12 ms·

Google Demanded T-Mobile, Sprint Not Sell Google Fi Customers' Location Data

294 points by tonyztan 8y ago

Despegar 8y ago
I mean sure. Google certainly doesn't want wireless carriers to compete with them in advertising, and everyone having access to location data from smartphones just devalues Google's own access. https://qz.com/1131515/google-collects-android-users-locations-even-when-location-services-are-disabled/ https://qz.com/1131515/google-collects-android-users-locatio...
- chomp 8y ago
  Yep I was just going to say this. Google already sells your location data to advertisers, they are not the hero in this story.
  - cokernel_hacker 8y ago
    Citation needed. Google makes it pretty clear that they do not sell any personal information to advertisers: https://safety.google/privacy/ads-and-data/ https://safety.google/privacy/ads-and-data/
    - rightbyte 8y ago
      But they do. They let them target ads based on your location. It's the same thing as selling personal data. If someone clicks a location targeted ad the advertiser know the persons location. https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/1722043?hl=en https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/1722043?hl=en "Google Ads location targeting allows your ads to appear in the geographic locations that you choose: countries, areas within a country, a radius around a location, or location groups, which can include places of interest, your business locations, or tiered demographics. Location targeting helps you focus your advertising on the areas where you'll find the right customers, and restrict it in areas where you won't. This specific type of targeting could help increase your return on investment (ROI) as a result." In a sense Google is spyware and adware at the same time. It shame these two terms are used less now then they used too, since they lost their meaning when so many apps and your Android phone itself is one.
      - wlesieutre 8y ago
        Letting someone target you with their ad based on your location is not the same thing as from telling them where you are
        ams6110 8y ago
        Or telling them who you are. Google knows, but AFAIK they don't pass that along to the advertiser.
        SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
        And that's important. I'd rather just Google (which isn't great) have that information than literally anyone willing to pay $0.50 for it (which is infinitely worse).
      - Spooky23 8y ago
        How do I use Google Ads to send a tow truck driver to repossess a car when the debtor gets home? That’s what the phone carrier is doing. They monetize location, but from my perspective they do so in a way that’s more respectful of the person, because it’s in their interest to do so. The carriers just sell data points and lack the ability or desire to add value to them.
      - asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
        You're not going to be able to uniquely target someone in a radius, since the minimum is 1km (and I guess Google would artificially widen the radius to prevent uniquely identifying people in sparsely populated areas). You've also got to entice them to click, and that's notoriously difficult.I mean it might work occasionally but it's never going to be the shortest path to surveiling an individual. I would guess that ~nobody is successfully using ads to determine individual people's locations. https://www.en.advertisercommunity.com/t5/Advanced-Features/Minimum-for-Geo-Targeting-by-radius/td-p/336706 https://www.en.advertisercommunity.com/t5/Advanced-Features/... Disclosure: I work at big G, not on ads.
        8y ago
    - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      > Google makes it pretty clear that they do not sell any personal information to advertisers Facebook’s used that like, too.
      - yaacov 8y ago
        Facebook also doesn't sell personal information to advertisers. Both Facebook and Google let advertisers target ads based on location and other personal info, which is not the same thing as actually providing that information to third parties.
        asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
        I suspect JumpCrisscross is referring to the data leak scandals via the API that have been in the news in the last year. Of course, this was also not Facebook selling information. Rather, it was Facebook allowing users to share information about their friends automatically and without the friends' consent via the API. Not great, but not selling user information either.
    - specialp 8y ago
      Yes which is also in their interest because once personal information is sold someone else can use it without going through Google. And they benefit by having more personal information than anyone else. Instead they sell access to advertising on very personal information to you via them as a proxy. I don't see that being that much better and it is almost impossible to avoid. Which is why Google is worried if the government starts cracking down further on this it will hit them too. I don't want Google selling any information about my location or carriers as well directly or indirectly
    - taeric 8y ago
      The catch here, in many ways, is Google owns the advertiser marketplace. Literally, if you want to sell ads on common android settings based on a user's location, you have to do it with Google's data. So, in many ways they don't sell a person's data to advertisers, per se. However, they do control access to people located in a given area. Not sure there is much of a meaningful difference, for most people.
  - jonny_eh 8y ago
    Do you have evidence of this?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - criddell 8y ago
    Google uses that information to serve ads but they don't sell the location data to advertisers.
  - ThrustVectoring 8y ago
    They don't sell your location data, they sell targeting options for specific geographic locations. These are quite different. I'm okay with seeing an ad targeted at anyone within walking distance of a cafe. I'm not okay with my personal location getting sold to whoever thinks they have a valuable enough use for it.
    - greglindahl 8y ago
      Location information leaks from ad targeting. Maybe that doesn't bother you, but it might bother other people. One way it leaks is that an advertiser generally knows what ad campaign a user clicked on. So if that ad campaign was only sent to a particular location, you know where the user was when they clicked on the ad.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - bduerst 8y ago
        Knowing the city that someone clicked your ad in because you targeted the ad in that city isn't 'leaking' location data. These advertiser websites know your city already by the act of you visiting their website.
        rightbyte 8y ago
        It's not city accuracy. It's 1000 m nominal. If you could target a peak or small island and get better effective accuracy, I would not be surprised. "You can choose one of the default radius settings or set a custom radius from a minimum of 1 km to a maximum of 1,000 km." https://support.google.com/richmedia/answer/7279179?hl=en&ref_topic=7409079 https://support.google.com/richmedia/answer/7279179?hl=en&re...
        bduerst 8y ago
        Ad location targeting at best is in a 3 sq. km area, not 1 km. For an average city in the U.S. (like St. Louis) that's an aggregate density of 6,000 people. Knowing that someone in 6,000 people in an area clicked on your coffee ad is not leaking GPS data. Which is probably why bounty hunters are buying the data directly from cell carriers and not running targeted Google ads.
- warent 8y ago
  Yeah, I was going to say... Of course Google made this demand. It's a no-brainer. Not only does it help ensure their competitors aren't profiting from the same data that Google does, but also its a beautiful PR stunt. Not to say that they shouldn't be making this demand, but we should all keep in mind that they're not doing this out of the kindness of their hearts or because it's the ethical thing to do.
  - mtgx 8y ago
    It's actually not so different from seeing Verizon lately "fight for user privacy" by lobbying for bills that would regulate "edge providers"-only, as opposed to lobbying for more general GDPR-style privacy bills that would also affect them. They actually did the opposite previously and fought to get the new FTC chairman to kill the broadband privacy rules "so that they can be on equal footing with Google/Facebook" (right before asking for regulation against Google/Facebook later on). They're all just trying to take their competitors down a few notches. You can't take any company that wants to profit from advertising and data sharing/selling seriously in regards to "fighting for privacy". Google was recently found to be illegally tracking Android users' location, once by "mistake" and the second time they were ignoring their location tracking opt-outs. I don't even remember their reasoning for the second one - but who cares, it was a lie anyway.
  - rhacker 8y ago
    I much much much rather have the companies with a public image to uphold be the keepers of this data. There are soooo many scuzzy people out there. Beyond that, the US is highly due for both public records laws that make sense in the internet age, as well as digital data as a product, needs to have similar laws put in place. To be honest, there really shouldn't be websites out there that know you and your family members and your phone numbers. This stuff should be under lock and key and require special PI licences to get access.
  - Johnny555 8y ago
    also its a beautiful PR stunt. It's only a PR stunt if they publicized it -- it's not a stunt if they did it without making it public. It's a PR win for sure, but that doesn't make it a PR stunt.
- mden 8y ago
  While I understand the sentiment of this comment, isn't it still a good thing to reduce the number of companies with this data? As the companies that track your location goes down, it becomes easier to argue against the other ones doing it. Plus in the very least less places that could leak the data, so it would still be some form of progress.
  - x220 8y ago
    >isn't it still a good thing to reduce the number of companies with this data? Maybe you want multiple companies competing in the same realm rather than Google handling most of the private data and becoming incredibly powerful. Maybe you want to unmask Google's motives so as to not play into their PR strategy.
    - mden 8y ago
      The first point sounds like a defeatist mentality (of course assuming we share the ideal of our location data not being sold and if possible even stored) - at what point would we be able to push companies away from using location data if we are afraid it will make the others more powerful? Sure "unmask" their motives, but it's also worth considering if their actions are a net good or not.
    - danso 8y ago
      When the product involves selling my data to anyone, including bounty hunters, how does having multiple competitors benefit me? Unless I’m the one buying data on someone else?
- andybak 8y ago
  Well, kinda but there's some definite shades of gray here. EDIT - for example I'm not sure the original "Bounty hunters" use case would be facilitated by Google's targeted ads. There's a big gap between "I might be able to target ads at people in a narrow geographical area" and "I can find our where someone lives"
  - pwg 8y ago
    Unfortunately, the data underlying both use cases is the same. In order to target adds "at people in a narrow geographical area" I need to know when those people are in that "narrow geographical area". I.e., I need to know their location to an accuracy good enough to say they are in that "narrow geographical area" (or in this case, their phones location, which is a good proxy for their location). Once I can know "the phones location" to a level of accuracy to make "narrow geographical area" targeted ads profitable, all I have to do is average several overnight readings of 'location' together to get a very good estimate of "where someone lives".
    - ariwilson 8y ago
      I don't understand what you're trying to say. If you already know where someone is, what's the point of using targeted ads to try to locate them? The point of OP is that I can't use targeted ads to answer the question "Person X: where are they?".
      - pwg 8y ago
        I'm saying that the underlying data is the same for both, so allowing one (targeted ads based on location) provides the data necessary for "locate where someone lives/works/hangs out/etc.". With the result that you have to believe that the "targeted ads" provider is both secure and ethical.
        andybak 8y ago
        > With the result that you have to believe that the "targeted ads" provider is both secure and ethical. "Secure enough" and "ethical enough". Plenty of organisations know stuff about me that I'd prefer not to be public or sold to the highest bidder. They might leak it to the government or one day be the target of a megahack - but I file that under either "meh" or under "acceptable risk". But luckily
- specialp 8y ago
  Google is not only worried about the competition, they are more likely more concerned with potential legislation. There is now bipartisan support for legislation to stop this practice. It could soon be next that there is regulation not allowing sale of this info or advertising based on it. Consumers don't expect to be GPS tracked everywhere and have companies profit on that data. Granting location permission to us here means that because we know, but most people would consider giving weather.com access to your location just helpful to get your forecast. Even if it is nestled in the privacy policy. What is next? You download a camera app and then every photo is sent to someone who turns AI on it to learn about you? (could already be happening) Oh but it was in the privacy policy that we may share data with third parties.
  - saalweachter 8y ago
    I would also like to point out that corporations are made of people, many people, with diverse opinions, beliefs and motivations, and that corporate actions frequently arise from multiple decision-makers within a company. So we could come up with a hundred explanations for why Google took this action in this thread, some cynical, some conspiratorial, some altruistic and idealistic. And frankly, half of them would probably be sort-of correct, in that one or more of the decision-makers and their advisers might have considered that point or used it as a basis of their decision. Occasionally you can state cleanly, "Company X did Y because Z", but it's usually more complicated than that. And when it is a case of "Company X did Y because A, B and C and despite I, J, K", you rarely have the information to reason out all of the variables that went into a decision, unless the matter is of such historical importance that you get the 27 books written after the fact based on years of investigation and interviews.
- Ajedi32 8y ago
  The big difference is Google doesn't sell that data to third parties; they just use it for ad targeting. There's a big difference between the company that makes my phone's OS knowing my location, and anyone willing to pay a few bucks knowing the same. (Also it looks like in the situation described in the article you linked, they didn't even use the data for ad targeting: "we never incorporated Cell ID into our network sync system, so that data was immediately discarded, and we updated it to no longer request Cell ID".)
  - thefounder 8y ago
    As far as the advertising is concerned Google is no different(and so FB etc). Anyone with few bucks will know your location or better said will target you with ads. With Google they won't target only by location because as you said Google makes the OS so it knows pretty much everything about you.
    - guelo 8y ago
      That's just not true. There's a reason the bounty hunters don't use Google Ads to locate individuals but they do use AT&T.
      - kaybe 8y ago
        Well, they're going to use whatever is easiest. I don't think this is a strong argument.
    - vkou 8y ago
      Please show me where I can buy thefounder's location data from Google. Which service is that, and how much do I need to pay? I can't find it at https://www.google.com/about/products/ https://www.google.com/about/products/ > better said will target you with ads. The difference between selling location data, and selling ad targeting, is the difference between actively stalking someone, and sending unsolicited spam to "Current resident" at "Every address in a city block". What harm can I inflict to you, via targeted ads? Some. You can think of some creative ways to do so, but it's not a very effective way to inflict harm. What harm can I inflict to you, via buying your location data? A hell of a lot. If you don't trust Google to be a good steward of your data, that's one thing. But let's not conflate selling your data, with selling the ability to mass-advertise to a demographic that includes you.
- inequalitysir 8y ago
  It's nothing. In India Google operates one of the largest Fiber Backed project called Railwire. It's a GOI enterprise, but we can say that officals are effectively bribed to participate in data harvesting schemes and enriching a few officials and one big American company. Google offers this company internet technology expertise in return of harvesting data from railway stations, Users of the ISP called Railwire. Basically, they set your DNS to Google's DNS and Google captures what websites are popular in these specific regions. You can change your DNS obviously but 90% users don't bother and it doesn't save you from deep packet inspection. Google also harvests non Https websites and run deep packet inspection of the traffic. Why would it provide its tech expertise for free?
  - mav3rick 8y ago
    No sources. Just your bias and fantasy stories.
- TACIXAT 8y ago
  I think there is a difference between allowing ads to target an area and selling someone's real time location. I'm against the collection of data generally because that data can always end up in court, but Google has never given people access to my real time location.
  - mschuster91 8y ago
    > but Google has never given people access to my real time location. As long as your Google account remains secured and no one manages to sneak a 2nd Google Account on your phone, that is. Find My Phone is a real time tracker that can be abused e.g. by spouses or stalkers. IIRC only triggering the "audible ring" leaves a trace on the phone (a notification + the obvious sound), to check if someone used FMP for tracking one has to dive deep into the Google Activity Logs. Only way to protect yourself is, of course, to disable GPS on the phone - but what if you want to use Maps or another navigation at the same time?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - sbov 8y ago
      Yeah, if someone hacks my phone/account, then they will have access to my location. If that happens them having my location ranks pretty low on my list of concerns. The recommendation that you could disable GPS is pointless because if they could sneak a 2nd account on it they can also re-enable GPS. Cell phone companies have your location regardless of whether or not GPS is enabled. You don't even need a smart phone.
    - 124816 8y ago
      > IIRC only triggering the "audible ring" leaves a trace on the phone (a notification + the obvious sound), to check if someone used FMP for tracking one has to dive deep into the Google Activity Logs. Not true, a notification is shown whenever the device is located. Though if someone can "sneak a 2nd Google Account" onto your phone they can probably install something more nefarious and less observable.
- ariwilson 8y ago
  Your comment doesn't make any sense. Wireless carriers will always have access to location (based on cell towers) and don't have successful advertising businesses.
  - rapind 8y ago
    Verizon own Yahoo and AOL (Verizon Media). AT&T owns Warner Media. In Canada our two major wireless providers (oligarch) own most of the content providers as well. These giants are most definitely involved in advertising at some level.
- dawnerd 8y ago
  I trust Google a lot more than I trust all of these telcos. I think the big difference is while Google does have pretty much all my info, I know they do and roughly what they do with it. Flip side, I know the cell providers have some of my info but I've no idea what happens to it once it's sold.
- mav3rick 8y ago
  When they don't protest you will say Google sucks. When they do protest you say Google sucks. Bravo.
  - rightbyte 8y ago
    Is there a contradiction?
hcnews 8y ago
Say what you want about Google, its one of the few companies with a moral compass.
- forgottenpass 8y ago
  Dragonfly.
  - hcnews 8y ago
    Dragonfly is a complex topic. The good part about it is that Google is still having a conversation about it and hasn't launched the product once it was publicly known. Note that I was born in India and have different views than American citizens due to having first hand experience with what information can do to transform lives.
  - jonny_eh 8y ago
    What's your point?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - izacus 8y ago
    Google employees risked their jobs to protest against Dragonfly.
    - x220 8y ago
      people with perhaps the highest demand for their labor than any other professionals risked their cushy jobs to influence their company to not be complicit in the censorship of over a billion people with a regime that has committed genocide? that's superhuman dedication right there, good job Google superheroes
      - kevinh 8y ago
        There are other tech companies doing related work in China. Are you saying that the employees of those companies are all complicit with genocidal actions?
kodablah 8y ago
Let's translate PR speak here... > "We have never sold Fi subscribers' location information," In other words "we never directly sold the info, but we never contracted them not to do anything with subscribers' location information". In cases like this, I'd say you are responsible for downstream data use. This isn't some API or hole, this is a large b2b contract and Google should have contractually obligated them to what they could do with their subscribers' data and then sued when they found out it wasn't the case. Why didn't they? Either leverage (Google has to rely on someone), ignorance (doubtful), or apathy (we don't care until the media does). I'm inclined to guess #1 and #3. > a Google spokesperson told Motherboard in a statement late on Thursday. In other words, we had to ask and get a small statement because being open, upfront, honest, etc is not their approach. > "[...] as soon as we heard about this practice, we required our network partners to shut it down as soon as possible [...]" In other words "we have asked, refuse to say whether they agreed, refuse to say when it will happen, and in general are as opaque as those we are deflecting towards". Obviously the cell carriers are bad actors. But deflecting instead of accepting responsibility is bad too. Just admit you have no leg to stand on because you require them, or show us where, in writing, they promised to do this and when. Can't do that? Yeah, because you're not in control and/or your shitty business practices are all behind closed doors. And I don't limit this to Google, this goes with anyone partnering with these companies (especially the more traditionally reticent ones). Be open or get hate.
- ucaetano 8y ago
  > In other words, we had to ask and get a small statement because being open, upfront, honest, etc is not their approach. You don't seem to understand how the press works. When you write an article about a company (or a public figure), you reach out to them for comment.
  - kodablah 8y ago
    Of course I understand. What I'm saying is that comment/information should be available eagerly, by the company, upfront to all of their customers when they found out about this problem without requiring a journalist.
forgottenpass 8y ago
This isn't a win for consumers, it's just the changing boundaries of a turf war. Just like they made a big stink about getting everyone to HTTPS. It wasn't to reduce 3rd party incidental access to your browsing data. It was to retain their 3rd party incidental access while icing out ISPs.
microcolonel 8y ago
As shrewd and cynical as this move is, it is good. With Google you at least have some options for how much you want them to know about your location (even if they rely on dark patterns still to trick average people into reenabling it)
piyush_soni 8y ago
How people's sentiments change here based on who tries to protect their privacy. If it's Apple, "wow, they are god's own people with purest intentions of protecting users' privacy". When Google does it : "Yeah, because they want to sell it themselves so obviously they don't want any competition".
- protomyth 8y ago
  Because its hard to believe Google is protecting our privacy instead of protecting its own turf. Google does that, Apple doesn't. The interesting case would be if Microsoft still had a horse in the game. Given Windows 10 you might see the same reaction.
  - ucaetano 8y ago
    Oh, Apple does when it is required to make money, like in China. They handed over all iCloud data to the government. Companies are companies, they don't "care" about privacy, or anything at all. Google, Apple, Facebook, they're all in this for the money. And that is fine. The sooner we realize that, the better.
    - protomyth 8y ago
      Every company follows the law of each country they are in unless they are criminals. China is a country that affords no privacy.
      - ucaetano 8y ago
        Yes, and faced with the option of making money in China and eliminating any and all user privacy, or not making money in China, Apple chose the former.
        protomyth 8y ago
        Comparing following laws in a country with willingly compromising privacy in a country that does not compel the company to do it is some serious false equivalence.
joobus 8y ago
"... as soon as we heard about this practice, we required our network partners to shut it down as soon as possible.” Google did not say when it made this a requirement. Hey, stop doing that, please?
linsomniac 8y ago
So many people are saying "this is just further evidence of Google doing evil". Unpopular opinion: I feel like this is further evidence of Google being good stewards of user data. There are many reasons Google may want to protect this data: They don't want user backlash from revelations like this, they don't want to have to be legislated, they don't want the PR spend of having to recover from such reporting. Or it could be that it is a company built of people who find such protection to be important.
- jklinger410 8y ago
  Google, data point for data point, is one of the best stewards of data potentially in history. They have more information about you that they choose not to sell than you can even imagine. They literally set the high-bar for PII and other types of tracking data. The only ones who know nearly as much are Telcos and they have been openly selling and sharing all of your info to governments and shady shell corporations since day 1. Edit - Forgot that Facebook is catching up to Google on data and they have been a leaky cup since day one as well.
  - 50656E6973 8y ago
    Selling mass location data to the highest bidder is indeed extremely slimy and even a threat to "national security". But the fact that Google (or any centralized entity) has aggregated so much detailed information on billions of people's personal lives is itself a threat to global/national security. What happens when that data is hacked/leaked and then sold to the highest bidder (who isn't interested in advertising)? That data could be easily weaponized for a shocking/devastating attack the likes of which we have not seen since the first atomic bomb.
    - jklinger410 8y ago
      I agree. I also think we have no idea what hardware manufacturers do, or what is happening with the main cables that the 5 eyes is tapping into. Or what types of high level subpoenas and so-on have been served to Google, that they have acquiesced. It really is a ticking time bomb.
wpdev_63 8y ago
I guess the attorney general is going to stay silent on this?
vanattab 8y ago
Ask HN: Is anyone here happy with Google Fi service? I ordered a Pixel 3 phone directly from Google Fi and signed up for service with Google Fi the end of December. When I ordered the phone it showed up as in stock and estimated I would get my phone by the 4th of January. On the 2nd I got an email saying that the phone shipping was delayed and I would receive an email when it ships. I have heard nothing from google so I called Google Fi support and was told I would get an email from the shipping team letting my know when my phone would ship but that was 2 days ago and have not heard a word from them. I tried following there instructions to cancel the order but when you click the edit order button where they say there is a cancel button none can be found. Anyone else have similar experience? Before I placed my order I was thinking the user experience from Google must be better then T-Mobile or Sprint but I am starting to regret the choice.
- wvaughan 8y ago
  I've been on it for a month and have been really happy with the service. That said I brought my own devices and haven't had to deal with the support team at all.
- zachberger 8y ago
  Note: I'm a Googler but I've used Fi since its inception and log before I was a Googler. These are my thoughts alone. I have had times where it took 45 minutes to reach Fi support which was very frustrating. And looking on the Google Fi subreddit you're not the only one with the shipping issues. That being said, I've only had outstanding interactions with their support department. I had reoccurring problems with my Nexus 6P and they RMAd it several times, overnight. I've found their coverage and WiFi calling to be better here in Mountain View than Verizon. It is hard to beat their experience when travelling internationally, you pay the same as you would domestically, and you have access to the high speed networks. The Fi app is beautiful, and doesn't try to sell you anything. I recently checked out the Verizon app and its 90% ads and 10% useful.
- sjs382 8y ago
  I've been a customer since April 2016 (with a Nexus 5, moto x4 and a Pixel 3 XL) and I've been very happy with Project Fi. Their service and support have been wonderful, including replacing a device twice (with overnight shipping) free of charge, outside of warranty. I haven't had a desire to cancel my service, so I can't help you with the cancel button being missing. :)
annefauvre 8y ago
I hate the idea that we're so beholden to one company's ethical compass over another. It's so clear that we're in need for some sort of regulation to great guideposts around what is ok and what is not... sigh... not like the government will ever get its act together on this.
wtmt 8y ago
Pot, meet kettle. This is rich coming from Google, which doesn't respect users' choices in Android not to collect location data and yet the company wants others not to deal in that data from its other services. Perhaps it's just the worry of enabling other companies to make money off of customer information in any way possible, and wanting to be the only company that should be able to make money from this data. As far as the user is concerned, both are privacy violations and an expression of disrespect to them. The bar on privacy is so low that Google seems to be imagining that its behavior is "better than the others".
kerng 8y ago
This seems more of a do not compete attempt.

294 points by tonyztan 8y ago

I mean sure. Google certainly doesn't want wireless carriers to compete with them in advertising, and everyone having access to location data from smartphones just devalues Google's own access. https://qz.com/1131515/google-collects-android-users-locations-even-when-location-services-are-disabled/ https://qz.com/1131515/google-collects-android-users-locatio...

chomp 8y ago
Yep I was just going to say this. Google already sells your location data to advertisers, they are not the hero in this story.
- cokernel_hacker 8y ago
  Citation needed. Google makes it pretty clear that they do not sell any personal information to advertisers: https://safety.google/privacy/ads-and-data/ https://safety.google/privacy/ads-and-data/
  - rightbyte 8y ago
    But they do. They let them target ads based on your location. It's the same thing as selling personal data. If someone clicks a location targeted ad the advertiser know the persons location. https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/1722043?hl=en https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/1722043?hl=en "Google Ads location targeting allows your ads to appear in the geographic locations that you choose: countries, areas within a country, a radius around a location, or location groups, which can include places of interest, your business locations, or tiered demographics. Location targeting helps you focus your advertising on the areas where you'll find the right customers, and restrict it in areas where you won't. This specific type of targeting could help increase your return on investment (ROI) as a result." In a sense Google is spyware and adware at the same time. It shame these two terms are used less now then they used too, since they lost their meaning when so many apps and your Android phone itself is one.
    - wlesieutre 8y ago
      Letting someone target you with their ad based on your location is not the same thing as from telling them where you are
      - ams6110 8y ago
        Or telling them who you are. Google knows, but AFAIK they don't pass that along to the advertiser.
        SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
        And that's important. I'd rather just Google (which isn't great) have that information than literally anyone willing to pay $0.50 for it (which is infinitely worse).
    - Spooky23 8y ago
      How do I use Google Ads to send a tow truck driver to repossess a car when the debtor gets home? That’s what the phone carrier is doing. They monetize location, but from my perspective they do so in a way that’s more respectful of the person, because it’s in their interest to do so. The carriers just sell data points and lack the ability or desire to add value to them.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
      You're not going to be able to uniquely target someone in a radius, since the minimum is 1km (and I guess Google would artificially widen the radius to prevent uniquely identifying people in sparsely populated areas). You've also got to entice them to click, and that's notoriously difficult.I mean it might work occasionally but it's never going to be the shortest path to surveiling an individual. I would guess that ~nobody is successfully using ads to determine individual people's locations. https://www.en.advertisercommunity.com/t5/Advanced-Features/Minimum-for-Geo-Targeting-by-radius/td-p/336706 https://www.en.advertisercommunity.com/t5/Advanced-Features/... Disclosure: I work at big G, not on ads.
      - 8y ago
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > Google makes it pretty clear that they do not sell any personal information to advertisers Facebook’s used that like, too.
    - yaacov 8y ago
      Facebook also doesn't sell personal information to advertisers. Both Facebook and Google let advertisers target ads based on location and other personal info, which is not the same thing as actually providing that information to third parties.
      - asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
        I suspect JumpCrisscross is referring to the data leak scandals via the API that have been in the news in the last year. Of course, this was also not Facebook selling information. Rather, it was Facebook allowing users to share information about their friends automatically and without the friends' consent via the API. Not great, but not selling user information either.
  - specialp 8y ago
    Yes which is also in their interest because once personal information is sold someone else can use it without going through Google. And they benefit by having more personal information than anyone else. Instead they sell access to advertising on very personal information to you via them as a proxy. I don't see that being that much better and it is almost impossible to avoid. Which is why Google is worried if the government starts cracking down further on this it will hit them too. I don't want Google selling any information about my location or carriers as well directly or indirectly
  - taeric 8y ago
    The catch here, in many ways, is Google owns the advertiser marketplace. Literally, if you want to sell ads on common android settings based on a user's location, you have to do it with Google's data. So, in many ways they don't sell a person's data to advertisers, per se. However, they do control access to people located in a given area. Not sure there is much of a meaningful difference, for most people.
- jonny_eh 8y ago
  Do you have evidence of this?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- criddell 8y ago
  Google uses that information to serve ads but they don't sell the location data to advertisers.
- ThrustVectoring 8y ago
  They don't sell your location data, they sell targeting options for specific geographic locations. These are quite different. I'm okay with seeing an ad targeted at anyone within walking distance of a cafe. I'm not okay with my personal location getting sold to whoever thinks they have a valuable enough use for it.
  - greglindahl 8y ago
    Location information leaks from ad targeting. Maybe that doesn't bother you, but it might bother other people. One way it leaks is that an advertiser generally knows what ad campaign a user clicked on. So if that ad campaign was only sent to a particular location, you know where the user was when they clicked on the ad.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - bduerst 8y ago
      Knowing the city that someone clicked your ad in because you targeted the ad in that city isn't 'leaking' location data. These advertiser websites know your city already by the act of you visiting their website.
      - rightbyte 8y ago
        It's not city accuracy. It's 1000 m nominal. If you could target a peak or small island and get better effective accuracy, I would not be surprised. "You can choose one of the default radius settings or set a custom radius from a minimum of 1 km to a maximum of 1,000 km." https://support.google.com/richmedia/answer/7279179?hl=en&ref_topic=7409079 https://support.google.com/richmedia/answer/7279179?hl=en&re...
        bduerst 8y ago
        Ad location targeting at best is in a 3 sq. km area, not 1 km. For an average city in the U.S. (like St. Louis) that's an aggregate density of 6,000 people. Knowing that someone in 6,000 people in an area clicked on your coffee ad is not leaking GPS data. Which is probably why bounty hunters are buying the data directly from cell carriers and not running targeted Google ads.
warent 8y ago
Yeah, I was going to say... Of course Google made this demand. It's a no-brainer. Not only does it help ensure their competitors aren't profiting from the same data that Google does, but also its a beautiful PR stunt. Not to say that they shouldn't be making this demand, but we should all keep in mind that they're not doing this out of the kindness of their hearts or because it's the ethical thing to do.
- mtgx 8y ago
  It's actually not so different from seeing Verizon lately "fight for user privacy" by lobbying for bills that would regulate "edge providers"-only, as opposed to lobbying for more general GDPR-style privacy bills that would also affect them. They actually did the opposite previously and fought to get the new FTC chairman to kill the broadband privacy rules "so that they can be on equal footing with Google/Facebook" (right before asking for regulation against Google/Facebook later on). They're all just trying to take their competitors down a few notches. You can't take any company that wants to profit from advertising and data sharing/selling seriously in regards to "fighting for privacy". Google was recently found to be illegally tracking Android users' location, once by "mistake" and the second time they were ignoring their location tracking opt-outs. I don't even remember their reasoning for the second one - but who cares, it was a lie anyway.
- rhacker 8y ago
  I much much much rather have the companies with a public image to uphold be the keepers of this data. There are soooo many scuzzy people out there. Beyond that, the US is highly due for both public records laws that make sense in the internet age, as well as digital data as a product, needs to have similar laws put in place. To be honest, there really shouldn't be websites out there that know you and your family members and your phone numbers. This stuff should be under lock and key and require special PI licences to get access.
- Johnny555 8y ago
  also its a beautiful PR stunt. It's only a PR stunt if they publicized it -- it's not a stunt if they did it without making it public. It's a PR win for sure, but that doesn't make it a PR stunt.
mden 8y ago
While I understand the sentiment of this comment, isn't it still a good thing to reduce the number of companies with this data? As the companies that track your location goes down, it becomes easier to argue against the other ones doing it. Plus in the very least less places that could leak the data, so it would still be some form of progress.
- x220 8y ago
  >isn't it still a good thing to reduce the number of companies with this data? Maybe you want multiple companies competing in the same realm rather than Google handling most of the private data and becoming incredibly powerful. Maybe you want to unmask Google's motives so as to not play into their PR strategy.
  - mden 8y ago
    The first point sounds like a defeatist mentality (of course assuming we share the ideal of our location data not being sold and if possible even stored) - at what point would we be able to push companies away from using location data if we are afraid it will make the others more powerful? Sure "unmask" their motives, but it's also worth considering if their actions are a net good or not.
  - danso 8y ago
    When the product involves selling my data to anyone, including bounty hunters, how does having multiple competitors benefit me? Unless I’m the one buying data on someone else?
andybak 8y ago
Well, kinda but there's some definite shades of gray here. EDIT - for example I'm not sure the original "Bounty hunters" use case would be facilitated by Google's targeted ads. There's a big gap between "I might be able to target ads at people in a narrow geographical area" and "I can find our where someone lives"
- pwg 8y ago
  Unfortunately, the data underlying both use cases is the same. In order to target adds "at people in a narrow geographical area" I need to know when those people are in that "narrow geographical area". I.e., I need to know their location to an accuracy good enough to say they are in that "narrow geographical area" (or in this case, their phones location, which is a good proxy for their location). Once I can know "the phones location" to a level of accuracy to make "narrow geographical area" targeted ads profitable, all I have to do is average several overnight readings of 'location' together to get a very good estimate of "where someone lives".
  - ariwilson 8y ago
    I don't understand what you're trying to say. If you already know where someone is, what's the point of using targeted ads to try to locate them? The point of OP is that I can't use targeted ads to answer the question "Person X: where are they?".
    - pwg 8y ago
      I'm saying that the underlying data is the same for both, so allowing one (targeted ads based on location) provides the data necessary for "locate where someone lives/works/hangs out/etc.". With the result that you have to believe that the "targeted ads" provider is both secure and ethical.
      - andybak 8y ago
        > With the result that you have to believe that the "targeted ads" provider is both secure and ethical. "Secure enough" and "ethical enough". Plenty of organisations know stuff about me that I'd prefer not to be public or sold to the highest bidder. They might leak it to the government or one day be the target of a megahack - but I file that under either "meh" or under "acceptable risk". But luckily
specialp 8y ago
Google is not only worried about the competition, they are more likely more concerned with potential legislation. There is now bipartisan support for legislation to stop this practice. It could soon be next that there is regulation not allowing sale of this info or advertising based on it. Consumers don't expect to be GPS tracked everywhere and have companies profit on that data. Granting location permission to us here means that because we know, but most people would consider giving weather.com access to your location just helpful to get your forecast. Even if it is nestled in the privacy policy. What is next? You download a camera app and then every photo is sent to someone who turns AI on it to learn about you? (could already be happening) Oh but it was in the privacy policy that we may share data with third parties.
- saalweachter 8y ago
  I would also like to point out that corporations are made of people, many people, with diverse opinions, beliefs and motivations, and that corporate actions frequently arise from multiple decision-makers within a company. So we could come up with a hundred explanations for why Google took this action in this thread, some cynical, some conspiratorial, some altruistic and idealistic. And frankly, half of them would probably be sort-of correct, in that one or more of the decision-makers and their advisers might have considered that point or used it as a basis of their decision. Occasionally you can state cleanly, "Company X did Y because Z", but it's usually more complicated than that. And when it is a case of "Company X did Y because A, B and C and despite I, J, K", you rarely have the information to reason out all of the variables that went into a decision, unless the matter is of such historical importance that you get the 27 books written after the fact based on years of investigation and interviews.
Ajedi32 8y ago
The big difference is Google doesn't sell that data to third parties; they just use it for ad targeting. There's a big difference between the company that makes my phone's OS knowing my location, and anyone willing to pay a few bucks knowing the same. (Also it looks like in the situation described in the article you linked, they didn't even use the data for ad targeting: "we never incorporated Cell ID into our network sync system, so that data was immediately discarded, and we updated it to no longer request Cell ID".)
- thefounder 8y ago
  As far as the advertising is concerned Google is no different(and so FB etc). Anyone with few bucks will know your location or better said will target you with ads. With Google they won't target only by location because as you said Google makes the OS so it knows pretty much everything about you.
  - guelo 8y ago
    That's just not true. There's a reason the bounty hunters don't use Google Ads to locate individuals but they do use AT&T.
    - kaybe 8y ago
      Well, they're going to use whatever is easiest. I don't think this is a strong argument.
  - vkou 8y ago
    Please show me where I can buy thefounder's location data from Google. Which service is that, and how much do I need to pay? I can't find it at https://www.google.com/about/products/ https://www.google.com/about/products/ > better said will target you with ads. The difference between selling location data, and selling ad targeting, is the difference between actively stalking someone, and sending unsolicited spam to "Current resident" at "Every address in a city block". What harm can I inflict to you, via targeted ads? Some. You can think of some creative ways to do so, but it's not a very effective way to inflict harm. What harm can I inflict to you, via buying your location data? A hell of a lot. If you don't trust Google to be a good steward of your data, that's one thing. But let's not conflate selling your data, with selling the ability to mass-advertise to a demographic that includes you.
inequalitysir 8y ago
It's nothing. In India Google operates one of the largest Fiber Backed project called Railwire. It's a GOI enterprise, but we can say that officals are effectively bribed to participate in data harvesting schemes and enriching a few officials and one big American company. Google offers this company internet technology expertise in return of harvesting data from railway stations, Users of the ISP called Railwire. Basically, they set your DNS to Google's DNS and Google captures what websites are popular in these specific regions. You can change your DNS obviously but 90% users don't bother and it doesn't save you from deep packet inspection. Google also harvests non Https websites and run deep packet inspection of the traffic. Why would it provide its tech expertise for free?
- mav3rick 8y ago
  No sources. Just your bias and fantasy stories.
TACIXAT 8y ago
I think there is a difference between allowing ads to target an area and selling someone's real time location. I'm against the collection of data generally because that data can always end up in court, but Google has never given people access to my real time location.
- mschuster91 8y ago
  > but Google has never given people access to my real time location. As long as your Google account remains secured and no one manages to sneak a 2nd Google Account on your phone, that is. Find My Phone is a real time tracker that can be abused e.g. by spouses or stalkers. IIRC only triggering the "audible ring" leaves a trace on the phone (a notification + the obvious sound), to check if someone used FMP for tracking one has to dive deep into the Google Activity Logs. Only way to protect yourself is, of course, to disable GPS on the phone - but what if you want to use Maps or another navigation at the same time?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - sbov 8y ago
    Yeah, if someone hacks my phone/account, then they will have access to my location. If that happens them having my location ranks pretty low on my list of concerns. The recommendation that you could disable GPS is pointless because if they could sneak a 2nd account on it they can also re-enable GPS. Cell phone companies have your location regardless of whether or not GPS is enabled. You don't even need a smart phone.
  - 124816 8y ago
    > IIRC only triggering the "audible ring" leaves a trace on the phone (a notification + the obvious sound), to check if someone used FMP for tracking one has to dive deep into the Google Activity Logs. Not true, a notification is shown whenever the device is located. Though if someone can "sneak a 2nd Google Account" onto your phone they can probably install something more nefarious and less observable.
ariwilson 8y ago
Your comment doesn't make any sense. Wireless carriers will always have access to location (based on cell towers) and don't have successful advertising businesses.
- rapind 8y ago
  Verizon own Yahoo and AOL (Verizon Media). AT&T owns Warner Media. In Canada our two major wireless providers (oligarch) own most of the content providers as well. These giants are most definitely involved in advertising at some level.
dawnerd 8y ago
I trust Google a lot more than I trust all of these telcos. I think the big difference is while Google does have pretty much all my info, I know they do and roughly what they do with it. Flip side, I know the cell providers have some of my info but I've no idea what happens to it once it's sold.
mav3rick 8y ago
When they don't protest you will say Google sucks. When they do protest you say Google sucks. Bravo.
- rightbyte 8y ago
  Is there a contradiction?

hcnews 8y ago

Say what you want about Google, its one of the few companies with a moral compass.

forgottenpass 8y ago
Dragonfly.
- hcnews 8y ago
  Dragonfly is a complex topic. The good part about it is that Google is still having a conversation about it and hasn't launched the product once it was publicly known. Note that I was born in India and have different views than American citizens due to having first hand experience with what information can do to transform lives.
- jonny_eh 8y ago
  What's your point?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- izacus 8y ago
  Google employees risked their jobs to protest against Dragonfly.
  - x220 8y ago
    people with perhaps the highest demand for their labor than any other professionals risked their cushy jobs to influence their company to not be complicit in the censorship of over a billion people with a regime that has committed genocide? that's superhuman dedication right there, good job Google superheroes
    - kevinh 8y ago
      There are other tech companies doing related work in China. Are you saying that the employees of those companies are all complicit with genocidal actions?

kodablah 8y ago

Let's translate PR speak here... > "We have never sold Fi subscribers' location information," In other words "we never directly sold the info, but we never contracted them not to do anything with subscribers' location information". In cases like this, I'd say you are responsible for downstream data use. This isn't some API or hole, this is a large b2b contract and Google should have contractually obligated them to what they could do with their subscribers' data and then sued when they found out it wasn't the case. Why didn't they? Either leverage (Google has to rely on someone), ignorance (doubtful), or apathy (we don't care until the media does). I'm inclined to guess #1 and #3. > a Google spokesperson told Motherboard in a statement late on Thursday. In other words, we had to ask and get a small statement because being open, upfront, honest, etc is not their approach. > "[...] as soon as we heard about this practice, we required our network partners to shut it down as soon as possible [...]" In other words "we have asked, refuse to say whether they agreed, refuse to say when it will happen, and in general are as opaque as those we are deflecting towards". Obviously the cell carriers are bad actors. But deflecting instead of accepting responsibility is bad too. Just admit you have no leg to stand on because you require them, or show us where, in writing, they promised to do this and when. Can't do that? Yeah, because you're not in control and/or your shitty business practices are all behind closed doors. And I don't limit this to Google, this goes with anyone partnering with these companies (especially the more traditionally reticent ones). Be open or get hate.

ucaetano 8y ago
> In other words, we had to ask and get a small statement because being open, upfront, honest, etc is not their approach. You don't seem to understand how the press works. When you write an article about a company (or a public figure), you reach out to them for comment.
- kodablah 8y ago
  Of course I understand. What I'm saying is that comment/information should be available eagerly, by the company, upfront to all of their customers when they found out about this problem without requiring a journalist.

forgottenpass 8y ago

This isn't a win for consumers, it's just the changing boundaries of a turf war. Just like they made a big stink about getting everyone to HTTPS. It wasn't to reduce 3rd party incidental access to your browsing data. It was to retain their 3rd party incidental access while icing out ISPs.

microcolonel 8y ago

As shrewd and cynical as this move is, it is good. With Google you at least have some options for how much you want them to know about your location (even if they rely on dark patterns still to trick average people into reenabling it)

piyush_soni 8y ago

How people's sentiments change here based on who tries to protect their privacy. If it's Apple, "wow, they are god's own people with purest intentions of protecting users' privacy". When Google does it : "Yeah, because they want to sell it themselves so obviously they don't want any competition".

protomyth 8y ago
Because its hard to believe Google is protecting our privacy instead of protecting its own turf. Google does that, Apple doesn't. The interesting case would be if Microsoft still had a horse in the game. Given Windows 10 you might see the same reaction.
- ucaetano 8y ago
  Oh, Apple does when it is required to make money, like in China. They handed over all iCloud data to the government. Companies are companies, they don't "care" about privacy, or anything at all. Google, Apple, Facebook, they're all in this for the money. And that is fine. The sooner we realize that, the better.
  - protomyth 8y ago
    Every company follows the law of each country they are in unless they are criminals. China is a country that affords no privacy.
    - ucaetano 8y ago
      Yes, and faced with the option of making money in China and eliminating any and all user privacy, or not making money in China, Apple chose the former.
      - protomyth 8y ago
        Comparing following laws in a country with willingly compromising privacy in a country that does not compel the company to do it is some serious false equivalence.

joobus 8y ago

"... as soon as we heard about this practice, we required our network partners to shut it down as soon as possible.” Google did not say when it made this a requirement. Hey, stop doing that, please?

linsomniac 8y ago

So many people are saying "this is just further evidence of Google doing evil". Unpopular opinion: I feel like this is further evidence of Google being good stewards of user data. There are many reasons Google may want to protect this data: They don't want user backlash from revelations like this, they don't want to have to be legislated, they don't want the PR spend of having to recover from such reporting. Or it could be that it is a company built of people who find such protection to be important.

jklinger410 8y ago
Google, data point for data point, is one of the best stewards of data potentially in history. They have more information about you that they choose not to sell than you can even imagine. They literally set the high-bar for PII and other types of tracking data. The only ones who know nearly as much are Telcos and they have been openly selling and sharing all of your info to governments and shady shell corporations since day 1. Edit - Forgot that Facebook is catching up to Google on data and they have been a leaky cup since day one as well.
- 50656E6973 8y ago
  Selling mass location data to the highest bidder is indeed extremely slimy and even a threat to "national security". But the fact that Google (or any centralized entity) has aggregated so much detailed information on billions of people's personal lives is itself a threat to global/national security. What happens when that data is hacked/leaked and then sold to the highest bidder (who isn't interested in advertising)? That data could be easily weaponized for a shocking/devastating attack the likes of which we have not seen since the first atomic bomb.
  - jklinger410 8y ago
    I agree. I also think we have no idea what hardware manufacturers do, or what is happening with the main cables that the 5 eyes is tapping into. Or what types of high level subpoenas and so-on have been served to Google, that they have acquiesced. It really is a ticking time bomb.

wpdev_63 8y ago

I guess the attorney general is going to stay silent on this?

vanattab 8y ago

Ask HN: Is anyone here happy with Google Fi service? I ordered a Pixel 3 phone directly from Google Fi and signed up for service with Google Fi the end of December. When I ordered the phone it showed up as in stock and estimated I would get my phone by the 4th of January. On the 2nd I got an email saying that the phone shipping was delayed and I would receive an email when it ships. I have heard nothing from google so I called Google Fi support and was told I would get an email from the shipping team letting my know when my phone would ship but that was 2 days ago and have not heard a word from them. I tried following there instructions to cancel the order but when you click the edit order button where they say there is a cancel button none can be found. Anyone else have similar experience? Before I placed my order I was thinking the user experience from Google must be better then T-Mobile or Sprint but I am starting to regret the choice.

wvaughan 8y ago
I've been on it for a month and have been really happy with the service. That said I brought my own devices and haven't had to deal with the support team at all.
zachberger 8y ago
Note: I'm a Googler but I've used Fi since its inception and log before I was a Googler. These are my thoughts alone. I have had times where it took 45 minutes to reach Fi support which was very frustrating. And looking on the Google Fi subreddit you're not the only one with the shipping issues. That being said, I've only had outstanding interactions with their support department. I had reoccurring problems with my Nexus 6P and they RMAd it several times, overnight. I've found their coverage and WiFi calling to be better here in Mountain View than Verizon. It is hard to beat their experience when travelling internationally, you pay the same as you would domestically, and you have access to the high speed networks. The Fi app is beautiful, and doesn't try to sell you anything. I recently checked out the Verizon app and its 90% ads and 10% useful.
sjs382 8y ago
I've been a customer since April 2016 (with a Nexus 5, moto x4 and a Pixel 3 XL) and I've been very happy with Project Fi. Their service and support have been wonderful, including replacing a device twice (with overnight shipping) free of charge, outside of warranty. I haven't had a desire to cancel my service, so I can't help you with the cancel button being missing. :)

annefauvre 8y ago

I hate the idea that we're so beholden to one company's ethical compass over another. It's so clear that we're in need for some sort of regulation to great guideposts around what is ok and what is not... sigh... not like the government will ever get its act together on this.

wtmt 8y ago

Pot, meet kettle. This is rich coming from Google, which doesn't respect users' choices in Android not to collect location data and yet the company wants others not to deal in that data from its other services. Perhaps it's just the worry of enabling other companies to make money off of customer information in any way possible, and wanting to be the only company that should be able to make money from this data. As far as the user is concerned, both are privacy violations and an expression of disrespect to them. The bar on privacy is so low that Google seems to be imagining that its behavior is "better than the others".

kerng 8y ago

This seems more of a do not compete attempt.