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

Untitled topic

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 104 posts

Re: undefined

#91

Post by toast0 »

lillecarl wrote: post #57
secondcoming wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Google does share location information with advertisers it is obfuscated to approx this range.

My personal understanding of this...... Show is that they never share my actual data but rather allow advertisers to target me based on these parameters, and if the advertiser is specific enough and get me to click I could potentially be identified by the ad. Please prove me right.

For graphical ads, typically the advertiser can include beacons which can indicate membership in the targeted group, the same as a click. No interaction needed.

Re: undefined

#92

Post by Lamad123 »

barathr wrote: post #29

This is a layered problem; Apple and Google (for better and worse) are best positioned to deal with the app ecosystem. But there's the mobile provider piece of this -- the tower knows where you are because currently it has to, and the network providers are part of this location data market, selling location data for everyone, whether they use leaky apps or not. This is worse with 5G due to smaller cells and thus fine…

Are the towers that precise? Can they tell if you are in Wallgreens or Home Depot?

Re: undefined

#94

Post by nerdponx »

milofeynman wrote: post #26
nerdponx wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once read that Apple and Google actively keep track of Wifi access points so they can map out interior spaces, and also geolocate you even if you have GPS location services disabled. I don't know if that's true, but I wouldn't put it past them.

https://support.google.com/maps/answer/1725632?hl=en

Nice. I like how the opt-out is really intrusive, in order to discourage you from doing it. And of course being on a "_nomap" SSID is going to make you easily identifiable anyway, because nobody else is doing it.

You wouldn't let a Google rep come to your house and physically map out your home, or note down the MAC addresses of your Wifi access point. Yet people are totally OK with them doing it as long as someone physically doesn't show up to do it.

Re: undefined

#95

Post by eurasiantiger »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #86
Consultant32452 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government regulation created your lack of options. These are the people who have been giving literally trillions of dollars to the wealthy in their spending bills. What would they have to do to convince you they are not going to help you?

It's always regulation to blame to some folks. If only we could have more 'free market' somehow companies would no longer spy on their customers.

There’s regulation to protect human life, and then there’s regulation to protect business interests. The ”free market” advocates claim that the former are anti-competitive while they try their best to have the latter enacted.

Re: undefined

#96

Post by yosito »

barathr wrote: post #29

This is a layered problem; Apple and Google (for better and worse) are best positioned to deal with the app ecosystem. But there's the mobile provider piece of this -- the tower knows where you are because currently it has to, and the network providers are part of this location data market, selling location data for everyone, whether they use leaky apps or not. This is worse with 5G due to smaller cells and thus fine…

I would love to know if/when there's an MVNO with international roaming that implements PGPP. Any recommendations on the best sources or topics to follow to stay on top of this kind of news?

Re: undefined

#97

Post by robbedpeter »

gruez wrote: post #59
robbedpeter wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A trustless model in which the tower can provide a connection, know the relevant endpoint location on the tower hardware only, and prevent any access to that data except to law enforcement with a valid warrant. Providers don't need location data. Put in place lethal penalties for violating data privacy - if a company is caught harvesting data outside legal limits, they get fined into oblivion, and the money is split…

>A trustless model in which the tower can provide a connection, know the relevant endpoint location on the tower hardware only but doesn't that mean you can still pinpoint people at the cell level? With cells being smaller in 5g networks, the problem is going to get worse.

Yes, so make it illegal for providers to send location data anywhere other than the tower hardware, and make it corporate suicide to collect the data, except at the individual level with a specific warrant.

Re: undefined

#98

Post by jacquesm »

jsjohnst wrote: post #81
jacquesm wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not nearly to the same degree of confidence/precision and without easy access by Google/Apple/Facebook/Advertising networks to this data.

For someone as active on HN as you, I’m surprised you don’t know of the numerous stories in the past about carriers selling location data to advertising networks and the numerous cases where the raw data has leaked publicly via careless aggregators[0]. Like even Congress got fired up on it at the time because of leaks, but you can be assured it’s still happening[2] despite claims otherwise. As to the precision argume…

Carriers are a small fraction of the problem, Google, Apple and Facebook are the main part of it, and all three of them are outside of the jurisdiction where I live, where carriers are not allowed legally to sell this data to advertisers because of the lack of a legal basis for processing. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen but it does mean that doing so is illegal.

Emergency services and LE after properly executed warrants are the only parties that should have access to this information without your explicit consent to be used for advertising.

Just enabling 'Google maps' on your phone should not give Google, the advertising giant unfettered access to your location data just to give one example.

Re: undefined

#99

Post by sul_tasto »

jsjohnst wrote: post #81
jacquesm wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not nearly to the same degree of confidence/precision and without easy access by Google/Apple/Facebook/Advertising networks to this data.

For someone as active on HN as you, I’m surprised you don’t know of the numerous stories in the past about carriers selling location data to advertising networks and the numerous cases where the raw data has leaked publicly via careless aggregators[0]. Like even Congress got fired up on it at the time because of leaks, but you can be assured it’s still happening[2] despite claims otherwise. As to the precision argume…

I don’t understand why the FCCis mandating such accuracy. It seems like this is regulatory cover that then enables the tracking

Re: undefined

#100

Post by jacquesm »

fiddlerwoaroof wrote: post #89
jsjohnst wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For someone as active on HN as you, I’m surprised you don’t know of the numerous stories in the past about carriers selling location data to advertising networks and the numerous cases where the raw data has leaked publicly via careless aggregators[0]. Like even Congress got fired up on it at the time because of leaks, but you can be assured it’s still happening[2] despite claims otherwise. As to the precision argume…

I wonder if it’s actually possible to prevent fingerprinting of a radio transmitter (aside from active measures like intentionally sending out noise broadcasts periodically): it seems to me that a clever enough adversary with two or three receivers could fingerprint all the devices in the area based on transmission patterns and locate/identify individuals. Combined with CCTV or other data, this could even be sufficie…

You could easily accidentally make it easier rather than harder to pinpoint you.
Post reply on HN