[parvenu74]

But Facebook, Google, Microsoft, et al are still free to sell phone location data acquired through apps (or Android itself in the case of Google), right? I wonder if there is any hope of laws to limit the ability of companies to sell this data...

[londons_explore]

It's time to differentiate selling "Bob is in Location X" from "Show this ad to all people at location X".

The first case is a far far bigger privacy concern to me, and seems to be what mobile networks were doing. Facebook, Google, and Microsoft are doing the latter.

[underpand]

Yes, there are a lot of malicious actors that actually sell data (apps, browser extensions, phone carriers, potentially ISPs, finance companies, etc.). Many of these actors even sell un-anonymized data. The big tech companies are very low on the totem pole of badness and will continue to stay that way for a long time because the incentives don't align for them to actually sell data.

[lonelappde]

If you click on the ad or run its JavaScript, it has your device info matching the ad geofence

[caconym_]

+1. I care way more about the existence of an api that tells anyone with money exactly where I am (and where I've been) than I do about one that anonymously attributes (in aggregate) my ad interaction stats to some place I was at or interested in.

[salawat]

No, it isn't. Both are essentially workable to do the same bloody thing, and just mean the same outcome can be achieved with the minor inconvenience of an additional layer of indirection.

Geolocation information shouldn't be considered a desirable dataasset to hold onto as a monetizable asset at all at the level of granularity that enables individual resolution.

[deadmutex]

IIRC, Google doesn't sell your personal location data: https://safety.google/privacy/ads-and-data/

Disclaimer: I work at Google.

[dehrmann]

But they buy your credit card transaction data. It takes two to tango, so while I blame Visa et al., Google buying it is just as bad as selling it.

Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-30/google-an...

[dredmorbius]

That may be true.

But Google created the entire damned infrastructure and environment which makes precisely that effect possible, no matter how thinly you slice the hairs on what it is you call the practice.

[dodobirdlord]

Sorta an odd take in a thread about telecom companies selling data gathered by the telecom networks that they built.

[dredmorbius]

Do you remember when telephones didn't come with embedded GPS, browser webbugs, G+ NSTIC profiles (https://old.reddit.com/r/plexodus/comments/aa6pmi/a_manhatta..., https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-plus-history-deat...), and OS-level UUIDs?

Pepperidge Farm remembers.

[JohnFen]

This is true, although it's engaging in a bit of hair-splitting.

[thedance]

It's not. The extent to which old-line businesses like telcos and banks will literally sell your data is way beyond anything Google has ever contemplated. I can call a credit card data clearinghouse and order all of the transactions of every age 30-35 male in Akron, Ohio in December 2019 and they'll put that in a spreadsheet and send it to me. It really is important to distinguish between "selling your data" and what Google does in the course of business, because if you are unable to make that distinction then you aren't aware of the terrifying scale and specificity of the data provided by other industries.

[JohnFen]

In my opinion, what Google does is better than just selling raw data. But not that much better -- Google still has the raw data, after all, and other entities get most of the benefits of access to that data.

That's why I consider it splitting hairs.

> if you are unable to make that distinction then you aren't aware of the terrifying scale and specificity of the data provided by other industries.

I am aware of the difference, and you're right, it's terrifying. But it's no less terrifying that Google can still do this.

[ta999999171]

I'm more worried when I CAN'T buy that data - because then I have no idea what they're holding onto (for private deals, either with corps, defense contractors, .gov, etc).

[mankyd]

You don't have to buy it. It's free: https://takeout.google.com/settings/takeout

[ta999999171]

Surely they wouldn't collect, or create data based on, things that aren't here!

/s

[_underfl0w_]

Transferring data between departments costs approximately $0.

[kevin_thibedeau]

Do they refuse warrantless requests?

[lonelappde]

https://support.google.com/transparencyreport/answer/7381738...

[prepend]

Telcos are regulated carriers, facegoog are not. Maybe one day they will be.

[ta999999171]

Their actions can be regulated.

They don't exist in international waters.

[veeralpatel979]

These companies don't sell your data and it's not in their interest to do so.

Data is the cash cow that lets them sell ads. Why would they give away the cash cow and cut themselves, the middlemen, out of the picture?