Google Sued For Tracking Users' Locations

RedEaredSlider writes "Two Android phone users are suing Google for $50 million in the wake of revelations that their phones might be tracking their locations. The lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on April 27, is seeking class-action status. The plaintiffs, Julie Brown and Kayla Molaski, are residents of Oakland County. The two say in the suit that Google's privacy policy did not say that the phones broadcast their location information. Further, they say Google knew that most users would not understand that the privacy policy would allow for Google to track users' locations." Apple was sued for their location tracking last week. According to Boy Genius Report, iOS tracking will be addressed in version 4.3.3, which is due out within a couple weeks.

Comments

Irresistible

[sehgalanuj]

There is a lot of money to be made in knowing where a user is. For Google it is a great advertising opportunity. By their own admission they are an advertising company. Put location gathering capabilities in a device made by such an advertiser and isn't it common sense that they may try to gather location information?

Re:Irresistible

[RobertM1968]

Yes, but that's irrelevant. Google is very clear about the ramifications of their location based/enhanced services. Either these people are idiots, or they need to sue whatever carrier modified the code to not sure Google's location aware warnings.

Re:Irresistible

[joh]

I'm saying this over and over these days, but: Knowing the location of the phone that views a certain ad right now is not evil. Knowing WHICH phone it is and/or WHO the user is, this is evil.

Google (and MS) just use an engineering approach here and use the Unique Device ID for tagging the location data (and AdMob even adds the Carrier User ID). What Apple does with iAd (use random IDs that get renewed on the iPhone every 12 hours) is much better, since it avoids this privacy problem to begin with. Using random IDs allows targeting phones and harvesting location information without identifying users/phones or tracking users over time.

Come on, fellow nerds: There ARE technical solutions to technical problems. Recognize that privacy is valuable and implement your stuff in a way that honours privacy by making abuse impossible (or at least possible only in a very abstract way) and you can have both: Advertisers targeting users and users not being tracked.

The amount of dumb fear and paranoia and especially the unwillingness to talk about technical details is just mindblowing. Advertisers are not after YOU. They may be after all people in a certain location or with a certain income or whatever, but they do not care for you personally and in fact they would LOVE to not have to care for such privacy problems by getting a clean implementation that gives them clean and anonymous data to work with. They work with "dirty" and too personal data only if they haven't got anything else.

Re:Irresistible

[RicoX9]

They're Idiots. I just got my first Android phone. You get warned when you go through setup. You get warned when you install and start EVERY APPLICATION that they'll be tracking you. There is no ambiguity if you have half a brain.

Idiots.

Re:Irresistible

[errandum]

The thing is, you can only use mobile assisted GPS if you accept to let google use your location. It has nothing to do with apps that track you, that's a whole other matter. Kind of a qui-pro-quo. You give them your Mobile location data (and network ssid's) and they allow you to use the already existing database (built by other users).

I said "no" during setup, but then every time I opened a GPS aware program it'd say "oh, you should also enable wifi blah blah". Got fed up and ended up enabling it. At least it ain't as easy to access the data as on iPhone 4 and it gets purged regularly.

Re:Irresistible

[PNutts]

At least it ain't as easy to access the data as on iPhone 4

Tell me again how to get that file off of an iPhone 4?

Re:Irresistible

[Mia'cova]

It's not so much about anonomized data being sent to advertisers. It's when you pick up an iphone/android you can look at the device and answer the question of "where was this user last night at 2am?" iphone had a location cache with no limit. I understand that android caches the last 50 locations. I've heard win phone only caches the current location. I don't think people would expect that the police could figure out where they were at a specific time three months ago simply based on data cached on their phone. That's the big privacy implication people are concerned about. The "can I be caught cheating because of my phone" concern.

Re:Irresistible

[Anonymous Coward]

You. Are. A. Fool.

Whatever data corporations collect about you is available to the government. Period.

Sometimes they can just buy it on the open market. Other times they need a National Security letter or even a (gasp!) subpoena.

The only way to keep this kind of stuff out of the hands of the government is to not generate it in the first place.

Re:Irresistible

[errandum]

http://petewarden.github.com/iPhoneTracker/

Re:Irresistible

[errandum]

Did you know that "cell tower data" is accurate up to accuracy is +- 40 meters (usually much, much better)?

If I have been vising the red light district I DON'T want that to be used in court as part of my divorce.

It's not a meme, it's a fact that they collect it and that's why they are fixing it with, at least, encryption so it's harder to access and purging it more often. If there was no problem no fix would be needed.

Having a full history of (some of) my visits easily accessible isn't something I want.

Re:Irresistible

[ColdWetDog]

Then TURN THE PHONE OFF when doing something that you don't want to broadcast. Treat it like email - it's essentially public. It's a cell phone. It tracks cells and the cells track you. That's how it works.

Re:Irresistible

[errandum]

So, if I have a heart attack while having sex I'll just wait for my iPhone to boot on? Or an I hit someone with my car, I'll tell the nice lady with the twisted leg "just a (literal) minute, the iPhone is turning on".

Really, turning it off is your solution? The clear solution is encryption and purging, that should be done from the start. I don't mind them knowing my location, as long as it is just THEM.

Re:Irresistible

[Jaxoreth]

But I only share my location with my friends on Latitude. I never made Google one of my friends, so why should they have my location?

Re:Irresistible

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Did you know that "cell tower data" is accurate up to accuracy is +- 40 meters (usually much, much better)?

The file contains locations of cell towers often miles away, not "cell tower data".

Re:Irresistible

[exomondo]

This meme is getting really tiresome.

How is it a meme? It's a fact.

The so-called "tracking data" used by iOS only contains CELL TOWER data

And you think it's difficult to triangulate a pretty accurate position based on cell tower data?

Re:Irresistible

[errandum]

The way it works is by triangulation. If by some reason, sometimes, you are outside the range of 3 cell towers (for triangulation), depending on what antennae they use, all they might be able to guess is a general 60/120 degree direction and a distance that has to account for attenuation, depending on what kind of ground you're in, and reflections / refractions and whatnot (specially bad in mountains / big citties / etc).. That's what produces those artifacts.

On the other hand, on most European cities you rarely find yourself outside the range of 2 or 3 cell towers (no idea on how good the coverage gets in the US).

And just because some points aren't exactly where they should be and there is one trip you say you can't account for, that might be due to a lot of factors, as in:

Bad cell tower configuration;
Lousy user memory;
More than one person sharing the same phone;
(etc).

Any of those can't be an excuse for the lousy security of the whole procedure why generally accurate tracking of the user.

Re:Irresistible

[DJRumpy]

Do they warn you before you buy it that you will be tracked by Google with every app and function that uses location awareness? If not, then they may have a case. Without that prior warning, someone may buy a phone, and not realize that it would be severely crippled since there is no way to opt out of this tracking without losing core functionality on the phone as well as a wide array of apps.

They're Idiots. I just got my first Android phone. You get warned when you go through setup. You get warned when you install and start EVERY APPLICATION that they'll be tracking you. There is no ambiguity if you have half a brain.

Idiots.

Re:Irresistible

[Luckyo]

Optionally, I could use a phone that doesn't collect such data or allows opt-out of collection? Lack I checked, iphone isn't the only smartphone available.

Or apple could stop making their phone into one-stop lawyer target, and by this I mean that every sensible lawyer will now subpoena your iphone's location data in cases like divorce.

Re:Irresistible

[joh]

You. Are. A. Fool.

Whatever data corporations collect about you is available to the government. Period.

Sometimes they can just buy it on the open market. Other times they need a National Security letter or even a (gasp!) subpoena.

The only way to keep this kind of stuff out of the hands of the government is to not generate it in the first place.

Yes, and I was exactly saying this and if you had read what I wrote you would have understood what I was saying.

Re:Irresistible

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

The way it works is by triangulation. If by some reason, sometimes, you are outside the range of 3 cell towers (for triangulation), depending on what antennae they use, all they might be able to guess is a general 60/120 degree direction and a distance that has to account for attenuation, depending on what kind of ground you're in, and reflections / refractions and whatnot (specially bad in mountains / big citties / etc).. That's what produces those artifacts.

On the other hand, on most European cities you rarely find yourself outside the range of 2 or 3 cell towers (no idea on how good the coverage gets in the US).

And just because some points aren't exactly where they should be and there is one trip you say you can't account for, that might be due to a lot of factors, as in:

Bad cell tower configuration; Lousy user memory; More than one person sharing the same phone; (etc).

Any of those can't be an excuse for the lousy security of the whole procedure why generally accurate tracking of the user.

Paranoiac. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2467895

Even better: http://www.willclarke.net/?p=278

there is still a large security concern for people that live in cities. Since the urban density of “cell phone towers” (or more realistically, wireless network nodes) is much greater, couldn’t someone who stole your iPhone find you in a city much more easily?

From the data I’m seeing, no. I have been looking through the table of my data more thoroughly and what I’ve found is interesting. It doesn’t log one data point at a time - it will log a couple dozen data points all at once. For example, here is my data visualized on a graph, for the timestamp of April 3rd at 5:15:25.865 PM:

Note the Horizontal Accuracy of the two points. This is a measure, in meters, of the confidence in that location - like when you load up maps and it shows a blue “halo” around your location indicating the area you may be in. The first point has an accuracy of 549 meters, the second 500 meters - and they are over 2000 meters from each other. Now, if these data points are supposed to be where you are, then their horizontal accuracies should all overlap on some point that reveals your actual location. But they don’t - which is why I believe they are locations of nearby cell sites, and the horizontal accuracy is a measure of how confident it is that the cell is there.

“But it’s still very revealing!” you must be thinking. After all, if it’s cell sites around you, you must be right in the middle of that circle. Fortunately for my privacy, no. At 5:15 PM on April 3rd I was in the bottom left of that circle, over a block away from the nearest dot on the map. I had just finished a 155 mile bike trip and was pretty happy to be sitting there, not moving.

Re:Irresistible

[Kireas]

This dev will bite.

Android phones have a cache file with the last 50 or so cell locations, and about 200 wi-fi locations. This is stored in a folder accessable only via root access to the phone - unlike iOS, it will never leave the phone unless a user goes looking for it.

Also, note the word 'cache'. It's used to speed up location requests, especially for their Navigation application and Latitude - oldest entries are deleted permanently as new ones come in, and from then on, if that location data survives anywhere, which knowing Google, it does, it'll be in anonymous format, with no way to link each location point with another one and no way to find out whose data it IS. iOS does not have a cache, it has a log. This is the key difference.

Well, there's that and the MULTIPLE warning screens on the device when you setup or install anything location aware. This cache file is empty if you never tick the "I allow my location to be used" box.

It's not particularly fair to compare the iOS logging to the Android...well...location functionality. The cache speeds up functionality massively.

Re:Irresistible

[teh kurisu]

Did you know that "cell tower data" is accurate up to accuracy is +- 40 meters (usually much, much better)?

This is either a gross exaggeration, or you're mixing up cell tower data with wifi or GPS location data. An accuracy approaching 100 m is extremely good for a cell tower location, 40 m is spectacularly accurate, and "much, much better" than 40 m is fiction. Either that, or your local cellphone company has decided to blanket your area with femtocells.

Typically you'll find that 3G cells in cities will give you accuracies of a few hundred meters, with 2G cells giving lower accuracies, from a few kilometres in urban or hilly areas, up to 10 km or more in flat areas.

And before you say 'triangulation'... if this is indeed intended as a cache of cell tower locations, in order to more effectively locate you when you don't have good data connectivity, then it will be pre-triangulation. Triangulation would occur after reading from the cache. There's no sense in storing your post-triangulation data in the cache, because all it would do is skew future results.

Re:Irresistible

[errandum]

I won't feed you anymore.

You say "one person doesn't have them" to "it's not tracking". Maybe that person has a defective phone. Maybe the cell towers were badly configured. I've seen plenty of logs of people that actually were where the phone said it was. Finding one (or two, or three) cases where it was wrong won't invalidate the majority where it was right.

The point is, I don't care if that user's wrong. Seen plenty of data where it was right and it should be (at least) encrypted or not accessible by a simple mac app. That's a fact, no matter how you twist it.

Re:Irresistible

[LoganDzwon]

your partially right.. First off, it doesn't track the user, it tracks cell towers. Second, if the phone see the SAME cell tower it doesn't create a new entry, it only updates the time stamp for the current entry. So one could see the most recent time you were near a cell tower about 2 miles from your ex-wife, but they would not know that go there every single night your current wife has been out of town.

Re:Irresistible

[errandum]

I can assure you this value is right for the majority of the cases. I actually had a course that covered how it works this week and the values are pretty fresh in my mind. 1 cell tower won't give you much, but if you have access to three you CAN pinpoint your location with relative certainty.

1 cell tower will give your relative direction and approximate distance, 2 cell towers can narrow it down, 3 will pinpoint it with the values I stated. It's a fact.

Re:Irresistible

[teh kurisu]

And I've worked with actual, real life location data, and I've never seen an accuracy figure even approaching 40 m, never mind "much, much better". I've seen a few figures that have dipped below 100 m, but in most of these cases we've been able to conclusively prove that the phone was actually outwith the area painted by the location plus accuracy figure, meaning that accuracy was poorer than the phone was reporting.

1 cell tower will give your relative direction and approximate distance, 2 cell towers can narrow it down, 3 will pinpoint it with the values I stated.

I understand how a single cell tower can give a relative direction, as each cell tower is typically made up of three nodes, each with a 120 degree field of 'vision'. But how do you calculate approximate distance, without the values being overwhelmed by errors in anything other than ideal conditions?

It's a fact.

Highly dubious, IMHO. Show me your maths and I might reconsider.

Of course this is all irrelevant, because you've ignored the second point I made in my original comment: the locations stored in mobile phone caches aren't triangulated.

Re:Irresistible

[errandum]

There are ways to calculate distance by signal decay, using approximate values depending on setting ( the decay coeficient goes from 2.0 for an open field to 4.x to an urban jungle - if I remember it right it's an exponential day).

And hell no, it picked up way more than "cell tower data" most of the time. And there are at least 3 kinds of triangulations, the one done on your phone is just one of them, but it can also be done in the cell tower itself (so it can be used to force you from one tower to the other). So "cell tower data" can be exact with enough sources.

To sum it up, in an open field in the middle of nothing, yes, it won't be accurate. In a city you can pinpoint someones location with relative certainty.

PS: I will show you the maths as soon as the lecture slides become available, don't worry.

Re:Irresistible

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

So any proof that you are wrong you take as" that guy must have a defective phone." Yeah right.

Re:Irresistible

[RobertM1968]

Do they warn you before you buy it that you will be tracked by Google with every app and function that uses location awareness? If not, then they may have a case. Without that prior warning, someone may buy a phone, and not realize that it would be severely crippled since there is no way to opt out of this tracking without losing core functionality on the phone as well as a wide array of apps.

They're Idiots. I just got my first Android phone. You get warned when you go through setup. You get warned when you install and start EVERY APPLICATION that they'll be tracking you. There is no ambiguity if you have half a brain.

Idiots.

Hmmm... by "severely crippled" do you mean "works fine"? My G1 had no location services enabled except GPS use for Nav (which is something I didn't have to use, and often didnt, because Nav would drain the G1 battery faster than it could be charged). So... with a fully functional phone, I could easily have gotten away with not using location aware services.

On my G2, I CHOOSE to use those services (Latitude, Facebook Places (which is faaaaaaar worse than any Google location aware services - Google at least doesnt sell out the information), Nav and rarely search with location awareness).

And honestly, even if things were quite the way you say, you forget one MAJOR fact (it's a multiparter):

(1a) When you turn the phone on, ie, usually DAY ONE, you get presented with all this information, and every app that can use location awareness tells you it does, combined with (1b) the MINIMUM "remorse" period in ANY state is 14 days for full, free, unpenalized return... 30 in some states, like California.

Thus, they could have easily turned in their phone for a full credit, full contract cancellation and not had any worries. Instead, they WAIT to finally decide it's an issue to them? BULLSHIT! Thus, no matter how you want to look at it, they've got no leg to stand on. From DAY ONE, they knew the ramifications and had PLENTY of time to return the phone and cancel their contract - or to replace the phone with one that has no location aware services.

Caps and bold not shouting at you - used entirely to point out the points making this case sit in the realm of the absurd.

Re:Irresistible

[errandum]

No, but your unwillingness to see all those people that actually FOUND their phones targeting them might just be right does mark you as someone with whom it is impossible to have a conversation. It's not just a defective phone. He might just live in an area with defective coverage or badly configured towers.

But, as I said, you're not worth my time, so, keep at it. I'm sure steve jobs will reward your blind devotion someday :)

Re:Irresistible

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Those people found exactly what they were told they would find, because they were told what they would find. They used the program the "researchers" provided (the "insider" who worked for Apple once is a graphics programmer, he dabbles in visualization as of late). They saw that on a map of America / whatever country they lived in, the displayed points showed where they have been. They were told that the program deliberately doesn't show the exact location of the points stored in the file to protect their privacy, and thus completely missed that those points didn't show where they were. They also missed that every single entry in the file is representing a unique place, and comes with only one time stamp, so the "track" never showed when you visited a place twice, or even daily. Only once. Everybody who actually bothered to look at the file found these things (apart from the "researchers" of course).

And you have the audacity to claim that every sigle one of these people had a broken phone, because what they found doesn't match what you believe in. Fuck You.

Re:Irresistible

[errandum]

Lol, you think it is ok to save all that info, unencrypted and with timestamps.

Good for you! :)

Re:Irresistible

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

It's a cache, you moron. Androids also have them. In addition to the spying they do on you.

Re:Irresistible

[errandum]

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

I quit.

Re:Irresistible

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

What? Being stupid? Not going to happen.

good

[SpiralSpirit]

this mandatory "give phone makers your location all the time" thing has got to be put down.

Re:good

[LWATCDR]

ummm. It is the law at least for the carriers to collect that info. That is how 911 location tracking works.
The thing I can not stomach is this law suit is because "They are too stupid to read and understand and didn't bother to ask questions!"
I mean really do people have no shame?

Re:good

[cpu6502]

Cell phones don't work if the towers don't know where you are. Location tracking is part of the spec.

Re:good

[SpiralSpirit]

carriers aren't the issue. google isn't a carrier, its not even a phone manufacturer. They wrote the OS, they're collecting data. The carrier probably doesn't need your consent to track your location, they don't monetize that information.

Re:good

[aztektum]

I am presented with various informational screens about what is happening with my Android phone when I enable any location based services. I can choose to leave them disabled.

How is that making it mandatory?

Re:good

[SpiralSpirit]

as mentioned above, google is not a carrier and need not know anything about my whereabouts, EVER. Actual carriers can track me without putting a program on my phone to do it - they just check to see what towers I've checked in on.

Re:good

[SpiralSpirit]

not even. you can post shit of facebook and twitter without google knowing where you are right now. You can even have the phone ask you each instance it wants to get your location.

Re:good

[Jahava]

> Location tracking is part of the spec...

True. The problem, however, is that everyone jumped up and down to give all their personal data to the phone companies with subscription plans.

If my phone is prepaid and the phone company has no clue whatsoever who the phone belongs to, then the towers knowing the location of that phone means nothing.

I was always amazed at how many people were willing to get locked into plans.

Not so; it is easy to de-anonymize tracking information by looking at the heavily-traveled areas. Most likely, those are your workplace and your place of residence. I'll bet that's enough to uniquely identify the vast majority of people.

That's the problem with location information. It's invariably tied to your physical self and your lifestyle, anonymous or not.

Re:good

[joocemann]

The data you mention is momentary. The issue is that it is recorded and shared. I'm glad to inform you of the difference.

Re:good

[RobertM1968]

this mandatory "give phone makers your location all the time" thing has got to be put down.

Unless a CARRIER modified some app or service on the phone, Google is VERY clear about their location aware services, and allow enabling or disabling them. Thus, (a) either these people are idiots, or (b) they need to sue the CARRIER who fucked with the software to hide the location awareness aspects. Either way, Google is not the issue here.

Re:good

[cheekyjohnson]

Most people hardly have the time to ask questions or learn legalese or pay lawyers to read all the paperwork they somehow get involved in.

Too bad for them, then. I believe that stupidity (or claiming you don't have enough time) is a terrible defense. That isn't the companies' fault, after all.

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

ummm. It is the law at least for the carriers to collect that info. That is how 911 location tracking works.

That is alright at the moment I do a 911 call. In the meantime there is no need for any location tracking.

Re:good

[nabsltd]

If my phone is prepaid and the phone company has no clue whatsoever who the phone belongs to, then the towers knowing the location of that phone means nothing.

...as long as you throw the phone away before some government employee retrieves all the data from it.

But, seriously, this really is one of those rare cases of "done nothing wrong...nothing to fear", as it's much more likely that location data from the carrier would be used before the location data from the phone. For example, if phone calls from kidnappers had come in at certain times from certain towers, then any phone ID that was using those towers at all those times would be something to help lead to a suspect. It would be harder to track down an individual if they use a prepaid phone, but if they already had a suspect, then it wouldn't really matter if the data was on the phone, because the carrier would also have the data.

Personally, the features that location data gives me is worth the very small hit at my privacy.

Re:good

[GofG]

It makes sense for the cell phone companies to be able to track you. Google, however, should not.

Re:good

[Belial6]

Correct. The first thing the phone does when you got to set it up is ask if you want to share your location data with Google. If someone shows that Google collects that data even when told not to, then there is a problem. Otherwise there isn't. The big hoopla over Apple was that they collected data even when location services were turned off.

My location is personal. Much like other personal things, consent is the difference between fun and abuse.

Re:good

[easyTree]

> Too bad for them, then.
Please tell us which company you work for so we can start boycotting your products - if that's how you feel about your paying customers.

> I believe that stupidity (or claiming you don't have enough time) is a terrible defense.
If I were to write this reply in Arabic, would you read it? Would you say something along the lines of "I don't have time to learn Arabic just to read your reply?" I think that you would. If failure to understand my reply put you at a legal disadvantage, would you consider that to be fair?

> That isn't the companies' fault, after all.
Uhh yeah. It is. When writing a document that will be read by their users (most of whom are not legal experts) that explains the legal relationship that user has with aspects of the company policy, they choose to write it in a language which they know will not be understood by those same non-legal expert users.

Re:good

[ex-googler]

I mean really do people have no shame?

Spend 5 minutes arguing with almost any Google engineer, and you'll find that your question goes both ways. The sense of entitlement "because we're Google" can get appalling very quickly.

Re:good

[chemicaldave]

It seems that you are the one who is too stupid to RTFA. This case isn't about users not reading the agreement nor is it about the carriers, nor about apps that might collect location info. As shown in this exerpt from the case:

Google tracks users' locations on its own, separate, apart and in addition to the information it collects in conjunction with other businesses that develop applications for Google's devices. This action is not about the applications' collection of information on users; rather, it is specifically in objection to Google's own collection of user location information.

It's about Google not being honest with its customers about how they track users. Indeed, the suit claims:

Google's Terms of Service do not disclose its comprehensive tracking of users nor its use of a unique device ID attached to each specific phone. Google only discloses that it is seeking permission to obtain location information from its Android Operating System cell phone users. Plaintiffs and other users did not provide any sort of informed consent to the extensive tracking at issue in this case.

It also takes issue with keeping this information unencrypted on the device itself, completely unbeknownst to the users. Location data is very sensitive and valuable information, and should be treated as such. It also makes note that collection of such information normally requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant. It doesn't matter that users agreed to some sweeping agreement, because this sort of tracking should require explicit approval.

16. Plaintiffs and proposed Class members were harmed by Google's accrual of personal location, movement and travel histories because their cellular phones were used in ways they did not approve, and because they were personally tracked just as if by a tracking device for which a court-ordered warrant would ordinarily be required.

I ask you, "Does Google have no shame?" When did corporations get a free ride? It's time for them to answer some questions. I'm sick of this Google bandwagon. IMO, deception is one of the worst moral wrongs a corporation can commit, and this is exactly what Google does.

"Do no evil?" I can't believe people fall for that shit. Google is a corporation, and their only obligation is to shareholders. Google doesn't give a FUCK about you, so long as they can make a profit.

Would I pay for Google's services if it meant I wasn't tracked? Gladly. But I don't have that choice, do I?

Re:good

[joocemann]

There is a TED talk that clearly demonstrates this issue. The guy talks about how public announcements are ridiculously worded and obfuscated deliberately to dissuade public involvement in community development, and other issues where the public is supposed to be involved.

While I cannot find that video, please enjoy this one of a very related topic.

http://www.ted.com/talks/alan_siegel_let_s_simplify_legal_jargon.html

Re:good

[Obfuscant]

Spend 5 minutes arguing with almost any Google engineer, and you'll find that your question goes both ways. The sense of entitlement "because we're Google" can get appalling very quickly.

Same as the sense of entitlement that some have that 'because you have a website' grants them automatic privileges to index every page on that site, or have a scraper download every piece of information, or consume every CPU cycle available on that site generating on-demand content, or full right to try to send any malformed or malicious SQL statements that their little hearts desire. After all, it it is on the net, it belongs to them now.

Re:good

[cheekyjohnson]

Please tell us which company you work for so we can start boycotting your products - if that's how you feel about your paying customers.

Well, if the company clearly writes it down somewhere and doesn't lie, then I see no problem. It certainly isn't their fault that the customer is either stupid or doesn't have time to read it (or some other reason). It's unfortunate, yes, but it isn't their fault.

If I were to write this reply in Arabic, would you read it?

Taking the time to learn a completely different language is quite different than taking the time to read something in your own language.

Re:good

[joocemann]

wow... well it sounds like YOU are a piece of trash person and have no purpose in the 'we the people' that is going on in what people-working-together often call democratic nations.

It's more of a shame to have people like you than people who have questions or are abused deliberately. You're a shame. Get me? You're a shame.

Now please be warned in a foreign language of something that would be important to your life... I'm wishing karma in your direction. Let me guess.... you don't give a crap.

Re:good

[cheekyjohnson]

Your comment contained many insults, but no explanation (that I see) as to why that is. I really don't see how it's a company's fault if someone doesn't have the time to read something or ask a question, provided the company was not lying to them or attempting to stop them from doing so in the first place.

Re:good

[LWATCDR]

The data is based on cell towers and is not exact. It is used to build up a location database of wifi spots that is used to for their wifi enhanced GPS. Even reading your post makes my head hurt.

"Google's Terms of Service do not disclose its comprehensive tracking of users nor its use of a unique device ID attached to each specific phone. Google only discloses that it is seeking permission to obtain location information from its Android Operating System cell phone users. Plaintiffs and other users did not provide any sort of informed consent to the extensive tracking at issue in this case."
Google asker to gather location data but the people where not informed? They did not disclose that they data would have identifiers? We are going to collect location data from your phone. What part of that did you not understand?
Yea what ever since the carriers already do that level of tracking now. They know and record every cell tower that your phone uses and probably signal strength. Pull off the tin foil hat people because it was disclosed. What part of "We are gathering your location data did you not understand? Not we are gathering randomized location data but your location data.
That one line is so self contradictory that it makes no sense at all.

Re:good

[element-o.p.]

When writing a document that will be read by their users (most of whom are not legal experts) that explains the legal relationship that user has with aspects of the company policy, they choose to write it in a language which they know will not be understood by those same non-legal expert users.

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the Internet. However, even to this techie-type, it seems to me that writing a document explaining "the LEGAL relationship the user has with aspects of the company policy" (emphasis mine) in anything other than legal language has BAD IDEA stamped all over it. I would think that such a document could be construed as being a legally binding document, and that's a really big problem to lawyers. We tech types use very specific words to convey very specific meanings. A layman might not understand the difference between bits and bytes, Ethernet and TCP/IP, an Android or an iPad, a netbook or a laptop. To us tech-types, however, each of these words has a specific meaning, and they are NOT interchangeable. Likewise, to a lawyer, legal contracts are written in a specific jargon because the words used have very specific meanings and clearly delineate rights and responsibilities of the two parties in a contract. Just as all of us have cringed when marketing departments or sales staff butcher beyond all recognition the technical description of a piece of tech, lawyers cringe when legal concepts are described in layman's terms. Why? Because when you simplify things, something inevitably gets lost in the translation, and in legal matters, that can easily mean more liability than intended...which often translates to financial liability.

While I don't doubt that lawyers and corporate legal departments see an advantage to writing "in a language which they know will not be understood by those same non-legal expert users" I don't think that is the primary motivating factor for writing legal documents in legal language; rather it is the fact that legal language is the best language to use for writing legal documents.

Re:good

[easyTree]

If the document purports to communicate with a layperson, it should be written in a language understood by a layperson.

If the document is intended for consumption by another legal-professional, let's do-away with the pretence that it's addressed to the layperson.

Re:good

[thegarbz]

They wrote the OS, they're collecting data.

And they are providing applications with great benefits for end users by using this data. For instance the graphical traffic overlay on Google maps. It blows my mind and is very useful, and I will happily tell Google anonymously where I am and what speed I'm moving if it means that in a perfect world I end up having more information about my environment.

Not to mention that these days I get served ads from local companies rather than some Russian text with a girl in the picture is a real bonus too.

Re:good

[element-o.p.]

Agreed. I turned location data off on my Android phone and tablet. That lasted about a week before I decided to turn it back on. In my estimation, the privacy I was giving up was negligible and the services I was receiving in exchange was valuable. Maybe I'm missing something, but nothing I've seen about this issue seems like that much of a big deal to me.

Re:good

[thegarbz]

Google does need to know otherwise it can't provide a decent service to other businesses and consumers such as local ads, traffic information, instantaneous GPS locks, etc.

Re:good

[element-o.p.]

And when an ambulance chaser uses a loophole contained in the plain-English document that didn't exist in the very specific legal language document to sue the company providing the service, what happens? As I said above:

...when you simplify things, something inevitably gets lost in the translation...

Just for grins, let's take this a step farther. How far down the scale of least common denominator do you have to go? Not everyone in the U.S. graduated from high school. There are probably people in the country who never even made it out of primary school. Should I have to translate my legal contract into Dr. Seuss or "Dick and Jane" so that even the least literate person in the country can understand the document? How about pictograms?

Re:good

[ColdWetDog]

If the document purports to communicate with a layperson, it should be written in a language understood by a layperson.

If the document is intended for consumption by another legal-professional, let's do-away with the pretence that it's addressed to the layperson.

So how low do you go? US average reading age is something like 8th grade level. Is it reasonable to write a legal contract at that level of comprehension? Should we have reading and comprehension tests before you are allowed to use a cell phone, get a credit card, get the basement door unlocked? Likely the only way really to ensure that any given individual understands a EULA, a contract or anything remotely complex would be to test them. That's a bit clumsy.

Really, there is no perfect answer to this and it gets worse as the civilization gets more complex and interrelated.

Re:good

[easyTree]

And when an ambulance chaser uses a loophole contained in the plain-English document that didn't exist in the very specific legal language document...

At no point did I suggest changing the meaning of the document - merely its presentation.

Just for grins, let's take this a step farther. How far down the scale of least common denominator do you have to go? Not everyone in the U.S. graduated from high school...

If you're trying to communicate with someone and seek their acceptance, you need to speak their language - one way or another.

Of course, if you merely wish to demonstrate a pretence at seeking their acceptance then this should be disregarded as within that scenario, recipients of the document are able to meaningfully consent to terms they cannot understand.

You may argue that it makes more sense for 99.6% of people to take the service of a lawyer so-as to read a document addressed to them than for the author to ensure that an understandable equivalent document is prepared although I suspect high levels of disagreement.

Re:good

[easyTree]

At the root of this is the idea that one party is seeking agreement from another. I believe it's clear that agreement cannot exist without understanding. It's not acceptable for the legal profession to disregard this truism simply to keep the wheels turning.

I'm not clear what the solution might be. Perhaps:
  * Educate the population (*)
  * Make it a requirement that EULAs are kept as simple as possible such that they are able to be 'translated' into everyday English understandable by someone whose agreement the EULA seeks.

(*) Sure that's likely to remove many of them from the poverty-trap and thus there'll be no grateful underclass to perform the country's unpleasant tasks but let's take one problem at a time.

My initial thought was that if there's an argument that the legal-profession's meanderings simply cannot be 'translated' into everyday English and that a legal mind is a necessity for every situation then this service should be made freely available to the 99.6% of Americans who need it. i.e. they are given free legal advice until they answer Yes to the plain english sentence "do you understand what I have just explained to you?"

Re:good

[easyTree]

Thanks.

A little too short for my liking and a little too specific - focusing on Siegel's own work.

I'd have liked to see a talk offering general advice on how to truly incentivize society to require maximal simplicity - difficult in a world where increasing financial reward comes to masters of increasing complexity.

Re:good

[easyTree]

Well, if the company clearly writes it down somewhere and doesn't lie, then I see no problem.

That's the issue. Legalese isn't clear to 99.6% of Americans.

It certainly isn't their fault that the customer is either stupid or doesn't have time to read it (or some other reason). It's unfortunate, yes, but it isn't their fault.

Once again, Yes it is. One mark of intelligence is the ability to explain a concept to anyone, regardless of their level of intelligence. Like an onion where outer layers contain inner layers.

It's a little more than unfortunate. If the company is unable to secure their customer's understanding they are unable to secure their consent. In this situation, lack of understanding should mean that the EULA isn't binding. One would imagine that in a world where EULAs are deemed necessary, a company would have a interest in ensuring that their unduly-restrictive terms are legally-binding.

Taking the time to learn a completely different language is quite different than taking the time to read something in your own language.

Legalese isn't English - despite sharing words.

Re:good

[cheekyjohnson]

Legalese isn't English

The words are, though. If they're intentionally trying to confuse their customers or lie to them, then I will say that I think that the company likely isn't a very good one. Since you're talking about that, I can agree.

Re:good

[RobertM1968]

Correct. The first thing the phone does when you got to set it up is ask if you want to share your location data with Google. If someone shows that Google collects that data even when told not to, then there is a problem. Otherwise there isn't. The big hoopla over Apple was that they collected data even when location services were turned off.

My location is personal. Much like other personal things, consent is the difference between fun and abuse.

Ya know, I think we all just made Google's case... I wonder if we can all split a chunk of the legal fees... ;-)

Re:good

[joocemann]

The video i am trying to remember how to search for is of similar length, maybe 10 minutes -- but it does construe a more generalized approach to simplicity. Sorry I can't find it.

Re:good

[Unipuma]

The carrier probably doesn't need your consent to track your location, they don't monetize that information.

Ohh, that's so cute. I remember when I was young and naive...

Re:good

[Overzeetop]

Yeah, I thought the same thing. And, of course, the carrier has to know your location to provide you services (within a cell-tower range, at least). Actually, my first though was to correct the OP:

The carrier probably doesn't need your consent to track your location, they don't monetize that information yet.

Re:good

[Belial6]

Nope. You can use GPS without giving Google data.

Re:good

[Nyder]

Obviously if you weren't such a pretentious little cunt you'd realize that the problem people have is with these companies sharing information on every movement they make to whatever companies are willing to pay them the most for it, not that it's required for the phones to work (and incidentally, location based services on both Android and iOS aren't required for the cell portion of the phone to work anyway, which makes your whole argument invalid).

Of course being a narcissist you've already dismissed me as being less intelligent than you for having a differing opinion, so I'll just lower myself down to your level and make a joke about your mother. Hey, you know your mother? She should have had her pussy stapled shut so that she couldn't squat out a little turd like you.

rofl

Man, you have some serious mother issues, don't ya?

Yeah, I mean...

[mdm-adph]

...doesn't it tell you upon first startup of _every_ Android phone that Google is going to be tracking your location ("sending anonymous location statistics"), and that you can turn it off if you want, but you won't be able to use apps and features that require it? It's not buried somewhere in the TOS -- it's an entire screen that you have to go through upon setting up an Android phone.

Re:Yeah, I mean...

[Belial6]

I would disagree with that. The storage part isn't really the bad part. If it stayed on your phone, then it would just be sloppy. The problem is that Apple was collecting data off of your phone even when specifically told not to.

Re:Yeah, I mean...

[TRRosen]

No the phone was collecting data as it needs to. And at no point has anyone shown that any data from the db file on the iPhone has ever been transmitted to Apple. If location services are off nothing can access that data but the AGPS system as required. AGPS for 911 would be useless if it took 10 minutes to get your location.

The key here is there is a difference between AGPS and location services but they use some of the same data.

Re:Yeah, I mean...

[Belial6]

Apple collects data that is not necessary.

From the Apple FAQ http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/04/27location_qa.html:

8. What other location data is Apple collecting from the iPhone besides crowd-sourced Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower data?

Apple is now collecting anonymous traffic data to build a crowd-sourced traffic database with the goal of providing iPhone users an improved traffic service in the next couple of years.

As far as I have seen, Apple has never said that they don't collect this data when location services are off. The database is just the piece that got them caught. It is not the problem itself.

Re:Yeah, I mean...

[node 3]

Yes, it does. It is very clear. You can also turn it off very easily. THIS suit should get thrown out. The Apple one has merit simply because of the storage part.

How so? Both Apple and Google store a cache on the phone. And the cache on Apple's phone isn't *your* location anyway, it's a subset of Apple's location database, and any incidental privacy concerns are going to be addressed very soon.

Re:Yeah, I mean...

[TRRosen]

That is completely false. Examinations have clearly shown that while location services are off no data is transmitted to Apple.

Re:Yeah, I mean...

[phxhawke]

It does tell you during the setup up. The first thing I did was turn on all the location stuff and I did so KNOWING that it would be sending that stuff. It isn't hidden but made rather blatant by Google.

There's a key difference here.

[lowlymarine]

On Android, you have to MANUALLY TURN ON network-location-based services (they are disabled by default), and when you do so, you are given a warning that anonymized information will be collected by Google. The only way you could be unaware of this "tracking" is if you failed to read the warning before tapping "agree," and that's hardly Google's fault. This isn't some sprawling 100-page EULA with the warning buried in the middle, either. It's two flipping sentences.

Re:There's a key difference here.

[SpiralSpirit]

many cell phone stores do the setup for the customer, and the customer never sees the "start up" screen and the box. they cell phone salesperson just click ok ok next until they can set up the email etc for them.

Re:There's a key difference here.

[mdm-adph]

And again, this is not the fault of Google. Sue the cell phone store.

Re:There's a key difference here.

[lowlymarine]

Following the initial set-up, network location is STILL OFF until you go into settings and enable it. Hence, "disabled by default." If the salesman then proceeded to go into settings and turn on network location without telling the customer, then sue the store, not Google.

Re:There's a key difference here.

[LWATCDR]

seems like it is worth 50 million to me. I mean you can see how this did 50 million dollars worth of damage right?

Re:There's a key difference here.

[vinng86]

Indeed. Here's a picture.

Re:There's a key difference here.

[avgjoe62]

No, I can't, but then again I'm not their lawyers looking to pay off a Lamborghini...

Re:There's a key difference here.

[chromaexcursion]

Then they can sue the store, not Google. Each app that uses location data has a red flag that is does in the app description. RTFM. Failure to do so may impair your right to sue.

Re:There's a key difference here.

[SpiralSpirit]

...separate issue from google collecting location data all the time.

Re:There's a key difference here.

[RobertM1968]

...separate issue from google collecting location data all the time.

Huh? My GPS only turns on when I use Maps, Latitude or Nav (or do a Facebook check-in). And those are all by choice with me fully knowing the repercussions (since Google spells them out pretty clearly).

Re:There's a key difference here.

[joh]

This "anonymized information" still contains the unique device ID of your phone that gets only reset when you do a factory reset of your phone. AdMob (by Google) submits this unique device ID as well as the carrier user ID along with your location data every time you view an ad.

Come on, this is just too much information.

Re:There's a key difference here.

[Bob9113]

> you are given a warning that anonymized information will be collected by Google.

If it's anonymized, then they are not tracking my location. They are tracking the location of an anonymous device. I have only a limited problem with that (they're using my device to generate revenue, without explicitly cutting me in on the action).

> The only way you could be unaware of this "tracking" is if you failed to read the warning before tapping "agree," and that's hardly Google's fault.

Whether it is Google's fault is not our place to decide. What is the scope of the agreement; only for the app the user intends to use it for, or for all apps? How long does that agreement endure? Do the users understand that its duration is what it is? These people are petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. The court decides whether the fault lies with Google, which is a government licensed organization (articles of incorporation and tax identity).

I haven't seen the screen in a long time (zero day G1 (actually arrived a day early), enabled long ago). If you post a screenshot, I tend to think I would agree with you -- but it still would not be my place to decide.

These are sensitive new issues; reducing people's privacy for profit in the context of a non-negotiable contract and the possibility of a lack of informed consent. These issues should be explored in the courts. ... Well, they should be explored in something more effective and efficient than the courts, but I don't know that such a mechanism with due authority exists. The free market would handle it with perfect information and perfect competition, but the former is exactly what is in question, and the latter is far from perfect.

Re:There's a key difference here.

[Bob9113]

> Following the initial set-up, network location is STILL OFF until you go into settings and enable it. Hence, "disabled by default." If the salesman then proceeded to go into settings and turn on network location without telling the customer, then sue the store, not Google.

Were the purchasers informed at the time of purchase, and at the time they entered into a contract with the provider, that if they did not consent to tracking the device would be incapable of performing the functions used to advertise the device? Were they informed of the option to return the device and void the contract when they reached the screen that told them, in a way that may be confusing to the average idiot, that they would be tracked? Did they even have that option?

Re:There's a key difference here.

[thegarbz]

Given that you only need to enable location based services if you use apps that require this tracking feature I would say yes, even the dumbest idiot could call them selves fully informed about this feature.

There is NOTHING that doesn't work on a stock standard android phone when location services are off. The only negative part is GPS locks are slower and you get a warning when starting Google maps that speed and accuracy is improved if location services are turned on.

Personally I have never seen an advert that sells a phone in any way that requires location based tracking to be turned on. Even the 2 minute Nexus S advert which shows many of the great features of Gingerbread would work just fine with location based tracking turned off. Actually the only feature of a stock Android system that wouldn't work is the "Traffic Layer" on Google Maps, and only if everyone locally disabled tracking.

Re:There's a key difference here.

[element-o.p.]

That's absurd. If the cellular carrier mucks with my phone so that location services are turned on, then the cellular carrier is the one who wronged me, not Google.

Suing Google because the carrier screwed with my privacy settings would be like the new owner of my car/house (in your analogy) suing me because I still retain the title to the car or house even after they paid for it, and then having me sue you to recover what I had to pay to the person who thought (s)he bought my car or house. Do you SERIOUSLY think that's how it should work? IMHO, both the end user AND Google should sue the carrier. The end user, because the carrier bound the end user to a contract without the end user's knowledge or consent, and Google, for having their reputation shot because of the carrier's actions.

However, even that is academic because shortly after I bought my Android phone, Google e-mailed me not just once, but twice to inform me that location services were turned on, and here's how to disable them if that's not what I wanted, etc., etc. So even IF the carrier set up location services without my knowledge, Google still had a means to inform me of what was being collected and what to do if that's not what I wanted. In other words, even if the carrier set up your phone for you, you'd still have to be brain dead not to know what data was being collected.

Re:There's a key difference here.

[Bob9113]

"you ... need to enable location based services if you use apps that require this tracking feature"

"Personally I have never seen an advert that sells a phone in any way that requires location based tracking to be turned on."

The app store and the availability of apps is frequently used to advertise the device.

"I would say yes, even the dumbest idiot could call them selves fully informed about this feature."

Have you ever had this conversation:

Idiot: What do I do next?
You: Click on "Check Mail"
Idiot: OK, now it shows a dialog that says, "Check Mail Now?" Should I click "OK?"
You (banging head on desk): Yes, click "OK."

If you have not, you must not interact with normal humans very often. If you have, you must see that the average idiot is far more retarded than you are giving them credit for.

You are stating that this is an open and shut case. I disagree -- despite the fact that I am a big fan of Android, having written two apps and having received my G1 the day before official release (shipping error, I assume). My disagreement either means that I am an idiot, which I don't think you are supposing (and if you are, you are mistaken), or that this is a point on which rational people can see different perspectives.

If the latter is the case, then this is exactly the sort of petition for redress of grievance regarding a government licensed organization (Google; articles of incorporation and tax identity) that is supposed to be brought before the court system. You may well be proven correct -- I am not saying you are wrong. I am saying that the matter of non-negotiable contracts used to permit for-profit reduction of privacy -- particularly when there is some question of informed consent -- is precisely the sort of issue that cannot be entrusted exclusively to the whims of private interests. These things should be examined by the very system we as a society have designed to examine them.

Re:There's a key difference here.

[reikae]

It's actually a relevant picture. Strange...

Yawn

[Lysander7]

Just another story of idiots trying to make easy money by suing a corporation.

Re:Yawn

[cpu6502]

Yeah just like the corporations made "easy money" by sucking 1500 billion from the Taypayer Treasury. Please pardon me if I feel no sympathy for inanimate objects like rocks, buildings, or corporations. They basically enslaved and sucked dollars from the wallets of ~300 million working class citizens.

Re:Yawn

[Lysander7]

But legally, corporations are people! ...God our government is messed up.

Re:Yawn

[minus9]

"Yeah just like the corporations made "easy money" by sucking 1500 billion from the Taypayer Treasury."

Where did the Tapirs get all that money? The sneaky little buggers.

It's Google

[geoffrobinson]

I hate to be mean or make excuses for them, but why would anyone be surprised by this? They are making the operating system for free. How would you expect an advertising company to monetize that?

And this is also why I avoid Chrome.

Re:It's Google

[h4rr4r]

They make money via the market and by charging for access to the market. You can disable location services, heck it comes out of the box disabled. The user has to actively enable it.

Re:It's Google

[stewbacca]

Not sure why you are modded troll. Seriously, any company that offers a free service has to have a financial incentive elsewhere in order to keep providing the service. Google is an advertising company, at the end of the day. Technology is their vehicle.

$50 Million? Seriously?

[XxtraLarGe]

I'd like to know what kind of damages they've incurred as a result of being tracked by Google that justifies a $50 million payday...

Re:$50 Million? Seriously?

[Applekid]

I'd like to know what kind of damages they've incurred as a result of being tracked by Google that justifies a $50 million payday...

That's called "punitive damages". Not based on damage done, but a sufficiently high number to coerce a settlement -- er, I mean -- punish the company for wrong doing.

Re:$50 Million? Seriously?

[Haedrian]

Luxury Yachts won't pay themselves.

Re:$50 Million? Seriously?

[Drathos]

Actually, when I saw this on Ars the other day, they claimed:

The lawsuits asks the court to require Google to either give up tracking Android users or to clearly inform users of "its true intentions about tracking," including whether that information is released to third partis are used for marketing. It further seeks monetary damages "in excess of $50,000,000.00" as well as punitive damages on top of that amount.

So, this sounds like a cash grab, to me.

Re:$50 Million? Seriously?

[StripedCow]

I think they use RIAA-style reasoning here. And why not?

Re:$50 Million? Seriously?

[cvtan]

I don't even own an Android phone and I've been damaged $100miliion worth just listening to the suffering. (Accident witness stress syndrome).

Re:$50 Million? Seriously?

[francium de neobie]

They should go Dr. Evil and demand one million dollars *checks back with Number 2*, sorry, one hundred billion dollars.

Look deeper into the hardware

[countertrolling]

Where any information gathered is a 'trade secret'.. This is where you will find the real problem. The software cannot turn it off. You have to remove the battery if you want to do that.

Are users really that oblivious

[realsilly]

Even cell phones with those tiny SIM cards allow a User to be tracked. So why wouldn't makers of cell phones that do everything but cook for you do any less?

DUH!

Might

[khr]

their phones might be tracking their locations

Might? Might be tracking their locations? Sounds like they don't even know if it is or not...

Re:Might

[thegarbz]

Which is quite telling given the billboard sized warning about how the phone tracks you, when the phone tracks you, how to turn this on, and how to turn it off that you receive when you first get an Android phone.

Data vs. statistiss

[UBfusion]

The accurate term that should be used in the TOS is "location data" and not just "location statistics". "Data" would contain (precise or approximate) location coordinates while "statistics" should contain only numbers pertaining to locations e.g. "user x was located within 100 meters of location y during month z".

The end user may read the TOS in detail but my bet is that he does not understand what he reads.

Re:Data vs. statistiss

[Kenoli]

The accurate term that should be used in the TOS is "location data" and not just "location statistics". "Data" would contain (precise or approximate) location coordinates while "statistics" should contain only numbers pertaining to locations e.g. "user x was located within 100 meters of location y during month z".

Those "numbers pertaining to locations" sure sound like approximate coordinates to me.

What a crock of double standard!

[MacGyver2210]

Not to mention, unlike Apple, who miraculously has avoided suit over this same problem, you can ACTUALLY turn it off, so it doesn't send ANY data.

I don't use the GPS or location features, so I disable all location triangulation, GPS satellite, and reporting features in my Droid. On my iPhone 4, I can't do that, no matter how badly I want to.

So who really deserves to get sued here?

Re:What a crock of double standard!

[Lunix Nutcase]

On my iPhone 4, I can't do that, no matter how badly I want to.

Only because you are ignorant of how to do so. You can disable it on iOS just like in Android.

Re:What a crock of double standard!

[kenshin33]

but the same could be said of Google.

Not to add "oil on the fire" (translated from french : rajouter de l'huile sur le feu, if anyone knows the english equivalent plz I want to know it) but, android is open source ... so anyone can look, modify rebuild and...etc. So it is highly unlikely (notice the probabilistic tone) that the statement above is true.

Re:What a crock of double standard!

[stewbacca]

Yeah, I'm kind of confused at how a group of tech smart people on slashdot claim you can't turn of location services on an iPhone (or perhaps don't know how to disable location services on an iPhone). Or maybe it's not true that you can't turn it off....hmmmm....

Re:What a crock of double standard!

[thetoadwarrior]

Maybe because you don't know how to operate your iPhone or actually don't own one. http://www.apple.com/batteries/iphone.html

Minimize use of location services: Applications that actively use location services such as Maps may reduce battery life. To disable location services, go to Settings > General > Location Services or use location services only when needed.

Re:What a crock of double standard!

[flimflammer]

Except until the next update comes out, you can't actually stop it from collecting the data even if you turn it off. That's what he meant.

Re:What a crock of double standard!

[StayFrosty]

Not to add "oil on the fire" (translated from french : rajouter de l'huile sur le feu, if anyone knows the english equivalent plz I want to know it)

In English it's usually "Add fuel to the fire."

Re:What a crock of double standard!

[SnowZero]

Here's a tip: to turn Location Services off, slide the toggle to the off position

And imagine your surprise when you find out iPhone Tracking Even When Location Services Disabled .

The researchers who broke the story were not surprised that apps could use location services, they were surprised that:
(1) this data is retained for over a year.
(2) it was accessible to desktop machines when the phone was docked and in backups (using default settings).
(3) that it still logged this data when location services were turned off.

It's true some people are now getting upset about the location service itself, but I think that the media response on that is overblown and the cases are unfounded. It's unfortunate, since it covers the real issue (which Apple will fix soon).

Re:What a crock of double standard!

[SnowZero]

Unfortunately, iPhone Tracking Even When Location Services Disabled. Your "fix" won't work until the next patch comes out.

Government Mandate

[jklovanc]

There is a mandate in the US that states that cell phones must be tracked for 911 purposes. So Google must collect the info for 911 to use. Giving it to advertising companies is a different story.

Re:Government Mandate

[Whatanut]

Negative. Google need do no such thing. The cell operators need to do this. Google does so because they can. The carriers do so because they must.

This case is already lost

[UBfusion]

IANAL, but my bet is they're going to lose the case for claiming to know Google's intent. How can one possibly know that "Google knew that most users would not understand that the privacy policy etc." without being a Google employee?

Re:This case is already lost

[mikechant]

How can one possibly know that "Google knew that most users would not understand that the privacy policy etc." without being a Google employee?

They would ask the court for google to be required to produce all relevant internal emails etc. so they could look for the "but the idiot users won't understand this and will just agree" smoking gun. It's called the 'discovery' stage of the lawsuit.
That's not to say that I believe that such evidence exists or that the court would view such disclosures as reasonable, but that's how it works.

Also, this lawsuit makes multiple claims which do not necessarily fall together when one of them (the bad intent) is struck out.

Easy win for Google

[jd2112]

Assuming the GPS on those phones works as bad as any of the Android phones I've ever used.

Re:Easy win for Google

[jd2112]

Not intended as a troll. I generally like my Android phone but most of the time it can't aquire a GPS signal. (Unless I know where I am, where I am going, and how to get there. It seems to work fine as long as I don't need it). It seems to be a common complaint among other Android owners I know.

Location Tracking a Good Thing

[travdaddy]

Location Tracking may be a Good Thing. News is coming out that Osama was tracked down because he had an iPhone. Even after the news came out about the location tracking, he couldn't put down Angry Birds.

notintendedtobeafactualstatement

Re:Location Tracking a Good Thing

[GofG]

I thought it was because he had a PS3, and his address, credit card, etc were hacked with the other millions. The hackers saw an entry for "osama bin laden" in their brand new database and forwarded it to the gov't for amnesty.

Amazing

[93 Escort Wagon]

I suppose there's plenty of time for the winds to change - but it's amazing how different the tone of pretty much all the replies on this post is versus the ones on Apple's location tracking just a few days ago.

Oh, but I forgot - it's Google. They use Open software (somewhat) and state they're not evil.

Re:Amazing

[TRRosen]

Shut up Apple lets you turn it off just as much as google.

Re:Amazing

[makomk]

Apple lets you think you've turned it off, but your iPhone continues to log your location anyway.

just pay 50 million

[goombah99]

There is a lot of money to be made in knowing where a user is. For Google it is a great advertising opportunity. By their own admission they are an advertising company. Put location gathering capabilities in a device made by such an advertiser and isn't it common sense that they may try to gather location information?

which is why 50 million would be cheap if it's a class action settlement.

Dear ALL FREAKING BUSINESSES:

[Scutter]

STOP MONETIZING ME! I am not a data goldmine for you to rape at your convenience! Sell me the product that I want (NOT the product you think I need, or the Trojan Horse product that gets you access to my information) and then STEP OFF.

Re:Dear ALL FREAKING BUSINESSES:

[stewbacca]

STOP MONETIZING ME! I am not a data goldmine for you to rape at your convenience! Sell me the product that I want (NOT the product you think I need, or the Trojan Horse product that gets you access to my information) and then STEP OFF.

So stop buying their mining devices then.

Yes, and of course giant mega-corporation is going to make a phone with features YOU -- 18425 -- want and not what the majority of people want.

Re:Dear ALL FREAKING BUSINESSES:

[joh]

Smartphones are an amazing distributed instrument. Millions and millions of computers with constant net access, GPS and whatnot, being carried all over the world in the pockets of their users. The nerd in me sees perfectly well the amazing potential here.

I would be just too glad to be part of this instrument and to participate in data collection allowing others to offer good and useful services from the collected data. I have no problems with others monetizing this and offering me what they created, IF they make sure that neither my phone nor I as the user can be identified or tracked by this.

THIS is the problem to be solved and it is a technical problem that can be solved by technical means.

Use a random ID that is valid for a short while and then is replaced by another random ID generated on my phone and take my location data along with this ID. I'm fine with this. A location tagged with a random ID is worthless to me but combined with millions of other locations with random IDs it is not worthless. It's valuable data then. Done this way the data is precise enough to count phones in a road and to see how fast they move and it's enough to deliver targeted ads and countless other things, but it is not enough to know who I am and to track me. Google and MS tagging that data with the unique device ID and/or the carrier user ID instead very obviously haven't recognized that problem and need to have their noses smacked with a lawsuit to learn about it.

Re:Dear ALL FREAKING BUSINESSES:

[tompaulco]

Yes, and of course giant mega-corporation is going to make a phone with features YOU -- 18425 -- want and not what the majority of people want.
I don't think the majority of people WANT to be tracked. If they were given the option of device A that tracks and device B that doesn't, I would suspect they would mostly go for B, except for the devices that they were going to give to their kids. However, option B is not available, and so most people seem to prefer to have shiny new toys rather than take a stance to protect their privacy and do without the toy.

Re:Dear ALL FREAKING BUSINESSES:

[Homburg]

Why should I care if a business is monetizing me? What harm does it do me if Google, or whoever, collects information about me and uses that to make money?

Re:Dear ALL FREAKING BUSINESSES:

[stewbacca]

The majority of people WANT location services, because pretty much every app benefits from knowing where the phone is in relationship to whatever it is that app is trying to do.

Granted, Angry Birds doesn't need to know where I am to be better, but things like, oh I don't know, weather, traffic, restaurant finders, maps, real estate tools, running/biking/hiking apps, hotel finders and a million other apps. I'd say probably 75% of my apps require location services, and I'm probably more in the majority than people like you who dismiss such services as "shiny new toys" and obsess about imaginary privacy threats.

Re:Dear ALL FREAKING BUSINESSES:

[Brucelet]

Of course, it'd be nice if you could opt out of that data being stored somewhere that's not your phone for any extended period of time.

Re:Dear ALL FREAKING BUSINESSES:

[Brucelet]

Even with randomized IDs, it's possible to data mine and figure out who the users associated with some data are. Supposed you have anonymous data that says User 123 was in Fred's room last night, User 456 went to Fred's workplace today, and User 789 was at Fred's local supermarket last week. Eventually it becomes pretty clear that users 123, 456, and 789 are all Fred.

Re:Dear ALL FREAKING BUSINESSES:

[thegarbz]

I want a product that uses location based services of all people around me to show me the current state of traffic on all major roads in my city. This product would make my life easier as I go about my daily travels in this god-awfully designed city.

Oh wait I already have this. Thanks Google.

Re:Dear ALL FREAKING BUSINESSES:

[tompaulco]

I'd think all of those things could benefit from knowing where you are to request the information for that area, but presumably would also have another way to specify, "OK, but what if I am GOING to be there and want to know, but am not there right now?" And the back-end system should be completely ignorant of whether you are really there or not. It sounds like right now, the message is "Hey, I'm here, show me what's around", and the message really ought to be "hey, I want to know what's around X and never you mind whether I am there or just curious".
And, as many have pointed out, a lot of that can be told to bugger off in Android, which I would assume would mean you have to type in your zip or something to get info, or maybe you give it a one time access, but I would think a smarter solution would be to just send the information to the back end but not give any indication as to whether that is your current location or just something you want to know about.

Re:Dear ALL FREAKING BUSINESSES:

[joh]

How should that work? If there were hundreds of people at Fred's workplace and thousands of people at Fred's supermarket, how do you know who is Fred? What you're saying makes only sense if you already know who Fred actually is and which random IDs his phone had at these moments. But you don't. All what you have is lots of different random IDs with an associated location.

Not really a statement

[Anonymous Coward]

Reading a EULA is like reading a paperback novel. Only it's written in Sanskrit and there's no character development, plot, or even anything interesting happening. Seriously, they write those things knowing damn well that NOBODY WILL EVER READ THEM. Heck, most people don't even possess the wherewithall or legal chops to read them. When you're standing in a queue in Best Buy you rarely have time for such things. And then when you get the thing home I'm sure the first thing you want to do is sit and swot over 80 pages of legal blurb and jargon then spend 2 weeks formulating the holes and headroom for exploitation in that contract before you sign your life away. If we all did this there wouldn't be a single consumer in this country...guaranteed!! The average employment contract is simpler than an iPod contract, WTH?

Plus, by the time you've read the EULA it's changed anyway so what's the point?

Re:Not really a statement

[telekon]

Fine, don't read the EULA. But don't cry when you're sewn ass to mouth in a Human CentiPad.

At least Google just tracks your location, which seems a whole lot less intrusive now, doesn't it?

Re:Not really a statement

[fermat1313]

...hence Apple's new initiative, the Human CentiPad.

"Why won't it read?"

Re:Not really a statement

[grcumb]

Reading a EULA is like reading a paperback novel. Only it's written in Sanskrit and there's no character development, plot, or even anything interesting happening.

So... just like a Dan Brown novel, basically?

In that case, Google should wrap their EULAs in gimmicky paperback covers and sell them on Amazon. They'd make millions and everybody would pretend they'd read them.

Re:Not really a statement

[LWATCDR]

Actually Google phones tell you when you first log on to them that they are going to collect position data for services in pretty clear English.
I have had to work with legal documents a bit in the last few years. To me they resemble wishes in DnD more than anything else in my experience. You must word them with painstaking care so you get what you want without out any strange or terrible results.

You have to be fucking joking

[atari2600a]

Who would have thought LOCATION AWARENESS would mean the device would be AWARE of your LOCATION!? Seriously it says right there when you turn it on that it'll forward your coordinates & any Wifi SSIDs directly to Google!

Re:You have to be fucking joking

[GodfatherofSoul]

Location awareness ain't the problem. It's reporting your comings and goings back to Google HQ. But, even if it were outlawed, I'm sure they'd figure out ways to log your shopping location queries and extract your location.

Re:You have to be fucking joking

[GryMor]

It doesn't work without sending the location data to google, and by "doesn't work" I really mean, "can't work" without sending data to a centralized system to look up the necessary data to compute your enhanced location. In some sense, your phone doesn't send Google precisely where you are, instead, it sends statistics from which Google derives a better guess as to where you are and sends it back to you.

Fun thing is, unlike Apple, they actually TELL YOU what they are doing when you turn it on, and ASK if you really want to do it.

Re:You have to be fucking joking

[GodfatherofSoul]

Think of it this way. If I do a Google query for a map location, Google can serve up that map to me and allow me to interact with their map app, but they don't have to associate that information with me or log my queries. So, you can have location awareness applications without location tracking.

I've and an Android phone and I've had location tracking turned off as you talk about. But, it's a pain in the butt using phone with the feature turned off (all the prompts you end up navigating any time you do a location-based query).

Really?

[cultiv8]

From Count III of the complaint:

Google also could have required a single sentence disclosure describing its rampant covert tracking of individual users' locations to be signed by purchasers.

Actually, Google has two sentences.

what's the big deal?

[hldn]

everyone already knows julie brown is downtown.

hyuk hyuk hyuk.

Re:Reality check.

[RobertM1968]

And as far as user agreements, in this corporately run society, you have only two choices: take it or leave it.

I've chosen to leave it and I'm quite happy, thank-you-very-much.

Entirely irrelevant to this discussion, since you can actually choose not to turn on location aware services on Android (and they are off by default). Additionally, the "user agreement" warning for this is two sentences that are easy to understand.

Next

[C_Kode]

Start lining up to sue all the app developers too.

Trey Parker

[stewbacca]

Proof positive that Trey Parker is a genius.

Google does NOT have to collect that info

[hellfire]

The phone has to have the ability to notify the carrier of it's location, who can then give that to 911 as necessary. Sure that means that Android may have to do something in order to enable that, but one of those things is NOT to phone home to Google.

Re:Google asks for your consent

[stewbacca]

I tried posting the equivalent argument in the iPhone version of this story and got flamed into oblivion as a fanboy. As your screen shot clearly shows (and as does the same feature for iPhone), it actually IS a feature that many of us want. The negatives, for many of us, are drowned in a sea of positives (cool features that require location services).

But hey, don't try saying something nice about location services in a slashdot thread about iPhones if you are thin skinned.

Utterly Absurd

[canajin56]

When I first turned on my Android phone, it told me that by default location services is turned off. It then asked if I wanted to turn it on, and if I did, would I also like to help Google out by contributing nearby towers and wifi networks to help improve the service. All optional, and all clearly laid out. And, you can't even argue that users feel forced, because you can still get the location-based features without allowing Google to collect the data, since the two options are separated. Additionally, it's also fine-grained and application/website specific. Even IF you enable Location Services for google websites, if a different website asks for it, you get another prompt. Similarly, each application besides the browser that wants that data will also require a prompt. (At least on my phone it does).

Now, if a manufacturer or carrier is changing the behavior from default-off to default-on, that's not Google's fault. In fact, Google might even prevent this. They have a number of manufacturer rules about user privacy and experience and that sort of thing. While they release all of their stuff open-source (eventually) so they cannot prevent a manufacturer from making such a phone, they audit phones and do not allow non-complaint handsets onto the Google Market, which has a pretty negative impact on the value of a non-compliant phone. Now, I don't know if Google prevents the data collection from being changed to on-by-default, so who knows...certainly some people have claimed to never have been asked, but I've used both an HTC Legend and a Samsung Galaxy S, and both of those defaulted to off, with a prompt during the initial setup. I suppose that maybe some carrier employees do the initial setup for you? But this question comes after you've entered your gmail account and password. So, besides being the store's fault, not Google's, why are you so concerned with privacy when you gave the minimum wage employee at the AT&T store your email address and password?

Dear FREAKER:

[fran6gagne]

As a consumer you have a inalienable right:The right to not buy something. So if a product do not behave the way you want or if you don't agree with the politics of the company that make the product, Just don't buy it! Companies don't want to be your friend and don't care much about what you want, they just want your money. They will make bogus products as long as people will buy them. In today free market system, buying is voting.

Re: 911

[ArundelCastle]

Cell phones don't work if the towers don't know where you are. Location tracking is part of the spec.

Let's not forget that even though 911 services aren't guaranteed to know your cell location, most people agree it's pretty important tech to standardize. The number of people in North America cancelling their land lines defeats the entire purpose of 911's emergency response methods. Because you can't always blurt out your address, and accidents don't always happen near a house.
Google cannot really justify any purpose other than "products/services". Whereas your cell provider can legitimately show evidence that it can save lives.

These are probably naive questions:
Is it necessary to provide a warrant to obtain location data from cell providers?
Do cell providers stand to make money in the same way as Google by selling your location?

Not anonymized information

[chemicaldave]

According to the suit it collects the data with a unique ID

8. All Android Operating System phones log, record and store users' locations based on latitude and longitude alongside a timestamp and unique device ID attached to each specific phone. The phones store this information in a file located on the phone. Google intentionally began recording this information with the release of its Android operating system. Google uses cell-tower triangulation and/or alternatively, Google may use global positioning system (GPS) data to obtain a users location.

Re:Not anonymized information

[TRRosen]

Well then they lose. Neither Google or Apple send an "unique ID attached to the specific phone" both use randomly generated IDs. Unfortunately Google only reset its ID when the phone is reset while the iPhones resets twice a day.

and the financial harm is?

[peter303]

For a civil suit to generally proceed, they need show financial damages.

Re: 911

[Obfuscant]

Is it necessary to provide a warrant to obtain location data from cell providers?

No. It takes a formal request from an official source. The director of a 911 center attesting to the purpose is good enough.

They are providing the location information!

[pavon]

It is possible that Android is sending more information than I am aware of, but the only thing I have heard of is the network based location service.

The way this works is that the phone looks at what WiFi base stations you can see near you. It then sends a list of these to a server that has a database of the location of a bunch these base stations. The server looks up the locations of the stations you are near and estimates your location from that.

It is impossible for the server to tell you where you are without knowing where you are! The only other option would be for the server to continuously distribute gigabytes of WiFi database information to the phones, most of which would never be used. Querying for just the information needed is a better design.

And as others have already pointed out, this service is off by default, and gives a clearly understandable warning when turned on.

Re:They are providing the location information!

[SpiralSpirit]

if the data was just to tell where I was, they wouldn't have to collect it. If they deleted the data on a regular basis I would think it less evil. But that's not what this is about. That's just a side effect. knowing where people go is enormously powerful.

Re:They are providing the location information!

[dragonturtle69]

It is deleted regularly on Android, only last four towers on mine. And this is all old new already, something like April 28th.

Here's some info, https://github.com/packetlss/android-locdump

Wrong

[SuperKendall]

The problem is that Apple was collecting data off of your phone

Apple was never collecting data.

The phone would collect location data FROM APPLE if location services was turned off, because the phone was downloading a subset of APPLES LOCATION DATABASE.

Re:Wrong

[Belial6]

Apple disagrees with you.

From the Apple FAQ http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/04/27location_qa.html:

8. What other location data is Apple collecting from the iPhone besides crowd-sourced Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower data?

Apple is now collecting anonymous traffic data to build a crowd-sourced traffic database with the goal of providing iPhone users an improved traffic service in the next couple of years.

Re:Wrong

[russotto]

The phone would collect location data FROM APPLE if location services was turned off, because the phone was downloading a subset of APPLES LOCATION DATABASE.

The subset downloaded identifies the phone's location.

Re:Warning: Goatse link

[vinng86]

Huh? What link are you clicking?

Google vs. Apple

[DaMattster]

Google does make it pretty clear that they track users. They just don't allow you to opt out without it affecting the functionality of Google Maps and Navigation. That is a big difference between Apple and Google. A 50 million lawsuit over this is a bit frivolous, just a bit.

This is very positive

[assertation]

While I feel that there are a large number of people at Google who take ethics seriously there are also people willing to compromise. Corporate America only understands money, for the most part. Cases like this will begin drawing boundaries for Google, Apple and others. Kudos to the people inconveniencing themselves to execute these cases.

You can sue pretty much anyone for anything...

[QilessQi]

...but that doesn't mean you're going to collect one thin dime from it.

HUMANCENTiPAD

[Skythe]

They *forgot* to read the terms and conditions..

News at 11: GPS devices track your location

[LaissezFaire]

SHOCKER: GPS enabled phones know where they are! And when they integrate with an online mapping service, the service knows where the phone is! Can't I just use have a phone with a space-based geolocation system, and not have to know to turn it off if I don't want it to tell me where I am?

1 minute is not that long

[yakovlev]

Yes, turning it off is THE solution. "Airplane mode" might count as turning it off, or removing the battery might be required, it depends how paranoid you are.

As far as waiting an extra minute in an emergency... yes, waiting one minute to turn on a cell phone is perfectly reasonable. We forget that 10 years ago, when cell phones were less common, the solution was:

"It's Sunday so everything's closed. I think I saw a gas station a half mile up the road. I'll either try to flag down a passing car and get them to go there and call 911, or I'll hike the half mile and use their phone." If 911 had been called within 5 minutes of the accident that was good even for an urban area.

In your heart attack case it's even easier. If you're at her place then use HER phone, she has no reason not to be at her own house and thus no reason to turn off her phone. If you're at a hotel use the hotel phone, even the sleazy hotels tend to have phones in the rooms. If it's at the office then use the office phone.

911 response times are realistically measured in minutes, not seconds. Waiting a minute for a phone to boot would seldom be the difference between life and death.

If the phone is on you can be tracked, period. It's left to the reader whether or not you think this requires a subpoena or warrant.

wow... am i glad

[resfilter]

that my cheap ass samsung phone can't seem to locate a gps sat. to save its fucking life.. it has NO idea where i am.

They just agreed with me

[SuperKendall]

Apple is now collecting anonymous traffic data

Which is not collecting your location, because it has no reference to your ID. It's just data about how fast traffic was on a given road at some point.

Please try and read these things carefully before you post.

Re:They just agreed with me

[Belial6]

Apple was never collecting data.

The phone would collect location data FROM APPLE if location services was turned off, because the phone was downloading a subset of APPLES LOCATION DATABASE.

Apple disagrees with you.

From the Apple FAQ http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/04/27location_qa.html [apple.com]:

8. What other location data is Apple collecting from the iPhone besides crowd-sourced Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower data?

Apple is now collecting anonymous traffic data to build a crowd-sourced traffic database with the goal of providing iPhone users an improved traffic service in the next couple of years.

You then tried to pretend that you didn't say that and slightly shift the discussion with

Which is not collecting your location, because it has no reference to your ID. It's just data about how fast traffic was on a given road at some point.

This is clearly an admission that you are FULLY aware that Apple DOES read data from iPhones.

And you are wrong about this statement anyway. If you pull the location of a device that is designed to be kept on my person, then you are pulling MY location.

Re:Please track me

[GORby_]

Google already does this...
That's one of the things they use your location data for :-)

Re:Google asks for your consent

[makomk]

The reason you were "flamed into oblivion as a fanboy" is because the Apple version continues to log your location even if you explicitly tell it not to. (I don't think it has the clear, explicit warning screens that Android location services do either - the information is buried in the depths of the EULA somewhere.)

Stupid lawsuits

[MikeBabcock]

I've configured a number of Android devices. "Do you want to share your location information with Google?" is one of the first questions on the phone. It also clarifies such information will be collected even when the phone is not otherwise in use.

Re:Google asks for your consent

[stewbacca]

If that is true, it doesn't make me a fanboy, it makes me incorrect. Which is why I hate slashdot on most days... Nerd egos are the worst.

Doesn't it ask you?

[jrpowell01]

I believe there are settings in androids which make it able to track you or not... ?? maybe im wrong. this seems frivolous though

Still wrong

[SuperKendall]

This is clearly an admission that you are FULLY aware that Apple DOES read data from iPhones.

Look, I know you're dense on this issue, but get this - Apple is not reading data from your phone. Your phone is querying generally for a location database in a region (not at your exact location) and also sometimes if it finds a new route, saying "hey, there is a router roughly over there".

None of that querying or sampling of devices around you has anything to do with YOU. It's not marked as being from your phone. It's not storing anything about you.

If you pull the location of a device that is designed to be kept on my person

That's the other part that shows how you are not grasping what is going on. THERE IS NO PULL.

There is on only the phone, occasionally asking for data or pushing up the location of SOME OTHER DEVICE OR CELL TOWER.

Hopefully you can understand this.

Re:Still wrong

[Belial6]

OK, assume I am dense. Explain to me how one builds a traffic database without pulling specific location data.