6 ms·

my guess is most people appreciate the convenience of location tagging but haven't thought through the implications of having that info in the image file itself

my guess is most people appreciate the convenience of location tagging but haven't thought through the implications of having that info in the image file itself. on the other hand, when you share a picture you're already sharing your coarse location. anyone who recognizes the scene will know roughly where you were. of course, there's a big difference between "this is the NYC skyline" and "this is the NYC skyline as viewed from the northeast corner of my apartment building".

neartheplain 6y ago
>anyone who recognizes the scene will know roughly where you were. Sure, for outdoor photos. GPS data may also be included on photos taken indoors, such as nudes, in which case EXIF data leaks the subject’s home address.
iggldiggl 6y ago
> of course, there's a big difference between "this is the NYC skyline" and "this is the NYC skyline as viewed from the northeast corner of my apartment building". Depending on the picture, you might still be able to go from one to the other even without the benefit of exact location information – in fact that's what I've been doing for old pictures in my photo library. As my backlog is somewhat more than a decade, of course I don't remember where exactly each and every picture had been taken, but when geotagging them there's of course still the temptation to place the location marker as accurately as possible. Given a rough location from my memory, Google Earth, GeoSetter's field-of-view on a map/aerial photography display and occasionally a sun angle calculator I've been able to pinpoint the relatively exact location of quite a number of photos.