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."

27 of 152 comments (clear)

  1. 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    3. 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?

    4. 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.
    5. 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.

    6. 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
    7. 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.

  2. 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 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.
    6. 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.

    7. 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).

    8. 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.

    9. 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.
  3. 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"
  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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
  7. 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.

  8. ...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)
  9. 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.

  10. 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.