A lot of geolocation data on the market is anonymized, following medium-lived unique IDs that aren't able to be mapped to other identifiers. The problem with that is that if you have precise locations, or enough samples that you can apply statistics to find precise locations, in many cases you can de-anonymize the IDs. You can purchase address and resident listings from a number of different data vendors, and by checking where the device returns to at night you can figure its home address. Then if you find information on the residents (work locations, schools, etc.), you see if said device goes where each resident of the home address is likely to go, and you now have a pretty good idea of exactly who the device belongs to.
There is no such thing as anonymized location data when you have the location of something where and when they sleep and work.<p>It's a rhetorical fiction the ad industry tells itself.
Right, there's probably no other phone in the world that typically stops for hours within 1000 feet of my bed <i>and</i> typically stops on Monday-Friday within 1000 feet of my work-desk.
And with LLM’s now it’s easier than ever to piece the parts together. Companies were doing it before we even knew what LLM’s were capable of.<p>Edit: It's a rhetorical fiction the ad industry tells us.
We should have learned this lesson 20 years ago when researchers were able to deanonymize a lot of the Netflix Prize dataset, which contained nothing except movie ratings and their associated dates.<p><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0610105" rel="nofollow">https://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0610105</a><p>If movie ratings are vulnerable to pattern-matching from noisy external sources, then it should be obvious that location data is enormously more vulnerable.
exactly. calling it 'anonymized' is pure security theater once you have enough data points to map out someones daily routine.<p>waiting for legislation or eulas to fix this is a lost cause since adtech always finds a loophole. the fix has to be architectural. moving toward stateless proxies that strip device identifiers at the edge before they even hit upstream servers. if the payload never touches a persistent db there is literally nothing to de-anonymize. stateless infra is the only sane way forward
To be honest, I feel like this is where iOS and Android are failing us. Why is every app allowed to embed a bunch of trackers? Only blocking cross-app tracking on user request as iOS does is not enough (and data of different apps/websites can be correlated externally).
im not sure about allowed. perhaps required may be closer.<p>why would someone include tech that makes people think twice about using the app, unless it is required if you want to "sell" in a particular venue.<p>if your developing geolocation based apps, location tracking is a core function.<p>a calender, absolutely does not require location tracking beyond what side of the prime meridian are you on.
> if your developing geolocation based apps, location tracking is a core function.<p>But the subsequent sale of that data is not—is the discussion here.
and the reason why that data is available for sale, starts with forced collection of data, if you want to participate in an app store as a developer.<p>you cant sell what you dont have unless you lie lower than a rug.<p>fix the data collection problem and a second order effect of no data for sale emerges.
> why would someone include tech that makes people think twice about using the app, unless it is required if you want to "sell" in a particular venue.<p>Because the overwhelming majority of people don't think twice about this tech.<p>I do, and that's why I use a lot of web tools or old-fashioned phone calls, but most people think metadata=unimportant and assume that the purpose of the app is what it does for them rather than to gather their personal information for sale.
Because we don’t enforce antitrust law in this country and the people that make those decisions profit from the ads.
> To be honest, I feel like this is where iOS and Android are failing us. Why is every app allowed to embed a bunch of trackers? Only blocking cross-app tracking on user request as iOS does is not enough (and data of different apps/websites can be correlated externally).<p>Even <i>if</i> Google and Apple both want to commit to fighting this, it becomes a game of whack-a-mole, because there are all sorts of different ways to track users that the platforms can't control.<p>As an easy example: every time you share an Instagram post/video/reel, they generate a unique link that is tracked back to you so they can track your social graph by seeing which users end up viewing that link. (TikTok does the same thing, although they at least make it more obvious by showing that in the UI with "____ shared this video with you").
How is this legal under the GPDR? There is clear examples in the citizenlab document of a user been tracked inside of the EU from outside.<p>Is there not also a requirement for clean consent? Ie a weather app can’t track your precise location?
> enough samples that you can apply statistics to find precise locations, in many cases you can de-anonymize the IDs<p>I think a lot of people don't realize the power of a big enough sample size. With enough samples even something pretty innocent looking like your daily step counter could make you identifiable.<p>As far as I know we don't have large enough databases to make this happen in practice, but I don't think this is impossible in the future.
Companies exist that de-anonymize other data brokers data. Lets the other data brokers claim they have anonymized data while end end users get everything.
In what sense can the latitude and longitude of my house be called anonymous data?
Ultimately, a map is anonymous data containing lat/lon of everyone's house<p>Alone, these points are not deanonymizing, it's when there's other data associated.
From what I've seen none of this is that complex, one could simply 'draw a circle around your house' and get all the "anonymized" device pings and just trace those.
Location and identity are inextricably linked. You can't destroy identity without also destroying location and location is critical for myriad purposes.<p>The analytic reconstruction of identity from location is far more sophisticated than the scenarios people imagine. You don't need to know where they live to figure out who they are. Every human leaves a fingerprint in space-time.
Yep. With side channel/one order of thinking above the laws, its trivial to get around said laws. Need better laws.
> A lot of geolocation data on the market is anonymized<p>A lot isn't good enough.
IMO we should ban gathering this data without a warrant or specific contractual agreement between the device owner and entity aggregating the data. As much as congress loves to claim the interstate commerce theory of everything, this seems like a slam dunk.
Contractual agreement? Nobody reads things like EULAs or terms of service. It's probably in there already.
I should have been a bit more clear. We should ban retention for any purposes where it is not explicitly required for the intended function and clearly agreed to by all parties. Think somethig like strava or asset tracking. You know it stores gps data, and why.
There is no such things as "clearly agreed to by all parties" when it comes to end users. Companies provide a one-sided, "take it or leave it" EULA, and if you don't agree to everything in it, you don't use the product. There is no meeting of the minds, there is no negotiation, and there is no actual agreement. It's a rule book dictated by one side.
Then it's not a valid contract and therefore does not absolve them of criminal liability for stalking you.
Contracts of adhesion can be valid contracts. The ability to negotiate or equal bargaining power is not a required element of a contract.<p>Furthermore, you cannot contract away criminal liability if any exists.
You click on “accept terms and conditions” which means you agree to the contact.
You can't just bury literally anything in an EULA. There's a fair amount of case law establishing that EULAs clauses that are surprising or illegal aren't enforceable.
That fact does not change the point of the individual to which you replied. Regardless of whether the clauses in the EULA are 100% legal, some mixture or 100% illegal, the entire EULA is a "one sided rule-book dictated completely by one side". You, the person held to the EULA's rules, do not get to negotiate on the individual points. You simply have a "take it or go away" set of options.
If the product has any serious audience / traction, it becomes profitable to scan its EULA for illegal clauses, and sue the company for damages (and maybe extra punishment for breaking the law).<p>The fact that 100% of its users, except the litigant, skimmed through the EULA and did not notice anything does not relieve the company from the responsibility.
You're talking about contracts of adhesion and they are overwhelmingly common for B2C agreements. Most red-lining of contracts only happens in high-value B2B transactions where the sums of money involved are enough that it makes sense to bring lawyers into the loop.
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrinkwrap_(contract_law)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrinkwrap_(contract_law)</a>
when you already pay for the device and a contract, then surprise now that you have skin and flesh in the game, you HAVE TO agree to this EULA or your property is a brick and we keep your money.<p>that is defined as extortion, but labled as onboarding.
There is the GDPR.
Instead of “I accept”, you’re given a quiz
if it were up to me i’d require a hand signed contract that explicitly, up front and in plain english gives permission and is not transferable to any “partners”.
Right, privacy terms are written to be vague and permissive. Even if you read them you can’t usually understand how the data will be used or opt out.
I think we should make this type of tracking opt-out by default. We should also ban the sale of its use to third parties and its use for purposes other than the specific functionality which required it to be enabled in the first place.
Every EULA already covers this basically. The real problems are: people agree to it, and the government can do an end-run around the constitution by simply purchasing data or hiring contractors.
> IMO we should ban gathering this data without<p>GDPR tried. And the narrative around GDPR was deliberately completely derailed by adtech.<p>Lack of enforcement didn't help either
The problem the USA has is that it has no concept of "private data" outside of some part of HIPAA.<p>Until that changes you're going to be stuck.<p>Something as simple as the data protections act 1998 (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Act_1998" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Act_1998</a>) would kneecap a lot of the shady shit that goes on in the USA.
Once wealthy and powerful people realize how this can be used to track them they will start cracking down. One of many examples for how underrated access to location data is for unauthorized people, it is a primary way that the military locates and kills targets in foreign countries. It is surprising all of the data is so freely available with data brokers. Or in some cases from the app companies themselves, if you're willing to make it worth the trouble for them.
The problem with all these discussions about banning stuff is that privacy is <i>always</i> on the back foot. It's by design. People who want to surveil and manipulate us are actively investigating new ways of doing it, they get paid for it and they risk nothing in the long run. All of these discussions about specifics are just reactions. They aren't even reactions to the surveillance itself, but rather to a discovery by someone that a new surveillance machine has been constructed and launched.<p>So the current feedback process involves: construction → exploitation → reporting → public awareness → legislation. This is too slow. Moreover, operating in this environment is exhausting.<p>We need a different feedback loop altogether. I'm not sure which one would work best, but something different needs to be considered.
Yeah, abuse of privacy should be the crime, the same way theft is. How exactly the crime is committed shouldn't matter. Companies can have every right to make a compelling argument that what they did was not an abuse of privacy when they are defending themselves in court.<p>And critically, it is not someone becoming aware of private information that is the abuse of privacy, it is exploiting that private information which is the abuse. There may be countless legitimate technical reasons you need to collect data, but there can not possibly be a technical justification for selling it.
Most people don't realize how bad geolocated data is for a free society. I can buy data from a broker, geo-fence your house address, and then I'm able to see all the places where you went, who you associate with, and identify all you associate with by tracking them to addresses. All of this happens with anonymized device identifiers. It is the wet dream of a company such as Palantir and all governments who desire absolute control over their populations.
Let’s just stretch copyright to cover movement/location as a protected creative expression. It’s somewhat ridiculous but we’ve already established case law and technology for handling/mishandling protected assets.
Then they add a clause to the ToS with "you grant us and our affiliates a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicensable and transferable license to your location..."
You cannot regulate anything anymore, everything is geotracked, be real
When I had the opportunity to peer into public records, I found some extremely intriguing stuff.<p>There was one person with a feminine name who showed up with a “home address” that would correspond to being my “neighbor” at home, at my clinic, at church, when I went to college, etc. All the years corresponded correctly, and the addresses were some residential place about a block or less away from the places where I went.<p>For all I know, this person was either fictional or an innocent bystander. She did appear to have a Facebook account or two. I was never able to directly contact her. But I found it very strange and I wondered what would be gained by doxxxing me in this manner?<p>Of course this has nothing directly to do with GPS coordinates, but imagine if the GPS began to be part of your public record as well, or on your credit report. Imagine if it was entered into the public record what coffee house you visited every morning, or if there were errors in this record.
More details are available here, including screenshots of the tool.<p><a href="https://citizenlab.ca/research/analysis-of-penlinks-ad-based-geolocation-surveillance-tech/#3-Webloc" rel="nofollow">https://citizenlab.ca/research/analysis-of-penlinks-ad-based...</a>
I'm of the opinion now that posting videos online without the explicit permission of EVERYONE in the video should be illegal. It's one thing to take a video and keep it on your phone but if you share it outside of your family and only your family, then it needs to have the expressed consent of everyone whose face is on it otherwise it should be a crime.<p>The previous views on privacy didn't take into account the fact that everyone now has video cameras and people are incentivized to violate privacy to make money as influencers. I think people's privacies need to be protected and I think that means making laws around it much, much stricter. This includes things like location data, it shouldn't be sold or exposed at all.
The examples show Android devices. How does Webloc track iOS devices given Apple doesn't allow unique IDs and allows the user to disable the ad ID? I wish these articles would go into a bit more detail for the technical reader.
There needs to be a <i>believeable</i> legal framework behind this.<p>Imagine a option on your iPhone that says “Enable this to allow geo-location tracking for organisations registered under the NOADSJUSTPUBLICGOOD Act” - then any wifi endpoint could locate you as long based on signal strength etc and that data could only be made available to people registered under the act.<p>Would we see new understanding of how people move around in cities, would we see better traffic information, Inthink so - as long as people believe that there are real teeth to the laws and they enforced loudly and publically.<p>We should embrace the benefits of a society wide epidemiology experiment - the benefits for public health are incredible. (Add to that supply chain logistics on open ledgers and many of the new things that just were not possible before and the future of open transparent but well regulated democracies is bright.<p>Let me know if you spot one.
"Get consent first" hasn't worked because the average consumer can't give informed consent to the kind of stuff going on behind the scenes.<p>What about: "If something bad happens because of the data your company shared or lost, it is criminally and financially liable?"
I had a theory that the way to solve this was a location intelligence data union which sold safely anonymised aggregates and shared the profits, while also litigating on behalf of members under available legislation to stop other people using their data.<p>Alas, I was stymied by not having any cash to work on it, and the unit economics were not very VC friendly (at least I assume that’s one of the reasons why I didn’t get any traction from VCs).
I want geolocation to not be sold. Yet, I do not believe we have been successful in banning the sale of cocaine and elephant tusks. What makes us think this will be an easier problem to solve?
Does anyone know of any groups that are organizing and lobbying to get things like this into law? I know about the EFF but they seem to be more focused on documenting and reporting instead of lobbying and getting things passed.
Restore the fourth, Brennan Center, EPIC, Freedom of the press foundation.
Senator Wyden has been pretty focused on it. I think it's going to take some changes in Congress before it happens though.
These people really have no idea at the level of data collection from Google's rootkit on Android known as "Google Play Services".
How about we just ban the collection of precise geolocation? Wouldn't that be a better solution?
You can have legitimate use cases where it's a core functionality of the application to store it, so the user obviously knows it's being collected and agrees by using it.
So you want to ban all mapping apps and all fitness apps?
Nothing external needs my precise location to navigate with a map. An approximate location is sufficient to deliver to my device a map of an area I'm in, and of the overall route, and all of the details that are useful for navigation.<p>Fitness apps can be local. We have pocket supercomputers; certainly, we don't need help from the clown to keep track of how far (or how energetically) we biked or walked today, or where that took place.
I would expect such a law to be lobbied to death.
Haven't read the article yet but having more NTRIP public endpoint could help a lot to this precise location
I think it's fair for law enforcement to compensate the people collecting this data instead of forcing them to give it away for free.
Alternatively, opt out of services that sell it
Soon Geolocation will be tied to Age! Then you can meet locals and congratulate them on their birthday. The movie Minority Report was way too timid in its prediction here. Age up everything! \o/
Smartphones, mobile apps, mobile networks, and WiFi stopped being your friends around 2015-2016. Now it's just a matter of how much data can be harvested from device sensors in real time until reaching a pain point which doesn't exist.
WiFi isn't that bad, we have mac address randomization[1] and VPNs. Cellular is obscenely bad, though.<p>[1] <a href="https://grapheneos.org/usage#wifi-privacy" rel="nofollow">https://grapheneos.org/usage#wifi-privacy</a>
If anyone's interested in this the book "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism" is rather revealing of the sheer scale of this.
Yep.<p>And the FLOSS/Linux phone hardware attempts have frankly sucked.<p>I was hoping that my PinePhone Pro would actually be usable. But no, its a PineDoorstop.<p>Proper Linux would be a great 3rd choice. But yeah. We've got a duopoly and not much we can do about it.
GrapheneOS is a proper Linux. The hardware isn't open, but otherwise it's quite nice and clearly designed for the end-user's benefit, in stark contrast to the more widely-adopted alternative mobile OSes.
Don't you want random companies to store your precise location for 12 years? <a href="https://x.com/dmitriid/status/1817122117093056541" rel="nofollow">https://x.com/dmitriid/status/1817122117093056541</a>
Just ban the sale of any kind of adtracking. That way we can get rid of the cookiewalls too.<p>Missed opportunity by the EU when they wrote GDPR.
> Missed opportunity by the EU when they wrote GDPR.<p>Not really.<p>There are legitimate reasons why I might wish to be tracked or give my personal data to a company. As long as I'm asked to give clear, opt-in informed consent, this is perfectly fine. This is the very <i>essence</i> of the GDPR!<p>Instead, direct your ire to the scummy adtech industry who are <i>constantly</i> asking to invade my privacy and smell my knickers trying to work out what I ate for lunch. Another law to ban the adtech industry would be welcome from me, though would meet fierce resistance from the likes of Google.<p>The GDPR is well written.
> There are legitimate reasons why I might wish to be tracked or give my personal data to a company. As long as I'm asked to give clear, opt-in informed consent, this is perfectly fine. This is the very essence of the GDPR!<p>In these cases they don't even need to ask for your permission.<p>> Instead, direct your ire to the scummy adtech industry who are constantly asking to invade my privacy and smell my knickers trying to work out what I ate for lunch. Another law to ban the adtech industry would be welcome from me, though would meet fierce resistance from the likes of Google.<p>No, the EU should have done more to prevent this. They didn't want to kill a billions-of-euros industry. But they should have.
GDPR literally prohibits the sale of user data and tracking without user consent (because yes, you want to give people the possibility to opt in for a variety of reasons).<p>GDPR has literally nothing to do with cookie popups. That was, and is, adtech
<i>prohibits [...] without user consent</i><p>that's what causes the popups.<p>it should prohibit it outright, consent or not.
I think they are saying GDPR did not ban websites from noisily asking for consent and trying to trick you into giving consent.
Well they did but that is not policed.<p>For example, giving consent should be the same difficulty as denying it. So one click consent means there must be also one click non-consent. But this is policed very poorly.<p>I think they should just ban adtech altogether, at least any form of targeted advertising, individual pricing (which is already illegal in many EU countries) and ideally also deep market research.
My job was building cookie walls in response to GDPR. It might not have been the “intent” but it certainly was the consequence of that law.