What dimwit designed GPS navigators?
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
Prev: head machining
Next: Barina Rear Seat removal
From: The Old Bloke on 1 Aug 2010 05:15 On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 15:55:37 +1000, Doug Jewell <ask(a)and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote: >|-|ercules wrote: >> "Doug Jewell" <ask(a)and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote > >>>> I don't use it now because I bought it with a credit card so I assume >>>> the govt. can track me with it. >>> Your paranoid mind can rest on this point. GPS satellite data is >>> totally one way. The GPS tracking that you see on TV shows requires a >>> second transmission link to work in the real world - eg mobile phone >>> network. IE, the GPSr decodes the position signal, and then it >>> transmits that position using the mobile network. Some of the >>> bushwalkers GPS's use this technique to send a text message with your >>> position and "OK" or "SEND HELP". But unless you have a special >>> purpose device, (which your navman isn't), you don't have to worry >>> about being tracked. >>> The network of traffic cameras that are set up in brisbane on the >>> other hand... >>>> >> >> >> I doubt it, if there is only a signal from the satellite to you then it >> would >> have to diffract a different signal at a trillion different angles. >> Considering >> 3D TV without glasses can only send different images to 9 different angles >> I doubt that's how GPS works. There must be a radio transmitter on the >> GPS, >> which probably sends a serial number, and is probably logged by the >> satellite. >Nope GPS is nothing like 3D TV, and is totally 1 way >communication. Your GPS does not send anything back. There >are a couple of dozen satellites orbiting the earth, >constantly sending out a relatively simple data stream, >which basically includes the satellite's position and the >time the satellite sent the data packet. By measuring the >time it takes for the signal to reach the GPSr, it can >determine it's distance from each satellite. With a signal >from at least 3 satellites it is relatively simple >mathematics to calculate the position. The mathematics used >is not that much different to the way traditional surveyors >used known reference points to determine location. The more >satellites that are in view, the more accurate it can >determine the position. Agreed. GPS is only one way. > >> >> I doubt the barcode at POS contained any serial number unique to each >> navigator, and linked that your CC details, but a government agent could >> have a close look at your GPS any time and get it. >Once again, don't panic about POS barcodes. They identify >the product type, not the individual product. And retailers >don't store credit card details. So while the police, if >they were so inclined, could find out from the bank that you >made a purchase from Merchant A at this time, they don't >know that you bought a GPS. Many merchants (especially high >volume), would probably be hard pressed to match that >purchase and time to the item purchased, and even less would >have recorded the serial number of the item purchased. >Finally, even _if_ they eventually did find out that you >bought a GPS, and _if_ they managed to find out it's serial >number, that ain't gonna help them a cracker, because there >is absolutely nil communication back from the GPS. > >You can put your mind at rest, there is absolutely no way >possible, that you can be tracked from a standard street GPS >unit. I believe you live in Brisneyland - there is a >network of traffic cameras that can track you if they felt >so inclined, and it has just come out that they have been >using public transport GO cards to track people. These >things are real, GPS tracking of the general public isn't. >> >> Herc >>
From: Doug Jewell on 1 Aug 2010 05:20 Coach wrote: > On Aug 1, 3:55 pm, Doug Jewell <a...(a)and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote: >> |-|ercules wrote: >>> "Doug Jewell" <a...(a)and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote >>>>> I don't use it now because I bought it with a credit card so I assume >>>>> the govt. can track me with it. >>>> Your paranoid mind can rest on this point. GPS satellite data is >>>> totally one way. The GPS tracking that you see on TV shows requires a >>>> second transmission link to work in the real world - eg mobile phone >>>> network. IE, the GPSr decodes the position signal, and then it >>>> transmits that position using the mobile network. Some of the >>>> bushwalkers GPS's use this technique to send a text message with your >>>> position and "OK" or "SEND HELP". But unless you have a special >>>> purpose device, (which your navman isn't), you don't have to worry >>>> about being tracked. >>>> The network of traffic cameras that are set up in brisbane on the >>>> other hand... >>> I doubt it, if there is only a signal from the satellite to you then it >>> would >>> have to diffract a different signal at a trillion different angles. >>> Considering >>> 3D TV without glasses can only send different images to 9 different angles >>> I doubt that's how GPS works. There must be a radio transmitter on the >>> GPS, >>> which probably sends a serial number, and is probably logged by the >>> satellite. >> Nope GPS is nothing like 3D TV, and is totally 1 way >> communication. Your GPS does not send anything back. There >> are a couple of dozen satellites orbiting the earth, >> constantly sending out a relatively simple data stream, >> which basically includes the satellite's position and the >> time the satellite sent the data packet. By measuring the >> time it takes for the signal to reach the GPSr, it can >> determine it's distance from each satellite. With a signal >> from at least 3 satellites it is relatively simple >> mathematics to calculate the position. > > Care to post that relatively simple mathematical formular? Since this is a text based medium, I can't post it directly, but if you check out the following website, the mathematics involved are listed. Sure your average yobbo with a pocket calculator wouldn't be able to solve it, but for today's microprocessors the calculations can be done numerous times per second. As I said, relatively simple mathematics. https://www.courses.psu.edu/aersp/aersp055_r81/satellites/gps_details.html -- What is the difference between a duck?
From: Noddy on 1 Aug 2010 07:24 "Toby" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message news:1r6izpgw75gk6.8k23cvf0v7lm$.dlg(a)40tude.net... > That would depend entirely on what I do. If it's all above board why would it matter? > Who was interested also depends entirely on that they do. > If my lawful occasions intersect with someone else's unlawful occasions, > I'd like to think that there was an assumption that my lawful occasions > were precisely that. That would depend on what you did then, woudln't it? :) > The mere fact that most everything I do on a day to day basis is under > surveillance lends the lie to that. In what way? > In other words, once upon a time it was taken as granted that one's lawful > occasions did NOT require surveillance. That's because the State, and > others, couldn't manage it. > Not any more. So it would seem. > It's only a matter of time before proof of non involvement in a crime is > de > rigeur, rather that the opposite of the state having to make the running. It may very well be only a matter of time, but whether that time falls within the lifetime of anyone living today is the subject of fanciful conjecture. Surveilance video has been used as evidence for years, and it's value in that role depends entirely on what the camera catches you doing. Needless to say that prosecutors only value it if it actually catches you in an unlawful act. If it doesn't, then it hardly ever gets tabled as evidence. > That happens incidentally, when we're fully 'surveilled'. > Absence of images or other tracking of yours truly WILL as sure as night > follows day, become the absence of evidence the Pigs and others of similar > persuasion like to call evidence. And yet, surprisingly, innocent London citizens aren't being arrested in droves despite that city having the largest number of public surveilance cameras in the world. On the other hand, the number of offenders being recognised and caught has increased dramatically. > The game has changed. > You've not noticed. > You need to get out more. Yeah, right. A Bex and a nice lie down may do you the world of good Toby, and perhaps leaving the tinfoil hat in the wardrobe for a while would be a good idea as well. You read *way* too much into things. -- Regards, Noddy.
From: Kev on 1 Aug 2010 07:55 Noddy wrote: > Surveilance video has been used as evidence for years, and it's value in > that role depends entirely on what the camera catches you doing. Needless to > say that prosecutors only value it if it actually catches you in an unlawful > act. If it doesn't, then it hardly ever gets tabled as evidence. > >> That happens incidentally, when we're fully 'surveilled'. >> Absence of images or other tracking of yours truly WILL as sure as night >> follows day, become the absence of evidence the Pigs and others of similar >> persuasion like to call evidence. > > And yet, surprisingly, innocent London citizens aren't being arrested in > droves despite that city having the largest number of public surveilance > cameras in the world. On the other hand, the number of offenders being > recognised and caught has increased dramatically. > What people of Toby's ilk fail to realise that video surveillance is also proof that you WEREN'T doing any wrong Having had GPS tracking on all work vehicles I've driven for the last 8 years has proven that Numerous fanciful complaints called in about the drivers actions have been dismissed point blank on the GPS readouts No more fuckwits making false complaints because they have the shits for one reason or another(usually because they tried something stupid and failed) Kev
From: Noddy on 1 Aug 2010 08:17
"Kev" <kevcat(a)optunet.com.au> wrote in message news:4c55608a$0$32441$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > Numerous fanciful complaints called in about the drivers actions have been > dismissed point blank on the GPS readouts > No more fuckwits making false complaints because they have the shits for > one reason or another(usually because they tried something stupid and > failed) Good point. -- Regards, Noddy. |