The various embodiments herein relate to a system and methodology for detecting tracking device tampering of the type wherein signal-shielding material is disposed around such devices so as to interfere with or obstruct their reception of location-determining signals. These tracking devices are typically used in a location tracking system wherein each tracking device provides its received signals or tracking device location signals derived therefrom to a remote monitoring center.
In prior art location tracking systems, a tracking device provides its respective location, e.g., its latitude and longitude, or information from which such location can be determined, to a remote monitoring center. At the center, or some other associated place, the location of the tracking device is determined, if necessary, and then stored and/or processed. To this end, each tracking device receives signals from GPS satellites and/or wireless signals from terrestrial antennas, hereinafter “other wireless signals”. Each tracking device is typically carried by an entity, hereinafter the “monitored entity”, and there may be many different types of monitored entities, including but not limited to, an individual, a moving vehicle, a product, or a product container. The information stored at the remote monitoring center or some other associated location may be used to provide a history of the location of the tracking device and its associated entity as a function of time.
Each tracking device can be implemented as a unitary device, the so-called “one-piece” tracking device, or as multiple devices that communicate with one another. In either case, each tracking device contains a GPS and/or other wireless signal receiver for respectively receiving GPS signals from satellites or receiving other wireless signals. The signals received from such sources may be used to determine the location of the tracking device, such tracking device location determination being either within the device and/or at a remote location. A “dumb” tracking device is one that merely retransmits the received GPS or other wireless signal to a remote location wherein the location of the tracking device is derived from the received signals. A “smart” tracking device, on the other hand, possesses the capability of deriving its location from the received GPS or other wireless signals and subsequently transmits its determined location to a remote location. Such transmissions to the remote location are typically periodic to reduce consumption of the tracking device's internal battery, but can be immediate, if desired or if one or more prescribed “alarm” conditions are detected. Alarm conditions include, but are not limited to, detection of tracking device tampering, or a determination that the device is located in a prohibited zone, i.e., an “exclusion zone” or that the device is outside of a permitted zone, i.e., a “inclusion zone”. Such zones can be set individually to match the requirements for the monitored entity. Smart or dumb tracking devices can be “passive”, “active” or a combination thereof. In the latter case, the tracking device communicates its location or its received GPS or wireless signals to an intermediary device, such as a docking station, which, in turn, transmits such signals via wired or wireless communications to the remote location. Active tracking devices have the capability of transmitting their location or their received GPS or wireless signals to the remote monitoring center.
Tracking devices can be used in a variety of applications in which persons may attempt to thwart or otherwise interfere with tracking device operation. One such application where this situation arises is where the tracking device along with a remote monitoring center is used to track the location of an “offender”, i.e., an individual who are part of a governmental program, such as parole or the like, wherein monitoring of the offender's location is required. In such applications, the device is affixed to the offender and usually can not be removed by other than authorized persons. Any attempt by the offender or other non-authorized persons to remove the tracking device from the offender or to open the tracking device and disable its operation is detected and results in the transmission of an alarm signal to the remote monitoring station and thereupon appropriate action is taken. While existing tracking devices with tamper detection capability perform satisfactorily, they have certain limitations. For example, when the tracking device is in certain locations, such as being indoors, or in an urban area surrounded by tall buildings, or in a valley surrounded by mountains, hereinafter individually referred to as an “environmentally impaired location,” its ability to receive GPS satellite signals and/or other wireless signals is significantly impaired so as to render the tracking device incapable of providing its normal functions. Moreover, street-savvy individuals have learned that they can mimic this situation by placing a metal foil or the like around the tracking device. At times, this intentional impairment is only for a time period when the offender intends to engage in prohibited activities. During such time period, the location of the offender is unavailable and after removal of the metal foil, the tracking device resumes its normal operation. As a result, there is the unresolved issue as to whether the tracking device was merely in an environmentally impaired location during the time period in which the location of the tracking device is not available or whether there has been tracking device tampering during this period. Moreover, this form of tampering is not limited to offender tracking systems and can also occur in other applications wherein one or more persons desire to thwart the tracking of the monitored entity. For example, some trucking companies that use GPS to track their vehicles have discovered that certain truck drivers wrap the GPS antenna of their truck tracking devices with shielding material to prevent the companies from tracking their truck's location. This above-described shortcoming of tracking devices to provide location tracking renders them incapable of meeting the desired system objectives of certain location tracking applications. Accordingly, it would be desirable if a mechanism could be devised to determine whether there has been tampering or merely a natural loss of signal reception due to the monitored entity being in an environmentally impaired location.
In accordance with the various embodiments herein, the limitations of prior tamper detection capabilities in a location tracking system are overcome through the use of an auxiliary signal-emitting device along with a tracking device for each monitored entity. Both the auxiliary device and the tracking device are in close proximity to one another and typically are affixed to or otherwise carried by the monitored entity. Accordingly, the tracking device should always be able to receive signals from the auxiliary device even when the tracking device is disposed in a location where its ability to receive signals from GPS satellites and/or other wireless signals is poor or non-existent. In accordance with the various embodiments herein, the auxiliary signal-emitting device transmits at least one signal to the tracking device that mimics the signal to the tracking device. At the tracking device or at some other location, the signal received by the tracking device from the auxiliary device, only or along with the signal received by the tracking device for determining the location of such device, is processed to form a tampering determination.
Advantageously, the various embodiments herein may be used in location tracking systems employing location tracking devices that are smart, dumb, active, or a combination of smart and passive location tracking devices, wherein the GPS signal receiving and processing capabilities of the tracking device are turned off so long as the tracking device is in communication with its home system or “docking” station.
Referring now to
Communication between tracking device 101 and remote center 104 is via wireless communications including illustrative signal receiving and transmitting tower 105 which is part of a conventional wireless communications system, such as a cellular telephone network, which may couple its signals directly to remote monitoring center 104. Or, as shown in
While tracking device 101 is shown in
Now, in accordance with the various embodiments herein, an auxiliary signal transmitter 107 is also affixed to offender 102. Transmitter 107 transmits at least one predetermined low-power signal 108 that respectively mimics the characteristics of a corresponding signal received by tracking device 101 for purposes of determining its location. So, for example, when tracking device 101 solely receives GPS signals from satellites 103 for use in determining the location of tracking device 101, auxiliary transmitter 107 transmits a mimicking GPS signal. As is known in the prior art, tracking device 101 may also use wireless signals from terrestrial antennas, such as cellular, alone or in combination with GPS signals for determining the tracking device location. If so, transmitter 107, preferably includes a mimicking signal for each signal used by tracking device for determining its location. The characteristics of each mimicking signal transmitted by transmitter 107 is such that it may be reliably received and processed by the signal receiving apparatus disposed in tracking device 101 used for its location-determining counterpart. That is, the frequency and amplitude of each mimicking signal is within the permissible range of frequencies and received amplitudes for reliable reception and processing of its location-determining counterpart. In addition, preferably, the signals transmitted are encoded so that each auxiliary transmitter 107 is paired with a particular tracking device 101 and vice versa. The signal transmitted by transmitter 107 may also include an indication as to whether transmitter 107 is functioning properly or improperly and, further, may include an alarm signal indicating any attempt to tamper with the operation of transmitter 107. To this end, a tamper detection mechanism, such as detecting the severing of a strap securing the auxiliary transmitter 107 to the monitored entity, or whether the auxiliary device is in direct contact with the monitored entity, or detecting whether the housing 107a (
As will be described, auxiliary transmitter 107 provides a control signal or baseline with which the performance of tracking device 101 can be measured, much like a control group in a pharmaceutical study. In this regard, it should be appreciated that the GPS signal received by tracking device 101 may be attenuated when tracking device 101 is in the basement of a building, or in a subway. Similarly, this same attenuation may be present for other wireless signals when tracking device 101 is disposed in certain areas, as for example, when there is no nearby cellular tower. However, due to the close proximity of the auxiliary device to the tracking device, the signal transmitted by the auxiliary device should always be properly received even when the monitored entity is in a location where GPS satellite signal reception and/or terrestrial wireless signal reception is poor or nonexistent.
The various embodiments herein are intended to detect whether there has been tampering in the form of an attempt to obstruct the operation of tracking device 101 by interfering with its ability to receive GPS and/or other wireless signals by placing metal foil or the like around such tracking device 101 or just its signal-receiving antenna(s). As will be described, tracking device 101 incorporates additional functionality that permits it to evaluate and report on discrepancies with regard to the strength of the signals received by tracking device 101. In this regard, tracking device would incorporate the capability to store the received strengths of its received signals and time-stamp the date and time of such signal reception. This information can then be evaluated in the tracking device and the results communicated to remote monitoring center 104. Alternatively, the tracking device could simply forward this data to remote monitoring center 104 for evaluation therein.
The received signal evaluation process, whether it resides on the tracking device or the system's central computer, in accordance with one of the various embodiments herein will examine the strength of a signal received by the tracking device from the auxiliary device at different times and provide a tampering determination therefrom. Evaluation of the strength of the signal received from the auxiliary device can be provided in a number of known ways including examining the received signal power or examining the received signal amplitude. For illustrative purposes, the disclosed embodiments will use the latter evaluation. With either strength evaluation, the process of deciding whether or not there has been tampering must be able to differentiate between environmental impairment, i.e., the tracking device is disposed in a location wherein reception of the location-determining signal or signals at the tracking device is poor or nonexistent, and intentional blocking or shielding, i.e., the placement of metal foil or another signal interfering material around the tracking device and/or the auxiliary device.
Refer now to
Another methodology that may be used to detect tampering using the auxiliary device is shown in
Refer now to
In the foregoing description of
Additional complexity could be added to the disclosed tampering evaluation process, for instance, a cost model to more finely evaluate the degree of change and determine a tipping point where shielding has begun. The algorithm itself could also be configurable such that acceptable limits for both the control and GPS signal could be sent to the tracking device for use during its evaluation process. Intelligence could also be built into the algorithm or the evaluation limits to evaluate based upon the offender's historical tracking data (e.g., he/she works in an environment where there might be some level of interference even between the tracking unit and the control signal).
It is contemplated that the auxiliary transmitter may be worn or carried. While the auxiliary transmitter and tracking device have been described as being on different limbs, they could be disposed on the same limb or not necessarily on a limb but on the same part or on different parts of the offender's body. However, it is preferable that the auxiliary transmitter and tracking device be on different parts of the offender's body to make shielding of both devices more difficult.
It should, of course, be understood that while the various embodiments herein have been disclosed specifically, numerous alternatives will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art without departing from the spirit and scope of the various embodiments herein which can be implemented in other ways without departing from the spirit and scope of the various embodiments herein.
This application claims priority of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/104,576, entitled “Technique for Detecting Tracking Device Tampering”, filed on Oct. 10, 2008 which is incorporated by reference herein. This application is also related to concurrently filed U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/576,054, entitled “Technique for Detecting Tracking Device Tampering.”
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4359733 | O'Neill | Nov 1982 | A |
4656463 | Anders et al. | Apr 1987 | A |
4673936 | Kotoh | Jun 1987 | A |
4741245 | Malone | May 1988 | A |
4747120 | Foley | May 1988 | A |
4812823 | Dickerson | Mar 1989 | A |
4819053 | Halavais | Apr 1989 | A |
4819860 | Hargrove et al. | Apr 1989 | A |
4885571 | Pauley et al. | Dec 1989 | A |
4918432 | Pauley et al. | Apr 1990 | A |
4952928 | Carroll et al. | Aug 1990 | A |
4999613 | Williamson et al. | Mar 1991 | A |
5019828 | Schoolman | May 1991 | A |
5043736 | Darnell et al. | Aug 1991 | A |
5146231 | Ghaem et al. | Sep 1992 | A |
5223844 | Mansell et al. | Jun 1993 | A |
5266958 | Durboraw, III | Nov 1993 | A |
5298884 | Gilmore et al. | Mar 1994 | A |
5317309 | Vercellotti et al. | May 1994 | A |
5334974 | Simms et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
5392052 | Eberwine | Feb 1995 | A |
5396227 | Carroll et al. | Mar 1995 | A |
5416468 | Baumann | May 1995 | A |
5416695 | Stutman et al. | May 1995 | A |
5418537 | Bird | May 1995 | A |
5437278 | Wilk | Aug 1995 | A |
5461365 | Schlager et al. | Oct 1995 | A |
5461390 | Hoshen | Oct 1995 | A |
5493694 | Vlcek et al. | Feb 1996 | A |
5497149 | Fast | Mar 1996 | A |
5523740 | Burgmann | Jun 1996 | A |
5528248 | Steiner et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5537102 | Pinnow | Jul 1996 | A |
5541845 | Klein | Jul 1996 | A |
5544661 | Davis et al. | Aug 1996 | A |
5552772 | Janky et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5559497 | Hong | Sep 1996 | A |
5568119 | Schipper et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
5594425 | Ladner et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
5627548 | Woo et al. | May 1997 | A |
5652570 | Lepkofker | Jul 1997 | A |
5731757 | Layson, Jr. | Mar 1998 | A |
5742233 | Hoffman et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5748148 | Heiser et al. | May 1998 | A |
5825283 | Camhi | Oct 1998 | A |
5825871 | Mark | Oct 1998 | A |
5857433 | Files | Jan 1999 | A |
5868100 | Marsh | Feb 1999 | A |
5889474 | LaDue | Mar 1999 | A |
5892447 | Wilkinson | Apr 1999 | A |
5892454 | Schipper et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5905461 | Neher | May 1999 | A |
5912623 | Pierson | Jun 1999 | A |
5919239 | Fraker et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5936529 | Reisman et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5959533 | Layson, Jr. et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5963130 | Schlager et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5982281 | Layson, Jr. | Nov 1999 | A |
5990793 | Bieback | Nov 1999 | A |
6014080 | Layson, Jr. | Jan 2000 | A |
6031454 | Lovejoy et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6054928 | Lemelson et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6072396 | Gaukel | Jun 2000 | A |
6100806 | Gaukel | Aug 2000 | A |
6130620 | Pinnow et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6160481 | Taylor, Jr. | Dec 2000 | A |
6181253 | Eschenbach et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6198394 | Jacobsen et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6232916 | Grillo et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6236319 | Pitzer et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6239700 | Hoffman et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6239743 | Lennen | May 2001 | B1 |
6262666 | Lodichand | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6405213 | Layson et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6774797 | Freathy et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
RE38838 | Taylor, Jr. | Oct 2005 | E |
RE39909 | Taylor, Jr. | Nov 2007 | E |
20040203461 | Hay | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20050040944 | Contestabile | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20080316022 | Buck et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090104869 | Li | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090186596 | Kaltsukis | Jul 2009 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
WO-0077688 | Dec 2000 | WO |
Entry |
---|
B.L. Huskey, “Electronic Monitoring: An Evolving Alternative,” Perspective, Summer 1987, pp. 19-23. |
M. Alexander et al., “An Automated System for the Identification and Prioritization of Rape Suspects,” SDSS for Rape Suspect Identification, http://www.esri.com/library/userconf/proc97/proc97/to350/pap333.htm, Jul. 2001. |
M.T. Charles, “The Development of a Juvenile Electronic Monitoring Program,” Federal Probation, Jun. 1989, vol. III, pp. 3-12. |
D. Anderson, “Seattle and Tacoma PDs Automated Crime Analysis,” The Journal, National FOP, Spring 1990. |
R. Block, “Geocoding of Crime Incidents Using the 1990 TIGER File: The Chicago Example,” Loyola University, Chicago, Chapter 15, pp. 189-193. |
G. W. Brown, Jr., “What impact will personal position location technology have upon the management and administration of mid-sized law enforcement organizations by the year 2000?”, California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, Sacramento, California, Jul. 1994. |
B. Clede, “Radio computers locate places, and plot them on a map, too”, Law and Order, Oct. 1994, http://www.clede.com/Articles/Police/gps.htm. |
DLA Piper, John Guaragna, Appendix B, Defendants' Joint Invalidity Contentions, Mar. 31, 2009. |
B. Wise, “Catching Crooks With Computers,” American City & County, May 1995, pp. 54-62. |
L. Pilant, “Spotlight on . . . High-Technology Solutions,” From Police Chief, International Association of Chiefs of Police, Document #54650, May 1996. |
M. Anderson (editor), “GPS Used to Track Criminals,” GIS World, Aug. 1996, p. 15. |
A.W. Cohn et al., “The Evaluation of Electronic Monitoring Programs,” Perspectives, Fall 1996, pp. 28-37. |
D. Evans, “Electronic Monitoring: Testimony to Ontario's Standing Committee on Administration of Justice,” Perspectives, Fall 1996, pp. 8-10. |
American Probation and Parole Association, “Electronic Monitoring,” 1996, http://www.appa-net.org/about%20appa/electron.htm. |
M. Lyew, “A new weapon for fighting crime” (date unknown). |
Albert et al., “GIS/GPS in Law Enforcement Master Bibliography.” Nov. 2000. |
J. Hoshen et al., “keeping Tabs on Criminals,” Spectrum, The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., Feb. 1995, pp. 26-32. |
John H. Murphy et al., “Advanced Electronic Monitoring for Tracking Persons on Probation or Parole: Final Report,” Grumman STC. (publication status unclear; alleged by third parties to be published Feb. 1996). |
Hoyt Layson, “Pro Tech Monitoring, Inc. SMART System Briefing,” presentation to potential customers and vendors (publication status unclear; alleged by third parties to be presented 1995-1996). |
Hoyt Layson, “Current Electronic Monitoring Market Place,” presentation to potential customers and vendors (publication status unclear; alleged by third parties to be presented 1995-1996). |
Order Granting Request for Ex Parte Reexamination of RE 39,909, U.S. Appl. No. 90/010,372, dated Feb. 17, 2009. |
J. Hoshen, et al., “Keeping Tabs on Criminals,” Feb. 1995, IEEE Spectrum. |
John H. Murphy et al., “Advanced Electronic Monitoring for Tracking Persons on Probation or Parole: Final Report,” Grumman STC. |
Hoyt Layson, “Pro Tech Monitoring, Inc. SMART System Briefing,” presentation to potential customers and vendors, 1995-1996. |
Hoyt Layson, “Current Electronic Monitoring Market Place,” presentation to potential customers and vendors, 1995-1996. |
Jannetta et al., “Report on teh Results of the CDCR Two-Piece GPS System Field Test,” Oct. 31, 2007, UC Irvine Center for Evidence-Based Corrections. |
Letter from State of New York Executive Department, Divison of Parole, dated Dec. 27, 2012. |
Oklahoma Board of Corrections Meeting Minutes, Union City Community Corrections Center, Union City, Oklahoma, Jan. 22, 2009. |
Elmo-Tech, Inc., Proposal for Electronic Monitoring Services for State of West Virginia, Sep. 20, 2007. |
Satellite Tracking of People, LLC et al. v. Pro Tech Monitoring, Inc. et al., “Defendants' Reply Memorandum in Support of Their Motion to Amend Their P.R. 3-3- Invalidity Contentions,” pp. 3-4, Oct. 1, 2009. |
Satellite Tracking of People, LLC et al. v. Pro Tech Monitoring, Inc. et al., “Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Leave to Amend Invalidity Contentions” pp. 4-7, Sep. 21, 2009. |
“Amendment Under 37 CFR 1.111 and Interview Summary Record,” filed Oct. 14, 2009 in Reexamination of RE 39,909, U.S. Appl. No. 90/010,372. |
Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination of Re 39,909, U.S. Appl. No. 90/010,372, dated Aug. 14, 2009. |
Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination of RE 39,909, U.S. Appl. No. 90/010,372, dated Mar. 10, 2010. |
Ex Parte Reexamination Advisory Action, mailed Jun. 2, 2010 in Reexamination of RE 39,909, U.S. Appl. No. 90/010,372. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20100090826 A1 | Apr 2010 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61104576 | Oct 2008 | US |