upvote
I worked in ad-tech for a year before I left the tech industry as a whole. I've also done a fair bit of investigative journalism.

Let me share a thing:

Factual, a company that specializes in hyperlocal geofencing, uses geofencing much smaller than the self-regulation that their industry allows in their own rules. I learned this after a coworker quit because our company was allowing ad targeting to people using these smaller geofences. The whole company had an all-hands about it where the CEO of the company told everyone that we were not going to stop using Factual nor the smaller-than-allowed geofences because we, ourselves, were not the ones to produce those geofences. We were just a man in the middle helping to build a system to track people at high resolution.

Please try to reconcile with what your industry has and continues to destroy.

reply
>Please try to reconcile with what your industry has and continues to destroy.

I don't see anything contradictory between your comment and the OP. Having an amoral CEO who condones breaking geotargeting self-regulation doesn't contradict OP's claim that it's hard to tie geotargeting data in bidstreams back to a particular person.

reply
> Each SDK might be tattling on you, but unless you give them a key to match you across apps, each signal from each app is unique

You'd be surprised what can be done when data from different source is fused together.

Large-Scale Online Deanonymization with LLMs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47139716

Robust De-anonymization of Large Sparse Datasets: https://www.cs.cornell.edu/~shmat/shmat_oak08netflix.pdf

reply
Neither the government nor an ad agency needs to know where I am, no matter how "rough" the data is. It's none of their business.
reply
But dude... just think of all the optimal personalized mattres sales they can do with that data. I mean, people that use the bathroom at 3:57pm for seven minutes are 0.00138% more likely to buy a new mattress within the next six months. They need that data. Think of all the unsold mattresses.
reply
[dead]
reply
Well, in the case of a company trying to market to you, it literally _is_ their business. It makes them money.

The problem is that we have markets where we: - Incentivize organizations to pursue profits at the expense of everything else, which includes social good and civic rights - Rarely hold bad actors accountable (and almost never in a timely manner)

Which means, given enough time, we're always going to trend to whatever makes the most money. Targeted advertising makes money, and will continue to do so unless or until we collectively decide to make it a greater risk to profits than it is today.

reply
At this point, your device is not giving anyone your location without explicit permission. So it really just comes down to your IP Address, which services do need.
reply
I think your is statement is inaccurate to the point of being intentionally misleading:

Many devices, when running, and in some cases even if turned off but connected to their battery, will ping cell towers (maybe even BLE/Wifi) and get triangulated by the network infrastructure (such as cell towers) without actively broadcasting the GPS location.

That's why I don't quite understand why the gubernment needs to have finer grained data (esp around the US/Mexican border). Precision location info would only be needed if you need to track people in densely populated areas.

reply
Cell-site location information (CSLI) is not available to apps or adware and is protected by the Fourth Amendment.
reply
It was freely sold up until a handful of years ago
reply
Yes, but it is available to the gubernment ? Especially this gubernment?
reply
That location information is not available to apps or ad networks without user consent. The government can access it from the carrier with a warrant, but that's not what we're discussing here.
reply
Carriers have also sold customer location data, no search warrant required. Though we can rest assured that the FCC has slapped the carriers' wrists with the utmost seriousness.
reply
And sold it to not just the government but anybody _claiming_ to be a bounty hunter (and some other professions).
reply
I think that's very much what is discussed in this whole thread.
reply
Couldn't you just maintain a list of cell tower IPs and figure it out with traceroute?
reply
If you use Google Location Services, which is stock install on basically all Android devices, it absolutely is uploading "anonymized" GPS data all the time.
reply
IP Address is all you need to get fairly accurate (town or neighborhood) location for most of North America.

But it is necessary to send it somewhere, otherwise the internet wouldn't work.

Unfortunately it seems to have become accepted for our devices to communicate constantly and often with services we never explicitly started communication with (like Ad networks used in Apps).

Permission systems on devices should care about Network connections just as much as Location. Ideally when installing an app you'd get the list of domains it requests to communicate with, and you could toggle them. Bonus points if the app store made it a requirement to identify which Domains are third parties and the category like an Ad service.

reply
I think the issue here is one of informed consent. You might say, "OK, this makes sense" when agreeing to location data for a weather app. In the context of whether it's going to hail soon, location is reasonable. What you only see in those GDPR-type banners is that the data is being re-sold off to 1001 "partners", none of whom are important for my hail-to-head concerns. Never mind all the cases where it's re-sold on to all the governments and personal-level creeps through aggregators.
reply
IPv6 addresses, particularly hardlines, are often accurate down to the block.
reply
Then you are obligated to obscure that with a trusted no-log VPN too.
reply
deleted
reply
The government does need to know where the people building their lives on breaking the law are. Don't think CBP wants to know where you are.
reply
1000% agreed with this
reply