5 ms·

I was reluctant to mention this kind of story in such a sweet context but a few comments have already touched on privacy, so I want to add my two cents. At som

I was reluctant to mention this kind of story in such a sweet context but a few comments have already touched on privacy, so I want to add my two cents. At some point in the past I had the surreal experience of opening a news website and seeing a familiar face on the front page. Not a celebrity, rather a man whose face had been in some small subfolder of my brain for several years. The man had been convicted of serial rape. He would drug victims and record them. He was known to be active within a certain time range from the timestamps of the videos. He repeated this dozens of times and was only caught after the final victim woke up during the act. Authorities appealed for people to come forward with any more information because they believed there could be more victims than were discovered from the videos. By cross-referencing the location data from my phone with the date of an event my Last FM profile and the location of his home, I was able to confirm why he looked familiar. This allowed me to contact the authorities and bring the start of the known time frame significantly forward. (there might be enough information in this post for the perpetrator to be identified - if you do, please keep it to yourself)

3pt14159 4y ago
I took the pragmatic approach and said to myself "look, if Google really wants to know where I am the only way to avoid it is to go into the woods without my phone, so why not?" Then one day the Toronto Transit Commission police thought I was re-using someone elses streetcar fare because of how old it was. I just prefer the streetcar to subways, so I took a longer route. As soon as I pulled out my phone with my location tracking they believed me. I didn't even have to resort to mentioning that I used to work for the TTC as a coop student. I'm not saying I absolutely love all this surveillance-lite stuff, but in an honest breakdown of the tradeoffs for law abiding people living in real democracies or other trustworthy states I fail to see a huge downside at the present time.
- ekianjo 4y ago
- browheresmychar 4y ago
  I'm sure people have opposite stories where instead of a quick dismissal they received attitude, general harassment, or escalation. Small "crimes" like stealing streetcar fare are sought out not because of the crime itself but because the more contact points people have with police the more people are arrested. There is probably an overlap of people who steal streetcar fare and people who are harboring small amounts of narcotics etc etc. Just like in America we're pulled over on the road for the most benign things just so there's contact with the police, which leads to a higher rate of convictions. I was doing self-checkout at Walmart and the dumb machine thought I stole something I had already scanned, lo and behold an officer appears out of the shadows with a general attitude at me as if I was trying to pull off the grand-heist of stealing GREEN ONIONS. I personally think law-abiding people have a right to limited contact with police.
  - throwaway2037 4y ago
    When I stopped driving in the United States, I noticed a sharp drop in interaction with the police. Years would go by with zero interaction. In a car: A few times a year (or month if unlucky). All of those automobile-related interactions are an opportunity for you to make a small mistake that will be blown up by the officer.
    - daveoc64 4y ago
      It seems like the US has a real problem with this. I've been driving for almost 15 years in the UK, and I've only been stopped once by the Police at a heavily advertised drink-driving checkpost set up during the Christmas season.
      - elliottcarlson 4y ago
        I recall a road trip with my father (this is at least 30 years ago), where we went to see my grandfather a few states away. As we drove through some small rural town, we were tailed by the local police for quite some time until we hit the county line and they simply turned around -- my dad told me at the time that they must have been following us to see if they could find a reason to pull us over. As I grew up, and started driving myself, I believe that to have been the case. Quotas for tickets and arrests are definitely a problem in the US.
- flanbiscuit 4y ago
  I turned my location history off when I saw this story https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/google-tracked-his-bike-ride-past-burglarized-home-made-him-n1151761 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/google-tracked-his-bike... headline: "Google tracked his bike ride past a burglarized home. That made him a suspect." HN discussion about it (March 7, 2020): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22511637 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22511637
- feintruled 4y ago
  I think it was Isaac Asimov who wrote an article once speculating on a future utopia where there would be total information freedom and transparency - everyone would know everything about everyone's movements. You could see why it would be appealing - how could there be crime if you knew where everyone was at all times? No body could cheat on their spouse, no child would ever go missing. Seems hopelessly naive now of course but you can see how it would work as a thought experiment. In reality there'll always be a protected class who get to hide their movements.
  - SamBam 4y ago
    I do expect the Right to Privacy will be brought up again to the Supreme Court as a result of making use of location history sometime in the next five years. Indeed, I believe the first use of the "Right to Privacy" was by a lawyer and Louis Brandeis, and future Supreme Court Justice, upset that a journalist had written that one of them attended a wedding. Depending on who brings to suit, I expect it's likely that even the conservative justices will suddenly agree with a right to privacy.
  - tialaramex 4y ago
    > No body could cheat on their spouse Nobody could cheat secretly. They'd still cheat. The framing story in my favourite comic issue "Winter's Tale" has more or less exactly this be scenario, "I was going to tell you" he says. The people in Winter's Tale and most of that run (Gaiman's Golden Age of Miracleman) live in a utopia, but they're still people and they still cheat and lie. The larger point of the story is that children won't fill a hole in your heart.
  - brabel 4y ago
    Which world would you prefer? A world where not a single crime would go unpunshied, and hence serious crime would probably disappear forever, but with the risk of the Government or criminals (would they still exist??) abusing the data for their own advantage? Or a world as we have today where a lot of crime happens everywhere and where a criminal just needs to be smart enough to never get caught? I am not sure the answer is as straightforward as everyone seems to think here. I think I would be willing to at least run an experiment about this (perhaps China is already doing it).
- nebulousthree 4y ago
  That's because you haven't been the victim of fabricated narratives supported by your tracked locations as data in order to imprison or blackmail you. This is just a rehashed "if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about". Thank you to the other commenter for pointing out the banality of the "crime".
  - asdfdelta 4y ago
    That's really making the assumption that this didn't happen before data tracking..... And that argument is much, much older than the digital age. If anything, extra tracking helps exonerate more than without it (false imprisonment, etc) https://time.com/wrongly-convicted/ https://time.com/wrongly-convicted/
    - iinnPP 4y ago
      Every extra data point is an opportunity for abuse, not exoneration. When you are facing wrongful conviction, the assumption is that you are unable to present evidence in an effective manner anyway.
    - nebulousthree 4y ago
      I don't see how historicity weakens the argument. The reality is that data can be used to your benefit or against you. Having more of it doesn't shift the balance one way or another. It just means there's more opportunities to take it one way or the other. Your times article also makes no mention of location tracking raising exoneration rates. It talks most prominently about how cheap faulty field drug tests contributed significantly to the improper convictions.
      - nearbuy 4y ago
        If you're innocent, more information about what happened is more likely to exonerate you than incriminate you. If you're guilty, the extra data is more likely to incriminate you.
  - aendruk 4y ago
- masterof0 4y ago
  The downside is, the government have 0 business knowing where I am, or where I go. I don't need to justify my right for privacy. And the argument of "if you are innocent, you have nothing to fear" is lame, and toxic, that is like saying, you don't drive that much, is ok to force you to take the bus.
throwaway10622 4y ago
That's awful. I'm sorry that happened to you.

3pt14159 4y ago

I took the pragmatic approach and said to myself "look, if Google really wants to know where I am the only way to avoid it is to go into the woods without my phone, so why not?" Then one day the Toronto Transit Commission police thought I was re-using someone elses streetcar fare because of how old it was. I just prefer the streetcar to subways, so I took a longer route. As soon as I pulled out my phone with my location tracking they believed me. I didn't even have to resort to mentioning that I used to work for the TTC as a coop student. I'm not saying I absolutely love all this surveillance-lite stuff, but in an honest breakdown of the tradeoffs for law abiding people living in real democracies or other trustworthy states I fail to see a huge downside at the present time.

ekianjo 4y ago
browheresmychar 4y ago
I'm sure people have opposite stories where instead of a quick dismissal they received attitude, general harassment, or escalation. Small "crimes" like stealing streetcar fare are sought out not because of the crime itself but because the more contact points people have with police the more people are arrested. There is probably an overlap of people who steal streetcar fare and people who are harboring small amounts of narcotics etc etc. Just like in America we're pulled over on the road for the most benign things just so there's contact with the police, which leads to a higher rate of convictions. I was doing self-checkout at Walmart and the dumb machine thought I stole something I had already scanned, lo and behold an officer appears out of the shadows with a general attitude at me as if I was trying to pull off the grand-heist of stealing GREEN ONIONS. I personally think law-abiding people have a right to limited contact with police.
- throwaway2037 4y ago
  When I stopped driving in the United States, I noticed a sharp drop in interaction with the police. Years would go by with zero interaction. In a car: A few times a year (or month if unlucky). All of those automobile-related interactions are an opportunity for you to make a small mistake that will be blown up by the officer.
  - daveoc64 4y ago
    It seems like the US has a real problem with this. I've been driving for almost 15 years in the UK, and I've only been stopped once by the Police at a heavily advertised drink-driving checkpost set up during the Christmas season.
    - elliottcarlson 4y ago
      I recall a road trip with my father (this is at least 30 years ago), where we went to see my grandfather a few states away. As we drove through some small rural town, we were tailed by the local police for quite some time until we hit the county line and they simply turned around -- my dad told me at the time that they must have been following us to see if they could find a reason to pull us over. As I grew up, and started driving myself, I believe that to have been the case. Quotas for tickets and arrests are definitely a problem in the US.
flanbiscuit 4y ago
I turned my location history off when I saw this story https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/google-tracked-his-bike-ride-past-burglarized-home-made-him-n1151761 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/google-tracked-his-bike... headline: "Google tracked his bike ride past a burglarized home. That made him a suspect." HN discussion about it (March 7, 2020): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22511637 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22511637
feintruled 4y ago
I think it was Isaac Asimov who wrote an article once speculating on a future utopia where there would be total information freedom and transparency - everyone would know everything about everyone's movements. You could see why it would be appealing - how could there be crime if you knew where everyone was at all times? No body could cheat on their spouse, no child would ever go missing. Seems hopelessly naive now of course but you can see how it would work as a thought experiment. In reality there'll always be a protected class who get to hide their movements.
- SamBam 4y ago
  I do expect the Right to Privacy will be brought up again to the Supreme Court as a result of making use of location history sometime in the next five years. Indeed, I believe the first use of the "Right to Privacy" was by a lawyer and Louis Brandeis, and future Supreme Court Justice, upset that a journalist had written that one of them attended a wedding. Depending on who brings to suit, I expect it's likely that even the conservative justices will suddenly agree with a right to privacy.
- tialaramex 4y ago
  > No body could cheat on their spouse Nobody could cheat secretly. They'd still cheat. The framing story in my favourite comic issue "Winter's Tale" has more or less exactly this be scenario, "I was going to tell you" he says. The people in Winter's Tale and most of that run (Gaiman's Golden Age of Miracleman) live in a utopia, but they're still people and they still cheat and lie. The larger point of the story is that children won't fill a hole in your heart.
- brabel 4y ago
  Which world would you prefer? A world where not a single crime would go unpunshied, and hence serious crime would probably disappear forever, but with the risk of the Government or criminals (would they still exist??) abusing the data for their own advantage? Or a world as we have today where a lot of crime happens everywhere and where a criminal just needs to be smart enough to never get caught? I am not sure the answer is as straightforward as everyone seems to think here. I think I would be willing to at least run an experiment about this (perhaps China is already doing it).
nebulousthree 4y ago
That's because you haven't been the victim of fabricated narratives supported by your tracked locations as data in order to imprison or blackmail you. This is just a rehashed "if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about". Thank you to the other commenter for pointing out the banality of the "crime".
- asdfdelta 4y ago
  That's really making the assumption that this didn't happen before data tracking..... And that argument is much, much older than the digital age. If anything, extra tracking helps exonerate more than without it (false imprisonment, etc) https://time.com/wrongly-convicted/ https://time.com/wrongly-convicted/
  - iinnPP 4y ago
    Every extra data point is an opportunity for abuse, not exoneration. When you are facing wrongful conviction, the assumption is that you are unable to present evidence in an effective manner anyway.
  - nebulousthree 4y ago
    I don't see how historicity weakens the argument. The reality is that data can be used to your benefit or against you. Having more of it doesn't shift the balance one way or another. It just means there's more opportunities to take it one way or the other. Your times article also makes no mention of location tracking raising exoneration rates. It talks most prominently about how cheap faulty field drug tests contributed significantly to the improper convictions.
    - nearbuy 4y ago
      If you're innocent, more information about what happened is more likely to exonerate you than incriminate you. If you're guilty, the extra data is more likely to incriminate you.
- aendruk 4y ago
masterof0 4y ago
The downside is, the government have 0 business knowing where I am, or where I go. I don't need to justify my right for privacy. And the argument of "if you are innocent, you have nothing to fear" is lame, and toxic, that is like saying, you don't drive that much, is ok to force you to take the bus.

throwaway10622 4y ago

That's awful. I'm sorry that happened to you.