5 ms·

Lazy journalism. In other words, their code might not cover all cases. Location history is opt in and has to be turned on. I like keeping history of where I am

Lazy journalism. In other words, their code might not cover all cases. Location history is opt in and has to be turned on. I like keeping history of where I am visiting but people can keep it off.

codetrotter 3y ago
> opt in and has to be turned on You make it sound like one has to go out of their way to enable it. Pretty sure it’s one of several steps you click through when you sign up for a Google account. And so most people will probably accept it. Add to that what the article is actually about. Google promised to remove visits to sensitive locations, but the visits were not removed.
- vuln 3y ago
  > Pretty sure it’s one of several steps you click through when you sign up for a Google account. And so most people will probably accept it. So google ASKS you to turn on location data during setup. It’s the consumer’s decision to turn it on and reap the _$benefits_ or keep it off and lose out on _$benefits_. Should there be a secondary and tertiary prompt warning of the exact data collected? Will users just mindlessly click through those too?
  - codetrotter 3y ago
    No it should not ask at all during setup. You should have to manually go into settings and enable it there. That’s what real opt-in is. Not overwhelming the user with a bunch of questions during account setup.
  - ivan_gammel 3y ago
    Is it that simple though? 99% of businesses do not share full context of the use of personal data in a way where user could understand all the unintended consequences of their choice. Does Google explicitly tell users when they opt-in to some feature that it may result in sensitive data eventually exposed?
- BLKNSLVR 3y ago
  It's definitely one of Google's dark(ish) patterns when setting up a new phone. The path of least resistance is the path of maximal data suck.
  - 0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
    I do not know if it is still true, but at one point if you did not enable location sharing, Google Maps would refuse to let you store previous searches/saved locations. Huge degradation in usability to get you to agree to sharing your data.
- stef25 3y ago
  > Google promised to remove visits to sensitive locations Define those locations
ivan_gammel 3y ago
«we will delete that entry from Location History soon after they visit» sounds to me pretty much like an override of opt-in, so users can have a reasonable expectation that location history setting should not matter in such cases.
- minsc_and_boo 3y ago
  And that's what happened in this case, right? The author seems more upset that it tracked his visit to the coffee shop, which to GP's point, they opted into.
HWR_14 3y ago
People specifically want and are opting into "location history that excludes abortion clinics". Not opting into "location history including abortion clinics". Google is tracking them to abortion clinics anyway. This is a violation of their settings. Whether Google failed as a policy or glitch is irrelevant. If they had said "a bug in the checkbox left location history on for everyone who turns it off" that would be unacceptable. "Google privacy setting tested and doesn't work" seems like a pretty important headline to me.
- weird-eye-issue 3y ago
  Huh, where does it say "location history that excludes abortion clinics"? Please show a screenshot from Google settings
  - ivan_gammel 3y ago
    Read the article. It’s explicitly communicated by Google spokesperson. When company official makes such statement it must have similar legal consequences as the TOS, because it’s effectively an advertisement of how their service works.
  - HWR_14 3y ago
    I'm not going to go through the trouble of screenshotting a website. Look at Googles statement[1] among other places. There is no "location history with abortion clinics" option. [1] Location History section of https://blog.google/technology/safety-security/protecting-peoples-privacy-on-health-topics/ https://blog.google/technology/safety-security/protecting-pe...
    - RHSeeger 3y ago
      To lay it out more clearly... Google has stated (in that linked document) that places like abortion clinics will be removed from location history > Some of the places people visit — including medical facilities like counseling centers, domestic violence shelters, abortion clinics, fertility centers, addiction treatment facilities, weight loss clinics, cosmetic surgery clinics, and others — can be particularly personal. Today, we’re announcing that if our systems identify that someone has visited one of these places, we will delete these entries from Location History soon after they visit. This change will take effect in the coming weeks. As such, if you don't opt into having that history kept (which it doesn't appear you can), you should be able to expect it will be deleted. That being said, it does seem to pretty clearly indicate that those locations _will_ be tracked; just that said information will be removed later.
reaperducer 3y ago
Lazy journalism. Lazy coding.

Lazy journalism. In other words, their code might not cover all cases. Location history is opt in and has to be turned on. I like keeping history of where I am visiting but people can keep it off.

codetrotter 3y ago

> opt in and has to be turned on You make it sound like one has to go out of their way to enable it. Pretty sure it’s one of several steps you click through when you sign up for a Google account. And so most people will probably accept it. Add to that what the article is actually about. Google promised to remove visits to sensitive locations, but the visits were not removed.

vuln 3y ago
> Pretty sure it’s one of several steps you click through when you sign up for a Google account. And so most people will probably accept it. So google ASKS you to turn on location data during setup. It’s the consumer’s decision to turn it on and reap the _$benefits_ or keep it off and lose out on _$benefits_. Should there be a secondary and tertiary prompt warning of the exact data collected? Will users just mindlessly click through those too?
- codetrotter 3y ago
  No it should not ask at all during setup. You should have to manually go into settings and enable it there. That’s what real opt-in is. Not overwhelming the user with a bunch of questions during account setup.
- ivan_gammel 3y ago
  Is it that simple though? 99% of businesses do not share full context of the use of personal data in a way where user could understand all the unintended consequences of their choice. Does Google explicitly tell users when they opt-in to some feature that it may result in sensitive data eventually exposed?
BLKNSLVR 3y ago
It's definitely one of Google's dark(ish) patterns when setting up a new phone. The path of least resistance is the path of maximal data suck.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
  I do not know if it is still true, but at one point if you did not enable location sharing, Google Maps would refuse to let you store previous searches/saved locations. Huge degradation in usability to get you to agree to sharing your data.
stef25 3y ago
> Google promised to remove visits to sensitive locations Define those locations

ivan_gammel 3y ago

«we will delete that entry from Location History soon after they visit» sounds to me pretty much like an override of opt-in, so users can have a reasonable expectation that location history setting should not matter in such cases.

minsc_and_boo 3y ago
And that's what happened in this case, right? The author seems more upset that it tracked his visit to the coffee shop, which to GP's point, they opted into.

HWR_14 3y ago

People specifically want and are opting into "location history that excludes abortion clinics". Not opting into "location history including abortion clinics". Google is tracking them to abortion clinics anyway. This is a violation of their settings. Whether Google failed as a policy or glitch is irrelevant. If they had said "a bug in the checkbox left location history on for everyone who turns it off" that would be unacceptable. "Google privacy setting tested and doesn't work" seems like a pretty important headline to me.

weird-eye-issue 3y ago
Huh, where does it say "location history that excludes abortion clinics"? Please show a screenshot from Google settings
- ivan_gammel 3y ago
  Read the article. It’s explicitly communicated by Google spokesperson. When company official makes such statement it must have similar legal consequences as the TOS, because it’s effectively an advertisement of how their service works.
- HWR_14 3y ago
  I'm not going to go through the trouble of screenshotting a website. Look at Googles statement[1] among other places. There is no "location history with abortion clinics" option. [1] Location History section of https://blog.google/technology/safety-security/protecting-peoples-privacy-on-health-topics/ https://blog.google/technology/safety-security/protecting-pe...
  - RHSeeger 3y ago
    To lay it out more clearly... Google has stated (in that linked document) that places like abortion clinics will be removed from location history > Some of the places people visit — including medical facilities like counseling centers, domestic violence shelters, abortion clinics, fertility centers, addiction treatment facilities, weight loss clinics, cosmetic surgery clinics, and others — can be particularly personal. Today, we’re announcing that if our systems identify that someone has visited one of these places, we will delete these entries from Location History soon after they visit. This change will take effect in the coming weeks. As such, if you don't opt into having that history kept (which it doesn't appear you can), you should be able to expect it will be deleted. That being said, it does seem to pretty clearly indicate that those locations _will_ be tracked; just that said information will be removed later.

reaperducer 3y ago

Lazy journalism. Lazy coding.