iAd, although they haven't called it such, has all the marks of one of Apple's "hobbies," like the AppleTV. Also like the AppleTV, I wouldn't count iAd out just yet. Apple has a history of starting out modestly, focusing on what they do best on core features. For Apple that would be design and ease of use. In this case, ease of use for the consumer if not the advertiser. As has been said earlier, Apple isn't dependent on ad revenue for success. They can afford to keep this going and evolving. It will be interesting to see what happens.
They did. You can turn it off, or you can allow 7 days of data to be collected.
It'll be interesting to see if Google handles this as well as Apple did.
You can toggle location on and off on Google phones already (and to my knowledge it works, as it's not all over the press that it doesn't)
It also already only stores a limited number of cell sites or wifi towers. If you ever opt out of location tracking, it deletes the database on the phone as well. The file is also located behind root access, so you have to disable your phones security to even get at it.
To quote John Gruber: They did it right.
And mbarriault: Google already responded to the whole issue on location. They did before Apple did. The reason it didn't get as much press coverage is because Google's been pretty up front with their tracking policy.
Also, notice the police raided because Google apparently didn't get approval from the Government. They didn't raid because of User outcry.
The issue of location tracking is something that most people are ignorant on, and companies (including Apple and Google) have done a poor job at explaining it thus far. But this kinda invasion is most likely one motivated by Politics more than anything else.
I've done the same. Sometimes, I still have to switch to Google for a particular search. However, Microsoft is competing. If Apple offers Mobile Me for free I will go Google free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by magicj
I've switched my search services to Bing on all my computers.
When Microsoft starts looking like the good guys, you know it's bad.
Well, oddly enough, considering your claims, Google was sued right after Apple for failure to disclose location tracking. After reading the lawsuit, some differences between Google and Apple is that Android is pulling location from phones every few seconds. Apple does it every twelve hours. Google assigns a unique identifier to the information, so theoretically the information can be tracked to a user. Apple does not assign any identifier to the information. Google sends the information unencrypted. Apple encrypts the information. By comparison, if anybody did it right, it was Apple.
Reporting location is important to provide reliable GPS related services. Apple seems to be using it mostly for that. It also seems to be collecting information to improve future location related products. I, however, don't trust Google. Google makes all of its money from selling ads. There is no reason to pull location several times a second to improve location services such as GPS (which is why Apple pulls the information). you'd be a fool to think Google wasn't pulling this information to improve advertising services, which is the whole reason it invests in Android.
It is the same with Chrome. Chrome sends info back to Google hourly, whereas Safari calls home maybe once a week to check for updates (and this can be shut off in Safari). It isn't hard to reasonably conclude Google's selling your information while Apple is not.
Apple's mistake was merely caching the information for an unreasonable amount of time. Considering it isn't tracking user location, but merely wifi and cell tower locations, I don't see who'd care about the cache. It doesn't matter that Google dumps the cache quicker than Apple because Google stills gets the information with a unique identifier.
If somebody takes your phone and can decypher the information (unlikely), all they are going to figure out is what wifi and cell phone towers are by where you have been. People really should care about the value of the information collected by the companies and how they treat the information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno
You can toggle location on and off on Google phones already (and to my knowledge it works, as it's not all over the press that it doesn't)
It also already only stores a limited number of cell sites or wifi towers. If you ever opt out of location tracking, it deletes the database on the phone as well. The file is also located behind root access, so you have to disable your phones security to even get at it.
To quote John Gruber: They did it right.
And mbarriault: Google already responded to the whole issue on location. They did before Apple did. The reason it didn't get as much press coverage is because Google's been pretty up front with their tracking policy.
Also, notice the police raided because Google apparently didn't get approval from the Government. They didn't raid because of User outcry.
The issue of location tracking is something that most people are ignorant on, and companies (including Apple and Google) have done a poor job at explaining it thus far. But this kinda invasion is most likely one motivated by Politics more than anything else.
I agree. I like iAds better then AdMob ads. I think Apple's barrier is its high cost to buy an iAd. A half of million dollars is expensive. Until Apple can bring that cost down even more, iAds will be limited.
QUOTE=Robin Huber;1858281]iAd, although they haven't called it such, has all the marks of one of Apple's "hobbies," like the AppleTV. Also like the AppleTV, I wouldn't count iAd out just yet. Apple has a history of starting out modestly, focusing on what they do best on core features. For Apple that would be design and ease of use. In this case, ease of use for the consumer if not the advertiser. As has been said earlier, Apple isn't dependent on ad revenue for success. They can afford to keep this going and evolving. It will be interesting to see what happens.[/QUOTE]
Well, oddly enough, considering your claims, Google was sued right after Apple for failure to disclose location tracking. After reading the lawsuit, some differences between Google and Apple is that Android is pulling location from phones every few seconds. Apple does it every twelve hours. Google assigns a unique identifier to the information, so theoretically the information can be tracked to a user. Apple does not assign any identifier to the information. Google sends the information unencrypted. Apple encrypts the information. By comparison, if anybody did it right, it was Apple.
Reporting location is important to provide reliable GPS related services. Apple seems to be using it mostly for that. It also seems to be collecting information to improve future location related products. I, however, don't trust Google. Google makes all of its money from selling ads. There is no reason to pull location several times a second to improve location services such as GPS (which is why Apple pulls the information). you'd be a fool to think Google wasn't pulling this information to improve advertising services, which is the whole reason it invests in Android.
It is the same with Chrome. Chrome sends info back to Google hourly, whereas Safari calls home maybe once a week to check for updates (and this can be shut off in Safari). It isn't hard to reasonably conclude Google's selling your information while Apple is not.
Apple's mistake was merely caching the information for an unreasonable amount of time. Considering it isn't tracking user location, but merely wifi and cell tower locations, I don't see who'd care about the cache. It doesn't matter that Google dumps the cache quicker than Apple because Google stills gets the information with a unique identifier.
If somebody takes your phone and can decypher the information (unlikely), all they are going to figure out is what wifi and cell phone towers are by where you have been. People really should care about the value of the information collected by the companies and how they treat the information.
The data is assigned a unique identifier that is not tied to your phone in any way. This means that someone couldn't trace your location back to you if they had your data. They would need to infect your phone AND google's servers to do so. This number is linked to your data but the number is not connected to you, your email address, your phone, or anything else. It's a NEEDED part of data collection if they're to get any meaningful information out of it while still protecting your anonymity. they also require you to opt in to sharing ANY of that personal data with advertisers (beyond you opting in to have them track it)
And can you please give me an article that states that Google's data is unencrypted while Apple's is locked down? I've seen nothing that says that. In fact, they're one of the bigger forces behind trying to get more websites to adopt https encryption as a default.
Google's map application provides real time traffic updates. you need GPS more often than ever 12 hours to get that kind of data. If Apple plans on making their map application or their own prepaid services, you can bet they would need to send back location information more than every 12 hours. Google's on device location cache is also significantly smaller than Apple's, meaning no matter what their report back times would have to be more frequent.
But it doesn't matter what I say because at the end of the day you distrust the company no matter what actions they take. It doesn't matter how clear they make their privacy policy, or the fact that they provide easy ways for you to use ALL their services and still opt out of tracking, you just distrust them for some nebulous reason that you can't name.
Several of the actions you're implying fly directly against their own privacy policy. Sure, you can argue that they ignore it, but then why do you trust what apple tells you? Yes, google is an advertising company. They're VERY open about this and make no claims otherwise. their services are largely opt-in and the few that aren't have EASY methods to opt out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Well, oddly enough, considering your claims, Google was sued right after Apple for failure to disclose location tracking. After reading the lawsuit, some differences between Google and Apple is that Android is pulling location from phones every few seconds. Apple does it every twelve hours. Google assigns a unique identifier to the information, so theoretically the information can be tracked to a user. Apple does not assign any identifier to the information. Google sends the information unencrypted. Apple encrypts the information. By comparison, if anybody did it right, it was Apple.
Reporting location is important to provide reliable GPS related services. Apple seems to be using it mostly for that. It also seems to be collecting information to improve future location related products. I, however, don't trust Google. Google makes all of its money from selling ads. There is no reason to pull location several times a second to improve location services such as GPS (which is why Apple pulls the information). you'd be a fool to think Google wasn't pulling this information to improve advertising services, which is the whole reason it invests in Android.
It is the same with Chrome. Chrome sends info back to Google hourly, whereas Safari calls home maybe once a week to check for updates (and this can be shut off in Safari). It isn't hard to reasonably conclude Google's selling your information while Apple is not.
Apple's mistake was merely caching the information for an unreasonable amount of time. Considering it isn't tracking user location, but merely wifi and cell tower locations, I don't see who'd care about the cache. It doesn't matter that Google dumps the cache quicker than Apple because Google stills gets the information with a unique identifier.
If somebody takes your phone and can decypher the information (unlikely), all they are going to figure out is what wifi and cell phone towers are by where you have been. People really should care about the value of the information collected by the companies and how they treat the information.
The data is assigned a unique identifier that is not tied to your phone in any way. This means that someone couldn't trace your location back to you if they had your data. They would need to infect your phone AND google's servers to do so. This number is linked to your data but the number is not connected to you, your email address, your phone, or anything else. It's a NEEDED part of data collection if they're to get any meaningful information out of it while still protecting your anonymity. they also require you to opt in to sharing ANY of that personal data with advertisers (beyond you opting in to have them track it)
"AdMob will automatically collect and receive information about those visitors such as, but not limited to, browser identifiers, session information, browser cookies, device type, carrier provider, IP addresses, unique device ID, carrier user ID, geo-location information, sites visited and clicks on advertisements we display."
If I'm not wrong this means that Google can create a complete profile of the user (linking internally the device ID with e.g. an gmail-account) and track the location data.
Even if it would be impossible for third parties to read along by encryption the fact that the data is aggregated on Google's servers seem to be reason enough for korean authorities to step in.
The investigation is about clarifying if the data is connected to your phone, email address or anything else like the AdMob privacy rules might suspect and if it's illegitimately shared with additional 3rd parties.
This would conflict with korean law (and the law of a lot of other countries).
If Google can prove that they don't collect and aggregate the data in an improper way and sell them, then this is a non issue.
"AdMob will automatically collect and receive information about those visitors such as, but not limited to, browser identifiers, session information, browser cookies, device type, carrier provider, IP addresses, unique device ID, carrier user ID, geo-location information, sites visited and clicks on advertisements we display."
If I'm not wrong this means that Google can create a complete profile of the user (linking internally the device ID with e.g. an gmail-account) and track the location data.
Even if it would be impossible for third parties to read along by encryption the fact that the data is aggregated on Google's servers seem to be reason enough for korean authorities to step in.
The investigation is about clarifying if the data is connected to your phone, email address or anything else like the AdMob privacy rules might suspect and if it's illegitimately shared with additional 3rd parties.
This would conflict with korean law (and the law of a lot of other countries).
If Google can prove that they don't collect and aggregate the data in an improper way and sell them, then this is a non issue.
The device location information is Not linked to a cellphone number or email at all. So Google couldn't just "link" it to the other data. But that's not what this thing is about.
This investigation isn't even about the location data, it's about specifically admob data, that Google apparently didn't grease the right palms to collect it. Location specific information is vital for mobile ads (which is why Apple has the clause in their user agreement informing customers about it) because it makes targeted ads possible. So for example, a dunkin donuts ad would appear more often if you were near one.
If this was just an investigation looking to "clarify" the position, there wouldn't be a police raid.
I have quickly lost respect for google in terms of their wanon disregard for the privacy of not only their customers but the public in general. As an example, it is currently impossible to cancel a google voice number once it has been established. It may be "disabled" but not canceled. A subscriber is forever linked to google this way as it is required that you provide your real number when signing up for the service. This may not seem like a big deal but I promise you that it is and a clear violation of personal rights. This article simply provides mounting evidence that google has no intentions of changing the path which they have begun.
Quickly?? What took you so long!! (jk) I have tried to boycott anything Google for years. I don't use any of their programs. Google = EVIL
The device location information is Not linked to a cellphone number or email at all. So Google couldn't just "link" it to the other data. But that's not what this thing is about.
This investigation isn't even about the location data, it's about specifically admob data, that Google apparently didn't grease the right palms to collect it. Location specific information is vital for mobile ads (which is why Apple has the clause in their user agreement informing customers about it) because it makes targeted ads possible. So for example, a dunkin donuts ad would appear more often if you were near one.
If this was just an investigation looking to "clarify" the position, there wouldn't be a police raid.
Sorry, but the sources I have it's mainly about collecting location data without the necessary agreement, but I will double check this.
I recently had a workshop on privacy law in my country (not korea). As a short summery I kept the following (engineer not lawyer speech):
1. If you careless collect private data (location is only a subset) and you do not obtain approval you get punishment - in this case financial penalty.
2. If you aggregate or combine private data in an "improper" way you get punishment - in this case financial penalty.
3. If you aggregate or combine private data in an "improper way" and share or sell it with 3rd party you get punishment - in this case financial penalty and or jail.
I also learned that the laws are not fundamental different in the countries I have to care about. What's different is the definition of what I called the "improper way".
So you should check the specifics for every country before you collect the data.
And these rules are for "normal" persons. Every privacy law I had a look at has additional paragraphs for administration officials, politicians, security forces etc. which have to be covered by an additional approval or contract.
I got the advice that those laws and rules aren't strictly enforced yet in every country, but I should do my homework and prepare myself. I highly doubt that that's a wrong strategy.
Sorry, but the sources I have it's mainly about collecting location data without the necessary agreement, but I will double check this.
I recently had a workshop on privacy law in my country (not korea). As a short summery I kept the following (engineer not lawyer speech):
1. If you careless collect private data (location is only a subset) and you do not obtain approval you get punishment - in this case financial penalty.
2. If you aggregate or combine private data in an "improper" way you get punishment - in this case financial penalty.
3. If you aggregate or combine private data in an "improper way" and share or sell it with 3rd party you get punishment - in this case financial penalty and or jail.
I also learned that the laws are not fundamental different in the countries I have to care about. What's different is the definition of what I called the "improper way".
So you should check the specifics for every country before you collect the data.
And these rules are for "normal" persons. Every privacy law I had a look at has additional paragraphs for administration officials, politicians, security forces etc. which have to be covered by an additional approval or contract.
I got the advice that those laws and rules aren't strictly enforced yet in every country, but I should do my homework and prepare myself. I highly doubt that that's a wrong strategy.
It's location data within the Admob network, not connected to android (or android's location policies) in any way. Your iphone has ad mob served ads. that's what I meant when I said it's not about the location controversy.
And I'm not denying what you listed when it comes to privacy law. What I'm saying that since the campus was RAIDED, this was politically motivated more than anything.
A court order for Google to disclose how they use location data (and a mandated third party investigation) should've been the first step. The only reason you raid is to try and take the data, which is NOT a good thing, no matter how google was using the data. When there was the Wifi debacle a few years ago, even the EFF said that it was a good thing Google refused to hand the collected data over to German authorities, because there would've been no investigation on how the government used that information.
It's location data within the Admob network, not connected to android (or android's location policies) in any way. Your iphone has ad mob served ads. that's what I meant when I said it's not about the location controversy.
And I'm not denying what you listed when it comes to privacy law. What I'm saying that since the campus was RAIDED, this was politically motivated more than anything.
A court order for Google to disclose how they use location data (and a mandated third party investigation) should've been the first step. The only reason you raid is to try and take the data, which is NOT a good thing, no matter how google was using the data. When there was the Wifi debacle a few years ago, even the EFF said that it was a good thing Google refused to hand the collected data over to German authorities, because there would've been no investigation on how the government used that information.
Copy that. Of course there's a political motivation and it's also obvious that non US governments are not pleased if a foreign company "knows more" about their citizens than themselves.
And while they only can assume what this data is about, they want clarification and they have national laws that would make it possible to enforce it.
The reason why Germany gave in was pressure from US authorities (China didn't) which on the other hand demanded european banking data for their TFTP (SWIFT agreement).
The european countries also have no investigation how the US government uses this data and has to trust that it's solely used for the fight against terror.
Like I wrote the privacy laws aren't enforced in some cases, but mostly because of the fear of a diplomatic crisis. That's the reason why the privacy laws have paragraphs as foundation for some "bilateral agreements" at a political level.
I also agree that threatening gestures seem to be an effective tool to enforce advantageous terms on this agreements.
Where I do not agree is that it isn't just an AdMob problem because AdMob is now part of Google and in terms of data aggregation this fact changes a lot.
And there's some evidence that they breach korean privacy law, otherwise there would be no legal foundation for the raid.
With it's business model Google sits on a hot chair and is dependent on political support because they operate constantly in a gray area.
This might also be the reason why the Apple location-gate made such huge strides in the press while this issue is just a side note. Things are just discussed at another level.
Although this thread seems to be dead already I'd like to add some remarks related to the hearing with Senator Al Franken.
Apple sends a VP with engineering and scientific skills endued with decision-making power while Google sends a lobbyist.
While Mr. Tribble seems to be send with the target of cooperation and improvement Mr. Davidson is there to defend the current status quo and practice political influence.
Comments
Agreed: Apple Insider reports that Apple's attempt to emulate Google's advertising revenue is a fail:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...ng_report.html
iAd, although they haven't called it such, has all the marks of one of Apple's "hobbies," like the AppleTV. Also like the AppleTV, I wouldn't count iAd out just yet. Apple has a history of starting out modestly, focusing on what they do best on core features. For Apple that would be design and ease of use. In this case, ease of use for the consumer if not the advertiser. As has been said earlier, Apple isn't dependent on ad revenue for success. They can afford to keep this going and evolving. It will be interesting to see what happens.
They did. You can turn it off, or you can allow 7 days of data to be collected.
It'll be interesting to see if Google handles this as well as Apple did.
You can toggle location on and off on Google phones already (and to my knowledge it works, as it's not all over the press that it doesn't)
It also already only stores a limited number of cell sites or wifi towers. If you ever opt out of location tracking, it deletes the database on the phone as well. The file is also located behind root access, so you have to disable your phones security to even get at it.
To quote John Gruber: They did it right.
And mbarriault: Google already responded to the whole issue on location. They did before Apple did. The reason it didn't get as much press coverage is because Google's been pretty up front with their tracking policy.
Also, notice the police raided because Google apparently didn't get approval from the Government. They didn't raid because of User outcry.
The issue of location tracking is something that most people are ignorant on, and companies (including Apple and Google) have done a poor job at explaining it thus far. But this kinda invasion is most likely one motivated by Politics more than anything else.
As long as they don't shoot the office manager in the head and dump his body in the sea, I guess it's all right.
OMG Robin.
JK
I've switched my search services to Bing on all my computers.
When Microsoft starts looking like the good guys, you know it's bad.
Reporting location is important to provide reliable GPS related services. Apple seems to be using it mostly for that. It also seems to be collecting information to improve future location related products. I, however, don't trust Google. Google makes all of its money from selling ads. There is no reason to pull location several times a second to improve location services such as GPS (which is why Apple pulls the information). you'd be a fool to think Google wasn't pulling this information to improve advertising services, which is the whole reason it invests in Android.
It is the same with Chrome. Chrome sends info back to Google hourly, whereas Safari calls home maybe once a week to check for updates (and this can be shut off in Safari). It isn't hard to reasonably conclude Google's selling your information while Apple is not.
Apple's mistake was merely caching the information for an unreasonable amount of time. Considering it isn't tracking user location, but merely wifi and cell tower locations, I don't see who'd care about the cache. It doesn't matter that Google dumps the cache quicker than Apple because Google stills gets the information with a unique identifier.
If somebody takes your phone and can decypher the information (unlikely), all they are going to figure out is what wifi and cell phone towers are by where you have been. People really should care about the value of the information collected by the companies and how they treat the information.
You can toggle location on and off on Google phones already (and to my knowledge it works, as it's not all over the press that it doesn't)
It also already only stores a limited number of cell sites or wifi towers. If you ever opt out of location tracking, it deletes the database on the phone as well. The file is also located behind root access, so you have to disable your phones security to even get at it.
To quote John Gruber: They did it right.
And mbarriault: Google already responded to the whole issue on location. They did before Apple did. The reason it didn't get as much press coverage is because Google's been pretty up front with their tracking policy.
Also, notice the police raided because Google apparently didn't get approval from the Government. They didn't raid because of User outcry.
The issue of location tracking is something that most people are ignorant on, and companies (including Apple and Google) have done a poor job at explaining it thus far. But this kinda invasion is most likely one motivated by Politics more than anything else.
QUOTE=Robin Huber;1858281]iAd, although they haven't called it such, has all the marks of one of Apple's "hobbies," like the AppleTV. Also like the AppleTV, I wouldn't count iAd out just yet. Apple has a history of starting out modestly, focusing on what they do best on core features. For Apple that would be design and ease of use. In this case, ease of use for the consumer if not the advertiser. As has been said earlier, Apple isn't dependent on ad revenue for success. They can afford to keep this going and evolving. It will be interesting to see what happens.[/QUOTE]
Well, oddly enough, considering your claims, Google was sued right after Apple for failure to disclose location tracking. After reading the lawsuit, some differences between Google and Apple is that Android is pulling location from phones every few seconds. Apple does it every twelve hours. Google assigns a unique identifier to the information, so theoretically the information can be tracked to a user. Apple does not assign any identifier to the information. Google sends the information unencrypted. Apple encrypts the information. By comparison, if anybody did it right, it was Apple.
Reporting location is important to provide reliable GPS related services. Apple seems to be using it mostly for that. It also seems to be collecting information to improve future location related products. I, however, don't trust Google. Google makes all of its money from selling ads. There is no reason to pull location several times a second to improve location services such as GPS (which is why Apple pulls the information). you'd be a fool to think Google wasn't pulling this information to improve advertising services, which is the whole reason it invests in Android.
It is the same with Chrome. Chrome sends info back to Google hourly, whereas Safari calls home maybe once a week to check for updates (and this can be shut off in Safari). It isn't hard to reasonably conclude Google's selling your information while Apple is not.
Apple's mistake was merely caching the information for an unreasonable amount of time. Considering it isn't tracking user location, but merely wifi and cell tower locations, I don't see who'd care about the cache. It doesn't matter that Google dumps the cache quicker than Apple because Google stills gets the information with a unique identifier.
If somebody takes your phone and can decypher the information (unlikely), all they are going to figure out is what wifi and cell phone towers are by where you have been. People really should care about the value of the information collected by the companies and how they treat the information.
Thanks for the good recap.
And can you please give me an article that states that Google's data is unencrypted while Apple's is locked down? I've seen nothing that says that. In fact, they're one of the bigger forces behind trying to get more websites to adopt https encryption as a default.
Google's map application provides real time traffic updates. you need GPS more often than ever 12 hours to get that kind of data. If Apple plans on making their map application or their own prepaid services, you can bet they would need to send back location information more than every 12 hours. Google's on device location cache is also significantly smaller than Apple's, meaning no matter what their report back times would have to be more frequent.
But it doesn't matter what I say because at the end of the day you distrust the company no matter what actions they take. It doesn't matter how clear they make their privacy policy, or the fact that they provide easy ways for you to use ALL their services and still opt out of tracking, you just distrust them for some nebulous reason that you can't name.
Several of the actions you're implying fly directly against their own privacy policy. Sure, you can argue that they ignore it, but then why do you trust what apple tells you? Yes, google is an advertising company. They're VERY open about this and make no claims otherwise. their services are largely opt-in and the few that aren't have EASY methods to opt out.
Well, oddly enough, considering your claims, Google was sued right after Apple for failure to disclose location tracking. After reading the lawsuit, some differences between Google and Apple is that Android is pulling location from phones every few seconds. Apple does it every twelve hours. Google assigns a unique identifier to the information, so theoretically the information can be tracked to a user. Apple does not assign any identifier to the information. Google sends the information unencrypted. Apple encrypts the information. By comparison, if anybody did it right, it was Apple.
Reporting location is important to provide reliable GPS related services. Apple seems to be using it mostly for that. It also seems to be collecting information to improve future location related products. I, however, don't trust Google. Google makes all of its money from selling ads. There is no reason to pull location several times a second to improve location services such as GPS (which is why Apple pulls the information). you'd be a fool to think Google wasn't pulling this information to improve advertising services, which is the whole reason it invests in Android.
It is the same with Chrome. Chrome sends info back to Google hourly, whereas Safari calls home maybe once a week to check for updates (and this can be shut off in Safari). It isn't hard to reasonably conclude Google's selling your information while Apple is not.
Apple's mistake was merely caching the information for an unreasonable amount of time. Considering it isn't tracking user location, but merely wifi and cell tower locations, I don't see who'd care about the cache. It doesn't matter that Google dumps the cache quicker than Apple because Google stills gets the information with a unique identifier.
If somebody takes your phone and can decypher the information (unlikely), all they are going to figure out is what wifi and cell phone towers are by where you have been. People really should care about the value of the information collected by the companies and how they treat the information.
The data is assigned a unique identifier that is not tied to your phone in any way. This means that someone couldn't trace your location back to you if they had your data. They would need to infect your phone AND google's servers to do so. This number is linked to your data but the number is not connected to you, your email address, your phone, or anything else. It's a NEEDED part of data collection if they're to get any meaningful information out of it while still protecting your anonymity. they also require you to opt in to sharing ANY of that personal data with advertisers (beyond you opting in to have them track it)
From http://www.admob.com/home/privacy:
"AdMob will automatically collect and receive information about those visitors such as, but not limited to, browser identifiers, session information, browser cookies, device type, carrier provider, IP addresses, unique device ID, carrier user ID, geo-location information, sites visited and clicks on advertisements we display."
If I'm not wrong this means that Google can create a complete profile of the user (linking internally the device ID with e.g. an gmail-account) and track the location data.
Even if it would be impossible for third parties to read along by encryption the fact that the data is aggregated on Google's servers seem to be reason enough for korean authorities to step in.
The investigation is about clarifying if the data is connected to your phone, email address or anything else like the AdMob privacy rules might suspect and if it's illegitimately shared with additional 3rd parties.
This would conflict with korean law (and the law of a lot of other countries).
If Google can prove that they don't collect and aggregate the data in an improper way and sell them, then this is a non issue.
From http://www.admob.com/home/privacy:
"AdMob will automatically collect and receive information about those visitors such as, but not limited to, browser identifiers, session information, browser cookies, device type, carrier provider, IP addresses, unique device ID, carrier user ID, geo-location information, sites visited and clicks on advertisements we display."
If I'm not wrong this means that Google can create a complete profile of the user (linking internally the device ID with e.g. an gmail-account) and track the location data.
Even if it would be impossible for third parties to read along by encryption the fact that the data is aggregated on Google's servers seem to be reason enough for korean authorities to step in.
The investigation is about clarifying if the data is connected to your phone, email address or anything else like the AdMob privacy rules might suspect and if it's illegitimately shared with additional 3rd parties.
This would conflict with korean law (and the law of a lot of other countries).
If Google can prove that they don't collect and aggregate the data in an improper way and sell them, then this is a non issue.
The device location information is Not linked to a cellphone number or email at all. So Google couldn't just "link" it to the other data. But that's not what this thing is about.
This investigation isn't even about the location data, it's about specifically admob data, that Google apparently didn't grease the right palms to collect it. Location specific information is vital for mobile ads (which is why Apple has the clause in their user agreement informing customers about it) because it makes targeted ads possible. So for example, a dunkin donuts ad would appear more often if you were near one.
If this was just an investigation looking to "clarify" the position, there wouldn't be a police raid.
I have quickly lost respect for google in terms of their wanon disregard for the privacy of not only their customers but the public in general. As an example, it is currently impossible to cancel a google voice number once it has been established. It may be "disabled" but not canceled. A subscriber is forever linked to google this way as it is required that you provide your real number when signing up for the service. This may not seem like a big deal but I promise you that it is and a clear violation of personal rights. This article simply provides mounting evidence that google has no intentions of changing the path which they have begun.
Quickly?? What took you so long!! (jk) I have tried to boycott anything Google for years. I don't use any of their programs. Google = EVIL
The device location information is Not linked to a cellphone number or email at all. So Google couldn't just "link" it to the other data. But that's not what this thing is about.
This investigation isn't even about the location data, it's about specifically admob data, that Google apparently didn't grease the right palms to collect it. Location specific information is vital for mobile ads (which is why Apple has the clause in their user agreement informing customers about it) because it makes targeted ads possible. So for example, a dunkin donuts ad would appear more often if you were near one.
If this was just an investigation looking to "clarify" the position, there wouldn't be a police raid.
Sorry, but the sources I have it's mainly about collecting location data without the necessary agreement, but I will double check this.
I recently had a workshop on privacy law in my country (not korea). As a short summery I kept the following (engineer not lawyer speech):
1. If you careless collect private data (location is only a subset) and you do not obtain approval you get punishment - in this case financial penalty.
2. If you aggregate or combine private data in an "improper" way you get punishment - in this case financial penalty.
3. If you aggregate or combine private data in an "improper way" and share or sell it with 3rd party you get punishment - in this case financial penalty and or jail.
I also learned that the laws are not fundamental different in the countries I have to care about. What's different is the definition of what I called the "improper way".
So you should check the specifics for every country before you collect the data.
And these rules are for "normal" persons. Every privacy law I had a look at has additional paragraphs for administration officials, politicians, security forces etc. which have to be covered by an additional approval or contract.
I got the advice that those laws and rules aren't strictly enforced yet in every country, but I should do my homework and prepare myself. I highly doubt that that's a wrong strategy.
Sorry, but the sources I have it's mainly about collecting location data without the necessary agreement, but I will double check this.
I recently had a workshop on privacy law in my country (not korea). As a short summery I kept the following (engineer not lawyer speech):
1. If you careless collect private data (location is only a subset) and you do not obtain approval you get punishment - in this case financial penalty.
2. If you aggregate or combine private data in an "improper" way you get punishment - in this case financial penalty.
3. If you aggregate or combine private data in an "improper way" and share or sell it with 3rd party you get punishment - in this case financial penalty and or jail.
I also learned that the laws are not fundamental different in the countries I have to care about. What's different is the definition of what I called the "improper way".
So you should check the specifics for every country before you collect the data.
And these rules are for "normal" persons. Every privacy law I had a look at has additional paragraphs for administration officials, politicians, security forces etc. which have to be covered by an additional approval or contract.
I got the advice that those laws and rules aren't strictly enforced yet in every country, but I should do my homework and prepare myself. I highly doubt that that's a wrong strategy.
It's location data within the Admob network, not connected to android (or android's location policies) in any way. Your iphone has ad mob served ads. that's what I meant when I said it's not about the location controversy.
And I'm not denying what you listed when it comes to privacy law. What I'm saying that since the campus was RAIDED, this was politically motivated more than anything.
A court order for Google to disclose how they use location data (and a mandated third party investigation) should've been the first step. The only reason you raid is to try and take the data, which is NOT a good thing, no matter how google was using the data. When there was the Wifi debacle a few years ago, even the EFF said that it was a good thing Google refused to hand the collected data over to German authorities, because there would've been no investigation on how the government used that information.
It's location data within the Admob network, not connected to android (or android's location policies) in any way. Your iphone has ad mob served ads. that's what I meant when I said it's not about the location controversy.
And I'm not denying what you listed when it comes to privacy law. What I'm saying that since the campus was RAIDED, this was politically motivated more than anything.
A court order for Google to disclose how they use location data (and a mandated third party investigation) should've been the first step. The only reason you raid is to try and take the data, which is NOT a good thing, no matter how google was using the data. When there was the Wifi debacle a few years ago, even the EFF said that it was a good thing Google refused to hand the collected data over to German authorities, because there would've been no investigation on how the government used that information.
Copy that. Of course there's a political motivation and it's also obvious that non US governments are not pleased if a foreign company "knows more" about their citizens than themselves.
And while they only can assume what this data is about, they want clarification and they have national laws that would make it possible to enforce it.
The reason why Germany gave in was pressure from US authorities (China didn't) which on the other hand demanded european banking data for their TFTP (SWIFT agreement).
The european countries also have no investigation how the US government uses this data and has to trust that it's solely used for the fight against terror.
Like I wrote the privacy laws aren't enforced in some cases, but mostly because of the fear of a diplomatic crisis. That's the reason why the privacy laws have paragraphs as foundation for some "bilateral agreements" at a political level.
I also agree that threatening gestures seem to be an effective tool to enforce advantageous terms on this agreements.
Where I do not agree is that it isn't just an AdMob problem because AdMob is now part of Google and in terms of data aggregation this fact changes a lot.
And there's some evidence that they breach korean privacy law, otherwise there would be no legal foundation for the raid.
With it's business model Google sits on a hot chair and is dependent on political support because they operate constantly in a gray area.
This might also be the reason why the Apple location-gate made such huge strides in the press while this issue is just a side note. Things are just discussed at another level.
Apple sends a VP with engineering and scientific skills endued with decision-making power while Google sends a lobbyist.
While Mr. Tribble seems to be send with the target of cooperation and improvement Mr. Davidson is there to defend the current status quo and practice political influence.