new | show | ask | jobs Github

2OEH8eoCRo0 14 hours ago

Do they really need it? They can likely triangulate you without GPS regardless.

▲

mcculley 14 hours ago | parent [-]

Cell tower triangulation does not provide the same precision as GPS.

▲

metaphor 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

What makes you think cell tower triangulation is the only data point being exploited to minimize position error?

▲

2OEH8eoCRo0 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I've wondered if they can also find you by what wifi or Bluetooth devices are around. Odds are one or more humans nearby has their GPS on. Your device can snitch on what's around or those other devices snitch on you.

▲

ssl-3 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Of course they can. Locations can be trilaterated using wifi and bluetooth.

Back when my OG iPod Touch was minty and new (2008, IIRC), it was in many ways a stripped-down iPhone.

One of the features that was stripped out was GPS: It didn't have that at all. It also lacked Bluetooth.

But it did have a Maps app, and it also had location services. This used visible wifi access points and a database back home on the mothership to determine location.

It was pretty neat at that time to take this responsive, color-screened pocket computer with me on a walk, connect it to a then-ubiquitous open SSID, and have it figure out my location and provide a map (with aerial photos!) of where I was. It wasn't ever dead-nuts, but it was consistently spooky-good.

It's pretty old tech at this point, and devices still use it today.

(Related tech: Those plastic table tents that you take with you at McDonald's after ordering at the kiosk? They're BLE beacons. Sensors in the ceiling track them so that the person bringing the tray with food on it knows about where you're sitting before they even walk out of the kitchen. And modern pocket supercomputers use the locations of these and other beacons, as well, to help trilaterate their position. Urban environments are replete with very chatty things that don't move around very much.)

▲

jcynix 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Google recorded wifi names and locations as a "bycatch" when taking streetview pictures from 2007 upto 2010. They still collect such data on Android devices if the user consents or ignores the option to say "no" … :-0

Certain devices (especially tablets) don't have GPS or various sensors integrated and still can tell you your approximate location, if WiFi is enabled.

	▲	denysvitali 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Apple does the same. Actually, most of the time in areas w/o direct sky view GNSS isn't usable at all. If you want to play around a bit, you can try my tool that queries Apple's location services for your nearby networks. The precision is remarkable. https://github.com/denysvitali/where-am-i

▲

AstroNutt 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I've thought that too... especially Bluetooth. I know it's possible with Wi-Fi signal strength.

Is it a coincidence most smartphone manufacturers were suddenly all on board with removing the 3.5mm jack and forced Bluetooth? A mesh network of sorts like Amazon is doing with Ring. I even sometimes forget to save my battery and turn Bluetooth off when I'm not using my earbuds. It's probably a false sense of security having it disabled because I'm sure it's doing something in the background anyways. I can't say for sure though. Kind of like years ago with Google getting caught with the whole location data thing. I'm sure the average Joe doesn't care if Bluetooth is enabled 24/7.

I try and not be on the tin foil bandwagon, but every once and a while I come across things that make you go hmmm...

	▲	denysvitali 11 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I doubt BT is the right way to locate a device, it's far better for being located (FindMy-style). Wi-Fi is better for positioning since BSSIDs are (mostly) static and APs don't move around. On top of that, BLE usually uses random addresses - so it won't be of much help knowing that you were around CC:B9:AF:E8:AE at 10:05 AM - since that address is likely random.
	▲	ssl-3 9 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		No. There's no conspiracy relating location services to the removal of the headphone jack: The latter is just a dumb design decision from a famous fruit company that ultimately wants their products to be completely featureless rounded rectangles. This kind of trilateration relies on beacons that don't move around (much). (And phones move. That's kind of their whole point.) Fortunately for location data, there's a ton of Bluetooth beacons that are in reasonably fixed locations: Google used to give them away for businesses to use, but things like smart TVs, speakers, and game consoles are all pretty chatty about broadcasting their presence over Bluetooth to anyone in earshot. (And it's easy enough to observe with any app that displays nearby Bluetooth beacons. I see over a dozen right now where I sit in my suburban home.)

▲

mcculley 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What magical technology do you think would beat GPS?

▲

metaphor 13 hours ago | parent [-]

Who said anything about beating GPS or other functionally equivalent GNSS?

	▲	mcculley 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I am not sure that we are in the same conversation. I misinterpreted your reply to my comment as having something to do with it.

▲

kotaKat 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

And at the end of the day if the location is a hundred meters off... it might still not matter because it's how you frame it with other evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Even the article mentions this.

> I have served on a jury where the prosecution obtained location data from cell towers. Since cell towers are sparse (especially before 5G), the accuracy is in the range of tens to hundreds of metres.

I've also personally witnessed murder cases locally where GPS location put a suspect to "100 meters away". The rest of the evidence still pushed the case forward to a guilty verdict, and the phone evidence was still pretty damning.

	▲	mcculley 13 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I did not argue for or against collection of GPS data.
	▲	ErroneousBosh 11 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> And at the end of the day if the location is a hundred meters off... it might still not matter because it's how you frame it with other evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. For example, if you drop a pin a hundred metres off from the incident, then when you're maybe several hundred metres off the column of smoke is probably a better indicator of locus than the wee dot on your screen.