Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 4 June 2008 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2008.874
News
Mobile phones demystify commuter rat race
Tracking study proves that humans are creatures of habit.
Researchers have come up with a new use for the ubiquitous mobile phone: tracking human movements. By monitoring the signals from 100,000 mobile-phone users sending and receiving calls and text messages, a team from Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts, has worked out some apparently universal laws of human motion.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email redesign@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
What is particularly disturbing about this study is something that the Nature news article failed to reveal: that Barabasi himself said he did not check with any ethics panel. And this for an action that is, in fact illegal in the United States. Disgusting lack of ethics, I'd say. And the statement from his co-author Hidalgo isn't much better: "We're not trying to do evil things. We're trying to make the world a little better". The old "trust me, I know better" argument. Maybe this two should take a basic graduate-level ethics course.
Assuming that there is any federal money at this school, this article should result in a federal investigation of the compliance procedures for the school's IRB and, likely, a suspension of all federal grants.
This is a provocative study. Under what conditions could their results be falsified? Is it perhaps even immune to falsification because replicability of their results in the scientific community becomes difficult due to legal issues and conflicting commercial interests.
This study though helps epidemiologists, and explores laws of motion in human; telephone company who provided data is also anonymous. The matter is also the guarantee of the data of phone calls, that in future it will be in safe hands. Ethically it is wrong too and embarrasing if one thinks that s/he is continuously traced which is against the privacy laws. It is also not possible to get consent of such a large population for such a study. In future such kind of studies must be conducted under the laws and regulations of privacy and ethics.
This comment has been removed by the moderator
It would seem that this so-called research was more of a stunt than anything else. First, there are many ways to obtain the same information, such as using a survey. Interestingly enough, auto insurance companies have told us for years that the majority of auto accidents happen within 8 to 10 miles of home. This would suggest that most people spend the majority of their time relatively close to home. In any event, there are other ways to collect data without using cell phone calling patterns. One might also question how this data will now be used. Given that we do not know the population that the data was collected against, we do not know how closely it mirrors the population it will be used to predict. That is, if the study was conducted in London, do the findings really apply to Seattle? Food for thought.
I think this is a interesting study. It doesn't actually surprise me though. Before the industrial age, we were a agricultural society, all countries were like this. People had to grow food to keep them alive and therefore they tended to be born, live and die in the same area. It just wasn't easy or safe to travel very far. Although it is easier to travel since modern transportion evolved, most people have no desire to travel the world and tend to stay in their comfort zone. And for you conspiracy/ethics freaks, lighten up, the study wasn't in this country, the cell company wasn't known, the 100,000 phones weren't known, the country wasn't known, what more do you want?
For the benefit of Robert House. The apparent violation of federally mandated Human Subject rules, as is reported in other news outlets, is not restricted to studies conducted within the United States. Failure to seek IRB approval should result in immediate action at his university. The following is the text reported by AP, "Barabasi said he did not check with any ethics panel." (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jG0v9ccFCrZ-uASRw6RWhsgGcH9QD913E2G00 ) There is no "ethics panel," there is an Institutional Review Board mandated by federal law for all research conducted on human subjects regardless of where the research is conducted, when the institution (university) conducting the research receives any federal grants (not merely grants related to the particular study). Federal law and regulation should result in an immediate audit at Northeastern University, and likely should result in the immediate suspension of all federal grants.
Tracking someon by mobile phone is not going to that accurate. For one the best accuracy is likely to be 50 metres and for another thing if the signal is lost or you are near high side building this will affect the reading - source http://www.mobilelocators.com and wiki
I can smell blood. The lawyers are going to sue the researchers, the university and the "John Doe" mobile phone network. And rightly so.
I cannot believe the journal published this irresponsible research. I think the "experiment" is a ploy to justify a GPS technology that either should not exist or needs to be strictly federally regulated. In addition to using human subjects without their consent, did the University, the author or the journal consider the possible political ramifications and possible accusations that you might be spying on human beings not contained within our borders?
I would be careful about using and drawing conclusions from the data. It could easily present a false picture of the sample population. For example: 1. If your phone has roaming charges you might be less inclined to use it beyond a certain area. 2. You might not be able to use the phone in some areas (lack of coverage), or outside of the USA where CDMA cellular propagation is not used (Europe who use GSM). 3. Additional personal preferences and habits may not be exposed either such as the cell phone being looked at as a personal convenience rather than a necessity, or account for a simple human tendency to not use the phone when away from home. 4. You also have the need to account for: how many people have cell phones and don’t use them when traveling and how many people do not have cell phones and travel. All totaled, the study may not actually be representative of actual human movement patterns, but perhaps is a good start to eventually understanding that behavior. Dr. K.
Silly me! I've been filling out those annoying IRB applications even for studies that WEREN'T grant funded! Does this mean I don't need to apply for IRB approval for my research anymore, since I am "not trying to do evil things," and am just "trying to make the world a little better?" (Hidalgo--see <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/06/04/national/a100140D77.DTL>) 'cuz it's true, that's what I'm doing. Honest, trust me!
EVERYBODY!!! The study was IRB approved. It is sad however to see that because of some sensationalists journalists the discussion has shifted away from the science and into a tabloid like rhetoric. Nature would not commit such a silly mistake, neither do we. It is sad to see that people visiting this page would not know the seal of quality that the Nature brand implies and would trust some journalists that were peer reviewed by themselves over a couple of seconds over Nature.
Odd to see so much discussion generated on a news topic on Nature! I too find it a little hard to swallow without understanding where this study was conducted, who it was, etc. One who lives in a rural setting probably has less opportunity to frequent different locations; those with a regular job obviously follow a predictable pattern in spatial location. At any rate, it's disturbing to think that my spatial location might be under observation; mabe I'll just leave my cell phone at home.
I am a U.S. citizen living in Finland. If Finland were the country in question, and if my cell phone company participated in this study, then my privacy or that of Finns is NOT protected by keeping me/them ignorant of the phone company's involvement. I already feel that I have no privacy guarantees when I make phone calls to the States, but it is disgusting that an American university might be spying on my calling patterns or on those of the unsuspecting people of whichever industrialized nation was chosen. This sort of activity just perpetuates anti-Americanism. I don't see where the ends justify the means.
As an NU graduate, I will not be sending any donations in the future. As an author who has published a Nature Group paper, I am appalled at the lack of forethought before publishing the research. I dont care if it was 'IRB approved', that doesn't make it right. Very poor form.
Privacy invasion!
Y'all are overreacting. Studies like this happen all the time, and they're done by the phone companies using undisguised data. If a phone company is thinking of expanding in Denver, the first thing they do is study how many of their customers travel to, call, or receive calls from Denver. They overlay this data with models that tell them the exact lifetime profitability of every customer. Similar studies of customer-specific data are done by retailers, airlines, websites, and banks. It doesn't bother me in any way that researchers received similar data in disguised form. There is no privacy violation here, and I commend the researchers for conducting an interesting study.
Here is AP taking back its story http://www.pr-inside.com/correction-cell-phone-study-got-review-r629994.htm And a statement from Northeastern University http://www.neu.edu/nupr/news/0508/Ethics_Barabasi_Rese.html