3 ms·
On the other hand, the Google Timeline only records that your phone was there, so very weak evidence that you were not somewhere else. Especially if no one sees
by remram 4y ago
On the other hand, the Google Timeline only records that your phone was there, so very weak evidence that you were not somewhere else. Especially if no one sees you because it's closed. In addition, many phones (or emulators) will let you fake your GPS position which Google Maps will happily record.
I don't understand why we are so keen on trusting algorithms above people. In this case, algorithms that are not remotely meant to be trusted by third-parties but are meant to keep a history for oneself.
- grrandalf 4y ago========== (IANAL but following up in case it helps anyone else that comes upon this thread: please ignore this thread, including what I write, and make up your own mind) In general, the law isn't as naive and zero-and-one as this commenter seems to assume. e.g., the law formally recognizes this by having different standards of proof in different situations. The basic point is that a timeline that is officially-acknowledged to be arbitrarily (?) filtered CAN end up having negative unintended consequences or increasing the burden, even for the people sought to be "helped". ==== Now let me approach this from a UX design perspective and maybe the other perspective will be easier for me to understand: I'm happy to read your case for why a filtered timeline is the best UX for this situation [Even if I had wanted to make any change, I would have gone for a second-level of confirmation for all timeline screens, like Takeout].
- remram 4y agoI have no idea what you are asking me, especially why we are now talking about "UX".