> This

As in, GPS being off by 33 feet?

> leads to people getting reincarcerated

I'm reading your article and it seems to be about police coming to check and realizing that the reporting of being miles away was in error, not people getting reincarcerted because of GPS incorrectly reporting they moved ~30 feet too far? One of these is much more insane than the other.

Sounds like you could be a convict, have your gang interfere GPS on a local level but enough to have other people in the neighborhood notice, make a quick run for whatever you'd need to, and still claim plausible deniability.

I would be shocked if Cybercabs solely rely on GPS for positioning. I imagine they look at their surrondings, etc.

That’s how all “estimated damages” work. It’s all just made up by some random person who guesstimated a number then multiplied it by the maximum possible people effected, realistic or not.

Maybe not intentionally (at least by the U.S. Government, but the consequences are far greater now.

Now that GPS has subsumed a large part of air navigation as more VOR and ILS approaches at non-towered airports are being left to fall into disrepair, it forces more and more aircraft operating in instrument conditions to fall back to a navigation system that may not operate to the tolerances that you need to shoot an approach to LPV minimums (which puts you close to 200 feet or so above the ground) or LNAV minimums (higher, but still pretty low to the ground). If you lose signal integrity, you abort the approach. You don't want to break out at minimums only to find that the runway is 33 feet to the left or right of the centerline when it's not a circling only approach where you're expecting it. If that field only has RNAV (GPS) approaches, you have to divert. Hopefully the alternate airport you filed has a ground based approach plate available that is authorized .

When SA was around, we had more VORs, more VOR and ILS approaches, and while NDBs (decades old radionavigation beacon that operated on the AM band) were on their way out, they were still around.

The linked actual research article did look at multiple GNSS systems. GPS is presumably being reported out of familiarity https://doi.org/10.1029/2026GL124645

>P.S. A separate comment would be too much to respond to the false claim below - no, there's nothing about GPS in "the first 3 words of the article".

He's talking about your first (incorrect) claim. The article begins "In November 2025"

> 2. It is unclear what is the source of the claim.

7th paragraph of the article states the source, and contains a link to research paper where they go into great detail.

> Not today. November 2025. They don't make it clear.

My brother in christ it's the first 3 words of the article.

> BeiDou GPS blows away US GPS for number of sats and precision

Both BeiDou and GPS are supposed to be limited to 10m precision for civilians.

But, going down a rabbit hole, I found that BeiDou is way more accurate than 10m--3.6m and 2.6m outside and inside the Asia-Pacific region, respectively [1]. And that's with the most simple algorithm. It goes down to ~2.5m using dual-frequencies to account for atmospheric error.

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-12012-y

For resiliency reasons alone, it's been proposed to allow (stop software-disabling) BeiDou in the US, but the last time this was brought up, the administration ran out of time. It's a shame, because when there is precise coverage, it enables things like lane-level city navigation.

https://warontherocks.com/a-signal-point-of-failure-integrat...

It seems that all the device manufacturers (they mention Apple, Samsung, and Google) are using BeiDou anyway. I don't know if that includes Garmin watches, though.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-agency-probes-risks-fo...