6 ms·

People around me expressed concerns about Google Location History more frequently than about any other privacy topic in recent years (including Snowden). The vi

People around me expressed concerns about Google Location History more frequently than about any other privacy topic in recent years (including Snowden). The visualisation of their personal data suddenly seems to make always-logged on Facebook users concerned about their privacy. But they don't seem to connect the dots and only see Google here. Yet many other parties already have the same data about them, e.g. mobile carriers. In 2011 a delegate of the German green party asked his wireless carriers for his location data and made a decent visualisation from it, provoking a discussion about metadata: https://www.zeit.de/datenschutz/malte-spitz-vorratsdaten https://www.zeit.de/datenschutz/malte-spitz-vorratsdaten Given that location history is turned off by default and that they, unlike e.g. mobile carriers allow you to delete or download your own data in raw format any time with a button click I am less concerned about it than about other current internet privacy topics. I may be wrong.

javajosh 8y ago
You musn't throw the baby out with the bath water! Carriers require knowledge of where you are to give you service - it is a physical limitation of cell technology. And carriers can and should be limited as to how they use that data (in my view they should not store it at all, only using it for your benefit, but I digress). But to argue that if one company has your location data, then it doesn't matter if ALL companies have your location data, well, this is clearly false.
- ian0 8y ago
  >> Carriers require knowledge of where you are to give you service - it is a physical limitation of cell technology. Quick nitpick. Carriers don't need to know where you are. They just need to know which cells handsets are moving in and out of. To find out where you actually are takes a bit of work. Unfortunately they are more willing to put in the work since personal data has become more valuable.
  - ryandrake 8y ago
    They don’t need to know your precise location, but, for $ome rea$on, they reportedly ¢olle¢t it anyway and $hare it with third partie$: [1] 1: https://www.zdnet.com/article/us-cell-carriers-selling-access-to-real-time-location-data/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/us-cell-carriers-selling-acces...
  - SamReidHughes 8y ago
    It's useful to track location to figure out which locations have spotty cellular coverage.
    - ian0 8y ago
      Useful maybe but expensive (at least in the older networks). Handset reported cell-tower signal strength information (what you need to triangulate) was only accessible to non-core parts of the network to reduce data load on regional links. Typically you can find out which areas have spotty coverage by looking at the dropped call and load stats of base stations (which use directional antennas), looking at osm maps of roads and developments, collecting complaints, as well as occasionally calling out and taking field measurements.
- scrollaway 8y ago
  > But to argue that if one company has your location data, then it doesn't matter if ALL companies have your location data I'm not reading GP arguing that point, but rather that Google Location History already has excellent tooling around it, unlike wireless carriers. Am I the only one who likes Location History?
  - tjoff 8y ago
    > Am I the only one who likes Location History? If I owned the data and it never left my device. Maybe. But it is barely even optional. That is a huge issue.

javajosh 8y ago

You musn't throw the baby out with the bath water! Carriers require knowledge of where you are to give you service - it is a physical limitation of cell technology. And carriers can and should be limited as to how they use that data (in my view they should not store it at all, only using it for your benefit, but I digress). But to argue that if one company has your location data, then it doesn't matter if ALL companies have your location data, well, this is clearly false.

ian0 8y ago
>> Carriers require knowledge of where you are to give you service - it is a physical limitation of cell technology. Quick nitpick. Carriers don't need to know where you are. They just need to know which cells handsets are moving in and out of. To find out where you actually are takes a bit of work. Unfortunately they are more willing to put in the work since personal data has become more valuable.
- ryandrake 8y ago
  They don’t need to know your precise location, but, for $ome rea$on, they reportedly ¢olle¢t it anyway and $hare it with third partie$: [1] 1: https://www.zdnet.com/article/us-cell-carriers-selling-access-to-real-time-location-data/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/us-cell-carriers-selling-acces...
- SamReidHughes 8y ago
  It's useful to track location to figure out which locations have spotty cellular coverage.
  - ian0 8y ago
    Useful maybe but expensive (at least in the older networks). Handset reported cell-tower signal strength information (what you need to triangulate) was only accessible to non-core parts of the network to reduce data load on regional links. Typically you can find out which areas have spotty coverage by looking at the dropped call and load stats of base stations (which use directional antennas), looking at osm maps of roads and developments, collecting complaints, as well as occasionally calling out and taking field measurements.
scrollaway 8y ago
> But to argue that if one company has your location data, then it doesn't matter if ALL companies have your location data I'm not reading GP arguing that point, but rather that Google Location History already has excellent tooling around it, unlike wireless carriers. Am I the only one who likes Location History?
- tjoff 8y ago
  > Am I the only one who likes Location History? If I owned the data and it never left my device. Maybe. But it is barely even optional. That is a huge issue.