8 ms·

Location history is default off - but in general is useful enough you'll want to turn it on. To have it turned on you would need to * Sign into your google acc

• sneak 5y ago
  Police investigate crimes shortly after the crime (within the location data retention period). This would result in your stored data being used against you to build a case for criminal liability.
  • gretch 5y ago
    Or it could exonerate you
    • AnthonyMouse 5y ago
      If your phone shows up at the scene of a crime, even if you weren't the perpetrator, they use it against you. If your phone shows it wasn't anywhere near the scene of the crime, they claim it's irrelevant because you knew you were going to commit a crime and left your phone somewhere else.
      • throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        If your phone is elsewhere you might not even be interesting enough to be questioned in the first place. Unless the police have reason to suspect specific people then casting drag nets (phone location data, ALPR data, etc) and then sifting through the list of people they get for the most probable suspects is SOP.
        • AnthonyMouse 5y ago
          > If your phone is elsewhere you might not even be interesting enough to be questioned in the first place. The same result obtains when your phone isn't leaking your location data to anyone.
          • chrisseaton 5y ago
            That's the absence of a positive - the person you're replying to is suggesting the presence of a negative. See the difference?
            • AnthonyMouse 5y ago
              The distinction only matters if it has practical effect. Having no data causes you to be uninteresting and they leave you alone. Having data that says your phone wasn't there causes you to be uninteresting and they leave you alone. It's the same result. It's only when your phone is informing on you that you get into trouble, because then when you're unlucky to have been in the vicinity of a crime, you then become interesting and have a bad time even when you're completely innocent.
    • x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
      Exculpatory data doesn't go far in the US, and why on earth would we want to encourage a system based on "Keep your location tracking on so the police can NOT prosecute you for crimes".
    • josefx 5y ago
      If that was possible criminals would just leave their google trackers with a friend, instant alibi.
  • snet0 5y ago
    Alternatively uh... Don't commit crimes?
    • sneak 5y ago
      Criminal liability is a huge risk even for those who don't commit crimes.
    • barnesto 5y ago
      Well, when they start finding crimes to fit the man it doesn't matter, does it? And make no mistake that's what's happening.
      • owlninja 5y ago
        Where?
        • AussieWog93 5y ago
          Sweden, the UK and the US, for a start. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Criminal_investigations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Criminal_invest...
    • robbedpeter 5y ago
      https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE This applies to any private information - the less a third party has of your data, the smaller the attack surface through which incompetence, malice, and coincidence can burn you.
    • moksly 5y ago
      Privacy isn’t about having nothing to hide, it’s about having nothing that you want to share.
    • MichaelBurge 5y ago
      Have you read the entire federal US code? If not, how do you know you haven't been committing crimes?
• aendruk 5y ago
  Detailed location history for personal reference is one of the conveniences that I miss since having minimized my usage of Google products. Any recommendations of alternative solutions?
  • hatware 5y ago
    Home Assistant does a pretty fine job tracking my location, phone battery life may suffer a bit but I don't think that's much of a problem these days.
    • deadmutex 5y ago
      Hmm, interesting. I don't think it works as well as Google Maps for me :(. Which phone/OS are you using?
      • hatware 5y ago
        You'll probably have to tweak the reporting frequency/accuracy in the app, but I've had good results with both Android and iOS on the official apps. Of course the data won't be as detailed as Google's in terms of exact locations (like restaurants, gas stations, etc). That is a small price to pay for owning the data fully.
  • 3np 5y ago
    This can be self-hosted. https://owntracks.org/ https://owntracks.org/
• prox 5y ago
  Define “useful” ? Why would I want this? I am pretty sure I know where I have been without a log somewhere.
  • Tenoke 5y ago
    I use it to quickly check when it was I've went to some random place outside the city, or which town I've passed by. If you don't have another tracker it can be nice to check roughly how long you walked/traveled (e.g. if you bike only occasionally) on a given day or in general at a specific time. I also find it fun to compare my very static 2020 data to my 2019 data for example.
  • judge2020 5y ago
    Not easy if you’re looking for where you went for lunch 3 months ago on a specific day, although you could argue against the general usefulness of knowing that at all.
    • dylan604 5y ago
      Unless you used cash or someone else paid, you can also look at your bank statements.
  • galaxyLogic 5y ago
    You could use it to prove that you can not have been where the crime was committed :-)
    • jrochkind1 5y ago
      Or at least that your phone wasn't... You could probably use it as evidence in court. I don't know how persuasive a judge or jury would find it.
• adrr 5y ago
  Does it even matter when your location is also available from the mobile carriers? Best solution is if you value privacy is not to carry a phone on you.
  • noodlenotes 5y ago
    Cell tower data is much less granular than GPS data collected by apps. Google knows that you were on the same block where a crime was committed, but mobile carriers only know you were in the city or neighborhood.
    • adrr 5y ago
      Mobile carrier location data is near GPS level detail according to the SCOTUS case on it. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf
      • deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      • bhassel 5y ago
        A few quotes from that document (from 2018): Each time a phone connects to a cell site, it generates a time-stamped record known as cell-site location information (CSLI). Wireless carriers collect and store this information for their own business purposes. [...] With just the click of a button, the Government can access each carrier’s deep repository of historical location information at practically no expense. [...] With access to CSLI, the Government can now travel back in time to retrace a person’s whereabouts, subject only to the retention polices of the wireless carriers, which currently maintain records for up to five years. Critically, because location information is continually logged for all of the 400 million devices in the United States — not just those belonging to persons who might happen to come under investigation — this newfound tracking capacity runs against everyone. [...] The Government and JUSTICE KENNEDY contend, however, that the collection of CSLI should be permitted because the data is less precise than GPS information. [...] The location records [...] placed [Carpenter] within a wedge-shaped sector ranging from one-eighth to four square miles. [...] While the records in this case reflect the state of technology at the start of the decade, the accuracy of CSLI is rapidly approaching GPS-level precision. As the number of cell sites has proliferated, the geographic area covered by each cell sector has shrunk, particularly in urban areas. In addition, with new technology measuring the time and angle of signals hitting their towers, wireless carriers already have the capability to pinpoint a phone’s location within 50 meters.
• BugWatch 5y ago
  Anyone knows any scripts or whatnot which would enable the download of current timeline history (with places, establishments and their addresses and all other (meta)data), and import into the alternative open source self-hosted one? Haven't tested Google takeout for that functionality yet, but I kind of doubt it includes that data, probably just GPS coordinates. (I could be wrong, though.)
  • avh02 5y ago
    Last time I exported it included their predictions on likely forms of transport, didn't care about that data so didn't really look in to it but something is definitely included
• GeekyBear 5y ago
  > default is off Default is off for new accounts, not existing accounts, where data is still collected and retained forever. >Location history is opt-in (it wasn’t always). But if it’s turned on, user location data will now automatically be deleted after 18 months. Users of existing accounts will maintain their current settings and need to manually adjust them https://searchengineland.com/google-will-now-auto-delete-your-location-history-after-18-months-336620 https://searchengineland.com/google-will-now-auto-delete-you...
• jrochkind1 5y ago
  I've always left "location history" turned off, never found it useful enough to turn on at all... BUT I don't understand if that's even enough to prevent Google from having the records that can be accessed via warrant. I have "location history" off, but I have "location services" ON, to allow for instance Google Maps to know my current location. THAT is useful enough I'd have trouble doing without it, Google Maps knowing my location (or uber, tinder, etc, things that won't work without it). It's unclear to me leaving "location services" is enough to create the records that can be accessed with a geofence warrant? Even with "location history" off entirely/purged? The article says: "collected from users’ phones when they use an Android device with location data switched on" It doesn't sound like deleting old location history, or even turning off location history entirely will actually limit anything at all for these warrants? Actually turning off location services might, but if you find it inconvenient to even turn off "location history", I don't think you'll like that solution much...
  • throwawayboise 5y ago
    I keep location services off unless I'm actively using Google Maps for navigation (you don't need to turn it on to just look at a map of an area). I'd be more comfortable if my phone had a kill switch for GPS, but it doesn't.
  • sen 5y ago
    It’s fair to assume that every single interaction you have with any major website is logged and stored, and disabling any “history” features etc is only for yourself, eg if you’re on a shared computer. There’s absolutely no way any of the FAANGs would let you use their service without harvesting your data. It’s their reason for existing and any other “features” (like search, maps, video) is just the carrot to get you there.
    • refulgentis 5y ago
      This is both the best organic example of FUD I've seen since Slashdot articles on Microsoft during the Windows/Linux battles 20 years ago, and an excellent example of the black hole nihilism of 2010s HN on data - free, fantastic tools used by billions are reduced to a "carrot" for "data harvesting"
• emmelaich 5y ago
  I like to see my photos if I browse google maps. So that's one thing you'd lose.
• Salgat 5y ago
  The timeline feature is too valuable to me IMO. I can see my entire history spanning back a decade, including where I traveled on vacation in other countries. I don't see the value in deleting that information, no one cares beyond maybe some advertisers and I don't really care if they know my location.
  • garmaine 5y ago
    You don’t care until you do.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • Liquix 5y ago
    "I don't really care if they know my location" is the same as "I don't really care about privacy, I have nothing to hide". The problem with this argument is that this information is being fed into systems such as PRISM and XKEYSCORE, being used to build behavioral profiles of millions of individuals, and then weaponized in order to sell you products and manipulate your political opinions. This is not a conspiracy theory anymore and a great reason to care about privacy.
    • Salgat 5y ago
      I am not saying there aren't good reasons to want that privacy, but as long as I can opt-out (which I can), I have no issue with the trade-offs, they benefit me more than they cost me. This is in stark contrast to someone people who demand universal and mandatory privacy at all costs for everyone, regardless of that.
• titzer 5y ago
  Unfortunately you've fallen for their ruse. Location history in Google applications is not the issue. There is a completely different mechanism built into Google's rootkit on every phone, known as Google Play Services. It collects "anonymous" location data through the operation of Google Location Service (GLS) bundled with Android. It's the thing that provides "high accuracy" location. This is not tied to Google applications, your account, etc. It's in the system software. It is underneath everything and it basically services all location requests from all apps. Because Google believes this is anonymized data, it doesn't feel that you should have well-labeled controls over it. To disable this data collection, you must disable "High accuracy location" in Android systems menus. There's a reason why there is a click-through agreement. It constitutes "consent" in the eyes of Google lawyers.
  • creato 5y ago
    This data must not show up in geofenced warrants though, the topic of this thread? Otherwise, it clearly isn't anonymized (or it isn't useful to law enforcement requesting the data anyways).
    • titzer 5y ago
      High accuracy location data is not difficult to de-anonymize. Your phone sleeps at your house and goes to work with you, two enormous windows of time that generate huge numbers of 4d points that identify you uniquely. It doesn't even need crazy AI/machine learning. > This data must not show up in geofenced warrants though Who knows...the public does not know exactly what Google is required to do to comply with these requests, nor how it implements these "queries". And then there are NSLs, which is a whole other level of batshit-insane secrecy, where Google can't even confirm or deny they've even received a NSL. They only voluntarily offer the number of NSLs they receive annually, not on how many they comply with. Technical details are important. The public cannot reason about this issue when the players intentionally perpetuate our ignorance. This is by design, and that itself is a gross violation of our human rights. Instead, all we have is vague assurances of powerful institutions who do not have our best interest at heart.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]