| ▲ | chaps 6 hours ago |
| This is exactly the sort of thing that leads to people getting reincarcerated after their electronic monitoring devices mistakenly report them leaving their homes. Some reporting I did on the topic a few years back: https://chicagoreader.com/news/many-on-house-arrest-in-cook-... |
|
| ▲ | dataflow 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > 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. |
| |
| ▲ | chaps 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Not sure where your confusion is coming from. Have you never used GPS in a place with bad signal? Where it gets confused and you miss your turn? It's the same failure mode. Just the repercussions are getting arrested instead of getting off on the wrong exit. Also wrote this one, hopefully it helps your confusion: https://chicagoreader.com/news/false-alarms/ | | |
| ▲ | saaaaaam 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I think the confusion is probably coming from the fact that the one reference to people being potentially re-incarcerated is buried right down the story. > Harkins said that since last October, she has seen 30-40 people ordered back into custody based on these progress reports. When asked what can be done to improve CCSO’s EM program, Harkins said that the sheriff’s office needs to “properly and fully” investigate alleged violations before writing reports or taking actions. | | |
| ▲ | chaps 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ah. That's probably just a result of the pasted article being part of a series. To be explicit: yes, many, many, many people were reinarcerated because of faulty GPS. | | |
| |
| ▲ | dataflow 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You're claiming that erroneously reported movements by ~33 ft lead to incarceration, yet the article you're linking to reports that erroneously reported movements by ~1mi+ lead to police coming to double-check what's going on. Am I incorrect and do you therefore have examples of ~30ft errors actually leading to their incarceration, or are you struggling to see the disconnect between what you're claiming vs. what is actually happening? | | |
| ▲ | chaps 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If someone's home is 30' by 30' feet, yes, that person's device will report them having left their home and they'll get a visit if GPS suddenly shifts 30 feet to the left. I'm talking about the class of problem. It happens in normal weather conditions and things like this exacerbate the problem. Really not sure what the hostility's about. | | |
| ▲ | saaaaaam 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | As a neutral participant I think “the hostility” is probably because of your condescending tone when you said “hopefully it helps your confusion”. Your initial article really didn’t say anything about people being re-incarcerated for these sorts of errors. I really want to say “maybe you got CONFUSED and posted the wrong one!” but that would be snotty and condescending too. But maybe you posted the wrong one to begin with. Let’s all be friends and nice to each other. | | |
| ▲ | chaps 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's totally fair, I shouldn't have said it like that! |
| |
| ▲ | Aurornis an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | GPS is not that accurate even on a good day. A small device attached to someone’s ankle with a small antenna and an obstructed view of the sky will frequently be registering locations outside of the footprint of someone’s house. A single 33 foot anomaly is already within the geofence buffer zones used. In dense urban areas the geofence buffer allowance may be 10X that already. | |
| ▲ | dataflow 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Do you have any examples of someone getting thrown behind bars due to a GPS error on the order of ~30ft like you're claiming? That's all I'm asking. Really don't understand why you keep avoiding it. You've essentially claimed police/judges are doing something rather stupid and terrible. I'm asking you to show example(s) of what you claimed (~30ft error → thrown behind bars), not something significantly different (~1+ mi error → only-police-visit-but-not-thrown-behind-bars). | | |
| ▲ | chaps 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | "You've essentially claimed police/judges are doing something rather stupid and terrible." Yes, yes I am. You really need to realize just how unbelievably fucking arbitrary the criminal courts are. At every level. They're not tech people. To answer your question, I have examples of motions by prosecutors to suspend people from the EM program where they specifically cite specific data points just barely out of their homes, where video footage provably shows they were inside the whole time. They're not mine to share. Btw, the courts are public and you should try some criminal courts watching. Pick a random day and just go. | | |
| ▲ | dataflow an hour ago | parent [-] | | > To answer your question Looking forward! > motions by prosecutors Motion ≠ incarceration. So, not an answer (yet?)... Did defendants get incarcerated as a result of these motions, or no? | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | avazhi 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Well, don’t commit crimes and you won’t get a gps tracker attached to you, I guess. So that’s easy. Not really sure what it has to do with tech though. That’s a problem with how certain humans behave, not ancillary technology. | | |
| ▲ | boomboomsubban 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | The trackers are part of CCSO’s pretrial house arrest program, so presumably a number of them are attached to people who did no crimes. | | |
| ▲ | avazhi 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > so presumably a number of them are attached to people who did no crimes. You and I have very divergent views of the type of person likely to be charged or prosecuted for a crime or indeed to participate in a diversion program that involves GPS trackers, my friend. | | |
| ▲ | ryandrake 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Right, because only guilty people become involved with the justice system. | | | |
| ▲ | 40 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | rafram an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They are innocent until they’re proven guilty. | | | |
| ▲ | crtified an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not at all. They're remarkably similar. What differs is our cost:benefit analysis of closing off this errata. Yours (inferred) is "Too Much : Zero". Given that those are terminal values it would challenging for literally-any-other-view not to diverge from yours, on this. | | |
| |
| ▲ | zx8080 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Don't live in the US. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | iamshs 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The story is about GPS errors which end up making life hell for people under monitoring since they end up generating a Police response. If 80% alerts were false, then an error like this can result in a surge of these alerts. It is an important story to tell. |
|
|
| ▲ | Aurornis an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Geofence monitors have buffer zones because a small GPS on someone’s ankle inside a house, potentially a high rise, isn’t going to be that precise. 33 feet is well within the allowances IIRC. Varies by state. |
| |
| ▲ | chaps an hour ago | parent [-] | | That might be true for a place in the middle of nowhere with no features, the same device model managed by the same company and the same call center person and same sheriff and judges and prosecutor. But with GPS in an urban environment where many homes are over 100 years built from many different materials, 33 feet is a lot. | | |
| ▲ | Aurornis 28 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Urban environments have larger buffer areas due to multipath interference. The story you linked has examples about false alerts triggering in a different state. Do you have any actual examples of 33 feet getting someone arrested? I’ve worked enough with GPS that I could tell you that any system with thresholds that low would result in everyone getting false triggers | | |
| ▲ | chaps 24 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Yes, everyone on the devices received false alarms. It's why there was a call center that managed the false alarm flows. I highly suggest you read the articles I've shared. I fought tooth and nail to get access to the data showing how often devices reported "invalid" status (where the device's specs said it was something like, within 150 feet of inaccuracy it reported "invalid"). They initially told me they couldn't get me that data because it'd crash their database running that query. Basically threatened to sue them and over the next 6mo or so I got two 100GB MSSQL dumps. Hundreds of millions of rows of devices reporting back that their GPS signal was invalid. It would take a lot of time to make it sharable because they included the actual GPS location infos. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | cromka 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | john01dav 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Or you could cause such localized things more so to try to get a person sent back to prison or otherwise penalized intentionally | | |
|
