TomTom data being given to police

[roachcoach]

/rabble rabble rabble in 5...4...3....

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...m_campaign=rss

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/cartech/tomt...lice-50003618/


Joking aside, it'll be interesting if this gets more mainstream

[Saracen]

Well, apparently, the data is "anonymised" s can't be backtracked to individual users. Erm, right. Maybe that's true, and maybe it isn't.

I guess the moral of the tale is that if the risk of having such data kept by somebody, whether it gets to the police or not, don't buy a device with a 3G card capable of reporting such data back. Or, opt out of the service .... if you feel confident that opting out actually stops the data collection/transmission.

Personally, I would not buy a device with that capability, and for much the same reason, as soon as my minimum Sky contract period expired, I unplugged to phone line from the box and it's stayed that way. I don't know or care what data Sky collected, or what they used it for, I see no reason to give it to them (and I never use premium services on Sky, and never will).

But it's getting harder and harder to effectively guide privacy. There are steps you can take to cut down data tracking and data mining, but it's either impossible or very close to it to avoid it altogether.

Personally, I've love to see a mandatory opt-in ethos, combined with a required not just for opt-in, for for informed opt-in, to avoid the stealth methods and the default opt-ins, with swinging punitive fines for firms not complying, and I'd like to see it apply to ALL aspects of our life. But given the power of vested interests, I'm not holding my breath.

As for this type of story, get used to it. It's only going to get worse, until or unless consumers start, en-masse, voting with their feet when companies take liberties. If people refused to buy TomToms over this, or refused to buy iPhones etc, the companies concerned would soon stop doing it. But sadly, I'm not holding my breath over that either, because my guess would be that the vast majority either don't know, don't care or both.

[aidanjt]

Shhh, careful you don't use the 'C' word, Saracen, people will think you've donned a tinfoil hat.

[roachcoach]

I'm of two immediate thoughts:

a) An "anonymous" journey which ends at the same place every day (your home) is probably not that anonymous if anyone cared enough.

b) This, if used properly, could actually bring decent benefits to traffic and road management. Sadly, I have NO faith it will be used properly.

I'd like to see it used to review road capacities, fair speed limit assessment - both too low and too high exist in many places. Things like that could bring real benefits to us, but I doubt the data would be properly used.

[Saracen]

Shhh, careful you don't use the 'C' word, Saracen, people will think you've donned a tinfoil hat.

Just because people call you paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you.

Take store "loyalty" cards. Why do stores give away money? Because they expect to make more in return, some directly by encouraging you back, but more indirectly from data-mining. There's nothing conspiracy-ist about this. It's been going on for decades, and is getting more and more prevalent.

I don't have a tinfoil hat, but I do have a healthy regard for my own privacy. For instance, it's very rare indeed for me to give out my home phone number, and on those rare occasions when I do give it out to any commercial organisation, it's ALWAYS with the rider that I don't want marketing calls.

Yet, after just renewing with the AA, and emphasizing "no marketing calls", what did I get a few says ago? Yup. And I'll leave to your imagination just how short the shrift the bloke on the phone got was.

In case anyone from the AA is reading then, when I say "no marketing calls", I mean exactly that. I don't care what the offer is, either post it or pester someone else with it. If you want to give away free membership for the rest of eternity but will only do it by phone, pester someone else, but not me.

Simples, innit.

[roachcoach]

And I'll leave to your imagination just how short the shrift the bloke on the phone got was.

Based on the brief nature of your posts....I'm thinking maybe 75 minutes?

[aidanjt]

Just because people call you paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you.

Take store "loyalty" cards. Why do stores give away money? Because they expect to make more in return, some directly by encouraging you back, but more indirectly from data-mining. There's nothing conspiracy-ist about this. It's been going on for decades, and is getting more and more prevalent.

I don't have a tinfoil hat, but I do have a healthy regard for my own privacy. For instance, it's very rare indeed for me to give out my home phone number, and on those rare occasions when I do give it out to any commercial organisation, it's ALWAYS with the rider that I don't want marketing calls.

Yet, after just renewing with the AA, and emphasizing "no marketing calls", what did I get a few says ago? Yup. And I'll leave to your imagination just how short the shrift the bloke on the phone got was.

In case anyone from the AA is reading then, when I say "no marketing calls", I mean exactly that. I don't care what the offer is, either post it or pester someone else with it. If you want to give away free membership for the rest of eternity but will only do it by phone, pester someone else, but not me.

Simples, innit.

I couldn't agree with you more. Yet the sheeple will take any objection to authoritarian encroachment to be conspiracy theorist tinfoilery.

[roachcoach]

I couldn't agree with you more. Yet the sheeple will take any objection to authoritarian encroachment to be conspiracy theorist tinfoilery.

That obviously because if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear.

The 3 American gents wrongfully arrested in CP charges and in doing so being clobbered by the coppers on the basis of their IP address being used with open WiFi were unavailable for comment.

Nothing to fear indeed......

[Saracen]

Based on the brief nature of your posts....I'm thinking maybe 75 minutes?

I'm offended ..... that you think I could summarise my views on that issue so succinctly.

[roachcoach]

I assumed the operators shift finished

[Mblaster]

An "anonymous" journey which ends at the same place every day (your home) is probably not that anonymous if anyone cared enough.

I would like to think that the data they provide is not information on journeys, but information on roads. So they would provide data on average speeds for sections of road at different times of the day, areas where congestion builds up, and potentially data showing how it builds up and spreads through the road network.

The linked articles in the OP were referring to how the police analysed this data in order to choose the best positions for speed traps/cameras. They're not sending out speeding tickets because TomTom sold them your journey data.

[roachcoach]

I would like to think that the data they provide is not information on journeys, but information on roads. So they would provide data on average speeds for sections of road at different times of the day, areas where congestion builds up, and potentially data showing how it builds up and spreads through the road network.

I'd like to think that too...

The linked articles in the OP were referring to how the police analysed this data in order to choose the best positions for speed traps/cameras. They're not sending out speeding tickets because TomTom sold them your journey data.

Here and I thought actual accidents would help them manage that


A mass of evidence of speeding drivers at locations of no accidents or indeed a rash of accidents at sub-limit speeds suggests....bad limits?

[helpiveimploded]

One of my main objections to this is that the site says this information was being passed along for money, to make up for budget shortfalls. It lends an air of seediness to this that totally undermines whatever benefit there might be for traffic, and it'll undoubtedly see more people opting out of the feature on their sat-nav.

Even if it's true that all the info is completely anonymous, its supposed to be used philanthropically, to help other drivers avoid traffic and so on. As far as I'm concerned, that data isn't Tom-Tom's to sell. How would you feel if you agreed to, for example, publicise your genome in order to help treat and understand disease, and the company actually sold the data instead of giving it away? Even though it's still technically being used for the same purpose, even if your genome was presented as part of a group, and wasn't linked to you, you'd still be mightily cheesed off, right? People don't upload that data so some company can profit from it; they upload it to contribute to society.

[Saracen]

I assumed the operators shift finished

And you think I'd let him off that easy? I don't mind carrying on with his successor.

[roachcoach]

LOL

[Saracen]

....

A mass of evidence of speeding drivers at locations of no accidents or indeed a rash of accidents at sub-limit speeds suggests....bad limits?

Data on excessive speeding where accidents > lots = good place to prevent accidents.

Data on lots of speeding where accidents = 0 OR accidents < lots = good place to raise revenue.

Or is my cynicism showing again?