

Windows Phone does transmit location information without user consent - 0x12
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/windows-phone-does-transmit-location-information-without-user-consent/14970

======
ntoshev
This looks like requesting an approximate position assisting the gps to to get
the precise position. I'd bet all agps devices do it in this way; before the
confirmation dialog, because it gives the optimal user experience. If they
waited for confirmation to download the agps data, you'd haveto wait more to
grt your location. Even if you don't want to get your location now, it makes
sense to cache them because you are likely to want it in the near future.
These are the same data iPhone was found to cache and back up.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
I agree, but it all comes down to what they are sending. Sending "some
anonymous device (assuming they cab truly keep things anonymous, a non-trivia,
task!) is around here" is probably OK. Sending "device ae4f3297ffd is around
here" is most likely not ok at all.

~~~
ntoshev
I agree, they are sending more info than they need to, in the same way Apple
didn't need to store these data for so long or back them up on a computer. In
both cases I don't think there is malice, but it's good people actually check
what is going on and force vendors to take privacy seriously.

------
kurtsiegfried
The actual source of the article is below. ZDNet didn't add much to the
article other than ads.

[http://www.withinwindows.com/2011/09/23/dissecting-
case-0143...](http://www.withinwindows.com/2011/09/23/dissecting-
case-01438-exhibit-b-part-2/)

------
palish
This is probably due to incompetence, not malice. Bugfix a'hoy?

They probably meant _"It is our intention not to collect information..."_
rather than "Microsoft does not collect information..."

If you make a mistake which contradicts something you've said in a formal
contract, is there any way to basically say "Whoops, my bad, yo. We're pushing
out a bugfix ASAP"? Would that even 'matter'? I guess it depends entirely on
the exact contract, so there's probably no way to answer that.

I mean, people make mistakes. It's life; it happens. I'm just wondering if the
legal system reflects that fact at all, or whether it's a hardcore stonefaced
slavedriver that laughs at how naive you are for thinking you get a second
chance.

~~~
anedisi
there is a lot of this type of "mistakes" if i would let my imagination to
take over i could say they do it on purpose and say it is mistake only if they
get caught.

~~~
palish
That's true, but very rare.

~~~
rwolf
Citation needed.

~~~
palish
Do you believe most of the world is honorless? If so, then no citation will
convince otherwise.

On the other hand, if you believe most people are fundamentally "good" (or at
least "mostly not evil"), as I do, then no citation is necessary.

Almost everyone of the thousands of people I've interacted with in the
tech/programming field are good people.

Of course, there are plenty of horror stories in relation to the business side
of things. It's certainly _possible_ most of them are mostly evil; I have no
clue.

~~~
rwolf
You may have meant to talk about humans in general, but the context here is
Microsoft. Your claim that Microsoft has very rarely acted against the
interests of users on purpose is in need of supporting evidence, as the
general sentiment on this social news site is that this is not the case.

To your question: Steve Mann has some interesting thoughts about how being a
part of bureaucracy makes it easy to do evil. This is not a new idea: any
discussion of collaboration in WW2 Europe will bring up similar themes. Do you
think humans who are acting at the behest of an impersonal corporation are
intrinsically good in that context?

------
CurtHagenlocher
I suspect that the relevant semantic distinction here is between "transmit"
and "collect".

~~~
cgranade
Where personally identifiable information is concerned, transmission implies
collection, as there is no way to verify that the receiving party does not
record. Any statement to the contrary is to take the recipient merely on
faith.

~~~
Someone
Not merely on faith; There also is the statement to the house of
representatives. IANAL, but I would guess that could lead to some serious jail
time, if it turned out that the data was collected.

