100 comments

[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 79.0 ms ] thread
(comment deleted)
Emergency services (with the proper software) have been able to get your precise location from your phone for a while now.

This isn’t a new capability and shouldn’t be surprising.

I spent ~5 years volunteering for a search and rescue team in New Mexico.

We definitely got the cellphone tower triangulation data. I never once saw GNSS data provided by a carrier. We used FindMeSAR https://findmesar.com/, the subject would usually text back the coordinates from the phone.

Just one data point.

The revolution that's occurred since my SAR volunteer days is the wide availability of satellite messenging on consumer phones. I'm guessing that's really changed the situation quite a bit.

One method is a "hidden sms" which your device sends after you called the emergency number on your own merit.

The article seems to describe another system which can be involved externally.

How is this news?

Why wouldn't carriers be able to ask your phone about what it thinks its location is?

Removing this ability also prevents emergency services from determining device location in case its owner goes missing.
Do they really need it? They can likely triangulate you without GPS regardless.
(comment deleted)
(comment deleted)
What you need iPhone Air, iPhone 16e, or iPad Pro (M5) Wi-Fi + Cellular iOS 26.3 or later

A supported carrier: Germany: Telekom United Kingdom: EE, BT United States: Boost Mobile Thailand: AIS, True

Turn limit precise location on or off

Open Settings, then tap Cellular.

Tap Cellular Data Options.

If you have more than one phone number under SIMs, tap one of your lines.

Scroll down to Limit Precise Location.

Turn the setting on or off. You might be prompted to restart your device.

Serious question: will this limit the ability of 911 emergency services to help you?

I can imagine a scenario where emergency servies are authorized to send the ping to get your precise location and if you disable this, you may regret it. And a major feature of some phones/watches is the ability to automatically call 911 under certain fall/crash movement detection, where you might not have the ability to re-enable your GPS location.

This community should be talking about meshcore more imho.

It's a peer to peer network based on Lora. It really only allows text messaging but with up to 20km hops between peers coverage is surprisingly huge. Incredibly useful if you go hiking with friends (if you get split up you can still stay in touch).

See https://eastmesh.au/ and scroll down to the map for the Victoria and now more widely Australia network that's sprung up.

If you go hiking with friends who aren't total nerds, the proprietary options offer a more consumer-grade experience. (ie, usable by them)
> This community should be talking about meshcore more imho.

The fundamental problem of distributed networks is that you can either have centralized control of the endpoints, or your network becomes vulnerable to denial-of-service attacks. So meshcore/meshtastic are great because they are used only by well-meaning people. If they become more popular, we'll start getting tons of spam :(

I really want to get into these Lora based mesh tools but the range in my experience is terrible. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, maybe it's a lack of nodes in my area.

I just tested the other day. I'm in the midwest US so it's winter, no leaves. I managed to get about a quarter mile before my two portable nodes couldn't talk to each other. T-Echo with muziworks whip antenna.

Without a bunch of solidly placed, high elevation, high gain antenna nodes, this just isn't really that usable.

Plus, all the other issues others have highlighted.

What does this have to do with mobile carriers tracking GPS data? If you're implying we should use it instead of mobile phones that's not practical at all.
This isn't great advice if it's supposed to be an alternative to text messaging with a carrier (especially if you're using encrypted RCS).

For one, meshcore doesn't do a fantastic job of protecting metadata. Advertisements include your public key, and if I'm reading this[0] right, your GPS coordinates.

Second, the default public channel uses effectively no encryption at all.

Moreover, the network doesn't exhaustively prevent someone who intercepts a packet from identifying who sent it. It's no Signal.

[0] https://deepwiki.com/meshcore-dev/MeshCore/7.1-packet-struct...

euhm, well. 112 programmer here. There are multiple levels. Cell tower triangulation come in automatically from providers. But they are only in tower numbers. They might be wrongly entered by engineers, hence the confirming question about where you are. Second is subscription information, as in registered address. Chances are if called from nearby your address, you are at your address. Next is a text to your phone number, which is intercepted by firmware and sends gps coords back. This can be turned off, since implementation.
Did you read the article or are you merely responding to the title? The article begins by acknowledging triangulation and then moving on to the point of the article. The article is about commands built into the UMTS and LTE specs for requesting GPS from the device. Your comment seems to be about everything but the main point of the article.
Do you use triangulation or GPS? EISEC in the UK only uses GPS, never triangulation.
What if I told you that carriers can also activate your phone's microphone without your knowledge and listen in on your surroundings?
Phones haven't always had GPS information and they could still be tracked, if you connect to enough towers they can triangulate your location. Cell towers have been able to do this based on your signal strength for a very long time and you cant turn it off. You don't even have to have a SIM card, if the cell radio is on it pings towers period, this is why a phone even without service can dial 911 and it will work. The IMEI of your phone is unique and cell towers can track it, the government has used this and there is no way to disable it. Its not as accurate as GPS but it can be good enough to figure out a route you take and general location

https://www.rfwireless-world.com/terminology/cellular-tower-...

(comment deleted)
There actually should be a push for an EU-wide legislation banning this kind of silent, precise location data collection. If anything, Germany is obsessed with Datenschutz but in many cases it's just laughable security theater.
What are the alternative steps that we can take in Android? How to check if it is happening?
"and notify the user when such attempts are made to their device."

We aren't going to remove the security state. We should make all attempts to, but it won't happen. What needs to happen is accountability. I should be able to turn off sharing personal information and if someone tries I should be notified and have recourse. This should also be retroactive. If I have turned off sharing and someone finds a technical loophole and uses it, there should be consequences. The only way to stop the rampant abuse is to treat data like fire. If you have it and it gets out of control you get burned, badly.

> We aren't going to remove the security state

What security state? They aren't doing this for anyone's safety. This is the surveillance and parallel construction state.

> What needs to happen is accountability.

No agency can have this power and remain accountable. Warrants are not an effective tool for managing this. Courts cannot effectively perform oversight after the fact.

> The only way to stop the rampant abuse is to treat data like fire.

You've missed the obvious. You should really go the other direction. Our devices should generate _noise_. Huge crazy amounts of noise. Extraneous data to a level that pollutes the system beyond any utility. They accept all this data without filtering. They should suffer for that choice.

For consequences, we need to do away with the notion of qualified immunity. Why should police officers, politicians, agents of the government have any immunity for their actions? They should carry personal liability for breaking the law and violating others’ rights. Otherwise, there is no reason they’ll change. Right now, at best you’ll sue the government and get some money, but all you’re doing is punishing other tax payers.
Don't cheer that any policy be applied to technology you wouldn't want applied to your own brain.

Imagine you get Neuralink and your best friend files for the right to be forgotten. Then poof. All your memories together gone.

> We aren't going to remove the security state

We definitely won't get rid of it if we accept failure. I get that it seems extremely unlikely, but there's no use in trying to just mitigate the risk short term. One way or another that power will be abused eventually (if it isn't already).

I turned off all cell carrier tracking 5 years ago. 100% of it.

By canceling my cell phone subscription.

I know I know, I must be amish, I have heard it all. But I run two tech companies, travel, have a family, and do most of the things most around here probably do other than doom scrolling.

So much more time in my own head to think.

>We aren't going to remove the security state.

We should make it impossible for the data to be obtained without express user agreement.

So what irked that since my brand-new iPhone uses a Qualcomm “modem chip” (god, the slide of terminology makes my skin crawl) I won’t have access to this feature.
They can also just use math on their connection logs.
(comment deleted)
Anyone know why apple specifies this feature requires a supported carrier? Why would the carrier matter?
Phones are jammed full of features that get disabled or enabled on a per carrier and per country basis.

Most of those features are not user visible and are compatibility hacks - ie. "use lower profile in video calls if country = FR".

I'd be curious about alternatives like lte/5g hotspots, maybe even a DIY versions using hats or modules.