A cache would have locations of cell site base station IDs and WiFi APs, not triangulated phone positions. I would also not have duplicate entries for those. Finally, it would not gather entries when location services were turned off.
So, you're saying Google is lying when they say the data is collected anonymously. That's a strong accusation, and your lack of evidence makes it obvious why you're posting as an AC - libel is a pretty serious offense.
Google explains what they're doing, and offers the user a choice. When turning on Google Location Services on an Android phone, you get this message:
Location consent
Allow Google's location service to
collect anonymous location data.
Collection will occur even when no
applications are running.
Agree Disagree
OTOH, it's reported that Apple's location collection cannot be disabled, even if you turn off "Location Services."
According to the original article about the iPhone file, the location info appears to be based off cell tower triangulation.
What Google is doing with is mapping the location of WiFi access points. If you have GPS and Google Location Services on, when an AP is seen, it will tell Google the MAC address of the AP, and the geographic coordinates from GPS. This is what lets location services work even without GPS - when your phone sees a WiFi signal, it will ask the mothership where it's located. So, with Android, the user is providing info which in turn helps other users, and it's all being done with knowledge and consent.
Phones can do something similar based on the cell towers they see, but geographic info on those is available from the FCC and the carriers, so Android doesn't have to collect info on them.
So, Google is using a phone's location to map the location of WiFi APs, while Apple is using cell tower locations to record the phone's position. Those are two very different things.
"Apple has location services as something that can be turned off completely"
It's closed source, so how do you know it's not continuing to collect data, even if that collection isn't made visible to the user? How do you know that the file in question is a result of the location services which can be turned off?
According to Apple, "Location Services is on by default, but you can turn it off if you don't want to use this feature or to conserve battery life. You can also individually control which applications have access to Location Services data." Which application do you turn off to prevent this file from being created/updated? Additionally, Apple says "Location Services allows applications such as Maps, Camera, and Compass... to determine your approximate location." The only example given is with regard to current location, which implies impermanence. There is no mention of keeping a database of historical location information, no mention of how that database might be deleted if desired, and no mention if applications are allowed to access historical data (not just current location).
Stop trying to make yourself look foolish. It's not clear if you are trolling, stupid, simply can't read, or some combination of the three. As the article says, it appears to use cell towers to determine location, by which rough location can be determined quite easily. So, no "magical GPS" necessary. Now, do you want to claim that iPhone users commonly travel with their phone service disabled?
My impression is that it is a cache file which they fail to clean.
The article clearly states "[the file] is transferred across [to a new iPhone or iPad] when you migrate..."
That's not an uncleaned cache, it's a deliberately maintained database.
The FAQ which is pointed to states "it's an SQLite database file, you can use any standard SQLite browser...Open up the file, choose the 'CellLocation' table, and you can browse the tens of thousands of points that it has collected. The most interesting data is the latitude, longitude location and the timestamp." It also says "As far as we can tell, the location is determined by triangulating against the nearest cell-phone towers."
Backup encryption is something which must be enabled (how many iPhone users do that, or even know of it?), so your implying that the data is encrypted is misleading, as is the claim that a jailbreak is necessary. Finally, there's nothing to indicate your claim that this won't collect data when location services are turned off is correct.
Google doesn't have any adult supervision. In fact, it has very few adults at all. They've fallen into the same pit Microsoft did, the "we're really big, so any problems we create belong to someone else" pit.
Despite their size and web presence, Google is a net newbie, and has gotten lots and lots of network related things on Android terribly wrong, and has shown no desire to get it right.
Oh, yeah. Thanks for reminding me. 7) When presented with criticism of their data or contradictory evidence, they ignore it, and try to shift the burden of proof.
1) The data have shown a correlation, not a causation.
2) There's nothing scientific about the predictions, and the observations do not match as you claim (the subject of the article is just a single case in point.) I'll bet one could develop an equally valid prediction based on MPAA/RIAA copyright submissions and radio/TV broadcasts as the cause of global warming.
3) When observations don't match predictions, instead of changing the hypothesis, the conflicting data is simply ignored. This is antithetical to true scientific. Again, the article presents but one example.
4) Claims of warming are based on reasonably accurate data covering less than 300 years, much less than that if global change is to be compared (everyone seems to agree that local changes can't be considered significant).
5) Proxies for temperatures prior to accurate measurement have been shown to be unreliable. The data has been "cherry picked" to make a case. Again, conflicting data have been ignored, or simply altered to match expectations. (See "Climategate")
6) There is vast evidence that climate is chaotic, and at time frames exceeding our accurate records. Conveniently, the difference in time frame between "weather" and "climate" seems to always depend on the point being made.
By "not the same," do you mean physically, or logically? ISTM, they'd use an identical "information system," but possibly consisting of physically separate servers. Again, by my reading on what FISMA is all about, that wouldn't matter - it seems to be concerned with architecture and procedures, not specific apps or physical devices.
Yep, and if you follow throught on the references, you'll find one to check for lies on pages 18, 29, and 37 of a linked PDF document. Unfortunately, they don't say which pages they mean - page 18 of the PDF is page 15 of the fax it was scanned from, which is page 11 of the original document.
From what I can tell, FISMA certification is for information systems, not applications. If Google runs "Apps for Gov't" on the same cloud infrastructure as their "Apps Premier," it would seem to qualify under the certification received for the latter. Is there really any difference between the two, except for marketing? From their website, any difference is not apparent.
I have a mathematical model which explains the sunrise. The inputs to this model are the arrival time of the paperboy, and the time of sunrise. My model predicts that every time the paperboy delivers my newspaper, the sun will rise within two hours. When tested, the actual outcome exactly matches the predicted outcome.
Thanks. Using your scientific method, we've just proven that the paperboy causes the sun to rise in the sky.
I'd guess you're a "climate scientist." You're also a fool.
Uranus is covered with greenhouse gases (2.3% methane, which has much more effect that the 0.039% CO2 on earth), but is extremely cold. Mercury has no greenhouse gases, but is extremely hot. There, I have twice as much "proof" as you do.
Correlation is not causation. Historical evidence shows that CO2 increases lag behind warming. The hypothesis for AGW has not been tested, and cannot be tested (there is no control to eliminate other possible causes). So, AGW claims don't fit the OP's definition of science. OTOH, one can take on faith that a model which reproduces the past will predict the future. That's religion.
It really makes me sad that these things need to be explained.:(
1. Develop your hypothesis. "Global warming happens according to this mathematical model"
Well, if global warming happens due to a mathematical model, change the model - problem solved! Wagging the dog by the tail isn't science.
Slashdot Mirror
A cache would have locations of cell site base station IDs and WiFi APs, not triangulated phone positions. I would also not have duplicate entries for those. Finally, it would not gather entries when location services were turned off.
Nice try, Steve.
So, you're saying Google is lying when they say the data is collected anonymously. That's a strong accusation, and your lack of evidence makes it obvious why you're posting as an AC - libel is a pretty serious offense.
OTOH, it's reported that Apple's location collection cannot be disabled, even if you turn off "Location Services."
According to the original article about the iPhone file, the location info appears to be based off cell tower triangulation.
What Google is doing with is mapping the location of WiFi access points. If you have GPS and Google Location Services on, when an AP is seen, it will tell Google the MAC address of the AP, and the geographic coordinates from GPS. This is what lets location services work even without GPS - when your phone sees a WiFi signal, it will ask the mothership where it's located. So, with Android, the user is providing info which in turn helps other users, and it's all being done with knowledge and consent.
Phones can do something similar based on the cell towers they see, but geographic info on those is available from the FCC and the carriers, so Android doesn't have to collect info on them.
So, Google is using a phone's location to map the location of WiFi APs, while Apple is using cell tower locations to record the phone's position. Those are two very different things.
That's it? Meh.
"Apple has location services as something that can be turned off completely"
... to determine your approximate location." The only example given is with regard to current location, which implies impermanence. There is no mention of keeping a database of historical location information, no mention of how that database might be deleted if desired, and no mention if applications are allowed to access historical data (not just current location).
It's closed source, so how do you know it's not continuing to collect data, even if that collection isn't made visible to the user? How do you know that the file in question is a result of the location services which can be turned off?
According to Apple, "Location Services is on by default, but you can turn it off if you don't want to use this feature or to conserve battery life. You can also individually control which applications have access to Location Services data." Which application do you turn off to prevent this file from being created/updated? Additionally, Apple says "Location Services allows applications such as Maps, Camera, and Compass
Stop trying to make yourself look foolish. It's not clear if you are trolling, stupid, simply can't read, or some combination of the three. As the article says, it appears to use cell towers to determine location, by which rough location can be determined quite easily. So, no "magical GPS" necessary. Now, do you want to claim that iPhone users commonly travel with their phone service disabled?
The article clearly states "[the file] is transferred across [to a new iPhone or iPad] when you migrate..."
That's not an uncleaned cache, it's a deliberately maintained database.
The FAQ which is pointed to states "it's an SQLite database file, you can use any standard SQLite browser...Open up the file, choose the 'CellLocation' table, and you can browse the tens of thousands of points that it has collected. The most interesting data is the latitude, longitude location and the timestamp." It also says "As far as we can tell, the location is determined by triangulating against the nearest cell-phone towers."
Backup encryption is something which must be enabled (how many iPhone users do that, or even know of it?), so your implying that the data is encrypted is misleading, as is the claim that a jailbreak is necessary. Finally, there's nothing to indicate your claim that this won't collect data when location services are turned off is correct.
"Whats the temperature for a fan forced oven?"
African or European?
Google doesn't have any adult supervision. In fact, it has very few adults at all. They've fallen into the same pit Microsoft did, the "we're really big, so any problems we create belong to someone else" pit.
Despite their size and web presence, Google is a net newbie, and has gotten lots and lots of network related things on Android terribly wrong, and has shown no desire to get it right.
You want to put a server on the network, complete with special firewall rules to support it? Yes, it's reasonable for IT to want some access to it.
Oh, yeah. Thanks for reminding me.
7) When presented with criticism of their data or contradictory evidence, they ignore it, and try to shift the burden of proof.
1) The data have shown a correlation, not a causation.
2) There's nothing scientific about the predictions, and the observations do not match as you claim (the subject of the article is just a single case in point.) I'll bet one could develop an equally valid prediction based on MPAA/RIAA copyright submissions and radio/TV broadcasts as the cause of global warming.
3) When observations don't match predictions, instead of changing the hypothesis, the conflicting data is simply ignored. This is antithetical to true scientific. Again, the article presents but one example.
4) Claims of warming are based on reasonably accurate data covering less than 300 years, much less than that if global change is to be compared (everyone seems to agree that local changes can't be considered significant).
5) Proxies for temperatures prior to accurate measurement have been shown to be unreliable. The data has been "cherry picked" to make a case. Again, conflicting data have been ignored, or simply altered to match expectations. (See "Climategate")
6) There is vast evidence that climate is chaotic, and at time frames exceeding our accurate records. Conveniently, the difference in time frame between "weather" and "climate" seems to always depend on the point being made.
"Unless, of course, somebody comes up with Web 4.0."
My Internet goes to 11.0!
"duping customers out of $200,000 doesn't make your testimony more believable."
...except when compared to duping others out of $65,000,000 or more.
"why is Google applying for FISMA certification again?"
Because to a company of their size the cost is negligible, and they want to remove any ability for competitors to spread FUD?
By "not the same," do you mean physically, or logically? ISTM, they'd use an identical "information system," but possibly consisting of physically separate servers. Again, by my reading on what FISMA is all about, that wouldn't matter - it seems to be concerned with architecture and procedures, not specific apps or physical devices.
Yep, and if you follow throught on the references, you'll find one to check for lies on pages 18, 29, and 37 of a linked PDF document. Unfortunately, they don't say which pages they mean - page 18 of the PDF is page 15 of the fax it was scanned from, which is page 11 of the original document.
From what I can tell, FISMA certification is for information systems, not applications. If Google runs "Apps for Gov't" on the same cloud infrastructure as their "Apps Premier," it would seem to qualify under the certification received for the latter. Is there really any difference between the two, except for marketing? From their website, any difference is not apparent.
Their slogan will be "Do be evil."
It's illegal if the gov't does it too. They can't "authorized" illegal activity, and "following orders" is not a legal defense.
The account you're replying to is karma-whoring (and setting themselves up to do so).
I have a mathematical model which explains the sunrise. The inputs to this model are the arrival time of the paperboy, and the time of sunrise. My model predicts that every time the paperboy delivers my newspaper, the sun will rise within two hours. When tested, the actual outcome exactly matches the predicted outcome.
Thanks. Using your scientific method, we've just proven that the paperboy causes the sun to rise in the sky.
I'd guess you're a "climate scientist." You're also a fool.
Uranus is covered with greenhouse gases (2.3% methane, which has much more effect that the 0.039% CO2 on earth), but is extremely cold. Mercury has no greenhouse gases, but is extremely hot. There, I have twice as much "proof" as you do.
Correlation is not causation. Historical evidence shows that CO2 increases lag behind warming. The hypothesis for AGW has not been tested, and cannot be tested (there is no control to eliminate other possible causes). So, AGW claims don't fit the OP's definition of science. OTOH, one can take on faith that a model which reproduces the past will predict the future. That's religion.
Well, if global warming happens due to a mathematical model, change the model - problem solved! Wagging the dog by the tail isn't science.
God said "E=MC^2", and there was light. QED.