And here’s the realistic explanation for why and why now:
"…Orin Kerr, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, wrote on X on Wednesday that “from a public policy standpoint, that seems like a bummer.”
“Geofencing has solved a bunch of really major cases that were otherwise totally cold,” he wrote.
“And there are lots of ways of doing the legal process (including Google’s warrant policy, although that’s just one way) that are a lot more privacy protective than ordinary warrants. But I can see why this might be in Google’s business interest. If there isn’t a lot of economic value to Google in keeping the data, and having it means you need to get embroiled in privacy debates over what you do with it, better for Google to drop it.”
It’s a good thing! It never should have been allowed in the first place. But, Google didn’t give a fuck until it caused them enough hassle. Doing this is just a way to avoid something more expensive later, it isn’t a strong principled stand. And I’d bet small amounts that they’ll still have a way to use the data anyway. It won’t be some magic wand that means Google can’t make money off of it.
Sure. They won’t be able to access the data itself, but they’ll have already used the data as it was being generated to add metrics to your profile. So they don’t need it anymore if it’s already been utilized.
Liars always find a way to phrase things to misdirect.
Yes, they still can build a targeted profile per user, but no longer store a database of who was in an area that the police can issue a broad warrant to find out. So they get to have their cake and eat it too!
“Geofencing has solved a bunch of really major cases that were otherwise totally cold,” he wrote.
Citation needed. Solving a case for a police officer means finding a person who looks guilty, not that they’re actually guilty. Even if they’re convicted they could’ve just been convicted by being at the wrong place at the wrong time.
And here’s the realistic explanation for why and why now:
"…Orin Kerr, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, wrote on X on Wednesday that “from a public policy standpoint, that seems like a bummer.”
“Geofencing has solved a bunch of really major cases that were otherwise totally cold,” he wrote.
“And there are lots of ways of doing the legal process (including Google’s warrant policy, although that’s just one way) that are a lot more privacy protective than ordinary warrants. But I can see why this might be in Google’s business interest. If there isn’t a lot of economic value to Google in keeping the data, and having it means you need to get embroiled in privacy debates over what you do with it, better for Google to drop it.”
It’s a good thing! It never should have been allowed in the first place. But, Google didn’t give a fuck until it caused them enough hassle. Doing this is just a way to avoid something more expensive later, it isn’t a strong principled stand. And I’d bet small amounts that they’ll still have a way to use the data anyway. It won’t be some magic wand that means Google can’t make money off of it.
Exactly!
Sure. They won’t be able to access the data itself, but they’ll have already used the data as it was being generated to add metrics to your profile. So they don’t need it anymore if it’s already been utilized.
Liars always find a way to phrase things to misdirect.
Yes, they still can build a targeted profile per user, but no longer store a database of who was in an area that the police can issue a broad warrant to find out. So they get to have their cake and eat it too!
Citation needed. Solving a case for a police officer means finding a person who looks guilty, not that they’re actually guilty. Even if they’re convicted they could’ve just been convicted by being at the wrong place at the wrong time.