Sprint 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.

---

› See More: 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 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.
>

"Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:UIYxf.10670$V.7777@fed1read04...
> 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.

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

"Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:UIYxf.10670$V.7777@fed1read04...
>> 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?

Jeff wrote:
> "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:UIYxf.10670$V.7777@fed1read04...
>> 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

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

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

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

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

[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

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

"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.

"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.

"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?