Apps like Deliveroo, which have legtimate reasons for high accuracy location access, send your data to marketing companies on every launch with very high precision.
I've written a guide about how to use mitmproxy to look at the data escaping your device.
For example here's Braze's developer integration guide https://www.braze.com/docs/developer_guide/platform_integrat...
To limit the tracking I had to personally do an audit. I noticed the location indicator was on most of the time and it annoyed me. I found too many apps using location tracking that just did not need it.
Most people will not do this. We need better laws.
Instead of expecting that nothing tracks you until you permit it.
FWIW: This 'ability' is not specific for Iphone
If you have `Facebook` app installed first time, upon opening the app, there should not be any requirement to access location data.
Only at the point of posting with a 'Share Location' the app should request the Location tracking. And I don't see why it then needs to be permenantly permitted from then on. (Unless manually remove again)
They are scummy tactics and I agree, people just click okay to remove the inconvenience, but the creators are creating problems in order to get those 'Allow access'.
Its gross. Almost like selling a solution to a problem you created.
Exactly this. Rejecting apps from getting into your store ecosystem that request permissions that they can't justify based on the purpose of the application should be one of the first and major things app-store curators do.
Now to enforce this with browsers as well and include things such as "push notifications".
The only thing I miss is "ask me everytime" option on android (atleast until 9), where you want to post an instagram photo with geotag now, let them do a location lookup once, and after that disable the location access (so, a "give permission for one lookup", instead of going to settings, enabling location, posting, back to settings, disabling location access).
If google gets to the point of falling revenue (which will happen, sooner or later, continuous growth in finite system is impossible), stock holders will force the "sale", do you think they will sell their offices? Computers?
No way to underestimate how important this is.
Second to it, you guys need to push for removing tracking infrastructure that Google shoves into Android.
Not a single application should be allowed access to anything amounting to a "Device ID" or fingerprinting method, implicit or explicit
Even if person had an anonymous SIM it would be trivial to identify them by the locations where they spent most of their time.
Not something automateable.
In Android 6 they even made a special callback result to indicate that the user has refused to give his permission rather than indicating that modem/phone ID wasn't found.
Clearly they are aware of this and do that deliberately.
2) Funny how the only big company mentioned in the article is Apple, while iOS is far more difficult to convince to share location data with 3rd parties compared to Android.
> THE DATA REVIEWED BY TIMES OPINION didn’t come from a telecom or giant tech company, nor did it come from a governmental surveillance operation. It originated from a location data company, one of dozens quietly collecting precise movements using software slipped onto mobile phone apps. You’ve probably never heard of most of the companies — and yet to anyone who has access to this data, your life is an open book.
Is your suggestion that the NYT wait until every large tech company leaks their databases to their reporters?
If you haven't looked at it yet, Google's dashboard is pretty eye opening. You can see where you were every minute of the day years ago.
Ostensibly, the story under discussion is interesting because it is personal data for millions of users who have consented (via agreeing to terms of services) to the collection, but haven't fully grasped what happens when that data can reveal to a third party.
Because my gut tells me, it will be in a decade or two.
But, alas, no. Its not available to me. Only third parties can access it.
This is a terrible situation.
Not sure if this is only for EU citizens.
If you have an Android, using Google Takeout would likely be the easiest route: https://takeout.google.com/settings/takeout
Do you associate the geo data with individualized identifiers? In other words, can individual data points be linked to one another (linkability)? (Obviously the answer is yes for whichever company this dataset came from)
Do you resell the raw data to other third parties, and if so, what kind of vetting and data controls are levied upon them? Where are these customers located? Let us see one of your contracts.
I generally think this story would have be more impactful if the Times tried to pose as a customer and bought the data from a company to expose flaws in that system. As it stands, the location companies are very willing to admit they sell this data, but they would claim that nothing bad will happen to you. Disprove that and now there’s a cause for action.
The best way that I can see to force the government's hand on this issue is to use a dataset like the one the NYT obtained to expose a few politician's extramarital affairs. Once they realizes this information can be used against them, they'll suddenly consider it to be a very big issue.
Update: Firefox fixes it...
Scheming is irrelevant now and if you are reversing the progress of the tribe then you should spend your days on your computer trying to come up with a new Tor and then you'll approach the end of your life knowing that all you did was try to avoid everyone's gaze so you could "get ahead."
Chinese Social Credit automated aggregation of all citizen smartphone activity feeds is the "rule of Law". We will be economically limited by our inefficient (bad) deeds.
I would have thought those things go hand in hand no..
Kind of like the oxymoron: A privacy conscious social media company..
If the data know that I live in a nice neighborhood and commute every day to a office park job then Facebook will expend compute cycles on showing me things of interest to me. If an inner-city poor tries to get on Facebook, it can just show them a blank page. No money to be made there.
Can it really be so many people are so god damn stupid to leave that service on all the time or is it me here being goddamn stupid and naive :)
Its all extremely frustrating and does nothing to ease my anxiety!
I wonder if, like so many of these blow ups in the past, there'll just be a spike of public interest and then it'll all die away. One of the most amazing things about the news in the last few years is how stories that used to have international, severe impact and political repercussions just drift off into the ether now. No follow-up, no continuing coverage. It's all about immediate spikes in shares, likes, tweets, and readers. They know people don't care about the follow-up that much; heck the data tells them that. So there's no follow-up, only the next sensation.
I hope this amounts to something. I have my reservations.
Panama Papers, Paradise Papers. Very little has come out of this and it's so disappointing. What this says to me is that enough of the people powerful enough to change any of it are in on it. Or, there just isn't the critical mass at the bottom, and this, where we find ourselves as a global population, is the stability between comfort and outrage.
The "Or" above, maybe should be an "And".
I wonder whether one of the reasons that seemingly illogical conservatism is as successful as it is, is because the bigger the world economy gets, and the larger the population, the harder it is to change anything meaningful without wiping out a pillar-sized part of the economy, the results of which are too unpredictable for anyone in power to want to take responsibility for.
This position only leads to further conservatism, in that any changes 'we let pass' must be war-gamed to the nth degree to ensure they don't cause societal collapse.
I'm not conservative, but the above is almost the only way I can process seemingly illogical conservatism that is actually anything other than "maintaining the status quo because I'm part of it". It's almost believing their own FUD. Hubbard-style. But it might not be entirely wrong.
It seems to be quite a lot to me: https://www.icij.org/investigations/panama-papers/what-happe...
b) I really wish sites would stop with this weird presentation style.
There are people who watch this stuff. You are right that an average person does not seem to care.
We knew that lead made people dumb back in the Roman times and yet we created leaded gasoline in 1925. In the US it was banned in 1996, after 70 (!!!) years. There's still some countries that haven't banned it, 90 years later.
I'd suggest you engage more with your fellow citizens and their ideas. Conservatives believe in their ideas just as earnestly as others and it is possible for people of good faith to disagree on fundamental issues.
Regardless of political ideology, large organizations tend towards conservatism.
Big-C Conservatism does of course include a lot of small-c conservatism.
Specifically where the 'conservative' position doesn't just not quite line up with, but is diametrically opposed to the commonly accepted experts opinion.
I sometimes joke here that A/B testing is how Satan interacts with this world. With each passing day, it seems less and less like a joke, though. And in all honesty, data science itself is fine - the problem is that some thing should not be optimized beyond a point.
One thing that could use a lot more press is what companies do with this information. Many people who know they have it believe it to be harmless.
Other cases -- Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein are both exemplars -- show that widely-known incriminating information can remain in broad circulation for decades without harm. It's somewhat less the information itself than the political and power balances surrounding it, which precipitate the final fall.
In the film Das Leben den Anderen (The Lives of Others), a fictional-but-highly-realistic account of the East German surveillance state, among the most poignant aspects was not the brutal suppression of political opposition, but the corruption and co-option of the surveillance system for personal gain and enjoyment -- the East German official coercing Christa-Maria (played by Martina Gedeck) into an affair that was effectively rape.
I've pointed out that Herbert Simon's defence of a data-intensive world on the grounds that the Nazis accomplished their atrocities without the benefit of automated data processing has since proven quite false: IBM were a willing and active enabler.
Data and information change behaviours in subtle ways. I'm strongly convinced of this, though I wouldn't be able to define or describe all the ways.
I remember the day some years ago when my favorite paper (not US based) claimed it would try to still report critically about Facebook even while they are engaged in a cooperation and how such a market situation could be detrimental to independent news covering.
They needed to do that because these sites mainly drive engagement. Today, they also write a lot about the hot button topics of today, which isn't any different than boulevard really. They still have good content, but that doesn't put the meals on their table anymore.
Nothing against snark, but I'm confused with what you're saying here. Are you implying that the NYT and media in general have not covered Google and other companies' threats to privacy? Or are you arguing that they haven't covered it enough, and your metric for this, ostensibly, is that these companies still exist and/or no one has been imprisoned or otherwise heavily sanctioned?
I ask because the story under discussion is explicitly not an investigation of illegal activity, but more the revelation/explanation of how closely our lives can be surveilled via smartphone through our consent. The article outright says that what's being described isn't illegal:
> Today, it’s perfectly legal to collect and sell all this information. In the United States, as in most of the world, no federal law limits what has become a vast and lucrative trade in human tracking. Only internal company policies and the decency of individual employees prevent those with access to the data from, say, stalking an estranged spouse or selling the evening commute of an intelligence officer to a hostile foreign power.
– and let's face it, if the authors hadn't emphasized this, half of us here would be ripping the authors for dishonest hype and clickbait for trying to "fool" the public into an outrage.
> One of the most amazing things about the news in the last few years is how stories that used to have international, severe impact and political repercussions just drift off into the ether now. No follow-up, no continuing coverage.
Given your opening statement, it's hard for me to know if this is an empirical assessment based on what you've observed, or whether your ability to pay attention to unfolding investigations/scandals are unreasonably dampened by skepticism and unreasonable impatience. This year alone we've seen severe and international repercussions from the Epstein scandal, which was catalyzed by Julie Brown, a Miami reporter who had been following him for years, long enough to know to keep digging when Trump's nominated labor secretary happened to be the Florida prosecutor who gave Epstein his sweet 2010 deal. I assume, like most people, you are dissatisfied that Epstein suddenly died before the possibility of a trial. Are you under the impression that journalists, including Brown, have dropped looking into Epstein? Or that something/anything should be happening faster and more noticeable to you and the public?
The reality is, many investigations happen (especially at the local level) that do effect important change, but after the initial public outrage and sanctions, if the change perpetuates, its through years-long process of policy and legislation, which you aren't likely to notice (almost by definition, if something is fixed, we take it for granted) The press itself is not given the power to directly make that change itself, and I think this is acceptable by anyone (i.e. just about everyone who is not part of the press) who hates the phenomenon of "trial by press".
All that said, I am curious what exemplary investigations you have in mind that, back in the better days, met your standard for to speedy, significant, and systemic change? For the U.S. press, Watergate is still seen as the gold standard for a major impact investigation. It took a more than 2 years from the break-in to when Nixon resigned in 1974. In that span, Nixon won re-election by the biggest landslide in American history, and many people who experienced this period would be justified (until 1974) into thinking Watergate amounted to very little.
> news in the last few years is how stories that used to have international, severe impact and political repercussions just drift off into the ether now.
Wait, so you're relying on news organizations to provide detailed investigations into how companies abuse their power. Isn't that why we elect government officials?
Would be nice if they clarified what the hell exactly a "secure line" means
The first half isn't explaining what the second half is going to mean. It reads like two separate things of which you need to do both.
You need to delete the HTML element with class
if lazy : Console cmd :
$('.video-stepper').style.display = 'none'
edit: $('.video-stepper').remove() works
I didn't know it did that.
Even a browser level event listener on it. O_o
Clearly I don't have much either to do today.
Radiation, addiction and 24/7 workweek were some of the others.
When your phone is smarter than you something is wrong.
NYT’s articles about technology are usual horrible.
"In most cases, ascertaining a home location and an office location was enough to identify a person. Consider your daily commute: Would any other smartphone travel directly between your house and your office every day?"
Then they back it up with:
"With the help of publicly available information, like home addresses, we easily identified and then tracked scores of notables."
And provided the specific example of Mary Millben.
It was manual and not automated, but the tech details of finding work and home addresses, based on the two most visited spots, seems not novel. Similar for extrapolating that into a name.
Instead they created an article with a presentation style that looked like a MySpace page. I was half expecting early 2000s music.
> In this and subsequent articles we’ll reveal what we’ve found and why it has so shaken us.