Hacker News Reader

Store location history remotely: this is just a scheme to invade privacy and hoover up user data.

Store location history locally: this is just a scheme to cut down on storage costs.

There's no winning here, is there? Personally, I'm a fan of Google never giving the option to store location history remotely and this is a step in the right direction.

View on HN

Yes, because they are not promising to not use it for tracking. They are just offloading the storage costs to you.

Do you actually want them to store everywhere you've ever been on their servers because they would be using their storage instead? Because I don't, and I don't care to guess what the actual reason might be, because I'm just glad they don't want to do it anymore because it's better for everyone – removing remote storage removes a whole host of privacy issues.

I don't. I turned off location tracking long ago.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com