Google Will Stop Telling Law Enforcement Which Users Were Near a Crime

finance.yahoo.com Google Will Stop Telling Law Enforcement Which Users Were Near a Crime

(Bloomberg) -- Alphabet Inc.’s Google is changing its Maps tool so that the company no longer has access to users' individual location histories, cutting off its ability to respond to law enforcement warrants that ask for data on everyone who was in the vicinity of a crime.Most Read from BloombergNe...

Google Will Stop Telling Law Enforcement Which Users Were Near a Crime::(Bloomberg) -- Alphabet Inc.’s Google is changing its Maps tool so that the company no longer has access to users' individual location histories, cutting off its ability to respond to law enforcement warrants that ask for data on everyone who was in the vicinity of a crime.Most Read from BloombergNetanyahu, Under Pressure Over Hostage Deaths, Vows to Press OnMike Johnson May Be the Next House Speaker to Lose His Job‘Underwater’ Car Loans Signal US Consumers Slammed by High RatesUS Navy Shoots Do

43 comments

There must have been an operational bottleneck with handling the LEOs requests that they decided to prevent the data requested from even existing in order to not be able to reply to such requests. Surely this came down to business and not alturism.
- I doubt operational bottlenecks were the issue, more likely the rising volume of requests made Google reassess the policy.
  
  LEOs already press the boundaries of the permissible, and as much as I hate giving props to the big G, good on Google for taking the initiative.
  
  Cops only investigate people they think are guilty, and despite being objectively terrible at their jobs, they have ridiculous amounts of self confidence.
  
  So to them, if they suspect someone of a crime, they can "bend" any rules for stuff like this because "the suspect is clearly guilty anyways, we just don't have proof".
  
  Wouldn't the inability to process the volume of request from LEOs be an apt example of an operational bottleneck?
- Or self preservation.
Regardless of low you look at it, this is great news.

It's not a reason to switch back to Google indeed, but people inside this ecosystem just got a little less surveillance.
Use GrapheneOS and stop giving power to Google. Google is not a friend of the people for offering "free" services, the user is the product and the companies and the surveillance state are the customer.
- Surveillance states demand that Google gives all their data, but corps pay Google for all their data
- Are there any phones supported that I can install an SD card on?
  
  No, for security concerns GrapheneOS team only support Pixel devices (unfortunately)
- the surveillance state are the customer.
  
  Except it would seem not, since you know this news.
  
  why not? the quote is in the present tense - while article claims Google will change policy
  
  and are you sure this is the only service Google is offering to the surveillance state?
Well that's an odd and inflammatory headline to use for the issue
- Not really. Google is making this change so they have no way to share incidental bystanders location data when its requested/demanded by law enforcement. Google is the only tech company cooperating with police to provide this type of "geofence/general area" location data.
  
  The change comes three months after a Bloomberg Businessweek investigation that found police across the US were increasingly using warrants to obtain location and search data from Google, even for nonviolent cases, and even for people who had nothing to do with the crime.
  
  Google will change its app so that it can no longer tell law enforcement its users location data, inline with more privacy focused companies like Apple and their maps app. This change comes after years of advocacy from digital rights groups, but appears to be mainly motivated by negative press coverage.
  
  The headline is specifically about what the article is about.
  
  Wow, surprising that for once Apple is the good guy here. There's a good reason this is a bad idea, and it's not reallt hard to see why. Circumstantial evidence isn't evidence of an actual crime for a reason.
Aha. For sure they won't do that anymore. Nah I won't buy it.
- Then you don't grasp what's happening, You think the Goog wants to be in the middle of that shit? That's time and resources that don't benefit them. Providing that data puts them in a bad spot Everytime, simply not having the data to provide obsoloves them of that and is in both their and the end users best interest. The push getting worse is because current Stingrays don't work on 5G, so the internal police spying is very limited now, and getting location records from telcos requires more of a papertrail than going to Google and Apple in the past, and when cops are asking for shit they don't really need, they don't want to be in the books for it.
  
  i get what you're saying, but you did not mention the benefit Google itself got from that data, that they'll have to forfeit so that they won't be able to provide it to the police
  
  You said a lot without saying a lot
  
  What id ahppening that google doesnt want to be in the middle of?
  
  Also, didnt know that about stingrays, might have to finally upgrade my 4G phone now. Thanks for that
As usual, I have to scroll down more than a page to get past all the generic "Google bad" comments to see any discussion of the topic at hand. Never change, Lemmy.
- Nice contribution yourself asshole.
- What you're looking for is effective moderation. It would be nice wouldn't it.
  
  If you're looking for an echochamber that is. Just accept that people can have different opinions and views. Besides if you're a technical person you would know the amount of bullshit and mistrust there is.

43 comments