Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 22
  1. #1
    Jeff
    Guest
    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 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.





    See More: Sprint Refuses to Help Family of Kidnapped Child




  2. #2
    Mij Adyaw
    Guest

    Re: Sprint Refuses to Help Family of Kidnapped Child

    There has been an update to this store that you should have posted.

    http://howardforums.com/showthread.php?t=819567

    End of Story.

    "Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > 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 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.
    >






  3. #3
    Jeff
    Guest

    Re: Sprint Refuses to Help Family of Kidnapped Child

    "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > 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.





  4. #4
    Loreal
    Guest

    Re: Sprint Refuses to Help Family of Kidnapped Child

    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.

    --
    Sincerely,
    Loreal Lavigna
    Avon Independent Sales/E-Representative
    (518)330-5188
    [email protected]
    www.youravon.com/llavigna





  5. #5
    Scott
    Guest

    Re: Sprint Refuses to Help Family of Kidnapped Child


    "Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >> 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.
    >


    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?





  6. #6
    Tinman
    Guest

    Re: Sprint Refuses to Help Family of Kidnapped Child

    Jeff wrote:
    > "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >> 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,


    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.


    --
    Mike





  7. #7
    Bud Stein
    Guest

    Re: Sprint Refuses to Help Family of Kidnapped Child

    Paul Miner wrote:
    >>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 10:34:00 GMT, "Jeff" <[email protected]>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>

    >> "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> nor does it exonerate the idiot Sprint employee(s) who refused . . .
    >> If their investigation results in anything less 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.
    >
    > . . . 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.


    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



  8. #8

    Re: Sprint Refuses to Help Family of Kidnapped Child


    Tinman wrote:
    > > 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?


    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




  9. #9
    Loreal
    Guest

    Re: Sprint Refuses to Help Family of Kidnapped Child

    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.

    --
    Sincerely,
    Loreal Lavigna
    Avon Independent Sales/E-Representative
    (518)330-5188
    [email protected]
    www.youravon.com/llavigna





  10. #10
    Paul Hirose
    Guest

    Re: Sprint Refuses to Help Family of Kidnapped Child

    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.c...d4b78ced?hl=en

    --
    Paul Hirose <[email protected]>
    To reply by email remove INVALID




  11. #11
    Tinman
    Guest

    Re: Sprint Refuses to Help Family of Kidnapped Child

    [email protected] wrote:
    > Tinman wrote:
    >>> 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?

    >
    > 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


    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."


    --
    Mike





  12. #12

    Re: Sprint Refuses to Help Family of Kidnapped Child

    Paul Miner wrote:
    > On 14 Jan 2006 13:55:16 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
    >> >

    > >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.


    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




  13. #13
    Scott
    Guest

    Re: Sprint Refuses to Help Family of Kidnapped Child


    "Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > 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.





  14. #14
    Jeff
    Guest

    Re: Sprint Refuses to Help Family of Kidnapped Child

    "Scott" <[email protected]> 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
    > 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.

    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.





  15. #15
    Scott
    Guest

    Re: Sprint Refuses to Help Family of Kidnapped Child


    "Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > "Scott" <[email protected]> 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
    >> 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.

    > 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.
    >

    <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 ass 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?





  • Similar Threads




  • Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast