Shared publicly  - 

Hypocrisy in app location legislation

Yesterday I noted this article:  (New York Times)

about efforts to pass legislation to further controls apps' use
of mobile location data.

It's appropriate to point out here the fundamental hypocrisy of most
governments relating to this kind (and many other kinds) of
Internet-related data.

By and large, it is in Internet services' own best interests to be
quite conservative in their handling of such data.  The data is
usually anonymized (and compartmented to significant degrees), and a
range of rules are in place to minimize the risk of abuse either
internally or externally.

But at the same time that governments are calling for crackdowns on
this sort of data collection by commercial firms, who use it merely to
serve ads, these same governments -- including the U.S., in the EU,
and elsewhere -- are pushing for massive Internet location (and other
data, including email) data collection and retention for governments'
own largely unfettered use, often without any warrant requirements, and
frequently in secret.  They're pushing for laws to require telcos to
collect and maintain location data from mobile devices -- data that
users cannot control or disable so long as their devices are active
and associated with the mobile networks.

I consider these moves by government to be of vastly more concern than
commercial firms who want to serve me more relevant and interesting
ads to help keep free Internet services free.

A cynical observer might wonder if part of the push to impose restrictions
on commercial location data apps is a bit of a diversionary tactic to
draw attention from governments' own grandiose data demands.

-- Lauren --
Paul Sutton's profile photoLauren Weinstein's profile photoJames Hillhouse's profile photoDutch Fairuse's profile photo
In terms of getting at the data I'd agree, but in terms of being able to use it in formal proceedings I'd assert there's still a relevant difference.  For now, anyway.
Given the scale of data loss by various bureaucrats all across the EU, it wouldn't take long for any information collected, or at least a large subset, to end up in the wild, no hacking needed.
I don't fear my gov't nearly as much as I do companies using location information. Didn't Facebook just disregard voting as a means of affecting privacy policy? And Google has never offered its users a vote on its privacy rules. At least I can still reach-out to my congressional representatives.

And let's be clear about Sen. Franken. While I may disagree with him on policy quite often, I trust him more than I do Larry Page or Zuck. 
You're sadly misguided.  I will not attempt to dissuade you from your fallacies, except to suggest that you study some history, and see where the dangers to people's freedoms actually do come from.  You'll find the answer is always governments, from the beginning of recorded time.  Good luck.

A very wise choice on your part not try to debate this American History graduate of who one should trust more, gov't (of, for, and by the People) or multinational corporations (of, for, and by the CEO). Anyone with even a smattering of historical familiarity of Frick, Carnegie, and Rockefeller in the Gilded Age, never mind present-day Google or Facebook, would stand-up and roar, "Here, here!".
If you read the bill (PDF link in story) you would notice the interesting use of the term 'nongovernmental entity' and clever exceptions. Don't miss the part where grants are issued under the heading of violence against women. Basically the bill is a transport for his pet studies. The top part of the bill is just a way to keep 'nongovernmental' location services out of the government's hair.

The bill is confusing; separate the civil and criminal parts into 2 bills -- put the violence on women study and grants in own bill.

I figure business knows a ton about everyone --- credit cards, ezpass. Business cannot kick my door down in the night and toss me in jail based on iffy data. 
Add a comment...