> The company is switching to an on-device approach that is more private and works on each phone independently.
They're literally harvesting all of your location history, transaction histories, etc. What exactly is more private about doing it on your phone? It's not like your entire maps history will be stored on the device exclusively.
Isn’t that what “more private and works on each device independently” implies?
Obviously we need more detail on the implementation here but AFAIK Timeline is the only time I’ve seen a full accounting of my location in the cloud. There will, I’m sure, be a lot of ways it can still be inferred: purchases, which IP address I’m on etc etc but if Google is stepping away from constantly streaming your phone GPS location to the cloud that’s surely a good thing.
Yes, that _you've_ seen. I think the person you're replying to is referring to use cases of your location data that you don't see.
Once Google had implemented the change they’ve outlined here someone can plug their phone into Wireshark and see what, if anything, has changed. Then there’s a conversation to be had.
>Isn’t that what “more private and works on each device independently” implies?
Probably, but I don't think it should be taken to mean that location data stays on the device. Surely, Google will continue to use location data for ad targeting. Location is also used in countless other places such as Photos.
The Google Maps timeline is a specific database and this particular database will be stored on-device. I don't think it changes anything for how Google uses location data more generally.
Me too. High-noon to engage Google Takeout [1] – so that I at least have a copy of all that data.
Off-topic: TIL, that Google Takeout can do regular backups automatically for up to one year when you link it to some cloud storage account (GDrive, Dropbox, One Drive, Box).
Kind and respectful reminder that HN does not permit the users to delete their data or download it. It is against the law in EU (and probably California), but it hasn't been legally tested yet.
Yes, I know, Europeans think their laws automatically apply globally, but laws are meaningless without enforcement. Hence why 99% of US companies can safely ignore GDPR unless they're operating in the EU (which HN is not).
i.e. no GPX files
Cf. whatsapp - they've been encrypting messages for years, but only recently started encrypting (if you enable it) the cloud backups at google. Encrypting the data that went to their own servers was a higher priority. And they could just send law enforcement to the cloud storage provider. Are those two things related? Curious minds wonder.
I used the spousal example because it was the shortest path between web access and demonstrating potential harm. However, bad browser extensions and stallen credentials can lead to the same result if the attacker is interested in using your history against you.
I wish google would just focus on apis and tools for me to work with my data as interoperable as possible. But there’s no money in this, so I guess it’s not a priority.
I'd argue that anything entered into a computer is not completely private, and since location can be inferred from environmental signals (e.g. cell towers, other devices, webcams, etc) location is one of the least private types of data.