Google Maps update shields user location data from law enforcement requests

[midian182]

Why it matters: Allowing companies access to your private information has been a contentious issue since the rise of the internet. It's especially concerning when that information is related to location data, which is partly why Google has changed its policy regarding access to users' location histories in Maps. The move means it can no longer respond to warrant-enforced requests from law enforcement about who was in the vicinity of a crime.

Google says that its update to Google Maps will give users more control over their location data. The navigation app's Location History feature, which is turned off by default, stores your activity in the cloud, showing where you've recently been. The idea is to help people remember the places they've visited and how they got there.

Following the update, users' Timeline data will be stored on the device itself rather than the cloud, though there will be an option to update it to the cloud as a backup if you want. This data will be encrypted, so nobody, not even Google, will be able to see it. Additionally, Google will only hold the data for three months instead of the previous 18 months, unless you specify otherwise.

One big implication of this change is that by saving location data directly onto a person's device, Google will not be able to comply with law enforcement requests demanding user location information.

"Your location information is personal," said Marlo McGriff, director of product for Google Maps. "We're committed to keeping it safe, private and in your control."

Jennifer Lynch, the general counsel at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), told Bloomberg, "We've been calling on Google to make these changes for years, and I think it's fantastic for Google users, because it means that they can take advantage of features like location history without having to fear that the police will get access to all of that data."

In September, a Bloomberg investigation found that police in the US were increasingly using warrants to obtain location and search data from Google. This included non-violent cases and also involved people who had nothing to do with the crimes.

October brought news that the Colorado Supreme Court had upheld a search warrant that involved the examination of some Google users' keyword history to identify suspects in a fatal 2020 arson fire. The decision drew criticism from privacy advocates, including the EFF, which wants a full ban on keyword warrants.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/101222-google-latest-maps-update-shields-user-location-data.html

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Interesting. Why would google deprive itself of this kind of data? This is what I would have expected of "dont be evil" era google.

 

[Nobina]

They can probably avoid some headaches by simply not having access to some data. It's a big win for the user, too. But this doesn't sound like Google at all.

 

[McKocoa]

Maybe a bit of marketing too? Apple has roundly advertised itself as the 'privacy' company. I think this has more to do with optics for google rather than a sudden dire concern for personal privacy (was it even legal what they were doing with their geofence or keyword dragnet surveillance?!). Google says in the last paragraph: "Your location information is personal. We’re [suddenly now] committed to keeping it safe, private and in your control."

 

[BuckarooBonzaii]

Sometimes I think we're told what we want to hear but in the background something else going on. Do one thing to hide something else. I'm sure many remember the AT&T Room 641A incident.

 

[ScottSoapbox]

This is the way. There is no need to store this in the cloud, so why not take the privacy win?

I wonder if this is driven by the public's growing awareness of tracking or fear of a future lawsuit when an abusive cop tracks down his wayward girlfriend (or something similar).

 

[human7]

Geolocation data is a goldmine for advertisers and others. But it also comes with reputational and regulatory risks. This article makes it sound like the cost to Google may be more than the value they are getting out of it, though I find it hard to believe for that to be the case. Perhaps it simply doesn't need geofence data to get the value that it wants, though. "As the EFF points out, Google collects location data in other contexts outside of its Location History timeline, like its Web & App Activity setting, which may be sought by authorities through lawful demands."

https://www.theregister.com/2023/12/15/google_location_history_geofence/

 

[PEnnn]

"Your location information is personal," said Marlo McGriff, director of product for Google Maps. "We're committed to keeping it safe, private and in your control."

Where is the real Google and what have you done with it???

 

[toooooot]

They will find a workaround.

 

[Thatsdisgusting]

Google be like
“How do you do, fellow gangsta?”