> You'll have to be pretty naive to think it wasn't storing location.

I think you'll have to be pretty naive to assume that users inherently realise that "photos have location attached" automatically leads to "third party app can read location in these photos" and can lead to "build a profile of you based on your photo locations".

It's not that people can't put these things together, it's that they don't ever really think about it. When you download a photo editing app you're thinking about editing a photo, not about the metadata you might be leaking in doing so.

exactly - users don't use logical deduction to work out what information an app is capable of inferring.

If i didn't give the app permission/information, it stands to reason that said app shouldn't be able to infer, or deduce it. If the app is able to do so, then they ought to be legally obligated to disclose this fact.

But those are both Apple apps. I wouldn't expect that, just because I gave access to FB or Twitter to see my photos, that they'd get the location of them too.

Interesting. I would have thought always that yes, if I'm moving an image around, its metadata goes with it unless I've specifically taken steps to strip it. I guess we've all had different introductions to this stuff.

Coincidentally, I have asked some non-technical people exactly this question. All of the people I asked didn't even understand that there was anything other than "my picture" in an image file. I would guess that if you pressed a lay-person to explain how Apple shows a map of where your photos were taken, they would guess that the information was stored separately.

That doesn't really make it evident that letting an app access a photo lets it access the photos location.

You and I both understand that that's metadata in the file, but non-tech users don't know that much -- they might simply have never though about it enough at all.