4 ms·

> I can guarantee you Google protects this data more securely than your carrier does. This sentence is completely insane in this context, did we read the same

by urda 9y ago

> I can guarantee you Google protects this data more securely than your carrier does. This sentence is completely insane in this context, did we read the same article? Google should not have access to this data, and it sure as hell shouldn't be sending it up to itself when disabled by the end-user. It's absurd that you typed that out for an article titled "Google collects cell tower info even if location services are disabled". In what world does one operate in if you consider this as "Google protects this data more securely than your carrier does"? Your carrier is supposed to have this information (and in fact needs it), it's a complete privacy violation for Google to be collecting it though.

aeorgnoieang 9y ago
They were making a related but cogent point about the security implications of Google having this info versus the cell phone carriers. It did not, directly or even by implication, contradict anything you wrote – you're right that this is a privacy violation, but I didn't interpret the comment to which you replied as denying that.
- urda 9y ago
  It absolutely is relevant, let's take a moment and review the key point: > I can guarantee you Google protects this data more securely than your carrier does Part of acting as a company who cares about user's data includes not collecting data that is sensitive. This is especially true with location data, and is extra especially true when you do it anyway without the user's permission. Acting like this proves to me, the end user, that google does not guarantee to protect this data more securely than my carrier. I can see how one could be easily confused by the original comment, but if you take a moment and review it again you'll see it rings even more true now.
  - elefanten 9y ago
    No, you're still misunderstanding. The comment is only comparing how well secured the data by whoever holds it. The claim is ONLY arguing that Google would secure the data once they have it better than carriers would. It is not arguing that Google is better at "acting as a company who cares about user's data".

by urda 9y ago

aeorgnoieang 9y ago

They were making a related but cogent point about the security implications of Google having this info versus the cell phone carriers. It did not, directly or even by implication, contradict anything you wrote – you're right that this is a privacy violation, but I didn't interpret the comment to which you replied as denying that.

urda 9y ago
It absolutely is relevant, let's take a moment and review the key point: > I can guarantee you Google protects this data more securely than your carrier does Part of acting as a company who cares about user's data includes not collecting data that is sensitive. This is especially true with location data, and is extra especially true when you do it anyway without the user's permission. Acting like this proves to me, the end user, that google does not guarantee to protect this data more securely than my carrier. I can see how one could be easily confused by the original comment, but if you take a moment and review it again you'll see it rings even more true now.
- elefanten 9y ago
  No, you're still misunderstanding. The comment is only comparing how well secured the data by whoever holds it. The claim is ONLY arguing that Google would secure the data once they have it better than carriers would. It is not arguing that Google is better at "acting as a company who cares about user's data".