Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Demanded T-Mobile, Sprint Not Sell Google Fi Customers' Location Data

motherboard.vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 163 posts

Re: Google Demanded T-Mobile, Sprint Not Sell Google Fi Customers' Location Data

#141

Post by skywhopper »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #47
Despegar wrote: post #2

I mean sure. Google certainly doesn't want wireless carriers to compete with them in advertising, and everyone having access to location data from smartphones just devalues Google's own access. https://qz.com/1131515/google-collects-android-users-locatio...

The big difference is Google doesn't sell that data to third parties; they just use it for ad targeting. There's a big difference between the company that makes my phone's OS knowing my location, and anyone willing to pay a few bucks knowing the same. (Also it looks like in the situation described in the article you linked, they didn't even use the data for ad targeting: "we never incorporated Cell ID into our networ…

"just" for ad targeting is a big hole in this caveat.

Re: Google Demanded T-Mobile, Sprint Not Sell Google Fi Customers' Location Data

#142

Post by bduerst »

rightbyte wrote: post #135
bduerst wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Knowing the city that someone clicked your ad in because you targeted the ad in that city isn't 'leaking' location data. These advertiser websites know your city already by the act of you visiting their website.

It's not city accuracy. It's 1000 m nominal. If you could target a peak or small island and get better effective accuracy, I would not be surprised. "You can choose one of the default radius settings or set a custom radius from a minimum of 1 km to a maximum of 1,000 km." https://support.google.com/richmedia/answer/7279179?hl=en&re...

Ad location targeting at best is in a 3 sq. km area, not 1 km. For an average city in the U.S. (like St. Louis) that's an aggregate density of 6,000 people.

Knowing that someone in 6,000 people in an area clicked on your coffee ad is not leaking GPS data. Which is probably why bounty hunters are buying the data directly from cell carriers and not running targeted Google ads.

Re: Google Demanded T-Mobile, Sprint Not Sell Google Fi Customers' Location Data

#143

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

rightbyte wrote: post #132
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not going to be able to uniquely target someone in a radius, since the minimum is 1km (and I guess Google would artificially widen the radius to prevent uniquely identifying people in sparsely populated areas). You've also got to entice them to click, and that's notoriously difficult.I mean it might work occasionally but it's never going to be the shortest path to surveiling an individual. I would guess that ~…

Yes. I'm not saying it is as bad as selling the information verbatim to banksters to collect someone's debt. However, it's still selling personal information to adbuyers. And, I don't think you can say "nobody is successfully using ads to determine ad clickers general location with a X mile radius". This surveillance thing is getting out of hand and Google is annoyed that shady corporations tries to get ground which…

> And, I don't think you can say "nobody is successfully using ads to determine ad clickers general location with a X mile radius".

Of course. And I'm sure that you can find some people who would get riled up that they incremented a counter in a location-oriented semi-anonymous bucket of clicks. But I think most people are substantially less riled up about that than they would be if Google were actually disclosing their individual locations directly to buyers. It seems like a lot of the anti-Google folks on here equivocate between these two, and I speculate it's because consciously or subconsciously they realize the latter narrative is much more emotionally compelling to a much broader segment of the population. To me, that's deceptive rhetoric.

Re: Google Demanded T-Mobile, Sprint Not Sell Google Fi Customers' Location Data

#144

Post by greglindahl »

bduerst wrote: post #142
rightbyte wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not city accuracy. It's 1000 m nominal. If you could target a peak or small island and get better effective accuracy, I would not be surprised. "You can choose one of the default radius settings or set a custom radius from a minimum of 1 km to a maximum of 1,000 km." https://support.google.com/richmedia/answer/7279179?hl=en&re...

Ad location targeting at best is in a 3 sq. km area, not 1 km. For an average city in the U.S. (like St. Louis) that's an aggregate density of 6,000 people. Knowing that someone in 6,000 people in an area clicked on your coffee ad is not leaking GPS data. Which is probably why bounty hunters are buying the data directly from cell carriers and not running targeted Google ads.

It's a leak of location information, which is what this sub-thread is about. The location information was only inside of Google, and now the advertiser has it.

It's also not "one in 6,000 people" if it's someone who signs up for some service via the ad. That particular someone might not realize that the service knows their location.

Re: Google Demanded T-Mobile, Sprint Not Sell Google Fi Customers' Location Data

#145

Post by ThrustVectoring »

greglindahl wrote: post #137
ThrustVectoring wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Website owners already know your rough geographic location via IP address. If it's that big of a concern for you, you should route 100% of your traffic through a VPN.

GeoIP is not that accurate in many situations, and note that a VPN does not protect you against this kind of targeted ad location leak. I'm confused by your reference to me and my concerns. This isn't a discussion about me; I was making a point about leakage of location information.

I was using the generic you throughout - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you

Re: Google Demanded T-Mobile, Sprint Not Sell Google Fi Customers' Location Data

#146

Post by bduerst »

greglindahl wrote: post #144
bduerst wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ad location targeting at best is in a 3 sq. km area, not 1 km. For an average city in the U.S. (like St. Louis) that's an aggregate density of 6,000 people. Knowing that someone in 6,000 people in an area clicked on your coffee ad is not leaking GPS data. Which is probably why bounty hunters are buying the data directly from cell carriers and not running targeted Google ads.

It's a leak of location information, which is what this sub-thread is about. The location information was only inside of Google, and now the advertiser has it. It's also not "one in 6,000 people" if it's someone who signs up for some service via the ad. That particular someone might not realize that the service knows their location.

And that's the same deal with Geo IP, which this sub thread is about.

The point in 1:6,000 is that whether it's ad targeting or just regular internet traffic, there isnt enough specificity to "leak" data about the person.

You can split hairs over, "Well what of they join that 1:6000 with other PII" and it's the same with Geo IP. The user gives up that data but it's not different than just visit the page normally.

Re: Google Demanded T-Mobile, Sprint Not Sell Google Fi Customers' Location Data

#147

Post by neolefty »

vanattab wrote: post #88

Ask HN: Is anyone here happy with Google Fi service? I ordered a Pixel 3 phone directly from Google Fi and signed up for service with Google Fi the end of December. When I ordered the phone it showed up as in stock and estimated I would get my phone by the 4th of January. On the 2nd I got an email saying that the phone shipping was delayed and I would receive an email when it ships. I have heard nothing from google s…

Even my support calls have gone well. Used it for about 2 years now, me + 3 family members.

Re: Google Demanded T-Mobile, Sprint Not Sell Google Fi Customers' Location Data

#148

Post by notatoad »

max76 wrote: post #70
Ajedi32 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big difference is Google doesn't sell that data to third parties; they just use it for ad targeting. There's a big difference between the company that makes my phone's OS knowing my location, and anyone willing to pay a few bucks knowing the same. (Also it looks like in the situation described in the article you linked, they didn't even use the data for ad targeting: "we never incorporated Cell ID into our networ…

The difference exists only to the point that Google is an ethical owner of the data. I'm concerned that Google is in the business selling products based on a monopoly of consumer data. These products are likely to become more and more invasive as time goes on.. It's possible that a future Google product will become a larger threat to privacy than geolocation because they have a wider variety of data collected. In sum…

A bounty hunter can't call up Google and get access to my location. If i were on T-Mobile or Sprint, they could[1]. This is not a theoretical difference.

Being concerned about how Google could potentially in the future abuse all the data they've collected is a completely valid concern, but they're in no way a larger threat than the companies currently actively exploiting that data.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/nepxbz/i-gave-a-b...

Re: Google Demanded T-Mobile, Sprint Not Sell Google Fi Customers' Location Data

#149

Post by kaybe »

guelo wrote: post #63
thefounder wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as the advertising is concerned Google is no different(and so FB etc). Anyone with few bucks will know your location or better said will target you with ads. With Google they won't target only by location because as you said Google makes the OS so it knows pretty much everything about you.

That's just not true. There's a reason the bounty hunters don't use Google Ads to locate individuals but they do use AT&T.

Well, they're going to use whatever is easiest. I don't think this is a strong argument.

Re: Google Demanded T-Mobile, Sprint Not Sell Google Fi Customers' Location Data

#150

Post by mgleason_3 »

notatoad wrote: post #148
max76 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference exists only to the point that Google is an ethical owner of the data. I'm concerned that Google is in the business selling products based on a monopoly of consumer data. These products are likely to become more and more invasive as time goes on.. It's possible that a future Google product will become a larger threat to privacy than geolocation because they have a wider variety of data collected. In sum…

A bounty hunter can't call up Google and get access to my location. If i were on T-Mobile or Sprint, they could[1]. This is not a theoretical difference. Being concerned about how Google could potentially in the future abuse all the data they've collected is a completely valid concern, but they're in no way a larger threat than the companies currently actively exploiting that data. https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/…

Right? And why is everyone talking about how bad Google is when AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint are selling our freaking location?!? It's nuts!

If it's easier to become a bounty hunter than a barber in Idaho, then almost anyone can track someones location without their knowledge. Odds are the data's being made available in other ways we're not even aware of. And think about the impact on battered wives, someone on the wrong side of a vendetta, hell even road rage. The possibilities are staggering.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2016/09/09/...

Post reply on HN