Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Signed-In Maps Mean More Location Data For Google

Posted by timothy on from the this-time-tomorrow dept.

mikejuk writes The announcement on the Google Geo Developers blog has the catchy title No map is an island. It points out that while there are now around 2 million active sites that have Google Maps embedded, they store data independently, The new feature, called attributed save, aims to overcome this problem by creating an integrated experience between the apps you use that have map content and Google Maps, and all it requires is that users sign in. So if you use a map in a specific app you will be able to see locations you entered in other apps.This all sounds great and it makes sense to allow users to take all of the locations that have previously been stored in app silos and put them all together into one big map data pool. The only down side is that the pool is owned by Google and some users might not like the idea of letting Google have access to so much personal geo information. It seems you can have convenience or you can have privacy. It might just be that many users prefer their maps to be islands.

20 of 39 comments (clear)

  1. If people don't want Google to have their info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Then why are they signed into Google?

    1. Re:If people don't want Google to have their info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My undestanding is that signing in is optional. If you don't sign in you'll get the same map you're getting now.

    2. Re:If people don't want Google to have their info by swillden · · Score: 1

      This change will force users of pages that utilize Google maps to auth to Google in order to display the result.

      No, it doesn't. Signing in is optional. If you don't sign in you'll get the same map you're getting now. If you're signed in you'll get additional personalized information.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:If people don't want Google to have their info by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      No, it doesn't. Signing in is optional. If you don't sign in you'll get the same map you're getting now. If you're signed in you'll get additional personalized information.

      No, if you're signed in you will get your own information back, in the new map. The only party that gets "additional" information this way is Google.

    4. Re:If people don't want Google to have their info by swillden · · Score: 1

      No, it doesn't. Signing in is optional. If you don't sign in you'll get the same map you're getting now. If you're signed in you'll get additional personalized information.

      No, if you're signed in you will get your own information back, in the new map.

      That's what I said.

      The only party that gets "additional" information this way is Google.

      Google already gets that information if you're signed in.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    5. Re:If people don't want Google to have their info by Voyager529 · · Score: 1

      If people don't want Google to have their info, Then why are they signed into Google?

      It's not always that simple with Aunt Google. If you have logged into Gmail with your browser, you're logged into Google. If you close the tab without explicitly signing out, you're logged into Google, and when you go Maps next week, you'll be logged in still. Even if you sign out, Google still seems to keep enough of a session cookie lying around that it shows you the last person to log in, so you just need your password. Depending on how tight your tin foil hat is, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that Google is still tracking the movements based on that session cookie, so it's entirely possible that the logic goes "IF user_signed_in='false' THEN display_map_data='false'", rather than "IF user_signed_in='false' THEN collect_map_data='false'".

      On Android, it's even worse. Apparently, the folks at Google don't seem to have a concept of "I just want to buy apps, nothing more, nothing less". It's impossible to get apps from Google Play without tying the phone to an account. Fair enough...but that also logs you into Gmail, keeps your search history synced with your account, syncs your contacts, and keeps your avatar on Youtube. I generally don't use Google Maps, but I did do so once a few months ago. I didn't explicitly sign into it, nor was I prompted for it...but when I got curious two months later, I went back through my 'travel history', and I saw exactly the routes I took, and exactly the times I took them. There is *NO* reason why that kind of data collection shouldn't be explicitly opt-in. Finally, you wouldn't believe how naggy Android is if you don't have a Google account tied to it. I'd liken it to Clippy in a new outfit, but that's an insult to Clippy - at least Clippy was intended to provide actual assistance to users.

      The only way I've been able to feel reasonably certain that Google isn't collecting this kind of data is to root my phone, gut my phone of all the Google apps except the Play Store and Play Services, and then use Xprivacy to deny access to contact/calendar/location/etc. data to both.

      I pine for a viable alternative to Aunt Google....

    6. Re:If people don't want Google to have their info by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      That's what I said.

      Well, chalk it up to misunderstanding, but I don't think my interpretation was unreasonable because you used the word "additional".

      Google already gets that information if you're signed in.

      That's what *I* said. :)

    7. Re:If people don't want Google to have their info by swillden · · Score: 1

      Fair enough :)

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  2. Networked machine? An "island"? Get real... by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    Push all the buttons you want to try to turn this shit off. You're only fooling yourself if you think it does anything.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  3. Data ownership by Animats · · Score: 3, Funny

    all it requires is that users sign in

    Or, all your base is belong to us.

  4. You can just not sign in then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Jeez. If you dont like it, don't sign in.

    1. Re:You can just not sign in then by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      Jeez. If you dont like it, don't sign in.

      Yeah, don't use Gmail if you don't want to be tracked all over the damn web when you're visiting sites that aren't owned by Google!

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  5. I can't speak for others, obviously by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

    But while I see the advantages for Google Corp., I don't see how this really benefits me personally. It's getting more common for websites to trigger the Safari popup saying "xxx.yyy.zzz would like to use your location data, is that okay?" when generally there's no reason for them to need it at all.

    This just seems like a big end-around on Google's part to try capturing more data on you.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:I can't speak for others, obviously by uCallHimDrJ0NES · · Score: 1

      The advantage is that all of the Google maps-based map pages you see embedded at various sites will now be configured the same way, and any pins you've stuck in or any other notes you've made will now be consistent across sites. The disadvantage is that now sites don't have a means of utilizing a Google map without their customers being tracked by Google.

      --
      Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
  6. One map ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    One map to rule them all
    One map to FIND them
    One map to bring them all
    and in darkness ...

  7. Old news by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 4, Informative

    It seems you can have convenience or you can have privacy.

    We're just figuring this out now? Convenience means letting someone do something in your place. If you want it to be at all useful then some information has to be passed on. A drive through may be convenient, but it requires letting people know your meal preferences; not a major deal for most but it's there. The issue becomes the balance of the two and ensuring that you aren't "forced" out of your own comfort level, but it's certainly not news that there is a give and take between convenience and personal privacy.

    --
    I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
  8. No kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "It seems you can have convenience or you can have privacy."

    Figure that out all on your own?

  9. OSM then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You're just giving it away including any rights to reuse what you gave away. Give it to osm instead.

  10. OpenStreetMap by hobarrera · · Score: 2

    Good thing we have OpenStreetMap which just keeps getting better and better.

  11. Standalone devices still have a purpose! by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

    Anything networked has this problem (as multiple posters have pointed out) (cue Battlestar Galactica quotes about the dangers of networking). The only way to get "convenience" - which I conflate with "functionality" for this discussion - while retaining privacy is to use standalone devices. My GPS doesn't tell anyone where I go, because it's never connected to anything else (and because of that design, I'm betting it doesn't even bother trying to store anything for later retrieval). Of course, that means that a device needs all of its information locally, and updating has to be strictly controlled.

    Google is offering a service. You're not paying them. As often said, if you're not the seller or the purchaser in a transaction, then you are the thing being sold. Just like broadcast radio & TV, the "entertainment"/"information" is the lure to bring you to view advertising, and in the networked era to encourage you to allow yourself to be followed.