Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Location Services Raise Privacy Concerns

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the this-all-sounds-familiar dept.

megahurt writes "Location-based services are becoming more common, and the features they add to mobile devices can be useful and even fun. But the downside is that everyone who reads the posting will know the user isn't home. On top of that, some services, such as Foursquare, can be linked to Twitter feeds. Peter Eckersley, senior staff technologist, says there are many situations in which the location data that is kept could be misused. Many of the providers of services say in their privacy policies they will give up the data in cases where it is subpoenaed. That isn't always from law enforcement; sometimes the data can be used in civil lawsuits such as divorce cases."

152 comments

  1. Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    If you're cheating on your wife, don't post that fact on the Internet.

    Any other pro tips for me today, Slashdot?

    1. Re:Duh by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      If you're cheating on your wife, don't post that fact on the Internet.

      Huh. And I thought this was the interesting bit of the summary: "Many of the providers of services say in their privacy policies they will give up the data in cases where it is subpoenaed. That isn't always from law enforcement; sometimes the data can be used in civil lawsuits such as divorce cases."

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  2. You don't have to use these services by Pete+Venkman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People don't have to use these services.

    1. Re:You don't have to use these services by phooka.de · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People are stupid (or rather they are uninformed).

      That's what the law is there for (amongst other things): to protect the uninformed masses and the stupid so you don't have to be an expert in every field you encounter in your daily life.

    2. Re:You don't have to use these services by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Or you can raise these concerns and possibly have companies provide better privacy guarantees. But yeah, whining that you are forced to use them is silly (unless you are literally forced).

    3. Re:You don't have to use these services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think there should just be a law against being stupid instead.

    4. Re:You don't have to use these services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      have companies provide better privacy guarantees

      Which is fine until Bob from sales leaves his laptop in an airport bar.

    5. Re:You don't have to use these services by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 4, Funny

      True - but wouldn't it be nice if we lived in a world where we could have our cake and eat it too? Where there only was one side of the coin?

      Perhaps if there was some addition to the law saying that this sort of digital information was useless in court, we'd be one step closer to creating that reality. That reality where the people to cake ratio is exactly 1:1. Where everyone's piece not only is a corner piece with lots of icing but also a part of the artwork so you get that sugary gelatin stuff too. Where the bottom is a nice firm cookie based and the inside is moist and soft, or ice-cream if you prefer. ... What were we talking about again?

    6. Re:You don't have to use these services by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Civil law deals with fraud, malice and bad faith. I'm not so sure that it's there to give any reasonable, educated person of average intellect (which is what the law calls the "uninformed masses") with an Undo button for their voluntary actions. That's certainly not how it works in criminal statues.

      Oh, I thought I could just sell this iPhone I "found". Undo. Wait, getting into a consensual bar fight means we're both guilty of affray? Undo. The speed limit here is 30, officer? Undo.

      If ignorance of the law is not an excuse, general purpose ignorance probably isn't either.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    7. Re:You don't have to use these services by hedwards · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Once the company has the information they have little choice but to provide it in cases where there's been a subpoena served. Failing to do so comes with legal consequences. The better question is why are they storing the information in the first place. There's really no valid reason for them to be doing so beyond what's immediately necessary for the transaction. Assuming the user has opted in.

    8. Re:You don't have to use these services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The police will be at your door any minute now.

    9. Re:You don't have to use these services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cake is a lie!

    10. Re:You don't have to use these services by gorzek · · Score: 1

      And if Bob's laptop is any more useful than a brick to whoever steals it, that company has a shitty IT policy and may even have broken the law by allowing unsecured personal information on a laptop floating outside their premises. Sue, sue, sue!

      --
      Check out my world simulator thingy.
    11. Re:You don't have to use these services by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You might have a friend who does, and that could wind up leading to location information about you too: your friend announces that they are hanging out with you, and the location data announces where your friend is doing that.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    12. Re:You don't have to use these services by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>That's what the law is there for (amongst other things): to protect the uninformed masses and the stupid so you don't have to be an expert in every field you encounter in your daily life.

      Like this law?

      "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated [except via Judge-issued warrant]" - Or this one? "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people [like privacy]." - Or this one? "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution... are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

      It's just a shame nobody in the U.S. Government obeys these laws and does whatever they can get away with, and even if caught, there are no consequences. IMHO we need one more law in order to keep these people in line (Amendment XXVIII):

      Section 1. After a Bill has become Law, if one-half of the Member State legislatures declare the Law to be "unconstitutional" it shall be null and void. It shall be as if the Law never existed. ----- SECTION 2. The Supreme Court will have the authority to review cases, and as part of the ruling declare these cases constitutional or unconstitutional, however the decision by the States (section 1) shall be superior.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    13. Re:You don't have to use these services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize that the "spam my GPS location to anyone who asks" feature is turned on by default in most modern phones, right? You have to know to turn it off. Yeah you might have to sign up for a legitimate service first before they pull your data, but there's nothing to say illegitimate jerks aren't checking this stuff out too. People have to know to turn this crap off and that's a serious problem, a lot of folks don't.

    14. Re:You don't have to use these services by Lennie · · Score: 1

      It is from applications which by default send when and where you are. In case of four squares it's the whole idea of the application.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    15. Re:You don't have to use these services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if Bob's laptop is any more useful than a brick to whoever steals it, that company has a shitty IT policy and may even have broken the law by allowing unsecured personal information on a laptop floating outside their premises. Sue, sue, sue!

      A correction for you: If the DATA on Bob's laptop is any more useful than a brick to whoever steals it... After all, the person stealing it can always reformat the drive and load whatever they want on it (making it more useful than a brick).

    16. Re:You don't have to use these services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, a fine.
      Redistributing money from the dumb to the smart would be a boon to the economy.

    17. Re:You don't have to use these services by gorzek · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, that's what I meant. :)

      --
      Check out my world simulator thingy.
    18. Re:You don't have to use these services by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      It's just a shame nobody in the U.S. Government obeys these laws and does whatever they can get away with, and even if caught, there are no consequences. IMHO we need one more law in order to keep these people in line (Amendment XXVIII):

      Section 1. After a Bill has become Law, if one-half of the Member State legislatures declare the Law to be "unconstitutional" it shall be null and void. It shall be as if the Law never existed. -----
      Oh, goody you brought back nullification, you do remember how that turned out last time don't you?

      PS. Captcha=warnings

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    19. Re:You don't have to use these services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes people do not have a choice - like if your employer is tracking your phone with a service like Xora (www.xora.com)

    20. Re:You don't have to use these services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is that once the data has been collected, there is a nonzero probability that it will be shared regardless of the privacy "guarantees". Firing Bob doesn't unshare that data, and neither does suing the company.

    21. Re:You don't have to use these services by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      I suppose it would be stupid to have a law against being stupid, but some people just have to learn the hard way.

      Like the morons who get sucked into banking phishing scams after being told repeatedly by their banks that they will NEVER email you. Or the greedy morons who get sucked in by Nigerian scams, knowing these have been exposed for over a decade, and knowing the deal has to be too good to be true...

    22. Re:You don't have to use these services by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Ignorance is a paltry excuse, especially when it's willful.

      --
      https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
    23. Re:You don't have to use these services by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Agreed, but things like this are just common sense, and don't require you being an expert in anything other then breathing.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    24. Re:You don't have to use these services by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      The better question is why are they storing the information in the first place. There's really no valid reason for them to be doing so beyond what's immediately necessary for the transaction. Assuming the user has opted in.

      Yeah, what a mystery. You'd think companies would be lined up to be a scapegoat for the next mass shooting or bombing.

      --
      https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
    25. Re:You don't have to use these services by bertoelcon · · Score: 1

      We could just not put safety labels on things, the problem should sort itself out.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    26. Re:You don't have to use these services by Mephistro · · Score: 1

      No, a fine. Redistributing money from the dumb to the smart would be a boon to the economy.

      It's being done already. Nigerian scammers, trojan creators, governments and telcos have been in that bussiness for ages.

    27. Re:You don't have to use these services by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      That's a two-edged sword. I just tell my friend to twitter that he's hanging out with me (with full location info) while I'm really at a motel with my mistress. Voila! Instant alibi!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    28. Re:You don't have to use these services by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Section 1. After a Bill has become Law, if one-half of the Member State legislatures declare the Law to be "unconstitutional" it shall be null and void.

      That's just stupid. Upholding the constitution is the duty of Congress, not the states, and enforcing it is the duty of the Court. This is ideal, since the Court also adjudicates the law, actions taken by the Court regarding the constitutionality of a law are immediate, and require no group consensus.

      The states already have the right to sue for the constitutionality of a law. Since all rights not expressly granted to the Federal Government are automatically the rights of the State governments by default, a state simply has to declare that their rights are being infringed upon, and sue for justice in federal court.

      Such high profile cases move through the judicial system pretty quickly, more likely a lot more quickly than getting 50 states to declare a law unconstitutional. While not very common today, such suits were quite common in the early years of the United States.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    29. Re:You don't have to use these services by LaRainette · · Score: 1

      Yes because you think you're so smart...
      Truth is your fields of expertise are likely not infinite and even if you are an expert in a number of subjects, which is possible, I would dare to say you're not in ALL the subjects.
      For instance could you get scammed over the quality of what you wear ? or what you eat ? Do you move around with a chemical lab that allows you to check the composition of the food you eat ?
      No, of course not, that's why the law protects you from being fed low cost toxic waste (well tries to protect at least...)

      The same goes for complex information systems and new technology. People aren't necessarily aware of all the risks and consequences of their actions. It's not a good thing but you can't really do shit about it, except make people smarter and better informed but that's hardly a mean of action, it's a goal.

      Saying : this is not a problem people just need to get smart is stupid, hence you're not smart if you say it because you don't have any understanding of how democracy works and where is your best interest in the long term. Getting people smarter and more knowledgeable is a goal, a very hard one to reach, so Genius if you have any idea on how to do that please enlighten us, but meanwhile stop thinking you're so smart just because you know about GPS and social network implications.

    30. Re:You don't have to use these services by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      And if that bothers you, don't hang out with that friend.

      It is no different than tacking a sign on your door saying "Hey! I'm out, but here's where you can find me!" which is perfectly legal and legitimate and ethical, even if you're inadvertently saying where someone else will be also.

      It's real fucking life people, we don't need idiotic new laws, just deal with it.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    31. Re:You don't have to use these services by LaRainette · · Score: 2, Informative

      OK now you're just really acting stupid.
      You purposely mistake ignorance of the law and ignorance in a "logical" demonstration of why they are the same...
      So either your thoughs are so unclear you can't produce anything but crap OR you think people reading you are just so dumb they'll buy it.

      I'm gonna go with the first one, as the law would because you're presumed innocent until proven guilty.

      Yes the law states that nobody shall ignore the law. It's not about making excuses it's just about plain "common sense" for once ! if the law did not state that then it would have no use. Each and every dispute would turn into a "did he know about that law" argument and it would be a mess.

      Now OTOH ignorance is certainly a good excuse :
      Mr X you are suing BigCo for sucking your blood dry after selling a contract in which they bonded you to give them each and every penny you would ever make for the rest of your life in a legal language so inextricable that we are still trying to figure out exactly what they meant in the first place.
      BigCo says you signed it so you should pay.
      Mr X hear says it's not his fault he signed it because the nice guy from BigCo who spent 2 afternoons explaining it to him convinced him it was a good move

      What does the law say ? Mr X was actually led to believe it was a good move and then fucked up the ass, and the law protects citizen against scams by asking BigCo to provide its customers with contracts that are understandable (or at least can be understood by a lawyer)

      So what exactly does the law do ? it protects Mr X from its own ignorance. It's legal ignorance in this particular matter, meaning Mr X is, like 99% of the population incapable of fully understanding of the ramifications and implications of a complex contract, but it could be other ignorance, for instance the law protects smokers from big Tabacco by making cigarette manufacturers put warning labels on the cigarette packs.

      The law is about protecting the weak from the excesses of the strong, and most of the time the strong is the one that knows and the weak the one that doesn't.

    32. Re:You don't have to use these services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IMHO we need one more law in order to keep these people in line (Amendment XXVIII):

      Section 1. After a Bill has become Law, if one-half of the Member State legislatures declare the Law to be "unconstitutional" it shall be null and void. It shall be as if the Law never existed. ----- SECTION 2. The Supreme Court will have the authority to review cases, and as part of the ruling declare these cases constitutional or unconstitutional, however the decision by the States (section 1) shall be superior.

      Yes, by all means let's give the legislative branch judicial powers that are superior to those of the judicial branch. What could possibly go wrong?

    33. Re:You don't have to use these services by BerryMadness · · Score: 1

      The cake is a lie!

      Do I have to remind you that we never try to pull someone out of the cake once they reach a certian age...

    34. Re:You don't have to use these services by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Yes, I certainly agree that's how the law should work. Also, Felicia Day should be bringing me my pony any second now.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    35. Re:You don't have to use these services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can we have lots of fish-shaped garnishes and rhubarb on our cake?

    36. Re:You don't have to use these services by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>you brought back nullification, you do remember how that turned out last time don't you?

      Quite well. The Northeast states (Maine, Massachusetts, New York, etc) nullified the U.S. Fugitive Slave Act, because it was unconstitutional, and thereby gave blacks (like Harriet Tubman) a place of asylum during the age of slavery. If the northeast states had not used nullification, those blacks would have been rounded-up by police and shipped back to the south, most probably to be put to death. So I say nullification worked great, because it acted as a "check and balance" against overreaching central government, and also protected millions of black lives.

      :-)

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    37. Re:You don't have to use these services by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>Upholding the constitution is the duty of Congress, not the states,

      Upholding the constitution of anybody who swore an oath, including myself, and including the State Legislators and government employees. Besides the Constitution was a creation of the state, is amended by the States, and can be abolished (via convention) by the States. It is entirely logical to give the Creators, authors, and potential abolishers the power to nullify U.S. laws they consider to be a breach of the contract they created.

      I would also make the same argument in respect to the Member States of the EU and their constitution (Lisbon Treaty). They too should have the right to nullify by 1/2 vote any EU Laws they consider a breach of that treaty.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    38. Re:You don't have to use these services by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Back then, States weren't forced to suck at the Federal teat to get the money their Citizenry paid in taxes.

      Hence why your plan will never come to fruition.

    39. Re:You don't have to use these services by azrider · · Score: 1

      That's just stupid. Upholding the constitution is the duty of Congress, not the states, and enforcing it is the duty of the Court. This is ideal, since the Court also adjudicates the law, actions taken by the Court regarding the constitutionality of a law are immediate, and require no group consensus.

      Close, but put down that Cohiba ;-)

      Creating laws consistent with the Constitution is the duty of the Legislative branch (the Congress).

      Enforcing the Constitution, laws and regulations is the duty of the Executive branch (the Administration).

      Interpreting laws and regulations with respect to the Constitution is the duty of the Judicial branch (the Courts).

      --
      And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
      John 8:32(King James Version)
    40. Re:You don't have to use these services by LaRainette · · Score: 1

      You mistake the law for justice and vice versa.
      the law doesn't work, the law is, the Justice works to apply the law.
      And the law protects the weak versus the strong. Justice on the other hand, well that's a completely different matter... Depending on how your country is a good democracy and a state of law...

    41. Re:You don't have to use these services by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      I can not lay my hand on any part of the Constitution that gives the Supreme Court power to nullify laws passed by Congress and signed by the president.

      AND even if such a power existed, I don't see any reason why it should be limited to just 9 people who are unelected and therefore may ignore the ultimate authority (the people). The power to declare laws "unconstitutional" can certainly be shared with the State Legislators, who directly represent the People and their wish to strike down stupid laws that violate the People's Rights (such as the patriot act).

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    42. Re:You don't have to use these services by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      It's being done already. Nigerian scammers, trojan creators, governments and telcos have been in that bussiness for ages.

      Bah. amateurs. There's no match for banks.

    43. Re:You don't have to use these services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, stupid, you were right the first time, people are stupid ;-)

  3. I think I might be starting to get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    So... putting all your info on facebook can be bad. Letting the world know where you are and when can be bad. (Unless you want an alibi for a crime.) Most of us here are aware of this. What happens online stays online, so yes we get it. How do we figure out how to make other people aware of it rather than just linking the same old tired articles which clearly are not working. How long will it be until some group starts working to forcibly "out" people's digital lives as a way to spread a greater awareness of this issue?

    1. Re:I think I might be starting to get it. by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Yes with ideas like http://wikileaks.org/wiki/EU_social_network_spy_system_brief,_INDECT_Work_Package_4,_2009 and http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Mind_Your_Tweets:_The_CIA_Social_Networking_Surveillance_System getting to the state and federal task forces expect to see more.
      Now we have a lower end of data collecting too.
      People seeking work are tracked and searched for.
      Time to flood the system with junk/bait and 'out' the automated databases?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  4. proxies are your friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Noscript + proxy.

    The internet will take exactly as much of your privacy as you allow it to.

    1. Re:proxies are your friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea man, every time I post exactly where I am and what I'm doing to Facebook, I go through 7 proxies, just to make sure I'm totally safe.

  5. So... by Spad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Remember to turn off the location services of your phone before you:

    • Break the law
    • Cheat on your partner
    • Skip school/work
    • Do anything else where you wouldn't want people to know your location

    If only there were some kind of sense, possibly a common one, that would help avoid these nasty problems.

    1. Re:So... by decipher_saint · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or like, leave your phone at home...

      --
      crazy dynamite monkey
    2. Re:So... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If only there were some kind of sense, possibly a common one, that would help avoid these nasty problems.

      You know, new technology creates new situations which previously hadn't needed to be considered.

      We're talking a very small number of years that the exact location you were standing when you did something is a matter of electronic record.

      Common sense being neither, and the total number of years in which people have had to contend with such issues is relatively low. While you can sound all smug and say "everyone should know that", the reality is that most people with a smart phone barely know what all it does, let alone the legal ramifications of carrying one around. And, the number of people who have had their location subpoenaed for a tweet they made as part of their divorce case? Probably a very small number.

      Why is the Slashdot crowd so myopic about technology that they think all of these issues have been around for decades, or that everyone who happens to use what is now a fairly ubiquitous technology is fully dialed into all of the aspects of that technology?

      Some of these are actually quite new social and legal considerations. Acting like you've known this forever makes you sound like a smug idiot.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:So... by PatHMV · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not to go all insensitive clod on you, but.... When I was a kid, a member of my immediate family passed away. The newspaper printed the obituary and noted (against my dad's instructions) that the funeral would be in another town, in a distant part of the state. When we returned home several days later, we found that burglars had broken into the house while we were gone. Eventually it was confirmed that the burglars had read the obituaries, saw we would be out of town, and used that information to decide to rob us. So, there are very GOOD reasons for people who are doing nothing wrong to also not want the world at large to know their location.

    4. Re:So... by Jimmy+King · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why is the Slashdot crowd so myopic about technology that they think all of these issues have been around for decades, or that everyone who happens to use what is now a fairly ubiquitous technology is fully dialed into all of the aspects of that technology?

      Some of these are actually quite new social and legal considerations. Acting like you've known this forever makes you sound like a smug idiot.

      It should be common sense that if something is tracking where you are at all times, then people will know where you are/were. You're right in that people commonly don't know how their expensive gadgets work and what they are capable of at even the most basic level, but just because something happens to be the common case doesn't mean that it "should" be the common case and accepted.

      If you want to own and play with complex things then you need to understand complex things or it's more likely to come back and bite you in the ass. You don't necessarily need to understand it at more than a basic level, but you do need some level of understanding. Just like I don't understand toasters (a comparative simple bit of tech) well enough to build one but I understand them well enough to know not stick my finger in it when it's on or recently has been on. As those things get more complex, what you'll need to know and understand also tends to get more complex. This applies to many things in life, but is unfortunately ignored when it comes to computer related tech.

    5. Re:So... by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 0, Troll

      Hey, I think I saw that movie. Didn't you board the wrong plane a year later?

    6. Re:So... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It should be common sense

      Why do people think that "common sense" is some intrinsic, infallible sense of what is happening around you? At best, it's a measure of "well known shared experiences" that most people remember. At worst, it's merely an expectation that other people should know the things we consider obvious.

      If you want to own and play with complex things then you need to understand complex things or it's more likely to come back and bite you in the ass.

      You know, I'm going to pull some numbers out of my ass for purposes of illustration: 90% of people don't understand 90% of the workings of 90% of the technology that surrounds them on a daily basis. That might even be generous, but the specifics of the numbers is irrelevant. The barrier to having technology isn't understanding any more, it's paying for it.

      They don't really know how a fridge works. Their thermostat is a complete mystery. The workings of a radio is a complete unknown. A light switch makes the dark go away if the bulb isn't burned out. Traffic signals work, but they don't know why. A smart phone is just like that black thing grandma had with the dial, but you can send pictures and text -- that's about the extent of their understanding. They're not required to know anything more than that.

      Your toaster analogy is apt -- since for most people, that's about the full extent of how much they will truly understand their smart phone. And, considering a lot of these location based services are less than 2-3 years old, it's not like there has been time for these issues to come to light. People just turn it on, push the pretty buttons, and go. When their friends start using something, they do to. They're not doing any reflecting on the issues of using that technology -- they're not even thinking of it as technology, it' a button. It's part of the phone. It's infrastructure and therefore largely invisible.

      They completely lack a frame of reference to seriously ponder the fact that something which is "cool" or "popular" can have ramifications beyond what they have conceived of. Heck, they can't even conceive of the potential issues, since they don't know how it all works.

      The reality is, we give more and more complex devices to people on a daily basis. Companies add new features they think their users will like, but the technology is so new, that sometimes even they haven't thought through the possible issues. Computers and technology have gotten into the mainstream far faster than a general understanding of how they work. Heck, I see 10-year old kids with phones -- I'm not even sure most of them are capable of understanding what is being said on the topic of privacy, or why it's important.

      I'm just not convinced any more that you can lay all of this at the feet of the users and say it's their fault. I'm not saying we don't need better consumer education. But the pace of technology in our lives means that stuff is happening that most people will never be really 'informed' on all of these topics. I just don't think this is a simple "do this" kind of fix that makes it all go away -- it' way more complex than that.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re:So... by hedwards · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or better yet, pay some homeless guy $50 bucks to carry it on the bus all over the city.

    8. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only there were some kind of sense, possibly a common one, that would help avoid these nasty problems.

      That's a great Quote. I just printed it in 36 pt font and put it up in my cube.

    9. Re:So... by teh+kurisu · · Score: 2, Funny

      That might backfire if he's murdered in an alley and it turns out that you were following him around all day (according to your phone records).

    10. Re:So... by Spad · · Score: 1

      Right, because god forbid people actually take some responsibility and find out what their phone is doing or who can see their Facebook profile.

      When I got my Nexus One I saw it had Location functionality, played around with it, thought "It's probably not a good idea to be broadcasting this to the world 24/7" and turned it off again (it wasn't on by default anyway). In the same way that when I got the keys to my house and they had a tag on them with the address, I decided it was probably a smart idea to take the tag off.

      Ultimately, it doesn't matter because nobody seems to care any more. They're quite happy to put all their private details, thoughts & photos on Facebook, set the profile to public and then set up their status to constantly update with their GPS co-ordinates and even when they *do* know about the potential consequences, they just don't seem at all concerned. If people aren't able to comprehend the risks of broadcasting their location to everyone, or simply don't care about them, then it doesn't matter how many articles are written about it.

    11. Re:So... by nyctopterus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is a fairly typical attitude among intelligent people, and is especially strong about their area of expertise. Unfortunately, in the real world, people are pretty much forced to use things they barely understand just to live a vaguely normal life. Many of these people simply do not have the mental capacity to address all the thing which they "should" understand. Even the most intelligent people are often dangerously ignorant in many areas (although they often fail to realise it).

      No, to large extent it is up to the designers and overseers of complex (yet common) technology and systems that things behave in a relatively expected and benign way.

    12. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you even understand how these services work? I don't think so.

      They don't follow you around. You specifically CHECK IN to a location. You do it yourself. The phone does not do it for you.

      Big difference.

    13. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You completely avoided his argument. He is arguing that while they do not need to understand how the device works, but they have to understand what it does and how to use it.

      Do they know how a fridge works? No. Do they know what it does? Yes. Do they know how to use it? Yes. Do they know how a radio works? No. Do they know what it does? Yes. Do they know how to use it? Yes. Do they know how a light switch works? Maybe. Do they know what it does? Yes. Do they know how to use it? Yes. Do they know how a traffic signal works? Sort of. Do they know what a traffic signal does? yes. Do they know how to use them? Hopefully. Do they know how their smart phone works? No. Do they know how what their smartphone does? Sort of. Do they know how to use it? Some of it.

      Do you see the problem, or should I continue?

    14. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is the Slashdot crowd so myopic about technology that they think all of these issues have been around for decades,

      Some of these are actually quite new social and legal considerations. Acting like you've known this forever makes you sound like a smug idiot.

      These concerns *have* been explored in science fiction and/or speculative fiction for decades. And that means the typical Slashdot reader has been aware of these issues for a long time.

      That the rest of the population acts like no one has thought of this before is hardly our doing.

    15. Re:So... by Jimmy+King · · Score: 1

      And this is all exactly what I view as being the problem. We keep giving people this cool new stuff with more and more ways to hurt themselves. Unfortunately, what should be common sense is not, and so people get caught by surprise. What we should be doing is explaining that this stuff is complex, it does a lot, you could run into trouble if you don't have a basic understanding of what it does. The smart phone equivalent of the previously mentioned toaster knowledge is more complex, because there's more there. We should be trying to take this stuff from things that should be common sense to things that actually are

      That is easier said than done, of course. When done on a personal level, you run the risk of sounding like a pompous ass and then getting ignored. Coming from corporations or the like, it quite easily starts to sound like fear mongering and again gets ignored. It should be (again, should, but not is) the goal of those in the know, both technical enthusiasts/geeks and the companies creating these products, to try to make this happen, though.

    16. Re:So... by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And this is all exactly what I view as being the problem. We keep giving people this cool new stuff with more and more ways to hurt themselves. Unfortunately, what should be common sense is not, and so people get caught by surprise.

      Well, it does go beyond that, though.

      Think of how many stories we see about Facebook changing their settings so everyone is suddenly sharing everything and needs to explicitly opt out. Or, AT&T inadvertently leaking the email address of anyone with an iPad.

      Sometimes, even the people driving the technology haven't considered all of the issues. So, expecting your average smart phone user to be well versed in all of the privacy stuff might be a little difficult. And, it can all change so fast, it's hard to keep up. (Who among us remembers it being an urban myth that you could get a virus from an email even if you never opened it? After telling relatives that was false, suddenly it became true one day.)

      When done on a personal level, you run the risk of sounding like a pompous ass and then getting ignored. Coming from corporations or the like, it quite easily starts to sound like fear mongering and again gets ignored.

      That's exactly my point -- John Q. Public is going to listen to alarmist stuff as the stuff of crackpots and fear mongering, and the completely tune out. They don't want to hear it, and they don't like being told that they're sheep who need to know more than they do -- it's considered rude. ;-)

      Striking the balance between educating people and having companies make 'smart' choices with the end-user's welfare in mind is tough. Companies want to maximize their profits, so Facebook isn't well served by saying "well, our privacy settings are by default weak" you should change them, since they want to sell that stuff. They need your information to be as public as possible. Someone can trot out a new thing, and all of a sudden, you have something new to worry about.

      I don't think there's an "easy" solution to this. It's a complex problem, and needs to be addressed from multiple angles. At present, the technology is more prevalent than a widespread understanding of the issues. I actually see this continuing to get worse as even more technology gets trotted out to consumers.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    17. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or better yet, pay some homeless guy $50 bucks to carry it on the bus all over the city.

      I know inflation is bad, but fifty dollars bucks? Those bucks sure are expensive where you live!

    18. Re:So... by hazah · · Score: 1

      OT, but...

      I would argue that when an "intelligent" person that is "dangerously ignorant" is not an intelligent person.

      In my short life thus far, I've found that the intelligent amongst us will readily admit their own shortcomings. I will not claim "intelligence" but will tell you quite sincerely that I hunt for my shortcomings mercilessly. That is because I hate being wrong in the literal sense. I would rather learn something new than have my convictions, so I hope that it is at least evident that I'm not talking about arrogance. Time and time again, on this forum, I've stfu simply because someone had enough insight to show me the error that I was making, and I could not be more thankful.

      Again, OT, but... in retrospect, thank you all.

    19. Re:So... by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      So, there are very GOOD reasons for people who are doing nothing wrong to also not want the world at large to know their location.

      Ok, so don't tell the public and the problem is solved. Its not a technology issue in the least, its how its being used.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    20. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would argue that when an "intelligent" person that is "dangerously ignorant" is not an intelligent person.

      Yes, they become the screeching howler monkeys that seem to mostly post here on Slashdot and are convinced they've solved everything -- and, no, I don't mean you.

      An awful lot of Slashdotters claim to be uber smart, and then view the world through such a narrow lens as to be laughable. In some cases, it's the arrogance of youth. In other cases, it persists for most of their life.

      If you're smart enough to know you don't know everything, that will serve you well -- humility can be a hard lesson to learn.

    21. Re:So... by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      If only there were some kind of sense, possibly a common one, that would help avoid these nasty problems.

      Or here's a novel idea.. don't break the law, cheat on your spouse, or skip school.

      If only there were some kind of decency, possibly a common one, that would help avoid these nasty problems.

      --
      https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
    22. Re:So... by NetNed · · Score: 1

      I think the more important thing that covers part of what you wrote is that people need to either realize the consequences of using such devices or not cry foul when these things come to light. They can turn it off in most cases. My iphone asks with every app if it's alright to use location services. I select allow or don't allow. If that is really that hard for a person to get, then maybe they shouldn't have a smart phone?

      This is kind of like the ex-mayor of Detroit. He sends text messages on a city owned pager that shows he purger-ed himself on the stand in a suit that cost the city 8 million dollars. The texts were obtained under the freedom of information act and when that happened the paper posted the texts. It ended in him doing jail time (which he is back in prison again for parole violations) and him trying to sue for those texts getting out. It's a case of "becuase I was ignorant of the ramifications, they shouldn't have been able to get those texts" bull crap!

      It's crying foul after getting caught, and it means very little then.

    23. Re:So... by aunticrist · · Score: 1

      The only problem here is that you are trying to equate what amounts to s simple machine that has been in use for generations by the population to something that is *like* a bit of technology that the population is used to, but in reality is starkly different. The problem is compounded by adults that already have preconceived notions about the thing they are using. Everyone knows that a fridge cools their food and the freezer freezes it. Thats all it does. Everyone knows that a scale measures their weight. Now lets say they made a scale with wireless card that can talk over the internet to your doctors office and report your weight to them every time you weigh yourself. On the surface, that scale is still just measuring your weight to the *average everyday user*. To them it is still just doing what they -know- the scale to do. Its secondary function isn't even something they've thought possible and frankly not something they are probably investigating before they get it. We've had phones and mobile phones for a good while now. People know that they can make calls and text messages from where ever they might be. This is their frame of reference. Most of those same people didn't or don't know that their phone is equipped with GPS that allows them to be tracked because they don't have any reason to actively use that feature. All they know is they dial a number and it calls someone and maybe takes pictures as well. How many phone ads out there tout their GPS capabilities, and how many store clerks talk about it? Only people like us care to know about these features and even utilize them in any way. Joe Public on the other hand could care less, and that is the point. Should people know what the on board computer in their car is reading and keeping track of? maybe? Does knowing affect whether they drive their car, or how they drive it? Nope. Why? Because in the grand scheme of things they use their car to get from point A to point B and have no REASON to know that their car is keeping track of their speed and fuel usage and whatever else these computers track.

    24. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing like a good alibi.

    25. Re:So... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      My spouse spends half her waking hours on the phone, has gone through a half dozen of them, and has never bothered to even touch the manuals that come with them. What makes you think she even knows how to turn off the location services of the new phone I buy her in order to keep track of her?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    26. Re:So... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      And yet the Oregonian can't understand why I so strongly object to them tossing "free" newspapers onto my driveway twice a week when I don't subscribe. There are documented instances of people stopping newspaper delivery while on vacation, only to have the newspaper delivery person sell that information to burglars. I also assume anyone littering my yard with flyers is really trying to test whether or not I am home.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    27. Re:So... by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      You know, new technology creates new situations which previously hadn't needed to be considered.

      And these issues happen to be exactly the same as what people have been dealing with for a thousand years.

      If you tell someone where you are, they know where you are.

      Wow, that's a totally brand new concept that has never before been considered in human history! Oh wait, no it's not, it's common fucking sense. Common sense simply means that anybody of average intelligence should be able to understand.

      You don't need to understand how location awareness works. All you need to know is that it automatically tracks where you are, and if you tie it in to things like facebook and such anybody who reads your facebook will automatically know where you are.

      Since that's exactly what these services are advertised to do, it's not a huge fucking leap to realize that if your phone is automatically telling everyone where you are, everyone is automatically going to know where you are.

      It's not a new concept. It's a new, and more convenient, implementation of a very, very, very old concept.

      Why is the Slashdot crowd so myopic about technology that they think all of these issues have been around for decades, or that everyone who happens to use what is now a fairly ubiquitous technology is fully dialed into all of the aspects of that technology?

      Perhaps because the issues have actually been around for millenia, and a basic reading of a product's advertisement tells you everything you need to know to understand how said technology may affect you. Hell, in this case, the name is enough to clue anybody of moderate intelligence in. Location Awareness - it's aware of your location. If you don't want your location known, you probably shouldn't use a product who's stated purpose is to track your location at all times.

      It's really not hard. The technical details don't matter in the slightest.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    28. Re:So... by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      All you need to understand about Location Awareness is that it tracks your location. That's it. That's not at all a technical concept, and it isn't difficult in any way.

      You don't need to know that it somehow uses cell phone towers and wifi hotspots to track you. You don't need to understand that GPS can track you from anywhere between 3 feet and 100 feet.

      None of that is necessary to understand the implications of Location Awareness. All you need to know is that if you use it, people will know where you are. That's it. No technical understanding necessary. In fact, non-technical people probably understand the implications of this better than most technical people, because they are bogged down by an understanding of the current limitations of the technology.

      That actually is common sense, and I don't see how anybody with an IQ higher than about 20 could not understand that concept.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    29. Re:So... by hazah · · Score: 1

      And painful

    30. Re:So... by selven · · Score: 1

      Exactly, only people who are doing something wrong have something to hide.

    31. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or here's a novel idea.. don't break the law, cheat on your spouse, or skip school.

      "If you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to hide!".

      If only there were some kind of decency, possibly a common one, that would help avoid these nasty problems.

      There is, but you don't have it.

    32. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as complex as you claim to be, it seems your complexity does not extend to your clarity.
      what did you say?

    33. Re:So... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      I new the band before they were famous. Yep...still don't get that mentality at all, but you've aptly called out one of the most annoying geek-culture aspects: measuring one's value on how much more one knows about something over somebody else.

    34. Re:So... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Even highly intelligent people sometimes don't understand technology. It takes a long time to become an expert. Devoting so much time to expertise in something certainly robs one of time to learn other things, like technology.

    35. Re:So... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      I've got a perfect example. I'm pretty intelligent. I work in the software industry and have a graduate degree. I don't, however, have any idea what "OT" means in your post.

      Does that make me any less intelligent? For the record, I do understand stfu, so I will do so now.

    36. Re:So... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      In some cases, it's the arrogance of youth. In other cases, it persists for most of their life.

      Awesome. I'm going to use this.

      I've found the most arrogant of youths suffer from this persistence for the rest of their lives. Often when I think a teenager has posted here on slashdot, it turns out to be a 45 year old guy.

    37. Re:So... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Ultimately, it doesn't matter because nobody seems to care any more. They're quite happy to put all their private details, thoughts & photos on Facebook, set the profile to public and then set up their status to constantly update with their GPS co-ordinates and even when they *do* know about the potential consequences, they just don't seem at all concerned.

      Yes. This is exactly how we non-paranoids on the planet operate.

    38. Re:So... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Common sense is over rated. I'm learning that I don't have much in common with people who think common sense is inherently good. It may be common, but it's rarely good.

  6. Safer summer fun again? by AHuxley · · Score: 2, Interesting

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2146807/Facebook-dipping-craze-irks-pool-owners.html
    Now you can identify homes that have large outdoor pools, track their owners for a while and wait.
    When the air horn blasts the owner is on their way back home.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:Safer summer fun again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no place like 127.0.0.1.

    2. Re:Safer summer fun again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no place like ... localhost?

      I think that you mean: There's no place like ~

    3. Re:Safer summer fun again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So that's what that world cup horn nonsense was all about?

    4. Re:Safer summer fun again? by splatter · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that article.

      High Tech Pool Hopping who would have thought.. We did the same thing back in the 80's except with no internets we went to the area of local townhouses that had about 10 pools and preceded to jump the fence on one or two to take a midnight dip. Its amazing none of us drowned or broke our necks trying to scale the fence after 1/2 a dozen beers.

      --
      "(I) have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single thing any politician says when a mic's on.
  7. If the Government is Big Brother... by Midnight's+Shadow · · Score: 1

    then these services are the creepy stalker that follows you around in case you leave your blinds open.

    Bottom line, if you are going to do something you don't want anyone to know about, don't use these services, leave the cell phone at home and pay everything in cash!

    --
    "God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh. " -Voltaire
  8. Breaking News! by dward90 · · Score: 1, Funny

    A new study finds that location-broadcasting applications broadcast the location of the user.

    Nothing to see here.

    --
    My other sig is clever.
    1. Re:Breaking News! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently, it's only a privacy concern when people who don't seem to care about their privacy start using it.

  9. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  10. Re:Simple fix by Spad · · Score: 3, Informative

    A lot of phones will offer location information using cell towers if GPS isn't available. It's not as accurate, but it's "close enough" for most purposes.

  11. Need locational anonymity scheme by Trip6 · · Score: 1

    There must be a way to get the location services you want, like finding the local Krispy-Kreme, without broadcasting your location to the service in question. Like a blocked phone number.

    --
    I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
    1. Re:Need locational anonymity scheme by Chrisq · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There must be a way to get the location services you want, like finding the local Krispy-Kreme, without broadcasting your location to the service in question. Like a blocked phone number.

      Yes, Always use a disposable phone. Brought for cash. Use it only once. That's what Uncle Osama tells me.

    2. Re:Need locational anonymity scheme by hedwards · · Score: 1

      And fifteen minutes later, the DHS responds bundling Chrisq up to whatever black site they're currently using for being an al-Qaeda operative.

    3. Re:Need locational anonymity scheme by ArcherB · · Score: 3, Informative

      There must be a way to get the location services you want, like finding the local Krispy-Kreme, without broadcasting your location to the service in question. Like a blocked phone number.

      The services mentioned here are only those that you explicitly run that you give permission to broadcast your location. Google Latitude, for example, will show your location on Google Maps to everyone you give permission to show it to.

      It's not just your GPS that can get you in trouble, but your own stupidity can do just as well of a job. An example would be taking a picture a of a well known foreign landmark while vacationing and posting it on your Facebook page with the caption, "Look at what I saw today".

      It's also a good idea to NOT geo-tag your photos if you take them of anyplace you don't want people to know the location of, like your living room in front of your new big screen TV and pile of cash.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  12. Location spoofing by Thats_Pipe · · Score: 1

    Of course, one can always spoof their location. Maybe I'll start using using Twitter to announce my all-day shopping sprees and then sit in the bushes outside waiting to catch any potential burglars... or get shot by said burglars.

    --
    "You see them trees out back, I take care of them. I'm a tree, I'm a tree wizard." - Crazy Homeless Guy
    1. Re:Location spoofing by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      or a sneak and peek warrant

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  13. truism headlines on a science site... by Michael+Kristopeit · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    eating food lowers hunger

    1. Re:truism headlines on a science site... by Michael+Kristopeit · · Score: 1

      just as offtopic or irrelevant as pointing out that broadcasting location makes life less private.

  14. You missed a few by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Remember to turn off your phone before you:

    1. Leave your valuables unattended
    2. Do anything politically-related, such as attend a rally
    3. Buy things with so-called "anonymous" cash
    4. Make a phone call
  15. Latitude by dandart · · Score: 3, Informative

    Latitude (sort of) solves this problem by only sending location data to approved friends and only when you want it to. Now all you have to worry about is untrustworthy friends.

    1. Re:Latitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No person or service is 'trustworthy' in case of a subpoena.

    2. Re:Latitude by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The web 2.0 version of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu#Disclosure.2C_abduction_and_publication
      That new best friend who so understands :)

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:Latitude by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Facebook tagging of pictures and posting of your name has shown us just how little you should trust your friends.

      Wallpos by Samt: "Brian you were so wasted Thursday!"
      Brian has been tagged in a photo: BarffestatNochinosClubThursdaynight.jpg"
      "Hey Brian, it's your boss. I notice you called in sick on Friday. You were probably at home all day. You should stay there Monday, too, just to make sure you're over your "illness." In fact, considering your illness is a complete lack of work ethic, you should stay home indefinately."
      Brian </3 Sam.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    4. Re:Latitude by dandart · · Score: 1

      That's why you should never add or accept your boss as a "friend"! Simple!

    5. Re:Latitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong: your boss can be friend with Sam...

    6. Re:Latitude by GIL_Dude · · Score: 1

      actually, in the case given, he could be a friend of a friend of Sam if Sam has his posts and photo uploads set to "friends of friends". All the incriminating stuff was posted by Sam, not Brian. And anyone in that chain can (a friend of a friend of Sam) can potentially make the information more visible depending on their settings and Sam's settings.

    7. Re:Latitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the pot calling the kettle black if Brian is upset at Sam's lack of trustworthiness, yet is quite happy to call in "sick" to his boss.

      True, your employer is not your friend, but contrariwise your friends do not give you more than enough money to cover the mortgage, bills, groceries ...

    8. Re:Latitude by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Sam could have his profile publicly viewable, and the Brian have his friends viewable. Now everyone can see what Brian does through Sam's profile.

      I don't have any work colleagues on my Facebook profile; I see them at work. Old colleagues, yes, as I don't see them very often. I get that this is what Facebook was for: Keeping in contact with people you're not in regular contact with.

      Oh, and bilking you for as much advertising revenue as possible.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  16. Re:Simple fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Many phones will also determine location via nearby wi-fi access points.

    If you don't want people to know where you are, don't use the services.

  17. untrustworthy friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just remember that "untrustworthy" isn't merely an adjective describing people's motivations and honesty. It also includes (lack of) technical expertise. Somebody out there is running all that malware -- is it somebody that you know?

    1. Re:untrustworthy friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple: Don't have any friends that use Windows.

      I use Latitude (I think I'll omit my share link), but the only people I've sent the link to use Mac's exclusively.

      If you hang around with people that are at high risk for infection, you may ultimately increase your own risk.

  18. Location "Services" are Ripe for Misuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, it's great to let a few friends know where you're at, or what you're doing. But imagine how this can be misused by totalitarian governments that are keen on knowing what the 'opposition' is doing and where they are.

    Think back to recent examples of opposition movement using twitter, email, and IM to organize rallies and protests. Malevolent government operatives could have used location services to track down and quash, with extreme prejudice, any sort of opposing activities.

    Location services. I'll not be using them.

    1. Re:Location "Services" are Ripe for Misuse by siride · · Score: 1

      I assume opposition movements wouldn't be publishing their locations on the internet for all to see...

    2. Re:Location "Services" are Ripe for Misuse by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      If you are trying to organize a rally to demonstrate political dissent, publishing your location is somewhat the point.

  19. This really isn't such a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Simply don't have location services on unless you need them, and even if you do, don't allow people to access these location services unless you want them to know. Can it be done? Of course it can be done.

    Note: Telephone operators already know what cell phone tower(s) you are in range of, they also know signal strength. If you're in range of multiple towers, your position can be narrowed down to a small area. If the law does not protect you from them handing out your location data where you live, you should worry about that first - it can be done without your consent or special technical capability of your handset (GPS and co).

  20. If your using a location service.. and tweeting by jabbathewocket · · Score: 1

    that your out with your girlfriend.. you deserve what you get in a divorce proceeding.. not sure how thats a privacy issue tbh... Hell just having an iphone and your wife knowing how to do "find my iphone" is more than enough for you to get caught?

    Besides a civil suit is still a legal proceeding and is really no different from having coworkers or others subpoenaed for a civil case? It just seems to me this is more an issue of "use your tools and toys in an aware/responsible manner" than any inherent privacy issue?

    1. Re:If your using a location service.. and tweeting by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Actually, even if you're NOT using a location service, it's probably a bad idea to tweet about your girlfriend, at least if you're married.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    2. Re:If your using a location service.. and tweeting by jabbathewocket · · Score: 1

      True.. LOL

  21. ...But Pseudo-Geek Hipsters Simply HAVE to by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...and the number of them who owe me money, claim they're strapped for cash, yet tweet that they are the "mayor" of some downtown over-priced coffeehouse or sushi joint is ver-r-r-r-y revealing.

    Gents: I may not be one of your twitter "followers," but I check your twitter pages religiously nonetheless. Pay up. Looks like my daughter's gonna need braces.

    Thanks.

    1. Re:...But Pseudo-Geek Hipsters Simply HAVE to by Gizzmonic · · Score: 3, Funny

      You lend money to a bunch of pseudo-geek hipsters? What's your job, Loan Shark 2.0? Do you break their Twitter accounts if they don't pay up?

      --
      (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
    2. Re:...But Pseudo-Geek Hipsters Simply HAVE to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and the number of them who owe me money, claim they're strapped for cash, yet tweet that they are the "mayor" of some downtown over-priced coffeehouse or sushi joint is ver-r-r-r-y revealing.

      To be the "mayor" you don't need to actually purchase anything, you just need to be there. Doesn't prove anything.

    3. Re:...But Pseudo-Geek Hipsters Simply HAVE to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You better pick up the phone. You better chat with the bone.

  22. proxies are not your friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since "Web 2.0", a proxy has degenerated into some crappy website where you can enter the address of another website, and then view it, plus extra adverts.

    It just means whoever is running the proxy also gets to see all your data (in addition to the ISPs and governments at each end, etc).

    Most halfway competent websites won't be fooled by a proxy anyway.

  23. You can always throw off the criminals by Wiarumas · · Score: 1

    You can always throw off the criminals by providing false data. At Tuesday, 3PM, User tweets "Gee golly, I hope my pet tiger doesn't trigger those bear traps I left hanging from the ceiling whenever the heat sensor detects human presence."

    --
    I will bend like a reed in the wind.
  24. Why Use Them At All by MrTripps · · Score: 1

    ZOMG! A service people sign up with to keep track of where they are keeps track of people where they are! How devious! Really, I don't see what benefit these services actually offer. Do I really need my phone telling the world about each time I get coffee? Same with tweeting. It may ease your ADHD and feed your ego for a couple of seconds, but other then that it is useless.

    --
    "I'm not a quack, I'm a mad scientist! There's a difference." - Dr. Cockroach
  25. Re:Simple fix by hedwards · · Score: 1

    I don't think you can do that. You can turn it off for applications, but I don't believe that it's completely deactivated. If I'm not mistaken, it's still available to the carrier and to 911 should you call it. Which depending upon the situation might be exactly the people you don't want to know where you are. Which really defeats the purpose of deactivating it. Even before phones came with software for GPS use, phones were already being shipped with GPS. I had a Samsung several years back, which had GPS, all it was for was 911 calls and signal quality. Not sure why they needed GPS for that, but I did notice that my cell reception mysteriously got much worse whenever I'd turn it off.

  26. Re:Simple fix by teh+kurisu · · Score: 1

    Also, every single mobile phone is exposing its location to the network. If you're really paranoid, stick it in flight mode, turn it off or leave it at home.

  27. This has all played out before by Abalamahalamatandra · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Back in the early days of APRS (Automatic Position Reporting System?), the ham radio community was happily mounting GPS trackers in their cars and sending their position out for convenient viewing on APRS screens. It was fun.

    Then Steve Dimse came along and started getting these position reports from the Internet to APRS gateways, making them available on a Java applet for anyone to see, and archiving them. People were more than a little bit unhappy at the time, but I think the consensus that was finally reached was "If you have a problem with that, turn off your tracker!".

    I think the same applies here. The info is public, you should know it's public, so if you don't want it to be public, don't send it out.

  28. Woof. by elrod · · Score: 1

    Just because I'm not home doesn't mean my Rottweiler isn't there.

    1. Re:Woof. by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      This burglar is breaking into a house in the middle of the night that he thinks is empty. Suddenly, he hears a voice repeating "Jesus is watching you!" Terrified, he shines his flashlight around the room, only to find the voice coming from a parrot in a cage. He sighs in relief. Just then, a huge rottweiler bounds into the room, and the voice yells, "Sick 'em, Jesus!"

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  29. The joy of it all by baomike · · Score: 1

    Look at the bright side, you not only get to give away your personal info/location
    you get to pay to have this done.

    Cell phones are such a wonderful invention.

  30. Remember to turn off location when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    - Going to an adult store
    - Going to a certain kind of physician
    - Going to women's reproductive/abortion clinic
    - Going to your place of worship
    - Going to various human rights (Gay rights) events
    - Going anywhere that is not "normal" (Want to take a peaceful stroll in the forest by your home for a change? -- Sure you can but you will have some explaining to do)

  31. Not that accurate, maybe in the future... by 2obvious4u · · Score: 1

    Latitude on the android isn't that accurate. Maybe in the future this will be an issue, right now its off by several miles and the refresh rate on peoples location can be off by as much as a day. In the future when they become more accurate and log location over time, then this might become an issue. As posted in one of the first post in this thread, if you don't want your location known, leave your phone at home.

    1. Re:Not that accurate, maybe in the future... by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Latitude on the android isn't that accurate.

      Got that right. The other day, on my way to work (a 6 mile commute, with a max speed limit of 50 mph), the GPS app I've got on my Android said I had traveled 458 miles and my current speed was a 122 mph (I had traveled maybe two miles, and my speed had yet to hit even the 50 mph max on that route). A few days later, the location tracker software I was testing showed that in the space of three minutes, I had traveled from Anchorage to near Iliamna Lake and back. That's a distance of about 150 miles, over water and mountains, and there's no road between the two locations. Even my airplane couldn't cover that distance in that time span :)

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  32. and with cell tower triangulation by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    its almost as accurate as gps

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  33. User Error by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    If you are posting your location in real time on some web page, its your own damned fault if you get robbed.

    As far as subpoenaing the info, what is he point of complaining? They could just have a PI tail you and have that entered into the court records. If you are doing something wrong and it involves location, how about turn it off before you go?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  34. The Privacy Nuts Reflux by b4upoo · · Score: 1

    If someone is stepping out on their mate exposure is a good thing. Affairs involve at least two people so any concept of privacy is misplaced. That which involves another can not be private.
                  As for the idea of a burglar using locating devices to assure an empty home that can only work if the burglar knows that a well armed resident does not remain in the home and that good alarm systems and video cams are not in place.
                  The benefits of these devices are too great to be much concerned over the supposed misuses that may happen from time to time.

  35. film at 11 by gearloos · · Score: 1

    Yawn... If you didn't already know this in 2000, then by 2010 your either dead, broke, or died broke (from the identity thieves for the thinking challenged)

    --
    "Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
  36. Re:Simple fix by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

    And in pretty much all of them you can disable Location Awareness.

    It isn't hard to understand at all.

    --
    Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  37. OMG by The+Good+Reverend · · Score: 1

    Every day, when I go to work, my neighbors know my house is empty!

    I'm not too worried if the people I CHOOSE to know my location know that I'm out getting a burrito.

  38. FourSquare is the most stupid idea ever by brunes69 · · Score: 1

    http://www.pleaserobme.com/ had it dead on. Before they took it down, they basically had a real-time feed with a linked Google Map showing houses that could likely be robbed *right now*, because the author (who "owns" that house on FourSquare", tagged themself as not being home.

    I have yet to see any real use for FourSquare at all, other than this inane social networking game. If you want to share your location with trusted friends, use Google Latitude. Why on earth do you think everyone on the planet cares that you visit the corner Starbucks every day? The only people who would care about that are criminals and stalkers (yes ladies, FourSquare is basically a stalkers paradise).