Cell Phone Privacy
The mobility allowed by cell phones means that people can make calls from just about anywhere, such as their car, an open field, or even from the restroom. Recently, the government has decided that, in order to increase the ability of certain emergency services to respond to calls made on cell phones, each phone must be equipped with a device allowing the phone company to pinpoint its exact location. Law enforcement argues that this will allow people who are in an emergency situation, to call using their cell phones and get help, even if they do not know their exact location. However, many people feel that this information might not adequately be protected by the government, and could possibly fall into the hands of advertisers, or anyone who wants to know where you are at any given time.
During the past decade the growth of wireless technology and the increased number of cellular phones in service has led to a number of advantages for emergency workers. These advantages allow them to hurdle communication obstacles and help reduce response times. However, coinciding with these advantages are certain challenges for emergency personnel, such as pinpointing the sources of wireless 911 distress calls. Emergency personnel have found this task to be demanding for several reasons. For instance, cellular phone emergency calls often take longer to connect, fail to reach the nearest emergency service center, or the caller is unaware of their location (Borland). Concerns resulting from this situation have prompted policy-makers to adapt requirements for telecommunication companies to implement technologies that would locate and track the principles of 911 calls within the limit of 100 feet.
Due to high costs, lack of commercial incentives, and concerns of privacy advocates, companies have been moving slowly in their efforts to satisfy these requirements. In spite of these setbacks, increased pressure from emergency associations and policy-makers have forced these companies to move ahead. They are beginning to implement multi-billion dollar solutions, such as inserting Global Positioning System (GPS) components into each new cellular phone, which allows them to track 911 users (Wilcox). These new types of cellular phones will become available by the end of 2002 at which point the companies will have the regional networks necessary to support the new system, which leads to the debate about the ethics of such systems.
Sprint PCS, one of the nation’s largest wireless networks, has acted quickly on the FCC’s recent mandate that requires major wireless carriers to use GPS to aid 911 callers. Although the federal mandate has caused uproar with civil libertarians, Sprint PCS chief operating officer Charles Levine says, "The safety of our customers is paramount.” (Sprint PCS). The intention of Sprint PCS, as well as other major wireless carriers is to provide wireless customers with wireless 911, an added security feature for their cell phones. Wireless 911 services will provide emergency services personnel with location information that will enable them to locate and provide assistance to wireless 911 callers much more quickly (FCC).
In addition to the added security of wireless 911, wireless subscribers will be provided with added services through the use of GPS technology. Subscribers will be able to choose services such as mobile directory assistance - including locating ATMs, restaurants, and movies, personal navigation, location-dependent advertising, improved roadside assistance and enhanced vehicle fleet management (Sprint PCS).
To ease the concerns of civil libertarians who oppose the use of GPS the FCC has mandated the GPS technology, making a violation of the rules to be considered a federal offense. The FCC has required that five of the six nationwide carriers, AT&T Wireless, Cingular, Nextel, Sprint PCS, and Verizon Wireless, report to the Commission quarterly. These reports are intended to provide specific, verifiable information to allow the Commission to monitor E911 progress closely, and to determine compliance with each of the benchmarks and conditions of each order and with other applicable provisions of the E911 rules, permitting prompt enforcement action if necessary (FCC).
On the other side of the argument are privacy advocates who argue against the federal mandate. The Liberatarian Party, for example, is a main advocate against this regulation. Steve Dasbach, national director of the party, claims, “Even though its initial impact is limited, this technology will be an irresistible stepping stone for law enforcement to expand its surveillance of ordinary Americans.” Dasbach points out a few of the government’s most recent expansions of technological surveillance systems. The most notable of these expansions, was the Department of Justice’s request for the power to implant encryption software, such as the Carnivore Spy System, on personal computers. Other government expansions include, the FCC’s requirement that phone companies install technology to allow law enforcement to wiretap conference calls, as well as the Clinton Administration’s proposal for a new computer surveillance system that will allow the government to monitor and analyze “suspicious” activity on the Internet (The Libertarian Party).
There are, however, more mundane concerns surrounding this privacy debate such as the worry that advertisers may use tracking information for marketing purposes, or that such devices will fall into the wrong hands, allowing virtually anyone the ability to locate a person such as a boss who may want to locate an employee said to be out sick. However, the primary concern remains to be a lack of trust in the government’s use of such devices and an overall fear of what has come to be known as the “big-brother” system.
In conclusion, the debate over the ethics of cellular phone monitoring will continue for some time. While there are those who make a good point against cellular phone monitoring, it seems as though the government is ignoring these people and going ahead with their program anyway. No one can accurately determine if this technology will be used for “evil” purposes unless it is actually implemented. Consequently, whether or not this will end up being a successful venture or not will have to be determined at a later time.
During the past decade the growth of wireless technology and the increased number of cellular phones in service has led to a number of advantages for emergency workers. These advantages allow them to hurdle communication obstacles and help reduce response times. However, coinciding with these advantages are certain challenges for emergency personnel, such as pinpointing the sources of wireless 911 distress calls. Emergency personnel have found this task to be demanding for several reasons. For instance, cellular phone emergency calls often take longer to connect, fail to reach the nearest emergency service center, or the caller is unaware of their location (Borland). Concerns resulting from this situation have prompted policy-makers to adapt requirements for telecommunication companies to implement technologies that would locate and track the principles of 911 calls within the limit of 100 feet.
Due to high costs, lack of commercial incentives, and concerns of privacy advocates, companies have been moving slowly in their efforts to satisfy these requirements. In spite of these setbacks, increased pressure from emergency associations and policy-makers have forced these companies to move ahead. They are beginning to implement multi-billion dollar solutions, such as inserting Global Positioning System (GPS) components into each new cellular phone, which allows them to track 911 users (Wilcox). These new types of cellular phones will become available by the end of 2002 at which point the companies will have the regional networks necessary to support the new system, which leads to the debate about the ethics of such systems.
Sprint PCS, one of the nation’s largest wireless networks, has acted quickly on the FCC’s recent mandate that requires major wireless carriers to use GPS to aid 911 callers. Although the federal mandate has caused uproar with civil libertarians, Sprint PCS chief operating officer Charles Levine says, "The safety of our customers is paramount.” (Sprint PCS). The intention of Sprint PCS, as well as other major wireless carriers is to provide wireless customers with wireless 911, an added security feature for their cell phones. Wireless 911 services will provide emergency services personnel with location information that will enable them to locate and provide assistance to wireless 911 callers much more quickly (FCC).
In addition to the added security of wireless 911, wireless subscribers will be provided with added services through the use of GPS technology. Subscribers will be able to choose services such as mobile directory assistance - including locating ATMs, restaurants, and movies, personal navigation, location-dependent advertising, improved roadside assistance and enhanced vehicle fleet management (Sprint PCS).
To ease the concerns of civil libertarians who oppose the use of GPS the FCC has mandated the GPS technology, making a violation of the rules to be considered a federal offense. The FCC has required that five of the six nationwide carriers, AT&T Wireless, Cingular, Nextel, Sprint PCS, and Verizon Wireless, report to the Commission quarterly. These reports are intended to provide specific, verifiable information to allow the Commission to monitor E911 progress closely, and to determine compliance with each of the benchmarks and conditions of each order and with other applicable provisions of the E911 rules, permitting prompt enforcement action if necessary (FCC).
On the other side of the argument are privacy advocates who argue against the federal mandate. The Liberatarian Party, for example, is a main advocate against this regulation. Steve Dasbach, national director of the party, claims, “Even though its initial impact is limited, this technology will be an irresistible stepping stone for law enforcement to expand its surveillance of ordinary Americans.” Dasbach points out a few of the government’s most recent expansions of technological surveillance systems. The most notable of these expansions, was the Department of Justice’s request for the power to implant encryption software, such as the Carnivore Spy System, on personal computers. Other government expansions include, the FCC’s requirement that phone companies install technology to allow law enforcement to wiretap conference calls, as well as the Clinton Administration’s proposal for a new computer surveillance system that will allow the government to monitor and analyze “suspicious” activity on the Internet (The Libertarian Party).
There are, however, more mundane concerns surrounding this privacy debate such as the worry that advertisers may use tracking information for marketing purposes, or that such devices will fall into the wrong hands, allowing virtually anyone the ability to locate a person such as a boss who may want to locate an employee said to be out sick. However, the primary concern remains to be a lack of trust in the government’s use of such devices and an overall fear of what has come to be known as the “big-brother” system.
In conclusion, the debate over the ethics of cellular phone monitoring will continue for some time. While there are those who make a good point against cellular phone monitoring, it seems as though the government is ignoring these people and going ahead with their program anyway. No one can accurately determine if this technology will be used for “evil” purposes unless it is actually implemented. Consequently, whether or not this will end up being a successful venture or not will have to be determined at a later time.
posted by John Baush at
2:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home