>>be
>>>>(and was) sent to phones depending on which way they were moving inside
>>>>of
>>>>the mall.
>>>>
>>>>Just because you have not received an email from the local whore house
>>>>does
>>>>not mean that what I said is inaccurate. I'm telling you, they can and
>>>>do
>>>>send messages to people for no other reason than they drove past a cell
>>>>tower. Maybe they have stopped doing this, which would be a good thing
>>>>in
>>>>my
>>>>opinion, but just because they stopped does not mean it cannot be done.
>>>>It
>>>>has been done and it can still be done.
>>>>
>>>>I gave two examples from my personal experience that supports the basic
>>>>ideals of the article that was referred to in the original post. It is
>>>>my
>>>>opinion that while these may be viewed as intrusive -- I believe it is
>>>>intrusive and ought to be stopped -- it is not a violation of wiretap
>>>>laws.
>>>>A private dick can sit on the corner outside of your house and follow
>>>>you
>>>>as
>>>>you drive across town to your girlfriend's house -- which I assume your
>>>>wife
>>>>would object to -- and this is not wiretap. The cops can follow you
>>>>around
>>>>town as you distribute heroin to school kids, and this is not wiretap.
>>>>The
>>>>phone company can track you as you stroll through the mall, and this is
>>>>not
>>>>wiretap. GPS isn't needed. A phone talks to a tower, and it can be
>>>>calculated that the phone is moving southwest at 3mph based on the
>>>>signal
>>>>strength and other information that has nothing to do with GPS.
>>>>
>>>>I don't see the phone company's following us as wiretap. I see it as
>>>>offensive, and I do not support it in any way, but it's not wiretap.
>>>
>>> Current technology can't do what you claim it's been doing for several
>>> years. Cellular technology falls short and GPS technology falls short.
>>> If you seriously think you're being tracked (by cell or GPS or
>>> whatever) as you walk through a mall, something else entirely is going
>>> on. Maybe someone is following you as you walk?
>>>
>>
>>I'm just sayin' that I read about it two years ago. They know where the
>>phone goes, and they can use the information to send that phone an ad.
>>They
>>can also use it to gauge crowd behavior. You can deny it if you want, but
>>the technology works and they use it. I could be wrong about them using
>>it,
>>but if I am then it's because legislation bars it, not because technology
>>cannot support it.
>>
>>The issue isn't IF they can do it, the issue is whether they should do it
>>or
>>not. I think they should not do it, but I know they can. The question is
>>whether this is wiretap or not.
>
> I agree, the question is IF they can track you to that degree, inside
> a building such as a mall. They can't.
>

Don't bet on it. It may not be near as easy as some would want to believe
but it can be done.

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 21:42:38 -0500, "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>
>"Paul Miner" <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote in message
>news:7iaj885i9mcoabh0uh810t8vl8lq9lo4gi@4ax.com.. .
>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 13:57:02 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
>> <crwlrjeff@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Paul Miner" <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote in message
>>>news:ffui881ci9c37k1i599mcsbl5ngnbukis3@4ax.com ...
>>>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:42:49 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
>>>> <crwlrjeff@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Jeffrey Kaplan" <nomail@gordol.org> wrote in message
>>>>>news:bc1g88hfbmpkn9t57p9etbtg6g4pl0srt3@gordo l.org...
>>>>>> Previously on alt.cellular.verizon, Jeff Strickland said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you are at an MLB game, or NFL for that matter, or any other
>>>>>>> sporting
>>>>>>> event, they can tell which section of the stands you are in and send
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> coupon for the concession stand in the concourse that is nearest to
>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>> seat. If you are at the mall, they can send you ads for the store you
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> walking past, or for one of the snack stands in the food court.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> GPS technology may be accurate enough to locate your section of a
>>>>>> stadium - if you are in an outdoor stadium - but it is NOT accurate
>>>>>> enough to tell you're walking past a The Gap or TCBY store in the
>>>>>> local
>>>>>> mall.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Outside, in good weather and in the open (ie, not in an "urban jungle"
>>>>>> where big buildings cause signal reflections) GPS accuracy is good for
>>>>>> about a 30 foot diameter, but indoors it's not even that accurate due
>>>>>> to interference of the building itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you're thinking of geolocation using cellular tracking, that MIGHT
>>>>>> locate you within a few hundred feet, most likely within a mile or
>>>>>> two.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As you drive down the highway advertisers can send you stuff JUST
>>>>>>> BECAUSE
>>>>>>> you drove past a cell tower. (This happened to me almost ten years
>>>>>>> ago.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only time something like that has happened to me is via my
>>>>>> Garmin's
>>>>>> FM based traffic receiver, never on my phone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Sadly, or not, it was reported two years ago that stores in the mall
>>>>>could
>>>>>track patrons as they moved from one store to the next. If somebody
>>>>>walked
>>>>>out of the hobby store, then the game store, the local outlet of Sid's
>>>>>Suit
>>>>>City would not be interested in sending a coupon for a free shirt if you
>>>>>bought a suit. They know where you are shopping. Trust me. The idea was
>>>>>that
>>>>>mall security could leverage the data on general crowd behavior to know
>>>>>where to place the security personnel. The downside was that mall
>>>>>patrons
>>>>>could be tracked on an individual basis. Perhaps watching a blip on a
>>>>>screen
>>>>>go from the hobby shop to the game store would not prevent an ad from
>>>>>Sid's
>>>>>Suit City, but it was indeed possible that there could be large numbers
>>>>>of
>>>>>people moving from one area of the mall to another, and advertising
>>>>>could
>>>>>be
>>>>>(and was) sent to phones depending on which way they were moving inside
>>>>>of
>>>>>the mall.
>>>>>
>>>>>Just because you have not received an email from the local whore house
>>>>>does
>>>>>not mean that what I said is inaccurate. I'm telling you, they can and
>>>>>do
>>>>>send messages to people for no other reason than they drove past a cell
>>>>>tower. Maybe they have stopped doing this, which would be a good thing
>>>>>in
>>>>>my
>>>>>opinion, but just because they stopped does not mean it cannot be done.
>>>>>It
>>>>>has been done and it can still be done.
>>>>>
>>>>>I gave two examples from my personal experience that supports the basic
>>>>>ideals of the article that was referred to in the original post. It is
>>>>>my
>>>>>opinion that while these may be viewed as intrusive -- I believe it is
>>>>>intrusive and ought to be stopped -- it is not a violation of wiretap
>>>>>laws.
>>>>>A private dick can sit on the corner outside of your house and follow
>>>>>you
>>>>>as
>>>>>you drive across town to your girlfriend's house -- which I assume your
>>>>>wife
>>>>>would object to -- and this is not wiretap. The cops can follow you
>>>>>around
>>>>>town as you distribute heroin to school kids, and this is not wiretap.
>>>>>The
>>>>>phone company can track you as you stroll through the mall, and this is
>>>>>not
>>>>>wiretap. GPS isn't needed. A phone talks to a tower, and it can be
>>>>>calculated that the phone is moving southwest at 3mph based on the
>>>>>signal
>>>>>strength and other information that has nothing to do with GPS.
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't see the phone company's following us as wiretap. I see it as
>>>>>offensive, and I do not support it in any way, but it's not wiretap.
>>>>
>>>> Current technology can't do what you claim it's been doing for several
>>>> years. Cellular technology falls short and GPS technology falls short.
>>>> If you seriously think you're being tracked (by cell or GPS or
>>>> whatever) as you walk through a mall, something else entirely is going
>>>> on. Maybe someone is following you as you walk?
>>>>
>>>
>>>I'm just sayin' that I read about it two years ago. They know where the
>>>phone goes, and they can use the information to send that phone an ad.
>>>They
>>>can also use it to gauge crowd behavior. You can deny it if you want, but
>>>the technology works and they use it. I could be wrong about them using
>>>it,
>>>but if I am then it's because legislation bars it, not because technology
>>>cannot support it.
>>>
>>>The issue isn't IF they can do it, the issue is whether they should do it
>>>or
>>>not. I think they should not do it, but I know they can. The question is
>>>whether this is wiretap or not.
>>
>> I agree, the question is IF they can track you to that degree, inside
>> a building such as a mall. They can't.
>>
>
>Don't bet on it. It may not be near as easy as some would want to believe
>but it can be done.
>
>

Well, I think the assertion was basically that cellular triangulation
and/or GPS technology was tracking a person walking from shop to shop
in a mall. I don't think that's possible. Likewise, tracking a person
at a sporting event who gets up from his or her seat and walks past
the concession stand. Again, I don't think that level of tracking is
possible using either of those technologies.

--
Paul Miner

"Paul Miner" <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote in message
news:e31k889kk42ve52ssetbec3lljlo1i4474@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 21:42:38 -0500, "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Paul Miner" <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:7iaj885i9mcoabh0uh810t8vl8lq9lo4gi@4ax.com. ..
>>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 13:57:02 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
>>> <crwlrjeff@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Paul Miner" <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>news:ffui881ci9c37k1i599mcsbl5ngnbukis3@4ax.co m...
>>>>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:42:49 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
>>>>> <crwlrjeff@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Jeffrey Kaplan" <nomail@gordol.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:bc1g88hfbmpkn9t57p9etbtg6g4pl0srt3@gord ol.org...
>>>>>>> Previously on alt.cellular.verizon, Jeff Strickland said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you are at an MLB game, or NFL for that matter, or any other
>>>>>>>> sporting
>>>>>>>> event, they can tell which section of the stands you are in and
>>>>>>>> send
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> coupon for the concession stand in the concourse that is nearest to
>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>> seat. If you are at the mall, they can send you ads for the store
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> walking past, or for one of the snack stands in the food court.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> GPS technology may be accurate enough to locate your section of a
>>>>>>> stadium - if you are in an outdoor stadium - but it is NOT accurate
>>>>>>> enough to tell you're walking past a The Gap or TCBY store in the
>>>>>>> local
>>>>>>> mall.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Outside, in good weather and in the open (ie, not in an "urban
>>>>>>> jungle"
>>>>>>> where big buildings cause signal reflections) GPS accuracy is good
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> about a 30 foot diameter, but indoors it's not even that accurate
>>>>>>> due
>>>>>>> to interference of the building itself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you're thinking of geolocation using cellular tracking, that
>>>>>>> MIGHT
>>>>>>> locate you within a few hundred feet, most likely within a mile or
>>>>>>> two.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As you drive down the highway advertisers can send you stuff JUST
>>>>>>>> BECAUSE
>>>>>>>> you drove past a cell tower. (This happened to me almost ten years
>>>>>>>> ago.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only time something like that has happened to me is via my
>>>>>>> Garmin's
>>>>>>> FM based traffic receiver, never on my phone.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sadly, or not, it was reported two years ago that stores in the mall
>>>>>>could
>>>>>>track patrons as they moved from one store to the next. If somebody
>>>>>>walked
>>>>>>out of the hobby store, then the game store, the local outlet of Sid's
>>>>>>Suit
>>>>>>City would not be interested in sending a coupon for a free shirt if
>>>>>>you
>>>>>>bought a suit. They know where you are shopping. Trust me. The idea
>>>>>>was
>>>>>>that
>>>>>>mall security could leverage the data on general crowd behavior to
>>>>>>know
>>>>>>where to place the security personnel. The downside was that mall
>>>>>>patrons
>>>>>>could be tracked on an individual basis. Perhaps watching a blip on a
>>>>>>screen
>>>>>>go from the hobby shop to the game store would not prevent an ad from
>>>>>>Sid's
>>>>>>Suit City, but it was indeed possible that there could be large
>>>>>>numbers
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>people moving from one area of the mall to another, and advertising
>>>>>>could
>>>>>>be
>>>>>>(and was) sent to phones depending on which way they were moving
>>>>>>inside
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>the mall.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Just because you have not received an email from the local whore house
>>>>>>does
>>>>>>not mean that what I said is inaccurate. I'm telling you, they can and
>>>>>>do
>>>>>>send messages to people for no other reason than they drove past a
>>>>>>cell
>>>>>>tower. Maybe they have stopped doing this, which would be a good thing
>>>>>>in
>>>>>>my
>>>>>>opinion, but just because they stopped does not mean it cannot be
>>>>>>done.
>>>>>>It
>>>>>>has been done and it can still be done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I gave two examples from my personal experience that supports the
>>>>>>basic
>>>>>>ideals of the article that was referred to in the original post. It is
>>>>>>my
>>>>>>opinion that while these may be viewed as intrusive -- I believe it is
>>>>>>intrusive and ought to be stopped -- it is not a violation of wiretap
>>>>>>laws.
>>>>>>A private dick can sit on the corner outside of your house and follow
>>>>>>you
>>>>>>as
>>>>>>you drive across town to your girlfriend's house -- which I assume
>>>>>>your
>>>>>>wife
>>>>>>would object to -- and this is not wiretap. The cops can follow you
>>>>>>around
>>>>>>town as you distribute heroin to school kids, and this is not wiretap.
>>>>>>The
>>>>>>phone company can track you as you stroll through the mall, and this
>>>>>>is
>>>>>>not
>>>>>>wiretap. GPS isn't needed. A phone talks to a tower, and it can be
>>>>>>calculated that the phone is moving southwest at 3mph based on the
>>>>>>signal
>>>>>>strength and other information that has nothing to do with GPS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't see the phone company's following us as wiretap. I see it as
>>>>>>offensive, and I do not support it in any way, but it's not wiretap.
>>>>>
>>>>> Current technology can't do what you claim it's been doing for several
>>>>> years. Cellular technology falls short and GPS technology falls short.
>>>>> If you seriously think you're being tracked (by cell or GPS or
>>>>> whatever) as you walk through a mall, something else entirely is going
>>>>> on. Maybe someone is following you as you walk?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I'm just sayin' that I read about it two years ago. They know where the
>>>>phone goes, and they can use the information to send that phone an ad.
>>>>They
>>>>can also use it to gauge crowd behavior. You can deny it if you want,
>>>>but
>>>>the technology works and they use it. I could be wrong about them using
>>>>it,
>>>>but if I am then it's because legislation bars it, not because
>>>>technology
>>>>cannot support it.
>>>>
>>>>The issue isn't IF they can do it, the issue is whether they should do
>>>>it
>>>>or
>>>>not. I think they should not do it, but I know they can. The question is
>>>>whether this is wiretap or not.
>>>
>>> I agree, the question is IF they can track you to that degree, inside
>>> a building such as a mall. They can't.
>>>
>>
>>Don't bet on it. It may not be near as easy as some would want to believe
>>but it can be done.
>>
>>
>
> Well, I think the assertion was basically that cellular triangulation
> and/or GPS technology was tracking a person walking from shop to shop
> in a mall. I don't think that's possible. Likewise, tracking a person
> at a sporting event who gets up from his or her seat and walks past
> the concession stand. Again, I don't think that level of tracking is
> possible using either of those technologies.
>

I've been in the communications business for near 60 years. I started with
cellular with the Chicago test system decades back. I won't go into detains
but tracking back then was a bit of a black art. Recent advancements it's a
matter for feet and yards.

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:59:46 -0500, "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>
>"Paul Miner" <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote in message
>news:e31k889kk42ve52ssetbec3lljlo1i4474@4ax.com.. .
>>
>> Well, I think the assertion was basically that cellular triangulation
>> and/or GPS technology was tracking a person walking from shop to shop
>> in a mall. I don't think that's possible. Likewise, tracking a person
>> at a sporting event who gets up from his or her seat and walks past
>> the concession stand. Again, I don't think that level of tracking is
>> possible using either of those technologies.
>>
>
>I've been in the communications business for near 60 years. I started with
>cellular with the Chicago test system decades back. I won't go into detains
>but tracking back then was a bit of a black art. Recent advancements it's a
>matter for feet and yards.

Only 40 years for me, but that's long enough for me to know that "feet
and yards" doesn't apply to cellular triangulation, nor does it apply
to GPS technology indoors. IOW, the claims are bogus, at least by
today's standards.

--
Paul Miner

Previously on alt.cellular.verizon, Jeff Strickland said:

> > Current technology can't do what you claim it's been doing for several
> > years. Cellular technology falls short and GPS technology falls short.
> > If you seriously think you're being tracked (by cell or GPS or
> > whatever) as you walk through a mall, something else entirely is going
> > on. Maybe someone is following you as you walk?
> >
>
> I'm just sayin' that I read about it two years ago. They know where the
> phone goes, and they can use the information to send that phone an ad. They

Yes, but within the degree of accuracy you're claiming. Of the
location services available, GPS is the most accurate and it's only
accurate to a 30 foot diameter circle, at best. And then only
outdoors, in clear weather where you have an unobstructed view of the
sky. Most GPS chipsets won't even receive a signal when indoors.

Cellular triangulation is the least accurate, and if there is only one
tower in range, it can place you miles away from where you really are.
Via WiFi location, that is only possible if a) that hotspot is mapped
and b) if you're connected to it. And then it can only place you
within maybe 700 feet (the typical range of a "high power" 'G' band
hotspot.

--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
Double ROT13 encoded for your protection

"It doesn't mean anything. I have been studying it for seven days. I
had the computer analyze it. I swear to you: it does not mean A
THING!" (Amb. Mollari, B5 "A Voice in the Wilderness I")

Previously on alt.cellular.verizon, I said:

> Previously on alt.cellular.verizon, Jeff Strickland said:
>
> > > Current technology can't do what you claim it's been doing for several
> > > years. Cellular technology falls short and GPS technology falls short.
> > > If you seriously think you're being tracked (by cell or GPS or
> > > whatever) as you walk through a mall, something else entirely is going
> > > on. Maybe someone is following you as you walk?
> > >
> >
> > I'm just sayin' that I read about it two years ago. They know where the
> > phone goes, and they can use the information to send that phone an ad. They
>
> Yes, but within the degree of accuracy you're claiming. Of the
"Yes, but NOT within the degree of accuracy".

--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
Double ROT13 encoded for your protection

"If I am ever the Hero top 100 list: #58. I will not make the sidekick
wait somewhere while I go on ahead. He'll only get into worse trouble
than he otherwise would.

"Paul Miner" <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote in message
news:6i6k88tu4sa8tglu3rajkhcn6a2aubpg3a@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:59:46 -0500, "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Paul Miner" <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:e31k889kk42ve52ssetbec3lljlo1i4474@4ax.com. ..
>>>
>>> Well, I think the assertion was basically that cellular triangulation
>>> and/or GPS technology was tracking a person walking from shop to shop
>>> in a mall. I don't think that's possible. Likewise, tracking a person
>>> at a sporting event who gets up from his or her seat and walks past
>>> the concession stand. Again, I don't think that level of tracking is
>>> possible using either of those technologies.
>>>
>>
>>I've been in the communications business for near 60 years. I started
>>with
>>cellular with the Chicago test system decades back. I won't go into
>>detains
>>but tracking back then was a bit of a black art. Recent advancements it's
>>a
>>matter for feet and yards.
>
> Only 40 years for me, but that's long enough for me to know that "feet
> and yards" doesn't apply to cellular triangulation, nor does it apply
> to GPS technology indoors. IOW, the claims are bogus, at least by
> today's standards.

Just because you don't know how it can be done with that accuracy does not
mean that others don't.

On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 13:13:16 -0500, "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>
>"Paul Miner" <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote in message
>news:6i6k88tu4sa8tglu3rajkhcn6a2aubpg3a@4ax.com.. .
>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:59:46 -0500, "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Paul Miner" <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote in message
>>>news:e31k889kk42ve52ssetbec3lljlo1i4474@4ax.com ...
>>>>
>>>> Well, I think the assertion was basically that cellular triangulation
>>>> and/or GPS technology was tracking a person walking from shop to shop
>>>> in a mall. I don't think that's possible. Likewise, tracking a person
>>>> at a sporting event who gets up from his or her seat and walks past
>>>> the concession stand. Again, I don't think that level of tracking is
>>>> possible using either of those technologies.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I've been in the communications business for near 60 years. I started
>>>with
>>>cellular with the Chicago test system decades back. I won't go into
>>>detains
>>>but tracking back then was a bit of a black art. Recent advancements it's
>>>a
>>>matter for feet and yards.
>>
>> Only 40 years for me, but that's long enough for me to know that "feet
>> and yards" doesn't apply to cellular triangulation, nor does it apply
>> to GPS technology indoors. IOW, the claims are bogus, at least by
>> today's standards.
>
>Just because you don't know how it can be done with that accuracy does not
>mean that others don't.

Sorry, still doesn't wash.

--
Paul Miner

At 26 Oct 2012 13:13:16 -0500 NotMe wrote:
>
> "Paul Miner" <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote in message
> news:6i6k88tu4sa8tglu3rajkhcn6a2aubpg3a@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:59:46 -0500, "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"Paul Miner" <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote in message
> >>news:e31k889kk42ve52ssetbec3lljlo1i4474@4ax.com. ..
> >>>
> >>> Well, I think the assertion was basically that cellular
triangulation
> >>> and/or GPS technology was tracking a person walking from shop to
shop
> >>> in a mall. I don't think that's possible. Likewise, tracking a
person
> >>> at a sporting event who gets up from his or her seat and walks past
> >>> the concession stand. Again, I don't think that level of tracking is
> >>> possible using either of those technologies.
> >>>
> >>
> >>I've been in the communications business for near 60 years. I
started
> >>with
> >>cellular with the Chicago test system decades back. I won't go into
> >>detains
> >>but tracking back then was a bit of a black art. Recent advancements
it's
> >>a
> >>matter for feet and yards.
> >
> > Only 40 years for me, but that's long enough for me to know that "feet
> > and yards" doesn't apply to cellular triangulation, nor does it apply
> > to GPS technology indoors. IOW, the claims are bogus, at least by
> > today's standards.
>
> Just because you don't know how it can be done with that accuracy does
not
> mean that others don't.


And now we've moved into tin-foil hat territory...

On Oct 22, 8:59*pm, hachiroku <hacir...@e86.GTS> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 00:17:21 -0500, NotMe wrote:
> > Does Verizon's Monitoring Of Customer Behavior Violate Wiretap Laws?
>
> >http://j.mp/OFR4fJ*(Consumerist)
>
> > * * At an industry conference, a VZW exec touted the both how easy it is
> > * * to acquire all this data and how much money can be made from it..
> > * * "We're able to view just everything that they do," he told the
> > * * audience. "And that's really where data is going today. Data isthe
> > * * new oil." *He added: "We're able to analyze what people are viewing on
> > * * their handsets. If you're at an MLB game, we can tell if you're
> > * * viewing ESPN, we can tell if you're viewing MLB, we can tell what
> > * * social networking sites you're activating, if you're sending out
> > * * mobile usage content that's user-generated on video."
>
> That's nothing really new. Comcast can see whatever you're doing, too.

And now both Crumcast and Verizon/Lucifer are in a joint sales
agreement, figures. Avoid both and save $1500+ per year.

"JG" <jgrove24@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b7316c64-6d05-4d8e-bf98-ffc77a04c1f1@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 22, 8:59 pm, hachiroku <hacir...@e86.GTS> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 00:17:21 -0500, NotMe wrote:
> > Does Verizon's Monitoring Of Customer Behavior Violate Wiretap Laws?
>
> >http://j.mp/OFR4fJ (Consumerist)
>
> > At an industry conference, a VZW exec touted the both how easy it is
> > to acquire all this data and how much money can be made from it.
> > "We're able to view just everything that they do," he told the
> > audience. "And that's really where data is going today. Data is the
> > new oil." He added: "We're able to analyze what people are viewing on
> > their handsets. If you're at an MLB game, we can tell if you're
> > viewing ESPN, we can tell if you're viewing MLB, we can tell what
> > social networking sites you're activating, if you're sending out
> > mobile usage content that's user-generated on video."
>
> That's nothing really new. Comcast can see whatever you're doing, too.

}And now both Crumcast and Verizon/Lucifer are in a joint sales
}agreement, figures. Avoid both and save $1500+ per year.

Verizon in damage-control mode over privacy, marketing

http://j.mp/TYiWsJ (Fierce Broadband)

"Verizon Wireless (NYSE:VZ) posted more information on its website
about how its Precision Marketing Division will collect and market
user data, a move one critic says is a positive step but not enough to
fully reassure customers that their privacy is being protected."

On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 13:13:16 -0500, NotMe wrote:

> Just because you don't know how it can be done with that accuracy does not
> mean that others don't.

And from this you wish to infer that others *do*? -- Not buying it, sorry.

-- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

At 26 Oct 2012 22:38:25 -0500 NotMe wrote:
>
> "JG" <jgrove24@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b7316c64-6d05-4d8e-bf98-ffc77a04c1f1@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 22, 8:59 pm, hachiroku <hacir...@e86.GTS> wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 00:17:21 -0500, NotMe wrote:
> > > Does Verizon's Monitoring Of Customer Behavior Violate Wiretap Laws?
> >
> > >http://j.mp/OFR4fJ (Consumerist)
> >
> > > At an industry conference, a VZW exec touted the both how easy it is
> > > to acquire all this data and how much money can be made from it.
> > > "We're able to view just everything that they do," he told the
> > > audience. "And that's really where data is going today. Data is the
> > > new oil." He added: "We're able to analyze what people are viewing
on
> > > their handsets. If you're at an MLB game, we can tell if you're
> > > viewing ESPN, we can tell if you're viewing MLB, we can tell what
> > > social networking sites you're activating, if you're sending out
> > > mobile usage content that's user-generated on video."
> >
> > That's nothing really new. Comcast can see whatever you're doing, too.
>
> }And now both Crumcast and Verizon/Lucifer are in a joint sales
> }agreement, figures. Avoid both and save $1500+ per year.
>
> Verizon in damage-control mode over privacy, marketing
>
> http://j.mp/TYiWsJ (Fierce Broadband)
>
> "Verizon Wireless (NYSE:VZ) posted more information on its website
> about how its Precision Marketing Division will collect and market
> user data, a move one critic says is a positive step but not enough
to
> fully reassure customers that their privacy is being protected."


While interesting, nothing there supports your belief that your carrier
can accurately pinpoint your indoor position to a particular store in a
mall, our that they'll use it to send you specific ads based on real time
location.

I'm certainly not suggesting they wouldn't at least consider it if they
were able to, of course!

"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in message
news:k6fms4$1jk$1@dont-email.me...
> At 26 Oct 2012 22:38:25 -0500 NotMe wrote:
>>
>> "JG" <jgrove24@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:b7316c64-6d05-4d8e-bf98-ffc77a04c1f1@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...
>> On Oct 22, 8:59 pm, hachiroku <hacir...@e86.GTS> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 00:17:21 -0500, NotMe wrote:
>> > > Does Verizon's Monitoring Of Customer Behavior Violate Wiretap Laws?
>> >
>> > >http://j.mp/OFR4fJ (Consumerist)
>> >
>> > > At an industry conference, a VZW exec touted the both how easy it is
>> > > to acquire all this data and how much money can be made from it.
>> > > "We're able to view just everything that they do," he told the
>> > > audience. "And that's really where data is going today. Data is the
>> > > new oil." He added: "We're able to analyze what people are viewing
> on
>> > > their handsets. If you're at an MLB game, we can tell if you're
>> > > viewing ESPN, we can tell if you're viewing MLB, we can tell what
>> > > social networking sites you're activating, if you're sending out
>> > > mobile usage content that's user-generated on video."
>> >
>> > That's nothing really new. Comcast can see whatever you're doing, too.
>>
>> }And now both Crumcast and Verizon/Lucifer are in a joint sales
>> }agreement, figures. Avoid both and save $1500+ per year.
>>
>> Verizon in damage-control mode over privacy, marketing
>>
>> http://j.mp/TYiWsJ (Fierce Broadband)
>>
>> "Verizon Wireless (NYSE:VZ) posted more information on its website
>> about how its Precision Marketing Division will collect and market
>> user data, a move one critic says is a positive step but not enough
> to fully reassure customers that their privacy is being protected."
>
>
> While interesting, nothing there supports your belief that your carrier
> can accurately pinpoint your indoor position to a particular store in a
> mall, our that they'll use it to send you specific ads based on real time
> location.
>
> I'm certainly not suggesting they wouldn't at least consider it if they
> were able to, of course!

Reminds me of the joke about two co-eds. Both start on opposite walls. At
a signal they half the distance between them and no matter how often the
game is played they will never meet. Does not change the fact that at some
point in time they are 'close enough for all practical purposes'

I have long ago found that if something can be done and make money can be
made at that activity ... someone will.

The reality is that ads may be the lesser concern.