<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_01_1919243</id>
	<title>Sprint Revealed Customer GPS Data 8 Million Times</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1259654460000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader sends along Chris Soghoian's blog entry revealing that Sprint Nextel provided law enforcement agencies with its customers' GPS location information <a href="http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2009/12/8-million-reasons-for-real-surveillance.html">over 8 million times between September 2008 and October 2009</a>. The data point comes from a closed industry conference that Soghoian attended, at which Paul Taylor, Electronic Surveillance Manager at Sprint Nextel, said: <i>"[M]y major concern is the volume of requests. We have a lot of things that are automated but that's just scratching the surface. One of the things, like with our GPS tool. We turned it on the web interface for law enforcement about one year ago last month, and we just passed 8 million requests. So there is no way on earth my team could have handled 8 million requests from law enforcement, just for GPS alone. So the tool has just really caught on fire with law enforcement. They also love that it is extremely inexpensive to operate and easy, so, just the sheer volume of requests they anticipate us automating other features, and I just don't know how we'll handle the millions and millions of requests that are going to come in."</i> Soghoian's post details the laws around disclosure of wiretap and other interception data &mdash; one of which the Department of Justice has been violating since 2004 &mdash; and calls for more disclosure of the levels of all forms of surveillance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader sends along Chris Soghoian 's blog entry revealing that Sprint Nextel provided law enforcement agencies with its customers ' GPS location information over 8 million times between September 2008 and October 2009 .
The data point comes from a closed industry conference that Soghoian attended , at which Paul Taylor , Electronic Surveillance Manager at Sprint Nextel , said : " [ M ] y major concern is the volume of requests .
We have a lot of things that are automated but that 's just scratching the surface .
One of the things , like with our GPS tool .
We turned it on the web interface for law enforcement about one year ago last month , and we just passed 8 million requests .
So there is no way on earth my team could have handled 8 million requests from law enforcement , just for GPS alone .
So the tool has just really caught on fire with law enforcement .
They also love that it is extremely inexpensive to operate and easy , so , just the sheer volume of requests they anticipate us automating other features , and I just do n't know how we 'll handle the millions and millions of requests that are going to come in .
" Soghoian 's post details the laws around disclosure of wiretap and other interception data    one of which the Department of Justice has been violating since 2004    and calls for more disclosure of the levels of all forms of surveillance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader sends along Chris Soghoian's blog entry revealing that Sprint Nextel provided law enforcement agencies with its customers' GPS location information over 8 million times between September 2008 and October 2009.
The data point comes from a closed industry conference that Soghoian attended, at which Paul Taylor, Electronic Surveillance Manager at Sprint Nextel, said: "[M]y major concern is the volume of requests.
We have a lot of things that are automated but that's just scratching the surface.
One of the things, like with our GPS tool.
We turned it on the web interface for law enforcement about one year ago last month, and we just passed 8 million requests.
So there is no way on earth my team could have handled 8 million requests from law enforcement, just for GPS alone.
So the tool has just really caught on fire with law enforcement.
They also love that it is extremely inexpensive to operate and easy, so, just the sheer volume of requests they anticipate us automating other features, and I just don't know how we'll handle the millions and millions of requests that are going to come in.
" Soghoian's post details the laws around disclosure of wiretap and other interception data — one of which the Department of Justice has been violating since 2004 — and calls for more disclosure of the levels of all forms of surveillance.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30290104</id>
	<title>What does "8 million times" even mean?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259667300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article is has a good amount of detail, or "meat" if you will, but I'm going to pick on this headline as they always annoy me.

When I hear sprint provided location information "8 million times" I wonder if we are talking about 8 million GPS logs or if we are talking about 8 million separate points.

If this means separate GPS points and the phone logs a location every 30 seconds then any one phone logs 2880 locations a day.  This would break down to tracking something like 280 suspects for 10 days each, not too bad.

If this is the scarier statistic of 8000000 separate GPS logs for unique individuals, I'm guessing officers are checking where their wives/kids/friends/non-friends go, and that would be a bit concerning.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article is has a good amount of detail , or " meat " if you will , but I 'm going to pick on this headline as they always annoy me .
When I hear sprint provided location information " 8 million times " I wonder if we are talking about 8 million GPS logs or if we are talking about 8 million separate points .
If this means separate GPS points and the phone logs a location every 30 seconds then any one phone logs 2880 locations a day .
This would break down to tracking something like 280 suspects for 10 days each , not too bad .
If this is the scarier statistic of 8000000 separate GPS logs for unique individuals , I 'm guessing officers are checking where their wives/kids/friends/non-friends go , and that would be a bit concerning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article is has a good amount of detail, or "meat" if you will, but I'm going to pick on this headline as they always annoy me.
When I hear sprint provided location information "8 million times" I wonder if we are talking about 8 million GPS logs or if we are talking about 8 million separate points.
If this means separate GPS points and the phone logs a location every 30 seconds then any one phone logs 2880 locations a day.
This would break down to tracking something like 280 suspects for 10 days each, not too bad.
If this is the scarier statistic of 8000000 separate GPS logs for unique individuals, I'm guessing officers are checking where their wives/kids/friends/non-friends go, and that would be a bit concerning.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30287910</id>
	<title>In other news...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259658240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>kdawson and CmdrTaco have revealed their micropenises 8 million times at the local glory hole.</htmltext>
<tokenext>kdawson and CmdrTaco have revealed their micropenises 8 million times at the local glory hole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>kdawson and CmdrTaco have revealed their micropenises 8 million times at the local glory hole.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30289760</id>
	<title>Re:Warrant required?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259665860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who needs warrants? Have you been in a coma the last 8 years? The police can do whatever they want, and if you complain they'll Taser you to death and/or shoot you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who needs warrants ?
Have you been in a coma the last 8 years ?
The police can do whatever they want , and if you complain they 'll Taser you to death and/or shoot you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who needs warrants?
Have you been in a coma the last 8 years?
The police can do whatever they want, and if you complain they'll Taser you to death and/or shoot you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30289596</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, so I suck at math, but...</title>
	<author>PRMan</author>
	<datestamp>1259665200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would imagine that there are many multiples of requests per person.  If I am tracking a mafia hitman, I would probably makes dozens if not hundreds or even thousands of requests on that guy.  If law enforcement made an application to plot the guys location on a map, it could easily be 10,000 per individual or more.</p><p>Let's say, to be generous, that it's 1,000 requests per individual.  That means that a mere 8,000 individuals were tracked in a year by law enforcement.  Far less than the number of people in prison,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.1\%, in fact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would imagine that there are many multiples of requests per person .
If I am tracking a mafia hitman , I would probably makes dozens if not hundreds or even thousands of requests on that guy .
If law enforcement made an application to plot the guys location on a map , it could easily be 10,000 per individual or more.Let 's say , to be generous , that it 's 1,000 requests per individual .
That means that a mere 8,000 individuals were tracked in a year by law enforcement .
Far less than the number of people in prison , .1 \ % , in fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would imagine that there are many multiples of requests per person.
If I am tracking a mafia hitman, I would probably makes dozens if not hundreds or even thousands of requests on that guy.
If law enforcement made an application to plot the guys location on a map, it could easily be 10,000 per individual or more.Let's say, to be generous, that it's 1,000 requests per individual.
That means that a mere 8,000 individuals were tracked in a year by law enforcement.
Far less than the number of people in prison, .1\%, in fact.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288760</id>
	<title>Re:Not just Sprint</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259661480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The location comes in with the call, it's called e911, and it's basically a pumped up version of caller id.  This is pretty much universal, though maybe not if you're really out in the sticks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The location comes in with the call , it 's called e911 , and it 's basically a pumped up version of caller id .
This is pretty much universal , though maybe not if you 're really out in the sticks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The location comes in with the call, it's called e911, and it's basically a pumped up version of caller id.
This is pretty much universal, though maybe not if you're really out in the sticks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30294096</id>
	<title>8 million WEB REQUESTS!!...not subpoena's!!</title>
	<author>A Guy From Ottawa</author>
	<datestamp>1259694060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone take a deep breath. 8M is the number of web requests to their server in en entire year, not the number of phones that were "of interest."

</p><p>From a comment in TFA:</p><blockquote><div><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr><tt>...the 8 million automated requests or pings were generated by thousands (NOT millions) of instances in which law enforcement or public safety agencies sought customer location information. Several thousand instances over the course of a year should not be shocking given that we have 47 million customers and requests from law enforcement and public safety agencies are due to a variety of circumstances: exigent or emergency situations, criminal investigations, or cases where a Sprint customer consents to sharing location information.<br> <br>It's also important to note that we complied with applicable state and federal laws in all of the instances where we fulfilled a law enforcement or public safety request for location information.<br> <br>Matt Sullivan<br>Sprint Nextel<br>Matthew.sullivan@sprint.com</tt></p></div> </blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone take a deep breath .
8M is the number of web requests to their server in en entire year , not the number of phones that were " of interest .
" From a comment in TFA : ...the 8 million automated requests or pings were generated by thousands ( NOT millions ) of instances in which law enforcement or public safety agencies sought customer location information .
Several thousand instances over the course of a year should not be shocking given that we have 47 million customers and requests from law enforcement and public safety agencies are due to a variety of circumstances : exigent or emergency situations , criminal investigations , or cases where a Sprint customer consents to sharing location information .
It 's also important to note that we complied with applicable state and federal laws in all of the instances where we fulfilled a law enforcement or public safety request for location information .
Matt SullivanSprint NextelMatthew.sullivan @ sprint.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone take a deep breath.
8M is the number of web requests to their server in en entire year, not the number of phones that were "of interest.
"

From a comment in TFA: ...the 8 million automated requests or pings were generated by thousands (NOT millions) of instances in which law enforcement or public safety agencies sought customer location information.
Several thousand instances over the course of a year should not be shocking given that we have 47 million customers and requests from law enforcement and public safety agencies are due to a variety of circumstances: exigent or emergency situations, criminal investigations, or cases where a Sprint customer consents to sharing location information.
It's also important to note that we complied with applicable state and federal laws in all of the instances where we fulfilled a law enforcement or public safety request for location information.
Matt SullivanSprint NextelMatthew.sullivan@sprint.com 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30290708</id>
	<title>Re:Is Android Safer?</title>
	<author>melikamp</author>
	<datestamp>1259670180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People are outraged for no good reason. If one uses GPS, one has a reasonable expectation of
being tracked, if only by the GPS provider! What we really need is a free-as-in-freedom mobile device
which allows us to turn the GPS on and off whenever we please. Android may be OK, especially the
unlocked one, and Nokia's Maemo devices are even better.

</p><p>Right now I have a low-end cell phone with no features but voice. I am not upgrading until I can
have vanilla GNU/Linux. Basically, I am waiting for <a href="http://maemo.nokia.com/n900/" title="nokia.com">this beast</a> [nokia.com] (or something like it) to drop in price
and gain in battery life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People are outraged for no good reason .
If one uses GPS , one has a reasonable expectation of being tracked , if only by the GPS provider !
What we really need is a free-as-in-freedom mobile device which allows us to turn the GPS on and off whenever we please .
Android may be OK , especially the unlocked one , and Nokia 's Maemo devices are even better .
Right now I have a low-end cell phone with no features but voice .
I am not upgrading until I can have vanilla GNU/Linux .
Basically , I am waiting for this beast [ nokia.com ] ( or something like it ) to drop in price and gain in battery life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are outraged for no good reason.
If one uses GPS, one has a reasonable expectation of
being tracked, if only by the GPS provider!
What we really need is a free-as-in-freedom mobile device
which allows us to turn the GPS on and off whenever we please.
Android may be OK, especially the
unlocked one, and Nokia's Maemo devices are even better.
Right now I have a low-end cell phone with no features but voice.
I am not upgrading until I can
have vanilla GNU/Linux.
Basically, I am waiting for this beast [nokia.com] (or something like it) to drop in price
and gain in battery life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30290154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30294914</id>
	<title>Re:It's legal, and it's no big deal</title>
	<author>rastoboy29</author>
	<datestamp>1259574420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>Those are second parties you refer to, not third.&nbsp; The government/police would be the third party here.<br>Subtle, but significant, difference.</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those are second parties you refer to , not third.   The government/police would be the third party here.Subtle , but significant , difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those are second parties you refer to, not third.  The government/police would be the third party here.Subtle, but significant, difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30289516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30292860</id>
	<title>Re:It's legal, and it's no big deal</title>
	<author>joe\_frisch</author>
	<datestamp>1259682840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does this allow a fishing expedition? If you are tracking a suspected drug dealer, and based on tracking can place him near the location of an unrelated crime is that admissible in court? Can you you publicly release or threaten to release embarrassing but legal actions deduced from tracking (extra-marital affairs, homosexual activity etc.) in order to coerce a suspect to confess to a crime?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this allow a fishing expedition ?
If you are tracking a suspected drug dealer , and based on tracking can place him near the location of an unrelated crime is that admissible in court ?
Can you you publicly release or threaten to release embarrassing but legal actions deduced from tracking ( extra-marital affairs , homosexual activity etc .
) in order to coerce a suspect to confess to a crime ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this allow a fishing expedition?
If you are tracking a suspected drug dealer, and based on tracking can place him near the location of an unrelated crime is that admissible in court?
Can you you publicly release or threaten to release embarrassing but legal actions deduced from tracking (extra-marital affairs, homosexual activity etc.
) in order to coerce a suspect to confess to a crime?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30289516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30290860</id>
	<title>automating tools for cells or just English, spying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259670780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When any law enforcement agency or G'ment gets involved, look for the MOST dirtiest and coniving way that they can use an object and you WILL be very close to the truth</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When any law enforcement agency or G'ment gets involved , look for the MOST dirtiest and coniving way that they can use an object and you WILL be very close to the truth</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When any law enforcement agency or G'ment gets involved, look for the MOST dirtiest and coniving way that they can use an object and you WILL be very close to the truth</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30291466</id>
	<title>I don't buy it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259673720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So that's 21,917 requests per day???? Every Day.</p><p>Seems a bit unrealistic to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So that 's 21,917 requests per day ? ? ? ?
Every Day.Seems a bit unrealistic to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So that's 21,917 requests per day????
Every Day.Seems a bit unrealistic to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288680</id>
	<title>numbers?</title>
	<author>zerointeger</author>
	<datestamp>1259661180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if America's population is currently 305 million...</p><p> <i>305million / 8million = 38.125</i> </p><p> <i>38.125 / 30days = 1.27</i> </p><p>

How wide spread is this application? One state? Two states? Is it limited to federal? I would like to know the stats on this during Bush's reign...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if America 's population is currently 305 million... 305million / 8million = 38.125 38.125 / 30days = 1.27 How wide spread is this application ?
One state ?
Two states ?
Is it limited to federal ?
I would like to know the stats on this during Bush 's reign.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if America's population is currently 305 million... 305million / 8million = 38.125  38.125 / 30days = 1.27 

How wide spread is this application?
One state?
Two states?
Is it limited to federal?
I would like to know the stats on this during Bush's reign...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288806</id>
	<title>Out-of-date laws are the culprit</title>
	<author>ManConley</author>
	<datestamp>1259661660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While the <a href="http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/09/11" title="eff.org" rel="nofollow">Lenihan order</a> [eff.org] and decision did say that the government cannot demand location information without a search warrant, that decision <a href="http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/tag/lisa-pupo-lenihan/" title="irregulartimes.com" rel="nofollow">has been appealed by the current administration</a> [irregulartimes.com]. And even if the DOJ loses that appeal, the decision would only apply to a limited section of the country - other courts could decide differently.</p><p>The bigger issue is that electronic communications laws are badly out-of-date. There are so many grey areas and loopholes that Sprint and the DOJ can easily argue with a straight face that GPS records are not protected by the Constitution, are not protected by federal or state law, can be demanded without a search warrant, can even be voluntarily handed over with no process whatsoever, do not have to be logged, and do not require anyone ever to tell the person whose location information was collected that they were tracked. And while the courts often do get it right eventually, that's a really slow battle - we need a better approach than that.</p><p>We (the ACLU) are launching a new campaign, <a href="http://dotrights.org/" title="dotrights.org" rel="nofollow">Demand Your dotRights</a> [dotrights.org], to push companies and lawmakers to provide real protections for our personal information. The "Electronic Communication Privacy Act," which is supposed to protect information like GPS records, was passed in <b>1986(!)</b> - it just doesn't fit any more.</p><p>We hope you will all sign on and join our efforts to push Sprint, lawmakers, and others to respect individual privacy. It clearly won't be an easy battle (seeing how Sprint is actually proud of its "over 8 million GPS record requests served" title), but with enough support, we hope to make a difference - and we could use your help!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While the Lenihan order [ eff.org ] and decision did say that the government can not demand location information without a search warrant , that decision has been appealed by the current administration [ irregulartimes.com ] .
And even if the DOJ loses that appeal , the decision would only apply to a limited section of the country - other courts could decide differently.The bigger issue is that electronic communications laws are badly out-of-date .
There are so many grey areas and loopholes that Sprint and the DOJ can easily argue with a straight face that GPS records are not protected by the Constitution , are not protected by federal or state law , can be demanded without a search warrant , can even be voluntarily handed over with no process whatsoever , do not have to be logged , and do not require anyone ever to tell the person whose location information was collected that they were tracked .
And while the courts often do get it right eventually , that 's a really slow battle - we need a better approach than that.We ( the ACLU ) are launching a new campaign , Demand Your dotRights [ dotrights.org ] , to push companies and lawmakers to provide real protections for our personal information .
The " Electronic Communication Privacy Act , " which is supposed to protect information like GPS records , was passed in 1986 ( !
) - it just does n't fit any more.We hope you will all sign on and join our efforts to push Sprint , lawmakers , and others to respect individual privacy .
It clearly wo n't be an easy battle ( seeing how Sprint is actually proud of its " over 8 million GPS record requests served " title ) , but with enough support , we hope to make a difference - and we could use your help !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the Lenihan order [eff.org] and decision did say that the government cannot demand location information without a search warrant, that decision has been appealed by the current administration [irregulartimes.com].
And even if the DOJ loses that appeal, the decision would only apply to a limited section of the country - other courts could decide differently.The bigger issue is that electronic communications laws are badly out-of-date.
There are so many grey areas and loopholes that Sprint and the DOJ can easily argue with a straight face that GPS records are not protected by the Constitution, are not protected by federal or state law, can be demanded without a search warrant, can even be voluntarily handed over with no process whatsoever, do not have to be logged, and do not require anyone ever to tell the person whose location information was collected that they were tracked.
And while the courts often do get it right eventually, that's a really slow battle - we need a better approach than that.We (the ACLU) are launching a new campaign, Demand Your dotRights [dotrights.org], to push companies and lawmakers to provide real protections for our personal information.
The "Electronic Communication Privacy Act," which is supposed to protect information like GPS records, was passed in 1986(!
) - it just doesn't fit any more.We hope you will all sign on and join our efforts to push Sprint, lawmakers, and others to respect individual privacy.
It clearly won't be an easy battle (seeing how Sprint is actually proud of its "over 8 million GPS record requests served" title), but with enough support, we hope to make a difference - and we could use your help!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288216</id>
	<title>Glad I don't have GPS in my cellphone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259659440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am now really glad I don't have GPS in my cellphone. In fact, I am glad I almost never even have my cellphone with me anymore...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am now really glad I do n't have GPS in my cellphone .
In fact , I am glad I almost never even have my cellphone with me anymore.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am now really glad I don't have GPS in my cellphone.
In fact, I am glad I almost never even have my cellphone with me anymore...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30289138</id>
	<title>Re:Just Sprint, or others as well?</title>
	<author>BigSlowTarget</author>
	<datestamp>1259663220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bet there's something in the Sprint contract that lets them 'provide information to law enforcement officials in the case of an investigation' or something like it.</p><p>What rights the government doesn't take you can still give away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet there 's something in the Sprint contract that lets them 'provide information to law enforcement officials in the case of an investigation ' or something like it.What rights the government does n't take you can still give away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet there's something in the Sprint contract that lets them 'provide information to law enforcement officials in the case of an investigation' or something like it.What rights the government doesn't take you can still give away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288538</id>
	<title>Legislate with Your Wallet</title>
	<author>flyneye</author>
	<datestamp>1259660640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think because of Paul Taylors attitude " and I just don't know how we'll handle the millions and millions of requests that are going to come in."<br>Most smart people will gravitate toward other service providers rather than become a statistic picked up by cops just 'cause they're cops and they wanted to."<br>When the industry picks up that we want more privacy then we'll get it. Or else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think because of Paul Taylors attitude " and I just do n't know how we 'll handle the millions and millions of requests that are going to come in .
" Most smart people will gravitate toward other service providers rather than become a statistic picked up by cops just 'cause they 're cops and they wanted to .
" When the industry picks up that we want more privacy then we 'll get it .
Or else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think because of Paul Taylors attitude " and I just don't know how we'll handle the millions and millions of requests that are going to come in.
"Most smart people will gravitate toward other service providers rather than become a statistic picked up by cops just 'cause they're cops and they wanted to.
"When the industry picks up that we want more privacy then we'll get it.
Or else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288136</id>
	<title>Abuse of Power</title>
	<author>incubus^</author>
	<datestamp>1259659080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with this kind of tool, and really it boils down to all the increasing surveillance options available to law enforcement (trust me, my ass is fully violated, I live in the UK) - they make it trivial for anyone interested with the correct clearance to go to town and infringe on someones rights.  This kind of tool rarely has the correct AAA criteria set up for it (nor does any of the increasing computerised government systems), so more and more of our personal data is being shipped wholesale, without our permission, into the hands of people who are either incompetant or not suitable to handle it.</p><p>These kind of tools need peer-review as to their use, and an accountable audit procedure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with this kind of tool , and really it boils down to all the increasing surveillance options available to law enforcement ( trust me , my ass is fully violated , I live in the UK ) - they make it trivial for anyone interested with the correct clearance to go to town and infringe on someones rights .
This kind of tool rarely has the correct AAA criteria set up for it ( nor does any of the increasing computerised government systems ) , so more and more of our personal data is being shipped wholesale , without our permission , into the hands of people who are either incompetant or not suitable to handle it.These kind of tools need peer-review as to their use , and an accountable audit procedure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with this kind of tool, and really it boils down to all the increasing surveillance options available to law enforcement (trust me, my ass is fully violated, I live in the UK) - they make it trivial for anyone interested with the correct clearance to go to town and infringe on someones rights.
This kind of tool rarely has the correct AAA criteria set up for it (nor does any of the increasing computerised government systems), so more and more of our personal data is being shipped wholesale, without our permission, into the hands of people who are either incompetant or not suitable to handle it.These kind of tools need peer-review as to their use, and an accountable audit procedure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30292514</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, so I suck at math, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259680200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>doesn't work that way...</p><p>you open a case... then have many (15 or more) requests to the server to locate and TRACK the criminal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>does n't work that way...you open a case... then have many ( 15 or more ) requests to the server to locate and TRACK the criminal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>doesn't work that way...you open a case... then have many (15 or more) requests to the server to locate and TRACK the criminal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288930</id>
	<title>Re:Warrant required?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259662200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They probably just click a button that says 'Click for Warrant' or something.  The joke's on them, though, since my patent on the one-click warrant just came into effect!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They probably just click a button that says 'Click for Warrant ' or something .
The joke 's on them , though , since my patent on the one-click warrant just came into effect !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They probably just click a button that says 'Click for Warrant' or something.
The joke's on them, though, since my patent on the one-click warrant just came into effect!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288062</id>
	<title>Who are we fighing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259658720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can never keep track of what side I'm on, is it Oceania, Eurasia, or Eastasia?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can never keep track of what side I 'm on , is it Oceania , Eurasia , or Eastasia ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can never keep track of what side I'm on, is it Oceania, Eurasia, or Eastasia?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30297990</id>
	<title>Warrantless Domestic Surveillance Doc Collection</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259599980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Check out Shane Harris' article, and the ACLU issues briefing "The Matrix" in this collection of pdf's converted to html with links to citations, etc. There are also a couple of CRS reports, and the original ACLU and EFF lawsuit complaints there.  http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/nsa.html</p><p>-dcm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Check out Shane Harris ' article , and the ACLU issues briefing " The Matrix " in this collection of pdf 's converted to html with links to citations , etc .
There are also a couple of CRS reports , and the original ACLU and EFF lawsuit complaints there .
http : //thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/nsa.html-dcm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check out Shane Harris' article, and the ACLU issues briefing "The Matrix" in this collection of pdf's converted to html with links to citations, etc.
There are also a couple of CRS reports, and the original ACLU and EFF lawsuit complaints there.
http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/nsa.html-dcm</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30290124</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, so I suck at math, but...</title>
	<author>mevets</author>
	<datestamp>1259667360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good try, but most of those were probably to track spouses and stalk potential mates.  Remember who is making use of this service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good try , but most of those were probably to track spouses and stalk potential mates .
Remember who is making use of this service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good try, but most of those were probably to track spouses and stalk potential mates.
Remember who is making use of this service.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30289858</id>
	<title>So...Is Anyone Ready To Do Anything Yet?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259666280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I mean, perhaps I am being too idealistic, but, is anyone on slashdot ready to mobilize and do anything about this kind of 1984ish abuse yet? I know its fun to slap up quotes from our favorite Orwellian novel and talk about how the new boss is the same as the old boss, but are we interested in hitting the pavement and trying to get something to change?
<br> <br>
I'm not saying I have any answers, but maybe we could at least try some stuff. We could print off <a href="http://inconvenientbody.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/big-brother-poster.jpg" title="wordpress.com">pictures</a> [wordpress.com] of <a href="http://ericatwitts.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/big-brother-is-watching-you1.jpeg" title="wordpress.com">Big Brother</a> [wordpress.com] in poster form and tape them over automated radar signs, or just on street posts and such. Perhaps they could even have a url to a website that compiles information regarding cases like this that is easy to remember. Is there a site like that? There must be some web programmers here on slashdot, how's about we start one. BigBrotherCourt.com or some such thing.
<br> <br>
Maybe we could start some groups to go around to local events like fairs and farmer's markets to educate people on tools they can use to protect their privacy like encryption and tor. Maybe some door-door activism is in order? I don't like that idea myself, but it could be a start.
<br> <br>
What about the pirate party? Last time I checked, their US branch was extremely lacking at best. Anyone else willing to reregister in support of freedom?
<br> <br>
Perhaps we could write some letters to our congress critters discussing the need to develop tech-centric courts for cases involving technology that the average lay person oggles at in a stupor?
<br> <br>
I don't really have answers myself, but there are some ideas at least. Are we slashdotters willing to do something yet (other than our jobs)? Or are we still going to remain confined to 'cyberspace?'</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , perhaps I am being too idealistic , but , is anyone on slashdot ready to mobilize and do anything about this kind of 1984ish abuse yet ?
I know its fun to slap up quotes from our favorite Orwellian novel and talk about how the new boss is the same as the old boss , but are we interested in hitting the pavement and trying to get something to change ?
I 'm not saying I have any answers , but maybe we could at least try some stuff .
We could print off pictures [ wordpress.com ] of Big Brother [ wordpress.com ] in poster form and tape them over automated radar signs , or just on street posts and such .
Perhaps they could even have a url to a website that compiles information regarding cases like this that is easy to remember .
Is there a site like that ?
There must be some web programmers here on slashdot , how 's about we start one .
BigBrotherCourt.com or some such thing .
Maybe we could start some groups to go around to local events like fairs and farmer 's markets to educate people on tools they can use to protect their privacy like encryption and tor .
Maybe some door-door activism is in order ?
I do n't like that idea myself , but it could be a start .
What about the pirate party ?
Last time I checked , their US branch was extremely lacking at best .
Anyone else willing to reregister in support of freedom ?
Perhaps we could write some letters to our congress critters discussing the need to develop tech-centric courts for cases involving technology that the average lay person oggles at in a stupor ?
I do n't really have answers myself , but there are some ideas at least .
Are we slashdotters willing to do something yet ( other than our jobs ) ?
Or are we still going to remain confined to 'cyberspace ?
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, perhaps I am being too idealistic, but, is anyone on slashdot ready to mobilize and do anything about this kind of 1984ish abuse yet?
I know its fun to slap up quotes from our favorite Orwellian novel and talk about how the new boss is the same as the old boss, but are we interested in hitting the pavement and trying to get something to change?
I'm not saying I have any answers, but maybe we could at least try some stuff.
We could print off pictures [wordpress.com] of Big Brother [wordpress.com] in poster form and tape them over automated radar signs, or just on street posts and such.
Perhaps they could even have a url to a website that compiles information regarding cases like this that is easy to remember.
Is there a site like that?
There must be some web programmers here on slashdot, how's about we start one.
BigBrotherCourt.com or some such thing.
Maybe we could start some groups to go around to local events like fairs and farmer's markets to educate people on tools they can use to protect their privacy like encryption and tor.
Maybe some door-door activism is in order?
I don't like that idea myself, but it could be a start.
What about the pirate party?
Last time I checked, their US branch was extremely lacking at best.
Anyone else willing to reregister in support of freedom?
Perhaps we could write some letters to our congress critters discussing the need to develop tech-centric courts for cases involving technology that the average lay person oggles at in a stupor?
I don't really have answers myself, but there are some ideas at least.
Are we slashdotters willing to do something yet (other than our jobs)?
Or are we still going to remain confined to 'cyberspace?
'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288110</id>
	<title>Just Sprint, or others as well?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259658960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just don't understand how this could be legal. The fact that Sprint is being open about this seems to suggest that they have done nothing wrong, and this is business as usual. If so, is this standard with other cell providers as well? I could have sworn I've read an article elsewhere, where someone was trying to locate a missing person and contacted the cell provider to have them give them GPS coords and they refused to turn them over without a court order (cannot find it after some searching)... yet they give the police unlimited access without so much as a court provided rubber stamp machine?!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just do n't understand how this could be legal .
The fact that Sprint is being open about this seems to suggest that they have done nothing wrong , and this is business as usual .
If so , is this standard with other cell providers as well ?
I could have sworn I 've read an article elsewhere , where someone was trying to locate a missing person and contacted the cell provider to have them give them GPS coords and they refused to turn them over without a court order ( can not find it after some searching ) ... yet they give the police unlimited access without so much as a court provided rubber stamp machine ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just don't understand how this could be legal.
The fact that Sprint is being open about this seems to suggest that they have done nothing wrong, and this is business as usual.
If so, is this standard with other cell providers as well?
I could have sworn I've read an article elsewhere, where someone was trying to locate a missing person and contacted the cell provider to have them give them GPS coords and they refused to turn them over without a court order (cannot find it after some searching)... yet they give the police unlimited access without so much as a court provided rubber stamp machine?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30289284</id>
	<title>Re:Warrant required?</title>
	<author>Wrath0fb0b</author>
	<datestamp>1259663940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's great that they have a web interface to service the law enforcement needs to track people by the GPS in their cell phone. How does the web site verify a valid warrant? Does the web site ask them to hold it up to the screen for verification?</p></div><p>A warrant is only necessary if the government wants to take something by physical force or wants to search something that is considered private against the consent of the owner. If the cops knock on your door and ask to read your copy of TV Guide, they don't need a warrant if you voluntarily give it to them. Knowing and uncoerced consent (absent any other taint of illegality such as an illegal seizure) always negates the need for a warrant.</p><p>Moreover, as far as the law is concerned, absent a particular contractual obligation (i.e. an NDA), when you convey information to a third party you are also conveying the right for them to disseminate it. For instance, absent such an agreement, if you send me a threatening legal letter, it is perfectly legal for me to post it on the internet for all to mock. I could also just print it out and give it to the police. Letters in the mail, of course, enjoy considerable fourth amendment protection <b>from the police</b> but the fourth amendment does not prevent disclosure <b>by the intended recipient</b>.</p><p>Finally, I have a Sprint device with GPS and there is a very conspicuous warning the first time you enable the location feature that it is conveying that information to the network, with a big YES and NO button. So in total, the customer voluntarily conveys their location information to Sprint, who in turn, voluntarily conveyed it to law enforcement. No warrants are necessary because disclosure by the intended recipients is never a fourth amendment concern. <b>Once you give somebody a piece of information, they can do with it as they please</b> (copyright notwithstanding, but GPS coordinates are hardly a creative work) -- if you don't want them to disclose it, don't tell it to them in the first place.</p><p>Ultimately, the legal system presumes that we are all intelligent adults (perhaps that's wrong) that are capable of waiving our rights by voluntarily giving others private information. This might not be the best normative choices of policies, but it underlies the entire American notion of "reasonable expectation of privacy" which almost always informs (if not decides) fourth amendment questions. The Courts have refused to sign on the notion that a Sprint customer has a reasonable expectation of privacy in information that he voluntarily gives to Sprint -- the mere act of giving information to a third party (absent contractual obligations) evinces a lack of expectation of privacy in it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's great that they have a web interface to service the law enforcement needs to track people by the GPS in their cell phone .
How does the web site verify a valid warrant ?
Does the web site ask them to hold it up to the screen for verification ? A warrant is only necessary if the government wants to take something by physical force or wants to search something that is considered private against the consent of the owner .
If the cops knock on your door and ask to read your copy of TV Guide , they do n't need a warrant if you voluntarily give it to them .
Knowing and uncoerced consent ( absent any other taint of illegality such as an illegal seizure ) always negates the need for a warrant.Moreover , as far as the law is concerned , absent a particular contractual obligation ( i.e .
an NDA ) , when you convey information to a third party you are also conveying the right for them to disseminate it .
For instance , absent such an agreement , if you send me a threatening legal letter , it is perfectly legal for me to post it on the internet for all to mock .
I could also just print it out and give it to the police .
Letters in the mail , of course , enjoy considerable fourth amendment protection from the police but the fourth amendment does not prevent disclosure by the intended recipient.Finally , I have a Sprint device with GPS and there is a very conspicuous warning the first time you enable the location feature that it is conveying that information to the network , with a big YES and NO button .
So in total , the customer voluntarily conveys their location information to Sprint , who in turn , voluntarily conveyed it to law enforcement .
No warrants are necessary because disclosure by the intended recipients is never a fourth amendment concern .
Once you give somebody a piece of information , they can do with it as they please ( copyright notwithstanding , but GPS coordinates are hardly a creative work ) -- if you do n't want them to disclose it , do n't tell it to them in the first place.Ultimately , the legal system presumes that we are all intelligent adults ( perhaps that 's wrong ) that are capable of waiving our rights by voluntarily giving others private information .
This might not be the best normative choices of policies , but it underlies the entire American notion of " reasonable expectation of privacy " which almost always informs ( if not decides ) fourth amendment questions .
The Courts have refused to sign on the notion that a Sprint customer has a reasonable expectation of privacy in information that he voluntarily gives to Sprint -- the mere act of giving information to a third party ( absent contractual obligations ) evinces a lack of expectation of privacy in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's great that they have a web interface to service the law enforcement needs to track people by the GPS in their cell phone.
How does the web site verify a valid warrant?
Does the web site ask them to hold it up to the screen for verification?A warrant is only necessary if the government wants to take something by physical force or wants to search something that is considered private against the consent of the owner.
If the cops knock on your door and ask to read your copy of TV Guide, they don't need a warrant if you voluntarily give it to them.
Knowing and uncoerced consent (absent any other taint of illegality such as an illegal seizure) always negates the need for a warrant.Moreover, as far as the law is concerned, absent a particular contractual obligation (i.e.
an NDA), when you convey information to a third party you are also conveying the right for them to disseminate it.
For instance, absent such an agreement, if you send me a threatening legal letter, it is perfectly legal for me to post it on the internet for all to mock.
I could also just print it out and give it to the police.
Letters in the mail, of course, enjoy considerable fourth amendment protection from the police but the fourth amendment does not prevent disclosure by the intended recipient.Finally, I have a Sprint device with GPS and there is a very conspicuous warning the first time you enable the location feature that it is conveying that information to the network, with a big YES and NO button.
So in total, the customer voluntarily conveys their location information to Sprint, who in turn, voluntarily conveyed it to law enforcement.
No warrants are necessary because disclosure by the intended recipients is never a fourth amendment concern.
Once you give somebody a piece of information, they can do with it as they please (copyright notwithstanding, but GPS coordinates are hardly a creative work) -- if you don't want them to disclose it, don't tell it to them in the first place.Ultimately, the legal system presumes that we are all intelligent adults (perhaps that's wrong) that are capable of waiving our rights by voluntarily giving others private information.
This might not be the best normative choices of policies, but it underlies the entire American notion of "reasonable expectation of privacy" which almost always informs (if not decides) fourth amendment questions.
The Courts have refused to sign on the notion that a Sprint customer has a reasonable expectation of privacy in information that he voluntarily gives to Sprint -- the mere act of giving information to a third party (absent contractual obligations) evinces a lack of expectation of privacy in it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30293114</id>
	<title>Only on the Now Network</title>
	<author>JasonMaloney101</author>
	<datestamp>1259685240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously, does this surprise anyone?<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wfo2ykakW4" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">What's happening on the Now Network</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , does this surprise anyone ?
What 's happening on the Now Network [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, does this surprise anyone?
What's happening on the Now Network [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288434</id>
	<title>Re:8 million times?</title>
	<author>Knara</author>
	<datestamp>1259660280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That could easily be 15 people, one "location" revealed per GPS heartbeat for the full year+month.  Or a slightly larger number of people tracked for smaller periods of time.  No, I didn't read the article, but 8,000,000 sounds ridiculously high for individual requests.</p></div><p>I suspect this is closer to the truth.  Try getting even 100 requests for information out of a telecom, much less 8,000,000 individual requests, even if the tool is somewhat automated.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That could easily be 15 people , one " location " revealed per GPS heartbeat for the full year + month .
Or a slightly larger number of people tracked for smaller periods of time .
No , I did n't read the article , but 8,000,000 sounds ridiculously high for individual requests.I suspect this is closer to the truth .
Try getting even 100 requests for information out of a telecom , much less 8,000,000 individual requests , even if the tool is somewhat automated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That could easily be 15 people, one "location" revealed per GPS heartbeat for the full year+month.
Or a slightly larger number of people tracked for smaller periods of time.
No, I didn't read the article, but 8,000,000 sounds ridiculously high for individual requests.I suspect this is closer to the truth.
Try getting even 100 requests for information out of a telecom, much less 8,000,000 individual requests, even if the tool is somewhat automated.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288692</id>
	<title>Amanda Seyfried/Julianne Moore love scene?  Check!</title>
	<author>Impy the Impiuos Imp</author>
	<datestamp>1259661240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait, wut?</p><p>So this happened:  Government:  Would you provide us an interface to check up on GPS locations without warrants?</p><p>Version:  Sure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , wut ? So this happened : Government : Would you provide us an interface to check up on GPS locations without warrants ? Version : Sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, wut?So this happened:  Government:  Would you provide us an interface to check up on GPS locations without warrants?Version:  Sure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30289136</id>
	<title>Law enforcement?</title>
	<author>FellowConspirator</author>
	<datestamp>1259663220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What makes Sprint/Nextel think all those requests come from law enforcement?</p><p>It was rumored that the FBI's "carnivore" monitoring system was predominantly utilized by unauthorized third-parties, and there's been considerable speculation that until recently remote wiretaps were being performed predominantly by individuals from overseas (from what I understood from a friend that was an engineer for AT&amp;T, he felt that they were some combination of industrial spies and just plain miscellaneous hackers).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What makes Sprint/Nextel think all those requests come from law enforcement ? It was rumored that the FBI 's " carnivore " monitoring system was predominantly utilized by unauthorized third-parties , and there 's been considerable speculation that until recently remote wiretaps were being performed predominantly by individuals from overseas ( from what I understood from a friend that was an engineer for AT&amp;T , he felt that they were some combination of industrial spies and just plain miscellaneous hackers ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What makes Sprint/Nextel think all those requests come from law enforcement?It was rumored that the FBI's "carnivore" monitoring system was predominantly utilized by unauthorized third-parties, and there's been considerable speculation that until recently remote wiretaps were being performed predominantly by individuals from overseas (from what I understood from a friend that was an engineer for AT&amp;T, he felt that they were some combination of industrial spies and just plain miscellaneous hackers).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30289516</id>
	<title>It's legal, and it's no big deal</title>
	<author>BackcountryLawyer</author>
	<datestamp>1259664840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am all for privacy, but some of you need to take off the tin foil caps.  As a law clerk to a federal magistrate judge, I deal with these things all the time.  Allow me to clarify some confusion.

When it comes to electronic communications, there are two major tools available to law enforcement: intercepts (like a wiretap) and pen registers/trap and trace devices (pen for short).

Intercepts are when you listen to the substantive communication, like the dialog of a phone call.  Intercepts constitute a "search" under the 4th Amendment, and therefore require a warrant.  Due to public pressure, Congress has heightened the Constitutional warrant requirements for electronic communications, requiring even more from law enforcement.  Telephone wiretaps are the most common type of intercept, but they are still relatively rare as they cost approximately $60,000 per month to maintain.

Pens record the information provided to the third-party company that is routing the communication, for example the phone number.  The Supreme Court ruled that this information is not protected by the 4th Amendment.  The Court held that the phone company is free to disclose the information, and you therefore have no expectation of privacy.  Agree or not, that is the law.  Without 4th Amendment protection, there is no warrant requirement and no need for probable cause.  As with wiretaps, however, Congress decided to provided some level of privacy protection even though the Constitution didn't require it.  Federal law requires that the information sought will likely be relevant to an ongoing investigation--a rather low standard.

It may seem shocking that all this information can be taken by law enforcement, but this is the way it has always been.  In any case, even a civil case between two individuals, "private" information like bank records, call records, all sorts of things can be subpoenaed.  Electronic information is no different.

As far as obtaining user GPS data 8 million times, a pen that seeks GPS data will apply to a particular phone number, but it will not be limited to one sample.  If police are tracking the movements of say a drug dealer, attempting to identify his supplier, the GPS data will be polled repeatedly to track his movement.  For example, once per half hour for a month would be about 1,440 requests.  When this fact is factored into the size of the US population, 8 million seems like much less of a big deal.

In the end, the information being obtained without a warrant is all information you freely gave to a third party.  Of course that brings up questions with companies like Google, who are third-parties potentially storing all of your personal documents.  Whether that information can be obtained without a warrant has not been definitively answered.  Ultimately, the question will come down to whether one has an "expectation of privacy," and that decision will be made by the courts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am all for privacy , but some of you need to take off the tin foil caps .
As a law clerk to a federal magistrate judge , I deal with these things all the time .
Allow me to clarify some confusion .
When it comes to electronic communications , there are two major tools available to law enforcement : intercepts ( like a wiretap ) and pen registers/trap and trace devices ( pen for short ) .
Intercepts are when you listen to the substantive communication , like the dialog of a phone call .
Intercepts constitute a " search " under the 4th Amendment , and therefore require a warrant .
Due to public pressure , Congress has heightened the Constitutional warrant requirements for electronic communications , requiring even more from law enforcement .
Telephone wiretaps are the most common type of intercept , but they are still relatively rare as they cost approximately $ 60,000 per month to maintain .
Pens record the information provided to the third-party company that is routing the communication , for example the phone number .
The Supreme Court ruled that this information is not protected by the 4th Amendment .
The Court held that the phone company is free to disclose the information , and you therefore have no expectation of privacy .
Agree or not , that is the law .
Without 4th Amendment protection , there is no warrant requirement and no need for probable cause .
As with wiretaps , however , Congress decided to provided some level of privacy protection even though the Constitution did n't require it .
Federal law requires that the information sought will likely be relevant to an ongoing investigation--a rather low standard .
It may seem shocking that all this information can be taken by law enforcement , but this is the way it has always been .
In any case , even a civil case between two individuals , " private " information like bank records , call records , all sorts of things can be subpoenaed .
Electronic information is no different .
As far as obtaining user GPS data 8 million times , a pen that seeks GPS data will apply to a particular phone number , but it will not be limited to one sample .
If police are tracking the movements of say a drug dealer , attempting to identify his supplier , the GPS data will be polled repeatedly to track his movement .
For example , once per half hour for a month would be about 1,440 requests .
When this fact is factored into the size of the US population , 8 million seems like much less of a big deal .
In the end , the information being obtained without a warrant is all information you freely gave to a third party .
Of course that brings up questions with companies like Google , who are third-parties potentially storing all of your personal documents .
Whether that information can be obtained without a warrant has not been definitively answered .
Ultimately , the question will come down to whether one has an " expectation of privacy , " and that decision will be made by the courts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am all for privacy, but some of you need to take off the tin foil caps.
As a law clerk to a federal magistrate judge, I deal with these things all the time.
Allow me to clarify some confusion.
When it comes to electronic communications, there are two major tools available to law enforcement: intercepts (like a wiretap) and pen registers/trap and trace devices (pen for short).
Intercepts are when you listen to the substantive communication, like the dialog of a phone call.
Intercepts constitute a "search" under the 4th Amendment, and therefore require a warrant.
Due to public pressure, Congress has heightened the Constitutional warrant requirements for electronic communications, requiring even more from law enforcement.
Telephone wiretaps are the most common type of intercept, but they are still relatively rare as they cost approximately $60,000 per month to maintain.
Pens record the information provided to the third-party company that is routing the communication, for example the phone number.
The Supreme Court ruled that this information is not protected by the 4th Amendment.
The Court held that the phone company is free to disclose the information, and you therefore have no expectation of privacy.
Agree or not, that is the law.
Without 4th Amendment protection, there is no warrant requirement and no need for probable cause.
As with wiretaps, however, Congress decided to provided some level of privacy protection even though the Constitution didn't require it.
Federal law requires that the information sought will likely be relevant to an ongoing investigation--a rather low standard.
It may seem shocking that all this information can be taken by law enforcement, but this is the way it has always been.
In any case, even a civil case between two individuals, "private" information like bank records, call records, all sorts of things can be subpoenaed.
Electronic information is no different.
As far as obtaining user GPS data 8 million times, a pen that seeks GPS data will apply to a particular phone number, but it will not be limited to one sample.
If police are tracking the movements of say a drug dealer, attempting to identify his supplier, the GPS data will be polled repeatedly to track his movement.
For example, once per half hour for a month would be about 1,440 requests.
When this fact is factored into the size of the US population, 8 million seems like much less of a big deal.
In the end, the information being obtained without a warrant is all information you freely gave to a third party.
Of course that brings up questions with companies like Google, who are third-parties potentially storing all of your personal documents.
Whether that information can be obtained without a warrant has not been definitively answered.
Ultimately, the question will come down to whether one has an "expectation of privacy," and that decision will be made by the courts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288352</id>
	<title>Warrant required?</title>
	<author>Jon\_Hanson</author>
	<datestamp>1259659920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's great that they have a web interface to service the law enforcement needs to track people by the GPS in their cell phone. How does the web site verify a valid warrant? Does the web site ask them to hold it up to the screen for verification?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's great that they have a web interface to service the law enforcement needs to track people by the GPS in their cell phone .
How does the web site verify a valid warrant ?
Does the web site ask them to hold it up to the screen for verification ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's great that they have a web interface to service the law enforcement needs to track people by the GPS in their cell phone.
How does the web site verify a valid warrant?
Does the web site ask them to hold it up to the screen for verification?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30287880</id>
	<title>conferenct?</title>
	<author>Shikaku</author>
	<datestamp>1259658060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30298786</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, so I suck at math, but...</title>
	<author>Shane dot H</author>
	<datestamp>1259603700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're assuming that each of the 8 million pieces of data are for unique users. This is certainly not the case. Law enforcement, with a warrant, would probably want to know where someone was at different times of day. If the Sprint system makes it easy for law enforcement to view every known location in a certain time period, it's not unreasonable for a single warrant to produce tens of thousands of pieces of data - and the vast majority of them will be redundant. For example, knowing that a guy was asleep in his home for 8 hours while his cell phone reported his location hundreds of times in that time period isn't really all that helpful, but will contribute to the 8 million.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're assuming that each of the 8 million pieces of data are for unique users .
This is certainly not the case .
Law enforcement , with a warrant , would probably want to know where someone was at different times of day .
If the Sprint system makes it easy for law enforcement to view every known location in a certain time period , it 's not unreasonable for a single warrant to produce tens of thousands of pieces of data - and the vast majority of them will be redundant .
For example , knowing that a guy was asleep in his home for 8 hours while his cell phone reported his location hundreds of times in that time period is n't really all that helpful , but will contribute to the 8 million .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're assuming that each of the 8 million pieces of data are for unique users.
This is certainly not the case.
Law enforcement, with a warrant, would probably want to know where someone was at different times of day.
If the Sprint system makes it easy for law enforcement to view every known location in a certain time period, it's not unreasonable for a single warrant to produce tens of thousands of pieces of data - and the vast majority of them will be redundant.
For example, knowing that a guy was asleep in his home for 8 hours while his cell phone reported his location hundreds of times in that time period isn't really all that helpful, but will contribute to the 8 million.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288050</id>
	<title>"Who watches the Watchers?"</title>
	<author>P-38Jbird</author>
	<datestamp>1259658720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>As if...
So, tell me, how many of these were legal crime fighting uses and how many were just cops checking up on their girlfriends, ect. 8 million. and thet's just Sprint.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As if.. . So , tell me , how many of these were legal crime fighting uses and how many were just cops checking up on their girlfriends , ect .
8 million .
and thet 's just Sprint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As if...
So, tell me, how many of these were legal crime fighting uses and how many were just cops checking up on their girlfriends, ect.
8 million.
and thet's just Sprint.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30293660</id>
	<title>Re:"Who watches the Watchers?"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259690280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well I do try to stay within the law when I'm donning my cape and mask to fight crime but you know how <i>that</i> goes.  So yeah the numbers might be a little skewed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I do try to stay within the law when I 'm donning my cape and mask to fight crime but you know how that goes .
So yeah the numbers might be a little skewed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I do try to stay within the law when I'm donning my cape and mask to fight crime but you know how that goes.
So yeah the numbers might be a little skewed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30289086</id>
	<title>Re:"Who watches the Watchers?"</title>
	<author>stephanruby</author>
	<datestamp>1259662920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't it each time you dial 911 that it tries to get a gps lock on you???? I don't know if this is still the case now, but at least, that was the case being made when the law was originally passed to get all the new cell phones sold -- gps-enabled by a certain year.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't it each time you dial 911 that it tries to get a gps lock on you ? ? ? ?
I do n't know if this is still the case now , but at least , that was the case being made when the law was originally passed to get all the new cell phones sold -- gps-enabled by a certain year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't it each time you dial 911 that it tries to get a gps lock on you????
I don't know if this is still the case now, but at least, that was the case being made when the law was originally passed to get all the new cell phones sold -- gps-enabled by a certain year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288632</id>
	<title>Surveillance or 911 data?</title>
	<author>ArbitraryDescriptor</author>
	<datestamp>1259661000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I imagine they pull your GPS location if you call 911 and, given the issues with 911 handling on a cellphone, I'd be pleased to hear that they did.  Is this 8 million incidents of the police trying to locate a suspect, or 8 million incidents of a 911 dispatcher reacting to a "Oh my god there's blood everywher~..."<br> <br>I appreciate it could be a little of both, and I am displeased if the police have been given unfettered access to this data for non-emergencies, but I'm witholding my outrage until I get some context on this one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I imagine they pull your GPS location if you call 911 and , given the issues with 911 handling on a cellphone , I 'd be pleased to hear that they did .
Is this 8 million incidents of the police trying to locate a suspect , or 8 million incidents of a 911 dispatcher reacting to a " Oh my god there 's blood everywher ~ ... " I appreciate it could be a little of both , and I am displeased if the police have been given unfettered access to this data for non-emergencies , but I 'm witholding my outrage until I get some context on this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I imagine they pull your GPS location if you call 911 and, given the issues with 911 handling on a cellphone, I'd be pleased to hear that they did.
Is this 8 million incidents of the police trying to locate a suspect, or 8 million incidents of a 911 dispatcher reacting to a "Oh my god there's blood everywher~..." I appreciate it could be a little of both, and I am displeased if the police have been given unfettered access to this data for non-emergencies, but I'm witholding my outrage until I get some context on this one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30305712</id>
	<title>So have the courts accepted GPS data in trials?</title>
	<author>jc42</author>
	<datestamp>1259587320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just out of curiosity, I picked up my G1 Android (T-Mobile) phone, turned on its maps - and it showed my current position as about 7 blocks south of where I actually am (in my home office).  This isn't at all unusual.  GPS is notoriously flakey, and it'd be really unnerving to read of a court accepting GPS position data as evidence.</p><p>As an extreme case, a few months ago while sitting in the car with my wife driving, I checked the phone's position.  At first, it showed the correct position, driving south a couple of miles from here on Boston's Route 128 circumference highway.  Then suddenly it showed us jump to a point about 100 miles east-southeast, driving north about 15 miles off the coast of Cape Cod.  According to the phone, we drove along out in the ocean for 10 minutes or so, and then just as quickly popped back to a highway parallel to the street we were on, but a couple blocks away.  It would be fun to see a court deal with this "evidence" about our (or at least my phone's) position at that time.</p><p>We also have a couple Garmin GPS gadgets in our cars.  Several years ago, while driving south on a local street in a nearby town (Concord), I noticed the GPS showed my position as about a block north of where I was - and moving north at around 100 mph.  Traffic was light, so I glanced at it frequently, and watched my position pop to the correct one.  So I quickly switched to the numerical display, and saw that I was travelling south on the street at over 200 mph (or 300 kph if you prefer). Again, I had thoughts of the gadget's record of my travels being presented as evidence in court.  "Do you often get your car up to over 200 mph on local streets like this?"  Actually, I sorta doubt that the car could take the stresses of that particular maneuver.</p><p>I've been on the lookout for stories of GPS data being used in court cases.  But so far, I haven't read of any.  Does anyone here know about this?  Are any courts actually accepting GPS data as evidence?  From my experience with a few brands of GPS receivers, I'd be sorta nervous at the thought that my freedom or life savings might depend on the accuracy of such data.  Judges and others with legal training do seem to have something of a history of credulity when it comes to technological information that can be subpoenaed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just out of curiosity , I picked up my G1 Android ( T-Mobile ) phone , turned on its maps - and it showed my current position as about 7 blocks south of where I actually am ( in my home office ) .
This is n't at all unusual .
GPS is notoriously flakey , and it 'd be really unnerving to read of a court accepting GPS position data as evidence.As an extreme case , a few months ago while sitting in the car with my wife driving , I checked the phone 's position .
At first , it showed the correct position , driving south a couple of miles from here on Boston 's Route 128 circumference highway .
Then suddenly it showed us jump to a point about 100 miles east-southeast , driving north about 15 miles off the coast of Cape Cod .
According to the phone , we drove along out in the ocean for 10 minutes or so , and then just as quickly popped back to a highway parallel to the street we were on , but a couple blocks away .
It would be fun to see a court deal with this " evidence " about our ( or at least my phone 's ) position at that time.We also have a couple Garmin GPS gadgets in our cars .
Several years ago , while driving south on a local street in a nearby town ( Concord ) , I noticed the GPS showed my position as about a block north of where I was - and moving north at around 100 mph .
Traffic was light , so I glanced at it frequently , and watched my position pop to the correct one .
So I quickly switched to the numerical display , and saw that I was travelling south on the street at over 200 mph ( or 300 kph if you prefer ) .
Again , I had thoughts of the gadget 's record of my travels being presented as evidence in court .
" Do you often get your car up to over 200 mph on local streets like this ?
" Actually , I sorta doubt that the car could take the stresses of that particular maneuver.I 've been on the lookout for stories of GPS data being used in court cases .
But so far , I have n't read of any .
Does anyone here know about this ?
Are any courts actually accepting GPS data as evidence ?
From my experience with a few brands of GPS receivers , I 'd be sorta nervous at the thought that my freedom or life savings might depend on the accuracy of such data .
Judges and others with legal training do seem to have something of a history of credulity when it comes to technological information that can be subpoenaed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just out of curiosity, I picked up my G1 Android (T-Mobile) phone, turned on its maps - and it showed my current position as about 7 blocks south of where I actually am (in my home office).
This isn't at all unusual.
GPS is notoriously flakey, and it'd be really unnerving to read of a court accepting GPS position data as evidence.As an extreme case, a few months ago while sitting in the car with my wife driving, I checked the phone's position.
At first, it showed the correct position, driving south a couple of miles from here on Boston's Route 128 circumference highway.
Then suddenly it showed us jump to a point about 100 miles east-southeast, driving north about 15 miles off the coast of Cape Cod.
According to the phone, we drove along out in the ocean for 10 minutes or so, and then just as quickly popped back to a highway parallel to the street we were on, but a couple blocks away.
It would be fun to see a court deal with this "evidence" about our (or at least my phone's) position at that time.We also have a couple Garmin GPS gadgets in our cars.
Several years ago, while driving south on a local street in a nearby town (Concord), I noticed the GPS showed my position as about a block north of where I was - and moving north at around 100 mph.
Traffic was light, so I glanced at it frequently, and watched my position pop to the correct one.
So I quickly switched to the numerical display, and saw that I was travelling south on the street at over 200 mph (or 300 kph if you prefer).
Again, I had thoughts of the gadget's record of my travels being presented as evidence in court.
"Do you often get your car up to over 200 mph on local streets like this?
"  Actually, I sorta doubt that the car could take the stresses of that particular maneuver.I've been on the lookout for stories of GPS data being used in court cases.
But so far, I haven't read of any.
Does anyone here know about this?
Are any courts actually accepting GPS data as evidence?
From my experience with a few brands of GPS receivers, I'd be sorta nervous at the thought that my freedom or life savings might depend on the accuracy of such data.
Judges and others with legal training do seem to have something of a history of credulity when it comes to technological information that can be subpoenaed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288058</id>
	<title>8 million times?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259658720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That could easily be 15 people, one "location" revealed per GPS heartbeat for the full year+month.  Or a slightly larger number of people tracked for smaller periods of time.  No, I didn't read the article, but 8,000,000 sounds ridiculously high for individual requests.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That could easily be 15 people , one " location " revealed per GPS heartbeat for the full year + month .
Or a slightly larger number of people tracked for smaller periods of time .
No , I did n't read the article , but 8,000,000 sounds ridiculously high for individual requests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That could easily be 15 people, one "location" revealed per GPS heartbeat for the full year+month.
Or a slightly larger number of people tracked for smaller periods of time.
No, I didn't read the article, but 8,000,000 sounds ridiculously high for individual requests.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30296572</id>
	<title>Re:It's legal, and it's no big deal</title>
	<author>fgouget</author>
	<datestamp>1259592540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In the end, the information being obtained without a warrant is all information you freely gave to a third party.</p></div><p>Concerning phone calls, technically there is no way of making that phone call without disclosing the phone number you want to call to the operator. So I disagree about your assertion that the information was freely given to it.

</p><p>Concerning the GPS data, as far as I know there is no way to prevent a GPS-equipped phone from disclosing your location to the operator. I'm not even sure giving such an option to customers would be legal in the US. So again, I have to disagree with the 'freely' part here, though it could be argued that you can still buy a cheap phone with no GPS, and a separate GPS with no communication capability. But erally, what kind of an option is that?

</p><p>Finally, as was pointed out in another reply, that data is sent to a second-party (the operator with whom you already have a relation), not a third-party (the police with whom you have no relation).

</p><p>Now don't misunderstand me. You're saying that such is the law and I don't argue with that. I just disagree that the above justifies that you should have no expectation of privacy for this information and thus that the law as it is makes sense.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the end , the information being obtained without a warrant is all information you freely gave to a third party.Concerning phone calls , technically there is no way of making that phone call without disclosing the phone number you want to call to the operator .
So I disagree about your assertion that the information was freely given to it .
Concerning the GPS data , as far as I know there is no way to prevent a GPS-equipped phone from disclosing your location to the operator .
I 'm not even sure giving such an option to customers would be legal in the US .
So again , I have to disagree with the 'freely ' part here , though it could be argued that you can still buy a cheap phone with no GPS , and a separate GPS with no communication capability .
But erally , what kind of an option is that ?
Finally , as was pointed out in another reply , that data is sent to a second-party ( the operator with whom you already have a relation ) , not a third-party ( the police with whom you have no relation ) .
Now do n't misunderstand me .
You 're saying that such is the law and I do n't argue with that .
I just disagree that the above justifies that you should have no expectation of privacy for this information and thus that the law as it is makes sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the end, the information being obtained without a warrant is all information you freely gave to a third party.Concerning phone calls, technically there is no way of making that phone call without disclosing the phone number you want to call to the operator.
So I disagree about your assertion that the information was freely given to it.
Concerning the GPS data, as far as I know there is no way to prevent a GPS-equipped phone from disclosing your location to the operator.
I'm not even sure giving such an option to customers would be legal in the US.
So again, I have to disagree with the 'freely' part here, though it could be argued that you can still buy a cheap phone with no GPS, and a separate GPS with no communication capability.
But erally, what kind of an option is that?
Finally, as was pointed out in another reply, that data is sent to a second-party (the operator with whom you already have a relation), not a third-party (the police with whom you have no relation).
Now don't misunderstand me.
You're saying that such is the law and I don't argue with that.
I just disagree that the above justifies that you should have no expectation of privacy for this information and thus that the law as it is makes sense.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30289516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288498</id>
	<title>Mindsplosion - This is "cell phone", not "GPS"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259660520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A GPS does not transmit. It only receives.</p><p>It does not even transmit a little tiny bit, not even like 'not really transmitting because isn't so little'. Or even transmit that it's not transmitting at all, like a "Hello, I am here, just ignore me". It is silent like the death of the grave from sunup to sundown.</p><p>Cell phones transmit, though.</p><p>So you can safely carry around a GPS without being tracked, but a Nokia 2100 would make you blip.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A GPS does not transmit .
It only receives.It does not even transmit a little tiny bit , not even like 'not really transmitting because is n't so little' .
Or even transmit that it 's not transmitting at all , like a " Hello , I am here , just ignore me " .
It is silent like the death of the grave from sunup to sundown.Cell phones transmit , though.So you can safely carry around a GPS without being tracked , but a Nokia 2100 would make you blip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A GPS does not transmit.
It only receives.It does not even transmit a little tiny bit, not even like 'not really transmitting because isn't so little'.
Or even transmit that it's not transmitting at all, like a "Hello, I am here, just ignore me".
It is silent like the death of the grave from sunup to sundown.Cell phones transmit, though.So you can safely carry around a GPS without being tracked, but a Nokia 2100 would make you blip.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288104</id>
	<title>The tinfoil hat jokes are on us.</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1259658960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yesterday's unmedicated-schizophrenic black helicopterite conspiracy theory is today's mundane maybe-the-media-will-actually-bother-to-pick-it-up-I-think-we-have-some-space-on-page-six story.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yesterday 's unmedicated-schizophrenic black helicopterite conspiracy theory is today 's mundane maybe-the-media-will-actually-bother-to-pick-it-up-I-think-we-have-some-space-on-page-six story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yesterday's unmedicated-schizophrenic black helicopterite conspiracy theory is today's mundane maybe-the-media-will-actually-bother-to-pick-it-up-I-think-we-have-some-space-on-page-six story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288152</id>
	<title>I'm immune!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259659140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My blackberry has a crappy GPS. Doesn't work indoors, and doesn't work half the time in the car.</p><p>Take that, iphone fanbois!!!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My blackberry has a crappy GPS .
Does n't work indoors , and does n't work half the time in the car.Take that , iphone fanbois ! ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My blackberry has a crappy GPS.
Doesn't work indoors, and doesn't work half the time in the car.Take that, iphone fanbois!!!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30287918</id>
	<title>automated tool for locating cells?</title>
	<author>Dyinobal</author>
	<datestamp>1259658240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Automated tool for locating cells? wow that sounds like an invitation for disaster and abuse. So what happens first, someone hacks it, or it's used in a 1984 style manner? (my guess is the latter has already happened/happening.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Automated tool for locating cells ?
wow that sounds like an invitation for disaster and abuse .
So what happens first , someone hacks it , or it 's used in a 1984 style manner ?
( my guess is the latter has already happened/happening .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Automated tool for locating cells?
wow that sounds like an invitation for disaster and abuse.
So what happens first, someone hacks it, or it's used in a 1984 style manner?
(my guess is the latter has already happened/happening.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30289746</id>
	<title>See what happens</title>
	<author>e-scetic</author>
	<datestamp>1259665860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When people (and corporations are people) do their patriotic duty for their countries?  Your duty and loyalty should be to humanity instead.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When people ( and corporations are people ) do their patriotic duty for their countries ?
Your duty and loyalty should be to humanity instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When people (and corporations are people) do their patriotic duty for their countries?
Your duty and loyalty should be to humanity instead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288850</id>
	<title>That's it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259661840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm going back to a pager.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going back to a pager .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going back to a pager.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30290154</id>
	<title>Is Android Safer?</title>
	<author>Doc Ruby</author>
	<datestamp>1259667540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are mobile phones running Android safer than the closed source, locked down phone OS'es that can report your GPS position to the network without you ever knowing it happened?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are mobile phones running Android safer than the closed source , locked down phone OS'es that can report your GPS position to the network without you ever knowing it happened ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are mobile phones running Android safer than the closed source, locked down phone OS'es that can report your GPS position to the network without you ever knowing it happened?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288372</id>
	<title>Re:The tinfoil hat jokes are on us.</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1259659980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And if the trend is continuing, pause to imagine the unprecedented horrors that await us tomorrow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And if the trend is continuing , pause to imagine the unprecedented horrors that await us tomorrow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if the trend is continuing, pause to imagine the unprecedented horrors that await us tomorrow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30297790</id>
	<title>Re:8 million times?</title>
	<author>talking\_walnut</author>
	<datestamp>1259599080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good point. I looked through the article and couldn't see any mention of the number of unique requests made. I could have missed it but I doubt they were looking at 8 million different people.

Article raises a valid concern but in an alarmist manner.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good point .
I looked through the article and could n't see any mention of the number of unique requests made .
I could have missed it but I doubt they were looking at 8 million different people .
Article raises a valid concern but in an alarmist manner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good point.
I looked through the article and couldn't see any mention of the number of unique requests made.
I could have missed it but I doubt they were looking at 8 million different people.
Article raises a valid concern but in an alarmist manner.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30294556</id>
	<title>Re:It's legal, and it's no big deal</title>
	<author>nmos</author>
	<datestamp>1259612580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good info but I'd like to make a couple of points.</p><p>1.  That 8 million number only refers to requests for gps data and only refers to Sprint, the smallest of the big 3.  Add in ATT, and Verizon and you can probably multiply your numbers by at least 4.</p><p>2.  This is only accounts for gps data requests.  How about called numbers, sms messages, email, web browsing habits?</p><p>3.  The point that the Sprint person was making was that when they made this information available on line the number of requests exploded.  IMHO We're only seeing the begging of this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good info but I 'd like to make a couple of points.1 .
That 8 million number only refers to requests for gps data and only refers to Sprint , the smallest of the big 3 .
Add in ATT , and Verizon and you can probably multiply your numbers by at least 4.2 .
This is only accounts for gps data requests .
How about called numbers , sms messages , email , web browsing habits ? 3 .
The point that the Sprint person was making was that when they made this information available on line the number of requests exploded .
IMHO We 're only seeing the begging of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good info but I'd like to make a couple of points.1.
That 8 million number only refers to requests for gps data and only refers to Sprint, the smallest of the big 3.
Add in ATT, and Verizon and you can probably multiply your numbers by at least 4.2.
This is only accounts for gps data requests.
How about called numbers, sms messages, email, web browsing habits?3.
The point that the Sprint person was making was that when they made this information available on line the number of requests exploded.
IMHO We're only seeing the begging of this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30289516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30289302</id>
	<title>Others too</title>
	<author>mu51c10rd</author>
	<datestamp>1259664000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article mentions Verizon turning over data as well. They are currently the leader in marketshare in the cell phone market too. I am sure they all do this...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article mentions Verizon turning over data as well .
They are currently the leader in marketshare in the cell phone market too .
I am sure they all do this.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article mentions Verizon turning over data as well.
They are currently the leader in marketshare in the cell phone market too.
I am sure they all do this...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30289348</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, so I suck at math, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259664240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's going to be an error rate here based on the fact that they are specifying the numbers as a total of requests and not broken down by how many of these requests are for the same person or over which time period the requests are made, for that one person.</p><p>The 15.6\% number may come down drastically if we had this data to filter it down against.</p><p>That said, the number of requests, even for multiples against a single person are really high.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's going to be an error rate here based on the fact that they are specifying the numbers as a total of requests and not broken down by how many of these requests are for the same person or over which time period the requests are made , for that one person.The 15.6 \ % number may come down drastically if we had this data to filter it down against.That said , the number of requests , even for multiples against a single person are really high .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's going to be an error rate here based on the fact that they are specifying the numbers as a total of requests and not broken down by how many of these requests are for the same person or over which time period the requests are made, for that one person.The 15.6\% number may come down drastically if we had this data to filter it down against.That said, the number of requests, even for multiples against a single person are really high.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288716</id>
	<title>Re:Glad I don't have GPS in my cellphone</title>
	<author>Facegarden</author>
	<datestamp>1259661300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am now really glad I don't have GPS in my cellphone. In fact, I am glad I almost never even have my cellphone with me anymore...</p></div><p>They can still find you to within a couple hundred meters. They use cell triangulation for 911 calls and smartphones with google maps use it with surprising accuracy for a rough fix when GPS is off or out of signal.<br>-Taylor</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am now really glad I do n't have GPS in my cellphone .
In fact , I am glad I almost never even have my cellphone with me anymore...They can still find you to within a couple hundred meters .
They use cell triangulation for 911 calls and smartphones with google maps use it with surprising accuracy for a rough fix when GPS is off or out of signal.-Taylor</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am now really glad I don't have GPS in my cellphone.
In fact, I am glad I almost never even have my cellphone with me anymore...They can still find you to within a couple hundred meters.
They use cell triangulation for 911 calls and smartphones with google maps use it with surprising accuracy for a rough fix when GPS is off or out of signal.-Taylor
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30294312</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259696460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While it's true that 'law enforcement' has proven many times that it needs far more over-site and disclosure, I'd like to point out that these are not necessarily malicious requests. Most people use their cell phones for everything, including 911 calls. If a dispatcher feels officer response is necessary they might be inclined to find your cells location.<br>Does anyone know how many 911 calls come from cell phones annually?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While it 's true that 'law enforcement ' has proven many times that it needs far more over-site and disclosure , I 'd like to point out that these are not necessarily malicious requests .
Most people use their cell phones for everything , including 911 calls .
If a dispatcher feels officer response is necessary they might be inclined to find your cells location.Does anyone know how many 911 calls come from cell phones annually ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it's true that 'law enforcement' has proven many times that it needs far more over-site and disclosure, I'd like to point out that these are not necessarily malicious requests.
Most people use their cell phones for everything, including 911 calls.
If a dispatcher feels officer response is necessary they might be inclined to find your cells location.Does anyone know how many 911 calls come from cell phones annually?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288836</id>
	<title>Okay, so I suck at math, but...</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1259661780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...I'm willing to take a crack at some amateur number crunching.</p><p>Per <a href="http://www.billshrink.com/cell-phones/carrier-compare/index.html" title="billshrink.com">billshrink</a> [billshrink.com], Sprint is responsible for 51M out of 268M or so that are in the cell phone market.  8M of those were monitored via data collected via Sprint, and it is unknown whether or how this number scales across the other providers.</p><p><a href="http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=uspopulation&amp;met=population&amp;tdim=true&amp;q=us+population" title="google.com">Google</a> [google.com] holds the US population at 304M.</p><p><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/02/record.prison.population/" title="cnn.com">CNN</a> [cnn.com] has the US prison/probation/parole population at 7.3M.</p><p>Right off the bat, it seems like you have a greater chance of having the government track your GPS data than being actually convicted of a crime.  And this assumes the numbers are equal, where they are not.</p><p>7.3M from a total of 304M is 2.4\%.  The odds of you being a criminal are approximately three in one hundred.</p><p>8M from a total of 51M is 15.6\%.</p><p>6.5 times as many people, proportionately, were spied upon by Sprint on behalf of law enforcement.</p><p>Extrapolating that out, something close to 50M people's cell phone data was shared with law enforcement.  Looking at the prison population numbers, this means for every criminal in the entire system, something like five were investigated.  And that doesn't completely hold up either because those 7.3M aren't cell customers on the one hand, and not every citizen in the US is a member of the market share.</p><p>And this is just the data we know about.</p><p>Again, the math here is almost certainly wrong, but I'm sure some bright slashdot folks can come along and help us with that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...I 'm willing to take a crack at some amateur number crunching.Per billshrink [ billshrink.com ] , Sprint is responsible for 51M out of 268M or so that are in the cell phone market .
8M of those were monitored via data collected via Sprint , and it is unknown whether or how this number scales across the other providers.Google [ google.com ] holds the US population at 304M.CNN [ cnn.com ] has the US prison/probation/parole population at 7.3M.Right off the bat , it seems like you have a greater chance of having the government track your GPS data than being actually convicted of a crime .
And this assumes the numbers are equal , where they are not.7.3M from a total of 304M is 2.4 \ % .
The odds of you being a criminal are approximately three in one hundred.8M from a total of 51M is 15.6 \ % .6.5 times as many people , proportionately , were spied upon by Sprint on behalf of law enforcement.Extrapolating that out , something close to 50M people 's cell phone data was shared with law enforcement .
Looking at the prison population numbers , this means for every criminal in the entire system , something like five were investigated .
And that does n't completely hold up either because those 7.3M are n't cell customers on the one hand , and not every citizen in the US is a member of the market share.And this is just the data we know about.Again , the math here is almost certainly wrong , but I 'm sure some bright slashdot folks can come along and help us with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I'm willing to take a crack at some amateur number crunching.Per billshrink [billshrink.com], Sprint is responsible for 51M out of 268M or so that are in the cell phone market.
8M of those were monitored via data collected via Sprint, and it is unknown whether or how this number scales across the other providers.Google [google.com] holds the US population at 304M.CNN [cnn.com] has the US prison/probation/parole population at 7.3M.Right off the bat, it seems like you have a greater chance of having the government track your GPS data than being actually convicted of a crime.
And this assumes the numbers are equal, where they are not.7.3M from a total of 304M is 2.4\%.
The odds of you being a criminal are approximately three in one hundred.8M from a total of 51M is 15.6\%.6.5 times as many people, proportionately, were spied upon by Sprint on behalf of law enforcement.Extrapolating that out, something close to 50M people's cell phone data was shared with law enforcement.
Looking at the prison population numbers, this means for every criminal in the entire system, something like five were investigated.
And that doesn't completely hold up either because those 7.3M aren't cell customers on the one hand, and not every citizen in the US is a member of the market share.And this is just the data we know about.Again, the math here is almost certainly wrong, but I'm sure some bright slashdot folks can come along and help us with that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288368</id>
	<title>Not just Sprint</title>
	<author>mu51c10rd</author>
	<datestamp>1259659980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This was interesting:</p><p>
&nbsp; </p><p><div class="quote"><p>The first agency within DOJ to respond was the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), who informed me that they had price lists on file for Cox, Comcast, Yahoo! and Verizon. Since the price lists were provided to USMS voluntarily, the companies were given the opportunity to object to the disclosure of their documents. Neither Comcast nor Cox objected (perhaps because their price lists were already public), while both Verizon and Yahoo! objected to the disclosure.</p></div><p>I am sure all the major providers are guilty of this. Regardless, I am curious to see if 911 operators are lumped into those requests. Many of them may be dispatch trying to find someone's cell phone from an accident or someone in trouble.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This was interesting :   The first agency within DOJ to respond was the U.S. Marshals Service ( USMS ) , who informed me that they had price lists on file for Cox , Comcast , Yahoo !
and Verizon .
Since the price lists were provided to USMS voluntarily , the companies were given the opportunity to object to the disclosure of their documents .
Neither Comcast nor Cox objected ( perhaps because their price lists were already public ) , while both Verizon and Yahoo !
objected to the disclosure.I am sure all the major providers are guilty of this .
Regardless , I am curious to see if 911 operators are lumped into those requests .
Many of them may be dispatch trying to find someone 's cell phone from an accident or someone in trouble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was interesting:
  The first agency within DOJ to respond was the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), who informed me that they had price lists on file for Cox, Comcast, Yahoo!
and Verizon.
Since the price lists were provided to USMS voluntarily, the companies were given the opportunity to object to the disclosure of their documents.
Neither Comcast nor Cox objected (perhaps because their price lists were already public), while both Verizon and Yahoo!
objected to the disclosure.I am sure all the major providers are guilty of this.
Regardless, I am curious to see if 911 operators are lumped into those requests.
Many of them may be dispatch trying to find someone's cell phone from an accident or someone in trouble.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1919243_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30296572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30289516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1919243_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1919243_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30289596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1919243_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30289760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1919243_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30289348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1919243_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1919243_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30289284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1919243_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1919243_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1919243_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30294556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30289516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1919243_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30292514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1919243_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30292860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30289516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1919243_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30290124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1919243_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1919243_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30293660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1919243_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30294914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30289516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1919243_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30289302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1919243_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30298786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1919243_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30289086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1919243_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30297790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1919243_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30290708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30290154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1919243_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_1919243_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30289138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_1919243.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288152
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_1919243.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30289348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30292514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30289596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30290124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30298786
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_1919243.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30287918
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_1919243.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_1919243.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30289284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30289760
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_1919243.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30290154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30290708
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_1919243.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30287880
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_1919243.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288716
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_1919243.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30289516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30294556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30292860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30294914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30296572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_1919243.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30289858
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_1919243.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288372
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_1919243.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288760
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_1919243.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30289302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30289138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288806
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_1919243.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30297790
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_1919243.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288062
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_1919243.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288136
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_1919243.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30288050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30289086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_1919243.30293660
</commentlist>
</conversation>
