Steve Jobs: 'We Don't Track Anyone' 373
fysdt writes "There has obviously been a lot of discussion about last week's disclosure that iOS devices are maintaining an easily-accessible database tracking the movements of users dating back to the introduction of iOS 4 a year ago. The issue has garnered the attention of US elected officials and has played fairly heavily in the mainstream press. One MacRumors reader emailed Apple CEO Steve Jobs asking for clarification on the issue while hinting about a switch to Android if adequate explanations are not forthcoming. Jobs reportedly responded, turning the tables by claiming both that Apple does not track users and that Android does, while referring to the information about iOS shared in the media as 'false.'"
Apple has now been hit with a class-action lawsuit over the location-tracking issue.
Not anyone, really (Score:5, Funny)
Not one specific person, anyway. More like "everyone". See the difference?
Re:Not anyone, really (Score:5, Interesting)
I know you're joking, but this is probably the simple answer.
Apple, Facebook, Google, etc., all see the massive market that is the sale of data mined from consumer behavior. The next step after being caught collecting this data will probably be to claim that it's non-specific, it can't be used to identify you *personally*, and that you've agreed to all of this when you agreed to the TOS/EULA/whatever.
I'm out of the smartphone biz as soon as my replacement phone arrives by UPS, personally... they're too expensive per month for someone who's usually near a PC to be used simply as ad-serving platforms
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except Apple doesn't really have the same motivation as the other two you list. Facebook? Google? These are companies that make money off of eyeballs and information, and give away products to get them. Apple? They make money off of sales and loyalty. They've even managed to tick off the publishing and advertisement industry by making asking the user to opt-in a requirement for app store publication. What motivation to they have to turn around and track you?
Re:Not anyone, really (Score:4, Insightful)
True; Apple does not make money off those things.
Yet.
Re: (Score:3)
> I'm out of the smartphone biz as soon as my replacement phone arrives by UPS
Ah, you see, if you ordered iPhone, Apple could have been tracking your UPS shipment for you right now.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a lot when you are already paying for internet. And that 25 is on top of an already ridiculous phone bill
Re: (Score:2)
Okay sure. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey guys, you know that profitable thing you think we've been doing? You know, the one that causes bad press. We're totally not doing it.
-Guy that's being accused
Don't attribute to malice what could be laziness! (Score:3)
Guys,
Both IOS and Android were written by programmers, who tend to LOG EVERYTHING.
I provide a vertical, niche market web-based software stack. If somebody asked me if I was tracking them, I'd chuckle and say "No". Because I'm not. I don't care much what users do, we don't do any data mining, it's your data, so why do I want to look at it?
I'm far too busy fixing bugs and tweaking features to care about mining data! Which brings me to my point: we have extensive logs and can look up every button click, image
Re: (Score:2)
Then why did Apple (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Then why did Apple (Score:4, Informative)
That statement was actually written more than a year ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, they still (re)released it last week
I'm pretty confident Apple had nothing to do with the "re-release" of the statement. Dude, quit punishing that equine corpse...
Re:Then why did Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Then why did they come out with a statement last week saying they *had* to track users to give them the best experience? I'm not buying what Steve's selling.
They didn't. Last June they said something to the effect of, "If users opt-in to location services, they are opting in us collecting that information. This is the only way for this system to work." This came up last week in the hubbub about the tower data being stored in perpetuity on the phone. But these are completely separate issues.
AFAIK, there is no evidence that the tower data is being transmitted anywhere, so it is reasonable for Apple to say that they don't track anyone. They made a device that privately stores this data. I don't think anyone thinks that the way this data is being stored is the right way to do it, but just because the device stores that data, that doesn't mean that Apple is "tracking" you.
Re: (Score:2)
They could just overwrite each time if there was no collection data set being accumulated. The last location ought to do it for most applications. I could see the last ten locations where there are a lot of towers and you're using GPS. But a history is a different thing. And we don't know that any of the applications use the data, and we don't know that they don't. The only evidence seen so far is that it's a history-- a long history. Was the coder THAT sloppy?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing stopping them from making opt-in a multi-tier affair. Though I don't see any reason why you'd need more than the current location for your example: the clock and weather update can just reflect your current position. The WPA keys are stored in your device already and are associated with an SSID, the physical location is irrelevant. Certainly, none of those things would require the location data leaving your device.
Re: (Score:2)
But you already have the option to enable location services and you have the option to say which applications have access to said location services. More fine grained access becomes increasingly less useful, and, the damn location data never leaves the device; you could say that "but it goes to the backup file!" but then if someone that you don't trust have access to your home/work computer then you have a bigger problem than a location database in a portable device.
Re: (Score:2)
It'd be really nice if my electronics could recognize that I'm going off to Florida again, and prepare all the WPA keys, clocks, and weather applets to reflect my new location for the week.
Any weather app I've used does this automatically. Because it knows where I am. If you haven't noticed this, its probably because you haven't set that permission in your phone, or you have made a poor choice of which widgets and apps to run on your phone.
Now if you are asking for omniscience, and your phone is expected to know In Advance where you are going, that is totally another thing. Be careful what you wish for.
Re: (Score:2)
They could just overwrite each time if there was no collection data set being accumulated. The last location ought to do it for most applications. I could see the last ten locations where there are a lot of towers and you're using GPS. But a history is a different thing. And we don't know that any of the applications use the data, and we don't know that they don't. The only evidence seen so far is that it's a history-- a long history.
I don't think anyone would argue with your point.
Was the coder THAT sloppy?
This strikes me as something that you have to have work this way during the test phase of the phone. Possibly it's a "// TODO" that never got done. Possibly it's just a bug. It's not a huge surprise coming from Apple -- they seem to have one of the least rigorous coding practice in the industry.
In the scheme of things this doesn't seem like the end of the world. If you are in the habit of leaving your phone backups available on an unlocked workstation
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't - that quote was from 2010, reposted with deliberate deception by a blog/slashdot troll summary to make it look current to generate some quick ad revenue from page hits.
Re: (Score:2)
And I am surprised Steve Jobs response to this is basically "WELL EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING IT!", that doesn't make the situation better, the other guys at least warned you.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gDbgW-3buo00Q1EEts94wISIIFwA?docId=818ec774dfc747 [google.com]
Re:Then why did Apple (Score:4, Informative)
The other guy also truncates the record to a reasonable size, something like 250 entries total (between cell and wifi). Honestly, keeping a cache of the last one or two hundred locations seems reasonable to improve performance. Keeping a cache of the last several thousand locations seems like... well, like a lawsuit waiting to happen if nothing else.
Re:Then why did Apple (Score:4, Informative)
You are exactly Correct.
This article [androidcentral.com] specifies what Andorid keeps and why these are kept.
Last 50 cell towers, and last 200 wifi routers seen (not necessarily connected to). It does not keep a running computation of your exact position, and it truncates what it does keep. And it does not transfer this data to google in any identifiable way. (Google does crowd source traffic data [blogspot.com] from cell phones using Google Maps)
In a big city/urban area, you might truncate you cell towers seen list in a couple hours, as you commute past dozens of towers each day.
Of course once you fire up search (either on Android or IOS) you are transmitting that info to the search engine, (google or bing) if you enable local searching capability.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
This is true. The contents of that .db file are never sent to Apple or anyone else.
Yet.
Re: (Score:2)
And most people reading /. are not dead, yet.
This file will never be sent to Apple now that people knows that the position database exists. Perhaps, it will deleted in the next revision of iOS
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Here's what happens.
Apple uses aGPS - Assisted GPS - which helps save battery life by making a good guess as to where the phone is before enabling GPS hardware. It makes this good guess by looking up the location of cell towers and wifi access points in a database. When the iPhone finds a wifi access point with a MAC address of X, it sends it to Apple, Apple's servers look that up in a database of known locations for access points, and the iPhone caches that information on the phone. I'm not sure if cell to
Apple says... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Apple says... (Score:5, Funny)
...and we can see you're holding it wrong
And you're wearing the same T-shirt 2 days running
Hold it wrong then! (Score:2)
Holding-it-wrong is the perfect solution to the problem.
What's that about two wrongs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it even important whether Google does it or not? It's still wrong.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why can't Steve use the same trick that 99% of Slashdotters use to justify their political opinions? Fair's fair
Re:What's that about two wrongs? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because SJ runs a company, not an opinion factory?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What's that about two wrongs? (Score:5, Informative)
Disabling Location Services does not disable the data collection that everyone is objecting to. It's been tested. Sorry. If only it was actually that easy, then the only problem would be the lack of encryption.
Re: (Score:2)
But that's the only problem with this file. It never leaves the device except to the encripted -if you choose to- backup file in a computer that you have physical access. Once again, if someone that you don't trust have physical access to your home computer you have more important things to worry than this file.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The cops in Michigan can certainly read it (see other /. articles about search procedures by Michigan cops), and backup encryption is disabled by default in iTunes so most people who sync their phones have this file sitting unencrypted on their computer as well. And how can we be sure that this information isn't being uploaded anywhere? If it isn't, then what is the purpose of it anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
And are you sure it disables the same caching of cell tower locations on Android when you disable the location services? Because the purpose of the file is the same, to keep at hand a ready location in case the user decides to enable location services...
Because that's what I was talking about, in response to that topic. Admittedly it may have been a bit off topic but it is not unrelated.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that these two idiots cant find it doesn't mean its not there. These two brain surgeons "Discovered" a file that all the other researchers already knew was there. Note apps exist to show you this info ON ANDROID PHONES. ALL AGPS phones do this its how they work.
Re:What's that about two wrongs? (Score:5, Interesting)
AT&T, Verizon have much better information than the data stored on those iPhones which are not even transmitted to Apple. Why is there no outcry over the information that the mobile operators have?
Re: (Score:2)
And they freely share it with the government. There was an outcry about that, but it was ignored when Congress decided to retroactively legalize that sort of thing.
Re:What's that about two wrongs? (Score:5, Insightful)
AT&T, Verizon have much better information than the data stored on those iPhones which are not even transmitted to Apple. Why is there no outcry over the information that the mobile operators have?
The phone companies will need to know where your phone is so they can send incoming messages and phone calls to it. How long they keep this information for is a valid question, however.
Re: (Score:3)
The phone companies will need to know where your phone is so they can send incoming messages and phone calls to it. How long they keep this information for is a valid question, however.
And that same exact statement applies to Apple in this case as well. They certainly need location information to provide particular services, but they should be dumping it shortly afterward rather than permanently accumulating it in a file on the device.
(If it's not clear, I'm not intending to say the parent is arguing otherwise by any stretch of the imagination)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is there no outcry over the information that the mobile operators have?
Presumably because there's no smoking gun at the current moment. Same with how we know politicians are generally corrupt, but when you have video footage of a specific politician engaging in bribery, people still make a big deal about that.
Re: (Score:3)
and it isn't on iOS either third party apps cannot access it without permission,
There's wrong and WRONG (Score:4, Insightful)
Just as an example: Android sends along the Unique Device ID and the Carrier User ID when sending you location data to AdMob customers. iOS (iAd) sends a random ID that is generated twice daily on the iPhone. What's more wrong?
And I'm really curious how you want to have fast positioning without knowing the positions of cell towers. Either the phone saves the positions in an internal database (as the iPhone does) or it has to ask external databases every time. And if your phone asks Google's or SkyHook's servers where the cell towers are that it sees, Google/SkyHook then know where you are. You have basically the choice of your phone tracking you in an internal database or have others track your phone in their database. This is somewhat similar to local storage for documents or storing it in the cloud: In the first case someone stealing your phone can get at your documents. Put them into the cloud and someone else already has them.
I just can't believe that "nerds" are complaining that the iPhone tries to lessen the dependence on external services by building an internal database of cell tower locations. Yeah, if someone steals your iPhone he can see roughly where you have been at least once. But then he also has your address book and your call and SMS history and your browser history and all other data on it. So remote wipe it immediately and be done with it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
God. All you fanbois are stupid and retards in exactly the same way.
Try to read the following, very slowly. Then try to understand. It's in English. After reading about 5 times, you will come a bit close to the subject. Then ask your mama to give you a cookie to be able to read one paragraph successfully.
-----------
From the article which reported this issue:
"Only the iPhone records the user's location in this way, say Warden and Alasdair Allan, the data scientists who discovered the file and are presenting
Re: (Score:3)
I say Android phones cause your testicles to shrink. My statement is as valid as theirs.
Oh wait no mines more valid as they claimed to discover something real and reputable researches have known (and Written about) for years. And maybe they should have looked in Androids developers references for the exact location of Androids location Cache file .../data/data/com.google.android.location/files/cache.cell & /data/data/com.google.android.location/files/cache.wifi
Re:What's that about two wrongs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Damningly for Apple, Google explicitly asks for your consent and lets you opt out without much disadvantage. Apple gives you no choice and burys it in a 16,000 word EULA.
I'm siding with Google on this one.
Re:How does it differ? No difference to discern. (Score:5, Informative)
"And then you proceed to not back up your claim with any actual data."
"The difference is I'll bet from an Android app I could read that cache and from iOS you cannot."
Well, I wish you had backed up your claim with actual data, as you say.
Author of the tool that reads android's location file says: "You will need root access to the device to read this directory." Which means you can't do that with an app. ;)
To make things even funnier, its *almost* the other way around. From your desktop, any app could read your iphone's location data from any of your iTunes backups.
Re:How does it differ? No difference to discern. (Score:5, Informative)
You will need root access to the device to read this directory." Which means you can't do that with an app.
Unless your Android device is rooted, which is common. Which means you can. Oops! Your bad.
No, apps run on a rooted Android device don't run as root.
Re: (Score:2)
You will need root access to the device to read this directory." Which means you can't do that with an app.
Unless your Android device is rooted, which is common. Which means you can. Oops! Your bad.
But even with a rooted Android device, the app still needs the user to give it "Superuser" permissions.
So any old app won't have root access unless you specifically give it.
If any app asks for superuser permissions a bloody well make sure I check it out first!!
Re: (Score:2)
Unless your Android device is rooted, which is common.
[citation needed]
[seriously]
[statements like this cry out for at least some cursory amount of documentation]
Re: (Score:2)
"On iOS I know the cache is not sent to Apple"
How do you know that? And if not, then why is the cache there?
Re: (Score:2)
You don't, but Apple have said (not just Jobs in this statement, but in developer workshops at WWDC in the past) that it is not collected, and what it is used for - A-GPS. Short of never believing anyone, at some point you have to assume non-malice and that he is telling the truth, even if you are skeptical. So far even the "sky is falling" people who have 'discovered' this 'secret' information have yet to say that it is being sent to Apple - from the nature of the data it is looking very likely that it is
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to not know anything about the inner workings of Android, but you feel confident enough to assume that every Android app can access this tracking data.
Why do Android people seem to lack basic reading comprehension? I hypothesized it MIGHT be true of Android, not that it WAS true. It's just as rational as claiming it's a problem on the Apple side to have a location cache file consisting of cell tower locations that is not even sent to Apple. And we know for a fact that on Android many more people
define "track"? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're talking about information being sent to Apple then it's a "no". But if you define it as recorded locally, then "yes".
My take on it is, the device is tracking me, but Apple is not. Anyone know the specifics on the CA/NY law regarding "tracking"? If these are truly "consumer protection laws", then they should be referring to Apple, not the product you've purchased and is in your possession. I don't need a law to protect me from my PHONE.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're talking about information being sent to Apple then it's a "no". But if you define it as recorded locally, then "yes".
My take on it is, the device is tracking me, but Apple is not. Anyone know the specifics on the CA/NY law regarding "tracking"? If these are truly "consumer protection laws", then they should be referring to Apple, not the product you've purchased and is in your possession. I don't need a law to protect me from my PHONE.
If data is being sent to Apple, yes, it is tracking and it is spying. Information is a valuable commodity and if Apple can gather the information at costs approaching free and then resell it to marketing companies, they have a goldmine. After all, AT&T and Verizon own the networks where the iPhone is being used so Apple doesn't even have to pay for the amount of data transmitted. In the end, the consumer pays for Apple's behavior. The consumer foots the bill so that Apple may turn around and sell th
Re: (Score:2)
If data is being sent to Apple...
Well, the file in question is not sent to Apple, so there ;-)
There may be some info sent to Apple, according to Apple's own disclosures rather than anything coming from security researchers, but that is supposed (again, according to Apple) be anonymized.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't need a law to protect me from my PHONE.
It's a GPS device. Do the greedy morons suing have a clue what a GPS device is generally expected, by its users, to do???
Re: (Score:2)
Do the greedy morons suing have a clue what a GPS device is generally expected, by its users, to do?
A GPS device tells you where you are, and may keep a record of your movements if you enable it. If such a recording function is provided, there is a way to browse tracks, upload them to a PC and to delete them. GPS devices don't log your movements forever, until police decides to check where you have been and looks into that file. iPhone does that.
Re:define "track"? (Score:4, Informative)
If you're talking about information being sent to Apple then it's a "no". But if you define it as recorded locally, then "yes".
We know the information is being sent to Apple, and we know the official reasons "why" too: for advertising purposes, and to build a competing location database for Skyhook. Essentially, iPhone users are being used to "war drive" for Wi-Fi points and provide GPS coordinates for them.
But, hey, don't take my word for it. Use Apple's instead [apple.com]:
To provide location-based services on Apple products, Apple and our partners and licensees may collect, use, and share precise location data, including the real-time geographic location of your Apple computer or device. This location data is collected anonymously in a form that does not personally identify you and is used by Apple and our partners and licensees to provide and improve location-based products and services.
Yes, they say it's anonymous in this part of the privacy policy. Unfortunately earlier they explain that it's sent along with a "unique device ID" so while they're correct that it's anonymous by the dictionary definition (your name is not attached) they most certainly can track a single device.
(Oh, and the "for advertising purposes" is higher up in the policy: "We may collect information such as ... unique device identifier, location, ... where an Apple product is used so that we can better understand customer behavior and improve our products, services, and advertising.")
Re: (Score:2)
No we don't because it isn't. It is stored locally. Location based services are sent to Apple but that's a different matter.
Re:define "track"? (Score:5, Insightful)
We know the information is being sent to Apple
You're conflating two different issues.
Contrary to what you said, we do not know that this information is being sent to Apple. We do know that some data is sent, of course. If I say "Allow" for sharing my location info with random app X, then random advertiser Y that has an ad in app X will have access to my data as well, since X gets it and shares it with Y. All of those are opt-in at the time they occur, are limited to a single app, and occur for a specific purpose. They're also obvious and are what those passages you cite are talking about. They're not in question.
What is in question is whether or not this data, which is always on, is always updating, and is comprehensive for a number of months is being sent back and used. As best as I can figure, all signs seem to be pointing to it not being used. Running down the list of reasons backing up that idea:
1) Steve Jobs has actively denied that it is being used that way. See summary above.
2) It makes no sense to store it locally forever, since sending it immediately is easier, safer, and closes the window for publicity nightmares like this one.
3) Apple has always placed the greatest importance on the customer experience, and this harms it.
4) Apple has been proactive in protecting the privacy of their customers, including recently, since it improves the user experience (e.g. see the publisher-hated App Store policy change regarding subscription data).
Essentially, we have no basis for believing that this information is being sent to Apple, aside from the general distrust that we all place in large companies (which they've rightly earned). The only plausible explanation I've heard so far is that this is simply a cache that was poorly coded and grew larger than expected. That is, it's no different than what Android has, except broken.
Re:define "track"? (Score:5, Informative)
You mean besides the link to Apple's privacy policy [apple.com], where they explicitly tell you that they collect a "unique device identifier" and "location" as "non-personal information -- data in a form that does not permit direct association with any specific individual?"
Or the part of the policy where they "collect, use, and share precise location data ... to provide and improve location-based products and services?"
Really, I can't think of a better source than Apple themselves. But if you'd rather, how about Wired's "Gadget Lab" blog [wired.com]?
Looks Fake (Score:2)
Looks fake to me, probably an iFan trying to take bad press away from Apple. For one thing Apple or Steve Jobs would make a public statement before sending a simple, one-line email to a customer. In fact Apple has refused to comment on this issue. For one thing he would not claim that the iPhone does not track this data since anyone with an iPhone can use the free tool to see where they've been.
FTA (Score:2, Insightful)
"The location data is often far removed from a user's location. Schlesinger says he thinks it may be picking up cell towers and WiFi hotspots, neither of which will necessarily be that close to a person with a phone. Schlesinger and Levinson both say the tracking would not be much use in finding a certain person. The real issue is that the file is unencrypted when it is synced to another device.
Read more: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/137806/20110425/apple-hit-with-class-action-suit-over-tracking.htm#ixzz
Bill Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations... (Score:2)
Did you believe him too?
Re: (Score:2)
Bill Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
Steve Jobs: Sorry, but your phone proves otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes, like this case, it's more important to know who's asking and what definitions they are using.
From what everyone is saying, Apple is not tra
Care for facts? (Score:5, Informative)
It has meanwhile been debunked that this file tracks the location of the iPhone. It draws a map of locations of cell towers. The positions in this file are not the position of the iPhone when the user used a location app, the positions are the locations of the cell towers the iPhone saw in this moment. This is pretty clear now. The cell tower ID is the UNIQUE ID of the database, there are only clusters of tower locations saved at the same time with locations miles apart and NONE of these are the actual position of your phone.
Some real world testing: http://www.willclarke.net/?p=247 [willclarke.net]
And yes, this also paints a rough picture of where you used location services, because only the stations around the places where you used location services are in this database. But: The stations are miles around your real position and since there is no signal strength info saved triangulation is not possible. I have found stations recorded that were up to ten miles away from my true position and hardly any stations nearer than half a mile (you'd need to stand right under a cell tower and use Google Maps there to have the position of the iPhone and the tower match by accident, so this happens almost never and the data shows exactly that).
So: The iPhone builds a local database with a network topography map and never throws it away. If it would throw that info away it would need to ask external databases (of Google or SkyHook) instead to learn the coordinates of the towers that it sees. By doing so it would neccessarily TELL these providers where it is.
Basically you have the choice of your phone tracking you (very roughly) in an internal database or have someone else providing an external database and by this tracking your phone. The iPhone does the first, Android does the latter (and Android even sends the Unique Device ID along). Believe it or not, but technically Jobs is right. The iPhone tracks you in an internal database, but with Android Google tracks your phone in external databases.
I don't expect many people to understand that though. Even with much explaining to basically neutral people hardly more than 5 of ten understand how positioning works and what it implies. Or what a "Unique Device ID" is.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It seemed that this was pretty obvious almost immediately, when people started looking at the map of "locations" and saying "but I've never been to a lot of these places and the ones I've been to are MILES off course". It seemed the obvious conclusion was that it was likely retaining tower positioning data. Now, perhaps in some people's lives this is enough information to provide unwanted tracking (it might not locate what block you're on, but it might be enough to note what city you've been in and when), s
Re: (Score:2)
With just a teeny bit more data, it COULD be used to describe your exact position though.
All that is needed is a pingtime from the towers. 3 towers, and you have a triangulated position. (or, rather, could triangulate the position painlessly.)
I can see the benefits of having this information inside the phone-- It would enable much cleaner handoffs between towers, if the phone knew where it was, what direction it was going, and what towers were nearby that could offer service. However, the world being the w
Re: (Score:3)
With just a teeny bit more data, it COULD be used to describe your exact position though.
All that is needed is a pingtime from the towers. 3 towers, and you have a triangulated position. (or, rather, could triangulate the position painlessly.)
Or much easier: Since this is only the "assisted" part of "assisted GPS" and the iPhone usually has a perfect GPS fix half a minute or so later, the iPhone could then just save that perfect true position of itself into an eternal log file.
But the point is: It doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Just out of curiosity, what's the minimum geographical accuracy required before this behavior becomes "not OK", where it can be abused? The police are already using [pcmag.com] the current set of data to provide another point of evidence that you were in the area where they say you were.
Here's another question: if Apple could get a GPS location as efficiently as recording cell tower UIDs, is there any reason to believe they wouldn't? It sounds like the only reason they store cell tower UIDs instead of GPS data is bec
Re: (Score:3)
Just out of curiosity, what's the minimum geographical accuracy required before this behavior becomes "not OK", where it can be abused? The police are already using [pcmag.com] the current set of data to provide another point of evidence that you were in the area where they say you were.
Here's another question: if Apple could get a GPS location as efficiently as recording cell tower UIDs, is there any reason to believe they wouldn't?
I think they're build that internal network map exactly because they CAN'T get a GPS location in any way fast or efficiently. If they could, they wouldn't bother with all that and just have the phone get a GPS fix if the user wants to know where he is. Additionally, all this is usually just the first step of assisted GPS. Half a minute later the iPhone has a GPS fix. And still this precise location data gets not saved to this database. If this would be for evil purposes, they would save this precise data, b
Re: (Score:2)
Either phony or a lie (Score:2, Funny)
This is either a phony message or a lie by Steve Jobs. Both are possible.
Re: (Score:2)
This is either a phony message or a lie by Steve Jobs. Both are possible.
They're not mutually exclusive either, this could be a -phony- lie that didn't actually come from Steve Jobs, though I suppose that wouldn't really matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Their patent filings would say otherwise... (Score:2)
Apple claims that a database of all the wifi or cell transmitters your device has seen - in order to store your "location history" - is patentable, and have filed US Patent Application 12/553,554 to that effect:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/53886728
So if Apple doesn't do location tracking, and Android does, why is Apple trying to patent it?
Sigh, Steve (Score:3, Insightful)
Regardless of what you may believe about Steve Job's contributions to the world and to personal computing, you really can't deny that he's a pretty big asshole (maybe not a "total" asshole, but at least an 85% asshole). Here we have him simultaneously slinging some rather deceptive mud at Android while simultaneously lying totally.
Apple tracks you. There's a file. It's created. It keeps track of all the locations you've been to. That's tracking, Apple is doing it. Therefore, Apple is tracking you. End of discussion.
Now what Apple might NOT be doing is *collecting* the tracking information they gather. They may simply leave it to rot on your phone without gathering it to a central location and parsing it. That does not mean Apple is not tracking me; it just means Apple does not know where I am. There's a big difference there, but both things *matter*. If Apple is tracking me, that means the record exists -- whether Apple has it or not is the only point of concern. The mere fact that it exists means that it can therefore be used against me by LEA, malicious software, and thieves. The record should not exist, but it does, and Apple needs to own up to that mistake and fix it, or acknowledge it and make it public knowledge. If Steve Jobs says "Apple does not track you", then he is explicitly and blatantly lying. If he wanted to address Apple's intent, or practices, or whatever -- he could, but saying that Apple does not track me is tantamount to saying that the file does not exist -- which is provably false. In short, it's a lie.
Does Android track people? Sometimes. If you run maps, it forwards that location data to Google which is anonymized and used for traffic pattern analysis etc. It does not track me all the time. Latitude does, but that's opt-in. Without enabling latitude, there's no personally identifiable record to be stolen/subpoenaed/abused. Moreover, unlike Apple, we know Google does this because they say so. They do not hide it, they put it front and center, and explain why they do it and how to opt out of it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Putting a file on a phone that contains local cell tower data does not equal "Apple tracks you", much as you seem to wish it did. Android phones store the same data, apparently for the same purpose.
Apple does clearly state that they do gather anonymous data, despite your vehement statements that they don't. And you can turn it off if you want.
Sorry to interrupt you. Feel free to go back to your ranting now.
Simple Solution: Crap Map App (Score:2)
One way to keep your tracking app from being used against you in a court of law is to destroy its credibility by filling it with implausible information.
Attorney: "Would it be correct to say that you have relied on the defendant's phone location database to place him at the protest rally?"
Cop: "That's correct."
Attorney: "According to my client's phone records, he had breakfast that day in Berlin, lunch in Sydney, dinner in Vancouver, an a nightcap in Santiago. Can you explain how that is possible?"
Cop:
Re:I guess these are not the droids we're looking (Score:5, Funny)
He thinks your attention span is so low that ... hey look a puppy.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, he thinks you're his customers.
(And if you're not buying from him, he doesn't care what you read into his message.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I seriously doubt Steve Jobs wrote back to this guy. He would make a public statement first, and he would not write back a simple one line message.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh he does this stuff all the time. And he almost never makes public statements on these kind of issues he lets the PR people do that.
Re: (Score:2)
You're quoting the bit about Location Services, and when you turn those on, your phone's location is identified for ad services. What Apple is saying here is that the ad services never get to know who they're serving to, and Apple does not store this data either. They could, based on uid, but they say they don't.
The database of cell tower locations has nothing to do with this, other than that it is updated when Location Services is used.
The issue here is not "Apple is tracking me" -- it's "Apple is storin
Re: (Score:2)
Only the second quote is about Location Services. The first bit is information that Apple collects from all Apple devices, period.
The first quote comes from the section on "non-personal information" and is essentially the data that Apple considers to be "anonymous."
Here is that section in full:
Collection and Use of Non-Personal Information
We also collect non-personal information -- data in a form that does not permit direct association with any specific individual. We may collect, use, transfer, and disclose non-personal information for any purpose. The following are some examples of non-personal information that we collect and how we may use it:
If we do combine non-personal information with personal information the combined information will be treated as personal information for as long as it remains combined.
So the unique identifier and location are considered "non personal" and may be collected from any Apple device, and are not related to Location Services, which is an entirely separate part of the policy.
Re: (Score:3)
You're quoting the bit about Location Services, and when you turn those on, your phone's location is identified for ad services. What Apple is saying here is that the ad services never get to know who they're serving to, and Apple does not store this data either. They could, based on uid, but they say they don't..
They even couldn't. The ID iAd sends along with the location data is a random ID that gets generated twice daily on the iPhone. This is just enough to serve the right iPhone with local ads, but that's it. It's not a user ID and not a phone ID and it changes twice a day.
Now, AdMob (Google) [admob.com]:
"AdMob will automatically collect and receive information about those visitors such as, but not limited to, browser identifiers, session information, browser cookies, device type, carrier provider, IP addresses, unique dev
Re: (Score:2)
They say it's "anonymous" here, but combined with the "unique device identifier" they already said they collect with it, you have to wonder exactly what "anonymous" means in Apple-speak.
They mean anonymous as in it isn't directly tied to your name. It's possible that is has how much you spend, what apps and websites you use, what areas you live, spend your day, shop and eat, where you go at christmas, how often you go to the hospital or what day you go grocery shopping, how fast you drive and how far each week.
They can collect an incredibly dense picture of your life, but as long as they refer to you as 155264 rather then your real name (which isn't really that useful to marketers, as any
Re:Steve Jobs should let Apple know that (Score:5, Informative)
They mean anonymous as in it isn't directly tied to your name.
It turns out they even explicitly explain this. Not quite as clearly, of course, but, from the Apple Privacy Policy [apple.com] again:
We also collect non-personal information -- data in a form that does not permit direct association with any specific individual. We may collect, use, transfer, and disclose non-personal information for any purpose. The following are some examples of non-personal information that we collect and how we may use it:
* We may collect information such as occupation, language, zip code, area code, unique device identifier, location, and the time zone where an Apple product is used...
So, yeah - the unique device ID is gathered along with your location, and this is considered "non personal information" - a.k.a. anonymous information.
So I suppose what Jobs is saying is, technically, true: Apple isn't tracking you. They're just tracking your phone.
Re: (Score:3)
i've been messing with http://petewarden.github.com/iPhoneTracker [github.com] a bit. its pretty interesting. i'm just wondering what triggers the coords to be stored. it has places i have been at for more than a few minutes - home, work, in-laws home, mall, etc. but nothing for the routes in between (i have a 45minute drive from home to work) so is it triggered by calls made? specific times of the day? after X number tower changes? does anyone know?
Using location services triggers this. Like, using Google Maps or taking a photo (which gets location data embedded) or one of the myriad other apps that need location data. You see this indicated with an arrow in the status bar. If you don't use anything that needs location data, no location process is triggered and nothing is there to be saved.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh nos. now the coppers now where cell phone towers are. Wait cant you normally see those from a couple of miles away.
PS I've sat on a jury and listened to testimony from Michigan State Police cell phone experts. Ummm lets just say you need not worry. These guys are just rank amateurs that took a seminar. They have no knowledge of technology what so ever. If anyone that reads Slashdot was arrested based on these guys work has no fear. Anyone here could cross examine these guys into a puddle of goo.