6 ms·

Ok, say someone has a complete database of my location sampled at 10 minute intervals over the past few years. What could they do with that information that wou

by imgabe 12y ago

Ok, say someone has a complete database of my location sampled at 10 minute intervals over the past few years. What could they do with that information that would be harmful to me?

CapitalistCartr 12y ago
Seriously? Now I know everyone with whom you associate. I know everything you like to do. I know how fast you drive. Because you "associated" with several serious felons (you were in the same bar/diner/club as them several times), I can make a case for conspiracy. I have you in the same area as several serious crimes. Perhaps the data source (phone?) isn't exact all the time (it never is), so I have you as being at some places you weren't at. The scene of crimes? I know everyplace you've been for years, so forget running. Have you been speeding in the past few years? A lot? Have you done anything private? Seen doctors/specialists about private medical issues? Have you had an abusive spouse or stalker in your life? I bet they'd love the data.
- imgabe 12y ago
  Do you seriously believe that's how conspiracy cases work? "They were in the same restaurant several times, they must be involved in a criminal conspiracy". I guess every waiter, cook, hostess is also indicted for conspiracy as well, if that's all the evidence they need. Google doesn't issue speeding tickets. If the government were to issue a ticket for every single instance of speeding and even 1% of them contested it, the system would be so clogged with paperwork that it would grind to a complete halt. Personally, no I haven't been to the doctor. People go to doctors, though. That's not a big secret. Are you personally on the lookout for every single person who visits a doctor so you can...make fun of them, I guess? Do you imagine other people are? An abusive spouse/stalker already knows where you live. If they're that motivated and want to find you, they'll wait outside your house. Hiding the information is not a solution to that problem, those people need to be arrested and incarcerated.
  - gwern 12y ago
    > Do you seriously believe that's how conspiracy cases work? "They were in the same restaurant several times, they must be involved in a criminal conspiracy". I guess every waiter, cook, hostess is also indicted for conspiracy as well, if that's all the evidence they need. I think you need to read up on the 'domestic terrorism' cases in the USA and how NSA investigations actually proceed. One fun instance was Clapper giving presentations on a network of possible terrorists all linked together. The link was a pizza place.
    - imgabe 12y ago
      And 100% of the evidence was that they met at the same pizza place? There were no other indications? In that case does it flag every single group of high school friends who regularly get pizza after school, or every group of co-workers who hit up the same happy hour a couple times a week? Sadly, that's not outside the realm of possibility, but that information alone is practically worthless in determining if someone is a terrorist. "Regularly meets with the same people in the same restaurant" describes almost the entire young, single adult population.
      - gwern 12y ago
        > And 100% of the evidence was that they met at the same pizza place? There were no other indications? It was enough for the guys supposedly in charge of protecting us to waste a lot of time staring at graphs. And the 'threat matrix' is full of even more shit than that; I refer you to "Secret without Reason and Costly without Accomplishment: Questioning the National Security Agency’s Metadata Program", Mueller & Stewart 2014 http://politicalscience.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/NSAshane3.pdf http://politicalscience.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/NSAshane3.p... for that and other sorry details of 'the war on terror'. Seeing the sausage made is never pretty. > In that case does it flag every single group of high school friends who regularly get pizza after school, or every group of co-workers who hit up the same happy hour a couple times a week? No, I'm sure some racial and religious profiling was part of the special top-secret sauce which selected that particular pizza joint...
seanflyon 12y ago
Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?
- bduerst 12y ago
  Isn't that a McCarthyism problem, not a data problem?
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    In a perfect society, full of perfect people, I don't think we would have much use for privacy. In the society we live in privacy is valuable.
    - bduerst 12y ago
      Isn't that the same crappy argument for banning torrents? Should we stop people from using cars, because vehicles are used by drunk drivers?
      - seanflyon 12y ago
        It's a bad argument for banning things but it is a perfectly correct argument for pointing out the the real cost of something. Cars kill people. We should not pretend that cars are safe, we should make a rational decision and come to the conclusion that the cost is worth the freedom of transportation. You'r argument would be a valid analogy if I were suggesting that we make it illegal to tell anyone your location (or any other "private" information). I am only pointing out that privacy is valuable and we should count the cost if and when we give it up.
  - joeclark77 12y ago
    Interesting thought. If McCarthy could have subpoena'd Google, he'd have been able to prove that they were all commies and then people wouldn't be unfairly smearing his name today.
VLM 12y ago
Not very creative, eh? 1) The computer never lies and the false positive rate is 0%. So if you walked past a shop that sells weed grow lights enough times, you'll be on a list and some night at 2am they'll smash open your door, shoot your dog, and throw a grenade into your babies crib. This is "OK" because it usually only happens to poor minorities and the computer never lies and there is no such thing as a false positive. Even just street crime is an issue. 2) Times change. Being on a list as living as a Jew in Germany in 1923 not a huge problem. In 1943 being on that old list is not so good. Walk past a mosque on a daily basis in '90 no big deal, in '10 maybe not so good when they look at the historical records to Keep Us Safe From Terror (tm). Its almost unpredictable who we'll be punishing / torturing in a couple decades. Probably not reasonably well off white men, but everyone else is either nervous or ignorantly not nervous.
Semaphor 12y ago
Build a very complete profile of you, sell that data to advertisers. Maybe tell insurance companies that you frequently do high risk activities. Sell the information that you were at the beach when you took a sick day. This list could go on and on. Another thing: Imagine someone would get HD video of your room while you slept in it. I can't imagine what use it would be but I absolutely would not like to be filmed like that.
- kllrnohj 12y ago
  > Build a very complete profile of you, sell that data to advertisers. Why would advertisters spend money for a profile of you? Answer: they don't. This market just doesn't exist. It's fabricated. It's a fantasy to pretend your trivial existence is worth big bucks. It isn't. Advertisers do not want your information. They want your money. Google uses your information to try and match you up with relevant advertisers. This is how ad networks work, a form of online dating basically. Your information does not go to the advertiser. Your information on its own is not worth anything. > Maybe tell insurance companies that you frequently do high risk activities. Sell the information that you were at the beach when you took a sick day. This list could go on and on. Who would spend money on this and how the hell would that market ever come into existence, much less in secret, such that everyone does freak the hell out? Do you think Google sends employees out to secret hotel rooms with members of random stores to swap dirty secrets about you or something? Remember, advertisers are places you go to buy things. Not evil supervillans.
  - Semaphor 12y ago
    I replied to a hypothetical question and pulled some random ideas out of my arse.
Carrok 12y ago
So you're saying you're ok with me knowing everywhere you've been for the past few years? I'm going to assume then that you don't visit strip clubs, bars, 'adult book' stores, the house of your drug dealer, the house of your secret lover, a proctologists office, an OBGYN, an abortion clinic, or a million other places. You may not visit these places, but many others do, and having that information publicly available could be devastating to families, careers, entire lives. On the other end of the spectrum, say you happen to be in the general vicinity of multiple burglaries at the time these crimes are believed to have happened. You're arrested and have to prove your own innocence. Or maybe someone who wants to do you harm looks at your data for patterns, and goes to the right place at the right time to rob, extort, harass, rape, even murder you. In general, I think having your location information public is a terrifying prospect.
- Valseuss 12y ago
  You don't even have to have been there at all. Once an entity holds all your personal information like that, they can just say "Oh you were here, here, here and here at these times" even if it was not true. Who would doubt them? After all they have all the information right? RIGHT? Perfect way to set up someone you don't like.
  - imgabe 12y ago
    If the government has devolved to the point that we have to worry about them framing people unjustly, we have FAR, FAR bigger problems than a database of location information. Hiding the information in that scenario is, at best, a temporary band aid. The appropriate fix is limiting the power of the government and requiring strict and transparent conditions on when and why someone can be arrested.
    - billiam 12y ago
      I'm sorry, I just don't follow this slippery slope argument. We have lots of examples of the government abusing their use of online information. For the haves, we have the still-minor indignities of the no-fly list and targeting certain political stripes for IRS audits. For the have-nots, it is terrorism fusion data centers, predatory civil forfeiture and, jeez, a lot of the criminal justice system. So that world does exist now. Many of these excesses have been driven by "limiting the size of government" by defunding local governments and relying on private information brokers (license plate readers, etc), rather than passing better laws.
oconnore 12y ago
...because you have nothing to hide? https://duckduckgo.com/?q=privacy+nothing+to+hide https://duckduckgo.com/?q=privacy+nothing+to+hide You are asking your question from a position of luck (that you, in particular, can afford to be an open book) and mostly at the wrong level. It's not about how it will affect you, it's about how it will affect him/her, and us. Improving your privacy helps people who have legitimate things to hide avoid unwarranted suspicion, and it also makes our society better. Secrets are sometimes bad, but are far more often good -- allowing us to have functional foreign relations, strong individual rights, and the ability to communicate freely about ideas central to our republic. No good will ever come of the ability to Google: "people unlikely to toe the line".
- imgabe 12y ago
  I phrased the question in terms of me, but you have no idea who I am or what I might have to hide, so please imagine it in the general sense of what any given person might have to fear from a database of their location information.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
a3n 12y ago
> What could they do with that information that would be harmful to me? Harmful to someone, and it's different for different people at different times. Also, a piece of information that may be benign today could be harmful tomorrow with a change in the political environment. Maybe you visited a specialist, or were on the same floor as a specialist, and got extra attention from your health insurance as a result. Maybe you were standing near someone being investigated, making you a person of interest and therefor subject to prosecutorial bullying. Maybe you're trying to overthrow a government and would like to do it in safety for as long as possible. Maybe you just like your privacy.
- imgabe 12y ago
  If you visited the specialist, your health insurance would already know because they'd be paying the bill. Now, I'm not an expert on medical billing, but I can't imagine how "being on the same floor" as a specialist could result in any sort of invoice. I'm not sure what you mean by "extra attention". Why would the insurance company use that information? Surely any given specialist is around hundreds of people every day he or she isn't treating, so that particular data point has no use in predicting who is going to receive care from that specialist. Standing near someone - same argument as above. In the rare case that you are actively involved in overthrowing a corrupt government, then yes, it is important to keep yourself hidden from that government. But privacy in general does nothing to prevent the corrupt government from coming to power in the first place. If anything we need less privacy - for the government. People don't "just like" things for no reason. I think it's worth examining why we like privacy and what needs it fulfills, and what other ways we might be able to fulfill those needs. It seems to me that digital information is just too easy to distribute for us to have any hope of containing it. We are better off assuming any available information is going to be made public and finding the best way to proceed from there.
samspot 12y ago
Call me paranoid, but my biggest concern is that things I do that are acceptable today may become illegal or persecution-worthy in the future. I recently read a story about a mother who was executed for her religious beliefs. The attackers knew she had been visiting a country with a different majority faith and used that information to single her out. That kind of thing could never happen in the West... right? I hate to bring in Nazi Germany, but imagine how much more effective they could have been at rounding up people if they had access to Google's tracking data. Full Disclosure: I am not actively avoiding any tracking, but I think about possible abuses a lot.

by imgabe 12y ago

Ok, say someone has a complete database of my location sampled at 10 minute intervals over the past few years. What could they do with that information that would be harmful to me?

CapitalistCartr 12y ago

Seriously? Now I know everyone with whom you associate. I know everything you like to do. I know how fast you drive. Because you "associated" with several serious felons (you were in the same bar/diner/club as them several times), I can make a case for conspiracy. I have you in the same area as several serious crimes. Perhaps the data source (phone?) isn't exact all the time (it never is), so I have you as being at some places you weren't at. The scene of crimes? I know everyplace you've been for years, so forget running. Have you been speeding in the past few years? A lot? Have you done anything private? Seen doctors/specialists about private medical issues? Have you had an abusive spouse or stalker in your life? I bet they'd love the data.

imgabe 12y ago
Do you seriously believe that's how conspiracy cases work? "They were in the same restaurant several times, they must be involved in a criminal conspiracy". I guess every waiter, cook, hostess is also indicted for conspiracy as well, if that's all the evidence they need. Google doesn't issue speeding tickets. If the government were to issue a ticket for every single instance of speeding and even 1% of them contested it, the system would be so clogged with paperwork that it would grind to a complete halt. Personally, no I haven't been to the doctor. People go to doctors, though. That's not a big secret. Are you personally on the lookout for every single person who visits a doctor so you can...make fun of them, I guess? Do you imagine other people are? An abusive spouse/stalker already knows where you live. If they're that motivated and want to find you, they'll wait outside your house. Hiding the information is not a solution to that problem, those people need to be arrested and incarcerated.
- gwern 12y ago
  > Do you seriously believe that's how conspiracy cases work? "They were in the same restaurant several times, they must be involved in a criminal conspiracy". I guess every waiter, cook, hostess is also indicted for conspiracy as well, if that's all the evidence they need. I think you need to read up on the 'domestic terrorism' cases in the USA and how NSA investigations actually proceed. One fun instance was Clapper giving presentations on a network of possible terrorists all linked together. The link was a pizza place.
  - imgabe 12y ago
    And 100% of the evidence was that they met at the same pizza place? There were no other indications? In that case does it flag every single group of high school friends who regularly get pizza after school, or every group of co-workers who hit up the same happy hour a couple times a week? Sadly, that's not outside the realm of possibility, but that information alone is practically worthless in determining if someone is a terrorist. "Regularly meets with the same people in the same restaurant" describes almost the entire young, single adult population.
    - gwern 12y ago
      > And 100% of the evidence was that they met at the same pizza place? There were no other indications? It was enough for the guys supposedly in charge of protecting us to waste a lot of time staring at graphs. And the 'threat matrix' is full of even more shit than that; I refer you to "Secret without Reason and Costly without Accomplishment: Questioning the National Security Agency’s Metadata Program", Mueller & Stewart 2014 http://politicalscience.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/NSAshane3.pdf http://politicalscience.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/NSAshane3.p... for that and other sorry details of 'the war on terror'. Seeing the sausage made is never pretty. > In that case does it flag every single group of high school friends who regularly get pizza after school, or every group of co-workers who hit up the same happy hour a couple times a week? No, I'm sure some racial and religious profiling was part of the special top-secret sauce which selected that particular pizza joint...

seanflyon 12y ago

Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?

bduerst 12y ago
Isn't that a McCarthyism problem, not a data problem?
- seanflyon 12y ago
  In a perfect society, full of perfect people, I don't think we would have much use for privacy. In the society we live in privacy is valuable.
  - bduerst 12y ago
    Isn't that the same crappy argument for banning torrents? Should we stop people from using cars, because vehicles are used by drunk drivers?
    - seanflyon 12y ago
      It's a bad argument for banning things but it is a perfectly correct argument for pointing out the the real cost of something. Cars kill people. We should not pretend that cars are safe, we should make a rational decision and come to the conclusion that the cost is worth the freedom of transportation. You'r argument would be a valid analogy if I were suggesting that we make it illegal to tell anyone your location (or any other "private" information). I am only pointing out that privacy is valuable and we should count the cost if and when we give it up.
- joeclark77 12y ago
  Interesting thought. If McCarthy could have subpoena'd Google, he'd have been able to prove that they were all commies and then people wouldn't be unfairly smearing his name today.

VLM 12y ago

Not very creative, eh? 1) The computer never lies and the false positive rate is 0%. So if you walked past a shop that sells weed grow lights enough times, you'll be on a list and some night at 2am they'll smash open your door, shoot your dog, and throw a grenade into your babies crib. This is "OK" because it usually only happens to poor minorities and the computer never lies and there is no such thing as a false positive. Even just street crime is an issue. 2) Times change. Being on a list as living as a Jew in Germany in 1923 not a huge problem. In 1943 being on that old list is not so good. Walk past a mosque on a daily basis in '90 no big deal, in '10 maybe not so good when they look at the historical records to Keep Us Safe From Terror (tm). Its almost unpredictable who we'll be punishing / torturing in a couple decades. Probably not reasonably well off white men, but everyone else is either nervous or ignorantly not nervous.

Semaphor 12y ago

Build a very complete profile of you, sell that data to advertisers. Maybe tell insurance companies that you frequently do high risk activities. Sell the information that you were at the beach when you took a sick day. This list could go on and on. Another thing: Imagine someone would get HD video of your room while you slept in it. I can't imagine what use it would be but I absolutely would not like to be filmed like that.

kllrnohj 12y ago
> Build a very complete profile of you, sell that data to advertisers. Why would advertisters spend money for a profile of you? Answer: they don't. This market just doesn't exist. It's fabricated. It's a fantasy to pretend your trivial existence is worth big bucks. It isn't. Advertisers do not want your information. They want your money. Google uses your information to try and match you up with relevant advertisers. This is how ad networks work, a form of online dating basically. Your information does not go to the advertiser. Your information on its own is not worth anything. > Maybe tell insurance companies that you frequently do high risk activities. Sell the information that you were at the beach when you took a sick day. This list could go on and on. Who would spend money on this and how the hell would that market ever come into existence, much less in secret, such that everyone does freak the hell out? Do you think Google sends employees out to secret hotel rooms with members of random stores to swap dirty secrets about you or something? Remember, advertisers are places you go to buy things. Not evil supervillans.
- Semaphor 12y ago
  I replied to a hypothetical question and pulled some random ideas out of my arse.

Carrok 12y ago

So you're saying you're ok with me knowing everywhere you've been for the past few years? I'm going to assume then that you don't visit strip clubs, bars, 'adult book' stores, the house of your drug dealer, the house of your secret lover, a proctologists office, an OBGYN, an abortion clinic, or a million other places. You may not visit these places, but many others do, and having that information publicly available could be devastating to families, careers, entire lives. On the other end of the spectrum, say you happen to be in the general vicinity of multiple burglaries at the time these crimes are believed to have happened. You're arrested and have to prove your own innocence. Or maybe someone who wants to do you harm looks at your data for patterns, and goes to the right place at the right time to rob, extort, harass, rape, even murder you. In general, I think having your location information public is a terrifying prospect.

Valseuss 12y ago
You don't even have to have been there at all. Once an entity holds all your personal information like that, they can just say "Oh you were here, here, here and here at these times" even if it was not true. Who would doubt them? After all they have all the information right? RIGHT? Perfect way to set up someone you don't like.
- imgabe 12y ago
  If the government has devolved to the point that we have to worry about them framing people unjustly, we have FAR, FAR bigger problems than a database of location information. Hiding the information in that scenario is, at best, a temporary band aid. The appropriate fix is limiting the power of the government and requiring strict and transparent conditions on when and why someone can be arrested.
  - billiam 12y ago
    I'm sorry, I just don't follow this slippery slope argument. We have lots of examples of the government abusing their use of online information. For the haves, we have the still-minor indignities of the no-fly list and targeting certain political stripes for IRS audits. For the have-nots, it is terrorism fusion data centers, predatory civil forfeiture and, jeez, a lot of the criminal justice system. So that world does exist now. Many of these excesses have been driven by "limiting the size of government" by defunding local governments and relying on private information brokers (license plate readers, etc), rather than passing better laws.

oconnore 12y ago

...because you have nothing to hide? https://duckduckgo.com/?q=privacy+nothing+to+hide https://duckduckgo.com/?q=privacy+nothing+to+hide You are asking your question from a position of luck (that you, in particular, can afford to be an open book) and mostly at the wrong level. It's not about how it will affect you, it's about how it will affect him/her, and us. Improving your privacy helps people who have legitimate things to hide avoid unwarranted suspicion, and it also makes our society better. Secrets are sometimes bad, but are far more often good -- allowing us to have functional foreign relations, strong individual rights, and the ability to communicate freely about ideas central to our republic. No good will ever come of the ability to Google: "people unlikely to toe the line".

imgabe 12y ago
I phrased the question in terms of me, but you have no idea who I am or what I might have to hide, so please imagine it in the general sense of what any given person might have to fear from a database of their location information.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

a3n 12y ago

> What could they do with that information that would be harmful to me? Harmful to someone, and it's different for different people at different times. Also, a piece of information that may be benign today could be harmful tomorrow with a change in the political environment. Maybe you visited a specialist, or were on the same floor as a specialist, and got extra attention from your health insurance as a result. Maybe you were standing near someone being investigated, making you a person of interest and therefor subject to prosecutorial bullying. Maybe you're trying to overthrow a government and would like to do it in safety for as long as possible. Maybe you just like your privacy.

imgabe 12y ago
If you visited the specialist, your health insurance would already know because they'd be paying the bill. Now, I'm not an expert on medical billing, but I can't imagine how "being on the same floor" as a specialist could result in any sort of invoice. I'm not sure what you mean by "extra attention". Why would the insurance company use that information? Surely any given specialist is around hundreds of people every day he or she isn't treating, so that particular data point has no use in predicting who is going to receive care from that specialist. Standing near someone - same argument as above. In the rare case that you are actively involved in overthrowing a corrupt government, then yes, it is important to keep yourself hidden from that government. But privacy in general does nothing to prevent the corrupt government from coming to power in the first place. If anything we need less privacy - for the government. People don't "just like" things for no reason. I think it's worth examining why we like privacy and what needs it fulfills, and what other ways we might be able to fulfill those needs. It seems to me that digital information is just too easy to distribute for us to have any hope of containing it. We are better off assuming any available information is going to be made public and finding the best way to proceed from there.

samspot 12y ago

Call me paranoid, but my biggest concern is that things I do that are acceptable today may become illegal or persecution-worthy in the future. I recently read a story about a mother who was executed for her religious beliefs. The attackers knew she had been visiting a country with a different majority faith and used that information to single her out. That kind of thing could never happen in the West... right? I hate to bring in Nazi Germany, but imagine how much more effective they could have been at rounding up people if they had access to Google's tracking data. Full Disclosure: I am not actively avoiding any tracking, but I think about possible abuses a lot.