https://qz.com/1131515/google-collects-android-users-locatio...
(Also it looks like in the situation described in the article you linked, they didn't even use the data for ad targeting: "we never incorporated Cell ID into our network sync system, so that data was immediately discarded, and we updated it to no longer request Cell ID".)
In summary, today's Google handles geolocation much better than telecom companies, but the mass of personal data Google collects makes their potential future activity concerning.
Being concerned about how Google could potentially in the future abuse all the data they've collected is a completely valid concern, but they're in no way a larger threat than the companies currently actively exploiting that data.
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/nepxbz/i-gave-a-b...
If it's easier to become a bounty hunter than a barber in Idaho, then almost anyone can track someones location without their knowledge. Odds are the data's being made available in other ways we're not even aware of. And think about the impact on battered wives, someone on the wrong side of a vendetta, hell even road rage. The possibilities are staggering.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2016/09/09/...
> better said will target you with ads.
The difference between selling location data, and selling ad targeting, is the difference between actively stalking someone, and sending unsolicited spam to "Current resident" at "Every address in a city block".
What harm can I inflict to you, via targeted ads? Some. You can think of some creative ways to do so, but it's not a very effective way to inflict harm.
What harm can I inflict to you, via buying your location data? A hell of a lot.
If you don't trust Google to be a good steward of your data, that's one thing. But let's not conflate selling your data, with selling the ability to mass-advertise to a demographic that includes you.
Do you see how people have weaponized social media through data? Google ads might not have been used in a nefarious way just yet but that's likely because it hasn't been thought of.
What about someone showing you an untargeted ad? Where would that fit in?
[1] Or, if you prefer, a remarketing ad, instead. I have very little patience for those.
Remember how everyone got very hot and bothered about precisely this thing happening in a recent U.S. election?
If your problem is that advertising is used to manipulate public opinion - consider - why do we even allow political campaigns and paid speech? Its only purpose is to manipulate public opinion, and to trick stupid voters into voting for bad people.
I'm afraid your position is not entirely ideologically consistent with how we determine what kind of political speech is allowed, and is not allowed.
A while ago there were some fun articles about "how to prank your roommate by creating an audience of 1 and running creepily personalised adverts". What's the smallest demographic you can define on google?
As far as I know, advertisers never receive personal information from Google. Google hordes the personal information and shows advertisements (provided by the advertisers) to their users, using their personal information.
It would be rather contrary to their interests if they were to send their user's data to other parties. They'd lose their commercial leverage and their ad network would become less valuable.
Not to say that they shouldn't be making this demand, but we should all keep in mind that they're not doing this out of the kindness of their hearts or because it's the ethical thing to do.
To be honest, there really shouldn't be websites out there that know you and your family members and your phone numbers. This stuff should be under lock and key and require special PI licences to get access.
It's only a PR stunt if they publicized it -- it's not a stunt if they did it without making it public.
It's a PR win for sure, but that doesn't make it a PR stunt.
They're all just trying to take their competitors down a few notches. You can't take any company that wants to profit from advertising and data sharing/selling seriously in regards to "fighting for privacy".
Google was recently found to be illegally tracking Android users' location, once by "mistake" and the second time they were ignoring their location tracking opt-outs. I don't even remember their reasoning for the second one - but who cares, it was a lie anyway.
Practically speaking, I would think that Google's data is even more susceptible to be found in court and used in that manner than data held and passed on by smaller, relatively unknown apps that lawyers may not even know are installed on locked phones.
You have a good point about there being a larger surface area and more weak points when more than one entity handles data, but I'd also be wary of heavy-handed regulations along that dividing line. I don't think we need to give Google monopoly rights to another big chunk of the ad industry. If a user might prefer an entity other than Google handle certain pieces of their data (maybe they strike a more transparent and rewarding deal than Google), they should have that choice.
[1] https://theintercept.com/2015/11/06/how-law-enforcement-can-...
As long as your Google account remains secured and no one manages to sneak a 2nd Google Account on your phone, that is. Find My Phone is a real time tracker that can be abused e.g. by spouses or stalkers. IIRC only triggering the "audible ring" leaves a trace on the phone (a notification + the obvious sound), to check if someone used FMP for tracking one has to dive deep into the Google Activity Logs.
Only way to protect yourself is, of course, to disable GPS on the phone - but what if you want to use Maps or another navigation at the same time?
Not true, a notification is shown whenever the device is located.
Though if someone can "sneak a 2nd Google Account" onto your phone they can probably install something more nefarious and less observable.
The recommendation that you could disable GPS is pointless because if they could sneak a 2nd account on it they can also re-enable GPS.
Cell phone companies have your location regardless of whether or not GPS is enabled. You don't even need a smart phone.
So, the fact that the providers are keeping tabs on you and storing all that metadata for some government agency (cause you might be dangerous!), just means that they have discovered a way to recoup some of the investment costs. Thank your government, because the phone companies likely wouldn't have been this creative by themselves.
EDIT - for example I'm not sure the original "Bounty hunters" use case would be facilitated by Google's targeted ads. There's a big gap between "I might be able to target ads at people in a narrow geographical area" and "I can find our where someone lives"
In order to target adds "at people in a narrow geographical area" I need to know when those people are in that "narrow geographical area". I.e., I need to know their location to an accuracy good enough to say they are in that "narrow geographical area" (or in this case, their phones location, which is a good proxy for their location).
Once I can know "the phones location" to a level of accuracy to make "narrow geographical area" targeted ads profitable, all I have to do is average several overnight readings of 'location' together to get a very good estimate of "where someone lives".
The point of OP is that I can't use targeted ads to answer the question "Person X: where are they?".
With the result that you have to believe that the "targeted ads" provider is both secure and ethical.
"Secure enough" and "ethical enough". Plenty of organisations know stuff about me that I'd prefer not to be public or sold to the highest bidder. They might leak it to the government or one day be the target of a megahack - but I file that under either "meh" or under "acceptable risk".
But luckily
Maybe you want multiple companies competing in the same realm rather than Google handling most of the private data and becoming incredibly powerful. Maybe you want to unmask Google's motives so as to not play into their PR strategy.
Sure "unmask" their motives, but it's also worth considering if their actions are a net good or not.
Consumers don't expect to be GPS tracked everywhere and have companies profit on that data. Granting location permission to us here means that because we know, but most people would consider giving weather.com access to your location just helpful to get your forecast. Even if it is nestled in the privacy policy. What is next? You download a camera app and then every photo is sent to someone who turns AI on it to learn about you? (could already be happening) Oh but it was in the privacy policy that we may share data with third parties.
So we could come up with a hundred explanations for why Google took this action in this thread, some cynical, some conspiratorial, some altruistic and idealistic. And frankly, half of them would probably be sort-of correct, in that one or more of the decision-makers and their advisers might have considered that point or used it as a basis of their decision.
Occasionally you can state cleanly, "Company X did Y because Z", but it's usually more complicated than that. And when it is a case of "Company X did Y because A, B and C and despite I, J, K", you rarely have the information to reason out all of the variables that went into a decision, unless the matter is of such historical importance that you get the 27 books written after the fact based on years of investigation and interviews.
In Canada our two major wireless providers (oligarch) own most of the content providers as well.
These giants are most definitely involved in advertising at some level.
In India Google operates one of the largest Fiber Backed project called Railwire. It's a GOI enterprise, but we can say that officals are effectively bribed to participate in data harvesting schemes and enriching a few officials and one big American company.
Google offers this company internet technology expertise in return of harvesting data from railway stations, Users of the ISP called Railwire.
Basically, they set your DNS to Google's DNS and Google captures what websites are popular in these specific regions.
You can change your DNS obviously but 90% users don't bother and it doesn't save you from deep packet inspection.
Google also harvests non Https websites and run deep packet inspection of the traffic.
Why would it provide its tech expertise for free?
Google makes it pretty clear that they do not sell any personal information to advertisers: https://safety.google/privacy/ads-and-data/
So, in many ways they don't sell a person's data to advertisers, per se. However, they do control access to people located in a given area. Not sure there is much of a meaningful difference, for most people.
Facebook’s used that like, too.
https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/1722043?hl=en
"Google Ads location targeting allows your ads to appear in the geographic locations that you choose: countries, areas within a country, a radius around a location, or location groups, which can include places of interest, your business locations, or tiered demographics.
Location targeting helps you focus your advertising on the areas where you'll find the right customers, and restrict it in areas where you won't. This specific type of targeting could help increase your return on investment (ROI) as a result."
In a sense Google is spyware and adware at the same time. It shame these two terms are used less now then they used too, since they lost their meaning when so many apps and your Android phone itself is one.
That’s what the phone carrier is doing.
They monetize location, but from my perspective they do so in a way that’s more respectful of the person, because it’s in their interest to do so.
The carriers just sell data points and lack the ability or desire to add value to them.
https://www.en.advertisercommunity.com/t5/Advanced-Features/...
Disclosure: I work at big G, not on ads.
However, it's still selling personal information to adbuyers. And, I don't think you can say "nobody is successfully using ads to determine ad clickers general location with a X mile radius".
This surveillance thing is getting out of hand and Google is annoyed that shady corporations tries to get ground which might bring new laws.
Of course. And I'm sure that you can find some people who would get riled up that they incremented a counter in a location-oriented semi-anonymous bucket of clicks. But I think most people are substantially less riled up about that than they would be if Google were actually disclosing their individual locations directly to buyers. It seems like a lot of the anti-Google folks on here equivocate between these two, and I speculate it's because consciously or subconsciously they realize the latter narrative is much more emotionally compelling to a much broader segment of the population. To me, that's deceptive rhetoric.
- they don't get your location if you don't click on the ad. Since people don't click on ads very often, only rarely does an advertisers get a person's location, and without a name attached.
- Mobile phone companies were letting people query a user's location based on their real name. How would you do that with advertising?
We need to move beyond one-bit thinking. Location-revealing services aren't all the same.
https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/2453995?hl=en "Device location: Depending on a user's location settings, we may be able to use a precise location for advertising, based on one of these sources of location data:
GPS: Accuracy varies depending on GPS signal and connection. Wi-Fi: Accuracy should be similar to the access range of a typical Wi-Fi router. Bluetooth: If Bluetooth and/or Bluetooth scanning are enabled on a device, a publicly broadcast Bluetooth signal can provide an accurate indication of location Google's cell ID (cell tower) location database: Used in the absence of Wi-Fi or GPS. Accuracy is dependent on how many cell towers are located within an area and available data, and some devices don't support cell ID location."
Geo IP data is accurate ~85% at the city level and ~99% at the state level, meaning they're approximately the same.
One way it leaks is that an advertiser generally knows what ad campaign a user clicked on. So if that ad campaign was only sent to a particular location, you know where the user was when they clicked on the ad.
These advertiser websites know your city already by the act of you visiting their website.
"You can choose one of the default radius settings or set a custom radius from a minimum of 1 km to a maximum of 1,000 km."
https://support.google.com/richmedia/answer/7279179?hl=en&re...
Knowing that someone in 6,000 people in an area clicked on your coffee ad is not leaking GPS data. Which is probably why bounty hunters are buying the data directly from cell carriers and not running targeted Google ads.
It's also not "one in 6,000 people" if it's someone who signs up for some service via the ad. That particular someone might not realize that the service knows their location.
The point in 1:6,000 is that whether it's ad targeting or just regular internet traffic, there isnt enough specificity to "leak" data about the person.
You can split hairs over, "Well what of they join that 1:6000 with other PII" and it's the same with Geo IP. The user gives up that data but it's not different than just visit the page normally.
I'm confused by your reference to me and my concerns. This isn't a discussion about me; I was making a point about leakage of location information.