Last I checked, the large carriers in the states hoard this information for years.
The part that really is optional is where the carrier then stores and even sells your location. They are mandated by law with respect to the first and they abuse the technical capabilities of the system for the second. And even if it isn't very precise for a single measurement it is in fact quite precise after you haven't moved for a while.
You can buy data about the incomes of people driving past a given intersection. That's why you'll see a Starbucks sometimes on a trunk road in a sketch area.
1. Go outside
2. Break the phone in half
3. Toss it in the nearest garbage can
4. Walk away
Run. Half phone will burst into flames.
* does anyone know if this is still true?
Burners / prepaid SIM's are still a thing.
I once suggested some alternatives to him like Meshtastic, but he travels too much to random places for that to be practical.
Not any more. 5G changes this now that the location spying is baked into the cell tech itself. The base stations are literally steering the beam to follow you in order to achieve such high bandwidth. See “5G NR Positioning Enhancements in 3GPP Release-18” (2024): https://arxiv.org/html/2401.17594v1
“New radio (NR) positioning in the Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Release 18 (Rel-18) enables 5G-advanced networks to achieve ultra-high accuracy positioning without dependence on global navigation satellite systems (GNSS)”
“Release 18 (Rel-18) NR pushes the boundaries even further, unlocking the potential for applications in 5G-Advanced networks that demand ultra-high positioning accuracy – down to centimeter-level (cm-level)” (emphasis mine)
Even though modern cellular deployments have increased the positioning accuracy a bit, best in class network telemetry (either embedded or third party probes) that estimate positions from timing advances is still pretty crap in real life.
There are other tricks you can use such as "minimization of drive tests" that get the A-GPS position (which again, is not always that accurate, because it's cached), but this kind of telemetry is enabled only on small samples, because it has a non-trivial impact on the network performance.
Then I guess you could use straight up illegal ways such as abusing the E911 / E112 location tracking.
With the idea being that I use a second phone to connect to my main phone over the internet.
This lets the phone number you actually have associated with you stay in the same fixed geographical location.
E.g. all calls are initiated by the primary phone and tunnelled over the internet to the disposable phone.
But for apps like WhatsApp, Signal, SMS, iMessage etc. they would all need their own workarounds.
You will however have a problem with registering on those with a VoIP number - those ranges are generally blacklisted due to bad actors misusing those numbers for nefarious purposes.
https://www.xda-developers.com/android-12-killing-native-sip...
https://support.ooma.com/home/ooma-app-faq/#can-i-make-emerg...
if your location data is continuous, but happens to "switch off" when you're doing something sensitive, then it's like a blaring alarm that this is the period of time that is "sus". It gives any sort of LEA/feds a time period to investigate, and might even be the evidence they need for a search warrant.
Therefore, you should not just hide your signal only when you are doing sensitive things. You should periodically hide it going to groceries, going to the shops etc. You might want to do it regularly, as part of your daily life. Camouflage only works if it cannot be used to tell apart your activities.
ATT - https://www.att.com/consent/ccpa/dnsatt
T-Mobile: https://www.t-mobile.com/privacy-center --Access the Privacy Dashboard
Adjust the following privacy settings (toggle off as desired), per line/account: - Profiling and automated decisions (on by default) - Fraud and identity theft protection (shares account and usage info) - Sharing certain financial information (payment history, balances, etc.) - Analytics and reporting, Advertising options, and Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Verizon - Go to your MyVerizon Navigate to Account > Account Settings > Privacy Settings on the web; or tap the gear icon and choose Manage privacy settings in the app.
Locate the following tracking options: - Custom Experience - Custom Experience Plus - Business & Marketing Insights - CPNI (Customer Proprietary Network Information) and Identity Verification programs -For each, select "Don't Use" or toggle off to opt out
This one was seemingly a new one, and makes the hairs on my neck go up:
Make your choice about profiling and automated decisions.
You can tell us not to use your personal data for certain kinds of "profiling" that we might do in the future. This toggle allows you to opt out of having profiling used for future decisions that produce legal or similarly significant effects about you. We don't use profiling to make these kinds of decisions now. Turning this "OFF" or gray means "opt out of profiling and automated decisions."
I found this “Ultra Mobile and Mint Mobile – Policies regarding Geolocation Data” <https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-386591A1.pdf> that mentions third-party sharing, but it's a little dated (2022):
“Describe the arrangements, agreements, and circumstances in which Ultra Mobile and Mint Mobile share subscriber geolocation data with third parties that are not law enforcement.
None. The enhanced 911 process provides subscriber geolocation from the cell phone in the event of a 911 call, but it is not controlled by Ultra or Mint Mobile. Neither Ultra nor Mint Mobile provide geolocation data to any third parties.”
What this doesn't answer, however, is what T-Mobile are doing with Mint customers' location data. I have to assume they're selling everything they can and that's why the MVNO is so cheap compared to the main brand lol
At the scale I'm talking about, that's well into the seven figures.
Anyway know the story on location selling + Google Fi? Or with MVNOs in general.
I was certain I had disabled all of these through the normal t-mobile dashboard, but sure enough there were about 5 still enabled including the “sell my personal information” ones. Ouch.
e: I thought I had opted out of everything that was opt-out-able in TMo's privacy settings <https://www.t-mobile.com/privacy-center/dashboard/controls> years ago when I first set up my line/account, but I just checked again and more than half of the settings were enabled. Hate that I have to be in the habit of looking for new settings that default to enabled.
For a lot of people the difference won't be apparent, because they haven't moved.
I'm not sure whether to think the Mint MVNO on T-Mobile is better about privacy than T-Mobile. Or do you have some phone apps that are really the guilty party linking your phone number to your travel locations...?
Chilling realization
FCC, whether intentional or unintentional, through their controlled access to wireless spectrum has made it near impossible for smaller players to disrupt them.
I know "MVNOs" exist but they just resell the spectrum/network from the big 3 carriers in the USA.
If you have to lobby, then may as well attack them head on. Unfortunately, I think the current administration will _not_ help with this.
But if your idea becomes an extinction-level threat for a well-funded industry, surely they will also try to buy the politicians, getting into a bidding war with you, throwing their entire war-chest at the problem if necessary (knowing that thanks to their monopoly they have effectively forever to get it back).
Probably not the case with telecoms though -- they seem to have fully bought all the needed politicians already, so you're right on that front.
In my city, I gave my local alderman $750 when he first ran. I have the guy's cell phone and the dude will fill potholes himself if I text him.
The government can break up the phone companies into regional carriers. The market doesn't have the power to do anything, as the government controls the spectrum allocation.
The problem is EchoStar/DISH are saddled with debt and Boost still uses its agreements with AT&T to throw at least some customers on AT&T coverage instead of its own.
Now I don't actually have the knowledge but isn't something like the FCC partially there to ensure that this sector continues evolving in the same direction as any ol' utility?
Anyhow, I'm writing this from the EU where we actually have effective GDPR regulation. Fines for crossing that line are more than just wrist slaps. Outside of that somewhat similar on that oligopoly telecom front.
Yeah the GDPR is only effective on paper. In practice, the enforcement of it is near non-existent. It is and has always been more profitable to breach the GDPR than comply with it.
It's enough that the internal legal team keeps an eye on compliance to have had an enormous effect in itself.
I'm sorry but no. Every day I encounter something related to GDPR here in the EU. Companies big and small would not do all this if enforcement were "near non-existent"
The GDPR does not approve of that (it should be as easy to consent as it is to decline, otherwise the consent is void for GDPR purposes). Not to mention a lot of them aren't even implemented properly and personal data is leaked to third parties before any consent is given.
But everyone does it and keeps doing it (there's an entire ecosystem of those "consent management platforms" that include built-in features to breach it, including per-country variations so you can vary your non-compliance depending on the ferocity of that country's DPA and your risk-appetite).
And this is just the tip of the iceberg - I've seen things inside organizations that are not compliant either, but there's no point even talking about those if even the basic and obvious things like online consent flows not being enforced.
Here's a report from Noyb exposing the reality on the ground, quite a contrast with the tech-bros' fear-mongering: https://noyb.eu/en/data-protection-day-only-13-cases-eu-dpas...
> The carriers did not verify whether buyers obtained customer consent, the ruling said.
sour-taste•5mo ago
TimorousBestie•5mo ago
kstrauser•5mo ago
You hear a lot of lies to the contrary that it has the highest number of reversals, which is misleadingly irrelevant because the Ninth also has by far the greatest number of decisions. It's like saying that New York City has more violent crimes than El Paso, which utterly ignores the population difference between the two.
abduhl•5mo ago
fn-mote•5mo ago
2007-present, in this case
People making conclusions should look at the data, though.
In this case, every ciruit has a 64+% reversal rate, the sixth has a reversal rate almost identical to the 9th. I have no idea what a significant difference would be.
Maybe someone can explain a set of assumptions and the resulting variance.
Larrikin•5mo ago
BrenBarn•5mo ago
abduhl•5mo ago
I agree that people should look at the data before making conclusions, which is why I posted that the data directly contradicted GP's claim that the 9th "usually has the lowest, or among the lowest, reversal rate of any district." It doesn't. Based on the data, it has not only the highest reversal rate but also the highest amount of reversals. I take no position on whether the 9th's reversal rate is significantly different than any other circuit's other than to note that it is the highest by all reported metrics and that when you hear that fact, it isn't a "lie" (as characterized by the GP).
JumpCrisscross•5mo ago
'07 seems arbitrary. 2017 would be a better date, given that's when Gorsuch flipped the Court conservative. (Though it really went full dumbfuck when Barrett started giving Alito and Thomas cover.)