[delroth]

> The change does have the effect of Google gaining more permissions (and subsequently more data)

There's a huge logic gap here. Obtaining more permissions doesn't at all imply obtaining more data when it's caused by an incidental change. Maybe the permissions aren't being used outside of the Maps context, or maybe it doesn't matter because the data was already be known.

[bogwog]

It’s true that we can’t really know whether Google is exploiting these expanded permissions to collect more data unless we have some insider information.

However, it’s generally very easy to predict what a company is going to do by observing their business model and incentive structure. In Google’s case, collecting as much data as possible is a major part of their business, so without more information, there’s no good reason to assume they won’t do it.

[luckylion]

> It’s true that we can’t really know whether Google is exploiting these expanded permissions to collect more data unless we have some insider information.

You could track usage and see what pages on google.com are accessing these APIs.

I doubt that it's a lot. Google already has fairly good geo-localization based on IP, GPS-level accuracy isn't necessary for ads. They could've already connected your data from maps.google.com to www.google.com, because both are using consent.google.com and you're getting a .google.com unique cookie.

This is mostly just outrage because people don't understand how things work.

[creatonez]

Google search asks for geolocation. So the permission absolutely is being used.