Tracking Cell Phones for Real-Time Traffic Data 125
stillgoogling writes to tell us the Associated Press is reporting that the Missouri Department of Transportation is stepping up a project to track the mass movements of cellular phones. This project is designed to use the movements of cell phones to map real-time traffic conditions statewide on more than 5,500 miles of road. From the article: "Officials say there's no Big Brother agenda in the Missouri project -- the data will remain anonymous, leaving no possibility to track specific people from their driveway to their destination."
They're several years behind (Score:5, Interesting)
Old Tech (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Text with FNORD-o-VISION (Score:2, Interesting)
Quantum theory of traffic management (Score:4, Interesting)
For example, whether or not a quantum of traffic (bunch of cars) reaches their intended destinations, the affects on the traffic of that area are the same as if they really did reach their intended destinations. This is essentially because people generally choose routes which they think will be the fastest or easiset, and people think "Oh it's Friday afternoon on the start of a long weekend, lots of people will be going out of the city for holidays down highway X, I'll go a different way." Hence whether or not a quantum of traffic is going somewhere, people avoid them just the same.
This can be simulated by a computer in a combination with this kind of system, to very accurately time traffic light sequences so as to reduce the average waiting time per vehicle across a large area. In theory it is possible to quantize traffic (eg, stop/allow single cars until they end up in a bigger group) and time traffic lights so that almost no waiting at traffic lights is needed. As long as you travel within one of the quanta you would have green lights all the way.
"data will remain anonymous".... BS (Score:3, Interesting)
Fixing traffic results in other benefits. (Score:5, Interesting)
But you forget -- in some regions, traffic is a major issue. (eg, the Washington, DC metro area) -- if legislators can get get traffic issues cleaned up in an area that has major problems, it could mean an easy re-election for them.
If they're actually thinking about the general population, and not themselves, they'd be looking at the other benefits that something like this could provide --
Yes, there are potentially less-than-ethical reasons for wanting a system like this, but there are pleny of reasons why something like this is a benefit for the general population -- now, is the money for this project worthwhile? For all we know, it's being done because one of the politicians is getting kickbacks, and they're spending too much, as compared to other, more worthwhile projects for their state (in terms of Benefit/Cost Ratio or some other measure used to determine project viability)
(I didn't read the orginal article, so some of this may have already been covered. Of course, there wasn't a link to it, so everyone has an excuse this time. This might also show how much work some of the editors do to look at articles being linked to ... as opposed to looking for articles that are controversial and/or don't hold up, to result in 'animated discussion [slashdot.org]')
Re:I invented a new way to map traffic conditions. (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Solution: Power Off Cell Phone for Privacy... (Score:4, Interesting)
Do you think that they may actually be telling the truth and could in fact be trying to make life better? Nah! Conspiracy theories are much more fun!
They are not so honest about their intentions (Score:3, Interesting)
After some thought, most reasonable people conclude that the current method of taxing gasoline works better. It's anonymous. It's cheap and easy because prices must be computed per gallon when you sell gasoline anyway. It taxes you for how much you drive and imposes no burden on those who don't use the roads.
Why do some government officials love the Big Brother way? The greedy ones realize you can squeeze much more out of people if you charge them differential rates they are unaware of. I'll bet most of you pay more for telco than you do for gasoline and roads, yet roads are more expensive to maintain than coper wires or fibers. The invasive ones realize they can track their perceived enemies. Both of these principles are in full swing in the UK, where the camera networks track people and charge those who drive downtown at the right time of day or speed. The camera networks were built to, yes you guessed it, "fight terrorism" and have manifestly failed at that. To get their wishes, they are willing to create a whole new infrastructure - the black boxes mentioned in the above link. The trade magazines were full of shine on about revenue maximization that hinted at tracking abilities.
The wired [wired.com] article points to some of the privacy concerns and shows that public officials are now aware of the issue and have to lie around it. The fact of the matter is that your cell phone can already be used to track you and that our sorry laws let that happen without much trouble or notice. Better laws would require the destruction of all data not required for billing, the destruction of that after payment and all the usual constitutional requirements to obtain so much as that. Individual tracking tools are too abusive to be allowed for people who are not convicted fellons.
Re:They are not so honest about their intentions (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't have a cellphone, and the more spy stuff that gets attached to them, the less motivated I am to get one.
Are prepaid phones anonymous? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:1984 (Score:5, Interesting)
Paranoid nutcases with little knowledge of basic electronic intelligence strategy have flooded the internet with hysterical rants and lunatic ravings about ECHELON. It's almost always traceable to a specific error in reading comprehension, i.e. the failure to distinguish between "capable of monitoring any communication" and "capable of monitoring all communication". The former is true. The latter is not. There does not exist enough electronic analytical capacity to monitor all communications. Anyone who has worked in electronic intelligence knows that one of the primary focuses is tasking: knowing when and where to apply limited collection resources. 99.99% of the electronic communication in the world is inconsequential chatter, and is very easily identifiable as such. NEWS FLASH! The NSA knows your 90 year old grandmother's phone calls aren't worth listening to, so they don't! I speak from experience as a former Signal Intelligence Analyst with the US Army-- they spend most of their time trying to RDUCED the amount of stuff they have to analyze. Really, the theory of "ECHELON listens to everything, all the time" fails the common sense test on so many levels, it boggles the mind why anyone would take it seriously. So the computer flags (say) every utterance of the word "bomb" and "embassy" or some such, eh? Well THEN what? Who goes through the enormous daily log of such flagged conversations? The obvious answer is that they cut down the log by not bothering to monitor communications between irrelevant parties. The tin foil hat crowd thinks the government is listening to them, when the truth is the government doesn't give a shit about them because they don't matter.