The Hidden Security Risk of Geotags
pickens writes "The NY Times reports that security experts and privacy advocates have begun warning consumers about the potential dangers of geotags, which are embedded in photos and videos taken with GPS-equipped smartphones and digital cameras. By looking at geotags of uploaded photos, 'you can easily find out where people live, what kind of things they have in their house and also when they are going to be away,' says one security expert. Because the location data is not visible to the casual viewer, the concern is that many people may not realize it is there; and they could be compromising their privacy, if not their safety, when they post geotagged media online."
This is why upload services should simply just strip out the un-needed info of the pictures. The original pictures still have the sometimes useful geolocation data, but your Facebook pictures won't.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
OMG, letters have post marks and tell what town the sender lives in!
OMG, caller ID gives my phone number to people that I call!
OMG, the Registry of Deeds lists my address and how much I paid for the house!
OMG, the phone book list my name, phone number and address!
We've been dealing with stuff like this for decades, right? I think the danger is more about the contents of your tweets ("I am on vacation") than the metadata ("I live here"). I can probably find your address if I wanted, even without Flickr metadata.
Of course, metadata can lie as well. Maybe I want to say, "I have a big coin collection" in Twitter and put photos of it all over the place on the web, but with false geotag data to make it look like it came from someone else's home. Because of that risk, even those who do not use Twitter, or the iPhone or Flickr are also at risk. Gee. maybe we should just lock our doors at night.
Photos tagged with the location in which the picture was taken can give away information about the location in which the picture was taken. Who would have thought?
Presumptively a 'safe' geotag is one that the user has control of.
The user should have options (A) No geotag [the default], (B) Fuzzy geotag that may reveal what city or state they are in, but not their actual location, (C) Hi-Res Geotags
Their phone should ask them how detailed the Geotag should be before they take pictures.
Their graphics software / picture sharing websites should ask what to do with Geotags before uploading.
e.g. (A) Hide/remove all geotags, (B) Only let friends see GeoTag information, (C) Make all Geotags fuzzy
With the default being A.
Potential security issues aside, geotags have always concerned me with the potential for unintended consequences. As someone with a passion for both native orchids and other rare life forms, along with history, I'm always concerned how an innocent snapshot by someone using geotagging might provide detailed location data to a poacher or pothunter. I've already seen a few plant populations decimated by a mere Flickr post, and I know I've seen geotags for the same species at other locations. I think it is a feature that should be disabled by default and used only with caution.
This is pretty obvious. Without even going into detail, once you know what "geotags" are, the first thing that comes to mind is "oh crap. this could be a big problem."
Why not just have a camera setting that says "Do not record geotag data within 1 minute of my selected location(s)"? Seems that would be the easiest fix. No extra processing needed.
Gimp has an exif option, I have not used it.
But if you take a photo for Wikimedia Commons and strip the Exif, and your photography skill looks professional, some regular might assume that you are fraudulently claiming copyright ownership of some other photographer's all-rights-reserved images. Preserving your camera's Exif data tends to shift the burden of proof to whoever is calling bullshit.