
Google sued by the ACCC over alleged misuse of personal data - clouddrover
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-29/google-faces-accc-federal-court-misleading-use-of-data/11649356
======
dwd
This seems to be a standard dark pattern used by Google.

You can never assume setting "I want this to happen" is all you need to do, as
there is often a non-obvious "I don't want this to happen" setting that is
more important. Google Ads is rife with this sort of passive misdirection.

------
tylerl
Well that's ... nifty.

The previous uproar on this location history thing was us getting all up in
arms about how search history and location history were combined; turning off
one would turn off the other. Now we're furious that they're not combined:
turning off your map location history won't turn off your search history.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Before you get all excited about something "obvious" here that's clearly being
overlooked, remember that if you decide to use location-sensitive search,
you'll get different search results depending on where you are. Search for
"voting" with location enabled, and the results will focus on what's relevant
where you are, not just nonspecific voting trivia. You can't store location-
sensitive search history without making it possible to derive location based
on search history.

Location, history, and how location affects history are distinct concepts that
can't be combined without limiting the granularity of your privacy controls,
but can't be separated without limiting the clarity of your privacy controls.

~~~
stubish
The lawsuit alleges that location information is still recorded and stored by
Google even if you have the Location History setting turned off, and that to
actually stop Google collecting and storing your location information you need
to turn off both Location History and Web & App Activity, and that users are
not informed about this. It is not that turning of your map location history
won't turn off your search history.

~~~
tylerl
Right, because the web activity itself can contain location information
independent of the _explicit_ collection of location history.

It comes down to the granularity of privacy concerns and the complexity it
introduces.

If you disable the direct collection of location history, should you, the
user, be allowed to turn on the collection of other information that can
contain location data? That would include all location-enabled service
histories, of which search and app history is the most obvious example. Or
should Google treat your setting as a prohibition against all possible sources
of location data regardless of your other preferences?

~~~
stubish
The lawsuit alleges that, as it was presented to the user, it is reasonable to
assume that turning off Location History would stop collection of location
information entirely. If location information is still captured and fed to
Google via other channels then the privacy settings need to make this obvious.
So the user can give or deny consent. It isn't about what the application can
do or should do, it is about getting informed consent for the implemented
behavior.

