V16 beacons: the 1,200 mAh battery vs. your phone
Spain's mandatory V16 beacon reignites the tracking debate: a 1,200 mAh battery versus the 3,000 mAh of the phone you already carry.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
V16 beacons: the GPS surveillance theory collides with a tiny battery
The obligation to carry a connected V16 beacon in the car has revived a classic suspicion: that the gadget in question is there to track us. The star argument of those who defend the theory is that the device has a GPS that reports to the DGT 3.0 and to a third party. The most repeated counterargument is neither legal nor technical: it's about energy. A 20-euro beacon cannot sustain continuous tracking with the battery inside it.
The calculation going around is simple. A 9V battery is around 1,200 mAh, while a current mobile phone exceeds 3,000 mAh. If a phone in standby, with its processor and screen off, lasts as long as it does, a device emitting its position every few minutes would run out of juice in days, not years. And that's without counting that the phone is tied to a number, an ID and a name, and is recharged daily.
What the regulations say and don't say
The discussion claims that Spain is the only country where this regulation has been imposed. The connected beacon links to the DGT 3.0, and the network is provided by Telefónica. That's where the noise starts: for many, that alone is reason enough for suspicion. For others, it's simply a little business with an awarded supplier.
What doesn't appear anywhere is an obligation to register the gadget with personal data. Buying the beacon doesn't require presenting documentation. Linking it to the app is voluntary, and whoever uses it only pings a third-party server. That's the point that disables half the conspiracy: if there's no mandatory registration, there's no database to cross-reference.
The real problem: the battery and physics
This is where the debate gets interesting. A high-end dedicated GPS, like a Garmin or TomTom, eats through the battery in minutes if it runs with a screen and continuous calculation. A GPS watch, in 30 minutes. If that low-power technology existed and were that cheap, it would already be in GPS units costing over 400 euros.
The technical rebuttal points to another family of devices: the Internet of Things with NB-IoT and LTE-M, which does achieve 10-15 years of autonomy with low-power protocols and power-saving modes like PSM and eDRX. The example given is the AirTag: a coin battery, Bluetooth Low Energy and Apple's or Android's Find My network. The beacon doesn't need to transmit every minute; it just needs to wake up occasionally.
The question left hanging is about 5G. If the network has been deployed for less than 15 years, how is its compatibility guaranteed for 15 years? The answer given is backward compatibility: Spain is on 5G, but its networks remain compatible with 2G.
The vulnerability that does worry
Beyond imaginary espionage, there is a tangible problem: the security of the device itself. An analysis of vulnerabilities in V16 beacons has been published that, if confirmed, would turn them into paperweights within two weeks. That is the real risk, not Big Brother.
The other risk is common sense: the beacon's little light versus the triangle. During the day, behind a curve or a crest, it's less visible than a well-placed triangle. And it can cause more rear-end collisions than traditional signage. The alternative proposal being floated is a DGT app that alerts nearby vehicles, combined with the devices cars already carry as standard.
The argument that disarms the conspiracy
The most uncomfortable reflection for conspiracy theorists is this: if you already carry a phone with GPS, with your name, your ID and your number, recharging it every day, why do they need to sell you a 20-euro beacon? The car already records data by law, accessible to authorities and the ITV. There's no need for a little light to locate you.
The corollary is even harsher: the most strident rhetoric ends up giving ammunition to the media to ridicule any reasonable criticism. When the conspiracy theorist of the moment appears on television, the person who opposes the beacon for sensible reasons ends up portrayed as a lunatic. And that, paradoxically, pushes more people to buy it.
The analysis gets stuck right there: on whether the problem is the beacon, the business behind it, or the inability to discuss the matter without falling into the role of the fool.
The obligation to carry a connected V16 beacon in the car has revived a classic suspicion: that the gadget in question is there to track us. The star argument of those who defend the theory is that the device has a GPS that reports to the DGT 3.0 and to a third party. The most repeated counterargument is neither legal nor technical: it's about energy. A 20-euro beacon cannot sustain continuous tracking with the battery inside it.
The calculation going around is simple. A 9V battery is around 1,200 mAh, while a current mobile phone exceeds 3,000 mAh. If a phone in standby, with its processor and screen off, lasts as long as it does, a device emitting its position every few minutes would run out of juice in days, not years. And that's without counting that the phone is tied to a number, an ID and a name, and is recharged daily.
What the regulations say and don't say
The discussion claims that Spain is the only country where this regulation has been imposed. The connected beacon links to the DGT 3.0, and the network is provided by Telefónica. That's where the noise starts: for many, that alone is reason enough for suspicion. For others, it's simply a little business with an awarded supplier.
What doesn't appear anywhere is an obligation to register the gadget with personal data. Buying the beacon doesn't require presenting documentation. Linking it to the app is voluntary, and whoever uses it only pings a third-party server. That's the point that disables half the conspiracy: if there's no mandatory registration, there's no database to cross-reference.
The real problem: the battery and physics
This is where the debate gets interesting. A high-end dedicated GPS, like a Garmin or TomTom, eats through the battery in minutes if it runs with a screen and continuous calculation. A GPS watch, in 30 minutes. If that low-power technology existed and were that cheap, it would already be in GPS units costing over 400 euros.
The technical rebuttal points to another family of devices: the Internet of Things with NB-IoT and LTE-M, which does achieve 10-15 years of autonomy with low-power protocols and power-saving modes like PSM and eDRX. The example given is the AirTag: a coin battery, Bluetooth Low Energy and Apple's or Android's Find My network. The beacon doesn't need to transmit every minute; it just needs to wake up occasionally.
The question left hanging is about 5G. If the network has been deployed for less than 15 years, how is its compatibility guaranteed for 15 years? The answer given is backward compatibility: Spain is on 5G, but its networks remain compatible with 2G.
The vulnerability that does worry
Beyond imaginary espionage, there is a tangible problem: the security of the device itself. An analysis of vulnerabilities in V16 beacons has been published that, if confirmed, would turn them into paperweights within two weeks. That is the real risk, not Big Brother.
The other risk is common sense: the beacon's little light versus the triangle. During the day, behind a curve or a crest, it's less visible than a well-placed triangle. And it can cause more rear-end collisions than traditional signage. The alternative proposal being floated is a DGT app that alerts nearby vehicles, combined with the devices cars already carry as standard.
The argument that disarms the conspiracy
The most uncomfortable reflection for conspiracy theorists is this: if you already carry a phone with GPS, with your name, your ID and your number, recharging it every day, why do they need to sell you a 20-euro beacon? The car already records data by law, accessible to authorities and the ITV. There's no need for a little light to locate you.
The corollary is even harsher: the most strident rhetoric ends up giving ammunition to the media to ridicule any reasonable criticism. When the conspiracy theorist of the moment appears on television, the person who opposes the beacon for sensible reasons ends up portrayed as a lunatic. And that, paradoxically, pushes more people to buy it.
The analysis gets stuck right there: on whether the problem is the beacon, the business behind it, or the inability to discuss the matter without falling into the role of the fool.
Also available in: Deutsch
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (103 replies).
More summaries
-
Occult readings of Kubrick: from homage to conspiracy
Analysis of occult interpretations of Kubrick's films, from the moon landing hoax to Masonic symbolism.
-
Miley Cyrus's cryptic message: tribute or conspiracy?
A Miley Cyrus ad, a video and references to Kathryn Bigelow and Michael Ondaatje: cryptic message or mere coincidence?
-
Symbolism V: The number 33, marked eyes, and traces of power
A forum thread tracks the number 33, marked eyes, and repeated dates in agency photos. It compiles evidence without drawing conclusions.
-
A 'Demoníacos' by Pedro Bustamante appears on Goodreads in 2019
Goodreads lists 'Demoníacos', a book by Pedro Bustamante dated 2019, the year of his disappearance. No one has seen a copy or knows who published it.
-
Why you keep attracting toxic people: the debate over social bad luck
Eighty answers to the question of why we always attract toxic people: karma, vibration, horoscopes, self-interest and self-criticism. No consensus.
-
The purpose of life business: courses costing 6,000 euros
A user is offering a 6,000 euro course to find one's life purpose. The spiritual coaching industry is growing while critics question its legitimacy.