3 ms·
"By continuing to collect location data, the lawmakers say Google is creating a digital divide, since those who can afford iPhones have greater protection again
by isodev 4y ago
"By continuing to collect location data, the lawmakers say Google is creating a digital divide, since those who can afford iPhones have greater protection against government surveillance."
"[W]e urge you to promptly reform your data collection and retention practices, so that Google no longer collects unnecessary customer location data nor retains any non-aggregate location data about individual customers, whether in identifiable or anonymized form. Google cannot allow its online advertising-focused digital infrastructure to be weaponized against women."
- nonrandomstring 4y agoYes, these are pretty powerful words. Another key phrase avoids gendering. > Senator Ron Wyden and 41 other Democratic lawmakers are urging Google to stop collecting and keeping location data that could be used against people who've had or are seeking abortions. My emphasis: "had" - existing historical data, and people - men who assist or are otherwise involved with (a father perhaps) an unwanted pregnancy. This is what privacy advocates have been talking about for decades and finally we've got an issue that politicians can understand. Basically Google must stop tracking everyone. End of. Of all things I honestly never thought it would have been something like "reproductive rights" that finally drags the dangers of ubiquitous casual surveillance out into the sunlight. Got a daughter? Got a sister? Then this affects you too.
- LatteLazy 4y agoI'd be pretty nervous if I had worked in an abortion clinic in one of those states...
- rootsudo 4y agoWhy? Ex post facto is law, you know.
- LatteLazy 4y agoI'm not a legal scholar but... The law won't stop your life being ruined by 10 years of prosecution where you pay for your defence just so you're eventually exhonerated. And is it an ex post facto law? If Scotus strikes down Roe Vs Wade then abortion was always illegal where it was illegal (depending on exact facts etc) wasn't it? I'm not saying that's how it should be. But a zealous prosecutor running for election in a deep blue state might see easy political points...
- isodev 4y ago> This is what privacy advocates have been talking about for decades and finally we've got an issue that politicians can understand. Hopefully their constituents as well. Progress on topics of surveillance and privacy very rarely reach the level of discussion required for elected officials to consider this as something worthy of their time.