"Microsoft Location Finder" - how is it supposed to work ?

I have read a bunch on the net about Microsoft Location Finder
including Microsoft's "explanation" of how it works.

It determines your location, when it can, by accesing a uSoft
database of WiFI MAC addresses.

Is the database built into Microsoft Location Finder ?
I don't think so.

So what does it do, hijack someone's home WiFi for a few seconds
to interrogate the uSoft database and return the results ? That
doesn't sound kosher and obviously I'm not using my own wireless LAN
when I'm asking the question "where am I"

TIA to anyone who can answer this or point me to a discussion /
explanation of what's going on.

For others who are learning about Microsoft Location Finder from this
post, here are some links:

http://networks.silicon.com/mobile/0...9150711,00.htm

Go to http://virtualearth.msn.com/ and click on the "Microsoft
Location Finder" in the "Welcome" bar on the left.

Cheers, QE

QuienEs <QuienEsREMOVETHIS@andthisoptonline.net> wrote:
> It determines your location, when it can, by accesing a uSoft
> database of WiFI MAC addresses.

> Is the database built into Microsoft Location Finder ?

No. You must have a usable internet connection. The Location Finder looks
at the "available wireless networks" to see if any of them are in its
database. You don't need to be connected through one of them.

There is a hotspot near me. I don't connect to it. When I am connected to
my wired LAN, Microsoft Location Finder locates my position. If I disable
the WiFi, my indicated location changes to my ISP's location.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

Many thanks Clarence, for your quick and good explanation. I was
hoping that MLF would be more than a "toy" and now understand why
uSoft had me confused, it's because they never said something like:

"If you are connected to the Internet and wonder where you are this
free program is what you need" :-)

Cheers, QE in NJ
======================

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 03:20:29 +0000 (UTC),
dold@XReXXXMicr.usenet.us.com wrote:

|QuienEs <QuienEsREMOVETHIS@andthisoptonline.net> wrote:
|> It determines your location, when it can, by accesing a uSoft
|> database of WiFI MAC addresses.
|
|> Is the database built into Microsoft Location Finder ?
|
|No. You must have a usable internet connection. The Location Finder
looks
|at the "available wireless networks" to see if any of them are in its
|database. You don't need to be connected through one of them.
|
|There is a hotspot near me. I don't connect to it. When I am
connected to
|my wired LAN, Microsoft Location Finder locates my position. If I
disable
|the WiFi, my indicated location changes to my ISP's location.
|
|--
|---
|Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 09:44:18 -0400, QuienEs
<QuienEsREMOVETHIS@ANDTHISoptonline.net> wrote:

>Many thanks Clarence, for your quick and good explanation. I was
>hoping that MLF would be more than a "toy" and now understand why
>uSoft had me confused, it's because they never said something like:
>
>"If you are connected to the Internet and wonder where you are this
>free program is what you need" :-)

This is the same thing from Microsoft:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...DisplayLang=en
with a few words of explanation. Note that it's specifically for
"Wi-Fi enabled laptops", etc.

You might also find these of interest:
http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm
http://www.networldmap.com/TryIt.htm
which apparently use whois to guess the location.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

In alt.internet.wireless Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 09:44:18 -0400, QuienEs wrote:
>>Many thanks Clarence, for your quick and good explanation. I was

> This is the same thing from Microsoft:

> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...DisplayLang=en

It doesn't blatantly say
We need to connect to the internet, not necessarily via a wifi connection,
to look up the addresses of WiFi hotspots that appear in "Available
Networks" even if you cannot connect to them.

> You might also find these of interest:
> http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm

That is more fully featured than the fallback option at VirtualEarth, which
only uses your IP, doesn't allow you to key in something else, and it has
more verbiage.

Right now, virtualearth brings up a map centered on the same point, and
tells me that it has used my IP address, but it doesn't specify what city
I'm in, like IpLocator does. Of course, when the locator finds a wifi spot
in it's database, it can be spot on. It even makes adjustments if it finds
multiple hotspots. I can't tell if just averages them, or does something
finer than that.

I wish I could contribute some locations to the database.

> http://www.networldmap.com/TryIt.htm
> which apparently use whois to guess the location.

It uses GeoBytes. Says so. Brings up the same map.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 22:45:58 +0000 (UTC),
dold@XReXXXMicr.usenet.us.com wrote:

>> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...DisplayLang=en
>It doesn't blatantly say
>We need to connect to the internet, not necessarily via a wifi connection,
>to look up the addresses of WiFi hotspots that appear in "Available
>Networks" even if you cannot connect to them.

Seriously, did you think that Microsoft would admit that it was
snooping on your available connections? What I'm wondering is if they
add new SSID's and MAC's to their database every time you use MS
Location Finder. Digging through the privacy statement at:
http://www.microsoft.com/mappoint/we...e/privacy.mspx
Yep. They collect connection info and add it to their database.

Obviously, they're pushing for location based services:
"Location-related information in the request or derived from
the request, such as latitude and longitude, is used for
calculating payments to our data vendors so that we may operate
the service."

>> You might also find these of interest:
>> http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm
>
>That is more fully featured than the fallback option at VirtualEarth, which
>only uses your IP, doesn't allow you to key in something else, and it has
>more verbiage.

Generally more useful also. Methinks the MS incantation is just a
front for MS pushing location based services on their web pages.
"Click here for a free token entitling you to a 0.1% discount
on a pizza next door after you're done guzzling your coffee".
Yech.

>Right now, virtualearth brings up a map centered on the same point, and
>tells me that it has used my IP address, but it doesn't specify what city
>I'm in, like IpLocator does. Of course, when the locator finds a wifi spot
>in it's database, it can be spot on. It even makes adjustments if it finds
>multiple hotspots. I can't tell if just averages them, or does something
>finer than that.

I tried it in my favorite parking lot, that's within sight of 3 free
coffee shop hot spots. If I connect to any one of the three. It says
I'm inside. If I don't connect to any of them, it seems to use the
last one that I was connected. I didn't seen any fancy geometry.

>I wish I could contribute some locations to the database.

I'm not sure that would be a good idea. Too many people contributing
false locations to confuse the internet police.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 18:11:06 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:

>I tried it in my favorite parking lot, that's within sight of 3 free
>coffee shop hot spots. If I connect to any one of the three. It says
>I'm inside. If I don't connect to any of them, it seems to use the
>last one that I was connected. I didn't seen any fancy geometry.

Incidentally, if there's any elaborate cartography under the MS
Location Finder, it's well buried considering the large number of
mapping and algorithm "Service Credits" cited at the bottom of:
http://www.microsoft.com/mappoint/webservice/terms.mspx

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Yesterday, when I said, in an intentionally mocking tone:

"If you are connected to the Internet and wonder where you are this
free program is what you need" :-)

I was looking forward to additional posts where denizens of this ng
might expose my lack of imagination by giving examples of the
application's usefulness.

It didn't occur to me that they might be collecting information from
users to enhance *their* database - but that insight at least provides
an understandable reason for its existence - thanks.

And thanks for all the other responses, links etc - it's been fun and
educational reading them.

BTW, Microsoft Location Finder is integrated into the new Microsoft
Streets and Trips 2006, just released. I have always found SnT to be
great value for the money.

Cheers, QE in NJ

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 14:31:22 GMT, QuienEs
<QuienEsREMOVETHIS@ANDTHISatt.net> wrote:

>Yesterday, when I said, in an intentionally mocking tone:
>
>"If you are connected to the Internet and wonder where you are this
>free program is what you need" :-)
>
>I was looking forward to additional posts where denizens of this ng
>might expose my lack of imagination by giving examples of the
>application's usefulness.
>
>It didn't occur to me that they might be collecting information from
>users to enhance *their* database - but that insight at least provides
>an understandable reason for its existence - thanks.

Please note that I'm guessing that they add additional access points
as the system is used. I don't know this for a fact and might
actually prove to be wrong if MS finds the privacy issues more
important than the possible revenue. As far as I can determine, the
primary purpose is to provide location based services on their web
pages, not data collection for the mythical internet police.

For applications, you might want to look at the various web and email
services offered by GeoBytes:
http://www.geobytes.com
Personalized web page content based on location. Spam filtering by
location. At the very least, it would be nice to have the local
weather appear on my favorite web pages instead of having to type in
my zip code.

>And thanks for all the other responses, links etc - it's been fun and
>educational reading them.
>
>BTW, Microsoft Location Finder is integrated into the new Microsoft
>Streets and Trips 2006, just released. I have always found SnT to be
>great value for the money.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
> Seriously, did you think that Microsoft would admit that it was
> snooping on your available connections?

Snooping? You're asking them to look up your location.

> What I'm wondering is if they
> add new SSID's and MAC's to their database every time you use MS
> Location Finder. Digging through the privacy statement at:
> http://www.microsoft.com/mappoint/we...e/privacy.mspx
> Yep. They collect connection info and add it to their database.

Which SSIDs and MACs? The requestor? Kind of like double-click does with
cookies, but difficult to circumvent?

There is an existing set of databases that tries to guess at your location
by analyzing what people search for when thay are connected to a particular
IP address. The presumption is that the zip codes searched, or provided in
certain online forms, will often be local to the IP address that they are
using.

> Obviously, they're pushing for location based services:

For crying out loud Jeff, what do you think they're doing with it?
That intent is plastered all over the pages. They go to great lengths to
tell you how much better Virtual Earth is than Google Maps, because it
follows you down the road, without you having to figure out where you are
and doing a new zip code based lookup.

>> http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm
> Generally more useful also.

Not at all. If it is accurate, it is only accurate to within tens of
miles. If it is misleading, it's off by thousands of miles, depending on
your choice of ISP.

> Methinks the MS incantation is just a
> front for MS pushing location based services on their web pages.

Somebody has to pay for it. It becomes useful and ubiquitous if everyone
shows up on the local listings, which Google Maps tries to do for free. MS
misses the mark with Streets & Trips, which doesn't include enough
businesses. If you can have everybody listed for free, and allow some of
them to pay with clickthroughs, life is good.

> I tried it in my favorite parking lot, that's within sight of 3 free
> coffee shop hot spots. If I connect to any one of the three. It says
> I'm inside. If I don't connect to any of them, it seems to use the
> last one that I was connected. I didn't seen any fancy geometry.

Some folks suggested geometry, but that might be guessing. Not sure the
extra granularity would be worth the level of sophistication required, if
all you are trying to do is locate nearby retail establishments.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

QuienEs <QuienEsREMOVETHIS@andthisatt.net> wrote:
> I was looking forward to additional posts where denizens of this ng
> might expose my lack of imagination by giving examples of the
> application's usefulness.

For someone driving down the road, it becomes almost like a GPS and a
dedicated mapping program like Delorme Streets & Trips, which has a "radar"
search function, allowing you to look for business or points of interest
within a radius of your current position.

One of the Microsoft pages references driving down the road, and at each
stop, you can search for local businesses and attractions without having to
first figure out what town or zip code you are in.

> It didn't occur to me that they might be collecting information from
> users to enhance *their* database - but that insight at least provides
> an understandable reason for its existence - thanks.

Enhancing their database is not usable in the sense that Jeff suggests.
The only way they know where you are is because there is a nearby WAP that
is already in their database.

Tracking your travels seems a bit Orwellian, but certainly possible.

FasTrak transponders are already used for driving time estimations on
commute routes in the San Francisco Bay Area. The data is supposedly
scrambled to prevent personal identification, but it's there.

Embedding another identifying feature into your web searches, now that the
Intel Serial Number has been bashed, is interesting, and avoids
double-click patents. I wouldn't venture that they are doing that, though.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
> Please note that I'm guessing that they add additional access points
> as the system is used. I don't know this for a fact and might
> actually prove to be wrong if MS finds the privacy issues more
> important than the possible revenue. As far as I can determine, the
> primary purpose is to provide location based services on their web
> pages, not data collection for the mythical internet police.

Gathering information about Access Points would be impossible, unless they
already have another access point in the database that can be seen at the
same time, at which point, unreliable information about a new access point
is unneeded. Eventually, they could build upon those unreliable points to
make an unreliable mesh, but then, that would be ... unreliable.

> For applications, you might want to look at the various web and email
> services offered by GeoBytes:
> http://www.geobytes.com
> Personalized web page content based on location. Spam filtering by
> location. At the very least, it would be nice to have the local
> weather appear on my favorite web pages instead of having to type in
> my zip code.

How do they get that location? Based on your ISP? I suppose it depends on
the granularity of location that you are interested in, but does it even
point to your zip code? It doesn't point to mine, in any of the places
that I have checked.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 20:38:50 +0000 (UTC),
dold@XReXXXMicr.usenet.us.com wrote:

>Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>> Please note that I'm guessing that they add additional access points
>> as the system is used. I don't know this for a fact and might
>> actually prove to be wrong if MS finds the privacy issues more
>> important than the possible revenue. As far as I can determine, the
>> primary purpose is to provide location based services on their web
>> pages, not data collection for the mythical internet police.

>Gathering information about Access Points would be impossible, unless they
>already have another access point in the database that can be seen at the
>same time, at which point, unreliable information about a new access point
>is unneeded.

Right. Let's say you're in my favorite shopping center and it picks
up Starbucks and two other access points that it doesn't know the
location. It could arbitrarily decide that the two other access
points are near the Starbucks, for which it knows the location. What
I would find interesting is if they recorded the MAC address of the
access points so as to distinguish between all the access points names
"Linksys" or "Default".

>Eventually, they could build upon those unreliable points to
>make an unreliable mesh, but then, that would be ... unreliable.

It's unreliable now so this would make it somewhat less unreliable.
Progress in small steps.

>How do they get that location? Based on your ISP?

At this time, yes. The assumption is that you're located somewhat
near your ISP. Of course my home DSL points to my ISP located 12
miles away in another zip code. My office DSL is off by 50 miles.
More work is needed to do this reliably, but it's a start.

>I suppose it depends on
>the granularity of location that you are interested in, but does it even
>point to your zip code? It doesn't point to mine, in any of the places
>that I have checked.

ok, ok. Perfection will have to wait until the (unreliable) database
is grown sufficiently to accurately determine your location.

--
Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
831.336.2558 voice
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann
jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us jeffl@cruzio.com

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 20:17:32 +0000 (UTC),
dold@XReXXXMicr.usenet.us.com wrote:

>For crying out loud Jeff, what do you think they're doing with it?

Evil global domination conspiracy through mapping?

>Some folks suggested geometry, but that might be guessing. Not sure the
>extra granularity would be worth the level of sophistication required, if
>all you are trying to do is locate nearby retail establishments.

There may actually be some geometry under the covers. See the bottom
of:
http://www.microsoft.com/mappoint/webservice/terms.mspx
which lists lots of map sources including:
"Dr. Geoffrey Dutton, who first described the Quaternary Triangular
Mesh (QTM) reference system used in Encarta Interactive World Atlas
in his paper, "Locational Properties of Quaternary Triangular
Meshes," in the Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference
on Spatial Data Handling, Zurich, July 1990."
http://www.spatial-effects.com/SE-Home1.html

--
Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
831.336.2558 voice
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann
jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us jeffl@cruzio.com

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
> At this time, yes. The assumption is that you're located somewhat
> near your ISP. Of course my home DSL points to my ISP located 12
> miles away in another zip code. My office DSL is off by 50 miles.
> More work is needed to do this reliably, but it's a start.

The RFC for extending DHCP allows for entering GPS coordinates that would
be delivered from a DHCP server to a "port". The grand scheme is to be
able to locate an IP phone within a building for E911. If T-Mobile mapped
that data into all of the WAPs, and Boingo, and ...
We could be there. I suppose geobytes is all over that possibility, just
waiting for it to come to fruition.

---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 23:15:43 +0000 (UTC),
dold@XReXXXMicr.usenet.us.com wrote:

>Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>> At this time, yes. The assumption is that you're located somewhat
>> near your ISP. Of course my home DSL points to my ISP located 12
>> miles away in another zip code. My office DSL is off by 50 miles.
>> More work is needed to do this reliably, but it's a start.

>The RFC for extending DHCP allows for entering GPS coordinates that would
>be delivered from a DHCP server to a "port".

Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Option for Coordinate-based
Location Configuration Information
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3825.html

>The grand scheme is to be
>able to locate an IP phone within a building for E911.

Yep. That's the plan. Problem is that the hot spot owner had to
program the location into the access point. That would certainly make
GeoBytes and MSN Location Finder more accurate and useful. Of course,
there will be those that setup their access points with bogus
locations, so there's still not guarantee of reliable locations.

>If T-Mobile mapped
>that data into all of the WAPs, and Boingo, and ...
>We could be there. I suppose geobytes is all over that possibility, just
>waiting for it to come to fruition.
--
Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
831.336.2558 voice
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann
jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us jeffl@cruzio.com

In the Usenet newsgroup alt.internet.wireless, in article
<djjpuv$cua$1@blue.rahul.net>, dold@XReXXXMicr.usenet.us.com wrote:

>Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:

>> At this time, yes. The assumption is that you're located somewhat
>> near your ISP. Of course my home DSL points to my ISP located 12
>> miles away in another zip code. My office DSL is off by 50 miles.
>> More work is needed to do this reliably, but it's a start.

According to ARIN - I'm in New York, but the last identifiable IP
you see in a traceroute is near San Jose, California, and I'm actually
near Phoenix, AZ. For more giggles, the subnet below me is in France,
and the one above me is near Los Angeles. I can guess this based on
the hostname, but those hostnames don't resolve (or are reachable)
from the Internet. Seems that some people don't want everyone knowing
the "company secrets".

>The RFC for extending DHCP allows for entering GPS coordinates that would
>be delivered from a DHCP server to a "port". The grand scheme is to be
>able to locate an IP phone within a building for E911.

That might eventually work for DHCP settings - but not static. I also
wonder how this will fly when IPv6 eventually gets here.

The earlier attempt at adding location information to DNS (RFC1712)
made it as far as "Experimental" status. I suppose that's better
than a draft - but I've not seen many people using it.

Old guy

Moe Trin wrote:

> In the Usenet newsgroup alt.internet.wireless, in article
> <djjpuv$cua$1@blue.rahul.net>, dold@XReXXXMicr.usenet.us.com wrote:
>
>>Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>
>>> At this time, yes. The assumption is that you're located somewhat
>>> near your ISP. Of course my home DSL points to my ISP located 12
>>> miles away in another zip code. My office DSL is off by 50 miles.
>>> More work is needed to do this reliably, but it's a start.
>
> According to ARIN - I'm in New York, but the last identifiable IP
> you see in a traceroute is near San Jose, California, and I'm actually
> near Phoenix, AZ. For more giggles, the subnet below me is in France,
> and the one above me is near Los Angeles. I can guess this based on
> the hostname, but those hostnames don't resolve (or are reachable)
> from the Internet. Seems that some people don't want everyone knowing
> the "company secrets".

From where I am right now, it seems to think I'm in Montreal. Not
surprising that it might be a long way off, as I'm in a federal government
office, but I'd have thought Ottawa would be more likely.
--
derek

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 20:02:06 -0500, ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld
(Moe Trin) wrote:

>In the Usenet newsgroup alt.internet.wireless, in article
><djjpuv$cua$1@blue.rahul.net>, dold@XReXXXMicr.usenet.us.com wrote:
>
>>Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>
>>> At this time, yes. The assumption is that you're located somewhat
>>> near your ISP. Of course my home DSL points to my ISP located 12
>>> miles away in another zip code. My office DSL is off by 50 miles.
>>> More work is needed to do this reliably, but it's a start.

>According to ARIN - I'm in New York, but the last identifiable IP
>you see in a traceroute is near San Jose, California, and I'm actually
>near Phoenix, AZ. For more giggles, the subnet below me is in France,
>and the one above me is near Los Angeles. I can guess this based on
>the hostname, but those hostnames don't resolve (or are reachable)
>from the Internet. Seems that some people don't want everyone knowing
>the "company secrets".

ICMP traceroute echoes can easily be forged. I had my office inside
network returning that it was routed through an assortment of RFC1918
non-routable IP addresses for a while. Kinda slowed down the attacks
from the internet for a while. TCI/Comcast was doing the same thing,
although probably not intentionally.

>>The RFC for extending DHCP allows for entering GPS coordinates that would
>>be delivered from a DHCP server to a "port". The grand scheme is to be
>>able to locate an IP phone within a building for E911.

>That might eventually work for DHCP settings - but not static.

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3825.html
It's a fair assumption that VoIP phones and PDA's do not use static IP
addressing. One local ISP was having problems with users inventing
their own IP addresses, so they just convinced the RADIUS server to
not authenticate anyone that did not use their DHCP assigned address.

>I also
>wonder how this will fly when IPv6 eventually gets here.

It shouldn't be a problem. The LCI is just another DHCP data type and
does not affect the underlying protocols.

>The earlier attempt at adding location information to DNS (RFC1712)
>made it as far as "Experimental" status. I suppose that's better
>than a draft - but I've not seen many people using it.

The intent of RFC1712 was not to provide VoIP phone locations for 911.
Using DNS for that is ridiculous. Large system may have only one or
two DNS servers located almost anywhere on the planet. Caching DNS
servers will repeat stale location info for days. Short expiry used
to flush and update local caches will increase traffic un-necessarily.
I'm not sure why anyone would even want to know the location of a DNS
server.

However, RFC3825 is quite different. It's designed to provide E911
information sufficient to locate the user in the event of an
emergency. Since the data is stored on the client device (VoIP
phone), the release of that information to NENA is under the control
of the client, as with GPS cell phone location info.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <p49vl1pqrd066s730tmfi4b5fq15hdin0i@4ax.com> on Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:18:05
-0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:

>However, RFC3825 is quite different. It's designed to provide E911
>information sufficient to locate the user in the event of an
>emergency. Since the data is stored on the client device (VoIP
>phone), the release of that information to NENA is under the control
>of the client, as with GPS cell phone location info.

GPS cell phone location info under the control of the client? Not AFAIK.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:39:35 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <p49vl1pqrd066s730tmfi4b5fq15hdin0i@4ax.com> on Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:18:05
>-0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>
>>However, RFC3825 is quite different. It's designed to provide E911
>>information sufficient to locate the user in the event of an
>>emergency. Since the data is stored on the client device (VoIP
>>phone), the release of that information to NENA is under the control
>>of the client, as with GPS cell phone location info.

>GPS cell phone location info under the control of the client? Not AFAIK.

All of the Verizon CDMA phones with GPS that I've tinkered with
(mostly Motorola) have a setting for something like "Enable GPS for
911 only". In theory, only the PSAP E911 center can access the GPS
data. As usual, Verizon has hidden some of the "advanced" GPS
settings. See bottom of:
http://www.nuclearelephant.com/papers/e815seem.html

In any case, it's a rather convoluted exercise because the GPS cell
phones do not directly calculate or display Lat-Long. They send the
raw doppler delay data to a service provider who calculates the
Lat-Long using additional information from the cell site (such as ping
times) for improved accuracy (AGPS). Also, at this time, the local
PSAP dispatcher must punch a command on the console to interrogate the
location of the caller. I'm not sure why it's like that but I'll
guess(tm) that it's because Verizon pays the service provider by the
lookup.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <nmivl15trplcdoars79ri6clrulfj5qtdm@4ax.com> on Wed, 26 Oct 2005 11:38:34
-0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:39:35 GMT, John Navas
><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>In <p49vl1pqrd066s730tmfi4b5fq15hdin0i@4ax.com> on Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:18:05
>>-0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>>
>>>However, RFC3825 is quite different. It's designed to provide E911
>>>information sufficient to locate the user in the event of an
>>>emergency. Since the data is stored on the client device (VoIP
>>>phone), the release of that information to NENA is under the control
>>>of the client, as with GPS cell phone location info.
>
>>GPS cell phone location info under the control of the client? Not AFAIK.
>
>All of the Verizon CDMA phones with GPS that I've tinkered with
>(mostly Motorola) have a setting for something like "Enable GPS for
>911 only". ...

There's more to GPS than A-GPS in the handset -- GPS is also used to locate
towers, and the location of the handset can be estimated from tower data
without handset A-GPS or the permission of the subscriber, as with U-TDOA.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:50:18 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <nmivl15trplcdoars79ri6clrulfj5qtdm@4ax.com> on Wed, 26 Oct 2005 11:38:34
>-0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:39:35 GMT, John Navas
>><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In <p49vl1pqrd066s730tmfi4b5fq15hdin0i@4ax.com> on Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:18:05
>>>-0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>>However, RFC3825 is quite different. It's designed to provide E911
>>>>information sufficient to locate the user in the event of an
>>>>emergency. Since the data is stored on the client device (VoIP
>>>>phone), the release of that information to NENA is under the control
>>>>of the client, as with GPS cell phone location info.
>>
>>>GPS cell phone location info under the control of the client? Not AFAIK.
>>
>>All of the Verizon CDMA phones with GPS that I've tinkered with
>>(mostly Motorola) have a setting for something like "Enable GPS for
>>911 only". ...

>There's more to GPS than A-GPS in the handset -- GPS is also used to locate
>towers, and the location of the handset can be estimated from tower data
>without handset A-GPS or the permission of the subscriber, as with U-TDOA.

That doesn't have anything to do with GPS being under the limited
control of the user. TDOA is available but lacks the accuracy that
the FCC and NENA want. It also requires that at least two cell sites
hear the handset and determine a range. Even with two, there's a
possible ambiguity, which requires a 3rd cell site to resolve.
However, if all you care to know is the general area of the caller,
just one cell site is usually sufficient.

Of course, there are other applications for tracking cell phones:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9698139/
Note that this is yet another government inspired project.

--
Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
831.336.2558 voice
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann
jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us jeffl@cruzio.com

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <2aa0m151g0tjin113qtr2iudqhf01b13ot@4ax.com> on Thu, 27 Oct 2005 01:15:34
GMT, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:50:18 GMT, John Navas
><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>>There's more to GPS than A-GPS in the handset -- GPS is also used to locate
>>towers, and the location of the handset can be estimated from tower data
>>without handset A-GPS or the permission of the subscriber, as with U-TDOA.
>
>That doesn't have anything to do with GPS being under the limited
>control of the user. TDOA is available but lacks the accuracy that
>the FCC and NENA want. It also requires that at least two cell sites
>hear the handset and determine a range. Even with two, there's a
>possible ambiguity, which requires a 3rd cell site to resolve.
>However, if all you care to know is the general area of the caller,
>just one cell site is usually sufficient.

<http://www.phonescoop.com/news/item.php?n=404>

Cingular Switches to U-TDOA for E-911 Positioning

Date Posted: Dec 17, 2002, 12:25 AM Source: Wireless Week

Cingular has decided to switch technologies for meeting the FCC's
E-911 mandate for locating 911 callers. Cingular has told the FCC
that after completing successful field trials involving
TruePosition's network-based U-TDOA technology, it was moving away
from E-OTD, which so far has failed accuracy tests, resulting in
delays and financial penalties. Cingular in October suspended
shipments of E-OTD gear and began testing TruePosition's solution.

<http://www.trueposition.com/news_03.10.03_cingulargsm.php>

TruePosition and Cingular Sign National Multi-Year Agreement For GSM
Location Solution

TruePosition's U-TDOA Location Solution Provides High Accuracy For
Anyphone, Anywhere

KING OF PRUSSIA, Pa. and ATLANTA, Ga., March 10, 2003

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 02:20:32 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <2aa0m151g0tjin113qtr2iudqhf01b13ot@4ax.com> on Thu, 27 Oct 2005 01:15:34
>GMT, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:50:18 GMT, John Navas
>><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>>There's more to GPS than A-GPS in the handset -- GPS is also used to locate
>>>towers, and the location of the handset can be estimated from tower data
>>>without handset A-GPS or the permission of the subscriber, as with U-TDOA.
>>
>>That doesn't have anything to do with GPS being under the limited
>>control of the user. TDOA is available but lacks the accuracy that
>>the FCC and NENA want. It also requires that at least two cell sites
>>hear the handset and determine a range. Even with two, there's a
>>possible ambiguity, which requires a 3rd cell site to resolve.
>>However, if all you care to know is the general area of the caller,
>>just one cell site is usually sufficient.

><http://www.phonescoop.com/news/item.php?n=404>
> Cingular Switches to U-TDOA for E-911 Positioning

Yep and really weird. Cingular is allegedly not using GPS handsets
for positioning. That's the real benifit to using TDOA. However,
Cingular will not provision a handset that does not have GPS
capeabilities. Now, why would they do that?

> Cingular has decided to switch technologies for meeting the FCC's
> E-911 mandate for locating 911 callers.

Translation. Cingular was desperate for something that worked and
didn't require issuing new handsets to everyone. TDOA also has a big
benfit in the weird rules setup by the FCC allow for half the accuracy
for network based solutions (100 meters) as for handset based
solutions (50 meters). Any semblence to the FCC stacking the deck in
favor of non-GPS solutions is stricty coincidental.

Excavated from:
http://www.trueposition.com/lrc/ruralcarriersWP.pdf
Phase II of the E-911 mandate began in October 2001 and is
scheduled for completion by the end of 2005. For network-based
solutions, the mandate requires wireless operators to locate 67%
of all emergency calls within 100 meters and 95% of the calls
within 300 meters. For handset-based solutions, 67% of the calls
must be positioned with an accuracy of 50 meters or better and
95% of the calls within 150 meters. In addition,
wireless carriers deploying handset-based solutions must ensure
that a minimum of 95% of the handsets used by their subscribers
can support E-911 service by December 31, 2005.

> TruePosition's U-TDOA Location Solution Provides High Accuracy For
> Anyphone, Anywhere

Mind if I play cynical? My limited experience in using TDOA for
direction finding has been dismal. Multipath and the requirement that
three or more cell sites simultaneously hear the handset are in my
never humble opinion, fatal problems. Personally, I don't believe the
press releases and announcments, but have no way to verify the
accuracy of the claims.

Incidentally, from my palatial house in Ben Lomond, I can see two
Cingular cell sites (using the test mode). Not enough for an accurate
fix. If I drive down the road about 1000ft, I lose one of the sites.
The situation is no better in downtown Santa Cruz, where many
locations can see only one Cingular cell site.

Comparison of various location systems:
http://www.trueposition.com/trueposition_wp_us.pdf
http://www.trueposition.com/lrc/ruralcarriersWP.pdf

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <i7q0m1dbpi64bsdusb7h7r6d9uir6p680j@4ax.com> on Wed, 26 Oct 2005 23:08:20
-0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:

>[Huge snip of comments on U-TDOA for E-911 Positioning]

Interesting, but not under the control of the subscriber, the original point
at issue.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 07:48:35 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <i7q0m1dbpi64bsdusb7h7r6d9uir6p680j@4ax.com> on Wed, 26 Oct 2005 23:08:20
>-0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>
>>[Huge snip of comments on U-TDOA for E-911 Positioning]
>
>Interesting, but not under the control of the subscriber, the original point
>at issue.

Yes, but that was NOT the original point. TDOA based locations are
network based and therefore not under the control of the subscriber.
However, my comments were for _GPS_ cell phones. Quoting your
original comments:
"GPS cell phone location info under the control of the client?
Not AFAIK."
Note the word "GPS". My original point was for VoIP phones using
RFC3825 for E911 location, which is mostly under the control of the
client. You're the one that dragged Cingular and TDOA into the
puzzle.

Incidentally, do you have any idea why Cingular would insist on users
buying GPS enabled phones when they're allegedly not using GPS? I've
asked a few techy types and one sales droid and never received a
decent answer. They mumbled something about an FCC order demanding
that only GPS phones be sold. I could find no evidence of such an
order, only that they be E911 enabled.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <aku1m1ltcgsvg85vge2nim4dkpnmev27ke@4ax.com> on Thu, 27 Oct 2005 09:15:07
-0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:

>On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 07:48:35 GMT, John Navas
><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>>In <i7q0m1dbpi64bsdusb7h7r6d9uir6p680j@4ax.com> on Wed, 26 Oct 2005 23:08:20
>>-0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>>
>>>[Huge snip of comments on U-TDOA for E-911 Positioning]
>>
>>Interesting, but not under the control of the subscriber, the original point
>>at issue.
>
>Yes, but that was NOT the original point. TDOA based locations are
>network based and therefore not under the control of the subscriber.
>However, my comments were for _GPS_ cell phones. [SNIP]

Fair enough. My comments were for GPS-based positioning in general, whether
entirely external to mobile device or assisted by mobile device. Your "GPS"
cell phones are actually Assisted GPS (A-GPS) which depend on external
processing for actual positioning, not unlike U-TDOA. You may be able to turn
off A-GPS, but you can't turn off external positioning based on external GPS.
That was my point.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

In the Usenet newsgroup alt.internet.wireless, in article
<p49vl1pqrd066s730tmfi4b5fq15hdin0i@4ax.com>, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

>ICMP traceroute echoes can easily be forged.

Not exactly sure what you mean by that.

>I had my office inside network returning that it was routed through an
>assortment of RFC1918 non-routable IP addresses for a while. Kinda
>slowed down the attacks from the internet for a while.

Intermediate routers can have a RFC1918 address without any problems.
The normal user has no need to know or care what their address is, is
highly unlikely to have an account on the router they can log into,
and the routers don't offer services of any kind (routing is not a
service) to any user