No, please read the article. No one is saying carriers cant triangulate but carriers shouldn't be able to query the gps on my device and get precise GNSS data.
> Apple made a good step in iOS 26.3 to limit at least one vector of mass surveillance, enabled by having full control of the modem silicon and firmware. They must now allow users to disable GNSS location responses to mobile carriers, and notify the user when such attempts are made to their device.
They never said "triangulate" but read phone for information. Your inner monologue swapped what was written with an already understood technical method.
And just because access to GPS has never been confirmed publicly before does not mean they previously only relied on tower triangulation.
Worked for Sprints network team before they bought Nextel. We had access to eeeeverything.
Yes but phone carriers are required by the FCC to achieve specific deployment goals. Also it isn't just about GPS data, it also include barometric data.
Why would they? It's basic privacy no? Just because I want to pay money to carrier to provide me with data and phone service, I shouldn't have to give up my location from my device. I expect them to know my approximate location from cell tower data.
Generally I'd not expect them actively triangulate my exact location, but I'd realise that's at least possible - but GPS data, wake my phone up, switch on the GPS radio, drain it's battery, send that data back... no. That wouldn't be legal where I live either, let alone expected.
> but GPS data, wake my phone up, switch on the GPS radio, drain it's battery, send that data back... no. That wouldn't be legal where I live either, let alone expected.
Where does the article claim this turns on the GPS if off?
That is what a trial is for but you doubt that a person picked up for looking like the shooter on video, who also had a beef with the company the victim worked for, AND had a relevant manifesto in his possession, is the guy? Come on... There is an unusually high amount of evidence for this one.
Despite the word "warrant" being present, an “administrative warrant” does not allow law enforcement to enter private property.
If they find a illegal immigrant on public streets, they can be detained, but still cannot enter a private residence (even if occupied by an illegal immigrant) as it would violate the 4th amendment.
> Despite the word "warrant" being present, an “administrative warrant” does not allow law enforcement to enter private property.
Even an actual judicial arrest warrant doesn't (legally) allow them to enter private party on suspicion that the target might be there. Search is a separate thing from seizure, and you need a judicial search warrant to search a private residence or the non-public areas of a business for a person, no matter what authority you might have to arrest them should you find them.
That makes sense. But that raises a separate unrelated question; how do bailbondsmen seem to be able to take their targets in, are they violating the law or are criminals gullible or something else?
Bail agents can usually enter the home of the subject without additional consent due to clauses in the contract of the bail bond, but not (without the owners consent) homes owned by third parties even if the target is present.
Criminals are also frequently gullible.
And bail agents are fairly notorious as a group for having a less than scrupulous attention to legal restrictions.
What do you think amateur radio does? Why do you think that broadcasting your location, and that you're looking to get information from somewhere other than the approved sources will end up in anything other than tragedy? What information do you think could reliably be provided with amateur radio in a situation like this?
There is no privacy in amateur radio. That is not a matter of preference, it is a regulatory and physical reality.
Amateur radio transmissions are public, unencrypted, and attributable. Callsigns are required, modes and frequencies are well known, and transmissions are trivially direction-findable. In a country like Iran, where RF spectrum is actively monitored and unauthorized communications are treated as a security issue, transmitting on amateur bands is effectively broadcasting your location and intent. Direction finding is routine, fast, and does not require exotic equipment. One transmission can be enough.
In the US and most other countries, amateur radio is tightly regulated. Encryption to obscure content is explicitly prohibited. Ignoring this can result in fines, seizure of equipment, and loss of license. Foreign operators encouraging or participating in such use are not insulated from consequences simply because the target country is authoritarian.
I did not claim to have a better solution. That's the point. When the threat model includes surveillance, attribution, and enforcement, there may be no safe civilian workaround. Suggesting amateur radio in this context is not “imperfect but helpful”, it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what amateur radio actually is and how it is regulated.
Amateur radio can't provide privacy, safety, or reliable information flow under an active crackdown. Pretending otherwise is irresponsible.
> so that you can at least get information out to others.
So they can do what with it? The people who can action it already have intensive satellite imagery of the area and domestic intelligence assets. The level of risk to reward for a citizen to do this is fairly low.
Sure, if you are smart enough. Maybe mount a small transmitter on a tree then use a directional antenna at a very low power and use the tree as a repeater.
Or use NVIS, which at least makes triangulation harder.
~5m antenna during the day, 10m at night for a simple dipole antenna
I'd be more worried about them being able to triangulate the radio signals though. If they can jam GPS, surely they can detect a 100W signal around 14MHz.
Most likely his ancient astronaut theory was the inspiration for the entire Stargate franchise. Of course to make the movie believable they had to give Jackson a more academic background than von Däniken had.
I've been curious myself about why the activist class seems weirdly quiet on this issue.
On a quick scan of media feeds I've seen a couple of things that stand out (I do not confirm or deny how true these claims are)
1) Current Iran is a enemy of the USA and thus activists can't support the destruction of the current regime. Iran is able to create nukes so can put pressure on the USA in Middle East Politics (esp. Palestine and Israel)
2) The uprising and the Shah are CIA/Western Backed and thus supporting the protestors is de-facto colonialism/imperialism.
3) Contrary to popular belief Iran is not actually a Muslim nation, only the leadership is. The population is significantly more varied and people do not want to be seen supporting the firebombing of Mosques because Islamphobia.
I don't know how widespread these opinions are, but it IS very strange how I don't see more outrage.
There's an alliance between the new left and islamism due to some ideological similarities.
Sure one side would march for pride and the other hangs gays on cranes.
However, in foreign policy both explain anything as some product of colonialism, a phenomena that essentially disappeared 60 years ago.
This is due to the effect Edward Said had on US humanities, which was in turn was influenced by Muslim Brotherhood thought in his home country of Egypt
I think the left-leaning activist people in the Americas are so against any position that could align with a Trump position, that they can’t think beyond those lines. If Trump supports the revolution it must be bad.
You are more right than you realize. Around the time the US and Israel bombed the Iranian nuclear sites, I personally witnessed our local pro-Hamas protesters add 'stop bombing Iran' signs to their repertoire.
Give me an example of websites on HN, which spread fake news by purpose and it was allowed by the mods even they knew the news / artice / website was spreading fake news.
You have quite an unatenable position (you really think there have never been outright wrong headlines on HN?). Even this very article is (being very generous) clickbait.
Why wouldn't carriers be able to ask your phone about what it thinks its location is?
reply