4 ms·

One trope on this site that seems to always come up in this discussion is the presumption that if it's good for law enforcement it's a bad thing. But IMO that's

One trope on this site that seems to always come up in this discussion is the presumption that if it's good for law enforcement it's a bad thing. But IMO that's not really how it works. Things are often good or bad depending on how they are used. If this is being used to target dissidents, that's bad. If this is being used to catch rapists and murderers, that's good, provided that their rights aren't being violated.

clouddrover 8y ago
I don't want to be under constant surveillance. I don't want to be monitored all day, every day. I don't want to be tagged, tracked, and catalogued like an animal. It doesn't suit me.
- ars 8y ago
  Then don't turn it on. It's completely optional.
  - dmix 8y ago
    It's not like it's a button you can press to "turn it off". Google's smartphone which dominates the market and has billions of users is funded by a company whose whole business model is tracking + targeting users using the data they provide. Rooting and install another Android OS is no easy task for a normie and comes with it's own maintenance baggage. And even then you have to install Google's proprietary software to even use the App Store. A phone without the app store is a no-go for 99% of people. The solution is allow the customers the option to "turn it on" (especially after they pay $300-900 for a phone) rather than being omnipresent.
    - deadmutex 8y ago
      The article seems to contradict your statement: "Location History is not on by default. Google prompts users to enable it when they are setting up certain services — traffic alerts in Google Maps, for example, or group images tied to location in Google Photos.'
      - rcw4256 8y ago
        My experience contradicts the article's claims. I don't remember ever turning this on, and when I first learned about Location History (years ago), it was already populated with a significant amount of my location history data. Maybe I did technically agree to it in some piece of fine print or other text I didn't notice, but I contest the idea that legitimate, unambiguous user consent was obtained in all cases.
        ars 8y ago
        I also started with Location history years ago and I most definitely do remember Android specifically asking if I want it or not, and I remember checking what turning it on meant. Maybe you don't remember it, but you can look at old version of Android and they all ask very clearly if you want it or not. I guess maybe you didn't understand what was implied? But it was definitely asked.
      - kuzehanka 8y ago
        Google is tracking your location regardless of what settings you toggle how. They have been forced to admit that much. https://thehill.com/policy/technology/433742-google-takes-heat-over-location-tracking-in-privacy-debate https://thehill.com/policy/technology/433742-google-takes-he... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oqw81WF_eqw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oqw81WF_eqw
        shittyadmin 8y ago
        What they're referring to in that article is that when you use Google Maps and as you're following driving directions, their servers get your location so they can compute your route and offer you better routes and notifications about accidents and such along the way. That part I feel I signed up for and is perfectly fine. It's been stretched by media to make it sound nefarious, but no one has shown that they're actually sending location data when history is disabled and you're not using maps.
        kuzehanka 8y ago
    - shittyadmin 8y ago
      > It's not like it's a button you can press to "turn it off". Yes, there's literally a button you can press. No rooting, no reflashing necessary. Google Account -> Data & Personlization -> Location History Done. In fact, as is mentioned in this article even, Google explicitly alerts you when you first enable it and allows you to opt out of it. Once you've done this, the only time Google will get your location is if you use Maps or Location API services.
      - 64738 8y ago
        Google says otherwise. Here is a clip from the Senate Judiciary Committee questioning about a month ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwyuCtbK3qw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwyuCtbK3qw
- asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
  Sure, you don't have to be. Turn the feature off. But convicting a criminal based on evidence they left when they turned it on? What's wrong with that?
  - clouddrover 8y ago
    I do have to be. Data is collected and retained not just by Google but by phone network operators, ISPs, and government agencies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_retention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_retention How do I turn that off?
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
      We're talking about Google's feature here. You have my sympathy with respect to phones. I don't have a solution for you.
    - mirimir 8y ago
      The only solution is to not use your smartphone as a telephone. Directly, anyway. Have a smartphone with no cellular account. Better yet, use a small tablet with no cellular modem. Then do VoIP via WiFi hotspots. And for anonymity, do it through nested VPN chains. I know, that's not a phone, really. But that's life, these days.
- gesman 8y ago
  There are three certain things: Death Taxes Tracking
- Animats 8y ago
  See this intro to "The Prisoner", from 1967.[1] "You are Number Six". "I am not a number. I am a free man!" Laughter. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nW-bFGzNMXw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nW-bFGzNMXw
TallGuyShort 8y ago
I'm all for targeting rapists and murders, but the negative reaction is when it targets everyone, just in case they're a rapist or a murderer or a dissident. Everyone's a criminal if the police can look at you hard enough.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
  The thing is that this system hasn't been used to "target everyone," at least not based on any reporting that I've seen. Yes, a lot of people are allowing Google to capture their location. And yes, law enforcement is able to correlate that with other evidence, like DNA evidence, to narrow down the list of possible suspects. But it hasn't been used to, for example, catch everyone who has been speeding in an area. Being able to find the small number of people in an area who were present when a crime was committed, and correlating that with other information to gain a high probability estimate of the true criminal, is the opposite of dystopian.
  - caprese 8y ago
    I was pleased to see the discretion being used so far in the cases presented in this article. But thats only because the warrants werent sealed by the judge, the state law allowed for public knowledge, the detectives were willing to talk with media, and those available warrants happened to use discretion that is more agreeable so far. So lets not get this confused with something good. All these people know it is a questionable tool and that as soon as they or anyone else in the public sector uses this more broadly then it is going to mess up their ability to use the tool at all.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
      > So lets not get this confused with something good. If I understand your argument, you're saying that, yes, this tool has been used justly so far, but it's still not good, because those using it would have behaved unjustly if there were no consequences for just behavior? I don't really think this argument flies. There are so many other things that have this property and are widely considered to be good things.
jdavis703 8y ago
In the article they jailed an innocent man who probably wouldn’t have been involved if it wasn’t for this system. How many of us can afford to wait in jail for a week or two? I’d probably be fired from my job, loose my house and wind up on the street!

clouddrover 8y ago

I don't want to be under constant surveillance. I don't want to be monitored all day, every day. I don't want to be tagged, tracked, and catalogued like an animal. It doesn't suit me.

ars 8y ago
Then don't turn it on. It's completely optional.
- dmix 8y ago
  It's not like it's a button you can press to "turn it off". Google's smartphone which dominates the market and has billions of users is funded by a company whose whole business model is tracking + targeting users using the data they provide. Rooting and install another Android OS is no easy task for a normie and comes with it's own maintenance baggage. And even then you have to install Google's proprietary software to even use the App Store. A phone without the app store is a no-go for 99% of people. The solution is allow the customers the option to "turn it on" (especially after they pay $300-900 for a phone) rather than being omnipresent.
  - deadmutex 8y ago
    The article seems to contradict your statement: "Location History is not on by default. Google prompts users to enable it when they are setting up certain services — traffic alerts in Google Maps, for example, or group images tied to location in Google Photos.'
    - rcw4256 8y ago
      My experience contradicts the article's claims. I don't remember ever turning this on, and when I first learned about Location History (years ago), it was already populated with a significant amount of my location history data. Maybe I did technically agree to it in some piece of fine print or other text I didn't notice, but I contest the idea that legitimate, unambiguous user consent was obtained in all cases.
      - ars 8y ago
        I also started with Location history years ago and I most definitely do remember Android specifically asking if I want it or not, and I remember checking what turning it on meant. Maybe you don't remember it, but you can look at old version of Android and they all ask very clearly if you want it or not. I guess maybe you didn't understand what was implied? But it was definitely asked.
    - kuzehanka 8y ago
      Google is tracking your location regardless of what settings you toggle how. They have been forced to admit that much. https://thehill.com/policy/technology/433742-google-takes-heat-over-location-tracking-in-privacy-debate https://thehill.com/policy/technology/433742-google-takes-he... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oqw81WF_eqw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oqw81WF_eqw
      - shittyadmin 8y ago
        What they're referring to in that article is that when you use Google Maps and as you're following driving directions, their servers get your location so they can compute your route and offer you better routes and notifications about accidents and such along the way. That part I feel I signed up for and is perfectly fine. It's been stretched by media to make it sound nefarious, but no one has shown that they're actually sending location data when history is disabled and you're not using maps.
        kuzehanka 8y ago
  - shittyadmin 8y ago
    > It's not like it's a button you can press to "turn it off". Yes, there's literally a button you can press. No rooting, no reflashing necessary. Google Account -> Data & Personlization -> Location History Done. In fact, as is mentioned in this article even, Google explicitly alerts you when you first enable it and allows you to opt out of it. Once you've done this, the only time Google will get your location is if you use Maps or Location API services.
    - 64738 8y ago
      Google says otherwise. Here is a clip from the Senate Judiciary Committee questioning about a month ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwyuCtbK3qw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwyuCtbK3qw
asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
Sure, you don't have to be. Turn the feature off. But convicting a criminal based on evidence they left when they turned it on? What's wrong with that?
- clouddrover 8y ago
  I do have to be. Data is collected and retained not just by Google but by phone network operators, ISPs, and government agencies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_retention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_retention How do I turn that off?
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
    We're talking about Google's feature here. You have my sympathy with respect to phones. I don't have a solution for you.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    The only solution is to not use your smartphone as a telephone. Directly, anyway. Have a smartphone with no cellular account. Better yet, use a small tablet with no cellular modem. Then do VoIP via WiFi hotspots. And for anonymity, do it through nested VPN chains. I know, that's not a phone, really. But that's life, these days.
gesman 8y ago
There are three certain things: Death Taxes Tracking
Animats 8y ago
See this intro to "The Prisoner", from 1967.[1] "You are Number Six". "I am not a number. I am a free man!" Laughter. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nW-bFGzNMXw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nW-bFGzNMXw

TallGuyShort 8y ago

I'm all for targeting rapists and murders, but the negative reaction is when it targets everyone, just in case they're a rapist or a murderer or a dissident. Everyone's a criminal if the police can look at you hard enough.

asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
The thing is that this system hasn't been used to "target everyone," at least not based on any reporting that I've seen. Yes, a lot of people are allowing Google to capture their location. And yes, law enforcement is able to correlate that with other evidence, like DNA evidence, to narrow down the list of possible suspects. But it hasn't been used to, for example, catch everyone who has been speeding in an area. Being able to find the small number of people in an area who were present when a crime was committed, and correlating that with other information to gain a high probability estimate of the true criminal, is the opposite of dystopian.
- caprese 8y ago
  I was pleased to see the discretion being used so far in the cases presented in this article. But thats only because the warrants werent sealed by the judge, the state law allowed for public knowledge, the detectives were willing to talk with media, and those available warrants happened to use discretion that is more agreeable so far. So lets not get this confused with something good. All these people know it is a questionable tool and that as soon as they or anyone else in the public sector uses this more broadly then it is going to mess up their ability to use the tool at all.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
    > So lets not get this confused with something good. If I understand your argument, you're saying that, yes, this tool has been used justly so far, but it's still not good, because those using it would have behaved unjustly if there were no consequences for just behavior? I don't really think this argument flies. There are so many other things that have this property and are widely considered to be good things.

jdavis703 8y ago

In the article they jailed an innocent man who probably wouldn’t have been involved if it wasn’t for this system. How many of us can afford to wait in jail for a week or two? I’d probably be fired from my job, loose my house and wind up on the street!