6 ms·

Not defending google but this guy has manually enabled one of the most privacy sensitivity features on Google, the Maps location history timeline (which is grea

Not defending google but this guy has manually enabled one of the most privacy sensitivity features on Google, the Maps location history timeline (which is great if you like it and want to trade your privacy), and then expects google to be perfect at detecting specifically "personal" visits like clinics and deleting them automatically, proving that this new "feature" kinda works but not very well as it misses multiple cases (although who knows if developers accounted for someone visiting 20 abortion clinics one after the other the same day, and waiting in the parking..., What if developers account for GPS signal loss, wifi network identification or other location information??)

Phemist 3y ago
Why can google not store history only locally... there is imo only marginal utility for having this synched to the cloud..
- ocdtrekkie 3y ago
  It has marginal utility for the user. It has significant utility for Google.
  - Phemist 3y ago
    Fair.. "you are the product" strikes again
  - rrdharan 3y ago
    I use at least 9 devices (four laptops, a desktop, watch, two phones, tablet) with Maps on them and very much appreciate having the location data synced serverside.
    - mmsnberbar66 3y ago
      why do you have 4 laptops?
      - DiggyJohnson 3y ago
        It's very easy for me to imagine having two work devices and two personal devices. Imagine GP is a contractor and a gamer: 1. Work laptop for contracting firm 2. Work laptop for client firm 3. Personal laptop for general computing 4. Linux machine for development of side projects, tinkering, etc. OR a gaming laptop
        mmsnberbar66 3y ago
        Sure! it was just an honest question from a new engineer on the market :) I only have 2 myself
        rrdharan 3y ago
        Good guess but it’s slightly different: - 1 work laptop at office - 1 work laptop at home - 1 work laptop in second home - 1 work desktop in second home - 1 personal/shared laptop (mostly primary home) - 1 personal/shared desktop (primary home) I regularly travel between the office and the two homes (all are transit / bike accessible from each other). I don’t like carrying laptops between places and don’t work while commuting.
    - prepend 3y ago
      You can sync data in a privacy preserving way. For example, chrome sync passwords but google doesn’t have access to them. Apple syncs health data and have access. Etc etc. Sync is not a reason to have server side access to location data.
  - hoffs 3y ago
    No it's not, for majority of people cloud backups are definitely a bonus
    - minsc_and_boo 3y ago
      Post cloud boom, the expectation is cloud syncing, not the exception.
htag 3y ago
The journalist refers to the feature to delete sensitive locations as a "Privacy promise". Google never uses the word promise, but it does market this feature as something that can keep your health data secure. The user shouldn't have to understand how technology works, or have a grasp about how hard the problem is. This is Google over promising and under delivering. This tech is not applicable for the use cases Google bills it as. Users will always hate over promising and under delivering. This puts people at personal risk, erodes their faith in tech, and provides an image of political grandstanding. (Washington should protect you, but Google will is a major message [0]). I'm defending this guy. He saw Google make a promise it couldn't keep, ran real world tests, and told the world where they fell short. I wish there was more we could do to keep tech companies accountable for failed promises, but this is the bare minimum. [0] https://blog.google/technology/safety-security/protecting-peoples-privacy-on-health-topics/ https://blog.google/technology/safety-security/protecting-pe...
- Spivak 3y ago
  This is 100% the right take. Thinking about it from the perspective of, "well I'm in tech and I know we're all bad at our jobs[1] so of course this will have these failure modes" for a thing that is an actual security feature is totally unacceptable. It cost them nothing to do nothing on this front. There could have been an incognito mode for location history and a "delete the last 4 hours" that, while manual, would have worked 100%. [1] https://xkcd.com/2030/ https://xkcd.com/2030/
- rattlesnakedave 3y ago
  > The user shouldn't have to understand how technology works, or have a grasp about how hard the problem is. They enabled location tracking, and got mad when their location was tracked. You can really only do so much from the product side here. Personal responsibility has to come into play at some point.
  - flangola7 3y ago
    Funny how "personal responsibility" always applies to the consumer and never to the developers and corporations.
ajsnigrutin 3y ago
Also, are those purely abortion clinics? Can't you get just a checkup or birth control or anything else there? Othrwise I agree with the comment... if you want a large corporation to have your location data, don't complain if that large corporation has your location data.
- bertil 3y ago
  I suspect that having visited one of those places could be considered proof of wrongdoing in a legal proceeding. I’m not sure that visits are sufficient to lead to incrimination now, but it might be soon — enough that those visits should be considered “sensitive” by any commonly understood acception of the word.
  - prepend 3y ago
    > I suspect that having visited one of those places could be considered proof of wrongdoing in a legal proceeding. No as there are other services- breast exams, birth control, consults, etc. Most people visit planned parenthood for things other than abortions. I think the risk is to cast a net for everyone who visited and then buy deid medical data on those individuals and then subpoena specific records of individuals. So this data is just the first piece since they can’t just read everyone’s medical record.
- flangola7 3y ago
  People have a right to expect a product to work as advertised. Google has been very vocal that they will not record abortion clinic visits. The onus is on corporations.
aaron695 3y ago
[dead]
lallysingh 3y ago
Yup, blame the user.
secondcoming 3y ago
I would be shocked if Google didn't have highly accurate location information of sensitive places like abortion clinics. It also has highly accurate location information either directly from your device or through other lookups. It's highly unlikely they lack the capability to /dev/null this location history. I wonder if Google allow people to run advertising campaigns targeting people in abortion clinic waiting rooms?
- reaperducer 3y ago
  I wonder if Google allow people to run advertising campaigns targeting people in abortion clinic waiting rooms? From a technical standpoint, it should be possible. Years ago, before ad tech became nearly as out-of-control as it is today, lawyers were using either Google or Facebook (I forget which) to target ads at people waiting in hospital emergency rooms.
reaperducer 3y ago
this guy has manually enabled one of the most privacy sensitivity features on Google You must not be bothered by being constantly nagged to turn it on. From TFA: "many Google services — from search to maps — try to get you to hand over location data with the promise of a better experience." Moreover, people only have to give in to Google's pleas and hollow promises once. Five years down the road when they're in a desperate situation, their last thought is going to be "I'd better turn off a trillion-dollar advertising company's invasive tracking of my every movement before I engage in this life-altering behavior."
GeekyBear 3y ago
> Not defending google but this guy has manually enabled one of the most privacy sensitivity features on Google Google told the public that it didn't need to fear that particular feature. From TFA: Google offered a partial solution: It would proactively delete its trove of location data when people visited “particularly personal” places, including abortion clinics, hospitals and shelters.

Phemist 3y ago

Why can google not store history only locally... there is imo only marginal utility for having this synched to the cloud..

ocdtrekkie 3y ago
It has marginal utility for the user. It has significant utility for Google.
- Phemist 3y ago
  Fair.. "you are the product" strikes again
- rrdharan 3y ago
  I use at least 9 devices (four laptops, a desktop, watch, two phones, tablet) with Maps on them and very much appreciate having the location data synced serverside.
  - mmsnberbar66 3y ago
    why do you have 4 laptops?
    - DiggyJohnson 3y ago
      It's very easy for me to imagine having two work devices and two personal devices. Imagine GP is a contractor and a gamer: 1. Work laptop for contracting firm 2. Work laptop for client firm 3. Personal laptop for general computing 4. Linux machine for development of side projects, tinkering, etc. OR a gaming laptop
      - mmsnberbar66 3y ago
        Sure! it was just an honest question from a new engineer on the market :) I only have 2 myself
      - rrdharan 3y ago
        Good guess but it’s slightly different: - 1 work laptop at office - 1 work laptop at home - 1 work laptop in second home - 1 work desktop in second home - 1 personal/shared laptop (mostly primary home) - 1 personal/shared desktop (primary home) I regularly travel between the office and the two homes (all are transit / bike accessible from each other). I don’t like carrying laptops between places and don’t work while commuting.
  - prepend 3y ago
    You can sync data in a privacy preserving way. For example, chrome sync passwords but google doesn’t have access to them. Apple syncs health data and have access. Etc etc. Sync is not a reason to have server side access to location data.
- hoffs 3y ago
  No it's not, for majority of people cloud backups are definitely a bonus
  - minsc_and_boo 3y ago
    Post cloud boom, the expectation is cloud syncing, not the exception.

htag 3y ago

The journalist refers to the feature to delete sensitive locations as a "Privacy promise". Google never uses the word promise, but it does market this feature as something that can keep your health data secure. The user shouldn't have to understand how technology works, or have a grasp about how hard the problem is. This is Google over promising and under delivering. This tech is not applicable for the use cases Google bills it as. Users will always hate over promising and under delivering. This puts people at personal risk, erodes their faith in tech, and provides an image of political grandstanding. (Washington should protect you, but Google will is a major message [0]). I'm defending this guy. He saw Google make a promise it couldn't keep, ran real world tests, and told the world where they fell short. I wish there was more we could do to keep tech companies accountable for failed promises, but this is the bare minimum. [0] https://blog.google/technology/safety-security/protecting-peoples-privacy-on-health-topics/ https://blog.google/technology/safety-security/protecting-pe...

Spivak 3y ago
This is 100% the right take. Thinking about it from the perspective of, "well I'm in tech and I know we're all bad at our jobs[1] so of course this will have these failure modes" for a thing that is an actual security feature is totally unacceptable. It cost them nothing to do nothing on this front. There could have been an incognito mode for location history and a "delete the last 4 hours" that, while manual, would have worked 100%. [1] https://xkcd.com/2030/ https://xkcd.com/2030/
rattlesnakedave 3y ago
> The user shouldn't have to understand how technology works, or have a grasp about how hard the problem is. They enabled location tracking, and got mad when their location was tracked. You can really only do so much from the product side here. Personal responsibility has to come into play at some point.
- flangola7 3y ago
  Funny how "personal responsibility" always applies to the consumer and never to the developers and corporations.

ajsnigrutin 3y ago

Also, are those purely abortion clinics? Can't you get just a checkup or birth control or anything else there? Othrwise I agree with the comment... if you want a large corporation to have your location data, don't complain if that large corporation has your location data.

bertil 3y ago
I suspect that having visited one of those places could be considered proof of wrongdoing in a legal proceeding. I’m not sure that visits are sufficient to lead to incrimination now, but it might be soon — enough that those visits should be considered “sensitive” by any commonly understood acception of the word.
- prepend 3y ago
  > I suspect that having visited one of those places could be considered proof of wrongdoing in a legal proceeding. No as there are other services- breast exams, birth control, consults, etc. Most people visit planned parenthood for things other than abortions. I think the risk is to cast a net for everyone who visited and then buy deid medical data on those individuals and then subpoena specific records of individuals. So this data is just the first piece since they can’t just read everyone’s medical record.
flangola7 3y ago
People have a right to expect a product to work as advertised. Google has been very vocal that they will not record abortion clinic visits. The onus is on corporations.

aaron695 3y ago

[dead]

lallysingh 3y ago

Yup, blame the user.

secondcoming 3y ago

I would be shocked if Google didn't have highly accurate location information of sensitive places like abortion clinics. It also has highly accurate location information either directly from your device or through other lookups. It's highly unlikely they lack the capability to /dev/null this location history. I wonder if Google allow people to run advertising campaigns targeting people in abortion clinic waiting rooms?

reaperducer 3y ago
I wonder if Google allow people to run advertising campaigns targeting people in abortion clinic waiting rooms? From a technical standpoint, it should be possible. Years ago, before ad tech became nearly as out-of-control as it is today, lawyers were using either Google or Facebook (I forget which) to target ads at people waiting in hospital emergency rooms.

reaperducer 3y ago

this guy has manually enabled one of the most privacy sensitivity features on Google You must not be bothered by being constantly nagged to turn it on. From TFA: "many Google services — from search to maps — try to get you to hand over location data with the promise of a better experience." Moreover, people only have to give in to Google's pleas and hollow promises once. Five years down the road when they're in a desperate situation, their last thought is going to be "I'd better turn off a trillion-dollar advertising company's invasive tracking of my every movement before I engage in this life-altering behavior."

GeekyBear 3y ago

> Not defending google but this guy has manually enabled one of the most privacy sensitivity features on Google Google told the public that it didn't need to fear that particular feature. From TFA: Google offered a partial solution: It would proactively delete its trove of location data when people visited “particularly personal” places, including abortion clinics, hospitals and shelters.