Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why is this Company Tracking Where You Are on Thanksgiving? (theoutline.com)

Posted by msmash on from the what's-happening dept.

Earlier this week, several publications published a holiday-themed data study about how families that voted for opposite parties spent less time together on Thanksgiving, especially in areas that saw heavy political advertising. The data came from a company called SafeGraph that supplied publications with 17 trillion location markets for 10 million smartphones. A report looks at the bigger picture: The data wasn't just staggering in sheer quantity. It also appears to be extremely granular. Researchers "used this data to identify individuals' home locations, which they defined as the places people were most often located between the hours of 1 and 4 a.m.," wrote The Washington Post. The researchers also looked at where people were between 1 p.m. and 5 p.m. on Thanksgiving Day in order to see if they spent that time at home or traveled, presumably to be with friends or family. "Even better, the cellphone data shows you exactly when those travelers arrived at a Thanksgiving location and when they left," the Post story says. To be clear: This means SafeGraph is looking at an individual device and tracking where its owner is going throughout their day. A common defense from companies that creepily collect massive amounts of data is that the data is only analyzed in aggregate; for example, Google's database BigQuery, which allows organizations to upload big data sets and then query them quickly, promises that all its public data sets are "fully anonymized" and "contain no personally-identifying information." In multiple press releases from SafeGraph's partners, the company's location data is referred to as "anonymized," but in this case they seem to be interpreting the concept of anonymity quite liberally given the specificity of the data.

98 comments

  1. Be more specific by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Does the headline refer to Google or to Facebook?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Be more specific by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes.

    2. Re:Be more specific by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be clear: This means SafeGraph is looking at an individual device and tracking where its owner is going throughout their day.

      So what? Yes, it's weird and creepy. But, again, so what? Please explain how this actually has caused you harm.

    3. Re:Be more specific by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The harm is the loss of privacy without explicitly choosing to give it up. There's no need for any further harm.

      This kind of thing should be terrifying to people in general as this means that stalkers and criminals can track where they are when planning crimes. And don't give me any crap about not having a stalker, nobody has a stalker until they have a stalker.

    4. Re:Be more specific by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THIS headline refers to SafeGraph, but you'd be a fool to think that G and FB don't do it too.

    5. Re:Be more specific by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      THIS headline refers to SafeGraph, but you'd be a fool to think that G and FB don't do it too.

      Which was my point.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    6. Re:Be more specific by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The harm is the loss of privacy without explicitly choosing to give it up.

      The problem is that people did explicitly choose that, they just didn't bother to understand this fact.

      People have been pointing out for literally years that exactly this is what was happening, and that it would keep happening.

      People agreed to an EULA they didn't read, which explicitly gave the company the right to do this, and to change the terms of the contract at any point according to their whims.

      The problem is the average consumer is too clueless to understand they've done this, and there are pretty much no laws on the books which says "no, that is not acceptable and we will cut off the testicles of any company exec who does it".

      Because we live in a world where corporate profits are treated like a moral imperative, there are governments who basically refuse to fix it, because they simply don't give a fuck about anything so mundane as personal privacy.

      But don't act like people didn't choose to do this, they're just too ill informed to realize they've done it, and too enthralled with apps which have been engineered to be addictive, precisely to maximize ad revenue and analytics.

    7. Re:Be more specific by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Does the headline refer to Google or to Facebook?

      It's more likely an AI in the background performing metrics for the FEMA camps. A little paranoia is good, a lot of paranoia is governmental emphasis on the mental. Once again, human stupidity will outshine any AI.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    8. Re:Be more specific by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      There *should* be no record if people read the ToS and agreed to it. But if they don't agree, they can't get installed. It's kind of a hostage situation. I implicitly and explicitly don't install apps that track.

      But if you're on of the 3+billion android users, then I'm guessing tracks you *anyway*. Perhaps Samsung does, or Apple.

      We have few ways of determining phone-homes on phones if they're done over the air, rather than being trapped through a wifi link (watching nmap, as an example). I don't trust them, at all. The only safe way to do this is Airplane mode (I have my doubts) or a Faraday cage, or simply turning it off and yanking the battery between calls.

      It shouldn't have to be this way, but only a fool trusts Apple, Google, and the app makers.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
  2. Normal by nospam007 · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    It's the Russians, who got you to vote for orange Hitler, thus dividing the country and now they are checking how badly they divided your families as well.
    So if you celebrate with your parents, they'll adapt their ads until you don't talk anymore to your dad and uncle after the 2018 vote.

    1. Re:Normal by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Funny

      Tovarishch, all this talk of Russian interference is absurd.

      Does this tea taste like polonium to you?

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    2. Re:Normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Yeh, who wants to hang out with the white trash Trumpers, pathetic human garbage of the far wrong.

  3. Not a problem for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    I don't have any idiots in my family stupid enough to vote for Trump. (At least they don't own up to it.) And I'm talking extended family as well. I can't figure out who actually DID vote for him; I really think there was some kind of fraud. I'm in one of the swing states that tipped for him, and none of my relatives or coworkers voted for him. I don't live in some kind of bubble. It doesn't pass the smell test.

    1. Re: Not a problem for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hilary and Obama assured us this election would not be tampered with before it took place so rest assured it passes the smell test.

    2. Re:Not a problem for me by Hal_Porter · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      I don't live in some kind of bubble. It doesn't pass the smell test

      http://slatestarcodex.com/2014...

      There are certain theories of dark matter where it barely interacts with the regular world at all, such that we could have a dark matter planet exactly co-incident with Earth and never know. Maybe dark matter people are walking all around us and through us, maybe my house is in the Times Square of a great dark matter city, maybe a few meters away from me a dark matter blogger is writing on his dark matter computer about how weird it would be if there was a light matter person he couldn't see right next to him.

      This is sort of how I feel about conservatives.

      I don't mean the sort of light-matter conservatives who go around complaining about Big Government and occasionally voting for Romney. I see those guys all the time. What I mean is - well, take creationists. According to Gallup polls, about 46% of Americans are creationists. Not just in the sense of believing God helped guide evolution. I mean they think evolution is a vile atheist lie and God created humans exactly as they exist right now. That's half the country.

      And I don't have a single one of those people in my social circle. It's not because I'm deliberately avoiding them; I'm pretty live-and-let-live politically, I wouldn't ostracize someone just for some weird beliefs. And yet, even though I probably know about a hundred fifty people, I am pretty confident that not one of them is creationist. Odds of this happening by chance? 1/2^150 = 1/10^45 = approximately the chance of picking a particular atom if you are randomly selecting among all the atoms on Earth.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    3. Re: Not a problem for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      People tend to hang out with those that are like minded. I'm sure many KKK members in Alabama feel the same way about black people. In fact, one of the core methods of fighting ignorance is integration. Get out and meet a creationist and learn something about the world you live in. Who knows, maybe you will find they arnt just simple stupid people like you think and they may find that you arnt the spawn of Satan like they think.

    4. Re:Not a problem for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't know anybody that voted for Trump, you live in some kind of bubble. Either that or some of the people you know lied about their vote. Trump received nearly half of the popular vote, so a non-bubbled person would no some people that voted for both candidates.

    5. Re:Not a problem for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently you have idiots who were stupid enough to vote for Hillary though, so anything is possible.

    6. Re: Not a problem for me by gnick · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Get out and meet a creationist and learn something about the world you live in.

      Like Jane Goodall?

      Who knows, maybe you will find they arnt just simple stupid people like you think and they may find that you arnt the spawn of Satan like they think.

      Not all Creationists are stupid; I'm convinced that intelligent people existed even before Darwin. And there is a wide range of specific beliefs among people who call themselves Creationists. But that doesn't stop me from lumping them in with the people who say the earth isn't heating up or that vaccines cause autism. Some intelligent people believe some stupid shit.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    7. Re: Not a problem for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Darwin believed in god...go figure.

    8. Re: Not a problem for me by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      But that doesn't stop me from lumping them in with the people who say the earth isn't heating up or that vaccines cause autism.

      You know, there is a significant difference between beliefs in things that cannot ever be proven or disproven and things that can be.

      Creationism deals with something that can never be proven. It isn't supposed to be the same as "evolution", but many evolutionists confuse evolution with "how life began". Evolution as "changes over time" have been observed; there is little doubt it exists. How life originated cannot be observed.

      Science is not intended to deal with answering questions of how something in the past actually happened, only with proposed mechanisms whereby it could have. A pretty simple example of this is demonstrated by a perfect copy of a Monet. All the scientific methods in the world could not prove that the forgery was painted last month, if the copy is perfect. Science cannot say "this was painted by Monet", it can only say that based on all the measurements it cannot be proven in was not painted by him. It is a matter of faith to believe that science must be able to detect the forgery, thus if it cannot detect it as a forgery it must be real.

      Whether vaccines cause autism is a hypothesis that can be tested via the scientific method -- which we just discussed here in /.. The mean temperature of the planet is a measurement that we can make. The biggest problem is making the measurement correctly and dealing with the large areas where the measurements have to be indirect, but it's still a measurement.

      Some intelligent people believe some stupid shit.

      Yes, yes they do. But I think I see that statement in a different context than you do.

    9. Re: Not a problem for me by gnick · · Score: 1

      Creationism deals with something that can never be proven. It isn't supposed to be the same as "evolution", but many evolutionists confuse evolution with "how life began". Evolution as "changes over time" have been observed; there is little doubt it exists. How life originated cannot be observed.

      When I hear "Creationist", I infer the emergence of Man, not the emergence of life. Many Creationists believe that the two are equivalent. No argument from me that the origin of life is a mystery. But the origin of Man was a different event and we have pretty good observable evidence that it wasn't spontaneous.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    10. Re: Not a problem for me by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      When I hear "Creationist", I infer the emergence of Man, not the emergence of life.

      "Creationist" is the belief that God created the universe, including the Earth, Man, and all of the animal and plant life here. It isn't limited to just "Man". When you talk about putting Creationists in the same barrel as others, you have to use their definition of their label, because that's the definition that they use.

      In any case, the argument is the same. The "emergence of Man" is a fact that science cannot prove. It can propose theories, but there is no way to prove which one is right, if any.

      No argument from me that the origin of life is a mystery. But the origin of Man was a different event

      Then you do not understand what Evolution claims or how it is supposed to work. The "origin of Man" is just an incremental difference in the chain of incremental changes that leads from "single cell" to the present day. In Evolution, man came about in the very same way that the aardvark did, and the duckbill platypus, etc. We're just a continuously changing version of one kind of animal that scientists want to identify as "human", with a pretty arbitrary starting date and an as-of-yet undefined end. Some day scientists will decide we have evolved into a different thing, and they will have the benefit of the historical record that recent Man has recorded for him, so they will be able to say "this is how Man Version 2 came to be. Today's Man Version 1 can't do that -- the historical record starts well into his existence.

      and we have pretty good observable evidence that it wasn't spontaneous.

      No, you don't. You see certain fossil records and assume that you know facts about them. You then use those facts to lead to other facts. Those facts wind up proving that Man got here via evolution, after the first cells got here via evolution, and so on. You did not observe the event, which is what it would take for science to prove the event.

      Until you understand that science cannot prove that the painting you have hanging on your wall is a real Monet, only that it is not, then you cannot understand why your "observed evidence" cannot prove that a specific event took place. Just as the forger of your perfect copy was able to create the "evidence" that makes his copy look real, it is possible that the "evidence" that you rely on to prove the origin of Man was fabricated to give you that impression. That latter fact is why science cannot prove how a specific event took place unless that event was observed. Creationism falls into category. Evolution as the process of slow change over time is not.

      What I forgot to add last time is that while "global warming" or "climate change" is a measurement (observation), the reason why it is happening is a theory and falls into the scientific method.

    11. Re: Not a problem for me by gnick · · Score: 1

      I applied a label that is popularly claimed, 'Creationist', to a subset of my own definition. That was unfair, inadequately clarified, and confusing.

      When I said that the emergence of Man wasn't spontaneous, what I meant was that we're pretty sure it was gradual.

      In any case, the argument is the same. The "emergence of Man" is a fact that science cannot prove. It can propose theories, but there is no way to prove which one is right, if any.

      We can make a pretty damned good guess.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    12. Re: Not a problem for me by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      When I said that the emergence of Man wasn't spontaneous, what I meant was that we're pretty sure it was gradual.

      What does "pretty sure" mean? If it is anything other than "it's the best hypothesis that we can test against", then it's too strong a phrase. We simply do not know.

      We can make a pretty damned good guess.

      Which is nothing close to proof, and miles from "know". It's a belief based on facts that are not known -- which is a pretty good definition of religion. It's like having faith that the Monet on your wall is real based on lack of ability to prove it isn't.

    13. Re: Not a problem for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Young-Earth Creationism, a particularly popular variety with Evangelicals, can easily be disproved. They say the Earth is only about 6000 year old or so. Ice cores, soil cores, radiological dating, and many other means can easily refute it. The fact that people can rationalize away such an obvious mountain of evidence leads me to conclude that a mass group of people can be convinced of damn-near anything if indoctrinated properly, regardless of their intelligence.

  4. Firewall everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I firewall every app, including google apps on my phone using the free firewall NetGuard. I also have data turned off and data limits set to zero. I also keep my phone in airplane mode, although that would be impractical for most people. This assures that I am never tracked by google, our Nazi snooping government, etc.

    1. Re:Firewall everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you can just turn off your location settings. And manually turn them on only when you need them...ie; for gps/maps.

    2. Re:Firewall everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is it that causes you to believe turning off your location settings stops Google from collecting your location? It could very well be that it just makes your location unavailable to user-level apps, but the OS still has access. Even if the GPS radio is really turned off, they still know which WiFi access points are within range. Not too difficult to triangulate your location based off of signal strength from three or more access points of known location.

      I argue that the fact that Android phones have mostly all moved to the "no user removable battery" model is strong evidence that Google is collecting your location at all times and wants to be certain the average user has no way to disable that. The only way to be sure is a portable Faraday cage or don't take your phone with you.

      The bottom line is don't trust your devices unless you KNOW they aren't working against you.

    3. Re:Firewall everything by Doke · · Score: 1

      They also triangulate on cell towers.

    4. Re:Firewall everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you need another layer of foil on your hat

    5. Re:Firewall everything by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? A phone is a location tracking device. It has to be in order for it to work with cellular networks. If you don't want people to track you, why do you carry one around with you?

    6. Re:Firewall everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make sure it's tin foil. Aluminum foil won't work.

    7. Re:Firewall everything by Unknown1337 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While a phone is indeed a locating device in order to function there is an extremely large difference between your cellphone company being able to locate you at a single moment in time should the need arise and "some company" storing everyone's location over time in order to build trend information and knowledge about you, your home, behaviour, family/friends, place of work, etc. A single point in time tells you nothing, even between 1-4am there is no guarantee on that day of that year you were asleep much less that you were at home, but tracking people over time does just this and is indeed frightening and literally defines digital stalking.

    8. Re:Firewall everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you also use a pager so you can respond to calls?

    9. Re:Firewall everything by Doctor+Memory · · Score: 2

      And make sure the shiny side is out!

      --
      Just junk food for thought...
    10. Re:Firewall everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By definition the OS has access, with laws - E911 (US) has 300m-resolution positioning (and pretty much better, in practice) - enforcing the requirement.

      Between that and LACKING a law preventing tracking you, assume they (G, Apple, and whoever) can, and since they CAN, assume that they are.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_9-1-1

    11. Re:Firewall everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, there really isn't any difference. The ability to locate a user at any arbitrary point in time for one purpose implies the ability to track the user through time for other purposes. The ability to know an arbitrary number of points implies the ability to construct lines. It's just math. You would like to impose some sort of ethical limitations on that knowledge, but we both know that ethical limitations don't stop people. A closed door is an ethical limitation, but we still put locks on them because we know that the closed door by itself will not suffice to deter theft. You would like to suggest that the ethical limitation should be part of some understanding, implicit or explicit, between the phone company and you: that you agree to be tracked for one purpose and not for others, and that you would terminate your relationship with the company if you found out that you were being tracked beyond your level of comfort. That simply does not happen. People do not stop using cell phones. As long as carrying a tracking device feels necessary or even just normal to people, they will continue to carry them no matter what the cost to privacy.
      You won't stop using your conveniences even if they do tell you all the trends they track. Thus, there's no reason for them to stop.

    12. Re:Firewall everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As if was any of your business, I carry it around for my own personal needs and emergencies.

    13. Re:Firewall everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But your cellphone company can just sell that data to "some company".

    14. Re:Firewall everything by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      A phone is a location tracking device. It has to be in order for it to work with cellular networks.

      That's why he said he keeps it in airplane mode all the time. As long as you don't turn WiFi on while in airplane mode, the cell system can't track you and you can't be tracked by the location of the WiFi router.

      If you don't want people to track you, why do you carry one around with you?

      Because it plays music and takes pictures. And there are times when I want to make calls.

    15. Re:Firewall everything by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      They also triangulate on cell towers.

      Radio isn't magic. If the phone is in airplane mode, there is no secret juju at the cell towers that can track you.

  5. Today's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All these claims surfacing about Hollywood and Politicians having inappropriate relations with women from 20 years ago. Imagine the amount of blackmail dirt they will have in the next 20 years. Everything you do, say, and part of how you think (at least online) is being tracked and saved. It may not come back to haunt you but get rich, famous, or powerful enough and you might just find yourself writing checks to people to keep quite because you left your phone on when you went to a location that becomes unpopular 20 years in the future.

    1. Re:Today's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All these claims surfacing about Hollywood and Politicians having inappropriate relations with women from 20 years ago. Imagine the amount of blackmail dirt they will have in the next 20 years. Everything you do, say, and part of how you think (at least online) is being tracked and saved. It may not come back to haunt you but get rich, famous, or powerful enough and you might just find yourself writing checks to people to keep quite because you left your phone on when you went to a location that becomes unpopular 20 years in the future.

      The thing I never understood is why the 20 year delay? Remember when Herman Cain (however you spell it) was running for office in the Republican primary? Suddenly women came out the woodwork accusing him of sexual assault and things like that. If what he did was so terrible, why did they wait so long? If someone wronged me even a small fraction of that, I'd demand immediate justice.

      Similar happened with Trump. Hell there's rumors that even Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had extramarital affairs (a big deal at the time especially for a religious man). The whole thing looks like a bunch of smear jobs to me.

    2. Re: Today's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The thing I never understood is why the 20 year delay?"

      Because they were ok with it at the time. It took 20 years for them to regret it. Much like a bad marriage.

    3. Re:Today's by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because the downside for women to report the problem is so steep -- politics of personal destruction -- that the stakes on the other side have to be equally grave to motivate reporting. Most women who report this stuff get treated like pariahs, whether they report it 20 years late or at the time that it happened. They are subjected to a wide range of humiliations. As much as it hurts, they find a way to move on rather than make a fuss when the probability of the guy being punished is minimal. That calculus is changing, but for the cases you mentioned, it was a sane decision.

  6. Simple answer: by mujadaddy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Why is this Company Tracking Where You Are on Thanksgiving?"

    Shitty privacy laws from shitty paid-for public "servants". Anything else is a distraction from that issue.

    --
    Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
    "Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
    1. Re:Simple answer: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's the lack of transparency as much as that. If we got a pop up every time an app used GPS or spied on us, people might decide to take umbrage with it.

      But, most people just don't give a crap about things that happen when they can't see them because nothing happens if you're not looking. The result is that the rest of us have to be triply careful as those jackwagons sold us out as well as themselves.

    2. Re:Simple answer: by ChatHuant · · Score: 1

      Shitty privacy laws from shitty paid-for public "servants".

      And not likely to change anytime soon, what with both Facebook and Google getting so deep into politics and enthusiastically participating in the congressmen pay-to-own market. This, together with the informational services they provide to some various government agencies puts them in a strong position to stop inconvenient legislation. At this time I can't think of any opposing entity with enough clout or deep pockets to stop those behemoths from trampling all over our privacy.

    3. Re:Simple answer: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Auren Hoffman, CEO of SafeGraph is a Republican, and a Trump Supporter. He has long been criticized for his casual attitude towards the Privacy of others, since he founded Rapleaf over a decade back. He is remarkably petty, actually being banned from Wikipedia for sockpuppetry. He is quite protective of his own Privacy, but I doubt that Slashdot is important enough these days for

      Auren Hoffman is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

    4. Re:Simple answer: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Public servants are honoring the public's disdain for bad® regulation of private enterprise.

  7. Why is this Company Tracking You On Thanksgiving? by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

    It's not just Thanksgiving, that was just an interesting data point -- like all of the other ones...

    If you don't have the data, you can't scan it. But if you do, you can squeeze the data so hard that a 0 becomes a 1.

    --
    If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
  8. I Just Stick My Phone In My Butt When I Sleep by dryriver · · Score: 2

    When they drill down to see more "granular data" on me they find that the rabbit hole goes deep indeed. =)

    --
    Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
    1. Re:I Just Stick My Phone In My Butt When I Sleep by ChatHuant · · Score: 1

      And I bet you set it on Vibrate first...

  9. The Common Defense by ytene · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the OP:

    "A common defense from companies that creepily collect massive amounts of data is that the data is only analyzed in aggregate; for example, Google's database BigQuery, which allows organizations to upload big data sets and then query them quickly, promises that all its public data sets are 'fully anonymized' and 'contain no personally-identifying information.' "

    I think it is critically important that we [as the data subjects ] recognise an important distinction.

    This statement would be equally true if the company:-

    1. Collected all the data with maximum resolution
    2. Stored that data in a maximum resolution data set
    3. Created a transformation process that took the maximum resolution data, "anonymized it" as it was loaded into a queryable database
    4. Ran queries of the database...


    The point being that the wording is so specious and so perfect for leading you to jump to the wrong conclusion. In other words, unless the company actually comes out with, "We do not store or otherwise retain access to your data in original or non-anonymized form - and you can come audit us so we can prove it to you", then they are not to be trusted.

    And remember, anything that is captured - even if not used as part of the company's commercial offering - can be subpoenad or demanded via NSL.

    And if your company is doing something that is right on the edge of being shut down by i.e. privacy laws, then maybe one way of staying just inside the line of acceptability [to government] is to offer to share what you've got if they ask...

    None of this is safe. None of it.

    1. Re:The Common Defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if they ask

      Why wait to be asked, just offer it for viewing, if it is indeed anonymized or non-granular or non-maximum resolution, or whatever.

    2. Re:The Common Defense by maryada · · Score: 1

      Great . thanx for your suggestions

    3. Re:The Common Defense by HiThere · · Score: 1

      And another thing is, even if they truly intend to protect your privacy, never get hacked, never leak, and don't make any mistakes, they can still go bankrupt.

      After bankruptcy, all that data is going to end up with the highest bidder, who won't have made any promises about how the data will be used.

      And that first paragraph was a sort of unbelievably optimistic hope.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  10. Exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    If you have nothing to hide why are you so concerned about us having all these details about you?

    1. Re:Exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you have nothing to hide why are you so concerned about us having all these details about you?

      Having nothing to hide doesn't make all of my information public by default

    2. Re:Exactly by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      Neither you nor anyone you know has ever been bullied or harassed in your entire life? Nothing you own has ever been vandalized or stolen? Just for a few minutes, as a thought experiment, imagine if you weren't so lucky and/or oblivious to your surroundings.

    3. Re:Exactly by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you, but I have a lot of valuable things I want to keep hidden from thieves. Not every thing people want to keep hidden is a bad thing.

    4. Re:Exactly by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Having something to hide doesn't make it private either :)

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    5. Re:Exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, where were you at 1am, and why the woman in your room was not your wife?

    6. Re:Exactly by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Since I work until 2 AM, I must have been in the office, and I do have several female co-workers, none of which are my wife. It's an open space office so... does it count as "one room"?

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    7. Re:Exactly by barakn · · Score: 1

      You have cancer? We were about to hire you, but we don't want you contaminating our health insurance pool.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    8. Re:Exactly by war4peace · · Score: 1

      If I had cancer I would stop giving a shit about working or anything else and live the small rest of my life peacefully, doing what I want to do for a change. Must be my chronic depression saying that, but I indeed like the idea.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  11. Call Mom by techdolphin · · Score: 3, Funny

    In other news researchers also said that 65.237 percent of moms wished that their children away at college would call home more often. For children whose names begin with B, the percentage of mothers who want their children to call home is 71.237. For moms whose first name begins with L, the percentage is 73.543. The researches assured us that the data is anonymized.

  12. "Smartphone apps and APIs" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But the article doesn't tell us what collects the data and instead advises turning off location services.

  13. Anonymous means something else by thegarbz · · Score: 2

    Anonymous doesn't mean that I can't track you from your house to your work. It's that I don't know who you are when you get to either destinations. We build an incredible database of information about anonymous people, unfortunately with enough information we can often de-anonymise them.

    Same with Bitcoin being anonymous. Just because I know exactly how much money is in your wallet and exactly where you spend it doesn't make it less anonymous.

    1. Re:Anonymous means something else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they know someone's home address, how they voted, and how everyone voted that they spent time with on Thanksgiving, how can it possibly be considered anonymous?

    2. Re:Anonymous means something else by mrodland · · Score: 1

      I've been taught that i only one person can identify a person based on data, then by definition that data is not anonymous.

    3. Re:Anonymous means something else by mrodland · · Score: 1

      To quote EUs new General Data Protection Regulation: "The principles of data protection should therefore not apply to anonymous information, namely information which does not relate to an identified or identifiable natural person or to personal data rendered anonymous in such a manner that the data subject is not or no longer identifiable." http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal... I interpret this to as; if one person can identify the natural person the data relates to, the data is not anonymous.

    4. Re:Anonymous means something else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous doesn't mean that I can't track you from your house to your work. It's that I don't know who you are when you get to either destinations.

      Once you're tied to a property, it's easy to merge that data with credit report records to determine who you are. As soon as that link is made, the jig's up. Even if it can't be done today, the data can be stored forever until it is possible. The instant that one tidbit of information needed to tie your name to that location leaks into a single database somewhere your entire life suddenly becomes available to all. Your friends, how often they visit, how often you go out to eat with them and where, your family's houses, kid's schools, what time you drop them off, when you're on vacation and where, etc.

    5. Re:Anonymous means something else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It means more than that. Simply removing personal identifiers does not anonymize data. Effectively anonymized data cannot easily be de-anonymized, and data that tracks in detail where people are -- where they sleep, where they work, and so on -- would obviously enable de-anonymizing large numbers of records.

  14. just kill yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if your phone is your closest companion, maybe this life is not meant for you

  15. Why? There is only ever one answer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is this Company Tracking Where You Are on Thanksgiving?

    Because you are disclosing the data.

    Anything you give away will be logged. That is the modern world. If you don't want them to collect it, do not leak the data to begin with.

  16. Your own fucking fault ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SafeGraph gets location data from âoefrom numerous smartphone apps,â according to the researchers. According to SafeGraphâ(TM)s privacy policy: âoeWe obtain information from trusted third-party data partners such as mobile application developers, through APIs and other delivery methods. The data collection and use is governed by the privacy policy and legal terms of the data collector and the website using the data; it is not governed by SafeGraph.â In other words, SafeGraph is partnering with apps â" they could be weather apps, games, wallpapers, anything â" and leaving the disclosure up to the app maker. The app makers may have some tiny print that says âoewe reserve the right to share your location data with third parties,â or they may not have a disclosure at all â" itâ(TM)s not SafeGraphâ(TM)s problem.

    Hey, you turned on location services on your phone, you installed the shiny free app (for which you will pay with your privacy and being tracked), and you have decided that's OK. And you have elected officials who refuse to do anything about real privacy legislation to ensure that greedy douchebags can do exactly this, because your elected officials represent the corporations and not you.

    Turn off location services, uninstall these apps which primarily exist to perform analytics, and stop using this shit.

    Or, shut the fuck up, and realize you've signed up for exactly this kind of shit. Welcome to the future, where Big Brother is an opt in program that everyone is keen to use, and all of the idiots have opted in ... and where the government can now demand this information they would not either be able to legally or practically collect.

    This is a self inflicted societal problem, and those of us who see little value in shiny baubles that track your every location sincerely don't have any fucking sympathy.

    The entire business model of those free apps is collecting and selling your personal information. And if you gave them access to location services 24x7, don't be even remotely surprised they can do this.

    Analytics is the scariest form of Big Brother you can imagine, because as long as people are running these pointless apps, this is only going to get worse.

    (And I see after all these years the ability to paste actual content into Slashdot is still broken ... and which has some of these very same kind of trackers on it.)

    1. Re:Your own fucking fault ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a self inflicted societal problem

      Yes. But the public has spoken very clearly: It does not care.

      The ship has left port.

  17. Even a moRe:Simple answer: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because they can.

  18. It can still be anonymous by FeelGood314 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    to safegraph. If the data is say held by Google and they allow only certain aggregate queries to be done but never give you anything but the aggregate answer then Safegraph won't know what happened in individual houses. This gets very tricky though. You have to have some thresholds about how small an area you can give a report on.

    For example - The Canadian credit bureaus will sell reports based on postal code (a postal code is a side of a street, between intersections), that give the high, low and median score. Now if there were under a certain number of people in that postal code we didn't give the information (This was a decision made by the programmers, legally the company could) but what about the case where the high and the low score were almost the same? In such a case, revealing the high and the low essentially revealed everyone's score.

    1. Re:It can still be anonymous by swillden · · Score: 1

      If the data is say held by Google and they allow only certain aggregate queries to be done but never give you anything but the aggregate answer then Safegraph won't know what happened in individual houses.

      Your hypothetical makes sense, but it doesn't appear to be the case. According to TFA, Safegraph doesn't get the data from Google or any similar source, they get it from many third-party apps, and they have to get full detail because they are the aggregator. They can take steps to anonymize it, of course.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    2. Re:It can still be anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lesson: disable location services for all apps except those which need it for their core function. The 3rd party advertisers have officially abused their access to this data, so it is over.

  19. Google by aglider · · Score: 1

    They just asked Google.

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
  20. Re:Why is this Company Tracking You On Thanksgivin by bhetrick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The author of the article might want to learn what words mean. They do typically have meanings, you know.

    Anonymous data is data not identified with a particular person. It does not mean cannot be identified with a particular person. It also does not mean the data cannot be associated with itself over time.

    Five-digit ZIP code areas are pretty big and are not particularly indicative of an individual. Cell tower coverage is typically more detailed than a five-digit ZIP code. ZIP code of residence is trivial to determine from mobile phone records: it’s where your phone spends the majority of the day. ZIP code of work place is also fairly easy to determine: it’s where your phone spends the majority of the day when it’s not at home. Associate these two ZIP codes, though, and the association is unique for about 90 to 95% of the US population. Therefore knowing these two ZIP codes means you have isolated an individual. All anonymity means is that this information, by itself, does not tell you who that individual is. You can find out, though, with a subpoena, not even a warrant—or a friendly employee of the wireless carrier—or if you have someone specific in mind and you know or can find out where they live and work.

    It is useful to consider how powerful location data is. A phone goes to a cancer clinic twice a week but not five times a week in 8-hour blocks? The phone owner has cancer. A phone goes to an ob-gyn twice in a single month? The phone owner is pregnant. A phone goes to an ob-gyn once a month for three months running? The phone owner is trying to get pregnant. A phone goes to a particular church most Sunday mornings? The phone owner belongs to the denomination of that church. Two phones are sporadically at the same motel at the same time (even if the particular motel changes)? The phone owners are having an affair. And on and on it goes.

    Because de-anonymizing data is so trivial, having access only to anonymous or anonymized data protects against absolutely nothing.

    And yet in this particular story, anonymity was retained. You can identify households from individual location data alone, which the study did. You can identify likely political leanings from individual location data alone, which the study did. You don’t need to attach names to the individuals to study the individuals, and this study did not.

    Anonymity does not mean you as an individual cannot be identified. It just means you haven’t been—yet.

  21. Stalking is a crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least it is when you're talking about individual citizens. But if it's the government or a corporation, stalking is apparently perfectly acceptable.

  22. I am NOT in my favorite bar on Thanksgiving!! by daboochmeister · · Score: 1

    It defines "home" as where I am most often from 1 - 4am?? That's just crazy talk ...

    --
    "Ahh! I see you're in that indeterminate Schrodinger state where - oh, uh ... never mind." Dave Bucci
  23. Literally, not liberally by holophrastic · · Score: 1

    Anonymous = without names. Location, dates, homes, family connections, and times of day aren't names.

    Congrats on shitty laws.

  24. Re:Why is this Company Tracking You On Thanksgivin by ChatHuant · · Score: 1

    Anonymity does not mean you as an individual cannot be identified. It just means you haven't been - yet.

    Excellent post, but I think you err on the side of too much optimism. Anonymity doesn't mean you haven't been identified yet; it means you have not been told you were identified yet.

  25. Good! by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

    Send you phone to another country, round trip.

  26. The answer to "Why" in one word by davidwr · · Score: 2

    Money.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  27. Re:Why is this Company Tracking You On Thanksgivin by Jadecristal · · Score: 1

    I'd like some more justification for "90-95% of the population will make up a unique (home,work) ZIP pair." (paraphrased)

    If we assume the estimated 330M population of the US, and *around* 43k ZIP codes, that 76% of the population is adult, and the relatively crazy assumption that ALL of them are working, let's do some combinatorics...

    Yes, there exists sufficient space in Binomial[43001,2] (Mathematica/Wolfram Alpha notation) to *permit* every adult to have a unique pair. The estimate gives 251M adults and about 925M k-multicombinations (43000 pick 2, with repetition permitted) of (ZIP,ZIP) pairs.

    Lots of people live and work in the same ZIP, though, especially among non-white-collar jobs, or live and work in the one or two residential ZIP codes and commercial ZIP codes in smaller areas.

    That said, I'm not claiming it's not easy-ish to take "anonymous" data and reattach it to a person. It's all too easy.

  28. Okay, what apps are they tracking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or should I just turn off location tracking for everything. I think I just answered my own question.

  29. I can't help thinking by mrodland · · Score: 1

    How do they avoid tracking in countries where privacy laws are more strict? It seems to me that the data they collect does not conform to European privacy laws.

  30. Re:Why is this Company Tracking You On Thanksgivin by bhetrick · · Score: 1

    About the first google hit refers to the study. See https://books.google.com/books...

  31. You should worry about Facebook... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're on Facebook, you're already being tracked. Something that "Chaos Monkeys: Obscene Fortune and Random Failure in Silicon Valley" makes clear when Facebook had the author set up their advertising system.

  32. Anonymous by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    Sure, data is anonymized, but it still contains the location where you sleep and where you work (the later being just what is missing to sort out people living in the same building)

  33. Re:Why is this Company Tracking You On Thanksgivin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any reasonable person knows that anonymous does not mean "We Know Everything about you but pretend to not know your name so we can equivocate that you are anonymous."

    To fail to disclose that you know everything about someone, and share that data, is failure to disclose material facts. And is therefore, fraud.