> Does the average person with an Android phone really know their location is being uploaded minute by minute to Google?
It doesn't seem like you have any idea how Google actually captures user's location data. Not only does Google give you the full ability to control and delete your location data [1] but the data collection is not on by default (though applications like Maps will prompt for it) and the data is always anonymized when used and most importantly the data is never shared with commercial third parties (though I believe Google may make anonymized data available to researchers whose projects pass certain ethical checks).
This data is used to drive projects like Maps and 'Popular Times' and real-time directions that people really, really like.
So while you seem to want to paint Google as manipulating people to harvest their data and sell it to the highest bidder (what Facebook basically does) nothing could be further from the truth. Facts matter.
I would personally say when it comes to handling user data Google is probably the most ethical and rigorous company in the world. I can't think of any other company that goes to such great lengths to protect user data as much as Goog does. It's been remarked many times that your data stored in Google's network is more secure than your data stored in NSA's network. Certainly you'll never see anything like private employees tracking their spouses using Google's data [2].
And here's the thing: Facebook is also pretty damn secure when it comes to user's data. Obviously they fucked up with their API but again I think a sober review of most American tech companies will show Facebook doing more to protect user data. You should be much more concerned with many of the fly-by-night websites that pump out fake news or sell cheap Chinese goods to people who don't know better. In fact it's these websites whose sole purpose is to suck up user data for profit.
The real point here of course is that while it may feel good to bash Google and Facebook it is not the best use of energy. What the US needs is what the EU is doing: real privacy regulation with real teeth that applies to any organization whose site serves American citizens.
But somehow I don't see that happening any time soon, right?
[1] https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/3118687?hl=en
[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog...
Google collects your location by default. I know so because I bought an Android phone just this month. Here is the setup screen, shown with default settings. [1]
Google encourages developers to use the Play Services SDK for location services. This means that it is impossible to provide your location to just one app (say, Lyft) without also providing it to Google. [2]
You can disable location services and Google will still find ways to monitor your location. For example, if you use gmail, Google will read any flight and hotel confirmations emails. It does this by default. [3] Install Google Trips and it will show you a list of every city you've been in.
They collect your location so much they even find ways to do it by accident. [4]
> I can't think of any other company that goes to such great lengths to protect user data as much as Goog does
Better protection is to not collect it in the first place.
For example, Apple Maps doesn't have a sign-in, and its server requests are associated with randomized rotating IDs, not your user account. Directions are broken up into multiple segments with different identifiers so that Apple can't reconstruct your trip.
> Certainly you'll never see anything like private employees tracking their spouses using Google's data
Old but it happened. [5]
[2] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/09/12/turn_off_location_se...
[4] https://qz.com/1131515/google-collects-android-users-locatio...
[5] http://gawker.com/5637234/gcreep-google-engineer-stalked-tee...
This is a straight up lie. Yes, Google encourages fused location because it provides better experience (it bootstraps location via cell towers / bluetooth / wifi which requires data from Google servers). However it does NOT make it "impossible" to directly request data from location services on the phone which DOES NOT go through Google servers.
Please don't lie.
> For example, Apple Maps doesn't have a sign-in, and its server requests are associated with randomized rotating IDs, not your user account. Directions are broken up into multiple segments with different identifiers so that Apple can't reconstruct your trip.
Apple location services use pretty much the exact same system to provide fused location - they still call back to Apple servers to request information about your neighbouring wifis / cell towers which leaks your location to their cloud as well. Plus, Apple will sell out iCloud data of their customers to Chinese government (which makes me wonder if they're selling it out to NSA as well).
Can a Lyft user disable fused location and force Lyft to request location data directly without going through Google? I'm not an Android user so this is not a rhetorical question.
By the way, "lying" is to _knowingly_ make a false statement.
No and no. Not only is the data collection on by default, even if you turn it off some Google apps (e.g. Maps) just don't give a damn.
I recently updated Google Maps on my Android phone (a move I regret). A couple days later I went into town. I checked my phone after I was back home and it suggested I leave reviews for the stores I visited (it listed them). That creeped the heck out of me.
> So while you seem to want to paint Google as manipulating people to harvest their data and sell it to the highest bidder (what Facebook basically does) nothing could be further from the truth. Facts matter.
The fact is that last winter, when reinstalling Android, I realized my phone was uploading location data to Google constantly as soon as I had clicked the misleadingly labeled “help make Android/Google Maps better” button. Curious, I decided to ask my friends and family if they knew about this—none did.
Google does ask for “permission” in the sense that it shows a misleading dialog box where the default option (visually indicated—see the Dark Patterns website for examples of this tactic) is to share everything. This is not a good faith effort to ask for consent: that is the empirical, objective truth, no matter what good intentions you might hope to ascribe to Google. Again, I invite you to see if a majority of normal people know what they are agreeing to when they set up their Android phones.
> Not only does Google give you the full ability to control and delete your location data [1] but the data collection is not on by default (though applications like Maps will prompt for it) and the data is always anonymized when used and most importantly the data is never shared with commercial third parties (though I believe Google may make anonymized data available to researchers whose projects pass certain ethical checks)
Whether data is shared with third parties is a good point, but this isn’t really meaningful when “Google” encompasses search, maps, phones, video, office software, etc. But it’s noteworth my friends at Facebook told me the exact same things about Facebook’s policies towards data—researchers need to go through approved processes there, too—it’s just that here those processes approved someone who was actually not ethical at all.
Facts matter, and to paraphrase you, although it may feel good to think that Facebook is worse than Google (and correspondingly that it’s ok to work at one but not the other), we need to look at what companies actually do, not what we think they believe they are doing.
Also, it seems you think that my claim about the average person not being aware of the extent of Google’s data collection is false. This is what I concluded after asking the people close to me, most who are not in technology. I invite you to actually go out and ask people before claiming otherwise about the results of what is well-acknowledged as a dark pattern.
I turned down a job offer from Facebook because after a lot of thought I decided I couldn’t work at such a company. I didn’t even apply to Google because Google’s attitude towards privacy and data collection is just insane. Does the average person with an Android phone really know their location is being uploaded minute by minute to Google? Was asking if they want to “make Android better” really a good faith effort to obtain consent?
> From my perspective, Google's goals are aligned with improving the world by offering information services. Search, Gmail, Maps, Translate, basically all of the Other Bets, etc.--it's easy to imagine that the people behind them are more concerned with impact on the world than on generating profit or consolidating Google's power. > To me, Facebook has no such world-improving aspirations.
Again, come on. Clearly most Facebook employees and most Google employees are not evil moustache-twirling sociopaths. As grating as it can sound, Facebook’s stated goal of “connecting the world” is at least as valuable as “offering information services,” your idealized version of Google’s goal.
Let’s be realistic. I don’t think people should work at Google or Facebook, but I know that there are lots of factors that can go into choosing where to work, so I am hesitant to publicly say “haha, you couldn’t pay me enough to work at Facebook/Google!”
Seeing Google employees saying exactly that about Facebook is just laughable.