Author Topic: Sprint Cellphone and the Carjacked SUV (Read 551 times)

Sandman · « **on:** January 12, 2006, 11:01:53 AM »

http://www.nbc4.tv/news/6001336/detail.html

Quote

Sprint Refuses To Reveal Location Of Cell Phone In Carjacked SUV

POSTED: 9:14 am PST January 11, 2006
UPDATED: 9:46 am PST January 11, 2006

EASTVALE, Calif. -- A stolen car that had a kidnapped baby and a cell phone inside has become the center of a new controversy.

The parents of the kidnapped baby are outraged that the phone that could have been used to find the baby was not.

Video

NBC4 reported that a lot of cell phones come with GPS locator technology and privacy assurances that your location will not be divulged to anyone, even to law enforcement without a subpoena.

"I guess I just assumed they had these GPS things. Let's use it for some good rather than tracking where I'm hanging out at the mall," said mother Stephanie Cochran.

The Cochran family of Eastvale was loading their baby into their SUV in the home's driveway. The father, Jason, belted in their 10-month-old baby and came back inside for their 3-year-old.

"Stephanie was finishing brushing his teeth. I went and got him and walked out the door and the car was gone with Wade in it," said father Jason Cochran.

When the parents called 911 they also realized that the father's Sprint cell phone with GPS locator technology was also in the car.

NBC4 reported that Sprint wouldn't provide a location to the parents or to the deputies.

"The deputies were told that Sprint had the location of the vehicle but that they could not disclose it to them because they needed to pay the $25 fee for a subpoena or fill out some forms," said Stephanie.

Almost 2 ½ hours later a passer-by spotted the SUV abandoned a mile away.

Responding deputies found the boy safe in his car seat.

Riverside sheriff's authorities were outraged that Sprint could have directed the deputies to the boy an hour earlier and did not.

Supervisors were told Sprint already has an emergency protocol that the employee in this situation did not follow.

NBC reported that the Riverside supervisors were considering prodding Sprint with a regulatory stick but they discovered they don't have authority.

I'm not so certain that the blame should be placed on Sprint. I assume that they have some legal reasons for not simply handing this information over to the Sheriff.

Fishu · « **Reply #1 on:** January 12, 2006, 11:21:04 AM »

I find it strange that even the owner wasn't allowed to get the location.
All the laws are there to protect the users, but why can't they get it?
Well.. apparently they *COULD* get it after going through a load of paper work, but thats hardly useful when you need it right now and the next week.

Maverick · « **Reply #2 on:** January 12, 2006, 12:13:02 PM »

Supervisors were told Sprint already has an emergency protocol that the employee in this situation did not follow.

Hello law suit. This one will go over very well with a jury, especially one with parents in the jury panel.

I expect Sprint will be looking for a rate increase soon.

Hawklore · « **Reply #3 on:** January 12, 2006, 12:14:44 PM »

Who leaves their kid in the car with the keys?

Happend here in Jacksonville too..

ASTAC · « **Reply #4 on:** January 12, 2006, 12:23:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hawklore
Who leaves their kid in the car with the keys?

Happend here in Jacksonville too..

When you have multiple very young kids you do the best you can. I load mine up one at a time. I have thre ranging from 3 months old to 5 years old. One parent can't take them all out to the car at the same time. Though for me the baby goes in last.

Sprint should have given up the location..Thats what it's there for. Unless the Gov't has a more sinister reason for requiring cell phones to have locators:noid

Sandman · « **Reply #5 on:** January 12, 2006, 12:27:05 PM »

Unless the Govt. shows up at their storefront, how does Sprint know for certain that the Govt. is asking the question?

Mickey1992 · « **Reply #6 on:** January 12, 2006, 12:38:55 PM »

My guess is that when law enforcement calls for the GPS info, the employee follows some predetermined procedure and then calls the law enforcement agency back at a verifiable phone number to make sure that the person calling isn't a fraud.

Because Sprint apparently had some sort of procedure already in place for emergencies like this and didn't follow it, it too smell a negligence lawsuit coming.

ASTAC · « **Reply #7 on:** January 12, 2006, 12:40:25 PM »

With the E911 system that is being implemented..It should be automatic..Unless the local 911 hasn't complied yet. Even so Sprint should give the info at least to the owner of the phone...with no forms,,,for chrissakes they interrogate the crap out of you every time you call to verify who you are so it's not like they are giving it out to just anyone.

Mickey1992 · « **Reply #8 on:** January 12, 2006, 12:48:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by ASTAC
With the E911 system that is being implemented..It should be automatic.

That would be true if 911 was called from the cellphone in the car. However it wasn't.

ASTAC · « **Reply #9 on:** January 12, 2006, 12:52:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mickey1992
That would be true if 911 was called from the cellphone in the car. However it wasn't.

Supposedly they can locate a cell phone without it having called 911 first.

Mickey1992 · « **Reply #10 on:** January 12, 2006, 12:59:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by ASTAC
Supposedly they can locate a cell phone without it having called 911 first.

Yes, if the cellphone is set up to broadcast its location all of the time. The default setting for most phones is that it will transmit its GPS info only if 911 is called.

Either way, Sprint screwed the pooch on this one, I agree.

ASTAC · « **Reply #11 on:** January 12, 2006, 01:01:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mickey1992
Yes, if the cellphone is set up to broadcast its location all of the time. The default setting for most phones is that it will transmit its GPS info only if 911 is called.

Either way, Sprint screwed the pooch on this one, I agree.

You're right..I forgot about that..I have Verizon, but my phone also has two GPS settings..one that allows constant location and one that you have to initaite by calling 911. Due to the nature of my job I leave mine on constant.

FiLtH · « **Reply #12 on:** January 12, 2006, 04:05:41 PM »

Weird...if the owner called and asked if they could locate their phone because they misplaced it..I wonder if they would have done so?

Sandman · « **Reply #13 on:** January 12, 2006, 04:16:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by ASTAC
Due to the nature of my job I leave mine on constant.

Huh?

eagl · « **Reply #14 on:** January 12, 2006, 04:29:39 PM »

Not having "authority" is BS. They have authority.

Authorize their deputies to haul blowtorches to every sprint tower in the county and cut them down. No authority my butt... Just pass a local law stating that towers must be 2 ft lower than whatever height the sprint towers are at, and give them 2 days to comply before the non-compliant towers are removed.

It's called "running the bastard out of town on a rail". Or "tarring and feathering". Gets rid of the unfriendly element in a hurry. If they want to come back, they gotta change their ways or they're not welcome. That's a BIG part of how the constitution was written, to make SURE that local governments have authority over local affairs. If a company fails to cooperate with law enforcement officials in an emergency situation, there is no reason why the local government should not have the authority to deal with the offending company at the local level.

Just cut down their towers, or threaten to cut down the towers, until sprint makes amends. Buying the police dept a new comm system might be a good start at saying "oops sorry". Any other answer is unacceptable IMHO.