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

FCC fines largest wireless carriers for sharing location data

docs.fcc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 202 posts

Re: FCC fines largest wireless carriers for sharing location data

#161

Post by ikiris »

38 wrote: post #61
sofixa wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most of this abuse of personal data would go away if people knew it was going on. GDPR proves this wrong. Most people click OK/accept even in front of relatively clear information (to be fair sometimes the options are "accept for you to be tracked and shared with 'our partners' or pay a subscription/fee", which is an easy choice for many.

This is misleading. The OK is almost universally made easier to click through dark patterns, with the "reject" being hidden or taking more clicks

And those are illegal under gdpr, and enforcement is slow but happening. Whats your point?

Re: FCC fines largest wireless carriers for sharing location data

#162

Post by amalcon »

gameman144 wrote: post #152
amalcon wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly the first amendment, "petition the government for redress of grievances". Privacy violation is not an explicitly enumerated grievance, but neither are most causes for civil litigation. Also possibly not; it depends on the particulars and the judge.

You definitely have the right to petition the government for redress of this grievance: you can ask your representatives to pass laws banning it. The first amendment would have nothing to do with that actual law though (since if it were, literally anything could be considered a grievance)

You also have the right to litigate under common law, which does have a lot to do with the first amendment. Though granted, you are individually unlikely to prevail in that way. Like said, it depends on the particulars and the judge.

Re: FCC fines largest wireless carriers for sharing location data

#163

Post by gmd63 »

jmward01 wrote: post #12

The core issue is transparency. I don't want to see a 'privacy policy', I want to see who a company has sold/given my information to and what limitations that sale has. The concept is simple. If you collect anything about me and allow some other entity access, you tell me about it/make it easy for me to see -and- block. Most of this abuse of personal data would go away if people knew it was going on.

I would extend this to include companies like Facebook that study your data to derive deeper insights about you. I want to be entitled to every conclusion they reach about me from my own data, so I can correct whatever assumptions they have about me and possibly learn more about myself.

Re: FCC fines largest wireless carriers for sharing location data

#164

Post by notfed »

idatum wrote: post #67
jmward01 wrote: post #12

The core issue is transparency. I don't want to see a 'privacy policy', I want to see who a company has sold/given my information to and what limitations that sale has. The concept is simple. If you collect anything about me and allow some other entity access, you tell me about it/make it easy for me to see -and- block. Most of this abuse of personal data would go away if people knew it was going on.

Everything should be opt-in. Burden should be on them, something like, "We want to share your data and if you agree here are the benefits to you."

Why would anyone opt-in to having their location sold? Some things should just be banned.

Re: FCC fines largest wireless carriers for sharing location data

#165

Post by barbariangrunge »

gruez wrote: post #93
barbariangrunge wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the fine was more than the income in the past, that still doesn’t matter because of the income from future sales will still make this behaviour worthwhile

>that still doesn’t matter because of the income from future sales will still make this behaviour worthwhile Wouldn't future sales also be fined?

Depends on how successful their lobbying is in the next decade

Re: FCC fines largest wireless carriers for sharing location data

#166

Post by throwaway48476 »

killjoywashere wrote: post #157
throwaway48476 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google Fi is an MVNO. They use the big 3 for coverage and they are definitely selling your location data.

Actually, seems like the opposite is true: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18885149

It says they "asked" but no confirmation the carriers agreed.

Re: FCC fines largest wireless carriers for sharing location data

#167

Post by chatmasta »

xnyan wrote: post #107
nimbius wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

to clarify, this was a third party company called securus that offered a blanket deal to track practically everyone based on a deal they had with cellular companies to purchase tracking data. Securus normally only works with US prisoners. They were collecting data on everyone and then rebranding that capability/relationship as a service. it no longer exists apparently in a hamfisted attempt to avoid more litigation b…

According to AT&T, yes they can get your GPS location. In this article they claim they only do so when the user is making a 911 call, to which I say “yeah right”. https://www.theverge.com/2022/5/10/23065777/att-route-911-ca...

How does this work? I assumed it was tower triangulation, but the article makes it sound like it really is using GPS location.

Does the SIM card have a program that somehow can access the GPS sensor via the baseband processor?

Re: FCC fines largest wireless carriers for sharing location data

#168

Post by wizzwizz4 »

jddj wrote: post #151
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's nearly there though so it's genuinely an improvement on how they used to behave. It's writing the conclusion at the beginning, so none of that convincing-looking mathematical reasoning had any bearing on the provided answer. The sum in the fourth paragraph could have been implemented using a plugin: we have no reason to believe the actual language model is doing it (and lots of precedent to suggest it probably…

You're probably right, and I did wonder if it was just delegating the math. I remember they tried to get chatgpt to delegate to python for that sort of thing. What interested me was that even though it got it backwards 520.4 / 196 isn't quite 2.67, without allowing for some weird floating point behaviour (it's 2.655)

The fact the final answer is close to the initial answer is surprising: the fact it's not the same is unsurprising. 2.67 was decided (plucked out of thin air) before any of the other numbers were invented.

Re: FCC fines largest wireless carriers for sharing location data

#170

Post by immibis »

nox101 wrote: post #131
ethbr1 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's something I think the EU got right -- being hard-nosed about true tracking consent requiring a user to receive the same outcome regardless of their choice. Anything shy is begging companies to dark-engineer patterns around obtaining it.

The EU didn't get this right - or else they aren't enforcing it. I'm in the EU right now and the crap I see is a popup "We respect your privacy. Us and 352 (not an exaggeration!) of our partners are collecting data on you. Approve or Details?" Pick details and you can spend your time going through the partners https://pasteboard.co/rrL2bpmiE6Zq.png And most you can't reject Even more hilarious. pageboard itself said…

This is mostly unenforced, as it WAS ruled that it must be as easy to reject as to accept. However, they're going after "consent to ads or buy a subscription" which I thought was a pretty fair compromise business model.
Post reply on HN