Study secretly tracked 100,000 cellphone users' locations

Ask yourself this: Are you a statistic or a specific example? That's the question being raised in the aftermath of a study in which researchers secretly tracked the locations of 100,000 people to determine their movement patterns. Such studies are considered invasions of privacy -- and illegal -- in the United States, but this one was done in an undisclosed industrialized nation. The subjects were chosen at random out of a pool of 6 million from a mystery wireless provider and tracked based on cell tower triangulation and other "tracking devices." Study co-author Cesar Hidalgo at Northeastern University promises that researchers didn't know the individuals' phone numbers or identities, and offers that the results are a major advance for science. The study found that people are homebodies -- most stay within 20 miles of their home and are rather habitual. Scientists say the findings -- to be published in Nature on Thursday -- can help improve public transit systems and even fight contagious diseases.

[Thanks, Doug]

[Via MSNBC]

[Sabrina @ Jun 4th 2008 11:39PM]

it was the uk, duh. they're already being watched anyway.

[Ellianth @ Jun 5th 2008 12:17AM]

No wonder I couldn't shake that feeling that I was being watched and tracked at the same time! At least now I know I'm not crazy :p.

[fanman @ Jun 5th 2008 5:19AM]

You hear the voices to?

[James @ Jun 4th 2008 11:41PM]

I once participated in a study similar, but knowingly. I had a GPS receiver installed in my car and it tracked me for a few weeks.

[illegible @ Jun 5th 2008 12:51AM]

I hope you made extra trips to the strip club, just to screw with the statistics.

[Mark @ Jun 8th 2008 2:06PM]

Yes illegible. Just to screw with statistics. And not for any other purpose.

[Matt Ferens @ Jun 4th 2008 11:41PM]

I love all the mystery in this post. "undisclosed industrialized nation" and "mystery wireless provider"

[FuzzyCat @ Jun 5th 2008 8:52AM]

...because one they stop being the "Mystery wireless provider" they'll become the 'Bankrupt wireless provider" ...

[AJ in the East Bay @ Jun 4th 2008 11:42PM]

We might as well give up the fight for privacy because the government or private industries will always pull this kind of $hit on us.

[Aguiluz @ Jun 5th 2008 12:15AM]

Well, ramp stuff up and make your own country.

It has been done,

http://www.ln2.us/b86747

[DB @ Jun 4th 2008 11:44PM]

BIG BROTHER IS TRACKING YOU

[nizzy1115 @ Jun 4th 2008 11:47PM]

Thanks captain obvious.

[Darkroom @ Jun 4th 2008 11:48PM]

"can help improve public transit systems and even fight contagious diseases."

yeah, sure... more like "can help improve slimy companies to market their trash more effectively".

[spam_free @ Jun 4th 2008 11:51PM]

If indeed the "researchers didn't know the individuals' phone numbers or identities", then how do they know that these people where "home"? Maybe they were at Moe's like Homer does. Or at a GF/BF's.

[THJ @ Jun 4th 2008 11:57PM]

Any study will have anomalies such as you described. Chances are though, most people that are in the same location for extended periods of time will either be at home or work/school.

[Miguel @ Jun 5th 2008 1:19AM]

If their position is triangulated and plotted on a map or satellite image of the area (say, Google Earth), and they happen to be plotted to a private residence for 8 hours/night while sleeping, it would seem pretty logical to conclude that such a locale was their "home". It's not like a location plot doesn't correspond to a point on a map.

[usgs @ Jun 5th 2008 8:48AM]

the fact that they can figure out where you live from this anonymous study raises a few questions don't ya think?

[Andrew @ Jun 5th 2008 12:56PM]

Exactly. So even though they did not know the phone number or name of the phone owner, they knew exactly where they live and where they work. Ahem. In this case I doubt this was of any real interest to researchers but if they lied about data not being identifiable, what else did they lie about?

[Greg @ Jun 5th 2008 12:01AM]

What sort of rubber-stamp ethics committee let that through?

Oh, Northwestern. Color me completely unsurprised.

[Bobs @ Jun 5th 2008 12:17AM]

I cant seem to find that color
http://www.kongbeng.com/images/Reeves%2012%20Water%20Colours%201a.jpg

[Paul @ Jun 5th 2008 12:35AM]

It was Northeastern, that other directional school.

[Austin @ Jun 5th 2008 12:01AM]

Which would be flawed because most people (in my experience) other than mac users don't even have webcams. Same reason the variables on above experiment are flawed; T-mobile sucks. and so I can't take my phone overseas without giving a quart of blood for minute money every few hours.

A more accurate representation that also conforms to the morals of Northwestern University sociologists would be to surgically implant GPS tracking devices into the bodies of open-heart surgery patients and homeless people.

Fascists.

[kagai @ Jun 5th 2008 12:04AM]

Anonymous government employee working on a news brief:

We identified, tracked and assassinated...no, no, wait...ahem... We identified, tracked and contained a contagious vector...yeah, that's much better!

[blinkcowz182 @ Jun 5th 2008 12:08AM]

Why not let people sign up knowing they could be tracked, pick from that pool without them knowing if they're picked and study it that way?

[josh @ Jun 5th 2008 12:10AM]

They need samples that are completely random to be scientifically relevant. People who volunteer tend to result in pretty big margins of error due to bias and, well, enough free time to volunteer for these things.

[Smudgy @ Jun 5th 2008 12:16AM]

That would make sense, when was the last time anything made sense?

[J @ Jun 5th 2008 12:13AM]

Kind of stupid to get outraged at this kind of stuff - it was anonymous - the local laws allowed it. The people weren't informed, but in their contract/legal system they forfeit that right when they carry a cell phone. What's the problem?

This is the same as having a person follow another person for that period of time, but a lot less expensive in terms of man hours. I'm allowed to follow you around as long as you're mostly in public spaces, and this study only tracked people to the nearest mile or so.

[Darkroom @ Jun 5th 2008 12:44AM]

see that creepy van parked outside your window? that's us... we're gonna track you for a while... hope you don't mind.

[Jason @ Jun 5th 2008 3:06AM]

"The people weren't informed, but in their contract/legal system they forfeit that right when they carry a cell phone. What's the problem?"

What's the problem? Check the first part of your sentence.

[Sporkinum @ Jun 5th 2008 1:00PM]

They weren't overtly informed. They gave informed consent by signing the cell contract. Nobody reads them of course, but the company probably had legal consent.

[Aguiluz @ Jun 5th 2008 12:17AM]

Are they people who like their face? Brrr... So much for facism. They have to track 100K people just to improve their face!

[rpflo @ Jun 5th 2008 9:36AM]

I wonder if I'll ever get all freaked out about my privacy. I could really care less if I found out I had been tracked. Woulda been a heck of a ride since I travel across the country most weeks.

My wife was ready to kill me when I ignored for months her pleas for window coverings when we moved into our first house.

[Jay C @ Jun 5th 2008 12:32AM]

People usually stay within 20 miles of their home? Wow, I hope the Nobel committee comes calling for that discovery!

[Paul @ Jun 5th 2008 12:30AM]

As a recent graduate of Northwestern University I was a bit shocked to read about this, because I definitely would have heard something about this.

Then I read the article, and realized it was conducted at NorthEASTERN University in Boston, not the Northwestern of Evanston. Made me feel slightly better about the situation.

[nikster @ Jun 5th 2008 12:30AM]

So it could be used for "improving public transportation" and "fighting the spread of deadly diseases".

HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Whom are you kidding? This is for commercial purposes. This kind of information can and will be turned into money, and everyone participating in the creation of this study was thinking about cold, hard cash, first and foremost.

Benefiting humanity - sure, but only as an afterthought.

[retro77 @ Jun 5th 2008 2:46PM]

Good job on the use of whom there Webster.

[catbeller @ Jun 5th 2008 12:37AM]

All cell phones sold since 2005 have GPS trackers. "E911". Sure. And if you think you really can shut them off when you don't want to be tracked, well, what can I say to that. You're wrong. It's just a computer. It can be tweaked, just like a voting machine or tabulator.

[Josh @ Jun 5th 2008 12:39AM]

Really...how do i get government funding for doing a study like this? I cant believe that

1) someone paid for this
2) It is considered a breakthrough in science
3) they even had to do anything to figure it out


I mean really, its pretty much just common sense.

Who is going to drive an hour or more to get a cup of coffee? of course people stay within 20 miles of their home. I gotta new survey.... who likes work? give me 20 mil, and ill "discover and report" that people would rather be at home drinking a beer than at work. stupid. almost as dumb as the guy in england that got paid 10k for getting drunk in a museum and calling it art.

[Michael Chastain @ Jun 5th 2008 1:46AM]

The sum of their conclusion was not "people are homebodies". A great deal of information will be extracted an analyzed from the data.

[sinjinn @ Jun 5th 2008 8:45AM]

i think the "people are hme bodies" revelation is just like throwing the scraps of research to the public. there is mountains of data they can extract from this , but they dont want to alarm anyone.
maybe they will compare this data to that of the guinea pigs in thier labs and conclude the guinea pig has a better quality of life.

[Ryan @ Jun 5th 2008 12:42AM]

I am so tired of all this "Big Brother" talk, unless you're doing something illegal, who cares that someone might be tapping your phone or tracking your movement. There are way too many ignorant hippies in this country, you all need to get a life and realize that the "right to privacy" only goes so far.

[hemmy @ Jun 5th 2008 1:19AM]

Your name wouldn't happen to be Cheney, would it?

I generally find people who start mouthing off about "hippies" are assholes who themselves need to "get a life"

No, genius, I don't have to be doing anything illegal to have a problem with this. It's just wrong, period. I'll resist shit like this because today it's tracking users by their cell phones unbeknownst to them, tomorrow it's "papers, please".

Fuck that noise.

[Jason @ Jun 5th 2008 3:10AM]

So the right to privacy is only invoked by the guilty? Do you see NOTHING wrong with that assertion?
Information is power; whoever possesses all the information, possesses all the power.
These increasing invasions of privacy by our institutions of government, business, and education are not intended to benefit honest citizens, but to increase these institutions' power, control, and profit.

[Mark @ Jun 5th 2008 12:46AM]

I'm glad I don't own a cell phone.

[DarkLight @ Jun 5th 2008 1:52AM]

+1.... You think I'm paranoid now, you'll be wishing you were me 50 years from now... (if I live that long)

[rodel @ Jun 5th 2008 2:31AM]

worst case scenario would be.. if someone exploits the tool..

[Java Junky @ Jun 5th 2008 1:04AM]

Heck, this little experiment is small potatoes compared to the data that the credit card companies and grocery store chains are collecting on you... or did you think that they gave you a preferred customer card just because you were special?
HA! It's all about tracking what toilet paper you buy, what part of town you shop in, how often you travel outside your home neighborhood, how many babies you have (and therefore diapers you buy)... and that's just the stores.

Think of the data that the credit companies have on you. Your salary, everything you've ever bought on-line, where you've traveled for work, where you vacation, what type of car you prefer to rent versus what car you own, who you admire and send flowers to, the type of home you own or condo you rent, the jobs you've had, the restaurants you prefer, the smut you subscribe to, the gifts you buy and on what frequency, whether your a Borders, Amazon, or Barnes and Nobel type of person, Starbucks or Seattle's Best, Bud or Bud Light... these people have more data about who you are and where you go and when and how often and your preferences while you're there and how many drinks you have at which bars... and you're worried about a little anonymous cell phone tracking?
I say again, HA!

[Alexander The Best @ Jun 5th 2008 1:25AM]

But they probably mention this collecting of information in their 23489723498 pages of 'terms and conditions' when you sign up for the card...

[DarkLight @ Jun 5th 2008 2:05AM]

That's why I pay with actual money only :-)..... Plus that way I never use more than I have

Yes I have a CC, but I use it only when necessary (ie. buying online)

[livedead13 @ Jun 5th 2008 2:08AM]

and then they use that information to create surgically precise ad campaigns that form classes of indebted consumers who, with every swipe of their credit cards, unknowingly contribute to the creation of their own material desires as well as incurring the debt to satisfy them.