Slashdot Mirror
Should the FTC Investigate Google's Location Data Collection? (engadget.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Engadget: In December of 2017, the office of U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal sent Google's CEO a letter asking for a detailed explanation of the company's privacy practices around location services. Based on a report at Quartz, the senator's letter had 12 specific questions about how Google deals with location data. In January, Google responded to all of the issues in a lengthy letter signed by Google's VP of public policy, Susan Molinari. Now, apparently unsatisfied with the response, Senators Blumenthal and Edward J. Markey have sent a written request to the FTC to investigate Google's location services, along with "any deceptive acts and practices associated with the product."
While Google's initial response refuted many of the claims made by Quartz, and explained again and again how Google and Android handles sensitive location data, the letter to the FTC again uses the report as its main basis. The crux of the new letter appears to be this: "Google has an intimate understanding or personal lives as they watch their users seek the support of reproductive health services, engage in civic activities or attend places of religious worship," wrote the senators. All it takes to expose users to data collection, say the letter's authors, is to allow an "ambiguously described feature" once and then it is silently enabled across all signed-in devices without an expiration date.
While Google's initial response refuted many of the claims made by Quartz, and explained again and again how Google and Android handles sensitive location data, the letter to the FTC again uses the report as its main basis. The crux of the new letter appears to be this: "Google has an intimate understanding or personal lives as they watch their users seek the support of reproductive health services, engage in civic activities or attend places of religious worship," wrote the senators. All it takes to expose users to data collection, say the letter's authors, is to allow an "ambiguously described feature" once and then it is silently enabled across all signed-in devices without an expiration date.
My biggest concerns over companies like Facebook, Google, and Apple developing autonomous cars is not whether they can make them safe. Eventually I know that they will be safe. One concern is that these people will collect data non-stop about where I am going and how long I stay. I considered this picking up my daughter from school to take her to her pediatrician, specifically that its really none of their damn business that I did such a thing. That led me to my second concern for these 3 companies developing autonomous vehicles. Imagine every damn time you drive past a BugerKing or Wendy's having to suffer a damn commercial or have the car offer to stop because a Whopper is only $3 this week. Non-stop, never-ending barrage of advertisements. Think back to the scene in Minority Report when Tom Cruise's character had eye replacement surgery, replacing his eyes with a japanese businessman. It was more noticeable the second he walked near any store, how every single ad started addressing him by his stolen identity. The two technologies that ad-based companies should be forbidden from developing based on privacy concerns should be
1) any location based technology that requires knowing where you are to function (maps, gps, autonomous cars, etc)
2) any technology that specializes in identification (facial recognition, biometrics, retina identity, etc.)
maybe society needs to spawn a anarchist hacking group. Instead of taking down these places, as they always have backups for their backups, maybe it should pollute it with so much false data that the entire data itself is no longer considered reliable. Make it appear you were in 3 places at once and take trips 50x more per day than you actually do. Make the data so unreliable and untrustworthy that advertisers stop spending money on what they perceive as 'snake oil' once word spreads on how unreliable it is. Why pay for a targeted ad when your likely to be sending some 80yr old man an advertisement on tampons when its cheaper and easier to just blast the tampon commercial to everyone and hope someone who needs them is watching.
Research doesn't agree with anything you said here. Google and Amazon weren't doing politics in 2016, just marketing and research. The few people calling out astroturfing were effectively powerless. Facebook wasn't even really fully aware of what CA was doing, they were focused on earnings alone. They took the money without really asking questions. That was their clearly documented corporate policy handed down from the execs, and there is a mountain of evidence that ignorance and incompetence, not malice, are the problem with Facebook.
The problem is largely that nobody *with the power to effect change* took the threats seriously if they were even aware of them at all.
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so