As in, GPS being off by 33 feet?
> leads to people getting reincarcerated
I'm reading your article and it seems to be about police coming to check and realizing that the reporting of being miles away was in error, not people getting reincarcerted because of GPS incorrectly reporting they moved ~30 feet too far? One of these is much more insane than the other.
Also wrote this one, hopefully it helps your confusion: https://chicagoreader.com/news/false-alarms/
> Harkins said that since last October, she has seen 30-40 people ordered back into custody based on these progress reports. When asked what can be done to improve CCSO’s EM program, Harkins said that the sheriff’s office needs to “properly and fully” investigate alleged violations before writing reports or taking actions.
To be explicit: yes, many, many, many people were reinarcerated because of faulty GPS.
I'm talking about the class of problem. It happens in normal weather conditions and things like this exacerbate the problem.
Really not sure what the hostility's about.
But maybe you posted the wrong one to begin with.
Let’s all be friends and nice to each other.
A single 33 foot anomaly is already within the geofence buffer zones used. In dense urban areas the geofence buffer allowance may be 10X that already.
Yes, yes I am. You really need to realize just how unbelievably fucking arbitrary the criminal courts are. At every level. They're not tech people.
To answer your question, I have examples of motions by prosecutors to suspend people from the EM program where they specifically cite specific data points just barely out of their homes, where video footage provably shows they were inside the whole time. They're not mine to share.
Btw, the courts are public and you should try some criminal courts watching. Pick a random day and just go.
Looking forward!
> motions by prosecutors
Motion ≠ incarceration. So, not an answer (yet?)...
Did defendants get incarcerated as a result of these motions, or no?
Something about this just doesn't seem very plausible, especially if this kind of thing is happening more than once in a blue moon. Either the video evidence is not as convincing as we're being led to assume (thus leaving more doubt in the judge's mind than ours, even if the person is innocent), or there should be some other explanation.
So you could find an example easily but you don't want to? Or you're suggesting court watching in general and not to find an example?
"I have an example I won't share" is better than nothing, I guess. But you were being snarky before you even said that much, when you were just linking your article and not saying if examples existed at all.
I'm curious why they're not yours to share, though. Did someone give them to you under private circumstances, or can people get there from public information but you think you shouldn't spread the word?
A lot of this stuff is hard to talk about because it's about real people in real pending (at the time) cases.. and I'm also not a criminal defense attorney by any means. There's a reason the first article I posted had their identity completely removed. There's weird liability and believe me I want to say more.
Very honestly, I wish I could have done more reporting on how fucked up those devices were. I put a lot of time and effort into reporting that couldn't make it to print, largely because I was doing freelance work at the time. The first offer I got for that piece was $50. Wasn't sustainable.
Do you have any questions about these EM programs?
Not really sure what it has to do with tech though. That’s a problem with how certain humans behave, not ancillary technology.
You and I have very divergent views of the type of person likely to be charged or prosecuted for a crime or indeed to participate in a diversion program that involves GPS trackers, my friend.
Meaning an error like this harms innocent people wrongly accused more than the stereotypically hardened repeat offenders you imagine to be undeserving of your sympathy and presumed guilty.
Non-violent, first-time offenders don't get ankle monitors. But thank you for highlighting my point.
Like, actual lol mate.
Yours (inferred) is "Too Much : Zero".
Given that those are terminal values it would challenging for literally-any-other-view not to diverge from yours, on this.
33 feet is well within the allowances IIRC. Varies by state.
At the very least, it's not enough evidence provided to claim the scenario is inherently impossible based on undefined "allowances" without any actual numbers for something completely dependent on the jurisdiction, monitoring software implementation, and attitude of the police officer/judge.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/o0sPXL9C53g
I also found Reddit anecdotes of getting alert texts stepping outside onto the street from their yard, or false alarms while still inside but not enough details were provided to be sure they were actually GPS and not RF so not as helpful.
The story you linked has examples about false alerts triggering in a different state.
Do you have any actual examples of 33 feet getting someone arrested? I’ve worked enough with GPS that I could tell you that any system with thresholds that low would result in everyone getting false triggers
I fought tooth and nail to get access to the data showing how often devices reported "invalid" status (where the device's specs said it was something like, within 150 feet of inaccuracy it reported "invalid"). They initially told me they couldn't get me that data because it'd crash their database running that query. Basically threatened to sue them and over the next 6mo or so I got two 100GB MSSQL dumps. Hundreds of millions of rows of devices reporting back that their GPS signal was invalid. It would take a lot of time to make it sharable because they included the actual GPS location infos.