Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Bug Sends Lost-Phone Seekers To Same Wrong Address

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the geo-magnetic-personality dept.

Bug 298

netbuzz writes "A mysterious GPS-tracking glitch has brought a parade of lost-phone seekers — and police officers — to the front door of a single beleaguered homeowner in Las Vegas. Each of the unexpected visitors – Sprint customers all — has arrived absolutely convinced that the man has their phone. Not so, police confirm. The same thing happened in New Orleans in 2011 and Sprint got sued. Says the Las Vegas man: 'It's very difficult to say, 'I don't have your phone,' in any other way other than, 'I don't have your phone.''"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Not for the first time (-1, Redundant)

Dupple (1016592) | about 2 years ago | (#42592757)

Sprint made a similar goof last year

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/28/45101.htm [courthousenews.com]

Re:Not for the first time (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42592865)

Wow, thanks for pointing out the contents of the summary.

Re:Not for the first time (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42592873)

No shit retard. It's in the fucking summary.

Re: Not for the first time (4, Funny)

Dupple (1016592) | about 2 years ago | (#42592969)

I skimmed the submission, it rang a bell, I searched it, submission on front page, I pasted and Wham! Instant tit head!

Thems the breaks

Re: Not for the first time (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42593167)

But it did get you FP, so now everyone knows you're not only an asshole, you're a shallow moron with nothing to do.

So, you got that going for you.

Re: Not for the first time (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42593341)

No one arse hole is as deep as yours

Would a yard-sign help? (4, Insightful)

mekkab (133181) | about 2 years ago | (#42592759)

Something along the lines of "Yes, the tracker says your Phone is here. No, it is not. Please call SPRINT at 1-800-xxx-xxxx" Lo-tech, but effective.

For a sign to be effective... (3, Insightful)

Press2ToContinue (2424598) | about 2 years ago | (#42592979)

you would have to read it. I guess your idea sucks because he has put up a sign already and you didn't read enough to know it. Bright, you are not.

Re:For a sign to be effective... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42593285)

You would have to read two links deep... the article does not say this.

Re:Would a yard-sign help? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42593009)

Actually, not very effective since they don't have their phone.

Re:Would a yard-sign help? (1)

maccodemonkey (1438585) | about 2 years ago | (#42593165)

According to TFA there is now a sign on his house to that effect.

Ill Advised (5, Insightful)

sycodon (149926) | about 2 years ago | (#42593207)

I would be ill advised for anyone tracking a phone to go to the address and accuse the occupants of having it.

There are many possible outcomes, most are less than optimal.

Re:Would a yard-sign help? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42593235)

First, rage is taking over at this point. They're missing their precious shiny. And, as far as a computer's told them, you have it. Thus, what would normally be impotent rage is now focused rage: They now "know" that you've got their precious, precious shiny! Do you seriously expect them to stop and read a lowly yard sign as they advance on your home with crowbars and torches? Even worse if that yard sign is contradicting the word of an all-knowing, completely logical, infallible computer? A computer just like their missing pet shiny?

Second, as others have pointed out, they don't have their phones. They can't call Sprint.

Re:Would a yard-sign help? (5, Funny)

oddjob1244 (1179491) | about 2 years ago | (#42593283)

Please call SPRINT at 1-800-xxx-xxxx

Telling people, who are looking for their lost phone, to call a number, might not be the most effective tactic. =)

Re:Would a yard-sign help? (3, Informative)

Mr_Silver (213637) | about 2 years ago | (#42593343)

Something along the lines of "Yes, the tracker says your Phone is here. No, it is not. Please call SPRINT at 1-800-xxx-xxxx" Lo-tech, but effective.

It's not a great picture, but he appears to have a sign next to his front door [lvrj.com] saying pretty much that.

Re:Would a yard-sign help? (4, Informative)

arth1 (260657) | about 2 years ago | (#42593817)

It's not a great picture, but

I found a better picture [abcnews.com] .

i would sue (5, Interesting)

alen (225700) | about 2 years ago | (#42592767)

it has been over a year and sprint can't fix the problem

a nice letter to their legal department may move things along

Re:i would sue (5, Funny)

plover (150551) | about 2 years ago | (#42593049)

He could offer to move to a nicer house in a nicer part of town, and sell his house to Sprint. Better, he could offer to sell his house to AT&T and let them open a ATT Wireless store in his house - after being screwed by Sprint, perhaps their frustrated customers would be looking for a change.

Re:i would sue (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42593363)

Nah, too complicated.

He should start actually stealing phones.

Re:i would sue (2)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#42593529)

I'm guessing the reason why it tracks to his house is he's the closest resident to a tower, so if GPS nav fails, it picks the strongest tower?

So they've already got an unmanned facility across the street or whatever. Put a sign up there, put a manned store there, whatever.

Re:i would sue (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#42593569)

Better is that Sprint buys him a brand new house where ever he chooses. It's their fault they OWE him at least that because they are not capable of fixing the problem

Sucks to be him (4, Insightful)

kenh (9056) | about 2 years ago | (#42592781)

While frustrating for him, from the outside looking in, it's kinda funny. No matter what he does to assert his innocence, it will appear as lies to the owner of the missing phone...

Re:Sucks to be him (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42592859)

At least to people who don't think first.
If he actually had their phone, and knew about it, would be be so stupid as to not turn it off?

Re:Sucks to be him (1)

s0nicfreak (615390) | about 2 years ago | (#42593325)

Yes, actually, it happens quite often that someone steals or finds a phone and then does not turn it off. Why bother to take it if all you're going to use it for is a paperweight?

Re:Sucks to be him (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 2 years ago | (#42593527)

It would depend on how sadistic he is. He might get off on seeing the look of frustration and despair in strangers eyes. He might get a power trip from knowing there really isn't anything that could be done- sort of like why some criminals return to the scene of a crime to watch the cleanup.

Re:Sucks to be him (1)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | about 2 years ago | (#42593559)

Are you seriously betting against the stupidity of thieves?

Re:Sucks to be him (0)

number11 (129686) | about 2 years ago | (#42593773)

Are you seriously betting against the stupidity of thieves?

I dunno, those insurance industry and Wall St. types made out pretty good.

Oh, you mean blue-collar thieves.

Re:Sucks to be him (5, Insightful)

hattig (47930) | about 2 years ago | (#42592879)

It's funny except that it's taking a lot of his time, it must be extremely stressful, the fact that people turn up at any time must be affecting his sleep, his mental state, and so on.

And that's before someone turning up possibly gets violent.

And their costs to get there. Why are they going? Because the police refuse to deal with stolen phone cases even where there is a GPS signal, so people go out on their own or with mates to reclaim their property.

Quite clearly this problem needs a solution very soon before something bad happens.

Re:Sucks to be him (4, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#42592921)

The police doing their job seems to be the best solution. This seems pretty common though. A friend once reported a theft from a vehicle and the police were annoyed he made them fill out a report when he did not have insurance for this. They literally did not even want to collect basic information that could be used to monitor the number of crimes occurring much less attempt to catch the perpetrators.

Re:Sucks to be him (4, Interesting)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#42593269)

Probably less want and more man power issue.
and the vast amount of 'stolen phones' are lost phones.
You see this same thing with wallets as well.
Interesting story: in 1989 there was a string of pickpockets in Reno. So the police started keeping certain areas under surveillance.
There were no pickpockets. There where people leaving the casino, literally through their wallet away and often injuring there face in some manner.
Upon questioning these people, it turned out they didn't want to tell their spouse they lost all their money in the casino.

Re:Sucks to be him (2)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 2 years ago | (#42593783)

Sounds like a good area for pickpockets to target. People going to the casino with plenty of cash on them and a police force that will do it's best not to investigate their crimes.

Re:Sucks to be him (2)

MightyYar (622222) | about 2 years ago | (#42593413)

Well, we do give law enforcement hell when crime doesn't improve... can't really fault them for following the incentive not to report. I'm not sure what the proper incentive structure should be, but I bet the smarty-smarts here could come up with something better. For instance, perhaps a commission that follows up on some percentage of 911 calls.

Re:Sucks to be him (5, Insightful)

berashith (222128) | about 2 years ago | (#42592907)

For a long time I had a deadbeat using my phone number while obtaining lines of credit. The collectors would start calling and asking for her, and there was nothing that I could say to them to convince them that I did not know her, she did not live at my house, had never lived at my house, etc. It looks like lies no matter what, and these arent people who are willing to actually follow the laws about harrasment. They bothered me enough that I was ready to hunt her down for them.

Re:Sucks to be him (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42593065)

Dude, if they break the laws for harassment you can get thousands of dollars out of them.

Hell, there are guys who deliberately take out, say, twenty buck of loans, get it sold to one of those collectors, and make their living off of suing debt collectors who violate the law.

Re:Sucks to be him (4, Informative)

VAXcat (674775) | about 2 years ago | (#42593205)

The same thing happened to me, and the anti harassment laws were useless to help. Here's why - the anti harassment laws only protect the person they are looking for. Since you are not the person they are looking for, they can call your number as often as they like - you can't request they stop, since you aren't the person with the debt. Only the person they are trying to collect from has any protections under the law. Calls to the police and the state Attorney general's office yielded no help at all. Begging and pleading, reason and logic, they fell on deaf ears - these people were going to call three times a day and there was no way to stop them. I even tried imitating the person they were looking for, in order to invoke the law telling them to stop calling, but my deep voice couldn't produce a realistic woman's voice (the deadbeat was female). I finally had to forward my calls to a non-working number for a week. The "doo-doo-DOO you have reached a number that is not in service" message they got when they called convinced them I had changed my phone number and they couldn't call me anymore....

Re:Sucks to be him (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42593415)

Should have asked for an address to send a cease and desist letter to. If they continue to call after getting that you can sue. On top of that if it was a cell phone they were calling they can be fined $5000 per attempt. You needed a better lawyer.

Re:Sucks to be him (1)

VAXcat (674775) | about 2 years ago | (#42593557)

Err, I think you missed the whole point...a cease and desist order can only be done by the debtor. I wasn't the debtor, so I had no rights in the matter.

Re:Sucks to be him (1)

berashith (222128) | about 2 years ago | (#42593705)

exactly. I even considered my own public shaming campaign, but then I would be breaking the laws by publicizing the debtors obligations, and they could sue me!

Re:Sucks to be him (5, Informative)

mark-t (151149) | about 2 years ago | (#42593675)

Whether you are the debtor or not, collection agencies are required, by law, to honor all C&D requests that are submitted to them, in writing. After they receive the C&D, they are permitted to contact you only once more, and the purpose of that communication is to advise you of their next course of action. If they do not respect the C&D, contact the FTC and your state Attorney General, and advise them that the collection agency has broken the law.

If the agency refuses to give the information necessary for you to send them a C&D in writing, then this falls under the same category as a caller who refuses to identify himself, and if such calls persist without such identification, then it qualifies as full-on telephone harassment. The police can be notified in this case.

Re:Sucks to be him (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42593237)

I second the AC, don't do their job for them. Document everything, sue them, and then they might be more careful next time.

Re:Sucks to be him (4, Interesting)

pauls2272 (580109) | about 2 years ago | (#42593483)

No. Your wrong. The max you can get is controlled by the FTC. The max is quite small - like $500. Then Good Luck ever collecting that even after you "win".

This is assuming you can get them to 1. Identify themselves, 2. Give you a real address (not a PO box) so you can spend $50+ on a server to serve them after you file suit in small claims court. Most would hang up once I asked for them to identify themselves and give me a real address.

Then there are the larger companies that not only spoof the caller id but use a record-a-call wanting you to call back and give a incident number to. When you do that, the debt collector will claim they are no longer bound by the FDCPA ( Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) because THEY didn't call you, you called THEM.

I had the exact situation the OP had. I moved, got a new number and was then inundated with phone calls from collectors. Even telling them that this was my new number didn't really help. Debt Collection was a "growth industry" in the 90s. There are lists of deadbeats that are produced monthly that you can buy and start calling in your own "startup collection" business. So I was constantly getting new collection agencies calling me about the deadbeat.

The only way I got them to stop, was when I switch phone providers (I went from Cox to AT&T), I LISTED my number. Now my number was published and no longer appearing as the deadbeats number in the newest Deadbeat lists. The number of collection calls I received dramatically dropped. From getting 2-3 per week, I've got maybe 2 all last year.

Oh, I also filed a large number of complaints with the FTC - I'm sure this did nothing as I never heard 1 thing from the FTC about any of my complaints.

Re:Sucks to be him (1)

berashith (222128) | about 2 years ago | (#42593759)

a couple of times I called back the number they left on my voicemail. I did this if I had nothing to do that evening. I would try to find out who they were and what their address was so I could make things official, but they never would give any information that could give me any legal standing. I basically trolled them by wasting their time as I would let these calls go until they got sick of me and hung up, and then I would just call back. Didnt do anything to stop them, but it could eat into the small profit they were going to get from any payments.

Re:Sucks to be him (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42593215)

Tell them to stop calling you. Either they stop or you get thousands from them. Talk to a lawyer.

Re:Sucks to be him (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42593227)

Tell them, "That person doesn't work here anymore." They are less likely to call and harass a business.

Re:Sucks to be him (3, Funny)

Ambvai (1106941) | about 2 years ago | (#42593291)

I had this problem when I first got my Google Voice number before. I ended up redirecting the number to the front office of the collection agency. After three months, I never got a call from them again.

Re:Sucks to be him (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42593555)

In the US, the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act does provide some protection for this. You would need to send a certified mail/with written receipt Cease and Desist, and possibly debt validation demand that they substantiate involvement with the debt.

After they ignore your demands for 30 days, you then provide both your state's Attorney General and the FTC with copies of communication (it helps to have also logged illegal debt collection attempts with the FTC online).

You can sue, but your Attorney General may also do so on your behalf. Mine did. Got some money in a big settlement, though the same company has been nailed on this before.

Re:Sucks to be him (3, Informative)

pauls2272 (580109) | about 2 years ago | (#42593743)

Certified mail to PO boxes is worthless and a waste of money. You can spend the money to do it, but the form is just deposited in the PO Box and they won't go to the window to actually get the certified mail.

None of the collection agencies that called me ever gave me a real address. Most hung up when I asked for one, others insisted that the PO box was all that was required by the FTC.

Re:Sucks to be him (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42592975)

When you were a teenage boy I must imagine that you spent a lot of time in the school bathrooms and gym locker rooms sucking cock and grew to love swallowing down the biggest and thickest loads.

Re:Sucks to be him (1)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | about 2 years ago | (#42593263)

While frustrating for him, from the outside looking in, it's kinda funny. No matter what he does to assert his innocence, it will appear as lies to the owner of the missing phone...

It's really funny until some nutter with a gun, a short temper and a generous interpretation of stand-your-ground rights comes looking for his stolen phone.

Business Opportunity (5, Funny)

PPH (736903) | about 2 years ago | (#42592795)

Open an Apple store there. Sell iPhones. The people showing up are inevitably short a phone.

I'm surprised Apple hasn't patented this yet.

Re:Business Opportunity (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42593149)

I don't think Apple wants a bunch of hopeless Fandroids buying their phones. Let the low rent deadbeats keep looking.

Re:Business Opportunity (2)

HaZardman27 (1521119) | about 2 years ago | (#42593647)

The joke's on you, asshole. The app is Find My iPhone [todaysiphone.com] that is sending these people to his home.

We need more guns (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42592803)

If everybody had a gun, this would not be a problem. ;)

Re:We need more guns (4, Funny)

knarf (34928) | about 2 years ago | (#42592871)

If everybody had a gun, this would not be a problem. ;)

If everyone had a gnu [gnu.org] , this would not be a problem.

Re:We need more guns (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42593259)

And if everyone had a nug, this would not be a problem.

Re:We need more guns (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42593289)

Instead, there would just be a much funnier problem.

I don't get it (1)

arth1 (260657) | about 2 years ago | (#42592811)

Why are these people showing up at his door anyhow?
Isn't that the job of the police, and isn't vigilantism illegal even in Las Vegas?

Re:I don't get it (2)

berashith (222128) | about 2 years ago | (#42592843)

you think the police care?

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42592913)

you think the police care?

Threatening people at home is a dangerous pass time. It will not get your phone back if a thief took it, and might get you shot either way.

Re:I don't get it (1)

Cro Magnon (467622) | about 2 years ago | (#42592959)

And, if the police don't care, people aren't likely to care that vigilantism is illegal.

Re:I don't get it (4, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#42592869)

Is it vigilantism for me to knock on your door and peacefully ask if you have seen my phone?

To me it seems no different than when religious folks or girl scouts knock on my door. Well other than I don't have your phone, am not interested in your myths, and would like one box of thin mints and one box of samosas.

so lets see for you (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | about 2 years ago | (#42593045)

Your sign should

1 have a pentacle (assumes you are not a JC type person)
2 state solicitors will be shot/eaten/sacrificed
3 request that 1 case of thin mints and 1 case of samosas be delivered (does the GSA have an EStore??)

Re:I don't get it (4, Insightful)

Wookact (2804191) | about 2 years ago | (#42593085)

Yes, and the angry people are going to say thank you and walk away. Completely believing your story. These people are not like your average girl scout. They are mad, and they want their damn phone back. They will not be walking away when you give them your polite response. You thinking so, means you haven't thought this through.

Re:I don't get it (1)

brkello (642429) | about 2 years ago | (#42593375)

Is it vigilantism? No. But it is a horrible idea. You have no idea how crazy the person is.

Re:I don't get it (4, Informative)

arth1 (260657) | about 2 years ago | (#42593425)

Is it vigilantism for me to knock on your door and peacefully ask if you have seen my phone?

Read the original article [lvrj.com] .
This is clearly not what is happening.

And even if you should ask politely and during polite hours, unlike the people this man has encountered, you would be taking the law into your own hands and accusing him of lying if you rang his doorbell over this despite the clear note he has put up outside his home.

Part of the problem is that people use technology they don't understand. Sprint isn't pointing out his home as the address where the phone is. It's a triangulation starting point, with an error margin of several hundred feet in all directions.

tl;dr: The real victim isn't the yobo who lost his phone.

Re:I don't get it (1)

firex726 (1188453) | about 2 years ago | (#42592911)

My guess is people show up initially to accuse him, then get the police involved later when he invariably professes in his innocence; at which time the Police hopefully backup his claim.

Re:I don't get it (1)

dougmc (70836) | about 2 years ago | (#42593377)

My guess is people show up initially to accuse him, then get the police involved later when he invariably professes in his innocence; at which time the Police hopefully backup his claim.

Yes, but some people skip the police step entirely and will just assume the guy is lying and beat him up. Or worse. Or wait until he's not home and break in to steal their phone back (after all, it'll say that it's still there.)

It's not just a matter of having to explain to a lot of people -- it's a matter of a lot of people being absolutely convinced that you're lying and you've stolen from them -- the evidence is right there -- and it's a dangerous combination.

Assuming this is all correct, guy needs to sue.

Re:I don't get it (1, Insightful)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 2 years ago | (#42593033)

Why do you think it is illegal to knock on someone's door to talk to them? That is NOT vigilantism, thats called BEING A MAN. I dont need the police to talk to another man about an issue, I only need them if we cant resolve it as men. When you grow up, you will understand.

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42593233)

Women can't knock on doors?

Re:I don't get it (1)

Abstrackt (609015) | about 2 years ago | (#42593257)

There's nothing wrong with if if you're reasonable. But you know all those stories about people driving off roads because their GPS told them to? I don't think those people will believe the guy who says he doesn't have their phone when technology clearly says he does.

Re:I don't get it (1)

Cro Magnon (467622) | about 2 years ago | (#42593355)

The odds of someone who stole a phone lying is high. Of course, the odds of tech lying can be pretty high too, especially for Sprint phones or Apple Maps.

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42593303)

Your post shows you also have a lot of growing up to do. It's worth it though, because you get to sleep with ladies.

Yes, I know, they like "bad boys", but you're not one of those, you're a retard.

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42593371)

And when you're being A MAN on my property, I will kindly shut the door on you, take your license plate, and report trespassing and harassment.

Re:I don't get it (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 2 years ago | (#42593475)

Knocking on someone's door, asking them if they have your phone is neither trespassing nor harassment on first contact. You are certainly in your rights to tell me to leave, and to call the police, but no crime has been committed if i obey your command to leave the property. If this were not the case, i would have Jehovah's Witness's arrested every month.

Re:I don't get it (1)

dougmc (70836) | about 2 years ago | (#42593393)

thats called BEING A MAN

Women can do it too, you know, so maybe it needs a new name.

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42593775)

Being a Goddamn Adult

Re:I don't get it (3, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#42593407)

really? ignoring the sign he posted, then knocking on someone door at 3AM becasue your crappy software popped up his address is being a man?
And what other answer do you think you will get besides 'No, I don't have you phone' Do you think the thief will just hand it over?

What if a woman wants to do it, does that count as being a man?

How about: 'A civilized person goes to the house, and notes the sign then leaves?'

vigilantism is an individual or group who undertakes law enforcement without legal authority. So yes, it is vigilantism.
IN a civilized society, you accuse someone of a crime, and they defend there innocence. This man was constantly approached and forced to PROVE his innocence by vigilante

Re:I don't get it (1)

Ksevio (865461) | about 2 years ago | (#42593309)

The police also show up apparently, though in cases where the 911 GPS points to his house for domestic violence calls, not missing phones.

These are not the (an)droids you are looking for (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42592903)

Ba da bing

A better response (4, Funny)

cellocgw (617879) | about 2 years ago | (#42592919)

"These aren't the GPS coordinates you are looking for."

(Well, that's better than, say "Imagine a Beowulf cluster of people looking for lost phones")

Re:A better response (1)

IcyNeko (891749) | about 2 years ago | (#42593155)

Just imagine if the Military contracted targeting systems with Sprint? All our guided-weaponry would bombard some random address, probably a good, wholesome family of 5.

Re:A better response (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42593627)

Or the Chinese Embasy. Chinese Embasy Bombing [wikipedia.org]

Re:A better response (4, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#42593631)

All our guided-weaponry would bombard some random address, probably a good, wholesome family of 5.

Yeah as if that doesn't happen all the time already

Re:A better response (3, Funny)

VAXcat (674775) | about 2 years ago | (#42593245)

All your phones are belong to us (remember how funny this would have been 10 years ago?)

Re:A better response (1)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | about 2 years ago | (#42593745)

You know what you doing

Re:A better response (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42593299)

Try different languages.
Ihr Telefon ist nicht hier!
El teléfono no está aquí!
Bin du, bine do Wahhh!
equals
Your phone is not here!

Re:A better response (1)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | about 2 years ago | (#42593459)

Maybe we can use a Beowulf cluster to find lost phones. Or else find people who are looking for lost phones.

Re:A better response (1)

SailorSpork (1080153) | about 2 years ago | (#42593609)

But not nearly as funny as "I for one welcome our new irate horde of lost phone seeking Overlords..."

New business plan! (5, Funny)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | about 2 years ago | (#42593021)

I'd start stealing phones. How would Sprint know the difference?

Re:New business plan! (1)

Ksevio (865461) | about 2 years ago | (#42593333)

Or just ebay a bunch of broken phones and leave them in a basket by the door.

Re:New business plan! (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 2 years ago | (#42593419)

Or, better yet, someone else could steal them and start using this guy's crawl space as a holding area, without his knowledge.

Re:New business plan! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42593429)

Let Me FTFY...

1. Steal Phones
2. How would Sprint know the difference?
3. ???
4. PROFIT !

See, this is /. you need to use the correct posting format.

Good for GPS (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about 2 years ago | (#42593177)

And this is what happens when you don't know how to design a working GPS

Re:Good for GPS (2)

hawguy (1600213) | about 2 years ago | (#42593777)

And this is what happens when you don't know how to design a working GPS

I don't think it's a problem with GPS itself, I think the problem is that the stolen phones are not able to use GPS - like a phone is stolen and whoever took it is keeping it in his kitchen cabinet. The phone can't see any GPS satellites so it relies on a cell tower fix. If it can only see one tower (and maybe this guy has the nearest address to the tower), the phone is claiming that it's at this guy's house.

I suspect that whoever is harassing the guy is ignoring the large circle in his positioning app that shows the range of the positioning fix (or the "Find my phone" app itself is not revealing that it only located the phone to within a 1000 ft radius).

They don't mention the types of phones (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 2 years ago | (#42593389)

So I conclude this hasn't involved an iPhone. Otherwise at least one of the stories would've worded it as "iPhone owners and a few random others", because news writers seem to think that's the only phone that'll draw readers.

Re:They don't mention the types of phones (2)

HaZardman27 (1521119) | about 2 years ago | (#42593695)

Like this? [todaysiphone.com]

Jenny? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42593515)

I'll bet his phone number is 867-5309 too.

Violation of Apple design patent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42593623)

This is a clear violation of Apple design patent on mapping application with "rounded" (read inaccurate) directions.

"please call Sprint" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42593669)

I had a problem with my DSL once, called the service provider, and the service representative said
"Get online and go to our troubleshooting website"
I changed providers.

F,i8st!? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42593703)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?