Carrier sales of phone-location data is illegal, FCC plans punishment

There's a lot they can do. Lobbyist at a minimum have the same access to a politician as you do. They can make phone calls, send letters, attend and speak at legislative hearings, or try to be involved in the right social circles. Building this social element is important for their continued success and gives them access beyond what a typical person could normally obtain.

More importantly they have influence because some group has a moneyed interest in legislation. This can give them the resources to do the above regularly. They might hire legal counsel to sue governments. They may be able to lend support to pet projects and gain support for their own goals.

I always assumed there was a lot of talking. Most politicians are inclined to want to help businesses anyway, as they provide jobs and generate tax revenue. If the lobbyist can come in and say “here’s what the cell phone providers nationwide need to stay in business and continue to generate good returns to shareholders and low prices to customers,” then that’s a powerful message - especially when the counter-argument is a pile of faxes and postcards from constituents that don’t tell a coherent story.

The money certainly doesn’t hurt, though.

They organize ways for their clients to bundle significant financial contributions to politician's campaigns so that when they "talk", they can point to significant past contributions or promise future contributions. Or threaten contributions to challengers.

Although individual contributions are limited in theory, bundling allows vast contributions in practice. For example, a CEO can persuade senior execs to donate the maximum to a candidate. Or someone can host a fundraiser at their home (or wine cave) and "encourage" many acquaintances to attend. They get credit with the politician for the total raised.

Finally, Political Action Committees can take unlimited contributions from anyone so long as they don't "coordinate" with a politician's campaign. In practice they can of course be very helpful to a candidate's campaign, and lobbyists will use that to influence.

Germany here, there is a lower limit, below which we do not have to enter a pin. Maybe the same for you?

Yeah, we do chip, and maybe signature if we feel like it

20 years is a long time! I suggest you give them another shot. I have their Platinum card and the service has been top notch (although paying for their charge card is not required if you pick a product with no annual fee).

Gas pumps will sometimes work after hours even if a clerk isn’t on duty. Same with other self service situations where a card might be your only payment option. Carrying cash is a last resort; you risk losing it or not having enough.

Some places don't accept cash to reduce the risk of theft--we don't carry cash, you can't steal from the cash register.

actually this isn't true - i was in Seattle and there's at least one cashless Starbucks and one restaurant (Kati Vegan Thai); when i asked at both places they patiently explained that they couldn't accept cash at either one.

Yes, I was assuming some cash as well. Appropriate currency, dollars in particular most places, is always useful when traveling. But if you’re at a supermarket checkout and your card is randomly declined (has happened to me) it’s nice to be able to pull out another card.

Carriers were selling the data E911 location. That’s what this article is about. If you want to research further look up the companies that offer mobile location like Jumio, LocationSmart or Zumigo.

On paper. How do you know it’s foreign? That’s why they warehouse it. As much as they can. Figure out if it’s foreign later on. Don’t underestimate the laws they will skirt to collect data.

Look up how 5 eyes works.

Why would they ever stop? No one made them stop. They were cleared to operate under that legal theory. Go back and review the exhaustive testimony from that period and you will find they were never forced to stop collecting “potentially” domestic communications. I think its best to assume they are.

Edit: start with Hayden. They admitted exactly how it all works and what the judges allowed. Read up on the many EFF lawsuits that were shut down.

Triangulation, signal strength, etc.

0 effective difference.

Not much of a difference really. Mainly just that LE uses their own equipment instead of that of the carrier. This brings up a separate FCC issue: Why is it okay for LE to transmit on the cellular bands for this purpose, when it provably can interfere with emergency communications (such as a 911 call)?

Because it's hyperbolic, sarcastic, and unhelpful. Your question rephrased as a statement is completely fine: "Unfortunately, mass surveillance and extremely targeted surveillance are both still legal and frequently used."

As you pick up on, the question was just used to make a statement, not gain information. That could be considered bad-faithy. But at the very least it annoys with its overused tone of sarcastic outrage, especially because it was the second such comment in the thread, made after the first was already shown to be entirely wrong.

On its merits, the accusation of hypocrisy is also a non-sequitur: from "one bad thing is stopped" never follows "all bad things are stopped". The implied expectation is impossible to fulfill.

It's also unhelpful, politically, in a way that this thread, HN generally, or even "the internet" are full of: If everyone is always assuming the worst while expecting the best, it removes all incentives for anyone in power to behave honorably. After all, if you're going to be accused to be corrupt and/or incompetent anyway, why even try?

> Unless E911 works by transmitting your devices' GPS readings from its own hardware to authorities

That's exactly how it works:

> When the cellular phone detects that the user is placing an emergency call, it begins to transmit its location to a secure server, from which the [Public Safety Answering Point] can retrieve it. Cellphone manufacturers may program the phone to automatically enable GPS functionality (if disabled) when an emergency call is placed, so that it may transmit its location.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_9-1-1#Wireless_transm...

I didn't opine on this instance wrt if legal counsel did or did not sign off. If corporate counsel signs off on criminal behavior, it should be criminally charged.

One of you is speaking of knowledge of the crime and the other is referring to knowledge of the law. Different things entirely.

Do you remember when telephones didn't come with embedded GPS, browser webbugs, G+ NSTIC profiles (https://old.reddit.com/r/plexodus/comments/aa6pmi/a_manhatta..., https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-plus-history-deat...), and OS-level UUIDs?

Pepperidge Farm remembers.

In my opinion, what Google does is better than just selling raw data. But not that much better -- Google still has the raw data, after all, and other entities get most of the benefits of access to that data.

That's why I consider it splitting hairs.

> if you are unable to make that distinction then you aren't aware of the terrifying scale and specificity of the data provided by other industries.

I am aware of the difference, and you're right, it's terrifying. But it's no less terrifying that Google can still do this.

I'm more worried when I CAN'T buy that data - because then I have no idea what they're holding onto (for private deals, either with corps, defense contractors, .gov, etc).