Google's become an obsessive stalker and you can't get a restraining order Google isn’t just interested in tracking you, or even very interested. Google tracks you with the defiant zeal of an obsessive stalker. What’s curious is that the American state seems almost as keen on the unfettered collection and use of location data as Google itself. Phones incorporated GPS silicon long before the iPhone …
"Security researcher Mustafa Al-Bassam reported on Twitter that he 'almost had a heart attack' when he walked into a McDonald's and was prompted on his phone to download the fast food restaurant's app."
There is much criticism of the media when they pick up "facts" from wikipedia, but when the Register reads something on Twitter (with no details or evidence), it becomes the basis for 2 news stories?
Many disputed this claim in the previous article and it seems to have affected very few other people - you'd think there would be loads of comments about this happening.
Now, it is technically possible that the McDonalds app claim is true, but you would expect a Tech news blog to be sceptical about such a claim until it is verified, would you not?
I was in Duke's Bar and Grill, in that Lunnin, recently. I have a distinct policy of NO location tracking on photographs. Imagine my chagrin when all of a sudden, after taking a pic for an email of the huge rib, (not social media), when I get a big prompt saying 'Do I want to tag this photo with Duke's Bar and Grill?'
So regardless of having geo location on photographs being off, the location is still linked to taking a pic even though it isn't embedded in the image itself.
This shows a distinct alteration in approach to tracking by Google. In otherwords, we are tracking you, but since you are not using that information yourself, that means you are not being tracked.
I do not trust Google. They don't offer any way of really opting out. I would even pay google for using their services, if it meant I wasn't used for advertising.
But that doesn't fit into their business model.
Recording everyday data on people seems to have become a 'right' in the minds of companies, more recently, bringing them into like mind with governments everywhere. One day, when this is all history, this period will be looked upon as the 'WTF were they thinking?' Era. Assuming no apocolypse, etc.
One day, when this is all history, this period will be looked upon as the 'WTF were they thinking?' Era.
This must the third or fourth comment optimistically assuming that eventually people will "rebel" and it'll be sorted out. More likely the megacorps will eventually be openly running things and only armed rebellion will change things, if that's even possible.
Mokie Coke ----------------------->
and only armed rebellion will change things
Except that by then, it'll be impossible to organise armed rebellion as they'll know enough about you, who you communicate with, what you say to each other, etc, to be able to spot it well before you have the ability to do anything meaningful and get you locked up as a terrorist.
Read the articles on "how to build an authoritarian state" - there are several steps, two of them being "pervasive surveillance" and "oppression". Google are near enough to the state of having pervasive surveillance, and the governments (in various countries) have furnished the vague "anything we don't like is terrorism if we say it is" laws.
"This article may have been inspired by the McDonalds debacle but it deals with Google's location slurping from years ago to the present day."
The great thing about the comment section is that you are allowed to comment on any part of the story, go figure!
(etiquette would suggest you state which part you are commenting on though)
((in fact you can comment on anything that pops into your head while reading the story))
(((As the quote and the comment was taken from and based entirely on that part of the article it is not a straw man, your comment is a false fallacy)))
...I just don't see all this slurped data (if it actually exists) actually coming back to me in any shape or form.
I don't get ads. I don't get emails from Google or anyone that I don't want them from. Even Amazon never emails me about potential purchases. No apps that I have scream at me "Oh while you are in this place check out...!"
I'm either just not seeing it (maybe that's the point) or it just isn't a problem.
Maybe some journalists are in urgent need of a blowj*b to help them calm down?
"I don't get ads. I don't get emails from Google or anyone that I don't want them from."
Neither do I but I have to work at it. An ad blocker is one factor. Another is maintaining my own domain and a multitude of email aliases on there, including short term ones for those who confuse needing and wanting an address for me.
"Even Amazon never emails me about potential purchases."
I'm not sure why you wrote "even". Amazon are far too smart. They realise that it would lose business. Even so I'm thoroughly pissed off with their repeated attempts to inveigle me into Amazon Prime.
But whatever ads I do see on the web...are NEVER useful to me. Never products or services I would buy or use. So once again all that 'slurped detailed info' is either not being used or useless.
Once again EVEN Amazon's choices list for me contains stuff I have no idea why it's in there.I'm a Prime user and so that means they have a mass of data on me and they still can't get it right.
Laughable.
Some people have realized that you can deliberately browse for weird obscure items during the same session as more common things just to give Amazon users a nicely surreal experience. If it's the sort of thing hardly anyone ever looks at, a few clicks can be enough to game the stats. Which is why you occasionally find yourself saying "People who bought this bicycle storage shed were also interested in a super-realistic warthog costume and a ten-pack of vibrators? What the what?"
Some people have strange hobbies.
Back in the early days of the web (yes, I'm that old) I remember people putting content online for the sake of - so they could have an online presence.
Over time, consumers have become conditioned to the idea that you should be able to get stuff on the Internet for free.
That thinking has quickly become lodged in peoples' mindsets....lodged so strongly that it masks out the logic that somebody, somewhere must be paying for this. Yes, there's a certain amount of philanthropy and free-for-free's-sake out there, but there's an awful lot of stuff that carries a cost that somebody needs to cover.
The trick that Google et al are using is to exploit peoples' expectation that they can get stuff for free without thinking too much, if at all, about where it's coming from. Before they realise that they're paying for it with their personal details and their privacy, it's often too late as they are already so heavily bought-in to the product or service.
It's the sort of classic misunderstanding of human nature typical of a bunch of IT geeks. They thought having "Don't be evil" as a motto would stop people being evil. In fact, of course, it just made the group complacently believe in their own non-evility, and so they cut themselves and each other way too big a break when conducting the moral critical evaluation that makes up most of our daily existence. Google's entire staff have been rendered completely qualmless.
I think you're probably right here.
They probably don't think too much about collecting the data, because it's mostly anonymised for bulk data usage, and the data that isn't anonymised is encrypted and logged to a single account etc. etc. And anyway, they're the only ones using it, and only so we can serve up targetted ads that people might be interested in, and who doesn't want to be told about the five Starbucks' within a thirty yard radius of their current position at any given time anyway?
I suspect they see it as useful data to provide convenient services, and haven't fully thought through the downsides of it due to cognitive bias.
But as we all know, it only takes one weak link in the chain of trust for it to become abuse of power.
Yes, UK Police National Computer database. I'm looking at you.
It does seem like a massive imbalance between the amount of effort going in to targeting adverts and the final result. I still don't care about any adverts I see, and mostly consider them a negative influence on my purchase choices.
If only the people who pay for adverts hosted could see how ineffective they are for the user rather than be blinded by the ability of Google to apply sophisticated targeting. Most effective targeting can be done from instantaneous user behavior, not from long term tracking.
You're browsing a IT website, it doesn't take a clever person to work out that IT related adverts are more likely of interest to you. Not, 'you're browsing an IT website and that annoying advert that's been following you for weeks pops up for something shitty you once browsed for a completely unrelated reason'. Context is everything, and Google never know *why* you've behaved in the way they've monitored
So, more interestingly, why does this massive imbalance of effort really exist? The advertising clearly sucks balls, it's can't just be a self fulfilling prophecy can it?
I know I've told this story before, but I'm boring that way.
Like every other male on Facebook, I kept getting adverts for "Hot young promiscuous women in YOUR AREA inexplicably want to meet you!" Kept rejecting the adverts as offensive (which, since Facebook knows I'm married, they are), to no effect. Then one day my wife got our daughter the DVD of Annie, and I happened to make some comment on FB about a silly detail I noticed in the film. Immediately, all those ads vanished, to be replaced with "Lithe young men in stripy leggings and leather caps in YOUR AREA want to meet you!" Facebook are supposedly one of the world leaders at personal data-mining, and they have an algorithm that goes something like IF [mentions a musical] THEN [gay].
They have also served me adverts for a motorcycle hearse -- for all those Hells Angels' funerals I'm always organising -- and (and I swear I am not making this up) an amphibious assault vehicle. I'd love to claim I'm exciting enough for these adverts to have been pointed at me for a good reason, but I do IT for banks and like cooking and gardening.
To be fair, I did also discover the music of Meiko via a Facebook ad, and she's now one of my favourite singers. But I'm guessing that's just because her fanbase is mainly gay bikers mounting amphibious invasions.
I do object to the invasion of privacy in principle, but I'm not worrying too much about its actual effects just yet.
Actually I have data disabled on my Android phone, I've only enabled wIfi to download an ePub reader app and a text editor (which complains on every load that that it can't access internet). I removed Amazon's Kindle eReader App because it would pop up warnings about being unable to connect, even when it wasn't listed as running and hadn't been used (I use Calibre and my real Kindle's serial number to convert DRM'ed Amazon to ePub).
I use the media player, camera, FM Radio, SMS, regular voice.
I transfer eBooks and photos and video via USB storage mode.
Something similar with my tablet.
Google, you stink. There should be a special hell for companies like you and Facebook, destroying people's privacy. So called "Social Media" (Google+, YouTube, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter) etc is worse because they are more exploitive and encourage people to share information that can't be automatically gathered and also OTHER people's information!
Now MS is stupidly destroying their lucrative automatic repeat sale software business by trying to be like Google.
I'm not defending Google, but (unlike MS) they never really "sold" you a product in exchange for cold hard cash. They made a product or service available for free at the point of delivery. They want to recoup their costs, so they slurp data (to them a commodity which they can exchange for (advertisers') cash).
It's a bit harsh to say that they stink. Yes, there's a bit of whiff there, but if anyone signed up for Gmail, used Google search, Maps, Earth, etc. without putting their hand in their pocket, and thought that Google were providing all that shiny out of the goodness of their corporate heart, then that's more than a little naive.
they stink, and stink badly. You say they gave us something for free and now just want to recoup the cost. To me this is suggesting those huge corporations are run by altruists who splash billions to give away free stuff, and THEN shock, horror, it dawns on them: uh, this has cost us money?! Damn, we've got to recover some of this, right? I mean, we love to give away stuff for free, but maybe we can recover some costs to cover for the new thinny we're gonna give away to humanity. There's this thing called Big Data, maybe that's the way. Or donations, or kicstarter, hey, spare a copper guv for THE Alstruists of the Universe.
Well, this is bullshit. They knew EXACTLY what they wanted (money, more money, and even more money - fair enough), they knew EXACTLY how the human nature works (gimme FREEFREEFREE and then you can fuck me anyway you want, I don't care!!!!), then they MISLEAD the people by providing the FREE!!!* and CONTINUE to mislead them by suggesting oh, this data some misfits call "personal" is anonymised, nothing to worry about, and it's really insignificant, look, just a string of nonsense letters and numbers, no harm done, really. And if data isn't anonymized, well, look, it's ALL for your benefit, Dear Valuable Customer, a lovely McShit 10% off ad pops up on your mobile screen, spectacular invention for the mankind, you DO want this 10% off, don't you...
If they'd been genuine and honest, they would have said: look, most things are NOT free, they cost money to make, and we are NOT here to lose money, we are a BUSINESS. So we'll give you this app IN EXCHANGE for being able to make money of the data generated by your when you use the app. Yes / No.
Even with No Script, due to stupidity of web design and services it's now very hard to avoid Google on a regular PC.
What alternatives are there to an Android phone that isn't (A) overpriced, (B) dead, (C) someone you never heard of, or (M,N) a dead zombie platform?
Many cheap "feature phones" are GSM only, which (in Ireland) operators can turn off with no 2 year retail warning implied by SOGA, but only needing to give a 6 month notice to Comreg (the Irish version of Ofcom or FCC).
"What alternatives are there to an Android phone that isn't (A) overpriced, (B) dead, (C) someone you never heard of, or (M,N) a dead zombie platform?"
There isn't - but then I guess you pay your money and take your choice. If you really want to minimise the google gouge your options are either:
(A) - Pay over the odds to avoid it but retain similar benefits via a different business model
(B) - Put up with the "missing" functionality but retain core stuff
(C) - Blind trust the no-name to be less intrusive
(M,N), Pretty much the same option as B.
Android market numbers tell you the way things have gone and continue to go.
In the end though the best way to avoid it is to simply not carry a phone - sort of option B on steroids.
What alternatives are there to an Android phone that isn't (A) overpriced, (B) dead, (C) someone you never heard of, or (M,N) a dead zombie platform?
Any decent phone (say S3 or similar specs) with CyanogenMod. Slap AdAway, DisableServices and AFwall+ and you're good to go.
"I'm not defending Google, but (unlike MS) they never really "sold" you a product in exchange for cold hard cash."
Good point.
I would much rather buy their products and be a customer, instead of getting them for free and myself being the product. (And they would get more money from me, as I never click their ads since they relate to stuff I research for work and would never buy myself.)
They've got some good products, I'm prepared to pay for them, so why don't they give me the opportunity to give them some cash? Seems like a missed opportunity.
"They've got some good products, I'm prepared to pay for them, so why don't they give me the opportunity to give them some cash? Seems like a missed opportunity."
I'm inclined to agree - but with a caveat. At some point in the past, I would have been willing to pay them for stuff. These days, however, I wouldn't trust them not to take my money in return for the goods and services, and then carry on profiling me anyway.
Why pay the extra for a Google Bundled Services phone?
If you don't want tracking, turn GPS on only for a few minutes a month, don't leave data on etc just get a phone without the Google services and it'll be a lot cheaper. Or, just change the ROM in your current phone to one without bundled services (many ROMs you have to jump through a few hoops to put it on as it isn't bundled due to licensing restrictions, so it is easier not to have it).
"What the FCC did this year, with little fanfare, was cripple telecoms companies and wireless networks from doing what Google and Facebook do. That’s a very odd decision. ... If behavioural advertising is so bad consumers need an opt-out, how come you can opt out of your ISP's profiling, but not Google’s. "
Really?
Then what do the steps here do?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=google+targeted+ads+opt+out
You can opt out of receiving the 'targeted' adverts, but can't opt out of the profiling.
Also, the thing I think is more worrying, you have no access to Google's information profile about you. You can (for a small fee) see you full medical record, and information about you held by companies should in theory be accessible on request. I don't see a way a requesting that Google tell you *everything* they know (and have inferred and associated) about you...
It would be amazingly interesting (and scary!), but won't ever happen as it would give people an instant understanding of the kind of profiling abilities that are routinely happening.
They call it "high accuracy mode" and they hammer you to allow it every single damned time you turn GPS on. It's so bad, I wrote my own applet to turn on (and off) GPS and skip that dialog.
Google Maps will still occasionally notice you're not in "high accuracy mode" and ask to turn it on, but it's not so insistent.
They call it "high accuracy mode" and they hammer you to allow it every single damned time you turn GPS on. It's so bad, I wrote my own applet to turn on (and off) GPS and skip that dialog.
Not any more, at least on my phone. Now when I turn GPS on it always goes straight to that mode and I have to remember to go into the settings to turn it off.
I would love a copy of your applet as I've not even begun to look at programming for Android. If you're willing to pass on then either put it somewhere we can find it or nicely ask El Reg to put us in touch (they can take this message as my OK :) ).
Most of the folk who read and post on the Register are fairly seasoned technologists, they've read the articles, they've looked at the papers, and are aware of the possible implications.
When I speak to my family and friends about data slurps, most of them (okay, the younger members) think that it's a good thing - or at least, not a bad thing - they know where their friends are, and how to get there, they get recommendations of cafés/bars/cinemas in the area, they get timetables, schedules, and so on. They feel that their lives are enriched with all this information that they receive in return for location/photo/personal data.
Who is right? I'm not happy with the data slurp at all, and I try to minimise it. But that doesn't make me right.
I have to say, I agree with you. I too try to minimise my data-slurping, but a recent (as in yesterday!) event has caused me to be grateful I missed / forgot to turn something off.
I got home from work to find a Penalty Charge Notice from TfL claiming that my car had been seen parked on a Red Route in Shoreditch High Street at 07:58 on 18-Aug-2016. Now I know for a *FACT* this isn't the case, as I haven't been to London since January in any capacity, and my car hasn't ever been to Shoreditch since I've got it from new - the closest was probably a trip to Wembley Stadium about 3 years ago. Sadly, I have no proof of this, because the day in qeustion was an otherwise uneventful Thursday in August, where I had no meetings, no phone calls or anything to demonstrate where I was.
EXCEPT for the Google Location History from my phone, which shows me at my house in Sheffield until 08:19 in the morning, and then driving to work. I've then managed to get hold of the door logs at the office which shows I entered the building at 08:55. So obviously, I couldn't have been in Shoreditch. I'm hoping that this is enough to get TfL to cancel the charge.
But, frankly, I'd've been slightly screwed for evidence if it wasn't for this data-slurping collection. No meetings. No other senior staff were in the office that day so I was in charge. No bank charges / ATM withdrawals showing me to be elsewhere at the time. And I'd struggle to get access to the Sheffield Council CCTV/ANPR images showing me driving to work without an FoI request, which could take forever.
I'm in no way saying that unfettered access to this data is uniformly a good thing - far from it. It's just that in some cases, it could prove to be handy to you as much as it is handy to Google et al for revenue purposes.
They can probably "prove" your guilt because they have a photograph of your number plate at that location. If you're lucky, the butthole who cloned your plate will have put it on a completely different vehicle and even TfL should be able to spot the difference.
Unfortunately, most of the little sh*ts who do this sort of thing are smart enough to use a genuine plate from an identical vehicle in which case you're back at Square One.
Of course, you could always let TfL go to court and get them to "ask" for the CCTV from (in this case) Sheffield Council - you can be ignored easily, but courts take a dim view of people - even Councils - flipping them the metaphorical bird...
A friend of mine once had a similar problem with Surrey Police - except he was playing space cadet on an RAF station a couple of hundred miles away at the time he was alleged to have been illegally parked. Luckily the traffic officer in charge had a sense of humour as the station CO offered to send a couple of loaded Tonkas in the event the timestamped photos of my friend entering and leaving didn't carry enough weight as evidence.
They can probably "prove" your guilt because they have a photograph of your number plate at that location. If you're lucky, the butthole who cloned your plate will have put it on a completely different vehicle and even TfL should be able to spot the difference.
Can you ask the Home Office for all your ANPR data for that day? Come to think of it, the national ANPR network shouldn't have much problem detecting cloned plates automatically anyway, but that's probably a non-starter as might be useful to the citizen intead of the secret policeman.
QUOTE: "Nice how you had to prove your innocence rather than them proving your guilt, as should be the case. Gotta love the instant fine system."
I thought that, but then I suppose the TfL argument (as the statutory accusatory body) would no doubt be to turn round and say "We've got proof of guilt in respect of the traffic womble that was about to stick a ticket on your windscreen before you drove off. As they're a 'trusted' person - much like the Rozzers - we take their word as sacrosanct, so it's up to you to refute it."
The fact that said traffic womble has either:
a) written down the wrong reg plate / misread the reg plate at the time / misread the reg plate from his notes when he got back to the office, or;
b) been duped by a cloned plate of some kind seems to be irrelevant.
Either way, I've also asked for confirmation from the traffic womble's notes (and NOT from the DVLA data) of the make, model and colour of the car. I know for a solid fact it wasn't me - and that isn't internet bravado. That's me knowing that at the time of the incident, my car was outside my house while I was in my bathroom having a shower before work 150 miles away!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
