Apple Lays Out Location Collection Policies

itwbennett writes "In a 13-page reply (PDF) to questions from Congressmen Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Joe Barton of Texas, Apple said iPhones running OS 3.2 or iOS 4 collect GPS data and encrypt it before sending it back to Apple every 12 hours via Wi-Fi. Attached to the GPS data is a random identification number generated by the phone every 24 hours. The information is not associated with a particular customer and Apple uses the data to analyze traffic patterns and density, it said. Apple collects such data from customers who have approved the use of location-based capabilities on the phone and who actually use an application that requires GPS."

Turn the tables!

[DWMorse]

A story about Apple? Let's all talk about Google now! Google!

But seriously, the best part of this whole article is here:

Barton wasn't so positive. "While I applaud Apple for responding to our questions, I remain concerned about privacy policies that run on for pages and pages,"

Amen, Barton. Obfuscation through walls of text is a scummy way to slip clauses past consumers. Too bad every company does it today.

Re:Turn the tables!

[morgan_greywolf]

I just read a story about exactly why Apple would want to collect that data [wired.com]. Seems there's been a bit of a tug-of-war between Apple and AT&T on that very subject and it looks like iPhone customers are caught in the middle of it.

Not that big of a problem....

[magamiako1]

Amusingly enough this has been finally mentioned, but what I've been thinking the most is how many applications use my GPS data for something other than just pointing out my location? Nearly ever major app has this now--particularly restaurant locators and movie theater locators. But you gotta wonder how many of them are collecting that GPS data.

I don't really see much wrong with it, it's far more accurate than "zip code" location that are otherwise used in marketing

Re:Turn the tables!

[vague disclaimer]

Longer documents, or documents using longer words, are not necessarily any more protective or beneficial to a company than shorter documents ***snip*** I am in favour of reducing documentation put before consumers (and suppliers, for that matter) to that which is absolutely necessary in a given situation.

True enough, but Apple is in a market that is rapidly evolving and what is "absolutely necessary" is far from settled.

My nephew is a deputy sheriff

[cellurl]

My nephew recently tried my Android app called, "Speed Limit".
It wouldn't work on his phone because he didn't have GPS enabled.
I asked why?
He said, "Big Brother".


Who do I write to to DEMAND that jobs quits logging ANYTHING related to location?
This will ruin location apps!
Traffic patterns are studied by the Carriers. Whats next? HTC monitoring, Motorola monitoring, Opera monitoring?
After 5 years of reading slashdot, I am writing a letter on this one. jp

Re:Turn the tables!

[DJRumpy]

Looks more like AT&T is pleading with Apple to be kind and Apple is telling AT&T to stuff it.

But in meetings with Apple engineers and marketers over the subsequent year, Rinne and other AT&T executives discovered that Apple wasn’t playing by traditional wireless rules. It wasn’t interested in cooperating, especially if it meant hobbling what had quickly become its marquee product. For Apple, the idea of restricting the iPhone was akin to asking Steve Jobs to ditch the black turtleneck. “They tried to have that conversation with us a number of times,” says someone from Apple who was in the meetings. “We consistently said ‘No, we are not going to mess up the consumer experience on the iPhone to make your network tenable.’ They’d always end up saying, ‘We’re going to have to escalate this to senior AT&T executives,’ and we always said, ‘Fine, we’ll escalate it to Steve and see who wins.’ I think history has demonstrated how that turned out.”

I also found this part particularly funny. Talk about a difference in corporate environment...

When an AT&T representative suggested to one of Jobs’ deputies that the Apple CEO wear a suit to meet with AT&T’s board of directors, he was told, “We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits.”

Re:Turn the tables!

[Neil_Brown]

Clarity (or simplicity) leaves too much room for loopholes that are not in the corporation's favor.

That's a commonly-held view, for sure. Perhaps I am the only lawyer who believes otherwise - but I don't think so. In terms of a very simple example, I'm pleased to have stripped down a set of terms and conditions for registration for our developer portal to a few bullet points, rather than pages of text - to my mind, the increase is risk is very low, and the business agreed.

(Under English law, a lack of clarity is construed against the party seeking to rely on the lack of clarity - a rule known as "contra proferentem".)

Re:Intelligence test

[oodaloop]

And why would the the care about that again? Why would they correlate all that stuff for millions of users on a daily basis? For kicks?

Re:Intelligence test

[PseudonymousBraveguy]

I don't care why "they" would care (but I'm sure there has to be some marketing money in that data). All it takes is *one* rogue employee with access to the database.
(Oh, I see you are married, but you regulary spend time at a brothel/gay bar/the house of this other woman? Don't want your spouse to know about this?
Oh, and you visit that psychologis pretty often? Do you have problems your employer might be interested in?)

Re:Intelligence test

[Anonymous Coward]

macs4all, Posting as AC because I've reached my daily posting limit... >:(

o long as you're aware of the facts, and didn't have to read a massively long agreement before being aware of it.

People are acting like this is the first "massively long" EULA. Guess what? THEY'RE ALL MASSIVELY LONG! But, it really IS your responsibility to READ them. Having said that, I don't, you don't, and not one person in ten-thousand reads them. They all suck. I'm sure Android has a massively-long EULA too, just as chock-full of confusing terms and conditions as every other EULA.

It's unfortunately what EVERYONE's legal department insists on. And you know why? Because otherwise, people will sue, and sue, and sue (and if there really IS no disclosure), win...

Everything can't be in the first paragraph; so what? If you don't like it, don't click "I Agree." Simple as that.

BTW, here's some Android Devs. bitching to high heaven [xda-developers.com] about what Google's Android EULA [xda-developers.com] gives Google the power to datamine. I don't see one single Apple-Hater bitching about that in the comments to this article.

BTW, I can't even FIND a copy of the Android EULA for USERS (not devs) on Google, but the Android Developer Distribution Agreement is EVERY BIT [android.com] as long and involved as Apple's EULA in question.
 
 

Before you say it - how often does GPS search for a cellular network? On a schedule? Or just when it losing signal... as in when you move location?

So, you are SPECULATING on a FALLBACK mechanism being used for nefarious purposes?

You do realize, don't you, that there is already a protocol for "tower-handoffs" that works MUCH better than using GPS, because GPS doesn't take into account things like the instantaneous traffic load on any particular tower (and towers pretty well overlap coverage in most urban and suburban areas, that's why you can drive around all over and (usually) not drop a call).

Isn't it getting a bit hot under that tinfoil hat? (Or maybe that's just the mind-control waves being beamed into your head by the Gummint)...