Talk:LoJack

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] LoJack for laptops

There's "LoJack" software for laptops, and it works in somewhat the same way. The service is provided by Absolute Software. Should this be added? --65.146.18.161 05:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It says "...a small device the size of a car battery." Uh, car batteries aren't exactly small.....

The LoJack FAQ page says "about the size of a deck of cards" [1]

The "LoJack for laptops" is a separate company, which licenses the trademarked name from LoJack Corp. I suggest its mention in the article be moved from the "Products" section to the "See Also" section. This link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computrace_LoJack, is probably the best choice, but that entry looks suspiciously like a sales pitch. --William Moates 10:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This article needs to address the drawbacks of LoJack. It makes the device seem to be invulnerable, and we all know it's not. For example, in the youtube video, they mention the transmitter has a range of just a few miles. Dalesd 17:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pricing, damnit!

I wan't to know something as simple as "does this have monthly fees?" and I can't get a freakin; answer here or at the official site. "HOW DO YOU PAY FOR IT AND HOW MUCH DOES IT COST?" should be question number 1! 24.181.68.135 (talk) 08:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

they normally charge you up front when they install it. (Original Research) DGG (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
maybe a simple question, but strangely Wikipedia is not a price guide. Well, not yet at least. Trippz (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Authorization

Is it technically possible to use the tracking device not against a car thief, but against the car owner himself? More specifically, what does the sentence "the owner reports their vehicle stolen and enables the police to track and recover the vehicle" mean exactly - does the police need to obtain some kind of code from the owner to activate the device, or can the activation signal be sent without his consent or knowledge ("enabling" only needed in a legal, not technical sense)? For example, if a suspected terrorist owns a car with LoJack installed, could law enforcement use it to track his movements? Regards, High on a tree 11:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The price for a LoJack can vary based on the new car dealer you buy it from. Expect to pay between $495 and $695. Early warning and alarms are extra. Only the police can activate or deactivate a LoJack unit. Per the agreements with the FCC and the police, only stolen cars are active. Cars are not activated to track specific people unless the driver is driving a stolen car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Summitrt (talk • contribs) 17:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation

"The technology uses radio frequency (RF) as opposed to GPS" This needs to be explained. Or simplified. Rich Farmbrough, 15:28 10 September 2007 (GMT).

[edit] LoJack frequency and detection

If you look at the revision history of this article, you will notice that I have reverted 2 attempts at censorship pertaining to the frequency that LoJack units transmit. I will soon add another web cite directly to fcc.gov that proves that this is public information, not some kind of trade secret. However, there is something a little troubling about the wording of the information in this article. It sounds a little like how-to information rather than encyclopedic prose. Perhaps we should consider revising this as "LoJack transmits radio pulses at a frequency of ..." instead of "LoJack can be detected by ...". I'm curious what others here think. CosineKitty (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Note to CosineKitty, LoJack would appreciate it if you would not add specific frequency information back to this site. While you are correct that this information can be located in the public doman if the searching party knows what they are looking for. LoJack is not the FCC licensee in any state for the frequency you listed. This information only assists car thieves in determining if a car has an active LoJack in it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Summitrt (talk • contribs) 17:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe we need a third party to help resolve this dispute, so I have left a message requesting Editor assistance. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#dispute_about_inclusion_of_operation_frequency_of_LoJack
I do understand as a representative of LoJack that you would be concerned about criminals using this information to defeat LoJack as a theft deterrent. However, as you confirmed above, this is public domain information and is therefore not subject to censorship on Wikipedia or anywhere in a free society.
In regards to FCC allocation of the frequency, I did not intend to imply that LoJack is a licensee of this portion of the public spectrum. My intent was to point out that the frequency is allocated in the USA under the auspices of the FCC. See paragraph (2) in http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da001987.txt .
In defense of inclusion of the information in this article, I would also argue against the notion that the information has no purpose other than criminal use. In fact, it is quite possible that citizens could employ this information to help find stolen cars in areas not covered by law enforcement. Your argument is an example of the common fallacy of security through obscurity, and by pursuing this here you are possibly undermining the credibility of your own product by implying that its value depends on public information being "too hard" for criminals to find.
On another topic, it is not appropriate for you to address personal communications to me or anyone else in the text of an article; that is what discussion pages like this are for. CosineKitty (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Copied my post at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Dispute about inclusion of operation frequency of LoJack:
I have no connection to LoJack or to the editor(s) who previously removed the information. I have read the arguments on the talk page here and in the edit summaries. I do not see how disclosing specific frequencies in necessary in an encyclopedic treatment of LoJack, especially if the information might help thieves (even if the same information is available through public sources). Since including the information might pose a security risk, and there is no demonstrated need to have the information in the article, I am removing the information for now. Please do not restore it until this dispute is resolved by consensus. Thank you. Finell (Talk) 19:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The disputed material is also non-encyclopedic under WP:NOTHOWTO. Finell (Talk) 19:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Finell. Thank you for your respectful reply. I will back off on this issue and refrain from reposting the information here. Although I still disagree as a matter of principle about censoring "harmful" information, the point about whether the information carries encyclopedic weight is well taken. If consensus does decide that the frequency should be included, I would recommend that the content be reworded in a more factual tone such as "LoJack transmits on a frequency of ..." rather than "LoJack can be detected by ...". There is no need to give the appearance of a criminal's how-to reference. CosineKitty (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Somebody else reinstated the disputed frequency information. I have reworded it as I proposed in my previous post here. Whether the content remains at all I leave up to group consensus, and if that consensus goes against my point of view I will acquiesce. CosineKitty (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Censorship is a restriction imposed by an outside authority, such as a government or a church. We, as editors, always exercise editorial judgment over what we do and do not include. I believe we should exercise that judgment here to exclude matter that is not necessary for a reader to understand the subject of the article and may aid some criminals (even if other criminals already know it from other sources). Finell (Talk) 21:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps my use of the word censor is unduly provocative. What I saw when this started was an apparent agent of a for-profit corporation removing accurate, referenced, and (to me at least) interesting information from Wikipedia. If the information is removed because it is deemed unencyclopedic by a consensus of Wikipedians who have no conflict of interest, so be it. As to removing information because it could be used for ill purposes, I cannot agree. Perhaps potential customers of a car theft deterrent device need to know about vulnerabilities of different systems just as much as the criminal population whom they greatly outnumber. But my interest in this matter is purely from an engineering standpoint, and just knowing the details of how something works. I posit that such interest has inherent value and cannot be ignored in situations like this. CosineKitty (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I do work for LoJack and appreciate that it was removed at least for now. The concern is that is not so much that a criminal will use it to determine if a car has a LoJack. Actually if they do find that it is broadcasting a beacon, they will most likely leave the car and the police will find it. If they take the time to tear a car apart to find the devices, they risk the police finding them. The reason LoJack prefers that it is not listed is to keep a civilian from locating a car and either getting injured or interfering unintentionally with a police investigation. Sorry for the errors in posting info on this site. I am new to the site and did not know a discussion group even existed. Cosine, thanks for your interest in this and I hope that you can see the goal is to keep cop buffs from getting hurt. Summitrt (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
It was put back, as per WP:ANI, as the information is public knowledge and there is no valid reason to remove it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I see that it was put back. It appears that cosinekitty was adamant about it being there. We live in America and this is a open site so there is not much that can be done about his concerns over censorship or discretion. Why America puts the names and tax information online about its citizens and landowner's for the world to read is also a bad idea. The shame of this LoJack issue is that the information if used even with good intentions could get someone hurt or killed. As far as an engineering value, an engineer would have other more professional sources for this info and I think they should respect that such detailed info should not be so accessible to the general public when it could cause harm or allow a thief to commit a crime easier. I would like to propose that the article indicates that it is a non-specific VHF channel. Summitrt (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)I don't want to be harsh or something, but if you click on the "Disclaimers" link at the bottom of the page, you will see that this sort of concerns is not the problem of wikipedia --Enric Naval (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that Enric. I was also surprised that wikipedia has the info for someone to make crack and in that discussion section it was OK because crack users don't have access to the internet. OMG, what a world we live in.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Summitrt (talk • contribs) 03:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not originate thought, nor does it censor information. If there is public information on how crack is made, then it's fair game for wikipedia. And there can be any number of reasons why it would be useful for a law-abiding citizen to know those facts. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
There are tons of legit information that can be misused. If we started removing stuff just because someone could harm himself or harm others under certain circumstances, we would wind up removing lots of encyclopeadic content. For a website that attempts to make a sum of all human knowledge freely available to the public, that is not a good thing. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I found a relevant page: Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Legal_issues --Enric Naval (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Bingo. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How it works - but only in the USA

The first sentence in the How it Works section tells us how LoJack works in the USA. Other parts of the article indicate that LoJack is available in many other countries. If somebody knows the answer, it would be nice to add some wording about examples of the law enforcement agencies in other countries that use LoJack to track stolen cars. CosineKitty (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legal issues

I saw this on the EAR page and asked admins to check into it on ANI. rootology (T) 18:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I just restored the info myself[2], the user has been instructed by a different editor on his talk page on how to request this removal --Enric Naval (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] removing content until dispute is resolved

Please notice that, per WP:BURDEN, if someone removes content, then he is supposed to explain why he is removing it geez, I misread this policy *again*. In this case, the content is not breaking any policies, see my edit summary on the removal.

The information is attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation, so I'm asking that the reasons for the removal are clearly explained on the talk page before removing the content again. I don't think that it's on the spirit of wikipedia to remove verified information from the article everytime anyone raises an issue with it and until the complainer is happy. (except WP:BLP articles, of course :P ) --Enric Naval (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, notice that admins don't think that there are legal troubles with this content so the reasons given by the user removed the content have been rendered moot for now. We ought to wait to see what the legal advicers say if/when the user fills a request throught formal channels. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:BURDEN does not say what you say is does (read it!), and has nothing to do with this dispute. No one is questioning verifiability. Further, my main concern is NOT whether it causes "legal troubles". My concern is whether publication of the specific frequency and the "how to" is socially responsible. But if you want to put it in terms of Wikipedia's own well-being (which I didn't), would we really want to see the press pick this up as an example of Wikipedia being socially irresponsible? Further, I don't care whether it was a LoJack person or someone else who raised the concern. The concern itself seems genuine, and it is not in the nature of "please don't say unkind things about our company" or "this could hurt our stock price"; I would never argue for deleting anything from Wikipedia solely or primarily to serve some company's or person's self-interest. Finally, as soon as this dispute was raised an admin notice board, why wasn't that fact posted here, as it normally is, so others with differing views might be heard? That is, why did you argue it out there behind my back? Finell (Talk) 22:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
As for interpretations of WP:BURDEN, I stroke my incorrect sentence, since it reads on its first sentence "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" so I and other reverters are the one who have the burden of evidence (this is the second time I misread it on the same way, darn). Well, the material is sourced with inline references to published reliable sources, and nobody is saying that the information is inaccurate (quite the other way around, the problem is that it's *too* accurate) so there shouldn't be a problem with lack of evidence. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
As Naval's link points out, the "social responsibility" argument is bogus and irrelevant unless wikipedia's legal department tells us otherwise. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
On what basis do you say that I am acting in bad faith? Finell (Talk) 22:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hum, I think that nobody has accused you of accussing on bad faith. We are just saying that we don't agree with your good faith interpretation of policy --Enric Naval (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Please read a definition of bogus. I just checked the closest one at hand, Merriam-Webster's 9th New Collegiate (which is far from new): "not genuine: COUNTERFEIT, SHAM". In other words, dishonest. That is way beyond, "We disagree with your opinion," or even, "You're just plain wrong!" So I ask Bugs directly: On what basis did you say that I am acting in bad faith? Finell (Talk) 23:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't question someone's good faith or sincerity here. Bogus doesn't necessarily mean dishonest. It just means false. You think it's a proper argument. And I and other say that it is not a valid argument, given wikipedia rules. We have cited these rules to you and you still argue another position. I assume your argument is sincere. And it is false, within this context. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Please reread the definition of bogus. And next time, if you do not mean insincere, conterfeit, or sham, but merely wrong, please choose a more appropriate word. Finell (Talk) 04:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, your argument is wrong. Not "ethically" or "morally" wrong, just "incorrect" wrong. Do you like that better? Now, here's what I posted on Wales' user page, to elaborate and give you a rule based-way to argue your point, if you want to: The generic blanket statement that many editors use, citing Wikipedia rules, that "Wikipedia is not censored," is obviously not completely true. Wikipedia cannot publish content that violates the law. Such is not the case here, though. Wikipedia editors typically debate issues such as verifiability, notability, and neutral point of view, and possibly legality. That is, is there a reliable reference, is the information important, is there an agenda being pushed, and does publishing the information violate the law. The editors in this case have not made any such challenge. They have merely made the "what if" argument. Free speech and free press require a "clear and present danger" of harm to individuals in order to be restricted, for example "yelling fire in a crowded theater", or committing libel or slander. The challengers would have a very difficult time making that kind of argument, given that the information is already widely available. So if they want to fight the information, they need to offer a challenge that involves other grounds such as I've mentioned here: verifiability, notability, and neutrality. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Then you disagree with Mr. Wales, which is your right to do. In the United States (but not in GB or Continental Europe), based on the freedom of speech and freedom of press clauses in our First Amendment, government may not prevent others from publishing anything except in case a of a clear and present danger or a few other, narrow exceptions. But as Wikipedia editors, we can and should take other factors into consideration, such as social responsibility, decency, and good taste, in exercising editorial judgment over what we ourselves choose to publish. Wikipedia's standard is not and should not be, we publish it unless the government stops us or unless we are sued. This principle is broader and more important than the particular dispute about the LoJack article. Wales concluded, "You can't simply dismiss concerns about ethics by saying "Wikipedia is not censored" and "Talk to the legal department". We are better than that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)" Some editors, apparently, do not want to be "better than that." Please re-read what Mr. Wales said, copied in the subsection below. Then please tell us if his position, like mine, is "bogus" (to use your word), or is "wrong. Not 'ethically' or 'morally' wrong, just 'incorrect' wrong." Finell (Talk) 06:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
No, he's right in general, but none of the items listed apply in this case, due to the broad and easy availability of the information. Feel free to argue about notability or neutrality, if you care to. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
There is clearly no problem with POV; the material is purely factual. Notability could be questioned, but that is not what concerns me. And I am really uninterested in wikilawyering. I am concerned about whether we consider social responsibility and the like in making editorial judgments. Likewise, Jimbo, as I read what he wrote, is only talking "in general", but it is the general policy that is important; his "items listed" are only examples to illustrate the general principle, not a punch list for wikilawyering. Perhaps Jimbo will explain his position further, since one of us clearly has it wrong; or maybe he won't. Finell (Talk) 07:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
If the alleged employees of this company are so concerned about this information being available, why have they not taken their complaints to the sources that wikipedia is citing? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I do not care in the least what the company or its alleged employees (although I wonder why you doubt that the one guy who says he is, is) want or do. And as I said below, which you don't care to acknowledge, I see where the consensus is, and I will not edit against it; so that should be that for this article. What I do care about is how we as editors exercise our editorial judgment and what we consider in exercising it. But since you seem to insist on getting the last word in every discussion, here is your big chance: it is beddy-bye time for me, so you have Wikipedia all to yourslef for about 8 hours. Nite, nite! Finell (Talk) 07:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It is they who raised the issue, otherwise it would not even have come up, as there is no actual wikipedia issue on this matter. And I saw your acknowledgment of consensus - as well as your continued argument against it after writing it. The admin could lift the page protection if he wants, and see if the edit war resumes from other quarters, or not. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another opinion

Copied from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possible legal issue on LoJack:

While I have no particular opinion on this particular content dispute, I did want to say a few words about ethics. Some people in this thread appear to be putting forward the argument that since Wikipedia is not censored, then if there is no legal reason not to include public information, it should be included. Well, that is only true if we drop the full context of the ethical nature of what we are doing here, which is not compiling a huge data dump of all verifiable information, but rather writing an encyclopedia. There are many many valid reasons why some information is excluded from Wikipedia, and among them is and should be questions related to human dignity, ethics, harm to others, etc. It is not censorship to exercise mature and responsible editorial judgment. Let me say that again for emphasis: it is not censorship to exercise mature and responsible editorial judgment.

The most important and common case where this comes up is in questions related to the Biographies of Living Persons who are of marginal notability. We can and do, on a daily basis, delete information about such people even if it is verifiable, for the simple reason that it is morally right to do so: we can not responsibly write a full biography of a person who is well known for only a single negative event, and so we refrain from doing so, even though this means that we are excluding verifiable publicly known information. To be more specific: a good encyclopedia is not a tabloid newspaper, but should strive for neutrality above all else, and in some cases, neutrality is impossible because the information available is so limited.

Similarly, we can envision situations - other than strictly legal situations - where the right thing to do would be to exclude information that we as a community might thoughtfully judge to be both useless and dangerous. I have no opinion about the validity of the argument that having the frequency available in Wikipedia might lead hobbyists to get into dangerous situations. I did a google search on "LoJack frequency" and it is pretty much very widely available, and the sorts of hobbyists who would know what to do with the information will have access to it anyway I suppose.

So my point is not about this particular case: the facts here are complex and a valid discussion can be had about it amongst people who are better qualified than I am to think about it. My point is about the overall structure of the argument. You can't simply dismiss concerns about ethics by saying "Wikipedia is not censored" and "Talk to the legal department". We are better than that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] It's in the annual report.

I noticed this debate spilling onto umpteen talk pages and feel the need to weigh in. The operating frequency is hardly secret or sensitive information. It's been published in a variety of sources over the past twenty years. To name a few:

  • It's in the back pages of the Police Call guide sold at every Radio Shack.
  • It's been in many other scanner books, magazines, and websites over the years.
  • The frequency is written into U.S. law.
  • It appears in a 1997 Wired article on wireless spectrum that was written for a very lay audience.[3]
  • It appears in case histories in the fields of entrepreneurship as well as communications law.[4][5]

and finally

  • It's appeared in the annual stockholder's report published by Lojack Corporation [6]

As far as any risk of publishing the frequency, I appreciate the concern but feel that the risk is extremely far-fetched. While you can enter this frequency into any police scanner, just because someone hears some bleeps over the radio doesn't mean they know where the stolen car is. Most of the time they would hear command signals from the towers anyway, not the cars. To home in on the signal would either be very tedious or require specialized direction-finding equipment.

As far as whether the frequency is notable or encyclopedic I have some opinions too:

  • An article about a radio-frequency device ought to include the frequency on which it operates.
  • It was is a very big deal for the FCC to establish a new radio service, and it's also a very big deal to get buy-in from the federal agencies which were assigned that spectrum.
  • It's also a very big deal to have a landmobile frequency assigned nationwide for one specific purpose. The only other one I can think of is the Red Cross, which has the exclusive use of 47.42 MHz.
  • Frequency info ought to be expanded into a case study on how the allocation was negotiated.

Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with Squid's points above. Can we get to agree that the frequency is on this article to stay and unprotect the article? --Enric Naval (talk) 04:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I have expressed my opinion, but the consensus here is clear. I do not agree with the consensus, but I will not edit contrary to the consensus. Finell (Talk) 05:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Let me make a clarification to my points up top. The FCC did not establish a new radio service for the device. The new frequency was added to the Police Radio Service. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A possible compromise

Even though I feel the inclusion of the exact frequency does not prevent a risk for a variety of reasons:

  • The company itself prints it in its annual report, and it's appeared in a number of reputable publications over the past twenty years. The information has never been perceived as a problem.
  • I am unaware of any case where car thieves used electronic countermeasures against the system over the past twenty years.
  • We are not dredging up sensitive information that was accidentally leaked into the public record. This isn't like finding somebody's Social Security number on an old deed. This is previously published material.
  • It's of limited benefit for a thief to monitor the frequency, because even if he doesn't hear anything, he still doesn't know other systems using different frequencies aren't broadcasting his location.
  • Anyone attempting to jam a frequency that the police monitor and locate on would be extremely foolish.

However, I could live with the wording "operates on a frequency in the 173 MHz range". Everybody working on a WP article has some say in what's important to include and what isn't, and this article's critics are no exception. Someone reading the article who knows radio would still be able to get an idea of how the signal propagates, how it's in a federal band rather than a normal police frequency, and the discussion about interference concerns to TV channel 7 still makes sense. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that is a reasonable solution in principle. In the following subsection, I suggest a proposed implementation (with some copy editing thrown in), which is less specific about the precise frequency. Finell (Talk) 15:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It is still an attempt to hide widely-available information, with no wikipedia-rules-based argument in support of it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed implementation of compromise

The following text is a proposed implementation of the compromise suggested above. Footnotes are omitted here solely for the sake of readibility (the final version should restore all the citations). Finell (Talk) 15:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel this wording, along with keeping at least the FCC citation, is an acceptable compromise, because my interest in keeping the material was from a basic engineering point of view. Knowing the approximate frequency would have satisfied my curiosity on the matter as one who has an engineering background and is naturally curious about electronic gadgets. CosineKitty (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
What wikipedia-based rule or policy are you citing, for obscuring the details of this information? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I speak only for myself. My agreement to the proposed compromise is based on nothing but my own opinion and desires. My original interest in this matter was about objecting to the wholesale removal of accurate, verifiable information that I found interesting, by an agent of a for-profit corporation whose product was being discussed. Anyone who reads this and gets curious about the exact frequency will find it very quickly. I can't cite any Wikipedia policy that explains why knowing that it is approximately 173 MHz is interesting and accurate enough to me, nor that it is sufficiently noteworthy to be included in the first place. That is a subjective value judgment on my part. CosineKitty (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

LoJack transmits on a radio frequency in the 170–180 MHz range. Vehicles with the system installed send a periodic signal every several seconds on this frequency. When a vhicle is reported stolen, the rate of signalling increases to facilitate tracking.

The radio frequency transmitted by LoJack is near the VHF spectrum band used by television channel 7 in North America. However, interference is minimal due to the low power of radiation, the brevity of the signal, and the relatively long interval between signals.

we might as well round off the ages of notable people whose birthdates are in common sources, or do as the USSR did in the cold war, not give accurate maps of places to avoid giving opportunities for bombers. The frequency is at a particular place, anyone in the US has a right to listen (the laws in the UK for such broadcasts are, curiously, different), no one has given any specific harm--so there is no reason to compromise with stating the exact facts. Jimbo's argument, which may or may not represent consensus in all details, did end by saying he saw to reason himself to delete the information. I (& he) try to make objective value judgements, based on the evidence, not a subjective feeling that confusion is safer than knowledge. DGG (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
My original objection was based on the single-purpose account, User:Summitrt[7], allegedly a company employee, trying to censor the information on "what if" grounds. That editor seems to have disappeared from the discussion after seeing that he wasn't going to get his way. I don't see that a "compromise" is needed, and for the same reasons you're stating. I want to point out that if this were highly sensitive information, it should not be here. But if it were, we wouldn't be able to provide verifiability anyway, so it would be disallowed anyway. But the original complainant made no effort to challenge the information on those grounds, and in fact couldn't because the info was already available, at Radio Shack even. He merely took some verbal shots at wikipedia and signed off a couple of days ago. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I am new to editing and working with the Wikipedia system. I had no idea that there was such a support system for this web site and for keeping the information as accurate as possible. I am inpressed with their diligence. I thought the site was more of a "put what you think is right on there until the next person decides to change it" web site. My request to have the exact frequency removed was considered a big issue for many of your editors who felt that all the information that is available on a subject should be available on Wikipedia so I did not push the issue. Numerous other things that I would have thought should not be so available are also on the Wikipedia and other popular web sites so this response really did not surprise me. I followed up as requested in my talk page and have left it up this group to decide what you think is right. A civilian tracking a car is very dangerous and making it easier for car thieves to do their thing also seems irresponsible but even Youtube has videos on how to lock pick locks and bump locks to open any home lock. Why as a society should we be surprised when our individual right to privacy and security are infringed upon when we have supported it happening to everyone else around us? Just because you know your neighbor has a key hidden under his mat does not mean you should put a sign in your yard with that information on it just because everyone else on the street does it. I appreciate that some consideration is being made on my request to not list the specific frequency. I am not going to take the decision personal because it is not my site. Thank you.Summitrt (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The doormat analogy is misleading. The better comparison is, how did you know he had a key under his doormat? Did he tell you in confidence, or did you just happen to observe it? If so, it's possible others observed it, including criminals. And if so, he needs to know all those facts. Information allows people to make informed decisions. Hiding information only ensures that criminals will find out anyway and law-abiding citizens will be ignorant of how things work and how they might have been robbed. And that's why I oppose censoring information. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No, that's too vague

I'd like it to say "around 173 MHz", not "170-180". I'd also like to keep the information about how long and how often it chirps, because that's part of "how it works", though I may want to downplay one part of it. I'd like to provide some background info and talking points below:

  • Channels in this part of the spectrum are narrowband. They're only a few KHz wide. It's not like FM stereo where they only have 5 channels per MHz. If there's any concern among those who don't want to publish the exact frequency, there are dozens of possible frequencies "near 173 MHz". And if you take into account that the lay user won't know the spacing between channels, there are hundreds of possible frequencies to the right of that decimal point.
  • Lumping 170-180 together is a strange idea given the way spectrum in the U.S. is allocated. From 150-ish to 162-ish, we have the normal police, fire, marine, and railroad channels. From 162-174 we have frequencies assigned to different civilian agencies of the federal government. From 174-180 is TV Channel 7.
  • When Lojack was looking for a frequency, the problem was that there was nothing that could be allocated for their device nationwide. Most police-type radio licenses are allocated on a local basis. On the other hand, there were plenty of quiet federal frequencies. They were particularly quiet around the top of the band so as not to interfere with TV channel 7. There were already a few non-federal channels in the 173 area, including telemetry devices. So it was really the most logical place to ask the government for a new frequency. Some of our sources tell that story, and I'd like to put that in the article. However, none of that story would make sense without saying it's around 173 MHz.
  • It's pretty common in the area of 2-way radio to refer to a set of frequencies in general as the "49 MHz band" or the "27 MHz band", etc. There are many reasons, such as brevity and prose structure, for using round numbers in the article, other than self-censorship. On the other hand 170-180 actually adds extra verbiage to be more vague.
  • As far as explaining the timing of the signal, that's just basic information on how it works, and how so many cars can share the same frequency.
  • There is however one section that I need more info on. Our article says that the cars, even when not being tracked, send out a pulse every ten seconds. That's doesn't sound right, sounds like there's be too much bleeping on the channel given how many cars have the system, and what purpose would it serve? It also conflicts with Summitrt's comment in the Authorization thread above.
  • My take on the issue is that while the law might allow devices that transmit a beacon at ten-second intervals even without being activated, that doesn't mean Lojack uses that method. It could have been worked into the law with some other potential device in mind, asset tracking maybe. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Squidfryerchef, and thank you for your insightful comments. This may be the first time I wanted to add a citation from an article to its own discussion page!  :) Seriously, I think you have made a strong case against the 10 MHz blurring of the actual frequency in the article. Saying "173 MHz band" makes more sense. We are just a short putt away from retaining the exact frequency as it already is in the article, which (as has already been pointed out) is easily available elsewhere. Upon reflection, I'm starting to feel a bit silly for backing off of my original stance that the exact frequency should remain here. I find very weak the idea that we would be protecting people from themselves if we exclude a particular fact about how our public radio spectrum is allocated. I am trying to imagine a scenario where someone acquires the means to track a LoJack signal, but just can't quite get it to work because ... it wasn't on Wikipedia, and that saved their life (or prevented them from stealing a car, etc.). The probability needle has tilted so close to zero now I just can't read a positive value any more. So, in summary, to me the ideal solution is to leave the frequency listing exact, but it should at least be listed to the nearest MHz. CosineKitty (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
So, have we reached consensus yet? I am new to this sort of thing on Wikipedia. Perhaps it is time to ask for the page to be unlocked? CosineKitty (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Seems like. The lock on the article will expire early on Sunday. The original complaining user claims to have decided not to fight this anymore. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, we've had a lot of discussion back and forth, we've found lots of new material for references, and we've brought some new eyeballs to a page in need of attention. Is everybody here cool with changing the opening line of that paragraph to "LoJack transmits on a frequency in the 173 MHz range" and keeping the rest? Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I hate to disappoint you, but I certainly am not in the least satisfied by it. I think it amounts to a very considerable concession to the original unjustified request. Do we omit or disguise the exact frequency of any other broadcast or communication service? I don't think so. Masking this, even partially, is a clear violation of not censored and Verifiability: it is deliberately using imprecise information when we have accurate precise information from widely available published sources. I don;t think we should do this without a legal opinion from the foundation that we are required to--and that seems very far from the case.DGG (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
When the page is unblocked, I will not edit to reduce the accuracy of the frequency. I will object to it being removed or the precision being blurred to more than 1 MHz. I prefer it to remain exact. Can we all live with leaving it as is? If not, how can we prevent another edit war? CosineKitty (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with DGG's viewpoint, and if you're in agreement as well, I think we're good. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with DGG's and Bugs' viewpoint. They continue to ignore Jimbo's statement of what editorial judgment is all about. Wikipedia's content should be determined by the consensus of Wikipedians exercising disinterested editorial judgment. It should not be affected by biased commercial interests OR reactions against commercial interests. It certainly should not be affected by a desire to punish some newbie who did not know any better. Assuming that the newbie who ignited this controversy is who he says he is, can someone please point out how the concerns he expressed advanced his company's commercial interests? This was not a case of a company flak either puffing the product or trying to blunt criticism or bad press. (If someone bothers to take a look at my only eidt of this article before the current flap, or at my contribs elsewhere, you will see that I am not a flak.) Finell (Talk) 21:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The original complainant (which was that red-link, not you) was raising a non-issue. The original wording of the article, which he tried to "scrub", should have been left intact. There was no compelling need to hide the information. This would not even have come up, were it not for that red-linked user who was trying to hide something on this particular website which is already widely known and available elsewhere. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Bugs about the history, but not about the consequence. The issue only caught my attention when somebody's edit comment about censorship (a subject I know something about) popped up on my overly large watchlist, and red-link got that ball rolling with his edit of the article. There is no compelling reason why such specifics need to be in an encyclopedia article, especially if they are so easy to find elsewhere. Again, I say, the real issue should be, What should the article say? The answer to that question should not, in my opinion, be influenced by how or by whom a content question was raised. Also, can someone please point out how red-link's stand on this issue was promoting the company's commercial interest? Finell (Talk) 08:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The original complainant never made a wikipedia-rules-based argument, nor was he talking about his company's financial interests - he was making a "moral" argument, i.e. he was calling for censorship on "what if" grounds. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)"There is no compelling reason why such specifics need to be in an encyclopedia article, especially if they are so easy to find elsewhere." Wait, what?

First, the compelling reason is that a encyclopedia article about a radio-based system should include details about the radio frequency used, including the fact that they had to ask the FCC for a waiver to use the frequency on a certain ways not allowed usually, and had to justify the use for it.

Second, "easy to find elsewhere" has never been a reason not to include something on an article. The thresholds are notability, relevance, verifiability, neutrality, etc.--Enric Naval (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

None of which the original complainant ever raised as an issue, and that was the problem with their complaint. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It isn't just, or even primarily, about rules. That is, article content should not simply be a matter of wikilawyering. It is about exercising editorial judgment. That is exactly the point that Jimbo made, and that Bugs and a few others are ignoring. Finell (Talk) 20:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo was talking in general terms, and more specifically, he saw no issue with having that info in this article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
You are absolutely right. Jimbo was talking in general terms and fundamental principles. You are ignoring those general terms and fundamental principles. He said you should be concentrating on exercising editorial judgment and that you should take into account Wikipedia's ethical responsibility in what to publish and what not to publish. He said that exercising editorial judgment is not censorship, and that your concentration on this as a censorship issue was misguided. Please reread what he said, which is quoted under the heading #Another opinion above. Please stop ignoring or misrepresenting what he said. To use your definition of the word, your argument is bogus. Finell (Talk) 02:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Very funny. The original complainant was trying to censor the material. Editorial judgment on wikipedia, for information that is widely available, has to do with normal wikipedia rules of notability, POV, etc. There is no "ethical" issue in this specific case, nor did Jimbo say that there was one. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I said it before, and I will repeat it again: I am primarily concerned with the general principle. Your discussion of the content of this article ignores the ethical component. Furthermore, as Jimbo confirmed and as you continue to ignore, the decision whether to include otherwise available sourced material is not simply the application of "wikipedia rules of notability, POV, etc.", but still involves the exercise of editorial judgment, and that social consequences and ethical considerations are part of that judgment. You cannot legitimately reach your conclusion by simply assuming your conclusion in your statement, "There is no 'ethical' issue in this specific case". How do other Wikipedia articles handle information that is available elsewhere, but the knowledge or employment of which could lead to social harm? Finell (Talk) 20:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The information is widely known, therefore there is no ethical issue. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Repeat: How do other Wikipedia articles handle information that is available elsewhere, but the knowledge or employment of which could lead to social harm? Finell (Talk) 21:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you find one? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Finell, the company prints the frequency in its annual report. That should be the end of discussion. There is no ethical problem. Squidfryerchef (talk) 10:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A matter of uneven detail

There are bigger problems with this article besides how to present the frequency. The article really looks like a pamphlet plus a paragraph of criticism plus a paragraph for radio hobbyists. There is even OR-ish negative information about the product still tagged as "unsourced".

My option is we should stick with "173 MHz" and start filling out the rest of the article. We have sources now on how the company was founded and how the negotiations went with the FCC, IRAC/NTIA, and the law enforcement community. If later on we have an extensively copyedited article with paragraphs on how the frequency was arrived at, then we can revisit including the frequency, and since we'd have encyclopedic prose with dozens of sources including non-technical sources, it would be difficult to argue against. However, I'd like to pick a starting point so we can all work together after protection gets lifted tonight.

I rather like "173 MHz" even for the hobbyist audience because it will get people looking through their frequency guides and thinking about the other odd non-federal allocations there. I also like it because they may be using a slightly different frequency in other countries and this won't directly contradict it. I also am not certain whether the original experimental licence they first got from the FCC was for the same channel they have now, when the allocation was made permanent.

I've played umpire on a number of articles, such as Eurodance, or Emergency vehicle lighting, where everybody knows a little bit about the subject but sometimes people get overspecific, and they write about their favorite band from Luxembourg or how their sheriff's dept. uses red and white lights in front but blue and orange in the back, and I can definitely say that the best strategy for detail is to blend it down into the rest of the prose. This is no different. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Dangerous" information implies relevant information

All of the arguments so far about why a publicly allocated frequency should be excluded here hinge on the notion that they pose some danger to the public. We, the elites who already know this information (because we are clever enough to type in "lojack frequency" into Google and click a few times) can handle it, but we must become gatekeepers to protect the foolish unwashed masses from themselves. These hypothetical search-engine-challenged victims are capable of acquiring sophisticated direction-finding equipment. They brazenly drive around looking for stolen cars, and when they finally find a signal, they do not call the police. No, they drive right into a garage full of armed thugs and their life is quickly snuffed. All because we, the all-powerful gatekeepers of Wikipedia, eschewed our sacred duty and allowed the (non-) secret frequency out of the bag. Come on, is it just me, or can we admit that accepting the premise of the "dangerous information" argument is silly in this instance? If this is really the case, if you really believe that, then LoJack — using a publicly known frequency — is too dangerous to be allowed on the market. If WP is causing harm by revealing it, then so is the FCC and Radio Shack! The fact that an apparent agent of the company is arguing so much for eliminating public information from WP to me suggests that they are worried about their product being harmed in some way. It does not speak well for the quality of the product if it requires such security through obscurity. This is all the more reason the information should be considered relevant. Otherwise we better start deleting entire swaths of WP content in areas like handguns (little Johnny might shoot himself because of WP). CosineKitty (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well-stated. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Guys, cool it. The original user who questioned the issue dropped the matter, probably after it was pointed out that Lojack prints the frequency every year in its stockholder's report. The company doesnt feel its a risk and it's a fine product that does not require "security by obscurity". We seem to be having a mini-Streisand effect on this talk page. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
He hasn't totally dropped it, as he's still popping in here to argue his case. [8] Regardless, the talk page is being used for this debate now, in place of edit warring, so it could be worse. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I don't usually scroll up that far. He's equating listing the frequency with telling people your neighbor has a key hidden under his welcome mat? Some of these accusations border on accusations of sorcery. Knowing the frequency the system works on does not equate to controlling the system. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking of the extreme case, such as "How to Make a Hydrogen Bomb". Probably the first thing to do would be to get some enriched uranium or something. Telling a law-abiding citizen how to make an H-bomb is not an ethical issue, and telling a military enemy how to do it isn't either, since they will already have figured out how, they just need to get the materials, and that's another issue altogether. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, we're not instructing the reader in "how to" do anything, let alone anything dangerous. Squidfryerchef (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The H-bomb article talks about the bomb in as much detail as is known. The real details are still classified. That's a fair way to handle it. If the details were in a pamphlet published by Radio Shack, then they would be fair game for wikipedia. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)