Slashdot Mirror
Regulators Question Google Over Location Data (cnn.com)
Sherisse Pham and Taehoon Lee, writing for CNN Tech: Google is facing scrutiny for reportedly collecting data about the location of smartphone users without their knowledge. Regulators in South Korea summoned Google representatives this week to question them about a report that claimed the company was collecting data from Android devices even when location services were disabled. The Korea Communications Commission (KCC) "is carrying out an inquiry into the claims that Google collected users' Cell ID data without consent even when their smartphone's location service was inactive," Chun Ji-hyun, head of KCC's privacy infringement division, told CNNMoney on Friday. U.K. data protection officials are also looking into the matter.
"Organizations are required by law to be transparent with consumers about what they are doing with personal information," said a spokesperson for the Information Commissioner's Office. "We are aware of the reports about the tracking system and are in contact with Google."
When will our regulators wake up?
Maybe if Net Neutrality in the US gets tanked, the internet will be too slow for this data to make its way back home.
Let me clarify that my fundamental position is that our personal information should belong to each of us. The default should be for private information to remain private, whereas the current laws are like "open season" for soulless corporations to hunt us to increase their profits, with a few small bribes kicked back to rich fools who imagine they have some power over their "pet" monsters. Having said that, I see no path towards positive change, so...
Why can't we have some access to the information that is collected about us for OUR own benefit?
Specifically, I think a standardized public profile could be extremely helpful as a filter to use my time better. It would be useful even if the data were limited to public reactions to public comments. If someone has a public reputation for posting crap, then I don't want to waste time with that person's newest post. I'd prefer to spend my time primarily with people who have earned favorable reputations.
More specifically in the context of this specific topic, personal location data is extremely sensitive--and valuable. I can think of LOTS of things I could do with mine, but I cannot think of ANY reason to trust the google not to abuse it. Still, it would be nice if it could actually be used for such purposes as reminding me when I'm near a restaurant I enjoyed before without the corporate abuse.
Enough effort for today's Slashdot. However, I'll close with the usual ancient joke: Detailed suggestions available upon polite request.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
But boy do you like Chrome, don't you? -Sent via Firefox
a slap on the fingers and a stern telling-off, while they should've been fined in the billions for it. Why do you think they keep doing these things? Because you never teach them a lesson.
To make the information usage less likely to be evil, you have to change the customer.
What you're looking for is a Google service you'd pay for, where perhaps venues would also pay to be listed so that if you linger in them they'd be considered valid to bring to your attention again in the future. With a Google app on your mobile device to give a thumbs up or down, and a private/friends only/public option (with Google giving you a reduced service rate if you use 'public' so they can share the ratings with others and improve their services)
Right now, advertisers pay and YOU are the product. They want more information on you to be used to influence you to go to them based on their desire to sell to you, not your desire to purchase from them. To flip that around you have to flip Google's revenue stream around.
I don't see it happening.
Gooverment probably owns google.
When someone explains it to them in terms they can understand.
1. Smartphones have more functionality and display systems more advanced that the UNIX workstations used back in the 1990's. Computing power; multi-core CPU's and GPU's able to run the same extensions as desktop GPU's/
3. Modern day silicon chips make use of MEMS technology (Miniature Electromechanical Systems) that allow microscopic sensors to be built straight onto chip silicon; magnetometers, motion sensors. Even a GPS receiver can be put in the space the size of a key on a regular keyboard. Advanced fractal designs of antennae mean no wires poking out.
4. Power management; separate components of the smartphone can be powered down when not in use; others can switch to internal batteries (M9 - motion processor)
5. Wireless network connectivity - able to triangulate location from cellphone towers (network processor automatically logs network providers, towers and their signal strength. Same with Wi-Fi. Google has already created a database of wi-fi routers and their locations.
6. "To seek permission is to seek denial" - Silicon Valley attitude to privacy.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
We have the Data Protection Act in the UK. Every individual has the right to request a copy of all the data any corporation or company holds about them. Failure to provide the data in the format requested within a fixed period of time or to confirm that the data doesn't exist, can lead to the company being fined.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
We have the Data Protection Act in the UK. Every individual has the right to request a copy of all the data any corporation or company holds about them. Failure to provide the data in the format requested within a fixed period of time or to confirm that the data doesn't exist, can lead to the company being fined.
I like the idea very much. Now how can we avoid creating competitive disadvantage for countries that actually care so much about the rights of their citizens? [sarcasm]Dare I fear[/sarcasm] that some [tttwtanbtt]soulless corporate monsters[/tttwtanbtt] might flee such [sarcasm]onerous restrictions[/sarcasm] and race to the bottom in other less restrictive nations? I bet Russia has no such nuisance law.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I very much agree with you. The economic model that I would advocate would involve such a radical reversal of the money model. If you want some new service or feature, you would have to join with other people to help fund it. If the service or feature incurred ongoing costs, for example by needing a server, then there would be a funding project for support of the ongoing costs, and if the project runs out of funding, it would become inactive until refunded.
In philosophic terms, I'm arguing for cost recovery based on what people want and are willing to pay for, not profit maximization with an element of gambling thrown in. Unfortunately I also agree with you that I cannot see how such a transition can take place, especially given where we are now. Essentially the winning gamblers are bribing the cheapest politicians to rig the game ever more in their favor.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I think such a business model could work, and actually start on a small scale and scale up as needed.
Most of the time, you really only care about things in geographical proximity to you, so if your service starts out only handling one small or medium-sized city... OK, there's still utility there.
You'd definitely operate at a loss while building your database (I think you'd have to give away the service for the first year or so), so a decent amount of startup funding would be required.
But imagine the sales pitch: "Pay us to track you so we can be your personal assistant - and because we get paid by YOU and not advertisers, we have no financial motivation to share your information (excepting some we will share with other users if you explicitly tell us we can) and no financial motivation to sell your information either. Even more - we also promise not to as part of our contract with you!"
I think you should call it 'El Goog'. It's catchy, and it's Google backwards, just like the business model.
More Fake News from DemocRATic News Network, formerly known as FNN.
Actually you reminded me of a different economic model that could be done as part of an alternative kind of email system. The email provider would also be offering privacy protection services coupled with more reliable personal information--because it was the information we had agreed to provide to support our OWN shopping plans. Contrast with the "ram it down your throat with fake desire" model of most of today's ads.
The email provider would actually act as an auctioneer for our personal time. For example, you could say that you are willing to spend 20 minutes each day reading information about things you want to buy, and the auctions would sell that amount of time to the legitimate companies that most wanted to reach you. The profits of the auctions would be split between you and the auctioneer/email-provider, who would also have a strong incentive to (1) protect your privacy to protect their own place in the auctions, and (2) to REALLY screen your email for ALL spam to prevent competing with free.
You wouldn't even have to read the advertising email, but if you did, then you would be increasing the value of your time as sold in the auctions. For example, you might be grouped with a package such as: "This group of 25 anonymized customers has a historical purchase rate of 75% for the products they have expressed interest in and which your company sells. The customers in this group have only agreed to receive ads from up to 5 companies at a time for each product they are shopping for. Would you like to bid to send ads to this group of customers?"
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
if that doom scenario you idiots bought into came to be...
who the fuck would pay to make sure their spyware and ad stuff could connect?
sounds like consumers win there.