Thanks for stopping by. I’m amazed anyone reads this far back. Sadly, not a lot of original thought has surfaced since I wrote this post so, so I guess it’s all still what passes for ‘current”. I did take alook at your blog and now it’s added to my Google Reader … recommended.

feel free to split all the hairs you wish to, I certainly do at times. We’re certainly in agreement on some things:

1. You are certainly correct that “tracking’ should be define more precisely. Indeed that’s one of my pet peeves … GPS (or to be precise, the GPS Mission One package which is all the non-US DoD ever sees or can access) tracks _nothing_, ever. There are two other “missions” aboard each GPS spacecraft which actually do perform some services that might fit the definition “tracking” but they won’t be dealt with here and have nothing to do with the public).

The system provides the data which enable tracking, which is how most folks make the at times erroneous connection.

There is a variant of near real-time tracking where the “real’ is significantly shifted in time which I had in mind when I penned the original article, though. (it’s made right close to you, see http://www.geotab.com). There is _no_ datalink, and thus no direct cost of operation, yet the user of the system, at his/her control (literally local and key) would have the option of sharing the tracking data with those s/he chose to share it with … an insurance company, a tolling agency, parking auhtority, whatever. And there is no data transmission cost unless the user chose to opt for a data channel that does have a cost … such as GPRS.

It is possible to contrive a PAYD scheme without tracking but it loses so much of it’s potential “goodness” … but yes, it is not practical to mak eit actually anonymous.

This is what I had in mind when I originally started this thread. But fear not, I don’t sell this (or any other technology) any longer