Google sued by the ACCC over alleged misuse of personal data | Hacker News Reader

Google sued by the ACCC over alleged misuse of personal data

abc.net.au

27 pointsclouddrover5 comments

This seems to be a standard dark pattern used by Google.

You can never assume setting "I want this to happen" is all you need to do, as there is often a non-obvious "I don't want this to happen" setting that is more important. Google Ads is rife with this sort of passive misdirection.

Well that's ... nifty.

The previous uproar on this location history thing was us getting all up in arms about how search history and location history were combined; turning off one would turn off the other. Now we're furious that they're not combined: turning off your map location history won't turn off your search history.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Before you get all excited about something "obvious" here that's clearly being overlooked, remember that if you decide to use location-sensitive search, you'll get different search results depending on where you are. Search for "voting" with location enabled, and the results will focus on what's relevant where you are, not just nonspecific voting trivia. You can't store location-sensitive search history without making it possible to derive location based on search history.

Location, history, and how location affects history are distinct concepts that can't be combined without limiting the granularity of your privacy controls, but can't be separated without limiting the clarity of your privacy controls.

The lawsuit alleges that location information is still recorded and stored by Google even if you have the Location History setting turned off, and that to actually stop Google collecting and storing your location information you need to turn off both Location History and Web & App Activity, and that users are not informed about this. It is not that turning of your map location history won't turn off your search history.

Right, because the web activity itself can contain location information independent of the _explicit_ collection of location history.

It comes down to the granularity of privacy concerns and the complexity it introduces.

If you disable the direct collection of location history, should you, the user, be allowed to turn on the collection of other information that can contain location data? That would include all location-enabled service histories, of which search and app history is the most obvious example. Or should Google treat your setting as a prohibition against all possible sources of location data regardless of your other preferences?

The lawsuit alleges that, as it was presented to the user, it is reasonable to assume that turning off Location History would stop collection of location information entirely. If location information is still captured and fed to Google via other channels then the privacy settings need to make this obvious. So the user can give or deny consent. It isn't about what the application can do or should do, it is about getting informed consent for the implemented behavior.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com