Hacker News Reader

Comment by Drakim | Hacker News Reader

PUBLIC RELATIONS PERSON:

You don't understand, they aren't actively looking at the data so it's not spying. It's just being archived at our central servers for important future use, and any access is subject to warrants (for now). We are working with Google to bring this important life-saving terrorist-defeating child porn-detecting feature to Android. Think of the Children!

(I really hope it only sends out the information exactly while the phone is calling 911. Maybe in the future we'll have big debates about whether people should be able to "walk dark" without a mobile tracking device in the streets.)

View on HN

Why shouldn’t it be archived for future use?

Why shouldn't all your traffic, location data, and thoughts be archived for future use?

Maybe in 30 years we figure out you are one of the undesirables of society, and we'll have an easy time getting rid of you and your kind. It's a great boon for society to preserve all data.

That is not the context of this news.

The context here is recording pertinent information when a person chooses to request emergency law enforcement, medical, and fire services.

What's happening here is the normalization of the practice of supplying real-time location information of devices to various government agents by way of an "unassailable good".

This is a great feature given 911's notoriously poor ability to locate mobile callers, but let's be real: this shifts the Overton window.

Imagine the call is from a gay bar (or the vicinity). The data leaks. Now coworkers know, none of them are okay with it (even if they never confirm their assumptions), and there are no legal protections when they get fired.

There are a lot of non-obvious ways seemingly-innocent data can harm marginalized groups.

Your phone already has your location through a number of means, it’s not like 911 is suddenly creating this fact. If you’re going incognito, and you have your phone on you, you’re not incognito.

I'm not okay with that either. Just because data is already collected for one purpose doesn't mean we have to accept further encroachments on privacy. Every one increases the surface area of risk for a dangerous leak.

You are calling 911. The purpose of the call is specifically to ask the government to send someone to your location.

>> "You are calling 911. The purpose of the call is specifically to ask the government to send someone to your location."

Correct. I'm not asking the private company "RapidSOS" to relay my location to the government. The endless string of leaks makes me distrust companies with data. Every party I depend on having good security is a new party that might screw up, or intentionally misuse the data.

The involuntary risk surface area is already large enough.

This thread started because someone was concerned that OMG, law enforcement might actually get the location info that you're trying to send them.

If your concern is specifically about the 3rd party getting the data because they're acting as intermediary, I can understand that. I don't agree, but understand.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com