Apple filed for a PATENT in 2009 for this technology about location tracking. It is not a bug. They need to come out and admit that they made a mistake.
I am not against location tracking. I have nothing to hide. It may one day save a man from wrong conviction and death sentence. It could also help catch a criminal. It could help locate a missing person. It could help locate a person in case of an accident. There are many good ways this technology is good. But there are people who do not want to be tracked.
SOLUTIONS? Apple should just create an on/off utility in the Settings, for people to choose whether they want to be tracked or not.
Apple filed for a PATENT in 2009 for this technology about location tracking. It is not a bug. They need to come out and admit that they made a mistake.
I am not against location tracking. I have nothing to hide. It may one day save a man from wrong conviction and death sentence. It could also help catch a criminal. It could help locate a missing person. It could help locate a person in case of an accident. There are many good ways this technology is good. But there are people who do not want to be tracked.
SOLUTIONS? Apple should just create an on/off utility in the Settings, for people to choose whether they want to be tracked or not.
Once again, Apple applied for the Patent in 2009.
Do you happen to have a link for that? I'm curious what it entails.
In general though, what would Apple be lying about, even if they had patented exactly what the iPhone has been doing? They aren't denying that location data is being collected, they're saying that it's anonymized and used to build a data base of WiFi and cell tower locations. They admit that they've overshot the necessary timeframe, does the patent in question specifically mention that?
OTOH if you're talking about opt-in location aware services, that's another matter that isn't really related to what's been going on lately.
Do you happen to have a link for that? I'm curious what it entails.
In general though, what would Apple be lying about, even if they had patented exactly what the iPhone has been doing? They aren't denying that location data is being collected, they're saying that it's anonymized and used to build a data base of WiFi and cell tower locations. They admit that they've overshot the necessary timeframe, does the patent in question specifically mention that?
OTOH if you're talking about opt-in location aware services, that's another matter that isn't really related to what's been going on lately.
The problem with the article is that is assumes the patent, which shows an image of a iPhone with lines and location history that looks similar to the AppTracker?s demo, is that consolidated.db is not your location.
The iPhone is not logging your location. Rather, it?s maintaining a database of Wi-Fi hotspots and cell towers around your current location, some of which may be located more than one hundred miles away from your iPhone, to help your iPhone rapidly and accurately calculate its location when requested.
Of course OC4Theo can say they lying about this but there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that shows this to be the case.
...Apple should just create an on/off utility in the Settings, for people to choose whether they want to be tracked or not...
I suspect, some (most?) people don't want to be tracked SOME OF THE TIME, but they don't really care the remainder of the time.
In case they temporarily disable the feature, will there be a record of the gap in time when they didn't wish to be tracked? If so, that could be highly sensitive information, because that would pinpoint exactly when they are up to something fishy.
Then you must really hate Google. The Chrome Browser, without my consent, would call home every ten minutes. It is the only browser that does it (according to Little Snitch on my Mac). Google mines information without anybodies permission, like the whole recording people's wifi traffic controversy.
If only everyone used Little Snitch, people would be so much more aware of how much crap various vendors are doing behind their backs. I hope you simply clicked "Forever" and "Deny". And then I hope you quickly did the same with with www. google-analytics.com, ssl.google-analytics.com and anything that has "doubleclick.net" in it!
Little Snitch is a huge comfort when cruising the net, and makes the contrast of having almost zero control over what's being sent out of your iOS devices all the more obvious and distressing. I'd give a nut for Little Snitch on iOS, but I can't imagine Apple will allow that functionality any time in the near future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
When you subscribe to a magazine, without your permission, your name, address, and phone number are sold to third parties.
Been there, done that. And that's why I'll never subscribe to another hard-copy magazine again. The fact that Apple protects the privacy of their users who subscribe to iPad subscriptions is wonderful, and I hope they never, ever back down on that with the publishers.
I suspect, some (most?) people don't want to be tracked SOME OF THE TIME, but they don't really care the remainder of the time.
Would anyone ever actually want to be tracked by a 3rd party? i.e. not your friends, but a company gathering "anonymous" data. When you use an app that you selected and purchased for a specific purpose, like recording your position on a hike, that's far different from being tracked at all times, or random times, by an invisible background app.
Also, remember, being tracked is NOT the same as being located. I think most people would generally like to be locatable for the purposes of E-911. That's not the same as having your movements recorded and archived over time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanFruniken
In case they temporarily disable the feature, will there be a record of the gap in time when they didn't wish to be tracked? If so, that could be highly sensitive information, because that would pinpoint exactly when they are up to something fishy.
Very good point. With that in mind, if you DON'T want to be tracked occasionally, but don't really care the rest of the time, then in order to avoid this scenario you just need to turn off location services entirely!
Would anyone ever actually want to be tracked by a 3rd party? i.e. not your friends, but a company gathering "anonymous" data. When you use an app that you selected and purchased for a specific purpose, like recording your position on a hike, that's far different from being tracked at all times, or random times, by an invisible background app.
Also, remember, being tracked is NOT the same as being located. I think most people would generally like to be locatable for the purposes of E-911. That's not the same as having your movements recorded and archived over time...
I do believe part of the confusion is in the use of words. And many people seem to have in mind different definitions of "tracking". Especially some anal-ists, and the reporting press, may not fully understand some distinctions.
If we mean by tracking:
- being followed in real time by someone else, that's a serious thing, unless you want to be "locatable" (as on a hike or ski trip)
- logging, this may even be more serious, because of the permanent record, and individual events aren't missable like with real time tracking. However, many of us may not care that it is known well afterwards where we have been, as long as it wasn't in real time
How harmful the tracking is may depend on who is able to do the tracking (the spouse, the gov't, credit rating companies, private eyes, ..., some hacker,...)
Then there is the issue whether the individual is identifyable or not. Maintaining "crowd" data is less serious than keeping mobile devices separate in the records.
Time stamps can occur in the form of an expiration date or as a precise record allowing the reconstruction of actual timed trajectory of the mobile device.
There is also the issue of accessiblity
- on your phone vs. on a server that holds no secrets for gov. agencies or commercial entities (think Google)
- encrypted vs. unencrypted (decryptable by whom?)
We should remember that a lot of hardware is aware of sensitive information, which may be necessary for its mere operation. Should the data collection itself be heavily regulated or is the protection against (the possibility of) disclosure the main issue here? In any case no more info should be kept (and authorized) than absolutely necessary.
I'd rather trust Apple than Google or the Government. In any case the fewer instances that have control over your data, the better. And it is important that they are sufficiently knowledgeable about the security issues to protect your sensitive data. (Similarly, individual merchants are never to be trusted with your credit card data because they miss the resources and knowhow to avoid nuclear meltdowns ... -- er, accidental, unpredicted,..., disclosure of your data).
I don't think you understand the situation clearly.
Apple isn't going to be let off the hook with a quick 'oops it's a bug' crap. They lied. Now they are playing a losing hand with this PR bullshit that nobody believes.
This isn't going away. It's only getting started.
"Nobody" believes? Have you spoken to everybody about this?
It's ok to have an opinion, but delusional if you think everyone shares it.
If anyone here has tested any of the recent Garmin GPS units outdoors with great line of sight on a completely clear day, you'll know that the iPhone is nothing short of phenomenal when it comes to GPS location acquisition. Phenomenal. The iPhone will often resolve in under 10 seconds, and there are plenty of times that the newest Garmin units will take 3-4 minutes or longer to get a fix.
Apple has made it clear that they are transmitting, using, sharing, and storing your location data in the freaking terms of service you agreed to. You don't like it? Then, like the plague, avoid the OTHER TOS you've been accepting through the years from other companies, because you'll be even more ticked off when you find out what THOSE companies are revealing in the fine print.
Apple is sending the information anonymously, using it to improve services and innovate products, and they're doing it in a way that is legal, ethical, straightforward, and valuable to everyone using the service or product. Seriously, the only people still whining about this are probably those that were so quick to call Apple nasty names and threaten legal action over something they knew NOTHING about. Get over it, whiners. If you think you're safer on ANY cellphone, or ANY other smartphone, then I dare you to switch.
But in my opinion, trusting the likes of Google with your sensitive personal information in order to avoid Apple's "Big-Brother" scariness sounds about as wise to me as jumping out of a speeding jeep in the Serengeti to outrun a pride of hungry lionesses on foot.
While you're bleeding.
With a T-Bone tied around your neck.
You think that's scary...just wait until they catch you.
Ya! Gmail scans your emails so they can focus their ads.... Who knows what else. Sure google disclosed, but very few understand what exactly their legal mumbo jumbo means. Somehow this has not been a problem for the privacy kooks!
Then you must really hate Google. The Chrome Browser, without my consent, would call home every ten minutes. It is the only browser that does it (according to Little Snitch on my Mac). Google mines information without anybodies permission, like the whole recording people's wifi traffic controversy.
Lots of companies keep records without telling people. Take for instance, CarFax reports. Whenever your car gets services or in a major accident, it is typed in some data base. Companies like Car Fax utilize those data bases.
When you subscribe to a magazine, without your permission, your name, address, and phone number are sold to third parties.
I actually love Apple. I own their stock and even sell nake PUTs on AAPL. I'm just saying this isn't crowdsourcing. Do the magazines call what they do "crowdsourcing?" By SJ's definition, it is!
Comments
I am not against location tracking. I have nothing to hide. It may one day save a man from wrong conviction and death sentence. It could also help catch a criminal. It could help locate a missing person. It could help locate a person in case of an accident. There are many good ways this technology is good. But there are people who do not want to be tracked.
SOLUTIONS? Apple should just create an on/off utility in the Settings, for people to choose whether they want to be tracked or not.
Once again, Apple applied for the Patent in 2009.
Apple filed for a PATENT in 2009 for this technology about location tracking. It is not a bug. They need to come out and admit that they made a mistake.
I am not against location tracking. I have nothing to hide. It may one day save a man from wrong conviction and death sentence. It could also help catch a criminal. It could help locate a missing person. It could help locate a person in case of an accident. There are many good ways this technology is good. But there are people who do not want to be tracked.
SOLUTIONS? Apple should just create an on/off utility in the Settings, for people to choose whether they want to be tracked or not.
Once again, Apple applied for the Patent in 2009.
Do you happen to have a link for that? I'm curious what it entails.
In general though, what would Apple be lying about, even if they had patented exactly what the iPhone has been doing? They aren't denying that location data is being collected, they're saying that it's anonymized and used to build a data base of WiFi and cell tower locations. They admit that they've overshot the necessary timeframe, does the patent in question specifically mention that?
OTOH if you're talking about opt-in location aware services, that's another matter that isn't really related to what's been going on lately.
Do you happen to have a link for that? I'm curious what it entails.
In general though, what would Apple be lying about, even if they had patented exactly what the iPhone has been doing? They aren't denying that location data is being collected, they're saying that it's anonymized and used to build a data base of WiFi and cell tower locations. They admit that they've overshot the necessary timeframe, does the patent in question specifically mention that?
OTOH if you're talking about opt-in location aware services, that's another matter that isn't really related to what's been going on lately.
He probably read this article.The problem with the article is that is assumes the patent, which shows an image of a iPhone with lines and location history that looks similar to the AppTracker?s demo, is that consolidated.db is not your location.Of course OC4Theo can say they lying about this but there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that shows this to be the case.
...Apple should just create an on/off utility in the Settings, for people to choose whether they want to be tracked or not...
I suspect, some (most?) people don't want to be tracked SOME OF THE TIME, but they don't really care the remainder of the time
In case they temporarily disable the feature, will there be a record of the gap in time when they didn't wish to be tracked? If so, that could be highly sensitive information, because that would pinpoint exactly when they are up to something fishy.
Then you must really hate Google. The Chrome Browser, without my consent, would call home every ten minutes. It is the only browser that does it (according to Little Snitch on my Mac). Google mines information without anybodies permission, like the whole recording people's wifi traffic controversy.
If only everyone used Little Snitch, people would be so much more aware of how much crap various vendors are doing behind their backs. I hope you simply clicked "Forever" and "Deny". And then I hope you quickly did the same with with www. google-analytics.com, ssl.google-analytics.com and anything that has "doubleclick.net" in it!
Little Snitch is a huge comfort when cruising the net, and makes the contrast of having almost zero control over what's being sent out of your iOS devices all the more obvious and distressing. I'd give a nut for Little Snitch on iOS, but I can't imagine Apple will allow that functionality any time in the near future.
When you subscribe to a magazine, without your permission, your name, address, and phone number are sold to third parties.
Been there, done that. And that's why I'll never subscribe to another hard-copy magazine again. The fact that Apple protects the privacy of their users who subscribe to iPad subscriptions is wonderful, and I hope they never, ever back down on that with the publishers.
I suspect, some (most?) people don't want to be tracked SOME OF THE TIME, but they don't really care the remainder of the time
Would anyone ever actually want to be tracked by a 3rd party? i.e. not your friends, but a company gathering "anonymous" data. When you use an app that you selected and purchased for a specific purpose, like recording your position on a hike, that's far different from being tracked at all times, or random times, by an invisible background app.
Also, remember, being tracked is NOT the same as being located. I think most people would generally like to be locatable for the purposes of E-911. That's not the same as having your movements recorded and archived over time.
In case they temporarily disable the feature, will there be a record of the gap in time when they didn't wish to be tracked? If so, that could be highly sensitive information, because that would pinpoint exactly when they are up to something fishy.
Very good point. With that in mind, if you DON'T want to be tracked occasionally, but don't really care the rest of the time, then in order to avoid this scenario you just need to turn off location services entirely!
Would anyone ever actually want to be tracked by a 3rd party? i.e. not your friends, but a company gathering "anonymous" data. When you use an app that you selected and purchased for a specific purpose, like recording your position on a hike, that's far different from being tracked at all times, or random times, by an invisible background app.
Also, remember, being tracked is NOT the same as being located. I think most people would generally like to be locatable for the purposes of E-911. That's not the same as having your movements recorded and archived over time...
I do believe part of the confusion is in the use of words. And many people seem to have in mind different definitions of "tracking". Especially some anal-ists, and the reporting press, may not fully understand some distinctions.
If we mean by tracking:
- being followed in real time by someone else, that's a serious thing, unless you want to be "locatable" (as on a hike or ski trip)
- logging, this may even be more serious, because of the permanent record, and individual events aren't missable like with real time tracking. However, many of us may not care that it is known well afterwards where we have been, as long as it wasn't in real time
How harmful the tracking is may depend on who is able to do the tracking (the spouse, the gov't, credit rating companies, private eyes, ..., some hacker,...)
Then there is the issue whether the individual is identifyable or not. Maintaining "crowd" data is less serious than keeping mobile devices separate in the records.
Time stamps can occur in the form of an expiration date or as a precise record allowing the reconstruction of actual timed trajectory of the mobile device.
There is also the issue of accessiblity
- on your phone vs. on a server that holds no secrets for gov. agencies or commercial entities (think Google)
- encrypted vs. unencrypted (decryptable by whom?)
We should remember that a lot of hardware is aware of sensitive information, which may be necessary for its mere operation. Should the data collection itself be heavily regulated or is the protection against (the possibility of) disclosure the main issue here? In any case no more info should be kept (and authorized) than absolutely necessary.
I'd rather trust Apple than Google or the Government. In any case the fewer instances that have control over your data, the better. And it is important that they are sufficiently knowledgeable about the security issues to protect your sensitive data. (Similarly, individual merchants are never to be trusted with your credit card data because they miss the resources and knowhow to avoid nuclear meltdowns ... -- er, accidental, unpredicted,..., disclosure of your data).
I don't think you understand the situation clearly.
Apple isn't going to be let off the hook with a quick 'oops it's a bug' crap. They lied. Now they are playing a losing hand with this PR bullshit that nobody believes.
This isn't going away. It's only getting started.
"Nobody" believes? Have you spoken to everybody about this?
It's ok to have an opinion, but delusional if you think everyone shares it.
Mode, you're full of crap.
If anyone here has tested any of the recent Garmin GPS units outdoors with great line of sight on a completely clear day, you'll know that the iPhone is nothing short of phenomenal when it comes to GPS location acquisition. Phenomenal. The iPhone will often resolve in under 10 seconds, and there are plenty of times that the newest Garmin units will take 3-4 minutes or longer to get a fix.
Apple has made it clear that they are transmitting, using, sharing, and storing your location data in the freaking terms of service you agreed to. You don't like it? Then, like the plague, avoid the OTHER TOS you've been accepting through the years from other companies, because you'll be even more ticked off when you find out what THOSE companies are revealing in the fine print.
Apple is sending the information anonymously, using it to improve services and innovate products, and they're doing it in a way that is legal, ethical, straightforward, and valuable to everyone using the service or product. Seriously, the only people still whining about this are probably those that were so quick to call Apple nasty names and threaten legal action over something they knew NOTHING about. Get over it, whiners. If you think you're safer on ANY cellphone, or ANY other smartphone, then I dare you to switch.
But in my opinion, trusting the likes of Google with your sensitive personal information in order to avoid Apple's "Big-Brother" scariness sounds about as wise to me as jumping out of a speeding jeep in the Serengeti to outrun a pride of hungry lionesses on foot.
While you're bleeding.
With a T-Bone tied around your neck.
You think that's scary...just wait until they catch you.
Ya! Gmail scans your emails so they can focus their ads.... Who knows what else. Sure google disclosed, but very few understand what exactly their legal mumbo jumbo means. Somehow this has not been a problem for the privacy kooks!
Then you must really hate Google. The Chrome Browser, without my consent, would call home every ten minutes. It is the only browser that does it (according to Little Snitch on my Mac). Google mines information without anybodies permission, like the whole recording people's wifi traffic controversy.
Lots of companies keep records without telling people. Take for instance, CarFax reports. Whenever your car gets services or in a major accident, it is typed in some data base. Companies like Car Fax utilize those data bases.
When you subscribe to a magazine, without your permission, your name, address, and phone number are sold to third parties.
I actually love Apple. I own their stock and even sell nake PUTs on AAPL. I'm just saying this isn't crowdsourcing. Do the magazines call what they do "crowdsourcing?" By SJ's definition, it is!