Oh, boo-hoo. Don't want anyone to track you? Don't carry any smartphone with a GPS radio. You know that if they set their minds to it, the police can track anyone with a GPS signal? They just need to tune in from the head end. Want to use social media? GPS.
I didn't give a damn about the google location "scandals" either, so where does that leave you?
What's more, location data doesn't require a warrant. It's not, in the opinion of several court decisions, something for which the cops need to go to a judge for. They go to the "police AT&T or Verizon website" and get as much data as they want. Where you were at what time, when you made calls, to what number and so on. So if you told them you were across town, they gotcha. "Well, sir, your cell phone was right next to the crime scene five minutes before."
I can confirm that, at least in my state, no warrants are needed for police to get cell phone tower-based location information from the wireless providers. We regularly obtain those data during Search and Rescue missions - it just requires an official request.
Just to be clear, this is separate from the GPS location data that are transmitted from the phone if a 911 call is made (and if that feature is enabled, which it is by default on most phones), which doesn't even require the involvement of the provider.
They think that iPhones are feeding your whereabouts and personal info directly to people watching you on a monitor all day long.
Maybe some people think that, but I doubt many do. I suppose more are concerned that the scenario you describe could 'become' a possibility. Apple is a corporation and like all corporations they make a product or sell a service... or sell your info to another company that makes a product or sells a service.... all because they want your money. It's called doing business.
Personally, I find it ironic that Big Brother is voicing concerns over this. You know... the folks that will grope your crotch or take 'nekkid pictures' of you when you want to get on an airplane. I suspect this is just posturing and pandering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
I keep my iPhone in my pocket along with my wallet and my keys. My computer is protected by a username & password. So let me get this straight... If someone mugged me and got a hold of my iPhone, they would also have the keys to my car and my house along with all my credit cards. First on their list of things to steal would obviously be my consolidated.db file.
Nah... it'll be third on the list. But seriously... while this tracking capability may potentially provide improved or additional services from Apple or third parties... I'd still like to be able to flat out turn it off and not have data collected. Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me. Big Brother that is. Apple isn't going to toss me in jail, or take away my property or civil rights, or execute me... that's what governments do. And in the US, that's fundamentally why we have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Too much power inevitably leads to abuse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jb510
Apple is going to know when and where I'm going before I do, next time I pull of the interstate to use the restroom their going to send a man ahead to be there selling iWipes.
**Cckkgghhhaaaaccckk. cough cough** iWipes. iLove it
OH!! OOOOH!!!! OOOOO!!! Fed Ex just pulled up. iPad has arrived.
Lets say someone at your workplace was murdered. Police suspect you. They subpoena your phone and your computer to look for evidence. They find consolidated.db and discover that lo and behold, you were near the location when the victim was murdered, when actually, you had accidentally left your cell phone at work.
Based on this circumstantial evidence and flawed eyewitness testimony (happens all the time) you are convicted and executed, because you live in Texas.
You can construct perfectly logical hypotheticals for anything. But the relevant question is how likely is it to happen. You can go crazy trying to stop every possible eventuality of bad things happening to you in life, or you can just deal with the most likely ones: getting sick, losing your job, wrecking your car, etc. It is perfectly possible that an airliner can crash with me on it, but I choose not to deny myself the fun and excitement of international vacations to mitigate that possibility.
How do people think the iPhone knows when you have been to a particular Wi-Fi spot before? Further, many devices come shipped with locations services in which a user selects to turn on or off.
I think the big issue is how easy it is to access. Hidden is by no means secure, it should have been encrypted.
As to whether Apple is loading it to their servers, if they are then they should get raked over the coals as that definitely would need some explanation.
in spite of it being something that the average activist does to demonize others conservative or liberal, corporate or individual - labellist reductionism. It then becomes a meme that the average person unwittingly buys into because they don't question the validity of the label to begin with. Hence my "prickliness" about doing it. Smugness, anger, or whatever may incidentally reflect the head of the corporate entity's attitude, it may incidentally reflect the feeling of most of the people in a given institution, but not the entity itself. For example I could label you a pompous reductionist ass with delusion's of godhood*. I could even attempt to justify it by citing words you had written in these threads as examples of said labels. But in fact all I am doing is reducing the opportunity to actually engage you in conversation, and inviting you to engage in a response which likely would resort to the same (or worse) level of labelling me in response.
Neither you nor I benefit at the personal level by that, and in pretty much the same way it doesn't add any useable information to a posting when you apply it in reference to any other entity, corporate or otherwise.
Now as to your reference to wikipedia, while a convenient source it is neither definitive nor authoritative. Its a decent entry I guess, but is a starting point that needs much better sourcing. Corporate "personhood" is a convenient fiction to try and change the political contribution landscape in the US. It remains to be seen if the voters in the US will leave it as it is, or demand a change.
By and large you and I are in agreement opinion-wise in many of our postings herein, whether we choose to directly agree in post or just nod heads and move on. My intent was not to put you on the defensive, for which, if I have done, I apologize.
Now back to our regularly scheduled disagreements!
*a label that was applied to me in another blog. Made me chuckle as it sounded very close to a Star Trek quote about Captain Kirk. As I happen to like William Shatner, I don't have a problem with it.
I’m surprised this non-story is still going on? Though I did expect Apple or Jobs to release some statement by now.
edit: Just read the MR article where Jobs did respond.
Not sure that his response there helps much.
Quote:
Oh yes they do. We don't track anyone. The info circulating around is false.
So they don't use the data.. people have discovered as much by looking at how that file was treated. But the phone IS tracking your data. So if they're not using it, it is (like I and others said initially) more than likely a bug. And the bug isn't "False" Whatever the meaning of that file, it clearly exists, and it's not just some site trying to make it up.
They do use your information though, they say as much in their privacy policy. Again, that isn't an issue (and they dealt with it last year). This bugged file is.
I agree that people are blowing it out of proportion, but Apple should officially respond to this. Not a short 1-2 sentence response either.
So they don't use the data.. people have discovered as much by looking at how that file was treated. But the phone IS tracking your data. So if they're not using it, it is (like I and others said initially) more than likely a bug. And the bug isn't "False" Whatever the meaning of that file, it clearly exists, and it's not just some site trying to make it up.
They do use your information though, they say as much in their privacy policy. Again, that isn't an issue (and they dealt with it last year). This bugged file is.
I agree that people are blowing it out of proportion, but Apple should officially respond to this. Not a short 1-2 sentence response either.
The phone is not tracking your location - Steve is right, the stuff circulating around IS false, because the locations in that file are NOT places you have visited.
So they don't use the data.. people have discovered as much by looking at how that file was treated. But the phone IS tracking your data. So if they're not using it, it is (like I and others said initially) more than likely a bug. And the bug isn't "False" Whatever the meaning of that file, it clearly exists, and it's not just some site trying to make it up.
They do use your information though, they say as much in their privacy policy. Again, that isn't an issue (and they dealt with it last year). This bugged file is.
I agree that people are blowing it out of proportion, but Apple should officially respond to this. Not a short 1-2 sentence response either.
And I think you and Glenn Beck should come clean, too.
Lets say someone at your workplace was murdered. Police suspect you. They subpoena your phone and your computer to look for evidence. They find consolidated.db and discover that lo and behold, you were near the location when the victim was murdered, when actually, you had accidentally left your cell phone at work.
Based on this circumstantial evidence and flawed eyewitness testimony (happens all the time) you are convicted and executed, because you live in Texas.
LOL, The data can actually help you as it showed you had no movement for the entire day.
LOL, The data can actually help you as it showed you had no movement for the entire day.
Listen, can we be serious for a moment? This information cannot help ANYONE because it does not show ANYTHING about where you have been with your device. The claims that it does are entirely false - the locations being recorded do not reflect the actual location of the phone at any point.
I am surprised at the legs this worthless story has, and disappointed at Apple Insider for continuing to disgorge it.
The phone is not tracking your location - Steve is right, the stuff circulating around IS false, because the locations in that file are NOT places you have visited.
actually, the program released artificially makes the data less accurate. According to several groups (including the team over at thisismynext.com) the data is actually more accurate, though still not pinpoint level (because that's not really needed)
It's also attempting to get your location from Wifi networks and cell sites, not GPS. Some errors are to be expected because of this.
actually, the program released artificially makes the data less accurate. According to several groups (including the team over at thisismynext.com) the data is actually more accurate, though still not pinpoint level (because that's not really needed)
It's also attempting to get your location from Wifi networks and cell sites, not GPS. Some errors are to be expected because of this.
Looking at the raw data (not degraded by the viewing program) for my phone, some of the locations are clearly cell towers, with multiple hits on them, while other locations are less obvious and could be wi-fi locations, except that they are in the cell tower table rather than the wi-fi table. The phone registers with cell towers at some distance of course (I have some hits at 30 miles), making those data quite inaccurate in terms of phone location. Wi-fi locations would potentially give much better resolution due to their limited range. I haven't yet plotted all the wi-fi locations to see how they look.
Looking at the raw data (not degraded by the viewing program) for my phone, some of the locations are clearly cell towers, with multiple hits on them, while other locations are less obvious and could be wi-fi locations, except that they are in the cell tower table rather than the wi-fi table. The phone registers with cell towers at some distance of course (I have some hits at 30 miles), making those data quite inaccurate in terms of phone location. Wi-fi locations would potentially give much better resolution due to their limited range. I haven't yet plotted all the wi-fi locations to see how they look.
You've pointed out the truth in this entire thing: the phone is not tracking your location, it is tracking the location of network access points it has been in communication with. I certainly cannot pretend to know why that data is being recorded - if I have to guess, it is probably engineering data. But regardless, the important point is that this data does not accurately reflect your locations - the phone is not tracking you, or even doing anything remotely of the sort.
I fail to see the flap over this. What use is it to anyone if there is an entry at some random time stamp on your device which happens to correspond to a cell tower 3.2 miles away from the Starbucks where you were having coffee at the time? How can that be seen as even remotely 'tracking' you? The location is the tower, not you; you could have been anywhere within the reach of that tower's signal, and that is a big area. There is no way knowing the location of the tower itself could help someone positively identify where you (or your phone for that matter) were at the time. To look at a situation like that and draw from it the conclusion that the device is tracking your location strains credulity, and to promulgate that and present it as fact the way Apple Insider and countless other publications have is dishonesty on a scale that quite frankly takes my breath away. It is ridiculous.
... To look at a situation like that and draw from it the conclusion that the device is tracking your location strains credulity, and to promulgate that and present it as fact the way Apple Insider and countless other publications have is dishonesty on a scale that quite frankly takes my breath away. It is ridiculous.
Well, don't stop there, we also have those, like Menno, who are paid to come here and do just that.
Wi-fi locations would potentially give much better resolution due to their limited range. I haven't yet plotted all the wi-fi locations to see how they look.
Probably what Google was up to with their WIFI break ins. They want pin point location of wifi networks, which could be relevant if it was a static IP but many cable providers DHCP your IP so it can change.
Even though many office networks are public info for address blocks it isn't always accurate for location. For example my office iP block is actually part of our datacenter block which is two miles away. I'm not sure how they derive geo location from IP with any accuracy other than country and maybe city since there are so many exceptions.
Comments
Oh, boo-hoo. Don't want anyone to track you? Don't carry any smartphone with a GPS radio. You know that if they set their minds to it, the police can track anyone with a GPS signal? They just need to tune in from the head end. Want to use social media? GPS.
I didn't give a damn about the google location "scandals" either, so where does that leave you?
What's more, location data doesn't require a warrant. It's not, in the opinion of several court decisions, something for which the cops need to go to a judge for. They go to the "police AT&T or Verizon website" and get as much data as they want. Where you were at what time, when you made calls, to what number and so on. So if you told them you were across town, they gotcha. "Well, sir, your cell phone was right next to the crime scene five minutes before."
I can confirm that, at least in my state, no warrants are needed for police to get cell phone tower-based location information from the wireless providers. We regularly obtain those data during Search and Rescue missions - it just requires an official request.
Just to be clear, this is separate from the GPS location data that are transmitted from the phone if a 911 call is made (and if that feature is enabled, which it is by default on most phones), which doesn't even require the involvement of the provider.
They think that iPhones are feeding your whereabouts and personal info directly to people watching you on a monitor all day long.
Maybe some people think that, but I doubt many do. I suppose more are concerned that the scenario you describe could 'become' a possibility. Apple is a corporation and like all corporations they make a product or sell a service... or sell your info to another company that makes a product or sells a service.... all because they want your money. It's called doing business.
Personally, I find it ironic that Big Brother is voicing concerns over this. You know... the folks that will grope your crotch or take 'nekkid pictures' of you when you want to get on an airplane. I suspect this is just posturing and pandering.
I keep my iPhone in my pocket along with my wallet and my keys. My computer is protected by a username & password. So let me get this straight... If someone mugged me and got a hold of my iPhone, they would also have the keys to my car and my house along with all my credit cards. First on their list of things to steal would obviously be my consolidated.db file.
Nah... it'll be third on the list. But seriously... while this tracking capability may potentially provide improved or additional services from Apple or third parties... I'd still like to be able to flat out turn it off and not have data collected. Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me. Big Brother that is. Apple isn't going to toss me in jail, or take away my property or civil rights, or execute me... that's what governments do. And in the US, that's fundamentally why we have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Too much power inevitably leads to abuse.
Apple is going to know when and where I'm going before I do, next time I pull of the interstate to use the restroom their going to send a man ahead to be there selling iWipes.
**Cckkgghhhaaaaccckk. cough cough**
OH!! OOOOH!!!! OOOOO!!! Fed Ex just pulled up. iPad has arrived.
Lets say someone at your workplace was murdered. Police suspect you. They subpoena your phone and your computer to look for evidence. They find consolidated.db and discover that lo and behold, you were near the location when the victim was murdered, when actually, you had accidentally left your cell phone at work.
Based on this circumstantial evidence and flawed eyewitness testimony (happens all the time) you are convicted and executed, because you live in Texas.
You can construct perfectly logical hypotheticals for anything. But the relevant question is how likely is it to happen. You can go crazy trying to stop every possible eventuality of bad things happening to you in life, or you can just deal with the most likely ones: getting sick, losing your job, wrecking your car, etc. It is perfectly possible that an airliner can crash with me on it, but I choose not to deny myself the fun and excitement of international vacations to mitigate that possibility.
How is blazes is this about "smugness"?? Seriously, anthropmorphizing [sic] human emotion to corporate entities is bloody silly........
Meant to say 'perceived' smugness.
Of course, that brings up the point about athropomorphzing..... but that's what people do. The law does that too. (See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood). Get over it.
How do people think the iPhone knows when you have been to a particular Wi-Fi spot before? Further, many devices come shipped with locations services in which a user selects to turn on or off.
I think the big issue is how easy it is to access. Hidden is by no means secure, it should have been encrypted.
As to whether Apple is loading it to their servers, if they are then they should get raked over the coals as that definitely would need some explanation.
Meant to say 'perceived' smugness.
Investigations are not launched based on "perceived smugness". Seeing that smugness isn't against the law.
Meant to say 'perceived' smugness.
Of course, that brings up the point about athropomorphzing..... but that's what people do. The law does that too. (See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood). Get over it.
in spite of it being something that the average activist does to demonize others conservative or liberal, corporate or individual - labellist reductionism. It then becomes a meme that the average person unwittingly buys into because they don't question the validity of the label to begin with. Hence my "prickliness" about doing it. Smugness, anger, or whatever may incidentally reflect the head of the corporate entity's attitude, it may incidentally reflect the feeling of most of the people in a given institution, but not the entity itself. For example I could label you a pompous reductionist ass with delusion's of godhood*. I could even attempt to justify it by citing words you had written in these threads as examples of said labels. But in fact all I am doing is reducing the opportunity to actually engage you in conversation, and inviting you to engage in a response which likely would resort to the same (or worse) level of labelling me in response.
Neither you nor I benefit at the personal level by that, and in pretty much the same way it doesn't add any useable information to a posting when you apply it in reference to any other entity, corporate or otherwise.
Now as to your reference to wikipedia, while a convenient source it is neither definitive nor authoritative. Its a decent entry I guess, but is a starting point that needs much better sourcing. Corporate "personhood" is a convenient fiction to try and change the political contribution landscape in the US. It remains to be seen if the voters in the US will leave it as it is, or demand a change.
By and large you and I are in agreement opinion-wise in many of our postings herein, whether we choose to directly agree in post or just nod heads and move on. My intent was not to put you on the defensive, for which, if I have done, I apologize.
Now back to our regularly scheduled disagreements!
*a label that was applied to me in another blog. Made me chuckle as it sounded very close to a Star Trek quote about Captain Kirk. As I happen to like William Shatner, I don't have a problem with it.
I’m surprised this non-story is still going on? Though I did expect Apple or Jobs to release some statement by now.
edit: Just read the MR article where Jobs did respond.
Not sure that his response there helps much.
Oh yes they do. We don't track anyone. The info circulating around is false.
So they don't use the data.. people have discovered as much by looking at how that file was treated. But the phone IS tracking your data. So if they're not using it, it is (like I and others said initially) more than likely a bug. And the bug isn't "False" Whatever the meaning of that file, it clearly exists, and it's not just some site trying to make it up.
They do use your information though, they say as much in their privacy policy. Again, that isn't an issue (and they dealt with it last year). This bugged file is.
I agree that people are blowing it out of proportion, but Apple should officially respond to this. Not a short 1-2 sentence response either.
Not sure that his response there helps much.
So they don't use the data.. people have discovered as much by looking at how that file was treated. But the phone IS tracking your data. So if they're not using it, it is (like I and others said initially) more than likely a bug. And the bug isn't "False" Whatever the meaning of that file, it clearly exists, and it's not just some site trying to make it up.
They do use your information though, they say as much in their privacy policy. Again, that isn't an issue (and they dealt with it last year). This bugged file is.
I agree that people are blowing it out of proportion, but Apple should officially respond to this. Not a short 1-2 sentence response either.
The phone is not tracking your location - Steve is right, the stuff circulating around IS false, because the locations in that file are NOT places you have visited.
Not sure that his response there helps much.
So they don't use the data.. people have discovered as much by looking at how that file was treated. But the phone IS tracking your data. So if they're not using it, it is (like I and others said initially) more than likely a bug. And the bug isn't "False" Whatever the meaning of that file, it clearly exists, and it's not just some site trying to make it up.
They do use your information though, they say as much in their privacy policy. Again, that isn't an issue (and they dealt with it last year). This bugged file is.
I agree that people are blowing it out of proportion, but Apple should officially respond to this. Not a short 1-2 sentence response either.
And I think you and Glenn Beck should come clean, too.
Lets say someone at your workplace was murdered. Police suspect you. They subpoena your phone and your computer to look for evidence. They find consolidated.db and discover that lo and behold, you were near the location when the victim was murdered, when actually, you had accidentally left your cell phone at work.
Based on this circumstantial evidence and flawed eyewitness testimony (happens all the time) you are convicted and executed, because you live in Texas.
LOL, The data can actually help you as it showed you had no movement for the entire day.
LOL, The data can actually help you as it showed you had no movement for the entire day.
Listen, can we be serious for a moment? This information cannot help ANYONE because it does not show ANYTHING about where you have been with your device. The claims that it does are entirely false - the locations being recorded do not reflect the actual location of the phone at any point.
I am surprised at the legs this worthless story has, and disappointed at Apple Insider for continuing to disgorge it.
The phone is not tracking your location - Steve is right, the stuff circulating around IS false, because the locations in that file are NOT places you have visited.
actually, the program released artificially makes the data less accurate. According to several groups (including the team over at thisismynext.com) the data is actually more accurate, though still not pinpoint level (because that's not really needed)
It's also attempting to get your location from Wifi networks and cell sites, not GPS. Some errors are to be expected because of this.
actually, the program released artificially makes the data less accurate. According to several groups (including the team over at thisismynext.com) the data is actually more accurate, though still not pinpoint level (because that's not really needed)
It's also attempting to get your location from Wifi networks and cell sites, not GPS. Some errors are to be expected because of this.
Looking at the raw data (not degraded by the viewing program) for my phone, some of the locations are clearly cell towers, with multiple hits on them, while other locations are less obvious and could be wi-fi locations, except that they are in the cell tower table rather than the wi-fi table. The phone registers with cell towers at some distance of course (I have some hits at 30 miles), making those data quite inaccurate in terms of phone location. Wi-fi locations would potentially give much better resolution due to their limited range. I haven't yet plotted all the wi-fi locations to see how they look.
Now as to your reference to wikipedia, while a convenient source it is neither definitive nor authoritative. Its a decent entry I guess....
If it wasn't a good entry, I would not have provided you the link.
It was the result of a US Supreme Court decision in 1886, and believe it or not, they did not have the internet in those days.
Now, that is smugness.
Looking at the raw data (not degraded by the viewing program) for my phone, some of the locations are clearly cell towers, with multiple hits on them, while other locations are less obvious and could be wi-fi locations, except that they are in the cell tower table rather than the wi-fi table. The phone registers with cell towers at some distance of course (I have some hits at 30 miles), making those data quite inaccurate in terms of phone location. Wi-fi locations would potentially give much better resolution due to their limited range. I haven't yet plotted all the wi-fi locations to see how they look.
You've pointed out the truth in this entire thing: the phone is not tracking your location, it is tracking the location of network access points it has been in communication with. I certainly cannot pretend to know why that data is being recorded - if I have to guess, it is probably engineering data. But regardless, the important point is that this data does not accurately reflect your locations - the phone is not tracking you, or even doing anything remotely of the sort.
I fail to see the flap over this. What use is it to anyone if there is an entry at some random time stamp on your device which happens to correspond to a cell tower 3.2 miles away from the Starbucks where you were having coffee at the time? How can that be seen as even remotely 'tracking' you? The location is the tower, not you; you could have been anywhere within the reach of that tower's signal, and that is a big area. There is no way knowing the location of the tower itself could help someone positively identify where you (or your phone for that matter) were at the time. To look at a situation like that and draw from it the conclusion that the device is tracking your location strains credulity, and to promulgate that and present it as fact the way Apple Insider and countless other publications have is dishonesty on a scale that quite frankly takes my breath away. It is ridiculous.
... To look at a situation like that and draw from it the conclusion that the device is tracking your location strains credulity, and to promulgate that and present it as fact the way Apple Insider and countless other publications have is dishonesty on a scale that quite frankly takes my breath away. It is ridiculous.
Well, don't stop there, we also have those, like Menno, who are paid to come here and do just that.
Wi-fi locations would potentially give much better resolution due to their limited range. I haven't yet plotted all the wi-fi locations to see how they look.
Probably what Google was up to with their WIFI break ins. They want pin point location of wifi networks, which could be relevant if it was a static IP but many cable providers DHCP your IP so it can change.
Even though many office networks are public info for address blocks it isn't always accurate for location. For example my office iP block is actually part of our datacenter block which is two miles away. I'm not sure how they derive geo location from IP with any accuracy other than country and maybe city since there are so many exceptions.
Well, don't stop there, we also have those, like Menno, who are paid to come here and do just that.
How are comments like that beneficial? Highly unlikely that anyone is paid to post here (except for the out of control spammers).
A lot of your posts add to the discussion. When you attempt to mock others you end up stifling that same discussion instead.