At the proj team meeting a new aspect was brought in. The user with his Mobile Station MS (aka User Equipment UE) would have to make a decision by crossing from Online Area OA to Logged Area LA. If he agrees into Public Logging for Emergency PLE he downloads and free installs an app. By opening the respective app he defines which person/credentials should first be contacted in case of emergency.
If the user decides he does not want to be tracked for emergency he skips this step. After his MS would not be tracked by OCTs. But this is a new legal problem. No app no fast help. But what if the user wanted to be tracked but missed the information point (and last chance to get free web access to install the app)?
Who is responsible if a user fails? Is he selfresponsible?
Like 60 minutes… the story will continue
Still researching this as a project as there appears for Search and Rescue quite a few options that are not mentioned as having been considered.
The latest feedback you received from the project meeting needs proper clarification. Have you asked the project team what analysis has been conducted into SARLOC and MRMap and how they feature in Search and Rescue? Need to avoid re-inventing the wheel.
Thank you trewmte.
A peer even confirmed me that they considered SARLOC and MRMap already. But the proj is not about organizing rescue in-team but to find more accurate location data based on the cell phone people carry in non-MNO-covered areas.
Today is no solution for this. No antennas in alps.
But the proj is not about organizing rescue in-team but to find more accurate location data based on the cell phone people carry in non-MNO-covered areas.
Today is no solution for this. No antennas in alps.
Eureka! That is exactly the conclusion I have reached thus far. Good so I now know I am on the right track.
Your creative input and research engagement is very much appreciated!
Update Out of the proj team I got the reply that the users entering the Logged Area LA will not be informed about PLE if the tracking data will be hold as 'silent graves' until legally opened for emergency. Swiss data protection law makes in general an exception for the privacy in case of emergency. Better than any nowadays running data backholding (mobile broadband boarder data (Randdaten)) for old 6 months and up from 1.1.2018 new 12 months, the PLE is related to privacy better as just opened in case of emergency. So theres is not regular accessing of these data in general and not a whole opening but just the last seen position in the Online Area OA and after maybe was entering a Logged Area.
So the privacy issue is solved.
The technical solutions gets more complex. A new requirement was given to involve older technologies like GSM and UMTS as generally older people are slow in adapting to new devices (world wars generation). After 2020 GSM will be taken down and expecting to put into operations of PLE is expected for 2020 (theoretically). GSM can be taken out technically.
Do you have other ideas? I am very interested to get response. Thank you.
Whilst researching I came across this
http//
http//
http//
So the privacy issue is solved.
What kind of technical and organizational measures are planned to secure the offline sites?
Switzerland is a favoured resort for high profile targets of competitive espionage, organized crime and foreign intelligence. The infrastructure - even if secured properly - will be taken out of order by some of these actors, just to have a try.
I am astonished that a European privacy agency approves such an installation, since distributed data storage at remote sensor endpoints is widely considered problematic and avoided e.g. in toll collection systems or even at a tactical scale in surveillance/countersurveillance/facility security systems.
On the other hand, the conditions for data access by authorized organizations can be designed in the same way for centralized and decentralized storage.
Thank you trewmte and C.R.S..
@C.R.S. - your approach is mirroring absolutely the actual reality related to crime/espionage/counterterror.
The Offline Cell Towers OCT are not the problem and the reason for a green light for the proj. The issue in the focus is the Master Cell Tower MCT which is only able to remote and directional long distance question the OCTs. As there is in certain areas (not the 3 examples I posted before) a military object nearby the questions about responsability and organizational aspects fall into the respective agencies. You may can imagine that this also had an influence on the proj privacy green light.
To be honest I am not happy about this player in the game. But I got informed this way.
Lets focus on the technical solution for the fix installed OCTs. Where to put them in place, how to standalone feed them with power and how to take into consideration the heavy changing tropospheric conditions in the high moutains is a challenge.
Will next search for arctic long-distance mobile broadband installations. Arctic weather conditions reflect the worst case due to a standalone battery/and/or alternative energies power-feeding/storage.
Have you seen any autarkic cell tower on expeditions or mount everest locations?
Have you seen any autarkic cell tower on expeditions or mount everest locations?
Mount Everest is covered by 4G (at least up to 5200 m)
http//
jaclaz