Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Your Rights Online

Location Services Raise Privacy Concerns 152

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the this-all-sounds-familiar dept.
megahurt writes "Location-based services are becoming more common, and the features they add to mobile devices can be useful and even fun. But the downside is that everyone who reads the posting will know the user isn't home. On top of that, some services, such as Foursquare, can be linked to Twitter feeds. Peter Eckersley, senior staff technologist, says there are many situations in which the location data that is kept could be misused. Many of the providers of services say in their privacy policies they will give up the data in cases where it is subpoenaed. That isn't always from law enforcement; sometimes the data can be used in civil lawsuits such as divorce cases."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Location Services Raise Privacy Concerns

Comments Filter:
  • by Pete Venkman (1659965) on Wednesday June 16, 2010 @09:38AM (#32589816) Journal

    People don't have to use these services.

    • by phooka.de (302970) on Wednesday June 16, 2010 @09:52AM (#32589956)

      People are stupid (or rather they are uninformed).

      That's what the law is there for (amongst other things): to protect the uninformed masses and the stupid so you don't have to be an expert in every field you encounter in your daily life.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I think there should just be a law against being stupid instead.

        • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward
          The police will be at your door any minute now.
        • We could just not put safety labels on things, the problem should sort itself out.
      • by Rogerborg (306625) on Wednesday June 16, 2010 @10:31AM (#32590332) Homepage

        Civil law deals with fraud, malice and bad faith. I'm not so sure that it's there to give any reasonable, educated person of average intellect (which is what the law calls the "uninformed masses") with an Undo button for their voluntary actions. That's certainly not how it works in criminal statues.

        Oh, I thought I could just sell this iPhone I "found". Undo. Wait, getting into a consensual bar fight means we're both guilty of affray? Undo. The speed limit here is 30, officer? Undo.

        If ignorance of the law is not an excuse, general purpose ignorance probably isn't either.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by LaRainette (1739938)
          OK now you're just really acting stupid.
          You purposely mistake ignorance of the law and ignorance in a "logical" demonstration of why they are the same...
          So either your thoughs are so unclear you can't produce anything but crap OR you think people reading you are just so dumb they'll buy it.

          I'm gonna go with the first one, as the law would because you're presumed innocent until proven guilty.

          Yes the law states that nobody shall ignore the law. It's not about making excuses it's just about plain "com
          • by Rogerborg (306625)
            Yes, I certainly agree that's how the law should work. Also, Felicia Day should be bringing me my pony any second now.
      • >>>That's what the law is there for (amongst other things): to protect the uninformed masses and the stupid so you don't have to be an expert in every field you encounter in your daily life.

        Like this law?

        "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated [except via Judge-issued warrant]" - Or this one? "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or d

        • It's just a shame nobody in the U.S. Government obeys these laws and does whatever they can get away with, and even if caught, there are no consequences. IMHO we need one more law in order to keep these people in line (Amendment XXVIII):

          Section 1. After a Bill has become Law, if one-half of the Member State legislatures declare the Law to be "unconstitutional" it shall be null and void. It shall be as if the Law never existed. -----

          Oh, goody you brought back nullification, you do remember how that turned o

          • >>>you brought back nullification, you do remember how that turned out last time don't you?

            Quite well. The Northeast states (Maine, Massachusetts, New York, etc) nullified the U.S. Fugitive Slave Act, because it was unconstitutional, and thereby gave blacks (like Harriet Tubman) a place of asylum during the age of slavery. If the northeast states had not used nullification, those blacks would have been rounded-up by police and shipped back to the south, most probably to be put to death. So I sa

        • by Bigjeff5 (1143585)

          Section 1. After a Bill has become Law, if one-half of the Member State legislatures declare the Law to be "unconstitutional" it shall be null and void.

          That's just stupid. Upholding the constitution is the duty of Congress, not the states, and enforcing it is the duty of the Court. This is ideal, since the Court also adjudicates the law, actions taken by the Court regarding the constitutionality of a law are immediate, and require no group consensus.

          The states already have the right to sue for the constitutionality of a law. Since all rights not expressly granted to the Federal Government are automatically the rights of the State governments by default,

          • >>>Upholding the constitution is the duty of Congress, not the states,

            Upholding the constitution of anybody who swore an oath, including myself, and including the State Legislators and government employees. Besides the Constitution was a creation of the state, is amended by the States, and can be abolished (via convention) by the States. It is entirely logical to give the Creators, authors, and potential abolishers the power to nullify U.S. laws they consider to be a breach of the contract they c

          • by ckaminski (82854)
            Back then, States weren't forced to suck at the Federal teat to get the money their Citizenry paid in taxes.

            Hence why your plan will never come to fruition.
          • by azrider (918631)

            That's just stupid. Upholding the constitution is the duty of Congress, not the states, and enforcing it is the duty of the Court. This is ideal, since the Court also adjudicates the law, actions taken by the Court regarding the constitutionality of a law are immediate, and require no group consensus.

            Close, but put down that Cohiba ;-)

            Creating laws consistent with the Constitution is the duty of the Legislative branch (the Congress).

            Enforcing the Constitution, laws and regulations is the duty of the Exec

            • I can not lay my hand on any part of the Constitution that gives the Supreme Court power to nullify laws passed by Congress and signed by the president.

              AND even if such a power existed, I don't see any reason why it should be limited to just 9 people who are unelected and therefore may ignore the ultimate authority (the people). The power to declare laws "unconstitutional" can certainly be shared with the State Legislators, who directly represent the People and their wish to strike down stupid laws that vi

      • by StikyPad (445176)

        Ignorance is a paltry excuse, especially when it's willful.

      • by nurb432 (527695)

        Agreed, but things like this are just common sense, and don't require you being an expert in anything other then breathing.

    • Or you can raise these concerns and possibly have companies provide better privacy guarantees. But yeah, whining that you are forced to use them is silly (unless you are literally forced).
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by hedwards (940851)
        Once the company has the information they have little choice but to provide it in cases where there's been a subpoena served. Failing to do so comes with legal consequences. The better question is why are they storing the information in the first place. There's really no valid reason for them to be doing so beyond what's immediately necessary for the transaction. Assuming the user has opted in.
        • by Lennie (16154)

          It is from applications which by default send when and where you are. In case of four squares it's the whole idea of the application.

        • by StikyPad (445176)

          The better question is why are they storing the information in the first place. There's really no valid reason for them to be doing so beyond what's immediately necessary for the transaction. Assuming the user has opted in.

          Yeah, what a mystery. You'd think companies would be lined up to be a scapegoat for the next mass shooting or bombing.

    • ...and the number of them who owe me money, claim they're strapped for cash, yet tweet that they are the "mayor" of some downtown over-priced coffeehouse or sushi joint is ver-r-r-r-y revealing.

      Gents: I may not be one of your twitter "followers," but I check your twitter pages religiously nonetheless. Pay up. Looks like my daughter's gonna need braces.

      Thanks.

    • by Monkeedude1212 (1560403) on Wednesday June 16, 2010 @10:25AM (#32590258) Journal

      True - but wouldn't it be nice if we lived in a world where we could have our cake and eat it too? Where there only was one side of the coin?

      Perhaps if there was some addition to the law saying that this sort of digital information was useless in court, we'd be one step closer to creating that reality. That reality where the people to cake ratio is exactly 1:1. Where everyone's piece not only is a corner piece with lots of icing but also a part of the artwork so you get that sugary gelatin stuff too. Where the bottom is a nice firm cookie based and the inside is moist and soft, or ice-cream if you prefer. ... What were we talking about again?

    • by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Wednesday June 16, 2010 @10:55AM (#32590612)
      You might have a friend who does, and that could wind up leading to location information about you too: your friend announces that they are hanging out with you, and the location data announces where your friend is doing that.
      • by Locke2005 (849178)
        That's a two-edged sword. I just tell my friend to twitter that he's hanging out with me (with full location info) while I'm really at a motel with my mistress. Voila! Instant alibi!
      • by Bigjeff5 (1143585)

        And if that bothers you, don't hang out with that friend.

        It is no different than tacking a sign on your door saying "Hey! I'm out, but here's where you can find me!" which is perfectly legal and legitimate and ethical, even if you're inadvertently saying where someone else will be also.

        It's real fucking life people, we don't need idiotic new laws, just deal with it.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    So... putting all your info on facebook can be bad. Letting the world know where you are and when can be bad. (Unless you want an alibi for a crime.) Most of us here are aware of this. What happens online stays online, so yes we get it. How do we figure out how to make other people aware of it rather than just linking the same old tired articles which clearly are not working. How long will it be until some group starts working to forcibly "out" people's digital lives as a way to spread a greater awareness o
  • So... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Spad (470073) <slashdot@NOSpam.spad.co.uk> on Wednesday June 16, 2010 @09:44AM (#32589876) Homepage

    Remember to turn off the location services of your phone before you:

    • Break the law
    • Cheat on your partner
    • Skip school/work
    • Do anything else where you wouldn't want people to know your location

    If only there were some kind of sense, possibly a common one, that would help avoid these nasty problems.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by decipher_saint (72686)

      Or like, leave your phone at home...

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by hedwards (940851)
        Or better yet, pay some homeless guy $50 bucks to carry it on the bus all over the city.
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by teh kurisu (701097)

          That might backfire if he's murdered in an alley and it turns out that you were following him around all day (according to your phone records).

    • Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gstoddart (321705) on Wednesday June 16, 2010 @09:51AM (#32589948) Homepage

      If only there were some kind of sense, possibly a common one, that would help avoid these nasty problems.

      You know, new technology creates new situations which previously hadn't needed to be considered.

      We're talking a very small number of years that the exact location you were standing when you did something is a matter of electronic record.

      Common sense being neither, and the total number of years in which people have had to contend with such issues is relatively low. While you can sound all smug and say "everyone should know that", the reality is that most people with a smart phone barely know what all it does, let alone the legal ramifications of carrying one around. And, the number of people who have had their location subpoenaed for a tweet they made as part of their divorce case? Probably a very small number.

      Why is the Slashdot crowd so myopic about technology that they think all of these issues have been around for decades, or that everyone who happens to use what is now a fairly ubiquitous technology is fully dialed into all of the aspects of that technology?

      Some of these are actually quite new social and legal considerations. Acting like you've known this forever makes you sound like a smug idiot.

      • Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Jimmy King (828214) on Wednesday June 16, 2010 @10:08AM (#32590078) Homepage Journal

        Why is the Slashdot crowd so myopic about technology that they think all of these issues have been around for decades, or that everyone who happens to use what is now a fairly ubiquitous technology is fully dialed into all of the aspects of that technology?

        Some of these are actually quite new social and legal considerations. Acting like you've known this forever makes you sound like a smug idiot.

        It should be common sense that if something is tracking where you are at all times, then people will know where you are/were. You're right in that people commonly don't know how their expensive gadgets work and what they are capable of at even the most basic level, but just because something happens to be the common case doesn't mean that it "should" be the common case and accepted.

        If you want to own and play with complex things then you need to understand complex things or it's more likely to come back and bite you in the ass. You don't necessarily need to understand it at more than a basic level, but you do need some level of understanding. Just like I don't understand toasters (a comparative simple bit of tech) well enough to build one but I understand them well enough to know not stick my finger in it when it's on or recently has been on. As those things get more complex, what you'll need to know and understand also tends to get more complex. This applies to many things in life, but is unfortunately ignored when it comes to computer related tech.

        • Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by gstoddart (321705) on Wednesday June 16, 2010 @10:33AM (#32590344) Homepage

          It should be common sense

          Why do people think that "common sense" is some intrinsic, infallible sense of what is happening around you? At best, it's a measure of "well known shared experiences" that most people remember. At worst, it's merely an expectation that other people should know the things we consider obvious.

          If you want to own and play with complex things then you need to understand complex things or it's more likely to come back and bite you in the ass.

          You know, I'm going to pull some numbers out of my ass for purposes of illustration: 90% of people don't understand 90% of the workings of 90% of the technology that surrounds them on a daily basis. That might even be generous, but the specifics of the numbers is irrelevant. The barrier to having technology isn't understanding any more, it's paying for it.

          They don't really know how a fridge works. Their thermostat is a complete mystery. The workings of a radio is a complete unknown. A light switch makes the dark go away if the bulb isn't burned out. Traffic signals work, but they don't know why. A smart phone is just like that black thing grandma had with the dial, but you can send pictures and text -- that's about the extent of their understanding. They're not required to know anything more than that.

          Your toaster analogy is apt -- since for most people, that's about the full extent of how much they will truly understand their smart phone. And, considering a lot of these location based services are less than 2-3 years old, it's not like there has been time for these issues to come to light. People just turn it on, push the pretty buttons, and go. When their friends start using something, they do to. They're not doing any reflecting on the issues of using that technology -- they're not even thinking of it as technology, it' a button. It's part of the phone. It's infrastructure and therefore largely invisible.

          They completely lack a frame of reference to seriously ponder the fact that something which is "cool" or "popular" can have ramifications beyond what they have conceived of. Heck, they can't even conceive of the potential issues, since they don't know how it all works.

          The reality is, we give more and more complex devices to people on a daily basis. Companies add new features they think their users will like, but the technology is so new, that sometimes even they haven't thought through the possible issues. Computers and technology have gotten into the mainstream far faster than a general understanding of how they work. Heck, I see 10-year old kids with phones -- I'm not even sure most of them are capable of understanding what is being said on the topic of privacy, or why it's important.

          I'm just not convinced any more that you can lay all of this at the feet of the users and say it's their fault. I'm not saying we don't need better consumer education. But the pace of technology in our lives means that stuff is happening that most people will never be really 'informed' on all of these topics. I just don't think this is a simple "do this" kind of fix that makes it all go away -- it' way more complex than that.

          • And this is all exactly what I view as being the problem. We keep giving people this cool new stuff with more and more ways to hurt themselves. Unfortunately, what should be common sense is not, and so people get caught by surprise. What we should be doing is explaining that this stuff is complex, it does a lot, you could run into trouble if you don't have a basic understanding of what it does. The smart phone equivalent of the previously mentioned toaster knowledge is more complex, because there's more

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by gstoddart (321705)

              And this is all exactly what I view as being the problem. We keep giving people this cool new stuff with more and more ways to hurt themselves. Unfortunately, what should be common sense is not, and so people get caught by surprise.

              Well, it does go beyond that, though.

              Think of how many stories we see about Facebook changing their settings so everyone is suddenly sharing everything and needs to explicitly opt out. Or, AT&T inadvertently leaking the email address of anyone with an iPad.

              Sometimes, even th

        • Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by nyctopterus (717502) on Wednesday June 16, 2010 @10:59AM (#32590650) Homepage

          This is a fairly typical attitude among intelligent people, and is especially strong about their area of expertise. Unfortunately, in the real world, people are pretty much forced to use things they barely understand just to live a vaguely normal life. Many of these people simply do not have the mental capacity to address all the thing which they "should" understand. Even the most intelligent people are often dangerously ignorant in many areas (although they often fail to realise it).

          No, to large extent it is up to the designers and overseers of complex (yet common) technology and systems that things behave in a relatively expected and benign way.

          • by Bigjeff5 (1143585)

            All you need to understand about Location Awareness is that it tracks your location. That's it. That's not at all a technical concept, and it isn't difficult in any way.

            You don't need to know that it somehow uses cell phone towers and wifi hotspots to track you. You don't need to understand that GPS can track you from anywhere between 3 feet and 100 feet.

            None of that is necessary to understand the implications of Location Awareness. All you need to know is that if you use it, people will know where you

          • Even highly intelligent people sometimes don't understand technology. It takes a long time to become an expert. Devoting so much time to expertise in something certainly robs one of time to learn other things, like technology.

      • by Spad (470073)

        Right, because god forbid people actually take some responsibility and find out what their phone is doing or who can see their Facebook profile.

        When I got my Nexus One I saw it had Location functionality, played around with it, thought "It's probably not a good idea to be broadcasting this to the world 24/7" and turned it off again (it wasn't on by default anyway). In the same way that when I got the keys to my house and they had a tag on them with the address, I decided it was probably a smart idea to take

        • Ultimately, it doesn't matter because nobody seems to care any more. They're quite happy to put all their private details, thoughts & photos on Facebook, set the profile to public and then set up their status to constantly update with their GPS co-ordinates and even when they *do* know about the potential consequences, they just don't seem at all concerned.

          Yes. This is exactly how we non-paranoids on the planet operate.

      • by Bigjeff5 (1143585)

        You know, new technology creates new situations which previously hadn't needed to be considered.

        And these issues happen to be exactly the same as what people have been dealing with for a thousand years.

        If you tell someone where you are, they know where you are.

        Wow, that's a totally brand new concept that has never before been considered in human history! Oh wait, no it's not, it's common fucking sense. Common sense simply means that anybody of average intelligence should be able to understand.

        You don't need to understand how location awareness works. All you need to know is that it automatically tr

      • I new the band before they were famous. Yep...still don't get that mentality at all, but you've aptly called out one of the most annoying geek-culture aspects: measuring one's value on how much more one knows about something over somebody else.

    • Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by PatHMV (701344) <post@patrickmartin.com> on Wednesday June 16, 2010 @09:56AM (#32589992) Homepage
      Not to go all insensitive clod on you, but.... When I was a kid, a member of my immediate family passed away. The newspaper printed the obituary and noted (against my dad's instructions) that the funeral would be in another town, in a distant part of the state. When we returned home several days later, we found that burglars had broken into the house while we were gone. Eventually it was confirmed that the burglars had read the obituaries, saw we would be out of town, and used that information to decide to rob us. So, there are very GOOD reasons for people who are doing nothing wrong to also not want the world at large to know their location.
      • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

        by El_Muerte_TDS (592157)

        Hey, I think I saw that movie. Didn't you board the wrong plane a year later?

      • by nurb432 (527695)

        So, there are very GOOD reasons for people who are doing nothing wrong to also not want the world at large to know their location.

        Ok, so don't tell the public and the problem is solved. Its not a technology issue in the least, its how its being used.

      • by Locke2005 (849178)
        And yet the Oregonian can't understand why I so strongly object to them tossing "free" newspapers onto my driveway twice a week when I don't subscribe. There are documented instances of people stopping newspaper delivery while on vacation, only to have the newspaper delivery person sell that information to burglars. I also assume anyone littering my yard with flyers is really trying to test whether or not I am home.
    • You missed a few (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Remember to turn off your phone before you:

      1. Leave your valuables unattended
      2. Do anything politically-related, such as attend a rally
      3. Buy things with so-called "anonymous" cash
      4. Make a phone call
    • by StikyPad (445176)

      If only there were some kind of sense, possibly a common one, that would help avoid these nasty problems.

      Or here's a novel idea.. don't break the law, cheat on your spouse, or skip school.

      If only there were some kind of decency, possibly a common one, that would help avoid these nasty problems.

    • by Locke2005 (849178)
      My spouse spends half her waking hours on the phone, has gone through a half dozen of them, and has never bothered to even touch the manuals that come with them. What makes you think she even knows how to turn off the location services of the new phone I buy her in order to keep track of her?
    • by selven (1556643)

      Exactly, only people who are doing something wrong have something to hide.

  • by AHuxley (892839) on Wednesday June 16, 2010 @09:44AM (#32589884) Homepage Journal
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2146807/Facebook-dipping-craze-irks-pool-owners.html [telegraph.co.uk]
    Now you can identify homes that have large outdoor pools, track their owners for a while and wait.
    When the air horn blasts the owner is on their way back home.
    • by splatter (39844)

      Thanks for that article.

      High Tech Pool Hopping who would have thought.. We did the same thing back in the 80's except with no internets we went to the area of local townhouses that had about 10 pools and preceded to jump the fence on one or two to take a midnight dip. Its amazing none of us drowned or broke our necks trying to scale the fence after 1/2 a dozen beers.

  • then these services are the creepy stalker that follows you around in case you leave your blinds open.

    Bottom line, if you are going to do something you don't want anyone to know about, don't use these services, leave the cell phone at home and pay everything in cash!

  • by dward90 (1813520)
    A new study finds that location-broadcasting applications broadcast the location of the user.

    Nothing to see here.
  • Just turn off GPS when you are not using it. If you need to use navigation, turn it back on.

    As a plus, it helps save some battery life.

    • Re:Simple fix (Score:4, Informative)

      by Spad (470073) <slashdot@NOSpam.spad.co.uk> on Wednesday June 16, 2010 @09:47AM (#32589908) Homepage

      A lot of phones will offer location information using cell towers if GPS isn't available. It's not as accurate, but it's "close enough" for most purposes.

      • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Many phones will also determine location via nearby wi-fi access points.

        If you don't want people to know where you are, don't use the services.

      • Also, every single mobile phone is exposing its location to the network. If you're really paranoid, stick it in flight mode, turn it off or leave it at home.

      • its almost as accurate as gps

      • by Bigjeff5 (1143585)

        And in pretty much all of them you can disable Location Awareness.

        It isn't hard to understand at all.

    • by hedwards (940851)
      I don't think you can do that. You can turn it off for applications, but I don't believe that it's completely deactivated. If I'm not mistaken, it's still available to the carrier and to 911 should you call it. Which depending upon the situation might be exactly the people you don't want to know where you are. Which really defeats the purpose of deactivating it. Even before phones came with software for GPS use, phones were already being shipped with GPS. I had a Samsung several years back, which had GPS, a
  • There must be a way to get the location services you want, like finding the local Krispy-Kreme, without broadcasting your location to the service in question. Like a blocked phone number.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Chrisq (894406)

      There must be a way to get the location services you want, like finding the local Krispy-Kreme, without broadcasting your location to the service in question. Like a blocked phone number.

      Yes, Always use a disposable phone. Brought for cash. Use it only once. That's what Uncle Osama tells me.

      • by hedwards (940851)
        And fifteen minutes later, the DHS responds bundling Chrisq up to whatever black site they're currently using for being an al-Qaeda operative.
    • by ArcherB (796902) on Wednesday June 16, 2010 @10:49AM (#32590522) Journal

      There must be a way to get the location services you want, like finding the local Krispy-Kreme, without broadcasting your location to the service in question. Like a blocked phone number.

      The services mentioned here are only those that you explicitly run that you give permission to broadcast your location. Google Latitude, for example, will show your location on Google Maps to everyone you give permission to show it to.

      It's not just your GPS that can get you in trouble, but your own stupidity can do just as well of a job. An example would be taking a picture a of a well known foreign landmark while vacationing and posting it on your Facebook page with the caption, "Look at what I saw today".

      It's also a good idea to NOT geo-tag your photos if you take them of anyplace you don't want people to know the location of, like your living room in front of your new big screen TV and pile of cash.

  • Of course, one can always spoof their location. Maybe I'll start using using Twitter to announce my all-day shopping sprees and then sit in the bushes outside waiting to catch any potential burglars... or get shot by said burglars.
  • Latitude (Score:3, Informative)

    by dandart (1274360) on Wednesday June 16, 2010 @09:59AM (#32590010)
    Latitude (sort of) solves this problem by only sending location data to approved friends and only when you want it to. Now all you have to worry about is untrustworthy friends.
    • by AHuxley (892839)
      The web 2.0 version of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu#Disclosure.2C_abduction_and_publication [wikipedia.org]
      That new best friend who so understands :)
    • Facebook tagging of pictures and posting of your name has shown us just how little you should trust your friends.

      Wallpos by Samt: "Brian you were so wasted Thursday!"
      Brian has been tagged in a photo: BarffestatNochinosClubThursdaynight.jpg"
      "Hey Brian, it's your boss. I notice you called in sick on Friday. You were probably at home all day. You should stay there Monday, too, just to make sure you're over your "illness." In fact, considering your illness is a complete lack of work ethic, you should stay home
      • by dandart (1274360)
        That's why you should never add or accept your boss as a "friend"! Simple!
  • that your out with your girlfriend.. you deserve what you get in a divorce proceeding.. not sure how thats a privacy issue tbh... Hell just having an iphone and your wife knowing how to do "find my iphone" is more than enough for you to get caught?

    Besides a civil suit is still a legal proceeding and is really no different from having coworkers or others subpoenaed for a civil case? It just seems to me this is more an issue of "use your tools and toys in an aware/responsible manner" than any inherent priv
    • Actually, even if you're NOT using a location service, it's probably a bad idea to tweet about your girlfriend, at least if you're married.

  • You can always throw off the criminals by providing false data. At Tuesday, 3PM, User tweets "Gee golly, I hope my pet tiger doesn't trigger those bear traps I left hanging from the ceiling whenever the heat sensor detects human presence."
  • ZOMG! A service people sign up with to keep track of where they are keeps track of people where they are! How devious! Really, I don't see what benefit these services actually offer. Do I really need my phone telling the world about each time I get coffee? Same with tweeting. It may ease your ADHD and feed your ego for a couple of seconds, but other then that it is useless.
  • by Abalamahalamatandra (639919) on Wednesday June 16, 2010 @10:47AM (#32590510)

    Back in the early days of APRS (Automatic Position Reporting System?), the ham radio community was happily mounting GPS trackers in their cars and sending their position out for convenient viewing on APRS screens. It was fun.

    Then Steve Dimse came along and started getting these position reports from the Internet to APRS gateways, making them available on a Java applet for anyone to see, and archiving them. People were more than a little bit unhappy at the time, but I think the consensus that was finally reached was "If you have a problem with that, turn off your tracker!".

    I think the same applies here. The info is public, you should know it's public, so if you don't want it to be public, don't send it out.

  • Look at the bright side, you not only get to give away your personal info/location
    you get to pay to have this done.

    Cell phones are such a wonderful invention.

  • Latitude on the android isn't that accurate. Maybe in the future this will be an issue, right now its off by several miles and the refresh rate on peoples location can be off by as much as a day. In the future when they become more accurate and log location over time, then this might become an issue. As posted in one of the first post in this thread, if you don't want your location known, leave your phone at home.
    • Latitude on the android isn't that accurate.

      Got that right. The other day, on my way to work (a 6 mile commute, with a max speed limit of 50 mph), the GPS app I've got on my Android said I had traveled 458 miles and my current speed was a 122 mph (I had traveled maybe two miles, and my speed had yet to hit even the 50 mph max on that route). A few days later, the location tracker software I was testing showed that in the space of three minutes, I had traveled from Anchorage to near Iliamna Lake and back. That's a distance of about 150 miles, over

  • If you are posting your location in real time on some web page, its your own damned fault if you get robbed.

    As far as subpoenaing the info, what is he point of complaining? They could just have a PI tail you and have that entered into the court records. If you are doing something wrong and it involves location, how about turn it off before you go?

  • If someone is stepping out on their mate exposure is a good thing. Affairs involve at least two people so any concept of privacy is misplaced. That which involves another can not be private.
    As for the idea of a burglar using locating devices to assure an empty home that can only work if the burglar knows that a well armed resident does not remain in the home and that good alarm systems and video cams are not in place.

  • Yawn... If you didn't already know this in 2000, then by 2010 your either dead, broke, or died broke (from the identity thieves for the thinking challenged)
  • Every day, when I go to work, my neighbors know my house is empty!

    I'm not too worried if the people I CHOOSE to know my location know that I'm out getting a burrito.

  • http://www.pleaserobme.com/ [pleaserobme.com] had it dead on. Before they took it down, they basically had a real-time feed with a linked Google Map showing houses that could likely be robbed *right now*, because the author (who "owns" that house on FourSquare", tagged themself as not being home.

    I have yet to see any real use for FourSquare at all, other than this inane social networking game. If you want to share your location with trusted friends, use Google Latitude. Why on earth do you think everyone on the planet cares

I've got a bad feeling about this.

Working...