*disclousre: I have no idea what I'm talking about. Is it possible for Apple to anonymize the packets of data sent to carries for location? Why is it necessary for carries to have access to your location, for billing purposes? I'm sure we'll see more encrypted measures for iOS 10 come WWDC16.
I'm no expert, but I don't think there is anything Apple could do. As long as your phone is on, it's going to ping off the nearest cell phone tower and your location will be known. If you could somehow block your ping, I don't know how you would be able to get phone service.
It's to:
- Track people down if an inbound call comes up. - Accelerate (a lot) outbound data and voice calls. Go into airplane mode and then reconnect to the network to see how slow that is. - Facilitate handoff between towers. How would it be able to send your data along if it can't track you?
Perhaps Apple itself could put a stop to this. They have billions in the bank and can use it to build out their own network.
Wifi calling gets more and more attractive. . .
Wifi calling won't protect you either. Although the government won't be able to get cell tower records for you, you can still be pinned to a location by the IP information on your phone and the hotspots you connect to. It doesn't matter if Apple builds its own network either. The information you provide (through your phone or other device) to the phone company (or whoever facilitates the communication) could be obtained by law enforcement through a subpoena. The content of your communication is protected, but the IP or phone number or whatever is used to establish the channel of communication is not protected because you have provided that information to a 3rd party.
Well, you could VPN somewhere far away (and out of legal reach) to call (getting into paranoid levels here).
I'd say WIFI calling from random hotspots now would be more secure because it would be a mess for law enforcement to track down all that info as it is more fragmented than just going to one carrier.
...
The ruling was made possible because of a long-standing legal theory, working on the premise that the information is already being shared with a third party -- specifically the carriers, Reuters said. ...
I don't consider my carrier a "third party". We have a direct business relationship so they are not a third party. Someone needs to go back to grammar class. See the definition below.
From a Google search...
third par·ty
noun
noun: third party; plural noun: third parties
1.
a person or group besides the two primarily involved in a situation, especially a dispute.
a political party organized as an alternative to the major parties in a two-party system.
adjective
adjective: third-party; adjective: third party
1.
of or relating to a person or group besides the two primarily involved in a situation.
This is the same standard applied by the courts when other private activities are concerned. For example, if you are sitting alone out in a field and the government spies on you from a plane or drone, prosecutors will argue that everyone knows that planes and drones can monitor people on the ground ... so you have "no reasonable expectation of privacy." ...
Apples and Oranges...
Location information is not publicly visible from a public location.
...
The ruling was made possible because of a long-standing legal theory, working on the premise that the information is already being shared with a third party -- specifically the carriers, Reuters said. ...
I don't consider my carrier a "third party". We have a direct business relationship so they are not a third party. Someone needs to go back to grammar class. See the definition below.
From a Google search...
third par·ty
noun
noun: third party; plural noun: third parties
1.
a person or group besides the two primarily involved in a situation, especially a dispute.
a political party organized as an alternative to the major parties in a two-party system.
adjective
adjective: third-party; adjective: third party
1.
of or relating to a person or group besides the two primarily involved in a situation.
"third-party suppliers"
You are the first party, and anyone you communicate with is the second party. Since the carrier facilitates the communication they are the third party.
I don't consider my carrier a "third party". We have a direct business relationship so they are not a third party. Someone needs to go back to grammar class. See the definition below.
From a Google search...
third par·ty
noun
noun: third party; plural noun: third parties
1.
a person or group besides the two primarily involved in a situation, especially a dispute.
a political party organized as an alternative to the major parties in a two-party system.
adjective
adjective: third-party; adjective: third party
1.
of or relating to a person or group besides the two primarily involved in a situation.
"third-party suppliers"
You are the first party, and anyone you communicate with is the second party. Since the carrier facilitates the communication they are the third party.
The relationship is with the carrier when it comes to location data. I have a contract with the carrier for services. Location data exists without making a phone call.
You are the first party, and anyone you communicate with is the second party. Since the carrier facilitates the communication they are the third party.
The relationship is with the carrier when it comes to location data. I have a contract with the carrier for services. Location data exists without making a phone call.
If they're selling/giving any of your info (location meta data in this case), the third party is the person they're giving/selling it to. That's how it works for Google and Facebook (and well for everyone else). Calling the carrier third party in this case is really weird.
I'm no expert, but I don't think there is anything Apple could do. As long as your phone is on, it's going to ping off the nearest cell phone tower and your location will be known. If you could somehow block your ping, I don't know how you would be able to get phone service.
It's to:
- Track people down if an inbound call comes up. - Accelerate (a lot) outbound data and voice calls. Go into airplane mode and then reconnect to the network to see how slow that is. - Facilitate handoff between towers. How would it be able to send your data along if it can't track you?
Generally speaking, cellular technology precedes civilian GPS by a decade at the very least, so I don't think the carriers need it for anything related to transmission or reception of voice or data. They might be using it to facilitate handoff between towers nowadays but I don’t think it's necessary. The only reason I can see is for 911 tracking of a call in case they lose connection for whatever reason, a capability that landlines can procure with call display and a database.
Comments
- Track people down if an inbound call comes up.
- Accelerate (a lot) outbound data and voice calls. Go into airplane mode and then reconnect to the network to see how slow that is.
- Facilitate handoff between towers. How would it be able to send your data along if it can't track you?
I'd say WIFI calling from random hotspots now would be more secure because it would be a mess for law enforcement to track down all that info as it is more fragmented than just going to one carrier.
From a Google search...
Location information is not publicly visible from a public location.
Calling the carrier third party in this case is really weird.