Meanwhile high accuracy drains battery like a sieve. You can switch to low accuracy, but it will nag you to turn it back on high accuracy to use even the most mundane location curious app. And if you turn off location and turn it back on, it purposefully doesn't remember - back to high accuracy by default.
Can't you just track my every move with simple GPS, Google?
That is somewhat reasonable, though. It's a security feature, designed that way so that a thief can't keep you from locating your phone remotely.
Whether it's an effective feature is a different matter.
Funnily enough, when it comes to USB devices, Android is completely opposite. They give you a pop up with a checkbox to remember the device, but it doesn’t actually remember it. Next time you plug in the same device, the same pop up recurs.
GDPR provides a timely example. The potential fines for companies storing private data and not complying are 'hitting them in their wallet' in a way that the choices of individual users can't.
Now, it's no longer even enough to simply pay for a product from just about any company. We must also consent to essentially being further exploited for the company's gain ever-after.
There is a lot of discussion about dark UI patterns here and it's true that they are pervasive these days. Much of it is spawned by this customer-hostile "dark business model".
Replace the word "nothing" with "something" in this "300" clip and it pretty much sums up many company attitudes these days: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uHxIssSROjk
Another atrocity is an alert with a “don’t ask again” check box, especially in something that is unnecessarily-modal (read: developer was lazy). Pro tip: if you think the user won’t want to see your message ever again then you need to redesign your system to keep the message from appearing even the first time.
That one I think is rather sensible for permission requests from apps. "Do you want to share your location with this app? - Yes/No;  don't ask again", where the tickbox serves to store the preference forever. An alternative would be "Yes, always"/"Only now"/"Not now but ask again later"/"Never". Not sure which one I’d prefer.
On/off switches for permissions seem sort of reasonable until you imagine dozens of apps and dozens of different kinds of permissions. In iOS for example all you get is pages and pages of toggle switches for all apps to allow/disallow cellular data, which is annoying to manage and has no intelligence in its design. They should have better defaults, such as automatically allowing all apps using less than some reasonable amount of data and automatically inhibiting the data-firehosing apps when you’re roaming. There’s a lot they could do. Asking the user, in general, is a cheap way to just not think through the problem.
How about just offering me an option to pay you to get rid of tracking and advertising?
Since that's how the “No, thanks” option was usually treated in the past, it's just truth-in-UI.
These things make me despise the website instantly and make me wish for a "fuck off"-button.
Did hackers lose their ethics when money was poured in?
> They're not Goody Two-Shoes type good. Morally, they care about getting the big questions right, but not about observing proprieties. That's why I'd use the word naughty rather than evil. They delight in breaking rules, but not rules that matter.
If that quote doesn't scare you, imagine it coming from the mouth of the head of whichever political party you like less. Or whatever position you see as a cartoon bad guy (e.g. Wall Street CEO).
What Google, Facebook, etc. wear as hacker ethic is so divorced from some of the principles that it's just cruel.
If that’s not enough, some simple data mining to list all their known associates, mistresses (etc), would probably get it fixed.
Sadly, they’d probably just make it illegal to publish data about the ruling class and not the rest of us.
Restricting this to certain lawmakers based on political affiliation on positions is not the right way to go. If one party is more affected than another, they will turn it into a purely tribal issue. (Democrats are lawbreakers who are endangering Republican politicians by releasing sensitive location data! This shows that Democrats cannot be trusted! Why wasn't Clinton's location data released too? Fake liberal news, etc.. etc..) This is easy to spin, and will turn their base against reform.
If you do this, you have to include all lawmakers. This is actually more fair because regardless of who is paying lip service to privacy, the legislature collectively has failed to do anything about it. How do you know those who claim to support privacy really do at all behind closed doors?
What we want is a government scared of its citizens not the other way around.
It might already be illegal, it sounds a little like blackmail.
the party that discloses the information does not need to have demands.
I just heard (so no sure if true, but likely) Mark Zuckerberg bought all of the surrounding houses of his home to protect his privacy...
he also bought 700 acres in Hawaiʻi.
*He was in from out of town & borrowed another friend's workstation to run a trace a couple month's back. That mutual friend was agog at how much micro location data was pulled up. Frankly, I was, too.
It sounds like congressmen and senators explicitly voted to prevent the FCC from making things like this illegal.
And being a smartass means nothing outside of your social circle.
For corporations and the government to be doing it. Not for activists to do it.
Activists can be jailed for doing even actually obviously legal things...
A commercial provider for these services: https://www.pccwglobal.com/en/service-provider/products/mobi...
Wireshark screenshot of GSM packet with cell site info: https://resources.infosecinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/05...
It also looks like there is a separate community run SS7 testnet. That could be an interesting thing to play around with...
Whether you have data turned on is irrelevant, along with phone type, OS, smart or dumb - This affects all cell users.
Then you use them with a non-cellular equipped device (iPod Touch?) or perhaps trust airplane mode with Wi-Fi turned on - and use Signal/iMessage/Facetime/whatever...
I wonder how hard it'd be to route incoming calls to my phone (as in, the one with a SIM registered in my name) to a vpn-ed non-cellular device? You could probably make a very plausible looking "Gets up, goes to work, stops at a bar on the way home some days, gets back home, goes to sleep." routine while still being connected while you phone is on the desk at work of the coffee table at home. (or perhaps on the Roomba at home, so it still moves around a little...)
1) Someone uses it for nefarious purposes, everyone involved gets implicated and investigated (in no small part in an attempt to drive people away from this model), no one wants to use these things anymore.
2) It works reasonably well, becomes a business, and big business provides for a small fee (perhaps free except for watching ads and your location data....) those hotspots and decimate the critical mass needed for this into unusefulness. If you think that's far fetched, this has already happened: consider email - it used to be distributed. There is now a copy of ~90% of emails on a Google/Microsoft server because at least one of the senders/recipients uses a hosted account.
You can't really win an infrastructure game against established player using their own infrastructure; And the barrier to entry is so huge it's unlikely you'll be able to set up your own.
A friend of mine makes a very persuasive argument that Facebook has demonstrated how to manipulate vast numbers of people at mass scale - so much so that shutting Facebook down would no longer make any difference - now that it's known to be possible, it's much easier for anybody else to copy what's public and work out how to make the "private" algorithms work.
A long-ish read, but a lot of that argument is here: https://meanjin.com.au/essays/the-last-days-of-reality/ and here: https://ukvid.net/video/mark-pesce-on-the-end-of-reality-fPA...
I tried the locationsmart demo, after disabling the GPS on my phone, and all location services, my exact location was still be able to be pinpointed utilizing their GPS option.
> It's using the cell tower location. If you don't connect to the cell tower (Airplane mode), there's no location.
So you're saying that person quite explicitly saying this is GPS data is explicitly wrong about this? (i.e. you have more information than that person, and it is explicitly to the contrary?)
There are 3 operating systems running in any phone:
* iOS / Android
* The SIM card JVM
* The baseband RTOS
And Qualcomm is in most phones, running their RexOS, which Has that IzAt service, which has full access to memory, GPS, etc, and uses this access to send your location data to Qualcomm / the carrier.
The way the location tracking works is simply by logging what phone connected to the cell tower, at the tower itself. To be able to adjust the power the radio component needs to output (to get a good signal), it needs to know the distance to the tower. You get location by then correlating with multiple towers, because the phone has to choose which one it has the strongest reception to, and therefore has to gather data from all nearby towers.
In short: that’s not how a SIM card works.
I can't tell if this is true or false, but it seems that in either case, access to the SIM can imply access location data:
> With the all-important (and till-now elusive) encryption key, Nohl could send a virus to the SIM card, which could then send premium text messages, collect location data, make premium calls or re-route calls.
I wouldn't be surprised if other platforms/applications/companies are using that data, as well.
> "Can anyone turn it on remotely if it's off?" Williams asked Snowden, referring to the "burner" smartphone Williams used for travel to Russia. "Can they turn on apps? Did anyone know or care that I Googled the final score of the Rangers-Canadiens game last night because I was traveling here?"
> "I would say yes to all of those," Snowden replied. "They can absolutely turn them on with the power turned off to the device."
I wonder how hard it is to open a modern iphone and cut the relevant antenna traces on the pcb.
>Trump did place him in his current position
So what's the misleading part?
And meanwhile, the press is worked up about cambridge analytica accessing your facebook friend network.
It seems like someone ought to put a site with real time locations of our senators and congressmen. My guess is that will solve the problem quickly.
and im her in europe basking under the protective blanket of the GDPR (which sounds too similar to the DDR (Deutsche Demokratische Republik for my tastes))
Nope. Sorry... We're just as bad as the US.
Seriously, our mobile telcos have location services as a consumer product providing similar functionality to Google Trusted Contacts but without need for a smartphone. E.g. Megafon has it branded as "Family Radar" - and they can locate other major networks' users, meaning that they all interoperate.
For some EULAs, it is possible to abstain using the service once you find something egregious in that agreement. I can avoid downloading an app or taking an Uber.
But when it comes to internet service providers - what are your options? Okay, you read through Comcast's EULA and found something alarming. So your next option is to... read AT&T's EULA and also be alarmed? Is the solution to forgo any cell/internet service?
I also quote the Facebook TOS when people wonder why I am not there. Or pay more for my emailing to not have to deal with mailchimps ToS.
IMO there is a market for more privacy oriented people. And some companies know and use that fact.
No one actually does this. I read somewhere that it would take an estimated 71 days per year to read all of the EULAs and T&C documents and their updates that an average American is subject to.
Even if you do try to read them, they're generally written in vague legalese that I assume means "we can do whatever we like, and you have no right to complain". And if they haven't allowed something they later want to do, you'll get an email saying that they're "clarifying" their terms and conditions, and if you don't like it, you can stop using the service.
Isn't this problem more about purposefuly obfuscated legalese documents that are impossible for users to understand and that are constantly updated and constricted like "bait and switch" schemes?