This is one example:
I'm not able to read the whole article because I don't subscribe, but I was able to read the beginning. The article says that police asked Google for this data, but did Google comply? It also says that three Chicago judges rejected such requests. That's as far as I could read without subscribing.This is one example:
Authorities ask Google to identify all phone users near crime scene
Police forces in the US have angered civil rights group by asking Google for the details of smartphone users who were near crime scenes when offences were committed.The warrants, known as “geofence requests” or “reverse location searches”, are potentially unconstitutional, they claim.In the past,www.thetimes.co.uk
It's important to note that geofencing, though not a novel concept, poses a significant threat to privacy, raising serious concerns about data violation. Maybe it was rejected in that particular case, but it wasn’t in others. Also, I’m too lazy to find more. Just search “geofencing warrant Google.”
Number 1. You never know what a crazy person is going to do.
I don't disagree, which is why that judge threw out those cases. Furthermore, there's nothing unique to Google about this scenario. You're just creating FUD to support your anti-Google stance. The reality is, such requests have no doubt also been made of Apple, Samsung, and plenty of others and, in some cases, the companies have likely complied. This isn't a Google-specific issue.
I want to clarify that I am not trying to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) here. It seems like there might be a misunderstanding, so let's address this in a friendly manner. I believe you might be perceiving a bias in my response, but I assure you, I am only countering the claim that Google solely uses user data for advertising, which is incorrect.
Show me how Google is worse than the rest. Show me where Google has some nefarious intentions that the other big tech companies lack. Google also has a lot of privacy-related features that make it harder to track users - if the user enables them. I just enabled auto-delete of all my Google data on a regular rotation.
Again, my intention was not to single out Google; rather, I wanted to address the misconception that Google solely utilizes user data for advertising, which is ... again ... false. That is what I was responding to. Not the breadth at which all big tech companies are harvesting user data and how they use that data.
I don't feel remotely defensive. I don't even like or use Google much. I just don't care for dishonesty and there's so much dishonesty on this forum when it comes to Google. I'm so tired of reading about how Google "sells your data", which is completely false. You have also not backed up your claim that "Google has, on multiple occasions, engaged in collaborations with law enforcement agencies, enabling them to perform intricate geo-triangulation of data pertaining to all individuals in close proximity to a crime scene."
Sometimes, our tone can come across as defensive without us realizing it. You may not feel defensive, but that is the way post seems to be coming off as.
www.nbcnews.com
www.nbcnews.com
That's your perception, which has absolutely nothing to do with me. I can't help it if your perception is inaccurate.
Every big tech company has provided the government with user data. If the government gets a warrant, the companies comply - including Apple. What's your point? You singled out Google when in fact all the big tech companies deal with these kinds of warrants. You'll get no argument from me that these warrants are dangerous and unconstitutional, but that isn't the topic of this thread, nor is it a Google-specific issue:This has happened on multiple occasions.
Cellphone dragnet used to find bank robbery suspect was unconstitutional, judge says
A federal judge's ruling that geofence warrants violate the Fourth Amendment could slow the use of surveillance tools based on Google location data.
First Appellate Court Finds Geofence Warrant Unconstitutional
The California Court of Appeal has held that a geofence warrant seeking information on all devices located within several densely-populated areas in Los Angeles violated the Fourth Amendment. This is the first time an appellate court in the United States has reviewed a geofence warrant. The case...www.eff.org
A Peek Inside the FBI's Unprecedented January 6 Geofence Dragnet
Google provided investigators with location data for more than 5,000 devices as part of the federal investigation into the attack on the US Capitol.www.wired.com
Men imprisoned for murder say police illegally used Google to find their location data
Geofence warrants allow police to comb through Google location data in search of suspects. Opponents say that violates the Constitution.
'Geofence' Warrants Threaten Every Phone User’s Privacy
The last time your phone asked you to allow this or that app access to your location data, you may have had some trepidation about how much Apple or Google know about you. You may have worried about wwww.realclearpolicy.com
Although you may feel that some of these incidents are warranted, that mindset leads us down a slippery slope. You are also free to research these things yourself.
Disney's surveillance is primarily for lost children. They get dozens of alerts everyday by frantic parents whose kids wondered off. Disney's facial recognition (scans everyone entering the park) immediately finds the children and possible predators that might be escorting them.
You're just reading the headlines. Positive stories and just simple retrieval stories of lost/stolen/misplaced items happen 10,000 times daily for every 1 negative headline.
Again, what I was responding to was the claim that Google only uses data for ad promotion. Which is inherently false. What you keep trying to do is act as though I think Google is the only bad company doing bad things with user data. That's also false. You then asked to provide examples of Google doing this, which I did. At no point did I state that other tech companies aren't, in fact, also doing this. Google just happens to appear in the news more often than the other tech companies in regarding these types of incidents. I was merely refuting the claim that Google only uses data for ad-based purposes. All the big tech companies, including Apple, Microsoft, Google, and others, have all done exactly as Google has. They should all be held accountable for their actions. But unfortunately, that's not the way the world is working at the moment. Tim Cook's statement that 'privacy is a human right' has been proven time and time again to be utter nonsense because Apple has been caught red-handed violating user privacy on several occasions. But they are doing seemingly more to protect user privacy than other companies. They still have a long way to go. Apple, as well as all the other big tech companies, are hardly innocent. But my response was almost entirely based on the false claim that Google only uses user data for promotion ads.
I have an AirTag on my keys and wallet.
I don't think that's how it works. It will alert an android user if the tag has been separated from the owner, and it's moving with the person (and only after some amount of time has passed). Your hidden keys are not moving with thief so there's no way for them to locate them.
Ok. Good to hear. The one thing that did concern me is the mention of a”scan for trackers” button. Will the scan show all trackers nearby or just 1: trackers separated from there owners (as my keys will be when I’m at work) and 2: only trackers that have been moving with the android user? Hopefully both criteria need to be met?
Yes but we all survived just fine before these trackers. One (discovered and widely reported) instance of stalking is worse, in my mind at least, than the total benefit of many found lost keys.
It's always benign, until it's not.
We also stalked just fine before these trackers were available too. Removing AirTags will just mean more people use other BLE trackers or GPS trackers or make their own trackers or resort back to physically stalking people like they always have and always will. We need better privacy and digital safety policy and laws. Banning technology won't change anything.
According to google's page it will only scan for trackers separated from the owner. You can set your home as a no alert zone for airtags, so we need to know if Google considers that as not separated from the owner (I hope so, because it doesn't take a genius to come to that conclusion)
