Spy in the sky means you're always monitored
Friday 10th February 2006
Galileo satelliteThe Association of British Drivers has issued a statement in which it condemns the EU's Galileo project -- a beefed-up version of the existing GPS system -- as heralding "the end of liberty in Europe". The missive comes as the first signals from the newly launched first satellites reach Earth.
European liberty ends: ABD
Spy in the sky means you're always monitored
Galileo satellite
In its statement, the ABD said that the €4 billion project is being sold to the public on the basis of better and cheaper satellite navigation, but that it also offers governments the promise of easier satellite tracking.
Because the signals from Galileo will be stronger than those from GPS -- although, stung by competition, the US military which funds GPS is responding with a similar system -- the receivers won't have to be so complex, bulky and battery-hungry. The devices can therefore be smaller, and will fit in a watch or phone.
The pitch is that such devices can be used to locate lost children, accidents and breakdowns, said the ADB, but the same technology can also be used by governments to track their citizen 24 hours a day. "There will be no escape from state surveillance. Privacy will be consigned to history," said the body.
More stealth taxes
The ABD said that its principal concern is that Galileo will be used to extort yet more stealth tax from drivers.
The ABD continued: "The EU is already planning to use Galileo to enforce continent-wide road tolling, and the car-hating British government wants to be first. You won't be able to drive anywhere without the EU knowing where you are going, who you are travelling with, and what speed you are travelling at. They will be able to charge whatever they want. One journey, four lapses of concentration that take you slightly over the speed limit, and you'll be banned from driving.
"Manufacturers will be forced by law to fit Galileo devices to all cars. You won't be able to start your car without one. You won't be able to drive anywhere without being spied upon and paying through the nose for the privilege."
ABD Chairman Brian Gregory said: "The ABD is not opposed to technology, far from it, the existing GPS system provides great benefits to drivers. Yet we are very concerned indeed that with the prevalence in Europe of anti-car ideology, and the use of terrorism as an excuse to reduce civil liberties, this technology will be abused like no other has ever been. Galileo is not a light on the horizon, it is the entrance to an abyss."
Links
Discussion
Assuming this is all true & that if govt's choose to impliment some of the more Orwellian measures this could be worryingly restrictive. Personally, I'd be surprised if this level of monitoring went on, on a day-to-day basis. Agencies would be swamped to a standstill by floods of petty road *crimes*.
ploz said:
If the purpose was just to track us, that could easily be done with mobile phone technology at a fraction of the cost - infact, if you drive with you mobile on, all that information (speed, time, location) is already available.
Are you sure about this? Last night on BBC1 there was a programme about the coastguard. Someone ran out of petrol in Weymouth Bay and phoned for help. When the RNLI got to him, they said if he'd used a radio the coastguard could have pinpointed him, but they can't do this with phones.
I guess they know which cell you're in, or which transmitter you're nearest, but I don't think they can know beyond that.
Do these navigation satellites actually have the ability to receive data? I wouldn't have thought so given that your nav unit could be receiving 8-10 satellite at any one time, and are likely to be great distances away from your nav unit. The ability to send out your position would rely on your nav device transmitting your current location, most likely over the GSM phone network, or by a custom designed RF network.
I think Alistair Darling made a similar claim when extolling the virtues of road charging, where he tried to counter the arguement regarding privacy by saying that a lot of navigation users already have their location monitored by current systems. He completely fails to understand (or deliberately tries to mislead) that most OEM and hand held nav devices are not capable of transmitting.
While I agree with the ABDs sentiments regarding invasion of privacy and the threat of road pricing, I think the article is tosh. Also, given that the police already admit tracking us using ANPR, it is a little too late to give warnings, they need to be advocating action.
I think Alistair Darling made a similar claim when extolling the virtues of road charging, where he tried to counter the arguement regarding privacy by saying that a lot of navigation users already have their location monitored by current systems. He completely fails to understand (or deliberately tries to mislead) that most OEM and hand held nav devices are not capable of transmitting.
While I agree with the ABDs sentiments regarding invasion of privacy and the threat of road pricing, I think the article is tosh. Also, given that the police already admit tracking us using ANPR, it is a little too late to give warnings, they need to be advocating action.
hallmark said:
If the purpose was just to track us, that could easily be done with mobile phone technology at a fraction of the cost - infact, if you drive with you mobile on, all that information (speed, time, location) is already available.
Are you sure about this? Last night on BBC1 there was a programme about the coastguard. Someone ran out of petrol in Weymouth Bay and phoned for help. When the RNLI got to him, they said if he'd used a radio the coastguard could have pinpointed him, but they can't do this with phones.
I guess they know which cell you're in, or which transmitter you're nearest, but I don't think they can know beyond that.
I seem to recall a post on an earlier thread where the poster told a story of phoning a BBC radio phone-in using a mobile phone in his car, and that they knew his location without him actually relaying the information.
Certainly there are a number services that claim to use GSM technology to locate missing kids, hire cars etc.. It may be that HM Coastguard does not yet have access to such a system.
What a load of scaremongering tosh.
It's already been mentioned that the technology already exists to do this. Galileo is just another GPS system, they have been trying to justify its existance as a program ( and the money spent on it ) for years.
The barriers to tracking applications are not in the capability of the hardware.
It's already been mentioned that the technology already exists to do this. Galileo is just another GPS system, they have been trying to justify its existance as a program ( and the money spent on it ) for years.
The barriers to tracking applications are not in the capability of the hardware.
Code Monkey said:
And if manufacturers are forced to fit tracking devices then the used car market will experience a sudden boom...
Until it gets tied into the MOT and the costs of fitting the new kit makes used cars worthless.
hmm wonder which is more likely?
Regardless, those who SHOULD be tracked or monitored - the criminals, the 'travellers', and the chavs, will all not bother with MOT's, insurance, or anything like that...and will still do whatever they want unmolested.
Meanwhile, all the law-abiding people will have one more reason to hate the government.
The ABD (and safe speed) are really starting to come across as a bunch of idiots using scaremongering stories like this.
As someone else alluded to, we shouldnt condemn the technology just because it could be misused. The ABD should be against the use of the technology in this way, not against the technology itself.
There are many wide ranging benefits this technology will bring, maritime use is one that springs immediately to mind.
As someone else alluded to, we shouldnt condemn the technology just because it could be misused. The ABD should be against the use of the technology in this way, not against the technology itself.
There are many wide ranging benefits this technology will bring, maritime use is one that springs immediately to mind.
hallmark said:
If the purpose was just to track us, that could easily be done with mobile phone technology at a fraction of the cost - infact, if you drive with you mobile on, all that information (speed, time, location) is already available.
Are you sure about this? Last night on BBC1 there was a programme about the coastguard. Someone ran out of petrol in Weymouth Bay and phoned for help. When the RNLI got to him, they said if he'd used a radio the coastguard could have pinpointed him, but they can't do this with phones.
I guess they know which cell you're in, or which transmitter you're nearest, but I don't think they can know beyond that.
Transport companies already use systems to track where their lorries are using mobile phone technology.
stenniso said:
Do these navigation satellites actually have the ability to receive data?
They don't have to. Consider GM's OnStar system here in the States. The vehicle knows its location via GPS, but transmits it via radio (cellular, I believe). And OnStar is so integrated into the vehicle that they can do remote diagnosis, as least as far as they can determine from OBDII data.
It doesn't even have to be that complex. Since vehicles have to be refueled sometime, gas (well, petrol to you) stations could be equipped to gather data stored in the car's onboard computer. Something along this order was proposed in the state of Oregon. They could only gather data for miles driven in Oregon (they wouldn't be allowed to tax you for road use in California, for example). The irony is that the state is proposing this because cars are becoming more efficient and revenues are dropping as fuel use declines. It's amusing because it puts the "greens" in Oregon in the position of complaining about more fuel economical cars!
Speed monitoring is indeed possible. A rental car customer was billed by a the rental company for having exceeded the speed limit. They were able to that via GPS technology and some sort of onboard computer. The customer sued on some sort of "invasion of privacy" grounds, but the rental company countered with a signed contract authorizing, among all the other fine print, the collecting of that data and the penalties associated with violating the speed limits. I don't know who won.
Galileo is more about breaking the monopoly of the US military on the GPS network, they controlled all existing satellites until Galileo meaning that all traffic routed through and theoretically owned by them, they retained control of the satellites and could move them to any trajectory they wanted with little or no notice. There was also always the risk of so many people using one network friendly and enemy alike.
Launching Galileo has meant that the UK armed forces and other European forces have a secure and individual way of using GPS.
Plus all similar benefits for making money for the contries on licensing etc.
Launching Galileo has meant that the UK armed forces and other European forces have a secure and individual way of using GPS.
Plus all similar benefits for making money for the contries on licensing etc.
Mobile phone tracking accuracy varies depending on the size of the cell. The more user concentration the smaller the cell. As a result it can be quite accurate in built-up areas but quite poor in a rural area. Whether this information is available to the coastguard or not is another question. However, I'm sure they have triangulation equipment for radio...
The driver for the use of GPS in mobile phones comes from the USA as they have a law(?) requiring all new phones to be capable of reporting their position to a certain accuracy for 911 calls. I can't remember the required accuracy though. Oh and GPS is way behind in its upgrades becasue the existing satellites have lasted much longer than expected so teh USA upgrades have little to do with Galileo, although it has helped give them a kick.
This technology is certainly capable of what the ABD are saying but so is GPS and yes you are correct you would have to have a transmitter as well as a GPS receiver for it to be monitered. Whether the governement chooses to use the information as described I suspect is upto the voters...
Personally, to me it sounds like scaremongering but you never know with this lot in power.
Rob
The driver for the use of GPS in mobile phones comes from the USA as they have a law(?) requiring all new phones to be capable of reporting their position to a certain accuracy for 911 calls. I can't remember the required accuracy though. Oh and GPS is way behind in its upgrades becasue the existing satellites have lasted much longer than expected so teh USA upgrades have little to do with Galileo, although it has helped give them a kick.
This technology is certainly capable of what the ABD are saying but so is GPS and yes you are correct you would have to have a transmitter as well as a GPS receiver for it to be monitered. Whether the governement chooses to use the information as described I suspect is upto the voters...
Personally, to me it sounds like scaremongering but you never know with this lot in power.
Rob
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff