3 ms·

Is it really an eye opener? Just because data isn't directly used it is not safe to assume that data is discarded. The cell companies need data on crowd moveme

by ddol 16y ago

Is it really an eye opener? Just because data isn't directly used it is not safe to assume that data is discarded. The cell companies need data on crowd movements[1] to best allocate network resources, to provide a better service. This collective data has to come from a collection of individual datum. Data might need to be collected for all users over a long time frame (years) to correctly identify (for example) how much additional infrastructure is needed near stadiums in football season, how the profile of commuters is changing and what new suburbs are being inhabited. If we want a stable and reliable cell network, we have to allow the cell companies best plan for our usage. [1] http://senseable.mit.edu/realtimerome/ http://senseable.mit.edu/realtimerome/

wladimir 16y ago
Fair enough. If you need usage information, and distribution of usage information, it can very well be anonimized. You don't need to store the (attributable) travel paths of individual users for any longer than it takes to process it (or for the billing period). It's also important to set priorities. I'd rather have more solid privacy protection than up-to-micromanagement optimal planning of capacity. Western Europe has extremely good cell coverage, so I don't think this is much of an issue.
- ddol 16y ago
  Our good coverage is in part due to analysis by the likes of Ericsson on user movements/density. Make the laws harsher on storing location data and we could see a drop in network quality down the road. Having worked as an employee (not contractor) for 3 of the 4 major Irish cell companies I know that data like this is heavily protected internally (I never saw any subscriber location information). There are data protection laws already in place to stop this information leaking. Why do you want to limit the information a company can keep on its users? Are you a fan of this new EU cookie directive?

by ddol 16y ago

wladimir 16y ago

Fair enough. If you need usage information, and distribution of usage information, it can very well be anonimized. You don't need to store the (attributable) travel paths of individual users for any longer than it takes to process it (or for the billing period). It's also important to set priorities. I'd rather have more solid privacy protection than up-to-micromanagement optimal planning of capacity. Western Europe has extremely good cell coverage, so I don't think this is much of an issue.

ddol 16y ago
Our good coverage is in part due to analysis by the likes of Ericsson on user movements/density. Make the laws harsher on storing location data and we could see a drop in network quality down the road. Having worked as an employee (not contractor) for 3 of the 4 major Irish cell companies I know that data like this is heavily protected internally (I never saw any subscriber location information). There are data protection laws already in place to stop this information leaking. Why do you want to limit the information a company can keep on its users? Are you a fan of this new EU cookie directive?