5 comments

• 

  gr

  12 months ago

  "First, no one is forcing you to buy the phones equipped with LBS or purchase / download these technologies! "
  
  It could be the case, in a stalking or abuse scenario, that an abuser actually does force someone to use these technologies. Uses it as a form of a "digital leash." Or an employer could also impose these technologies on their staff.
  
  Another point is that given the E-911 mandates, we are already forcing some form of location technology on everyone, though not necessarily the full panoply of services. Increasing location accuracy standards should be matched by increasing privacy standards.
  reply
• 

  Adam Thierer

  12 months ago

  GR... I'm not sure how a stalker could "force" someone to use these technologies. The only scenario I could imagine is if a stalker purchased a LBS-equipped phone, activated the service, signed up for Loopt or some other LBS service, and then threw the phone in the car trunk of the person they wanted to track. But they'd also have to rig some sort of battery solution to make that surreptitious tracking device work over an extended period.
  
  But this strikes me as a fairly extreme scenario. And, quite frankly, any criminal determined to go that far to stalk or track someone is probably going to find some sort of technology to do it even if LBS didn't exist. Should we ban binoculars, telescopes, tape recorders, etc. based merely on such extreme stalking scenarios? I think not.
  
  Also, regarding your E911 point.. it is true that the FCC mandated it and that it served as the origin of this new LBS sector, but that doesn't mean that people are without any means of blocking LBS-based commercial service. You don't have to subscribe or activate it. And don't forget, you have to share your phone number with people and then approve them before they are allowed into your network. This is an essential point.
  reply
• 

  brian knapp from Loopt

  12 months ago

  gr, Adam - thank you for the feedback. I would add that responsible LBS providers such as Loopt are aware of this stalking misuse case and work to limit it. In fact, Loopt works directly with the National Network to End Domestic Violence (www.nnedv.org) and we've created technologies in our system, based on that working relationship with NNEDV, to help thwart these kind of scenarios. Loopt is always open to helpful comments, please email us at privacy@loopt.com Thank you. Best Regards, brian
  reply
• 

  gr

  12 months ago

  "The only scenario I could imagine is if a stalker purchased a LBS-equipped phone, activated the service, signed up for Loopt or some other LBS service, and then threw the phone in the car trunk of the person they wanted to track."
  
  This case has occurred. Yes the phone was hooked up to the battery and also served as a listening device.
  
  But I'm imagining a coercive/abusive relationship. One where we can't just say "its the choice" of the person signing up or adding the service, because not all choices are freely made. Imagine a situation where partner actually DOES force/bully/ coerce another to share their location with them. I believe Loopt incorporates this scenario by allowing people to forge their locations. An industry minimum, I would say.
  
  And one last point. Sometimes this gets noticed, sometimes not, but this situation also raises the importance of having the data subject, not account holder, be able to control their location information.
  reply
• 

  brian knapp from Loopt

  12 months ago

  dear gr: again...very insightful comments, thank you. Correct, Loopt permits users to control their location sharing completely including with a "manual" location setting, which can be any location / address -- of the user's choice. We also agree with your position that the 'end user' of the device (i.e., the individual with custody of the device) should have ultimate say in controlling location information, it is this person's privacy at stake. best, brian
  reply