Google must think we're very naive if we're to accept -- solely on the basis of blind faith, it would seem -- their promises that their anonymization algorithms are sufficiently robust to prevent the various kinds of abuses one can easily think of.

Headline seems click-baity?

"It then models this anonymized data in simulations — creating a synthetic population that faithfully replicates a city’s real-world patterns but that “obscures the real-world travel habits of individual people,"

If you trust the anonymization sure - many don't for good reason, and this is not opt-in.

Headline isn't clickbait; your comment is deceptive. The article actually says this:

"If Sidewalk Labs has access to people’s unique paths of movement prior to making its synthetic models, wouldn’t it be possible to figure out who they are, based on where they go to sleep or work?"

People can read the article for themselves and see for themselves.

Tossing aside any concern for privacy seems to be the American way. Amazon, Microshaft, Goolag, Crapple, and are all onboard with profiteering from your inability to protect yourself.

If you think your location is not sold to whoever wants it, you're gonna have a bad time. People have to assume that everything they do online or while using some services, can be used for and against them.

All the more reason for me to avoid Quayside.

The way I read the headline is "the location data of my cellphone may get sold". I don't think that's what's happening.

I'm disappointed to see this style of reporting finding it's way to the Intercept. Maybe I remember it wrong, but when it started it didn't rely on clickbait titles.