 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Sprint PCS / January 2006Sprint Refuses to Help Family of Kidnapped Child
Looks like Sprint's crackerjack employees step up to the plate once again. Sprint Refuses To Reveal Location Of Cell Phone In Carjacked SUV 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. 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. There has been an update to this store that you should have posted. http://howardforums.com/showthread.php?t=819567 End of Story. > Looks like Sprint's crackerjack employees step up to the plate once again. > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > Sprint with a regulatory stick but they discovered they don't have > authority. > There has been an update to this store that you should have posted. > > http://howardforums.com/showthread.php?t=819567 > > End of Story. The update doesn't change the original story, nor does it exonerate the idiot Sprint employee(s) who refused to help the law enforcement folks locate a kidnapped child. Anyone with half a functioning brain cell would put a child's welfare above company policy. I'm glad Sprint is going to "investigate" this incident. If their investigation results in anything less than the removal of the employee(s) involved, then their "apology" is nothing more than scripted PR. My sentiments exactly. It's one thing to stand in front of the cameras and talk a good game, but it's completely a whole other story if you're genuinely sincere and believe in what what you're saying.  SignatureSincerely, Loreal Lavigna Avon Independent Sales/E-Representative (518)330-5188 Llavigna2@aol.com www.youravon.com/llavigna >> There has been an update to this store that you should have posted. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >The update doesn't change the original story, The so-called "update" Mij referred to wasn't an update at all, it was just 4 pages or so of knee-jerk reaction from well-meaning, but nevertheless, uninformed, people. >nor does it exonerate the >idiot Sprint employee(s) who refused to help the law enforcement folks [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >than the removal of the employee(s) involved, then their "apology" is >nothing more than scripted PR. I'll have to disagree there. The reason this kind of story hasn't been all over the media before is that all carriers have very clear procedures in place to deal with these kinds of events. Carriers are expected to balance privacy against expediency. LEA's know this, and overall they know and follow the procedures correctly on a regular basis. When they do, the system works extremely well, resulting in information being provided within a matter of minutes. There's a lot missing from the reports I've seen on this story, and there's some incorrect information, too. From what I've seen so far, though, it looks to me like the LEA officer forgot his or her training in the heat of the moment and tried unsuccessfully to take a shortcut. It also looks to me like the Sprint employee did exactly what he or she was supposed to do; that is, decline the improper request and remind the LEA officer of the correct procedure. We'll see how it plays out, but one thing is certain, many people seem to have already made up their minds. Because of what we know so far, I'm leaning in favor of Sprint, and the carriers in general, but I'm open to changing my mind if/when new facts emerge. I hope others are, too. One last thing, I worked in emergency services for 7 years in a previous life. I, and anyone else who has, can tell you that emergency procedures are put in place, and practiced regularly, for the sole purpose of avoiding situations like this one. The last thing you need, when seconds count, is some freewheeling cowboy doing his own thing. If there's ever a time to follow established procedures, it's during an emergency. SignaturePaul Miner >> "Mij Adyaw" <mij@spam.com> wrote in message >> nor does it exonerate the idiot Sprint employee(s) who refused . . . [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > she was supposed to do; that is, decline the improper request and > remind the LEA officer of the correct procedure. Paul, Agreed. There are certain avenues law enforcement must go through before Sprint will release the information to the officers. The same laws which protect us have all types of other implications. Bud Stein >> There has been an update to this store that you should have posted. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > less than the removal of the employee(s) involved, then their "apology" is > nothing more than scripted PR. Great- I think I'll call in posing as police officer to get some of your account information- I'll tell them I need your home address to find a 90 year-old invalid who called in threatening suicide. You shouldn't object to this, should you? >> There has been an update to this store that you should have posted. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The update doesn't change the original story, Of which the details are sketchy. This incident happened in December and only came to light because the city was going to use it against Sprint--who were trying to build more towers. My guess is that if Sprint were truly at fault, we would have heard about this in December, when the incident actually occurred. Instead the story comes out after Sprint told the city council it would "review emergency procedures." They didn't admit wrongdoing; they wanted the towers and this was a small price to pay to get them. It apparently worked. One might wonder what business the city had connecting the December incident to the tower request. Sounds like small-minded politics at work. Further, at least one account specifies that the father left the infant in an unlocked and running SUV while he went back into his house to retrieve his 3-year-old. According to the account I read, the 3-year-old was not ready and so the father waited for him upstairs--while the infant was in the running, unlocked, SUV still out in the driveway. I am very glad things turned out OK. But I hope that the father learned that leaving a vehicle running with a child inside--even in your own driveway--is an invitation to trouble. He was very fortunate that the thief was just that: a thief and not a demented child-killer (who might have easily recognized the phone as a tool to track--and tossed it out the window). > nor does it exonerate > the idiot Sprint employee(s) who refused to help the law enforcement > folks locate a kidnapped child. Anyone with half a functioning brain > cell would put a child's welfare above company policy. I'm glad And if Sprint gave out the GPS coordinates without following proper procedure, and someone died because of it, you'd likely be calling that Sprint employee not just an idiot, but a murderer. This could easily happen in the case of a couple going through a nasty divorce. Indeed an estranged husband might still be the account-holder of his wife's cellphone. He wants her dead (as if that has never happened) and calls Sprint pretending to be a LEO in the midst of a life-or-death situation and wants the GPS coordinates immediately. He has all the pertinent account details. Should the Sprint employee comply, and not follow proper procedure, how would you feel then? > Sprint is going to "investigate" this incident. If their > investigation results in anything less than the removal of the > employee(s) involved, then their "apology" is nothing more than > scripted PR. You don't know the exact details of the case. For instance, was the phone still in the SUV when it was found? Regardless, all of the stories I've read indicate Sprint asked for a form to be faxed. This is normal procedure; for reasons I've stated previously. All of the accounts I've read do not indicate if the police actually faxed that form. But they seem to indicate that the police were surprised at Sprint asking about this. This seems to indicate that that department did not know Sprint--and other carriers--have specific policies in place for Amber Alerts and other situations involving carrier intervention. If you can provide more details, feel free to do so. SignatureMike > > the idiot Sprint employee(s) who refused to help the law enforcement > > folks locate a kidnapped child. Anyone with half a functioning brain [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > has all the pertinent account details. Should the Sprint employee > comply, and not follow proper procedure, how would you feel then? Those Missourians got a heart of gold: ""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." 25 bucks, what chiselers...JG far as I'm concerned if it were my child I'd just pay the money get it over with and find out where my baby was. SignatureSincerely, Loreal Lavigna Avon Independent Sales/E-Representative (518)330-5188 Llavigna2@aol.com www.youravon.com/llavigna >> > the idiot Sprint employee(s) who refused to help the law enforcement >> > folks locate a kidnapped child. Anyone with half a functioning brain [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Those Missourians got a heart of gold: Missourians? Do you mean Kansans? >""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." Second hand information from "Stephanie" isn't exactly reliable. Payment wouldn't have been an issue, assuming it even came up at the time, if proper procedures had been followed because accounts get reconciled after the fact, on a monthly or quarterly basis. >25 bucks, what chiselers...JG It costs the carriers far more than $25 to respond to an LEA request, but that particular data point may not fit your personal agenda. :) SignaturePaul Miner > >Those Missourians got a heart of gold: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Second hand information from "Stephanie" isn't exactly reliable. Steph is the mother, hardly "Second Hand". . > >25 bucks, what chiselers...JG > > It costs the carriers far more than $25 to respond to an LEA request, > but that particular data point may not fit your personal agenda. :) Hmm, $25 to type in a 10 digit phone number on a keyboard, and read back the GPS data, thats only $2.50 per phone digit. Do they hire Lawyers to due the typing ;) ?? People should also know that this GPS data can be read by non LEO's, from your phone. So remember to check your phone's optioning to limit GPS data access to emergency cases only. This open GPS access was intended for advertisers to detect YOU nearby and advertise businesses. JG >> >Those Missourians got a heart of gold: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Steph is the mother, hardly "Second Hand". Sorry, you're wrong. From your own post, still quoted above, it was Stephanie who said "The deputies were told...", making the statement second hand. SignaturePaul Miner >>> the idiot Sprint employee(s) who refused to help the law enforcement >>> folks locate a kidnapped child. Anyone with half a functioning brain [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > 25 bucks, what chiselers...JG That is not the first thing they were told--they were asked to fax the form first. And that is the price Sprint "charges" (they don't make money on it) for a subpoena-based request. This was not that kind of case--it was an Amber Alert--and why the LEA was told about the form first. We still haven't heard whether the LEA complied with that form request. But again, as they seemed surprised over whole request for the form in the first place I'm inclined to think they just thought they could call Sprint and Sprint would divulge coordinates. It doesn't work that way. Now perhaps Sprint needs to have someone on that (reserved) line that understands when a LEA is clueless about SOP, but that is a separate issue. OTOH, maybe that LEO was transferred to someone who was trying to explain how the system works, hence the mention of the subpoena fee. The situation where a LEO hangs up out of frustration and/or arrogance may not have been predicted; and might just be what Sprint is "reviewing." SignatureMike Last summer Sprint did cooperate with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department to locate a kidnapper who was using the victim's cell phone to demand a ransom. I posted a write-up on the incident soon afterward: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.cellular.sprintpcs/msg/2bdfe4abd4b78ced?hl=en SignaturePaul Hirose <jvcmz89uwf@earINVALIDthlink.net> To reply by email remove INVALID > Looks like Sprint's crackerjack employees step up to the plate once again. <snip the drivel> Interesting- Sprint has responded and it would seem that little of what you posted was true- there was no fee and the request for documents from law enforcement is a common and quick practice. In fact, apparently Sprintlocated the car just as it was found. BTW- the response has gone withou a single challenge of their story. Nice try, troll. "Scott" <how.do@you.do> spewed: > Interesting- Sprint has responded and it would seem that little of what > you posted was true- there was no fee and the request for documents from [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Nice try, troll. Don't you just love it when socially unskilled geeks try to act all macho by calling other people "trolls," as if it will really destroy the original poster? Get a life, pal. Also, try getting your facts straight. Sprint never revealed the GPS location of the cell phone. The child was found about two hours after he was reported missing when another motorist spotted the SUV and called law enforcement. Sprint was "still working on" providing the information. What I posted was a copy of a news story from the NBC affiliate in Los Angeles. If you have a problem with the veracity of the story, take it up with them. Sprint's initial response was to admit that not all procedures were followed by their employee. From what I've been able to see, it took them a month to issue a corporate response....lots of time for spin to be generated.....and they pointed their fingers at the law enforcement agency for not following rules. Typical corporate butt-covering. Look, I posted the story because I found it interesting and because I thought it might generate some discussion. That's kinda the purpose of Usenet, isn't it? I also found Sprint's response to be lacking. Without question, they're in a difficult situation having to balance subscribers' privacy with the needs of the community. But emergency situations often require creative thinking, and the Sprint employee failed, in my opinion. For example, from what I read, an AMBER alert was issued for this child almost immediately upon the report of the carjacking. Sprint has trumpeted its alliance with the AMBER alert network and says that it makes AMBER alert information available to its call center employees. Given that the law enforcement official was apparently unaware of the procedure to follow with Sprint, how difficult would it have been for the Sprint employee to check the AMBER alert information to see the legitimacy of this request? Get the badge number of the officer contacting Sprint; call the law enforcement agency to verify this person's badge number; and then provide them with the information they need, cleaning up the paperwork after the child is found. My point is that people on the front lines need to have the skills to handle not just the routine situations that come up but the emergencies as well. If Sprint has failed to properly train its staff to handle such emergencies, then I hope this situation has awakened them to the need to better train their staff. > "Scott" <how.do@you.do> spewed: >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Angeles. If you have a problem with the veracity of the story, take it up > with them. <snip more diatribe> You posted it here, not the affiliate. And please look at the date of the story before you bash Sprint for taking so long to respond- they responded to the news article within a week. It seems your affiliate had bad info. The fact that any kind kind of fee was not discussed on the night in question (contrary to the story) puts the whole story in question. The fact that Sprint was not requesting a full-blown subpoena is also contrary to the story. Call it coporate a.s covering, but NOBODY involved in the incident has tried to correct anything reported by Sprint. It would seen that your version was far from accurate. Its easy to post crap to Usenet- much harder to verify before posting. I believe that is the sign of a socially and mentally unskilled geek. Now- you want to discuss why there are hoops to jump through before this type of info is released? Consider the following scenarios: -An irate, abusive ex-husband calls Sprint to get the location of his wife's phone, who he fears is missing. The truth- he's looking to find out where she is to beat the crap out of her for leaving him. -I decide I don't like you and want to make your life miserable. I call Sprint needing to get your home address because I just received a call from your cellphone saying that my child was just hit in front of your house, but you forgot to give me the address in the confusion of the moment. -Somebody else who doesn't like you calls Sprint posing as a DEA agent needing the location of your phone to stop the delivery of a major narcotics deal. The truth- its really thieves wanting to know how far away from your house youare to determine if they have enough time to do a B&E. Now, while these might sound outrageous, they sound no more outrageous than calling and giving the story involved here. Are you comfortable having your cell phone company giving out your information whenever somebody requests it for an emergency without going through some kind of verification process? Are you so willing to discuss this type of client information with anybody that asks at your place of employment? It is really unfortunate that this is not a moderated group. If this group was moderated, we could simply delete juvenile nonsensical posts that have no basis in fact. >> "Scott" <how.do@you.do> spewed: >>> [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > verification process? Are you so willing to discuss this type of client > information with anybody that asks at your place of employment? >It is really unfortunate that this is not a moderated group. If this group >was moderated, we could simply delete juvenile nonsensical posts that have >no basis in fact. The flaming monkeys flying out of my butt says thay you are a piece of leather. I'm glad that they did not give out the location without a subpeona. That's a great policy. Infringements on privacy always start out with "good motives". Those who sacrifice liberty for the sake of security deserve neither. I'm glad that they did not give out the location without a subpeona. That's a great policy. Infringements on privacy always start out with "good motives". Those who sacrifice liberty for the sake of security deserve neither. > Those who sacrifice liberty for the sake of security deserve neither. You're opposed to putting people in jail, then? >You're opposed to putting people in jail, then? Those who sacrifice their own liberty, dillhole. The Police and the father/mother invloved could have quickly resolved this at the time. By getting on the line to SprintPCS and giving their personal info password, name and address etc etc. Then the Rep would likely have given the info immediately. The Police should have arranged this anyway, can't have been the first such request. My experience. I am a Zprint customer with a family plan with multiple phones under my name. My daughter's car broke down while on a long journey back to NJ, She was somewhere in North Carolina on the I95. Because the engine had seized she was parked in a dangerous position (sliglhtly on the road). She called me (in NJ) in obvious distress, but could not tell me her location (and it was going dark). I called up Sprint and gave full pw and personal details and they gave me the approx location (not a GPS enabled phone they triangulated her location via several towers per her last call). Using this data we called AAA and the State Police (AAA insisted). The good news was Sprint's help (for which I will always be grateful) meant that 3 1/2 hours later a tow truck picked up her and the car. Unfortunately the NC Police never "found her" and strongly told me I was completely mistaken as to the location of the car. But enough about their failure to help. The point is Sprint responded immediately to my request for help and because I was the name holder and gave the PW and personal info to identify myself. So If you ever have such a problem (I hope you don't) get the account holder on the line to give the proper authentication. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.