Fani and the Politics of the Ping

Exactly how accurate is cell phone tracking?

Before the “Insurrection” (the one where people forgot to bring guns), the smart people at the New York Times knew that cell phone pings could be used to track people with great precision. In a piece called, “How to Track President Trump,” Stuart Thompson and Charlie Warzel described how they tracked one of Trump’s secret service agents, by using cell phone technology.

The meticulous movements — down to a few feet — of the president’s entourage were recorded by a smartphone we believe belonged to a Secret Service agent, whose home was also clearly identifiable in the data. ...We could also see other stops this person made, apparently more connected with his private life than his public duties.

The article, written in December 2019, included an aerial map of Mar-A-Lago, and it showed exactly where the secret service agent was standing:

A single dot appeared on the screen, representing the precise location of someone in President Trump’s entourage at 7:10 a.m. It lingered around the grounds of the president’s Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Fla., where the president was staying, for about an hour.

The agent’s location was shown with such precision that it seemed possible to estimate how many feet he stood from each palm tree surrounding the Mar-A-Lago entrance.

After the “insurrection,” Thompson and Warzel continued to believe in the tremendous power of the ping, and seemed happy that it was being used to round up Trump supporters. However, the reporters worried that cell phone technology could also be used improperly.

“...such data is (sic) collected and remains vulnerable to use and abuse whether people gather in support of an insurrection or they justly protest police violence, as happened in cities across America last summer” (emphasis added).

Do you get it? It’s OK to use cell phone tracking to round up the MAGA folks, but don’t use it to track the thugs who killed 25 or more people while they gutted court houses and police stations, and caused a couple billion in damage.

Later, when the 2000 Mules movie came out, serious concerns about cell phone accuracy suddenly materialized. According to media “fact checkers,” the people who were supposedly stuffing ballot drop boxes were probably just returning their books to the library — in the middle of the night – while wearing blue latex gloves.

Another look at “2000 Mules”

If Judge Scott McAfee has the necessary courage and fortitude, Fani is finished. In reality, when cell phone tracking is used in a sophisticated way, it can be extremely accurate — just as it was when True the Vote released its powerful movie.

You have probably heard that the technical people behind 2000 Mules, Catharine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips, used very imprecise technology that was accurate only to within 30 or 40 feet. Generally, media fact checkers confirmed those miserable results by calling or emailing friendly college professors to get supporting opinions.  

Surprisingly, no fact checker or college expert made use of the most obvious source for accuracy-related information: a federal website with the name, “GPS.gov.” That federal website has a separate page called “GPS Accuracy,” which is linked HERE.

Presented below is some information from the GPS Accuracy website.

“GPS-enabled smartphones are typically accurate to within a 4.9 m (16 ft.) radius under open sky. However, their accuracy worsens near buildings, bridges, and trees.”

Sixteen feet is not so great, but keep reading.

“FAA data shows their high quality single frequency GPS receivers attaining horizontal accuracy of equal to or less than 5.97 feet 95% of the time.”

That’s better, but keep reading.

“High-end users boost GPS accuracy with dual-frequency receivers and/or augmentation systems. These can enable real-time positioning within a few centimeters, and long-term measurements at the millimeter level (emphasis added).

Centimeters? Millimeters? That’s real precision! It appears that the use of two or more signals can dramatically increase accuracy.

Unfortunately, Engelbrecht and Phillips have never given precise information regarding the technology used (claiming it is a proprietary trade secret). However, they have given enough information to make it obvious that they use a sophisticated, multilevel system.

In a video (at 19:00 and 36:20) of testimony they gave to the Arizona State Senate, Engelbrecht and Phillips describe the technology they used. To make the tracking “incredibly accurate,” True the Vote integrated “3 different types of signals.” It is not clear whether those were multiple GPS signals (from satellites), WI-FI signals (from the nearest McDonalds), or pings bouncing between phones and cell towers.

In addition to the 3 signals, the organization used “standard error correction techniques in post processing.” The “incredible” accuracy was somewhat diminished by the impact of house and trees, etc. However, Engelbrecht claims that their average was a mere 39 inches before error correction, which brought the accuracy to as little as 2 centimeters.

This important information should have been reported by the media fact checkers. It wasn’t. Based on a review of fact checkers with the Washington Post, AP, Texas Monthly, Reuters, FactCheck.org, and mlive.com, it is clear that...

• No one described the method used by True the Vote.

• No one described the potential impact of using multiple signals to enhance accuracy.

• No one mentioned the precision levels reported on the GPS.gov accuracy page.

• No one mentioned the several real and documented reports of ballot harvesting, which tend to confirm the findings of True the Vote.

On that last point (real cases), here are links to a few of them, in these states: New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, Texas, Florida, New Jersey, North Carolina, Arizona, Connecticut.

Saving Fani Willis

Unfortunately, cell phone accuracy is being disparaged again — this time in a futile effort to save Fani’s fanny. Here is an example. A learned Georgia Tech professor (Paul Steffes) has claimed:

“At best, the data appears (sic) to show Wade, who could have been driving around, was within a 9-square-mile area that include Willis’s condo.”

Somehow, we have gone from just “a few feet” to “9 square miles.” That may not sound right to you, but lawyers for the Fulton County prosecutor’s office have already confirmed it: The pings coming from Wade’s cell phone can only place him within a “multiple-mile radius.” I bet some of the J-6 defendants wish they had been told this before they were convicted and sent to the D.C. gulag. Remember, cell phone pings were the method du jour that put many of them behind bars.

Never forget race and gender!

Finally, we must always consider how race and gender impact every aspect of our lives — every day and in every possible way. The DA’s office has stated that Fani and Wade were not even together on the dates in question. Do you know where they were? They were separately visiting 3 crimes scenes where there had been murder “motivated by race and gender.” Knowing that, I almost feel ashamed for thinking that Fani and Wade are lying scoundrels who fleeced the taxpayers of Georgia and Fulton County.