6 ms·

> 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 t

> 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.
- vuln 3y ago
  Corporations are not people. Full stop.
  - Randomizer42 3y ago
    Actually they are. Look up the definition of a corporation.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      People work for a corporation, but a corporation is not a person. It is a legal entity that exists separately and distinct from the people that work for it.
      - brightlancer 3y ago
        Legally, a corporation is a person. It's not a human being, but it is a person. This was not some accident of the law: this was deliberately designed hundreds of years ago and is well understood outside of internet comment sections.
        JohnFen 3y ago
        > Legally, a corporation is a person. It's not a human being, but it is a person. A corporation is a unique legal entity that has a limited subset of the rights of a person, but is not considered the same as a person as a blanket statement. Specifically, a corporation is considered a "person" for the purposes of being able to enter into contracts, being able to sue and be sued, and similar.
  - corndoge 3y ago
    Brave
  - bcrosby95 3y ago
    The people working there definitely are.
  - chinchilla2020 3y ago
    > Full stop. I was going to argue but then he used "Full stop" which pretty much proves his point immediately and irrevocably.
- brightlancer 3y ago
  It applies to corporations all the time. Really big corporations with lots of money and influence (like human beings with lots of money and influence) may avoid responsibility for their actions, but most corporations are _small_ and a best-effort but unintentional misstep of the law can wreck them.
htag 3y ago
So your position is "buyer beware". A company can make untrue claims about their product, and all of the responsibility rests on the consumer. I do not want to be a consumer in that world.
- rattlesnakedave 3y ago
  > Location History: Location History is a Google account setting that is off by default, and for those that turn it on, we provide simple controls like auto-delete so users can easily delete parts, or all, of their data at any time. 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. This seems to be pretty clearly what was happening, as described by the author of the article. *If* the systems detected an abortion clinic visit, it was deleted. No further guarantees were made in the blog post. The same post provides links to documentation on managing your location settings and history, so the user can adjust if they are unhappy with Google's behavior.
  - htag 3y ago
    The blog post spends lot of effort talking about the importance of privacy, and protecting your health data. It shames other organizations for not protecting your privacy. It describes how privacy is a value at Google. Then it announces auto-delete as one of their major features. A journalist reported auto-delete works about half of the time. Strictly speaking I'm unsure if something illegal happened. Ethically it feels like Google is overpromising and making empty political gestures. I just hope no one relies on this feature for their personal or legal safety.
  - junofan 3y ago
    Come on. The VP of whatever signed off on the press release and moved on. There’s a problem here.
coding123 3y ago
This isn't about the journalist, it's about the millions of people they are trying to help that have no freaking clue about what location history means.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  "that have no freaking clue about what location history means" Then maybe they should not activate, what they don't understand? Location history is opt in, you have to enable it by hand. So google overpromising is one thing, but people acting infantil is something else.
- bakugo 3y ago
  > it's about the millions of people they are trying to help that have no freaking clue about what location history means. Maybe they should consider learning to read before complaining about not being able to understand things? Google very clearly explains what it means.
stef25 3y ago
> Personal responsibility has to come into play at some point Amazing that there will be people who find this preposterous. Everything must be perfect. Including free shit that logs your secret abortions.
JKCalhoun 3y ago
We're engineers, we could implement location tracking in a way that only the user being tracked has access to it. Google could store it in the cloud but encrypted with a key Google has no access to. It's irresponsible I think in 2023 to have any technology that is this privacy-vacuous.
- rattlesnakedave 3y ago
  > We're engineers, we could implement location tracking in a way that only the user being tracked has access to it. Google could store it in the cloud but encrypted with a key Google has no access to. Many other features that people find useful wouldn't be possible in this world. If that's the product you want, find an alternative that's not Google maps. I suggest OsmAnd.
nilespotter 3y ago
He's probably not even mad, but rather eager to seize on a flimsy pretext to write a hysterical headline. A simple report to Google would have sufficed.
- SiempreViernes 3y ago
  This is the report to Google though? Or do you suggest he should have turned to googles fabled "customer support"?
  - nilespotter 3y ago
    Yes, whatever their normal reporting avenue is, rather than a hyperbolic not-news article

flangola7 3y ago

Funny how "personal responsibility" always applies to the consumer and never to the developers and corporations.

vuln 3y ago
Corporations are not people. Full stop.
- Randomizer42 3y ago
  Actually they are. Look up the definition of a corporation.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    People work for a corporation, but a corporation is not a person. It is a legal entity that exists separately and distinct from the people that work for it.
    - brightlancer 3y ago
      Legally, a corporation is a person. It's not a human being, but it is a person. This was not some accident of the law: this was deliberately designed hundreds of years ago and is well understood outside of internet comment sections.
      - JohnFen 3y ago
        > Legally, a corporation is a person. It's not a human being, but it is a person. A corporation is a unique legal entity that has a limited subset of the rights of a person, but is not considered the same as a person as a blanket statement. Specifically, a corporation is considered a "person" for the purposes of being able to enter into contracts, being able to sue and be sued, and similar.
- corndoge 3y ago
  Brave
- bcrosby95 3y ago
  The people working there definitely are.
- chinchilla2020 3y ago
  > Full stop. I was going to argue but then he used "Full stop" which pretty much proves his point immediately and irrevocably.
brightlancer 3y ago
It applies to corporations all the time. Really big corporations with lots of money and influence (like human beings with lots of money and influence) may avoid responsibility for their actions, but most corporations are _small_ and a best-effort but unintentional misstep of the law can wreck them.

htag 3y ago

So your position is "buyer beware". A company can make untrue claims about their product, and all of the responsibility rests on the consumer. I do not want to be a consumer in that world.

rattlesnakedave 3y ago
> Location History: Location History is a Google account setting that is off by default, and for those that turn it on, we provide simple controls like auto-delete so users can easily delete parts, or all, of their data at any time. 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. This seems to be pretty clearly what was happening, as described by the author of the article. *If* the systems detected an abortion clinic visit, it was deleted. No further guarantees were made in the blog post. The same post provides links to documentation on managing your location settings and history, so the user can adjust if they are unhappy with Google's behavior.
- htag 3y ago
  The blog post spends lot of effort talking about the importance of privacy, and protecting your health data. It shames other organizations for not protecting your privacy. It describes how privacy is a value at Google. Then it announces auto-delete as one of their major features. A journalist reported auto-delete works about half of the time. Strictly speaking I'm unsure if something illegal happened. Ethically it feels like Google is overpromising and making empty political gestures. I just hope no one relies on this feature for their personal or legal safety.
- junofan 3y ago
  Come on. The VP of whatever signed off on the press release and moved on. There’s a problem here.

coding123 3y ago

This isn't about the journalist, it's about the millions of people they are trying to help that have no freaking clue about what location history means.

hutzlibu 3y ago
"that have no freaking clue about what location history means" Then maybe they should not activate, what they don't understand? Location history is opt in, you have to enable it by hand. So google overpromising is one thing, but people acting infantil is something else.
bakugo 3y ago
> it's about the millions of people they are trying to help that have no freaking clue about what location history means. Maybe they should consider learning to read before complaining about not being able to understand things? Google very clearly explains what it means.

stef25 3y ago

> Personal responsibility has to come into play at some point Amazing that there will be people who find this preposterous. Everything must be perfect. Including free shit that logs your secret abortions.

JKCalhoun 3y ago

We're engineers, we could implement location tracking in a way that only the user being tracked has access to it. Google could store it in the cloud but encrypted with a key Google has no access to. It's irresponsible I think in 2023 to have any technology that is this privacy-vacuous.

rattlesnakedave 3y ago
> We're engineers, we could implement location tracking in a way that only the user being tracked has access to it. Google could store it in the cloud but encrypted with a key Google has no access to. Many other features that people find useful wouldn't be possible in this world. If that's the product you want, find an alternative that's not Google maps. I suggest OsmAnd.

nilespotter 3y ago

He's probably not even mad, but rather eager to seize on a flimsy pretext to write a hysterical headline. A simple report to Google would have sufficed.

SiempreViernes 3y ago
This is the report to Google though? Or do you suggest he should have turned to googles fabled "customer support"?
- nilespotter 3y ago
  Yes, whatever their normal reporting avenue is, rather than a hyperbolic not-news article