40 ms·

Google’s become an obsessive stalker

Oletros 10y ago
Oooh, another Orlowsk's "report" against Google, I'm shocked
peteretep 10y ago
Andrew is the reason I stopped reading The Register, about ten years ago, due to his incessant rambling about Wikipedia. Shocked to see he's found a new corp to hate.
- andybak 10y ago
  Oh, he's always hated Google. During the original Oracle vs Google case he was shilling so hard I just assumed he was getting brown paper packages full of cash from Larry. Of course some of his criticisms are valid and Google is guilty of some of the accusations he levels - but there is zero attempt to provide any context let alone any balance.
  - AlexandrB 10y ago
    First, it's an op-ed, it doesn't have to be balanced. Second, we passed the point of "balance" long ago. A balanced take could be made when you could conceivably avoid being tracked without Herculean effort. This is no longer really possible and even the slightest consumer pushback results in articles with titles like "Do Consumers Have A Right To Opt Out Of Advertising?" [1]. We're so far into extreme privacy invasion territory that a sane "balanced" take would still be a rollback to early 2000s adtech. Edit: the pot is boiling and you're saying that the balanced response is asking that it be turned down to a simmer. We're getting cooked either way! [1] http://adexchanger.com/data-driven-thinking/consumers-right-opt-advertising/ http://adexchanger.com/data-driven-thinking/consumers-right-...
    - andybak 10y ago
      > First, it's an op-ed, it doesn't have to be balanced. The distinction is very subtle in their home page layout. It's formatted exactly like a story - it's listed under 'Top Stories'. Other than the content (which is typical Reg fare) the word 'Comment' is the only indicator that it's allowed a free pass on basic journalistic practice. The Skyhook stuff is curious. He intentionally muddles up the facts in that case (which was mainly about anti-competitive behaviour and over-aggressive protection of their business model) with the Street View 'over collection' - which was fairly heinous but a matter that I still tend to suspect was more likely to be cock-up than conspiracy. That section of the article doesn't really state it's conclusion which is fortunate as all it aims to do is create a sense of paranoia in the reader. > Android phones now examine your location and invite you to rate the cafes you’ve been to. Most of the guesses are correct. This issue is fairly murky as you can tell by following the Twitter conversation: https://twitter.com/musalbas/status/775261347122671616/photo/1 https://twitter.com/musalbas/status/775261347122671616/photo... See this response in particular: https://twitter.com/fpgeek/status/775301036823150592 https://twitter.com/fpgeek/status/775301036823150592 I'm not terribly surprised if an app that is granted location permissions can use my location. The person who tweeted that seemed to think that uninstalling Google Maps should somehow prevent location tracking. I agree most people won't think to turn off this tracking, and there is a place in the market for a phone that has 'privacy as a default' but I personally (and many others) would still continue to use other devices because I am currently happy with the tradeoffs. That doesn't mean I'm not cautious and fairly vigilant. But this frog hasn't yet felt the need to leap out of the pot.
      - andybak 10y ago
        EDIT - re-reading the above I realise my overall point isn't clear. The Orlowski piece is based on a lot of fairly unrelated snippets and doesn't really make a clear coherent argument that one can really engage with. I would agree there is cause for concern and a reason to be vigilant but this kind of writing doesn't raise the level of debate or help anyone form a clear view on current dangers. I usually react negatively to any Orlowski piece as I've seen what he is like on matters where I do have some existing views and a certain degree of background knowledge. (previous commenter mentioned his anti-Wikipedia crusade but also his obsession with defending strong IP laws - google for 'freetard orlowski'). In short he has some axes to grind that align nicely with the PR aims of various companies with deep pockets.
  - Doctor_Fegg 10y ago
    > brown paper packages full of cash from Larry Had to pause for a minute and work out which Larry you meant.
    - andybak 10y ago
      Good point. I hadn't thought of that. The one with the yachts...
      - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346157/Google-founder-Larry-Page-buys-193-foot-yacht-45m-second-hand.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346157/Google-found... http://www.superyachtfan.com/superyacht_musashi.html http://www.superyachtfan.com/superyacht_musashi.html Which Larry with yachts?
- AlexandrB 10y ago
  Is he wrong though? Google is trying to collect basically everything. I still haven't heard a substantive argument about why this is ok.
  - MarkMc 10y ago
    What is wrong with the argument that says it's OK because they require your permission to collect anything?
    - pdkl95 10y ago
      They never asked for permission before collecting and aggregating everyone's web activity with GA.
    - imh 10y ago
      They don't ask permission. They offer a cool service don't tell you what they'll use that information for. Go through [0] and [1], and you'll probably find at least one thing you didn't explicitly opt into. That fits my definition of not requiring my permission. They have to ask. [0] https://myaccount.google.com/privacycheckup/ https://myaccount.google.com/privacycheckup/ [1] https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity
      - MarkMc 10y ago
        > you'll probably find at least one thing you didn't explicitly opt into Didn't you explicitly agree to Google's privacy policy [1] when you created an account? Are you saying Google is using your data in a way that is not described in their privacy policy? [1] https://www.google.com.au/intl/en/policies/privacy/ https://www.google.com.au/intl/en/policies/privacy/
  - on_and_off 10y ago
    It felt really one sided. No mention of the fact that from what I have seen Skyhook solution was beyond shitty and absolutely drained the battery (I had the pleasure to test a Samsung phones using their services a while ago) . No mention either of the wifi snooping being seemingly a mistake : Google wanted the wifi hotspot id but took too much data by capturing longer data packets than necessary. That's why IMO they only got a slap on the wrist. I stopped reading the article after that.
- raverbashing 10y ago
  He seems to also have an pro telecom company agenda, given his rants about Tom Wheeler and the poor companies that can't abuse their position...
- pjc50 10y ago
  For me it was the pro-copyright anti-GNU advocacy. But fundamentally the Register is a tabloid newspaper; occasionally funny, always sensationalist, and ridiculously prejudiced.
- 119127911 10y ago
  Given that the mission of the register is "biting the hand that feeds IT", I would not see this as hate but rather as an opinion that is unpopular among programmers (see corn-pone opinions).
- andygates 10y ago
  Oh lord, it's Orlowski? That explains the shrill hyperoblic tone and fact-free environment (for a comparison, he's a shrill, hyperbolic climate denier too). His writing drove me off The Reg entirely: if the editors endorse that level of rubbish, the whole site is suspect.
- a3_nm 10y ago
  > his incessant rambling about Wikipedia. Shocked to see he's found a new corp to hate. Wikipedia is not a corporation.
FussyZeus 10y ago
> What the FCC did this year, with little fanfare, was cripple telecoms companies and wireless networks from doing what Google and Facebook do. That’s a very odd decision. If behavioural advertising is so bad consumers need an opt-out, how come you can opt out of your ISP's profiling, but not Google’s. How could that be? Because you have a choice to use an Android phone, Google mail, and Facebook. Many people do not have a choice which ISP to use, especially for broadband. Android/Facebook are opt-in services. Call me a fanboy, but since I've switched to Apple devices I have no desire to switch back. Yes they're missing a lot of nice things that Androids have, like customization and SD slots and what have you, but the app ecosystem is much better and the entire OS doesn't creep on everything I do (at least not in any way I can tell), and every app is a deluge of advertising. I've gone to pretty great lengths now to remove Google from as much of my life as I can. Still stuck in Chrome though, just because there doesn't seem to be anything better.
- jk563 10y ago
  Not sure why you're getting downvoted; the point around these services being opt in seems valid.
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    Android is a global monopoly.
- triplesec 10y ago
  But Apple is about as bad and invasive in its data practices. You prefer their controlled integrated system, but that doesn't make Apple any better wrt data snarfing.
  - macintux 10y ago
    Wow. No. Apple makes it a point to do as much data processing as practical on the phone. They don't override your preference to not have your location tracked. They are developing new ground in differential privacy so when they do collect data, it's both useful and not personally identifiable. They don't do underhanded tricks with cookies to circumvent your browser privacy settings. And they're not in the business of selling you to advertisers based on your private data. In short, there's no comparison between Google and Apple.
radarsat1 10y ago
Honestly I'm mostly fine with Google providing me services and skimming a bit of info on me in exchange, but I do find it annoying that after a recent update to Photos, my phone asks me every time I take a photo if Google can "have it" for Maps. Fuck you Google, no you can't. Somehow it's quite different to know they want to take something from my phone and make it public, vs. just using some metadata for their statistics. At least they ask first. But it really does feel rather "stalky" after the 5th time or so it's happened.
- triplesec 10y ago
  Furthermore, the Maps TOS is one that demands the sort of indefinite total picture use rights that everyone complained about to have changed for fb, Flickr etc.
- jonlucc 10y ago
  Interestingly, that prompt has made me more likely to take pictures of the outside of a location to share. I think that suggests it is likely that it is working for their purpose, which is to add tons of photos of obscure locations.
  - lloeki 10y ago
    I understand the prompt I get from Maps that I'm visiting a location and adding a shot could be helpful, especially when volunteering as a "Local Guide", but IIUC the GP is talking about taking private shots in the Photos app and being prodded into putting it online? That's a bridge too far on the intent because the process is just not the same.
    - radarsat1 10y ago
      Spot on. And they don't provide a "never ask me again" button, as far as I can remember. (I can't check without driving off into the country side and taking a photo to verify...) To be clear though it is when I take a photo with the Camera app, and I think it's Maps that detects this and asks me. But it's automatic, amounts to the same thing. It may be because I live in a country with relatively fewer tourists so perhaps their photo count around here is lower. (Chile. There are definitely tourists, but it's just not Europe.) Regardless, I basically just find it a bit rude. edit: dgacmu, thank you! Done.
anotherarray 10y ago
Google can be a huge troublemaker in countries with weak privacy laws. If I google my friends name, I can see their college grades, most legal occurrences (from company incorporation to lawsuits and alimony) and probably the equivalent to their SSN.
- themartorana 10y ago
  Has Google made this information public? Or are they just indexing it?
  - kuschku 10y ago
    They have turned it from "can only be found by a dedicated person" to "anyone can find it". Societies usually ban that difference.
    - mercutio2 10y ago
      "Societies usually"? I know a few European cultures, most notably the Germans, make a big deal about this difference, but I'm not aware of other cultures where distinguishing between public-but-obscure and public-and-indexed is a thing. In my opinion it's a terrible distinction to make, as it gives users false comfort about what's actually unavailable to the public.
      - kuschku 10y ago
        Even the US seperates stalking from taking a picture of random people in the background of a landscape picture. The difference between "public and indexed" and "public but obscure" is huge. It’s also the same difference as "taking a photo of outside" vs. "permanent video surveillance of everywhere".
- tanqueray 10y ago
  The US has remarkably weak privacy laws, does it not? As in there aren't really any laws on data retention, pseudonymization etc. let me know if I've got the wrong impression.
gdulli 10y ago
I cringe when I see someone's phone and they have GPS turned on. I can't understand why anyone has it on 99% of the time. It's another service to drain the battery and offer questionable value in exchange for tracking. Maybe once a month I turn it on for a few minutes to get my bearings if I'm walking in an unfamiliar part of the city.
- saiya-jin 10y ago
  my lovely android phone tends to get it turned on by... wait for it... google play services, just out of blue. it even warms me that shutting it down may cause instability. pfff there were days when google was not this passive evil company. i guess over time and with such a growth, one cannot fully avoid it. more reasons to support smaller companies!
  - Grazester 10y ago
    Funny. Mine never gets turned on automatically and never did. Whatever apps require it would alert me that I need it. As of late I have had my GPS permanently on. I like going back to my location history and seeing where I was at a certain date and time. I dont know why. LOL
  - gdulli 10y ago
    That's terrible. On my Galaxy S4 it never turns on unless I turn it on or explicitly allow an app to turn it on.
- on_and_off 10y ago
  Devil's advocate here : Awareness API. By making apps aware of your physical condition (are you walking, standing, running, at home, at work, etc ... ) we can make them smarter. For exemple : -don't notify me about the daily techmeeting when I am in another country in order to give a talk. -automatically start recording my run when I start running, not 10 minutes afterwards when I remember to open the app. It needs to be presented and explained to the users (actually the GPS permission is necessary for any detection tied to the user's location) but it can make apps way smarter. https://developers.google.com/awareness/ https://developers.google.com/awareness/
Lordarminius 10y ago
I find it curious the tone of some responses on this issue. Google (and not just google; FB, Bing,Baidu) snooping is not a petty issue that will just go away. It is a matter of deep concern at par with any existential threat mankind has ever faced; up there with climate change and nuclear war. Never before has mankind had to face such an assault to privacy. The data google collects is the next best thing to reading its users minds. This is all the more scary because 1. It is a private company 2. state actors have a vested interest in aligning with google and other such companies and (as the article points out) will deliberately lapse in their regulatory obligations. The privacy wars are on and google et-al have won the opening skirmishes. I predict that in response to rising public awareness (not outcry, there is no outcry) google and other invaders of privacy will come up with algorithms that tone down recommendations and mask the amount of data being captured without actually reducing it. The citizenry will be lulled into false complacency and the encirclement will proceed apace. Large unbridled Corporations with unchecked power have proven through history to be venal and predatory. We are witnessing the birth of a new phase that will leave a scar on mankind and make the sins of the Church, Hitler, North Korea and every other despotic regime that has tried to limit human freedom through the ages look amateurish if we do nothing about it now.
- ramidarigaz 10y ago
  What? Existential in that it could literally end our species? Nuclear war and climate change sure, but info collection? How is this not totally hyperbolic?
  - Lordarminius 10y ago
    In my outrage, I admit to unconscious hyperbole. Substitute grave for existential. But the point remains that if we succumb to this, humanity will be unrecognizable in 3 generations. Perhaps in some way that counts as an existential threat?
    - nl 10y ago
      humanity will be unrecognizable in 3 generations It's hard to see why this particular thing is going to make any bigger change than those that have happened over the last 3 generations. Or those to come from other reasons: bio-engineering, implants, VR, AI etc. Also, I'm unclear why you seem to assume this change is bad?
danblick 10y ago
It's actually very easy to disable location tracking across all your Google devices and services. https://myaccount.google.com/ https://myaccount.google.com/ and click Privacy. I did this and also cleared the (kind of cool, really) history they'd built up over the years. It took maybe 10 minutes. The amount of data Google had collected was impressive. It showed vacations I'd forgotten about, airports I'd transferred in, that kind of stuff.
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  The cost to this is bigger than you think though: Google software becomes so useless with it disabled you might as well just get someone else's software entirely. For instance, Google Maps can't even, on my local device, show me the last couple places I searched for. Because if it isn't on the cloud, Google won't store it at all. This is what initially drove me off to HERE Maps a few years ago. I've also had searches unable to even get me in the general local region, because if I won't let Google track my every move in their history, they won't bother to figure out what state I'm in for a search I'm running at the moment.
  - fixermark 10y ago
    That makes sense. From an engineering standpoint, supporting local caching and cloud means they have to write (and maintain, and debug) every algorithm twice. Or, they can write it once to take advantage of the cloud and cross-service integration, and people who don't want that feature-set can use another, less-integrated service. Perhaps they are putting their chips on the assumption that the quality of service that can be provided with data integration is going to exceed alternatives.
  - zymhan 10y ago
    I too am annoyed by the lack of search history in Maps if you don't enable "Web & App Activity" tracking for your entire Google account. Local search history caching is not a difficult feature to have. They omit it for a reason, so that you will be encouraged to link a Google account and enable search history tracking.
  - 10y ago
hullo 10y ago
Google Photos for iOS is horrible about this - there are only two location settings, (1) no location services or (2) always on. The sensible default would of course be (3) on while I'm using this app. There's absolutely no reason for photos to be (literally) tracking us while we're doing non-photo things other than better-monetizing us for advertisers. Even if we nevermind the privacy implications, stop burning my battery.
- magicalist 10y ago
  > Google Photos for iOS is horrible about this - there are only two location settings, (1) no location services or (2) always on Can't you just select "While using this app" for location services for any app on iOS?
  - hullo 10y ago
    No, you're limited to the choices the app developer presents to you, and Google Photos presents Always, which you can reject to get Never. I hadn't even known it was an option previously, as they're the only app I have (had in the past) that requests permanent ongoing location. And I didn't even notice what I'd agreed to until my location services indicator wouldn't turn off, and I had to track down what was triggering it.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
darren_ 10y ago
This whole thing seems to be based on that rather inaccurate article from the other day about not being able to deactivate location tracking on android, despite it being rather trivial to grab any recent android phone and verify that you can in fact block individual apps, including google maps and the play store, from having location access, and you can also deactivate location history from the location history menu (I honestly don't even remember if it defaults to on but i don't think it does?). If the assertion is that you can't trust these privacy toggles then we're getting into extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence territory. disclaimer: googler, although i'm an iphoney one not an androidy one
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- dleslie 10y ago
  I stopped using Android because despite having disabled GPS and location tracking I received a notification that I was X minutes from work, right after I left the front door. That was the last straw; I've stopped using Google products and services entirely.
throw2016 10y ago
I find Google increasingly resembles the obese man in the Monty Python sketch [1] and like him comes across as a creepy, unpleasant and odious entity. Its insatiable mining of human actions only sinks it uncontrollably further into its gluttony making it more and more oblivious and distant from anything human reducing them to mere actions and patterns. There is no place for human niceties like privacy here. It thrives on dehumanization and the impersonal. Every single action is simply another data point to be analysed, patterned and consumed. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXH_12QWWg8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXH_12QWWg8
fixermark 10y ago
It's interesting to look through the data Google collects about you. If you use voice search on a mobile device, check out https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity?restrict=vaa&utm_source=help https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity?restrict=vaa&utm_so... to see the history of audio snippets it's collected from you. It's neat to see both what the voice-to-speech system heard and how it interpreted it. (Note: this can be disabled [https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/6030020?hl=en https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/6030020?hl=en], but Google is collecting it de-anonymized to build a voice model of you specifically so that speech recognition works better on all the devices using Google Voice APIs. It's being done to improve the way the service works for you).
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  To be CLEAR: You can shut off your voice history being tied to your Google account, but if you use Google Voice Search, Google owns your voice recordings. Turning off the history merely means they permanently keep all recordings of you with anonymous identifiers. Keeping your history on, allegedly, means you can delete them manually, if you remember to, but turning your history off guarantees you can never tell them to delete the recordings, and they still keep them.
nl 10y ago
This is... stupid. SkyHook had originally come up with the idea of wardriving (as it was then called), and building up a global Wi-Fi location database from the Wi-Fi hotspots. Google took out an evaluation licence from SkyHook in 2005, figured out how it worked, and then allegedly copied it. SkyHook sued for IP theft in 2010 and finally settled the case for $90m in 2015. The company was taken over by TruePosition, a Liberty Media subsidiary, in 2014. Well, no. There was a settlement, sure, but it's hard to imagine what IP Google "stole". Does anyone really think it is hard to workout the WiFi location thing? I could do it in a few days, and I don't have a background in signal processing. If behavioural advertising is so bad consumers need an opt-out, how come you can opt out of your ISP's profiling, but not Google’s. How could that be? https://www.google.com/settings/ads/plugin https://www.google.com/settings/ads/plugin Is the author really advocating that ISPs should be allowed to sell ads on traffic they see?
- wfo 10y ago
  >Is the author really advocating that ISPs should be allowed to sell ads on traffic they see? What? It is blatantly obvious from both the tone and content of the article that the author is advocating that google and the like be banned from selling the same kind of ads ISPs are.
projproj 10y ago
This is the kind of thing I was interested in when I made Googley Eyes [0]. Googley Eyes makes a record of whether the pages I visit do or do not send info about me to Google. Of the 11,571 pages I visited over the last couple of months, Google knows about 52% of them. [0] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/googley-eyes/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/googley-eyes/
bogomipz 10y ago
Can someone explain why Google Maps needs/wants access to a phone's camera?

Oooh, another Orlowsk's "report" against Google, I'm shocked

Andrew is the reason I stopped reading The Register, about ten years ago, due to his incessant rambling about Wikipedia. Shocked to see he's found a new corp to hate.

andybak 10y ago
Oh, he's always hated Google. During the original Oracle vs Google case he was shilling so hard I just assumed he was getting brown paper packages full of cash from Larry. Of course some of his criticisms are valid and Google is guilty of some of the accusations he levels - but there is zero attempt to provide any context let alone any balance.
- AlexandrB 10y ago
  First, it's an op-ed, it doesn't have to be balanced. Second, we passed the point of "balance" long ago. A balanced take could be made when you could conceivably avoid being tracked without Herculean effort. This is no longer really possible and even the slightest consumer pushback results in articles with titles like "Do Consumers Have A Right To Opt Out Of Advertising?" [1]. We're so far into extreme privacy invasion territory that a sane "balanced" take would still be a rollback to early 2000s adtech. Edit: the pot is boiling and you're saying that the balanced response is asking that it be turned down to a simmer. We're getting cooked either way! [1] http://adexchanger.com/data-driven-thinking/consumers-right-opt-advertising/ http://adexchanger.com/data-driven-thinking/consumers-right-...
  - andybak 10y ago
    > First, it's an op-ed, it doesn't have to be balanced. The distinction is very subtle in their home page layout. It's formatted exactly like a story - it's listed under 'Top Stories'. Other than the content (which is typical Reg fare) the word 'Comment' is the only indicator that it's allowed a free pass on basic journalistic practice. The Skyhook stuff is curious. He intentionally muddles up the facts in that case (which was mainly about anti-competitive behaviour and over-aggressive protection of their business model) with the Street View 'over collection' - which was fairly heinous but a matter that I still tend to suspect was more likely to be cock-up than conspiracy. That section of the article doesn't really state it's conclusion which is fortunate as all it aims to do is create a sense of paranoia in the reader. > Android phones now examine your location and invite you to rate the cafes you’ve been to. Most of the guesses are correct. This issue is fairly murky as you can tell by following the Twitter conversation: https://twitter.com/musalbas/status/775261347122671616/photo/1 https://twitter.com/musalbas/status/775261347122671616/photo... See this response in particular: https://twitter.com/fpgeek/status/775301036823150592 https://twitter.com/fpgeek/status/775301036823150592 I'm not terribly surprised if an app that is granted location permissions can use my location. The person who tweeted that seemed to think that uninstalling Google Maps should somehow prevent location tracking. I agree most people won't think to turn off this tracking, and there is a place in the market for a phone that has 'privacy as a default' but I personally (and many others) would still continue to use other devices because I am currently happy with the tradeoffs. That doesn't mean I'm not cautious and fairly vigilant. But this frog hasn't yet felt the need to leap out of the pot.
    - andybak 10y ago
      EDIT - re-reading the above I realise my overall point isn't clear. The Orlowski piece is based on a lot of fairly unrelated snippets and doesn't really make a clear coherent argument that one can really engage with. I would agree there is cause for concern and a reason to be vigilant but this kind of writing doesn't raise the level of debate or help anyone form a clear view on current dangers. I usually react negatively to any Orlowski piece as I've seen what he is like on matters where I do have some existing views and a certain degree of background knowledge. (previous commenter mentioned his anti-Wikipedia crusade but also his obsession with defending strong IP laws - google for 'freetard orlowski'). In short he has some axes to grind that align nicely with the PR aims of various companies with deep pockets.
- Doctor_Fegg 10y ago
  > brown paper packages full of cash from Larry Had to pause for a minute and work out which Larry you meant.
  - andybak 10y ago
    Good point. I hadn't thought of that. The one with the yachts...
    - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346157/Google-founder-Larry-Page-buys-193-foot-yacht-45m-second-hand.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346157/Google-found... http://www.superyachtfan.com/superyacht_musashi.html http://www.superyachtfan.com/superyacht_musashi.html Which Larry with yachts?
AlexandrB 10y ago
Is he wrong though? Google is trying to collect basically everything. I still haven't heard a substantive argument about why this is ok.
- MarkMc 10y ago
  What is wrong with the argument that says it's OK because they require your permission to collect anything?
  - pdkl95 10y ago
    They never asked for permission before collecting and aggregating everyone's web activity with GA.
  - imh 10y ago
    They don't ask permission. They offer a cool service don't tell you what they'll use that information for. Go through [0] and [1], and you'll probably find at least one thing you didn't explicitly opt into. That fits my definition of not requiring my permission. They have to ask. [0] https://myaccount.google.com/privacycheckup/ https://myaccount.google.com/privacycheckup/ [1] https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity
    - MarkMc 10y ago
      > you'll probably find at least one thing you didn't explicitly opt into Didn't you explicitly agree to Google's privacy policy [1] when you created an account? Are you saying Google is using your data in a way that is not described in their privacy policy? [1] https://www.google.com.au/intl/en/policies/privacy/ https://www.google.com.au/intl/en/policies/privacy/
- on_and_off 10y ago
  It felt really one sided. No mention of the fact that from what I have seen Skyhook solution was beyond shitty and absolutely drained the battery (I had the pleasure to test a Samsung phones using their services a while ago) . No mention either of the wifi snooping being seemingly a mistake : Google wanted the wifi hotspot id but took too much data by capturing longer data packets than necessary. That's why IMO they only got a slap on the wrist. I stopped reading the article after that.
raverbashing 10y ago
He seems to also have an pro telecom company agenda, given his rants about Tom Wheeler and the poor companies that can't abuse their position...
pjc50 10y ago
For me it was the pro-copyright anti-GNU advocacy. But fundamentally the Register is a tabloid newspaper; occasionally funny, always sensationalist, and ridiculously prejudiced.
119127911 10y ago
Given that the mission of the register is "biting the hand that feeds IT", I would not see this as hate but rather as an opinion that is unpopular among programmers (see corn-pone opinions).
andygates 10y ago
Oh lord, it's Orlowski? That explains the shrill hyperoblic tone and fact-free environment (for a comparison, he's a shrill, hyperbolic climate denier too). His writing drove me off The Reg entirely: if the editors endorse that level of rubbish, the whole site is suspect.
a3_nm 10y ago
> his incessant rambling about Wikipedia. Shocked to see he's found a new corp to hate. Wikipedia is not a corporation.

FussyZeus 10y ago

> What the FCC did this year, with little fanfare, was cripple telecoms companies and wireless networks from doing what Google and Facebook do. That’s a very odd decision. If behavioural advertising is so bad consumers need an opt-out, how come you can opt out of your ISP's profiling, but not Google’s. How could that be? Because you have a choice to use an Android phone, Google mail, and Facebook. Many people do not have a choice which ISP to use, especially for broadband. Android/Facebook are opt-in services. Call me a fanboy, but since I've switched to Apple devices I have no desire to switch back. Yes they're missing a lot of nice things that Androids have, like customization and SD slots and what have you, but the app ecosystem is much better and the entire OS doesn't creep on everything I do (at least not in any way I can tell), and every app is a deluge of advertising. I've gone to pretty great lengths now to remove Google from as much of my life as I can. Still stuck in Chrome though, just because there doesn't seem to be anything better.

jk563 10y ago
Not sure why you're getting downvoted; the point around these services being opt in seems valid.
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  Android is a global monopoly.
triplesec 10y ago
But Apple is about as bad and invasive in its data practices. You prefer their controlled integrated system, but that doesn't make Apple any better wrt data snarfing.
- macintux 10y ago
  Wow. No. Apple makes it a point to do as much data processing as practical on the phone. They don't override your preference to not have your location tracked. They are developing new ground in differential privacy so when they do collect data, it's both useful and not personally identifiable. They don't do underhanded tricks with cookies to circumvent your browser privacy settings. And they're not in the business of selling you to advertisers based on your private data. In short, there's no comparison between Google and Apple.

radarsat1 10y ago

Honestly I'm mostly fine with Google providing me services and skimming a bit of info on me in exchange, but I do find it annoying that after a recent update to Photos, my phone asks me every time I take a photo if Google can "have it" for Maps. Fuck you Google, no you can't. Somehow it's quite different to know they want to take something from my phone and make it public, vs. just using some metadata for their statistics. At least they ask first. But it really does feel rather "stalky" after the 5th time or so it's happened.

triplesec 10y ago
Furthermore, the Maps TOS is one that demands the sort of indefinite total picture use rights that everyone complained about to have changed for fb, Flickr etc.
jonlucc 10y ago
Interestingly, that prompt has made me more likely to take pictures of the outside of a location to share. I think that suggests it is likely that it is working for their purpose, which is to add tons of photos of obscure locations.
- lloeki 10y ago
  I understand the prompt I get from Maps that I'm visiting a location and adding a shot could be helpful, especially when volunteering as a "Local Guide", but IIUC the GP is talking about taking private shots in the Photos app and being prodded into putting it online? That's a bridge too far on the intent because the process is just not the same.
  - radarsat1 10y ago
    Spot on. And they don't provide a "never ask me again" button, as far as I can remember. (I can't check without driving off into the country side and taking a photo to verify...) To be clear though it is when I take a photo with the Camera app, and I think it's Maps that detects this and asks me. But it's automatic, amounts to the same thing. It may be because I live in a country with relatively fewer tourists so perhaps their photo count around here is lower. (Chile. There are definitely tourists, but it's just not Europe.) Regardless, I basically just find it a bit rude. edit: dgacmu, thank you! Done.

anotherarray 10y ago

Google can be a huge troublemaker in countries with weak privacy laws. If I google my friends name, I can see their college grades, most legal occurrences (from company incorporation to lawsuits and alimony) and probably the equivalent to their SSN.

themartorana 10y ago
Has Google made this information public? Or are they just indexing it?
- kuschku 10y ago
  They have turned it from "can only be found by a dedicated person" to "anyone can find it". Societies usually ban that difference.
  - mercutio2 10y ago
    "Societies usually"? I know a few European cultures, most notably the Germans, make a big deal about this difference, but I'm not aware of other cultures where distinguishing between public-but-obscure and public-and-indexed is a thing. In my opinion it's a terrible distinction to make, as it gives users false comfort about what's actually unavailable to the public.
    - kuschku 10y ago
      Even the US seperates stalking from taking a picture of random people in the background of a landscape picture. The difference between "public and indexed" and "public but obscure" is huge. It’s also the same difference as "taking a photo of outside" vs. "permanent video surveillance of everywhere".
tanqueray 10y ago
The US has remarkably weak privacy laws, does it not? As in there aren't really any laws on data retention, pseudonymization etc. let me know if I've got the wrong impression.

gdulli 10y ago

I cringe when I see someone's phone and they have GPS turned on. I can't understand why anyone has it on 99% of the time. It's another service to drain the battery and offer questionable value in exchange for tracking. Maybe once a month I turn it on for a few minutes to get my bearings if I'm walking in an unfamiliar part of the city.

saiya-jin 10y ago
my lovely android phone tends to get it turned on by... wait for it... google play services, just out of blue. it even warms me that shutting it down may cause instability. pfff there were days when google was not this passive evil company. i guess over time and with such a growth, one cannot fully avoid it. more reasons to support smaller companies!
- Grazester 10y ago
  Funny. Mine never gets turned on automatically and never did. Whatever apps require it would alert me that I need it. As of late I have had my GPS permanently on. I like going back to my location history and seeing where I was at a certain date and time. I dont know why. LOL
- gdulli 10y ago
  That's terrible. On my Galaxy S4 it never turns on unless I turn it on or explicitly allow an app to turn it on.
on_and_off 10y ago
Devil's advocate here : Awareness API. By making apps aware of your physical condition (are you walking, standing, running, at home, at work, etc ... ) we can make them smarter. For exemple : -don't notify me about the daily techmeeting when I am in another country in order to give a talk. -automatically start recording my run when I start running, not 10 minutes afterwards when I remember to open the app. It needs to be presented and explained to the users (actually the GPS permission is necessary for any detection tied to the user's location) but it can make apps way smarter. https://developers.google.com/awareness/ https://developers.google.com/awareness/

Lordarminius 10y ago

I find it curious the tone of some responses on this issue. Google (and not just google; FB, Bing,Baidu) snooping is not a petty issue that will just go away. It is a matter of deep concern at par with any existential threat mankind has ever faced; up there with climate change and nuclear war. Never before has mankind had to face such an assault to privacy. The data google collects is the next best thing to reading its users minds. This is all the more scary because 1. It is a private company 2. state actors have a vested interest in aligning with google and other such companies and (as the article points out) will deliberately lapse in their regulatory obligations. The privacy wars are on and google et-al have won the opening skirmishes. I predict that in response to rising public awareness (not outcry, there is no outcry) google and other invaders of privacy will come up with algorithms that tone down recommendations and mask the amount of data being captured without actually reducing it. The citizenry will be lulled into false complacency and the encirclement will proceed apace. Large unbridled Corporations with unchecked power have proven through history to be venal and predatory. We are witnessing the birth of a new phase that will leave a scar on mankind and make the sins of the Church, Hitler, North Korea and every other despotic regime that has tried to limit human freedom through the ages look amateurish if we do nothing about it now.

ramidarigaz 10y ago
What? Existential in that it could literally end our species? Nuclear war and climate change sure, but info collection? How is this not totally hyperbolic?
- Lordarminius 10y ago
  In my outrage, I admit to unconscious hyperbole. Substitute grave for existential. But the point remains that if we succumb to this, humanity will be unrecognizable in 3 generations. Perhaps in some way that counts as an existential threat?
  - nl 10y ago
    humanity will be unrecognizable in 3 generations It's hard to see why this particular thing is going to make any bigger change than those that have happened over the last 3 generations. Or those to come from other reasons: bio-engineering, implants, VR, AI etc. Also, I'm unclear why you seem to assume this change is bad?

danblick 10y ago

It's actually very easy to disable location tracking across all your Google devices and services. https://myaccount.google.com/ https://myaccount.google.com/ and click Privacy. I did this and also cleared the (kind of cool, really) history they'd built up over the years. It took maybe 10 minutes. The amount of data Google had collected was impressive. It showed vacations I'd forgotten about, airports I'd transferred in, that kind of stuff.

ocdtrekkie 10y ago
The cost to this is bigger than you think though: Google software becomes so useless with it disabled you might as well just get someone else's software entirely. For instance, Google Maps can't even, on my local device, show me the last couple places I searched for. Because if it isn't on the cloud, Google won't store it at all. This is what initially drove me off to HERE Maps a few years ago. I've also had searches unable to even get me in the general local region, because if I won't let Google track my every move in their history, they won't bother to figure out what state I'm in for a search I'm running at the moment.
- fixermark 10y ago
  That makes sense. From an engineering standpoint, supporting local caching and cloud means they have to write (and maintain, and debug) every algorithm twice. Or, they can write it once to take advantage of the cloud and cross-service integration, and people who don't want that feature-set can use another, less-integrated service. Perhaps they are putting their chips on the assumption that the quality of service that can be provided with data integration is going to exceed alternatives.
- zymhan 10y ago
  I too am annoyed by the lack of search history in Maps if you don't enable "Web & App Activity" tracking for your entire Google account. Local search history caching is not a difficult feature to have. They omit it for a reason, so that you will be encouraged to link a Google account and enable search history tracking.
- 10y ago

hullo 10y ago

Google Photos for iOS is horrible about this - there are only two location settings, (1) no location services or (2) always on. The sensible default would of course be (3) on while I'm using this app. There's absolutely no reason for photos to be (literally) tracking us while we're doing non-photo things other than better-monetizing us for advertisers. Even if we nevermind the privacy implications, stop burning my battery.

magicalist 10y ago
> Google Photos for iOS is horrible about this - there are only two location settings, (1) no location services or (2) always on Can't you just select "While using this app" for location services for any app on iOS?
- hullo 10y ago
  No, you're limited to the choices the app developer presents to you, and Google Photos presents Always, which you can reject to get Never. I hadn't even known it was an option previously, as they're the only app I have (had in the past) that requests permanent ongoing location. And I didn't even notice what I'd agreed to until my location services indicator wouldn't turn off, and I had to track down what was triggering it.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

darren_ 10y ago

This whole thing seems to be based on that rather inaccurate article from the other day about not being able to deactivate location tracking on android, despite it being rather trivial to grab any recent android phone and verify that you can in fact block individual apps, including google maps and the play store, from having location access, and you can also deactivate location history from the location history menu (I honestly don't even remember if it defaults to on but i don't think it does?). If the assertion is that you can't trust these privacy toggles then we're getting into extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence territory. disclaimer: googler, although i'm an iphoney one not an androidy one

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
dleslie 10y ago
I stopped using Android because despite having disabled GPS and location tracking I received a notification that I was X minutes from work, right after I left the front door. That was the last straw; I've stopped using Google products and services entirely.

throw2016 10y ago

I find Google increasingly resembles the obese man in the Monty Python sketch [1] and like him comes across as a creepy, unpleasant and odious entity. Its insatiable mining of human actions only sinks it uncontrollably further into its gluttony making it more and more oblivious and distant from anything human reducing them to mere actions and patterns. There is no place for human niceties like privacy here. It thrives on dehumanization and the impersonal. Every single action is simply another data point to be analysed, patterned and consumed. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXH_12QWWg8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXH_12QWWg8

fixermark 10y ago

It's interesting to look through the data Google collects about you. If you use voice search on a mobile device, check out https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity?restrict=vaa&utm_source=help https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity?restrict=vaa&utm_so... to see the history of audio snippets it's collected from you. It's neat to see both what the voice-to-speech system heard and how it interpreted it. (Note: this can be disabled [https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/6030020?hl=en https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/6030020?hl=en], but Google is collecting it de-anonymized to build a voice model of you specifically so that speech recognition works better on all the devices using Google Voice APIs. It's being done to improve the way the service works for you).

ocdtrekkie 10y ago
To be CLEAR: You can shut off your voice history being tied to your Google account, but if you use Google Voice Search, Google owns your voice recordings. Turning off the history merely means they permanently keep all recordings of you with anonymous identifiers. Keeping your history on, allegedly, means you can delete them manually, if you remember to, but turning your history off guarantees you can never tell them to delete the recordings, and they still keep them.

nl 10y ago

This is... stupid. SkyHook had originally come up with the idea of wardriving (as it was then called), and building up a global Wi-Fi location database from the Wi-Fi hotspots. Google took out an evaluation licence from SkyHook in 2005, figured out how it worked, and then allegedly copied it. SkyHook sued for IP theft in 2010 and finally settled the case for $90m in 2015. The company was taken over by TruePosition, a Liberty Media subsidiary, in 2014. Well, no. There was a settlement, sure, but it's hard to imagine what IP Google "stole". Does anyone really think it is hard to workout the WiFi location thing? I could do it in a few days, and I don't have a background in signal processing. If behavioural advertising is so bad consumers need an opt-out, how come you can opt out of your ISP's profiling, but not Google’s. How could that be? https://www.google.com/settings/ads/plugin https://www.google.com/settings/ads/plugin Is the author really advocating that ISPs should be allowed to sell ads on traffic they see?

wfo 10y ago
>Is the author really advocating that ISPs should be allowed to sell ads on traffic they see? What? It is blatantly obvious from both the tone and content of the article that the author is advocating that google and the like be banned from selling the same kind of ads ISPs are.

projproj 10y ago

This is the kind of thing I was interested in when I made Googley Eyes [0]. Googley Eyes makes a record of whether the pages I visit do or do not send info about me to Google. Of the 11,571 pages I visited over the last couple of months, Google knows about 52% of them. [0] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/googley-eyes/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/googley-eyes/

bogomipz 10y ago

Can someone explain why Google Maps needs/wants access to a phone's camera?