> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Sharkey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 10:22 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Big Brother Is Calling You...
>
>
> >I have been studying what the industry is doing in this regard. The
> >fundamental issue I see is that there is no way to "opt" out of the
> >service.
> >There will be Location services brokers that will do regular queries
> >of your location at regular intervals. The purpose is to market to
> >you based on your LOCATION. For instance, you drive by the local
> >coffee house, and your cell phone alerts you to a special running at
> >the house, and a coupon for 10% off, if you show them your cell
> >phone. You can make a query for a movie you want to see, and it will
> >give you times to the three closest theaters, and driving
> >instructions.
> >
> >What is really sinister is you will be able to choose a
> setting from >a
> service that will alert you if someone in your phone list is
> >within, say 300 METERS (this one's for you Alberto), of you.
> >The benefits is that if you get in an accident, you only have to
> >push one button, and EMS will magically appear to your location.
> >You can also give your children a cell phone, and set
> >geographical "boundaries" that they can cannot cross. You would be
> >alerted if they cross the boundary. You can also track their
> >location, binding coordinates to friends houses, or school.
> >
> >This really is a move towards transparency, since the data collected
> >will be publicly viewable to all (This would include any government
> >official or law enforcement). Anyone should be able to track where
> >another person is at at any time.
>
> Well, see, I don't think this is really a step towards Brin's
> transparent
> society. It seems to me the purpose of the TS is not to know
> what everyone
> is doing every minute, but that information available about
> the man on the
> street is also available about men in power.
>
> I can guarantee you that the wealthy and powerful will have
> access to cells
> either without the chip, or have ways to block it. And
By 2003, All wireless phones in service in US have to be able to be
"automatic location identification (ALI)" capable.
"The Commission's E911 rules allow carriers to choose a handset-based or
network-based approach to complying with those rules. If a handset-based
approach is selected, the carrier must begin selling and activating
ALI-capable handsets by October 1, 2001. Thereafter, by December 31, 2001,
25 percent of the carrier's new handset activations must be ALI-capable; 50
percent must be ALI-capable by June 30, 2002; and by December 31, 2002, 100
percent of that carrier's new digital handset activations must be
ALI-capable. For a carrier deploying a network-based ALI solution, the
carrier must provide Phase II service to 50 percent of callers within six
months of a PSAP request and to 100 percent of callers within 18 months of
the PSAP request."
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Public_Notices/2000/da002099.html
and from http://www.fcc.gov/e911/regbackdrop.pdf
Customer Proprietary Network Information
! Section 222 governs use and disclosure by carriers of their customers'
CPNI:
" In general, restricts the use or disclosure of CPNI without customer
approval.
" Section 222 enables customers to relinquish the presumption of privacy
as they see fit.
! Commission's rules and orders adopted a "total service approach" under
Section 222( c)( 1).
" Before carriers may use CPNI to market outside the customer's existing
service
relationship, carriers must obtain express written, oral, or electronic
customer
approval, referred to as an "opt- in" method of consent.
! Customers also have the right to have a carrier disclose their CPNI to
third
parties upon affirmative written request under Section 222( c)( 2).
Status of CPNI Rules
! The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit vacated the "opt- in"
approach for customer approval for use of their CPNI.
" Court found that:
# "Opt- in" approach violates the First and Fifth Amendments of the
Constitution;
# Commission did not demonstrate that "opt- in" regulations directly
and materially advance stated interests in protecting privacy and
promoting competition;
# Commission should have more fully investigated an "opt- out"
approach, i. e., approval is inferred from customer- carrier
relationship unless customer specifically requests CPNI use be
restricted.
! The Commission is working to address the Tenth Circuit's opinion in its
current CPNI docket.
Customer Approval Requirement
! Sections 222( c)( 1) and (2), in general, require customer approval before
CPNI may be released.
" " Except as required by law or with the approval of the customer,"
a telecommunications carrier shall only use or disclose "individually
identifiable CPNI" in its provision of
# "( A) the telecommunications service from which such information
is derived, or
# (B) services necessary to, or used in, the provision of such
telecommunications service, including the publishing of directories."
Protection of Wireless Location Information
! Section 222( f)( 1) specifically addresses the use of wireless location
information:
" For purposes of subsection (c)( 1), a carrier needs a customer's
"express prior authorization" in order to use or disclose -
# "( 1) call location information concerning the user of
a commercial mobile service...," or
# "( 2) automatic crash notification information to any person other
than for use in the operation of an automatic crash notification
system."
This essentially says that your right to privacy is lost in regards to your
personal safety in an emergency, but that you have the right to not have
your location revealed if you so request, to other parties.
It does mean that if you carry a cell phone in the future, that technically
you can be tracked, but not legally, except in the case of an emergency.
> really, that is
> their right. I personally don't want my location to be available to
> everyone. Not because I have anything to hide, but because
> my comings and
> goings are no one's business. If I want a G-d D-mn
I disagree. I believe that it is my business. Unless you can certify that
you will in fact not commit any crimes, victimless or not. This was a
primary facet to Brin's arguement regarding two way transparency.
> cappucino, I'll stop by
> and get one. I don't want them calling me when I pass their
> store anymore
> than I want their flyer from the guy they hired to stand out
> in front of it
> and hand them out.
****SideNote***** I hate that in Las Vegas, where a bunch of losers
try to give you sex-related advertisements.
You will have the right to "Opt in" to any ad campaign.
>
> To me, it's another case of people willing to trade their privacy for
> convenience. Ick.
Its also about financial and emotional gain. There are payoffs in signing
your privacy away. You see plenty of people with a "Look AT MEEEEEEE"
nerosis, more than happy to tell you their most private thoughts. You can
get discounts and offers if you release your privacy and notify a commercial
interest that you might be interested in buying their widget (or more
insidious, they match a cross-match a profile from watching your behavior,
that suggests what your are interested in, which is usually right!).
People may claim that they want privacy, yet they offer information in
surveys, they register at web sites, they fill out warranty cards, give out
SSn, zipcodes and Phone Numbers, address to anyone that asks, and so on....
If you want privacy, stop driving, stop using the web, using a phone, using
a credit card, buying things, get a post office box, stop working and stop
going out in public.
This is the price of civilization.
You can have two attitudes about it. One, you can complain and grumble about
it, or you can two, Pull your shorts down, bend over, and tell the world
"Hey, Look AT MEEEEE!!!".
Nerd from Hell
>
> Jim
> "What can change the nature of a man?" - The Nameless One
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________
> Send a cool gift with your E-Card
> http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/
>
>
>
