It’s insane that this is a ‘proposed new law’ in 2023. That shit should have been illegal the moment it was possible.
The act of collecting the location data should be illegal. Selling it should never have been possible.
Arguably the location data has several purposes, and needs to be collected but shouldn’t have been available for sale. It’s bad enough you can’t keep law enforcement out of it but even worse when random businesses get the information.
That said, in this day and age, it should be a no brainier that your phone is a tracking device for multiple organizations and we should all keep that in mind
I would argue it’s worse that law enforcement can just buy data they would otherwise need a warrant to access. In the case of broad data (e.g. location data for every cellphone user in a neighborhood or city) law enforcement can’t legally seize that at all but they can buy it from a broker. It’s a major fourth amendment violation.
Americans: we will cry foul online until we get an adequate transportation system.
Also Americans: we will cry foul online if you try to collect the data that you need to plan a transportation system.
Just one example of how phone data is useful.
Why in the world would you need phone data for that???
Nearly all existing public transportation was designed before cell phones. And there’s so many better ways to get that data… In fact, I’m not sure anyone uses individually identifiable tracking to plan public transportation… It’s neither necessary or even convenient for that
74 page document about mobile phone data and transportation modeling.
Origin destination data from cell phones is useful for fairly obvious reasons.
Keep licking those boots
Unfortunately, I am the boot in this case.
Except we don’t have an adequate transportation system despite all the data they keep collecting.
I can’t comment on that! Just that phone data is very valuable for transportation modelling!
Sure. My point is that it’s irrelevant. You’re acting like there’s a trade off between privacy and the public good, but because the goal is profitability we get neither privacy nor public good.
Oh I agree. My original comment was adding to the one preceeding mine, not a direct response to the article. Yes, the US needs GDPR, despite it making aspects of my job annoying I am glad it exists.
From the article: “Firms say this data is anonymized but the truth is that it can easily be de-anonymized. The data brokerage industry is pretty much totally unregulated, allowing for an assortment of unsavory customers to buy Americans’ data willy nilly.”
Isn’t this the real issue and not the headline? US really needs GDPR.
I wonder if they would still be able to sell location data in aggregate?
I play Pokémon Go (yes that’s still a thing) and Niantic recently made a deal that they don’t sell individual location data which people have taken as they sell bulk location data instead (scrubbing data such as your name etc).
Carl Sagan was right.
“when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues”
He lived through a time when the national guard was murdering college students.
Since then they have only gotten more sinister.
We’re in a time where cops are caught on camera killing people. Privacy is a matter of life or death now.
Unless this is enacted in every state, law enforcement can deduce the state a person of interest is in just by not getting location data for them.
But state level location is not that worrisome. I mean, you can take a partial guess from the area code (though that’s not that accurate because cell numbers usually stay the same when people move these days).
Plus, would they even know that? There’s the question of how you could make sure not to track only people from states with this law without tracking them in the first place. The easy solution is to not track locations with cellular data at all, lest you accidentally run afoul of this law. Plus there probably will be more states passing such laws. You said every state would have to pass it to use process of elimination, but surely it only needs 2?
