No reasonable expectation of privacy in one's Google location data

by DanAtC • 2 years ago

218 163 2 years ago

Google is pushing location data to devices and purging it on servers. From a citation within my comment I’ve cited below:

This change means that Google will no longer respond to geofence warrants from law enforcement that request information on all devices near a particular incident.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40869536

(edit to fix my mistake, thank you Centigonal!)

Centigonal• 2 years ago

purging it from their servers*

judge2020• 2 years ago

The actual accuracy is worse than before but it’s a welcome change.

They do still offer a way to keep an encrypted backup of the database on Google servers (so you don’t lose it if you lose your phone) but its disabled by default and it doesn’t even have a modal popup making it easy to enable backups, you have to specifically click the UI button to see the modal with the info sheet and a button to enable backing it up.

modeless4• 2 years ago

Thank you for posting this. I had no idea that there was a default off option to keep encrypted backups. I would be pretty mad if I lost all my years of timeline data because I switched phones. It's ridiculous that Google didn't even show an option for this in the long and needlessly convoluted migration process.

epigramx• 2 years ago

a welcome change

Can someone explain why it's good that your official law infrastructure has no access to Google when in need?

Is this some kind of bizzaro-extermist-libertarianism "government is evil" from America again?

cpcallen• 2 years ago

Since reading this I've gone looking for the setting in Maps (on iOS) but not been able to find it. Can you tell me where it is?

TechDebtDevin• 2 years ago

So I just enabled the "encrypted" backup. The process of doing so is very unintuitive, they have the option in your settings and then tell you go to your timeline settings which leads you back to the same screen telling you to go to timeline settings. Its in another settings tab which isn't exactly straight forwatd.

wmkn• 2 years ago

I enabled it (quite intuitively) by clicking on the little cloud icon in Timeline. I didn’t need to go to settings.

1vuio0pswjnm7• 2 years ago

https://www.forbes.com/sites/cyrusfarivar/2023/12/14/google-...

""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.""

The public has the government to thank for this change because if they had not inundated Google with warrants, Google would have continued to collect and keep this data. The data collection and storage caused the warrants. The warrants caused the decision to purge.

These so-called "tech" companies will collect and store data to the detriment of the public's privacy even when it is unclear if doing so has any economic value.

gleenn2• 2 years ago

How is turning on a feature the same thing as handing data it collects to Google etc? I turned on computer backups, does that mean the feds can read all of that?

lokar2• 2 years ago

Sharing your personal information with a 3rd party reduces your claim to privacy and 4th amendment rights.

ranger_danger2• 2 years ago

pretty sure one of the 47 agree buttons people blindly click on while using their phone has given them the permission already

gleenn2• 2 years ago

I'm not sure I'm making any better argument, but technically it's 2nd party. If I turned on a Google feature, that's between us. And honestly that's kind of the point I'm trying to make. Enabling a feature doesn't mean I want anyone to have access to that features data.

autoexec9• 2 years ago

Location History is turned off by default, so a user must take several affirmative steps before Google begins tracking and storing his Location History data.

Do people really think Google isn't tracking location data without this setting enabled? How would anyone (save for a whistleblower) know? Location history seems like the data Google lets you collect/see for yourself, and not the totality of location data (which includes data collected from nearby wifi networks, nearby cellphones, and other bluetooth devices) that google collects.

Even after a user opts in, he maintains some control over his location data. He can review, edit, or delete any information that Google has already obtained.

This is pretty misleading. You can see the location information your device sent to google, but you can't see or delete the assumptions that google has made about you based on that data. A list of GPS coordinates showing where you frequently go on Saturday nights isn't what people are concerned about Google having. The fact that those GPS coordinates show that you spend hours at, for example, a gay bar is more of an issue. It doesn't matter if you delete the list of GPS coordinates from your google account because what you can't delete is the "This user is gay and often goes to gay bars on Saturdays" flag that google put there the instant they got that data. No matter what you delete that data stays with Google along with the "here's how long this user stays at the gay bar, when they usually leave, where they go afterwards, and who they are with when they do" flags.

I think what happened to this guy (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/google-tracked-his-bike...) is a good indication that the entire system and the way it's being used by police is flawed and dangerous.

Even worse, the situation with google is just the tip of the iceberg because it's not just our phones that are tracking us. It's also our cell phone companies, the random cameras and license plate/toll transponder readers we pass by, our "smart" cars, etc. There's so much tracking going on that the typically American has zero control over at all, but which police (and others) could tap into. We really need more protections against this.

ta8645• 2 years ago

My mother was told that she spent over 200 hours shopping last month. When she looked into it, Google had tracked all the time spent at the retail store she operates. It was amusing and annoying at the same time. She never asked Google to track her location.

autoexec9• 2 years ago

Told by Google? Are they giving people stats like that? How did she get the message?

Hnrobert42• 2 years ago

I completely distrust Google. I have no Google apps on my iPhone. I don't use any Google services.

But I do not believe they have any other identity-linked location data. The way you would know is that there would be an article about the police requesting it.

autoexec9• 2 years ago

The way you would know is that there would be an article about the police requesting it.

I think police just send requests to google for location info without specifying how that data was obtained. It's either, "Tell us everything you know about the location of this user between timestamp one and timestamp two", or "Tell us everything you know about all persons within however many miles of this location between timestamp one and timestamp two" and they don't bother sending requests like "Give us the data from your Location Reporting feature" or "Give us all the data from your Find My Phone feature" or "Give us all the data from your Nearby Connections API"

vineyardmike4• 2 years ago

Do people really think Google isn't tracking location data without this setting enabled? How would anyone (save for a whistleblower) know?

Frankly I think that Google wont track me if I flip the bit (bugs not withstanding). Maybe I’m a fool. Do I trust mega corps? No, but I trust them enough to not blatantly lie when there’d be huge legal repercussions.

They’re a massive corporation with tons of lawyers. They have an huge reputational risk, and they are already known to track a lot of data. Ignoring the user would be a massive violation. I’m sure there is massive legal penalty to this, enough to make the company care about being honest. You can find the most useless crap they stored it you do a data takeout request, so what’re the odds that entire teams of people have been secretly working on something violating laws and agreements and everyone including legal has just turned a blind eye?

Everywhere I’ve worked required privacy and legal reviews just to touch data that could be a location, nevermind store or use it associated with a user. Frankly the lack of whistleblowers or leaks should be a massive sign that it’s not happening. Google has been terrible at avoiding leaks, and everyone working there seems to be jaded after the layoffs rocked the company.

Regarding the “gay bar” anecdotes - I think there are some weak protections around “derivative data” in some jurisdictions but this is likely a gap in laws. There is a chance that it could be considered derived location and be purged too.

Ps totally agree on the point about police abuse though.

autoexec9• 2 years ago

They have an huge reputational risk

I don't understand this argument. The most hated corporations in the US are all insanely rich and are at zero risk of going out of business even though most people hate them. After a certain point, corporations have basically nothing to fear from bad press. Google specifically has been found guilty of violating the law and people's privacy on numerous occasions already, including misleading users into thinking they had turned off location tracking in their account settings even though Google was still collecting that information. Here's a short and very incomplete list:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/14/technology/google-privacy...

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/google-sued-o...

https://www.androidcentral.com/google-faces-privacy-lawsuit-...

https://www.wired.com/2012/05/google-wifi-fcc-investigation/

https://www.reuters.com/legal/google-settles-5-billion-consu...

https://apnews.com/article/google-chrome-privacy-lawsuit-set...

What reputation does Google have to protect at this point? They've repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to break the law when it's convenient for them and even after being caught they've generally profited from doing so and at no point were they in danger of going out of business due to punitive fines.

Frankly the lack of whistleblowers or leaks should be a massive sign that it’s not happening.

whistleblowers are extremely rare. The few protections they have are being reduced all the time, and the risk is huge. Very few people will give up their career and risk becoming unhirable.

lucianbr2• 2 years ago

Ignoring the user would be a massive violation. I’m sure there is massive legal penalty to this, enough to make the company care about being honest.

Is this satire? There are countless discussions about how GDPR for example is not being enforced properly, how fines are not small enough to move the needle for corporations and are just a cost of doing business. Apple and Google and Microsoft and Facebook are continuously fighting the EU Comission about privacy and market domination on multiple fronts, and recently the US DOJ has started fighting them too. I have never seen any clue that they are afraid.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

skybrian2• 2 years ago

That link is a story from 2020 about a geofence warrant. It appears that around the end of last year, Google changed their system to store location on the device (with optional encrypted backups), so warrants like that won't work anymore. More info:

Is This the End of Geofence Warrants? https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/12/end-geofence-warrants

It might not be completely over. There might be other other location stored somewhere. But, it's important to celebrate the win when something like this happens.

autoexec9• 2 years ago

If that chance actually goes on to protect people, I'll agree that it's a good thing! We'll know when time goes on and nobody else ends up being arrested because the police when fishing using location data I guess.

gruez7• 2 years ago

Do people really think Google isn't tracking location data without this setting enabled? How would anyone (save for a whistleblower) know? [...]

You can't, in the same way you wouldn't know whether Carl Sagan really has an invisible dragon in his garage or not. It's impossible to prove a negative.

It doesn't matter if you delete the list of GPS coordinates from your google account because what you can't delete is the "This user is gay and often goes to gay bars on Saturdays" flag that google put there the instant they got that data.

Is there any evidence this actually happens? The bike thief example you linked is more straightforwardly explained with police using a geofence warrant, rather than some ML system that recorded "this guy bikes at 4pm to 6pm".

autoexec9• 2 years ago

You can't

Sounds like a good reason not to trust them. That said, it's not impossible to be reasonably assured that our data isn't being stored or used inappropriately, but that would require strong regulations which protected that data and a proven record of companies being caught and facing meaningful consequences for violating those regulations. It'd be nice if we had strong whistleblower protections as well. Maybe a massive bounty to anyone who can prove to regulators that their company is violating customer's privacy would help.

Is there any evidence this actually happens?

Well, yeah. That's literally Google's entire business model. They collect as much data as they can about you, so that advertisers can request their ads to be show to certain segments of the population. That's what targeted advertising is. Nobody is sending Google updates on their lives, google just makes a bunch of guesses and inferences using the massive amounts of data they collect about you, and as long as they are correct most of the time it pays off for advertisers.

Google isn't alone in that either. Many many companies do it, as well as data brokers. You can be extremely specific in who you target. See for example: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-data-brokers-selling-your-p...

Among the worst are lists of people with mental illness, dementia, poor education/literacy, low intelligence, etc. I doubt Google lets you target people based on predatory lists like that, but they might keep them for their own uses. They have collected the test scores and grades of a lot of children through schools that force students to create google accounts and use chromebooks. It'd be pretty easy for them to sort people into buckets like "smart" or "dumb".

Lots of companies privacy polices state specifically that they collect this kind of data. For example, here a company that collects "Personal Information used to create a profile about you, which may include your preferences, reading or writing levels, abilities, aptitudes, and other data or analytics provided about you or your account by our third-party partners or data aggregators. " (https://www.captivoice.com/capti-site/public/entry/privacy_p...)

jmward014• 2 years ago

Missing from this is the reality that the modern world increasingly requires using these applications. It is meaningless to present an option you are forced to agree to. Additionally there is, to me, a big difference between me enabling an app to use my data for the service I believe it provides and them using it for everything else.

vineyardmike4• 2 years ago

enabling an app to use my data for the service I believe it provides and them using it for everything else.

I completely agree, but I think we need to push society away from requiring for profit products into our life, or at least recognize that they have an association cost to the user. What is the reasonable expectation of a business to profit off a product that we’ve deemed “required”? Who would make or support a product they can’t profit on?

In the EU, they required Facebook to offer a no-tracking version of the product, which meta replied by making a paid tier. Then they required Facebook to not charge for their no-tracking version. So why should facebook stay in the EU if it can’t profit from providing a service? While no one will shed a tear over Meta’s business, it is a massive way for people to connect with each other. Google Maps could theoretically suffer the same fate - and free access to maps seems like a public good. YouTube is another example that can be for the public good due to its educational content. The list of products that are “free” and probably good for society is huge now thanks to effective online advertising.

I don’t want us to shed a tear for billionaire-corporations profit margins, but instead address that we’ve come to rely on them and they probably won’t be altruistic about watching their profits legislated away.

m463• 2 years ago

but I think we need to push society away from requiring for profit products into our life

The following sites use google services and google analytics:

irs.gov

ftb.ca.gov (california state tax authority)

dmv.ca.gov (california department of motor vehicles)

how can you avoid these things?

if money is involved, recaptcha is generally a non-blockable requirement.

photonthug2• 2 years ago

I completely agree, but I think we need to push society away from requiring for profit products into our life, or at least recognize that they have an association cost to the user. What is the reasonable expectation of a business to profit off a product that we’ve deemed “required”? Who would make or support a product they can’t profit on?

We kind of urgently need new models for certain things that start as for-profit and then fade towards more publicly owned utilities. This is the essence of the idea behind things like patents and copyright, and when we're talking about a service where the creators have been wildly successful the basic issues are mostly the same. Fair compensation, but not ownership in perpetuity. The thing about maps and similar is, it's not an idea to be protected because the idea is the easy part but the data is hard. Since google did some part of the actual mapping, they certainly deserve credit, but of course the whole thing could not exist if GPS wasn't essentially available as a public utility. Maybe if they want to be stingy with the map data forever, they should pay license fees for the GPS technology, since that's a piece of infrastructure they outsource to the public? Or for our individual data, since it's required to build their models?

Regardless of your stance on political/economic ideology, surely individuals can agree that it's not sustainable for society to be beholden to for-profit corporations forever for things like maps, the ability to use a flashlight or a toaster, the ability to open doors on houses or cars you own, or access to water/air. Maintenance is a real issue for most technology even after it's figured out, so probably the corporations should be forced towards spinning off actually separated co-ops/nonprofits/utilities in the fullness of time.

So basically wild profits and all the awful antisocial and anti-competitive behaviour you can get away with, but having some explicit expiration date for service-monopoly as well as idea-monopoly. And as for the question of motivation.. does it really disincentivize creative crooks to know that the next generation of crooks will need a new scam? I think not because the whole point is that this type of person is out for themselves.

Ylpertnodi• 2 years ago

They're missing the profit/ altruism of me just giving them £€$ right out of the gate so as not to have ads thrown at me.

I just don't like ads (and tracking).

chmod775• 2 years ago

First off you're making the mistake of equating ads with tracking. You do not need tracking for ads - context based advertising is widespread on YouTube already.

Secondly there's nothing special about these services except their moat. Even when serving video was a novel problem, there was dozens of competitors. Nowadays it's a solved problem. If they leave, they'll be replaced overnight, just like many other social networks, messengers, video platforms, etc. before them. They'll go far not to give up a position they will likely never claw back.

gruez7• 2 years ago

Missing from this is the reality that the modern world increasingly requires using these applications

From the second paragraph in the linked article:

Location History is turned off by default, so a user must take several affirmative steps before Google begins tracking and storing his Location History data. [...] Roughly one-third of active Google users have enabled Location History.

This is specifically about the opt-in location history service, not some sort of opt-out/mandatory location reporting that's on android phones.

0cf8612b2e1e2• 2 years ago

Google used to (still does?) disable many features of Maps if location history was disabled. I kept it off, but could easily see many people felt forced to give up on their privacy for the convenience.

jmward014• 2 years ago

1/3 of active google users is a lot of people to opt into giving away their privacy. Either they actually don't understand what they did, understand but were forced in some way or understand and truly believe the value of the service was worth the privacy invasion. It is pure speculation on my part but my guess is that the first two reasons dwarf the third. The decision in question though would, in my view, only have merit if the third answer was overwhelmingly the case.

dotancohen6• 2 years ago

I have a hard time believing that one third of any user base ever changes any particular default setting, much less something this buried.

_heimdall• 2 years ago

Missing from this is the reality that the modern world increasingly requires using these applications

We don't have to accept this though, everyone in the modern world makes a choice to accept the implied requirements of being part of the system. We accept the assumption that we are all online, that we all have a mobile phone, and that we all keep up with news and pop culture to an extent that we all seem to zero in on the same transient topic like a solar eclipse or an interest in atching movies about both Barbie and Oppenheimer.

Anyone can choose to avoid any one of these parts of the modern world. We're parts of that world, we aren't victims of it.

justinpombrio• 2 years ago

Anyone can choose to avoid any one of these parts of the modern world.

Well my apartment building is about to replace the doorbells with a cell phone app (or phone calls as an alternative). No cell phone -> no door bell. I'm just a renter; I get no say in the matter.

AnthonyMouse• 2 years ago

The problem here is that the choices are all glued together. If you disable saving location history to third party servers and all your apps still work by just using it locally, that's one thing, and certainly when that option is available then people should choose it.

But if disabling third party storage breaks the apps, you can nominally stop using the apps, but that's often not a viable option and even if it isn't completely infeasible the user will be under significant pressure to indicate consent even if they would prefer not to. That's not where we want to be.

rayiner3• 2 years ago

That’s neither here nor there. The question is do you reasonably expect that this information is private. The answer is obviously “no,” because you’re handing the information over to a company with hundreds of thousands of employees. Whether you think you have a good reason to give up your privacy like that or not is neither here nor there.

skywhopper• 2 years ago

This is a terrible take. I expect that any such company has more than sufficient wherewithal to enforce good privacy practices on my data, which belongs to me. If they do some calculations on my behalf using that data on their servers, the data still belongs to me.

brookst• 2 years ago

Wait, so if I get medical care a company with United Health, a company with hundreds of thousands of employees, I have no expectation of privacy just because of their headcount?

dotancohen6• 2 years ago

  > a big difference between me enabling an app to use my data for the service I believe it provides and them using it for everything else.

Making this distinction a legal requirement was a very important part of the GDPR.

jhallenworld2• 2 years ago

One consolation: it works both ways with this kind of data. For example, it can corroborate your story.

kerkeslager• 2 years ago

That data could corroborate one's story before it was considered to have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

taneq2• 2 years ago

Is there any obligation to announce exonerating data found by prosecutors during a dragnet search? I was under the impression that they could just pick something that makes you look bad and build a case on that, and that unless your defence has access to all the same data (do they?) and is equally motivated and funded, that in this case you’re probably just boned.

jhallenworld2• 2 years ago

You have access to your own location data, at least if you have location history enabled. It's an interesting question if defense can request this data from google if you don't have it enabled..

hollerith2• 2 years ago

There is such an obligation.

In fact, just yesterday, a judge dismissed a case in the middle of a trial to punish a prosecutor for not disclosing information to the defense -- and the information had only a tenuous relevance to the case:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/12/a-bo...

rangestransform• 2 years ago

Well now if it corroborates your story, you can voluntarily share it; if it doesn’t, you can tell law enforcement to get a warrant or pound sand

steelframe4• 2 years ago

I run GrapheneOS on my phone and have all location permissions denied for everything except for (offline) Organic Maps. I also make it a habit of keeping airplane mode enabled except on the (very) rare occasion when I need to make an outbound phone call while out of the house. With the recent revelations about the triangulated location data that AT&T left exposed for all of its customers I don't feel like this is an overreaction.

kibwen• 2 years ago

It's not an overreaction. The idea of everyone willingly sharing the details of their every movement with sociopathic corporations who are beholden to national security letters would have been met with ridicule 30 years ago.

inejge• 2 years ago

I don't think that actual history supports that assertion. 30 years ago, cellular networks were really taking off and people were starting to use mobile phones en masse. Always on, pinging the base stations, delivering that data to equally sociopathic and beholden carriers. The public was not up in arms.

What's changed in the meantime, aside from the richness and granularity of location data, is awareness of the potential for the abuse of it all, supported by well-publicized incidents. Which is a good thing; the public is quite tolerant of invisible machinations, as long as they remain distant and abstract.

nonrandomstring2• 2 years ago

It's met with ridicule now, but the value of ridicule has slumped in 30 years.

Ian Levy, when he was at NCSC spoke about "shame as a weapon against Big Tech". But he missed a crucial flaw - they do not give a fuck. Shame and ridicule only work in societies where people have dignity, self-respect, mutuality and care.

It's true that nobody has any reasonable expectation of privacy when using a Google smartphone. But the ruling talks about "willingly". What does "will" have to do with modern life where people are badgered incessantly to surrender their choice, boundaries, and dignity?

To exercise "will" these days, is quite a big deal, and usually means going against the flow and suffering some loss.

lucianbr2• 2 years ago

So you have a mobile phone but you configured it so that you are unreachable when you are not at home?

I'm all for privacy, but people being able to call me is hugely conveninent, and I really don't want to give it up. We need a better solution.

steelframe4• 2 years ago

People can still call me and leave a message. I'll receive their message when I feel like it, not when they feel like it. It's really not all that terrible a thing. You should try it sometime.

jiveturkey• 2 years ago

do note that while your location MAY not be shared, the absence of location information for when you turn on airplane mode reveals at least when you left and returned to the house.

i was worried also that airplane mode may not actually disable the radio but at least one random google result (from reddit, not graphene themselves) says it does.

steelframe4• 2 years ago

reveals at least when you left and returned to the house.

Sure, the neighbors' cloud-connected doorcams reveal that too. Although I do enable airplane mode here and there while I'm still at my house whenever I don't want to be disturbed for a couple of hours, and I don't always remember to disable airplane mode the instant I walk through my front door, so that's not terribly clean signal for "he left the house at this time and returned at that."

BenFranklin1002• 2 years ago

Get an iPhone. Android and iOS are equivalent, while Apple’s revenue is overwhelmingly based on hardware and services, unlike Google’s revenue which is overwhelmingly based on advertising and tracking.

titaniumtown2• 2 years ago

I use GrapheneOS with my Pixel 7 with no issues. I won't ever buy an apple device. If the OS isn't opensource, I'm not buying it.

biglady654• 2 years ago

Have you personally compiled and set up that OS on your Pixel 7?

poisonborz2• 2 years ago

Android and iOS are equivalent How can you write this after using both for like 10 minutes

BenFranklin1002• 2 years ago

iOS is a bit better, but honestly I think Android is just fine. I don’t see a big difference for most users.

add-sub-mul-div• 2 years ago

Apple sells your traffic to Google for tens of billions of dollars. Of course they're not leaving the equivalent money on the table, they just hope people will be fooled by the indirection.

jurip• 2 years ago

If you believe this is what the Safari default search engine deal entails, please provide receipts.

Sytten• 2 years ago

Is there an alternative to google location history that is privacy friendly? I like the feature during trips to record where I went. Maybe just me but when I get a bit nostalgic I like to retrace my steps and find again some lost memories/places.

titaniumtown2• 2 years ago

I've personally heard of https://owntracks.org/ though I haven't been able to try it myself. Seems like a location history and see where other members of your instance are.

modeless4• 2 years ago

Google Location History is privacy friendly now. It was just recently changed a month or two ago and it no longer works in the way the article describes. The history data is now stored on your phone. Cloud backups are optional and default off and always end-to-end encrypted if enabled, so your location history database is not ever accessible to any Google server. Google made this change in response to issues like the ones described in this article.

krackers• 2 years ago

not ever accessible to any google server

How can they use it for ad targeting then?

boschfish• 2 years ago

I have been using https://scoria.info/. It is privacy first and offers great flexibility with how you can filter, view, and export your location data.

bad_username• 2 years ago

Importing existing Google timeline data would be useful, but doesn't look like it's supported.

treebeard901• 2 years ago

Location history is really just a setting asking if you want to see your own location data.

All of your location data from the E911 system through to Google Play Services and on to maps, etc is constantly being collected then sold and collated among all these companies.

It is impossible on a modern cellphone to fully disable reporting of your location to any provider in the stack.

rurban• 2 years ago

The SensorVault warrants going back decades were already explained in a 2019 nyt times article, which is stolen here. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/13/us/google-loc... They can even solve cold cases.

What is new is that users can opt-out of location tracking. They won't purge SensorVault though (location reporting).

Quarondeau• 2 years ago

That is definitely not true for everyone who has had their Google account for years, because back then, location data was an opt-out feature.

I definitely never actively opted in, and Google never disabled the tracking to force previous tacit consenters to opt in to account for the cultural shift from opt-out to opt-in, which probably happened in the early 2010s?

sans_souse• 2 years ago

I wonder if that entire User Location repo will one day end up leaked..

No reasonable expectation of privacy in one's Google location data

Related Stories