floofloof@lemmy.ca to PrivacyEnglish · 1 year agoGoogle will no longer hold onto people's location data in Google Maps — meaning it can't turn that info over to the policewww.businessinsider.comexternal-linkmessage-square74fedilinkarrow-up1543arrow-down17cross-posted to: hackernews@lemmy.smeargle.fanshackernews@derp.foo
arrow-up1536arrow-down1external-linkGoogle will no longer hold onto people's location data in Google Maps — meaning it can't turn that info over to the policewww.businessinsider.comfloofloof@lemmy.ca to PrivacyEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square74fedilinkcross-posted to: hackernews@lemmy.smeargle.fanshackernews@derp.foo
minus-squarejennwiththesea@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up5arrow-down1·1 year agoThat means that you’re the product
minus-squarecerulean_bluelinkfedilinkarrow-up1·11 months agoSure…but, they’re still going to profile you based on your location… only now they’ve removed the part where you got to use (and control) that data too.
minus-squareSuckMyWang@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up3·1 year agoWhat have google ever done to not trust them?
minus-squareGabulinkfedilinkarrow-up4·1 year ago Gestures towards the entirety of their business decisions since inception
minus-squaresilentknyght@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·1 year agoIt’s believable. If 25% of the warrants they receive are for location data, there is a shed load of money to be saved by simply not storing it. Probably simple math, whether or not the stored location data is more valuable than the cost of legal compliance.
I’m not buying it.
That means that you’re the product
Sure…but, they’re still going to profile you based on your location… only now they’ve removed the part where you got to use (and control) that data too.
What have google ever done to not trust them?
It’s believable. If 25% of the warrants they receive are for location data, there is a shed load of money to be saved by simply not storing it.
Probably simple math, whether or not the stored location data is more valuable than the cost of legal compliance.