chaps6 hours ago
This is exactly the sort of thing that leads to people getting reincarcerated after their electronic monitoring devices mistakenly report them leaving their homes.
Some reporting I did on the topic a few years back: https://chicagoreader.com/news/many-on-house-arrest-in-cook-...
dataflow4 hours ago
> This
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.
chaps3 hours ago
Not sure where your confusion is coming from. Have you never used GPS in a place with bad signal? Where it gets confused and you miss your turn? It's the same failure mode. Just the repercussions are getting arrested instead of getting off on the wrong exit.
Also wrote this one, hopefully it helps your confusion: https://chicagoreader.com/news/false-alarms/
saaaaaam3 hours ago
I think the confusion is probably coming from the fact that the one reference to people being potentially re-incarcerated is buried right down the story.
> 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.
chaps3 hours ago
Ah. That's probably just a result of the pasted article being part of a series.
To be explicit: yes, many, many, many people were reinarcerated because of faulty GPS.
saaaaaam2 hours ago
FWIW I enjoyed your articles. You write very clearly.
dataflow3 hours ago
You're claiming that erroneously reported movements by ~33 ft lead to incarceration, yet the article you're linking to reports that erroneously reported movements by ~1mi+ lead to police coming to double-check what's going on. Am I incorrect and do you therefore have examples of ~30ft errors actually leading to their incarceration, or are you struggling to see the disconnect between what you're claiming vs. what is actually happening?
chaps3 hours ago
If someone's home is 30' by 30' feet, yes, that person's device will report them having left their home and they'll get a visit if GPS suddenly shifts 30 feet to the left.
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.
saaaaaam2 hours ago
As a neutral participant I think “the hostility” is probably because of your condescending tone when you said “hopefully it helps your confusion”. Your initial article really didn’t say anything about people being re-incarcerated for these sorts of errors. I really want to say “maybe you got CONFUSED and posted the wrong one!” but that would be snotty and condescending too.
But maybe you posted the wrong one to begin with.
Let’s all be friends and nice to each other.
chaps2 hours ago
That's totally fair, I shouldn't have said it like that!
Aurornisan hour ago
GPS is not that accurate even on a good day. A small device attached to someone’s ankle with a small antenna and an obstructed view of the sky will frequently be registering locations outside of the footprint of someone’s house.
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.
dataflow2 hours ago
Do you have any examples of someone getting thrown behind bars due to a GPS error on the order of ~30ft like you're claiming? That's all I'm asking. Really don't understand why you keep avoiding it. You've essentially claimed police/judges are doing something rather stupid and terrible. I'm asking you to show example(s) of what you claimed (~30ft error → thrown behind bars), not something significantly different (~1+ mi error → only-police-visit-but-not-thrown-behind-bars).
chapsan hour ago
"You've essentially claimed police/judges are doing something rather stupid and terrible."
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.
dataflowan hour ago
> To answer your question
Looking forward!
> motions by prosecutors
Motion ≠ incarceration. So, not an answer (yet?)...
Did defendants get incarcerated as a result of these motions, or no?
chapsan hour ago
They did, yes. I hope you have a better day.
[deleted]3 hours agocollapsed
avazhi3 hours ago
Well, don’t commit crimes and you won’t get a gps tracker attached to you, I guess. So that’s easy.
Not really sure what it has to do with tech though. That’s a problem with how certain humans behave, not ancillary technology.
boomboomsubban2 hours ago
The trackers are part of CCSO’s pretrial house arrest program, so presumably a number of them are attached to people who did no crimes.
avazhi2 hours ago
> so presumably a number of them are attached to people who did no crimes.
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.
[deleted]32 minutes agocollapsed
ryandrake2 hours ago
Right, because only guilty people become involved with the justice system.
[deleted]an hour agocollapsed
rafram41 minutes ago
They are innocent until they’re proven guilty.
[deleted]23 minutes agocollapsed
crtifiedan hour ago
Not at all. They're remarkably similar. What differs is our cost:benefit analysis of closing off this errata.
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.
[deleted]an hour agocollapsed
zx80802 hours ago
Don't live in the US.
iamshs2 hours ago
The story is about GPS errors which end up making life hell for people under monitoring since they end up generating a Police response. If 80% alerts were false, then an error like this can result in a surge of these alerts. It is an important story to tell.
Aurornisan hour ago
Geofence monitors have buffer zones because a small GPS on someone’s ankle inside a house, potentially a high rise, isn’t going to be that precise.
33 feet is well within the allowances IIRC. Varies by state.
chapsan hour ago
That might be true for a place in the middle of nowhere with no features, the same device model managed by the same company and the same call center person and same sheriff and judges and prosecutor. But with GPS in an urban environment where many homes are over 100 years built from many different materials, 33 feet is a lot.
Aurornis20 minutes ago
Urban environments have larger buffer areas due to multipath interference.
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
chaps16 minutes ago
Yes, everyone on the devices received false alarms. It's why there was a call center that managed the false alarm flows. I highly suggest you read the articles I've shared.
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.
cromka5 hours ago
Sounds like you could be a convict, have your gang interfere GPS on a local level but enough to have other people in the neighborhood notice, make a quick run for whatever you'd need to, and still claim plausible deniability.
john01dav5 hours ago
Or you could cause such localized things more so to try to get a person sent back to prison or otherwise penalized intentionally
cromka4 hours ago
Also true.
nubinetwork2 minutes ago
The gps on my phone drifts by a few city blocks all the time...
MarkusQ4 hours ago
TFA article claims: "Indeed, the solar storm of May 2024 is estimated to have cost the US agricultural industry $500 million due to disruptions in precision navigation."
This seems hard to believe. The link provided hand waves through how it maybe could happen, and ends with an Economist just SWAGing that it could have been maybe a dollar an acre or so.
"He estimates that affected farms lost about $1 per acre. Nationally, this equates to an estimated half-billion dollars in lost earning potential, Griffin says."
So yeah, hard to believe was the right call. Very few farms were affected, but if we assume half of the total 900 million acres of farm land were, add 10% to get a round number, and guess it at a dollar per acre, we get the quoted big number.
sen4 hours ago
That’s how all “estimated damages” work. It’s all just made up by some random person who guesstimated a number then multiplied it by the maximum possible people effected, realistic or not.
CGMthrowawayan hour ago
Tell me "it's different" with this one please https://sustainability.stanford.edu/news/study-links-past-em...
Waterluvian3 hours ago
There’s probably a reasonable methodology but it has a lot of multiplications and some base parameters that make the whole thing wildly sensitive.
nwbear903 hours ago
An interesting warning as Austin is blanketed by Cybercabs. I think a town full of golden driverless cars 33 feet from where they think they should be is terrifying.
John78787813 hours ago
I would be shocked if Cybercabs solely rely on GPS for positioning. I imagine they look at their surrondings, etc.
1e1a7 hours ago
Wouldn't RTK help mitigate this, as the base stations would also be affected by the atmospheric disturbance?
entrope25 minutes ago
Yes. WAAS should also help a lot, or at least tell you that you can't get a good position.
jplonaan hour ago
I think so, yes. That's the main purpose of RTK
ashleyn6 hours ago
Somehow, Selective Availability returned.
Quibblingeek3 hours ago
Maybe not intentionally (at least by the U.S. Government, but the consequences are far greater now.
Now that GPS has subsumed a large part of air navigation as more VOR and ILS approaches at non-towered airports are being left to fall into disrepair, it forces more and more aircraft operating in instrument conditions to fall back to a navigation system that may not operate to the tolerances that you need to shoot an approach to LPV minimums (which puts you close to 200 feet or so above the ground) or LNAV minimums (higher, but still pretty low to the ground). If you lose signal integrity, you abort the approach. You don't want to break out at minimums only to find that the runway is 33 feet to the left or right of the centerline when it's not a circling only approach where you're expecting it. If that field only has RNAV (GPS) approaches, you have to divert. Hopefully the alternate airport you filed has a ground based approach plate available that is authorized .
When SA was around, we had more VORs, more VOR and ILS approaches, and while NDBs (decades old radionavigation beacon that operated on the AM band) were on their way out, they were still around.
ashleynan hour ago
One of the reasons SA was discontinued was that if you knew the coordinates of a base station, you could correct for the error. Are airports not doing this already?
Quibblingeekan hour ago
Actually, several airports are. So you have normal WAAS and it has a ground segment. Most (new) IFR certified GPS receivers installed in airplanes today are WAAS capable.
To that, you can augment something called GBAS (we used to call it Local Area Augmentation System but switched over to the ICAO name for it). It’s basically a ground station that sits at an airport and corrects for GPS errors where you need it most (airports definitely qualify here and that’s where you need the best GPS performance).
Ultimately, the FAA is going to go 100% GPS and it’ll fall back to the minimum number of land-based sources for redundancy. It’s about cost. The issues with GPS may cause them to push the timeline back and develop plans to mitigate the issue, but they’re too far down this path to stop now.
entrope11 minutes ago
To meet its integrity budget, a GBAS needs at least triple redundancy, not just a single station.
If one has a lot of patience, one can read the details of how it works at https://elibrary.icao.int/product/299828 (along with SBAS, the ICAO name for what WAAS does; the constellations they can augment; GRAS, a weird hybrid between GBAS and SBAS that apparently went nowhere; ILS; VOR; DME; and VHF marker beacons). Annex 10 Vol I probably doesn't say explicitly that triple redundancy is required, because if you had a single receiver with an MTBF of something like 10 billion hours then you could use just that one.
This particular 30-foot error should go away almost entirely for future receivers that implement DFMC SBAS or ARAIM.
delta_p_delta_x6 hours ago
*10 metres
rotringlvr39 minutes ago
[dead]
NooneAtAll37 hours ago
were other satellite positioning systems affected as well? was it checked that it wasn't just a misconfig on US command side?
mcpherrinm6 hours ago
The linked actual research article did look at multiple GNSS systems. GPS is presumably being reported out of familiarity https://doi.org/10.1029/2026GL124645
aaron6955 hours ago
[dead]
Insimwytim7 hours ago
TL;DR:
1. Not today. November 2025. They don't make it clear.
1.1. One would expect that to be put in the title, when the article is written almost a year after that.
1.2. No, the article doesn't state that in the first paragraph. Posting in it full seem to be the only way to fend off lazy comments:
In November 2025, Earth was buffeted by several massive eruptions of solar material that slammed into the magnetosphere.
2. It is unclear what is the source of the claim.
UPD: Commenter below found the source, but TFA doesn't make a good job of presenting that as a source of the 33 feet glitch claim, but rather posts another citation from it.
They should've just quote this and be done with it:
During the storm main phase, an east–west elongated band of intense auroral brightness expanded equatorward, producing a horizontally extended strip of strong density gradients that favored the development of small-scale irregularities. These small-scale irregularities triggered pronounced amplitude scintillations (S4 > 0.5) and caused significant positioning errors exceeding 10 m—large enough to disrupt GNSS-dependent applications across CONUS for hours, particularly precision agriculture and autonomous transportation industries. [1]
4. The author has articles all over the topics. Everything is sensationalized.
5. Every presented link seem to have this awful Cloudflare js challenge.
Bad article overall.
P.S. Response to the false claim below - no, there's nothing about GPS in "the first 3 words of the article".
[1] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2026GL12...
kbelder5 hours ago
>P.S. A separate comment would be too much to respond to the false claim below - no, there's nothing about GPS in "the first 3 words of the article".
He's talking about your first (incorrect) claim. The article begins "In November 2025"
nomel5 hours ago
> 2. It is unclear what is the source of the claim.
7th paragraph of the article states the source, and contains a link to research paper where they go into great detail.
Elidrake246 hours ago
> Not today. November 2025. They don't make it clear.
My brother in christ it's the first 3 words of the article.
gerdesj3 hours ago
Their first line is TL;DR!
ck27 hours ago
not just space weather, I am pretty sure the atmosphere is being disturbed by toxic human activity both by accident and on purpose
I've run outside every morning for decades and used Garmin with GPS since 2015, I've never had so much trouble
Garmins finally supports dual-band (L1+L5) and BeiDou on newest models but it's still not enough to compensate, I have to use a Stryd footpod to guarantee accurate distances/speed
btw BeiDou GPS blows away US GPS for number of sats and precision but despite Russia's GPS being legal in US, technically BeiDou is not
* https://warontherocks.com/a-signal-point-of-failure-integrat...
* https://payloadspace.com/gps-faces-growing-competition-from-...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeiDou#GPS_vs._BeiDou_Capabili...
arijun6 hours ago
> BeiDou GPS blows away US GPS for number of sats and precision
Both BeiDou and GPS are supposed to be limited to 10m precision for civilians.
But, going down a rabbit hole, I found that BeiDou is way more accurate than 10m--3.6m and 2.6m outside and inside the Asia-Pacific region, respectively [1]. And that's with the most simple algorithm. It goes down to ~2.5m using dual-frequencies to account for atmospheric error.
myself2486 hours ago
> Both BeiDou and GPS are supposed to be limited to 10m precision for civilians.
Maybe in 1998, but Selective Availability was turned off in 2000, and here in the modern era: https://rtklibexplorer.wordpress.com/2024/04/28/dual-frequen...
arijun5 hours ago
Oh interesting, I think I conflated two things; Selective Availability and the military-only bands on GPS. While it's true that access to the military band could improve accuracy with dual-band receivers, consumer devices can use dual-band as well (as your link shows), since there are multiple unencrypted bands from navigation satellites nowadays.
I am not sure how to interpret your link, though. It doesn't measure accuracy on it's own, and doesn't include a number for precision between the two units.
myself248an hour ago
There are a couple of points:
The L1 signal had selective availability in the 90s, and it no longer does. SA had the real-world accuracy around 30m in practice; the "up to" 100m rarely happened. Without SA, plain L1 with good skyview (low DOP) gets you around 10m, or down under 5m if WAAS is having a good day.
Availability of multiple civilian bands, and cost-effective dual-band receivers, allows an ionosphere-free (no need for WAAS) solution in the 1-2m range, with a single receiver.
Ubiquity of internet connections makes it trivial to apply RTK correction data without having to set up your own base station, and/or, availability of affordable medium-range data radios makes it easy to set up your own base station. In either case, it's easier to run RTK than ever before, and dual-band RTK gets you down into the low centimeters, limited mostly by how accurately your base station was surveyed-in.
And none of that touches the military signals.
hylaride5 hours ago
My understanding is that the encrypted military-level GPS is much more robust against jamming and spoofing. There's probably a lot of capabilities we don't know that's classified, too.
IndySun5 hours ago
Called M-Code.
Has a fascinating history.
https://odimpact.org/case-united-states-opening-gps-data-for...
pkaye4 hours ago
I think the new US GPS satellites have ability to do a spot beam of increased strength in a region of interest.
arijun5 hours ago
That is my understanding as well. But having another band allows for error correction as a side benefit.
rcxdude2 hours ago
With a base station in a known position you can get to cm resolution with somewhat pricey but decidedly hobbyist-accessible gear: https://www.sparkfun.com/sparkfun-gps-rtk-sma-breakout-zed-f...
z27 hours ago
For resiliency reasons alone, it's been proposed to allow (stop software-disabling) BeiDou in the US, but the last time this was brought up, the administration ran out of time. It's a shame, because when there is precise coverage, it enables things like lane-level city navigation.
https://warontherocks.com/a-signal-point-of-failure-integrat...
ck26 hours ago
yup that was my first link
but of course this administration is never going allow China-anything like low cost electric cars even if it means saving people a fortune in gas
so hopefully in 2029 it can be looked at again
or maybe Dems will also get the Senate too and can be petitioned if they run out of corruption investigations before 2029
it is critical to explain to everyone who isn't technical that GPS is "read only" and no data is being sent to China via BeiDou (just like it's not sent to Russia's Glonass) because that apparently is some kind of weird misunderstanding
on that same note if they somehow made Starlink into a lower resolution GPS backup I'd even trust that too despite personally being anti-Musk everything
z22 hours ago
Whoops I don't know how I missed that in your links!
The weird part to me is that Glonass was not approved either, yet it's as openly as allowed as Galileo that went through a tedious FCC approval process that was invented later. Grandfathered or not, we're clearly not in a worse place using Russian tech for the last 15 years.
bigfudge4 hours ago
Read only or not, relying on Chinese or Russian gps data for increased accuracy even in civilian increases dependency no? That seems like a bad idea to me. I’ve thought for about 20 years that increasing our dependence on anti democratic regimes was a risk, no matter what the benefits for global development etc. It’s not isolationist to want to only rely on your friends and not enemies. (Which is why Europe needs to disentangle itself from the US as fast as possible).
z22 hours ago
It decreases dependency on GPS and thus it decreases risk because if there's an attack on a GPS system by an adversary, it's likely that they will not be attacking their own system at the same time. I'd rather have my enemy's open source, perfectly functional clock in my back pocket than be without the time. Enjoying that the competing clock has a sub second display is optional.
arijun6 hours ago
It seems that all the device manufacturers (they mention Apple, Samsung, and Google) are using BeiDou anyway. I don't know if that includes Garmin watches, though.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-agency-probes-risks-fo...
rzzzt5 hours ago
AGPS also helps if you have cell towers nearby.
askvictor2 hours ago
This is only to make getting a fix faster - A-GPS downloads the almanac data via the internet (fast, but needs internet) instead of directly from the GPS satellites (slow but works everywhere). It doesn't make it any more accurate.
[deleted]7 hours agocollapsed