This isn't a generic data privacy counter-measure or concern. This is specifically targeted against stalking, which is pretty much one of only a few cases where this kind of thing would be used against you. Specifically the case where the perpetrator will place a device in or on the victim's car.

Knowing where you are is useful.

Knowing where you _aren't_ is equally useful.

I can imagine half a dozen ways to use this data against you in all kinds of settings. Sales, divorce, employment, espionage against your employer, burglary, and basic blackmail.

It doesn't necessarily say where you aren't. What if you get in somebody else's car? (Not uncommon for me as we typically carpool to trailheads.)

Sure, but if your car is presently driving to the supermarket, it’s a pretty safe bet that you are probably not at your house.

Sure, but the stalking issue is a subset of the generic data privacy issue or do you believe you can hide from a stalker if everyone else under the sun knows you location. It might be too difficult to use location data brokers for stalking[1] but the whole economy around them makes the app ecosystem weak against location privacy and makes it easy to use a manipulated app for stalking. No special devices needed and certainly no cellular devices needed.

https://xkcd.com/538/

[1] Even though data brokers have been used to find out the medications of a German MP, for example. https://www.techradar.com/news/even-your-deleted-secret-web-...

I’m not sure what point you’re really trying to make here. This is a thread about detection methods of an extremely invasive (and rare) method of stalking, which yes is a subset of a data privacy issue. The fact that data brokers can get a lot of location and other data about you is irrelevant to the discussion.

> or do you believe you can hide from a stalker if everyone else under the sun knows you location.

I’m not sure anyone is claiming that the detection methods described in this study are going to make you completely undetectable to any party at all times. Again, not sure what point you’re trying to make here and it feels irrelevant to the larger thread. The original comment seemed to indicate that the article hadn’t been read at all.

My point is that what they are doing is interesting and commendable but if they want to effectively help stalking victims they are barking up the wrong tree and that there are much better ways to spend time and energy to help the issue at hand.

What? sorry, but this is pure nonsense. better ways like what? This is a study. Did you read it at all? Again, it’s not claiming to be a cure-all solution. It’s studying how to detect low powered LTE devices in a vehicle. Did you read it?

This looks like security (or privacy) nihilism: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27897975

The security nihilism is thinking you'd need special hardware to stalk someone, when a malicious app on the victims phone does the job.

The security nihilism is thinking "why try to defend yourself if there are so many attack vectors". Also, my phone has no malicious apps. (It's a GNU/Linux phone.)

IT's easy to replace a phone, a car not so much

Several of my cheapest cars (and quite a few of my cheapest motorcycles) have cost me less than my most expensive phones.

Car titles (and thus vehicle transactions) are public record.

I figure it's probably about 1000x easier to gain sufficient access to someone's car to put a tracker on it than their phone

Then can you explain why special hardware still keeps showing up in victims' cars?

That is true for law enforcement, corps and nation states perhaps, but the threat vector here is just regular people who want to track someone. They're not as saavy and don't (usually) have access to the corp/leo/government databases of locating data.

For me it's about car theft, so all I am defending against is what thiefs have access to. If I can detect a scanner popped on a car at a car show before heading back to storage, I am at a huge advantage.

Real give up attitude. Gosh people have given up.

It isn't that hard, but people are lazy as hell and love convenience.

That ship is more than capable of being put back in a bottle with enough political will. We just need to come together enough to get the message heard.

I doubt it. The tech keeps becoming cheaper and easier.

When it's only governments and major corporations that can do something, political will can probably stop it.

When every tech hobbyist with $100 to spare can build their own, I don't know how it can be policed.

Sure. But hardware trackers is the least of our problems. We'd need a hard crackdown on location privacy in mobile operating systems and the app ecosystem. Good luck with mobilizing enough "political will" when the economic interests of a whole industry is affected.

I don't think the economics are a problem. I think it'll be the fed they call in to testify that will shed crocodile tears about how some murdering pedophile was brought to justice using this data.

Very similar to how we lost a ton of civil liberties because shows like 24 bombarded the country with ideas that the only way to stop terrorism was torture.

Unfortunately, a good number of people will happily sacrifice liberties that will be abused simply because it might catch a single bad guy.

> We'd need a hard crackdown on location privacy ....... Good luck with mobilizing enough "political will"

Genuine LOL

Here we have the GDPR. It works. (Contrary to much tech-bro propaganda spouted on here).

I live in Europe and helped introducing GDPR. It is good at what it was designed for: being a pain for companies that collect data en masse and cannot tolerate the slightest friction (think Facebook).

For everyone it else there are ways. Read about the six legal bases for processing personal data, especially consent and legitimate interest. You will be surprised.