Google Demanded T-Mobile, Sprint To Not Sell Google Fi Customers' Location Data (vice.com) 58
An anonymous reader shares a report: On Thursday, AT&T announced it was stopping the sale of its customers' real-time location data to all third parties, in response to a Motherboard investigation showing how data from AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint trickled down through a complex network of companies until eventually landing the hands of bounty hunters and people unauthorized to handle it. To verify the existence of this trade, Motherboard paid $300 on the black market to successfully locate a phone.
Google, whose Google Fi program offers phone, text, and data services that use T-Mobile and Sprint network infrastructure in the United States, told Motherboard that it asked those companies to not share its customers' location data with third parties. "We have never sold Fi subscribers' location information," a Google spokesperson told Motherboard in a statement late on Thursday. "Google Fi is an MVNO (mobile virtual network operator) and not a carrier, but as soon as we heard about this practice, we required our network partners to shut it down as soon as possible." Google did not say when it made this a requirement.
Google, whose Google Fi program offers phone, text, and data services that use T-Mobile and Sprint network infrastructure in the United States, told Motherboard that it asked those companies to not share its customers' location data with third parties. "We have never sold Fi subscribers' location information," a Google spokesperson told Motherboard in a statement late on Thursday. "Google Fi is an MVNO (mobile virtual network operator) and not a carrier, but as soon as we heard about this practice, we required our network partners to shut it down as soon as possible." Google did not say when it made this a requirement.
Demanded they stop until Google gets (Score:2, Informative)
Their cut of the proceeds.
Re: (Score:3)
Or until they can rebuild their reputation.
Google is like Microsoft 20 years ago. It is popular, however its reputation is getting further tainted, mostly due to aggressive business decisions that negatively affect its customers.
This bad reputation is strongly the reason why Apple had such growth the past decade+. As demand for mobile devices increased, we no longer could make x86 compatible devices that were mobile. So the huge MS Software library would be unavailable. So people switch to Apple Devices
Re: (Score:1)
Google is like Microsoft 20 years ago.
lol ok
brought to you by someone who understands neither Microsoft 20 years ago or Google now
Re: (Score:1)
lol ok
brought to you by someone who understands neither Microsoft 20 years ago or Google now
Another useless comment brought to you by an AC that doesn't understand basic punctuation.
Re: (Score:3)
Microsoft [...], where they are now working hard to regain trust with customers again.
LOL what!?!?!? They force installed an OS that is both adware and spyware with no way to permanently disable either of those behaviors, and they won't even sell the little people the version that lets you only get advertised to and spied on a little. Windows 10 is by a wide margin the greatest violation of trust they've EVER pulled, and good god is there heavy competition.
When? (Score:1)
"Black market" implies it is illegal (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately it probably isn't illegal for companies to sell customer data like this... but it should be illegal to sell intimate customer data without explicit consent and ongoing updates about specifically which companies are being given access to the data and in turn which other companies are getting access to the data further down the line.
Maybe I would be ok with specific reputable ad companies using this data for specific advertising services, but not so ok if anyone can pay $300 and track my location.
If it isn't illegal it should be (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe I would be ok with specific reputable ad companies using this data for specific advertising services, but not so ok if anyone can pay $300 and track my location.
Why should ad companies get special privileges? I'm not ok with them using this data without my consent and frankly I think the term "reputable ad company" is something of an oxymoron. I certainly do not trust ANY of them including Google and especially Facebook. At minimum there should be a firewall so that third parties have no means of learning specific details about the individual being tracked without explicit consent from that individual. It should absolutely be illegal to sell identifiable tracking data to third parties without explicit written (and revocable) consent.
Re: (Score:2)
Also... "maybe I would be okay with" clearly means I would be giving consent. I have a right to give my data to whomever I damn well please.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Irregardless is a nonstandard synonym for regardless. Its nonstandard status is due to the double negative construction of the prefix ir- with the suffix -less.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately it probably isn't illegal for companies to sell customer data like this... but it should be illegal to sell intimate customer data without explicit consent
It wouldn't make a difference......a very small percentage of the population even reads their cell phone contract, and most people don't care if their location data has been sold.
Business (Score:5, Informative)
Because if that data is available from carriers, Google won't be able to monetize it exclusively themselves. They don't want any competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Because if that data is available from carriers, Google won't be able to monetize it exclusively themselves. They don't want any competition.
There is some truth to that, but so what? In this case Google preventing competition means preventing a free (gray) market in buying and selling your personal data.
Society needs better privacy laws which mandate disclosure down to specific transactions and amounts when personal data about customers is shared with third parties without specific authorization or at least specific disclosure so people have a chance to end their business relationship with that company.
Sure, that would give Google a competitive
Re:THIS IS A JOKE (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't it a bit early for April Fools Day? (Score:5, Interesting)
As other have pointed out, I guess Google doesn't like the competition.
"Don't sell our customer's data... (Score:4, Interesting)
Why collect it then? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They intentionally collected mass amounts of data, for the sole purpose of tracking and distributing that data to other companies. If they didn't want the data shared they would of either not collected it, or made the data functionally useless to the other parties, through encryption, hashing or other means of obfuscation.
I'm confused... who is the "they" you're referring to? Google didn't collect the data, T-Mobile and Sprint did. Google asked them not to sell it.
Awww, Google has competition for evil (Score:2, Informative)
Feel sorry for Google.
They have the SADZ because others are being evil with their surreptitious data collection.
Google isn't evil, people are just cheapskates (Score:2)
I find it disappointing that people expect "free" services like Gmail, YouTube and Google Search and somehow expect it to be free when in reality systems like that cost millions of dollars to run / maintain and upgrade. It's like getting free coffee but complaining that the paper cup has advertising on it. The trade-off is to have to pay for everything.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't mind that GMail shows me ads, I mind that Google tracks me by GPS and logs every site I visit.
I don't mind that Facebook shows me ads, I mind that they steal my private photos and contacts without permission. (There's lots of talk about the latter, but the former should b
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I find it disappointing that people expect "free" services like Gmail, YouTube and Google Search and somehow expect it to be free when in reality systems like that cost millions of dollars to run / maintain and upgrade.
You only find it "disappointing" because your understanding of the issue is incorrect and your information incomplete.
This is absolutely not a fair exchange, where people choose to use Google's services and pay with their privacy. People aren't snooped on as a result of them using the free services - that would imply a choice, and with Google there is no choice. Google collects data on everybody, all the time, including people who don't use any of their services. Nobody can choose to not use GMail or whatev
Should (Score:2)
I question whether, if this data is sold, if bounty hunters are people who "should not have it", but otherwise...
Carefully chosen words (Score:2)
"We have never sold Fi subscribers' location information,"
See how specific this sentence is? "We have never sold FI subscribers' location information". They didn't say they never sell customer information just not FI location information. If the subscriber has, say, a Google account as well and they are logged in to that account on their FI phone well that's an entirely different conversation.
Only the ad company (Score:2)
Enjoy that free tracking with the free OS, browser, search engine.