Emergency Services seek to have additional device tracking powers

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › Emergency Services seek to have additional device tracking powers

Aaroona

3130 posts

Uber Geek

#265606 31-Jan-2020 09:59

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/408496/emergency-services-ability-to-track-cellphones-to-be-expanded

This concerns me a bit. I'm all for public safety, but as mentioned in the article, the potential for misuse/abuse is absolutely a huge issue.

Allowing a system to track you when you've initiated a 111 call I'm on board with. But having the ability to arbitrarily track someone under the guise of safety, I think is a stretch. Having "Rules" in place will not stop abuse. Having technical barriers is more likely a way to prevent abuse (the only way is by not developing it full stop).

If the system is to be used for people like dementia patients, I think it really should have a POA or themselves if they are cognizant enough, have to sign them up to the service to have their device tracked, similar with kids. A Parent should need to sign up their kids device.

It will of course need some kind of administration and integrity built in, to ensure someone can't just go and "add a number".

OldGeek

747 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2410584 31-Jan-2020 10:45

The focus in the article is on the involvement of the Privacy Commissioner in the proposal. Given the sentiments expressed I have confidence that there will be a regulatory environment established that will require that the system involved to restrict the tracking capability to a reported emergency.

Having said this I have no expertise in this area and would defer to anyone who has concerns arising from their technical knowledge.

--

OldGeek.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Lias

5224 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2410607 31-Jan-2020 11:02

I'm opposed, but I think the bird has already flown the coop somewhat. The time to stop this was when ECLI was introduced. Once the technical capability existed, there was always going to be creep and additional privacy loss.

I'm a geek, a gamer, a dad and an IT Professional. I have a full rack home lab, size 15 feet, an epic beard and Asperger's. I'm a bit of a Cypherpunk, who believes information wants to be free and the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.

afe66

3124 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2410626 31-Jan-2020 11:41

Will this include stolen cell phones I wonder?

mdooher

Hmm, what to write...
1366 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2410627 31-Jan-2020 11:42

IMHO it should be "opt-in" ie make a 111 call, or get a search/interception warrant. Also no "senior" police officer should be able to bypass the system by crying terrorism at the first opportunity either.

Matthew

BlinkyBill

1443 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2410694 31-Jan-2020 12:43

why do we need something different from the current reactive model - whereby the Police request this information of the telco on a proven needed basis.

i don’t think we need to proactively track people.

muppet

2387 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2410738 31-Jan-2020 14:03

I think this is a great idea. It's like a little soft, fluffy police Angel watching over me everywhere I go.

Thanks, Police Jesus.

ben28

177 posts

Master Geek

#2410855 31-Jan-2020 16:49

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/19/opinion/location-tracking-cell-phone.html

Maybe they can just go to a single source to get the information ! All from mobile phone apps

kingjj

1728 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2411401 2-Feb-2020 10:59

BlinkyBill:

why do we need something different from the current reactive model - whereby the Police request this information of the telco on a proven needed basis.

i don’t think we need to proactively track people.

Because the current system where an Information Request is made to a Telco is time consuming, not time sensitive and only provides a cellsite at time of last activation on network (not live). Considering some cellsites can cover hundreds of square km's this is not helpful in most situations. There are already checks and balances in place for these sorts of requests and they are routinely rejected by senior staff (usually Inspector rank) when they don't meet the strict criteria for making the request. I imagine any new system based will have similar if not stricter rules.

There seems to be a lot of conjecture and a lack of information already for this proposal which is already riling up a lot of feathers. This is being investigated and managed by MBIE, the Police are only an interested party and are certainly not driving it (as are FENZ and St John/Wellington Free). Knowing the restrictions and monitoring currently in place for ECLI I'm confident that there will be appropriate protections in place if this goes ahead. For me this is certainly one where the benefits outweigh the risks.

rscole86

4752 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2411536 2-Feb-2020 13:39

@kingjj nicely sums this up. Having previously worked closely with both ECLI testing and use within emergency services I personally do not have any concerns with where this is going. As mentioned it is administered by MBIE and would hope the existing checks and balances used by the current manual process would be used in a similar way with this proposed service.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#2411547 2-Feb-2020 13:59

It deeply concerns me because of the potential applications. It's no different really to the storage of all SMS messages which was forced on networks by the Police with no knowledge by most of the population that this was occurring.