> Google Maps is changing the way it handles your location data. Instead of backing up your data to the cloud, Google will soon store it locally on your device.
https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/5/24172204/google-maps-delet...
You can't be forced to hand over data on your servers that you don't have access to, warrant or no.
The UK wants to make this workaround illegal on an international basis.
But you can be forced to record and store that data even if you don't want to.
Compare Apple Maps and Google Maps.
Google initially hoovered up all your location data and kept it forever. They learned from Waze that one use case for location data was keeping your map data updated.
Apple figured out how to accomplish the goal of keeping map data updated without storing private user data that could be subject to a subpoena.
> “We specifically don’t collect data, even from point A to point B,” notes Cue. “We collect data — when we do it — in an anonymous fashion, in subsections of the whole, so we couldn’t even say that there is a person that went from point A to point B.
The segments that he is referring to are sliced out of any given person’s navigation session. Neither the beginning or the end of any trip is ever transmitted to Apple. Rotating identifiers, not personal information, are assigned to any data sent to Apple... Apple is working very hard here to not know anything about its users.
https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/29/apple-is-rebuilding-maps-f...
One more reason to prefer offline maps for those who value privacy.
Apple and Google are based in the US so are bound by the CLOUD Act to provide any and all data they have, no matter where in the world it is being collected or stored.
Google had "created a system where they don't have access to your data on their servers" a couple of years BEFORE Apple. Android 10 introduced it in 2019.
See the story linked above.
They didn't announce that they could no longer access user location data on their servers to respond to geofence warrants until the last quarter of 2024.
Apple does its best not to collect personal data in the first place.
No, law enforcement needs a warrant to legally access any data. This is why Prism was illegal, and why companies like Google are pushing back against overly broad geofence search warrants.
The Dutch cracked and wiretapped it. It has been held not to be intercept evidence per RIPA so capable of being used in evidence.
Most went guilty because they caught red-handed in the most egregious criminality you've seen.
Encro was designed to enable and protect criminal communications. It had no redeeming public value.
Encrochat was illegal in at least 3 ways to UK and European law. The intercept evidence per RIPA was the lie. The data was not at rest. The British Police and courts are criminals and liars.
Yet it still existed, and was used for surveillance by 3 letter agencies. Why do you think this is any different?
> See, for example, the Las Vegas shooter case
I am not in Las Vegas or anywhere else in the US. So as far as i know all the data about me that is stored in the US is easily accessible without a warrant unless it's encrypted with a key that's not available with the storage.
> companies are not compelled to build systems which enable them to decrypt all data covered by the warrant
Again, not what I was talking about.
I'm merely pointing out that your data is not necessarily encrypted, and that the "rest of the world" was already unprotected vs at least one state. The UK joining in would just add another.