I love my SE too,@Peterchu.
About this time last year I lost my first SE
(‘Find my phone’ emailed me when someone tried to turn it on in the Philippines!)
Got a new SE soon after, it suits my needs and has lots of features at about half the price of the more recent models.
I ‘ Don’t allow locations ‘ but am suspicious that Google knows anyway!
Also, from reviews etc., it seems that IOS
is safer than Android, so far.
4 Likes
this will be interesting …
Google allegedly misled consumers on collection and use of location data
29 October 2019
The ACCC has instituted proceedings in the Federal Court against Google LLC and Google Australia Pty Ltd (together, Google), alleging they engaged in misleading conduct and made false or misleading representations to consumers about the personal location data Google collects, keeps and uses.
The ACCC claims that from at least January 2017, Google breached the Australian Consumer Law when it made on-screen representations on Android mobile phones and tablets that the ACCC alleges misled consumers about the location data Google collected or used when certain Google Account settings were enabled or disabled.
The representations were made to consumers setting up a Google Account on their Android mobile phones and tablets, and to consumers who later accessed their Google Account settings through their Android mobile phones and tablets.
“We are taking court action against Google because we allege that as a result of these on-screen representations, Google has collected, kept and used highly sensitive and valuable personal information about consumers’ location without them making an informed choice,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.
Collection of data representation
The ACCC’s case regarding the collection of location data focuses on two Google Account settings: one labelled ‘Location History’; and another labelled ‘Web & App Activity’.
The ACCC alleges that from January 2017 until late 2018, it was misleading for Google to not properly disclose to consumers that both settings had to be switched off if consumers didn’t want Google to collect, keep and use their location data.
Instead, the ACCC alleges that when consumers set up a Google Account on their Android phone or tablet, consumers would have incorrectly believed, based on Google’s conduct, that ‘Location History’ was the only Google Account setting that affected whether Google collected, kept or used data about their location.
Similarly, if consumers later accessed their Google Account settings on their Android device, Google did not inform them that by leaving ‘Web & App Activity’ switched on, Google would continue to collect location data.
“Our case is that consumers would have understood as a result of this conduct that by switching off their ‘Location History’ setting, Google would stop collecting their location data, plain and simple,” Mr Sims said.
“We allege that Google misled consumers by staying silent about the fact that another setting also had to be switched off.”
“Many consumers make a conscious decision to turn off settings to stop the collection of their location data, but we allege that Google’s conduct may have prevented consumers from making that choice.”
The ACCC also alleges that from around mid-2018 until late 2018, Google represented to consumers that the only way they could prevent Google from collecting, keeping and using their location data was to stop using certain Google services, including Google Search and Google Maps. However, this could be achieved by switching off both ‘Location History’ and ‘Web & App Activity’.
Use of data representation
The ACCC also alleges that Google’s on-screen statements explaining how location data would be used when customers accessed their ‘Location History’ and ‘Web & App Activity’ settings were misleading.
From March 2017 when a consumer accessed the ‘Web & App Activity’ settings, and from May 2018 when a consumer accessed the ‘Location History’ setting, Google displayed on-screen messages that represented that location data would only be collected and used by Google for the consumer’s use of Google services.
Google did not disclose that the data may be used by Google for a number of other purposes unrelated to the consumer’s use of Google’s services.
“We consider that because of Google’s failure to disclose this use of data, consumers were and still are deprived of the opportunity to make an informed choice about whether to share their personal location data with Google,” Mr Sims said.
“Transparency and inadequate disclosure issues involving digital platforms and consumer data were a major focus of our Digital Platforms Inquiry, and remain one of the ACCC’s top priorities.”
By making the collection and use of data representations, the ACCC alleges that Google also engaged in conduct liable to mislead the public about the nature, characteristics and suitability for purpose of the Android operating system, Google services and Google Pixel phones.
The ACCC is seeking penalties, declarations and orders requiring the publication of corrective notices and the establishment of a compliance program.
… more on the link … let’s see if the ACCC have what is needed to see this one through for a meaningful penalty if proven …
7 Likes
Radio National’s audio of their article on the ACCC action:
5 Likes
… well worth the listen !! thanks !
The whole piece is worth a listen - it’s only 9.5 minutes long, but just after 3.5 minutes particularly:
Hamish Macdonald (ABC): what about individual responsibility here? If those facilities are available to each user what’s Google actually done wrong?
Rod Sims (ACCC): oh look thats a great question Hamish and it goes to the core of Australian Consumer Law. Australian Consumer Law says don’t mislead consumers. So there’s nothing wrong with saying consumers ‘you make the choice’, provided consumers are well informed to make that choice. I would also add, provided that choice is relatively easy to make and you don’t have to go through many different settings, many different taps on the iPhone (sic), but the point relevant here is provided you’re not mislead. How can you make a proper choice unless you’ve got the full information.
(any errors in transcript mine)
3 Likes
No. But is certainly funny.
1 Like
The ACCC has raised concerns regarding Google’s proposed takeover of Fitbit.
4 Likes
Its been coming for ages. I stopped using my fitbits before I heard about it, but I’ll never use them again, and I have deleted all my stuff from the fitbit site.
1 Like
Or you think you have? Without a legally enforced “right to delete” / “right to forget”, you have no way of knowing whether the delete did really and fully happen and if the web site provider tells you bluntly the truth that nothing can ever be deleted, you have no enforceable right.
One amusing thing to come out of the Ashley Madison hack was that even in the scenario that a customer paid Ashley Madison to delete his profile, the profile did not actually get deleted. (On the face of it, this is a clear breach of consumer law. However the remedy might be limited to a refund of the deletion fee and in any case many customers, for obvious reasons, might not be too keen to pursue a remedy.)
The only safe way of controlling data about yourself is to ensure that it is never collected. Once your private data is collected, the genie doesn’t get back in the bottle.
5 Likes
Pretty sure. Would not have been if Google had already bought
1 Like
Google would have obtained all the data back-ups held by the previous owners. They do this in case of a need to recover details for a user or for legal purposes eg data warrant. The data that is normally deleted is the “live data” not the archived data. In some very few cases a business does scrub all archives but this is very rare indeed and not what a public business does particularly for audit and legal purposes.
2 Likes
Gawd! I refuse to be that paranoid about maybe having my weight and sleep patterns from 6 years ago exposed to google.
1 Like
Wasn’t about paranoia but about how sure you could be that your data was deleted. You noted you were pretty sure in reply to @person’s asking how sure you could be. The reality of any request to delete data with any of these businesses is that it is almost impossible to ensure any information that has been daily or even at every entry backed up, is truly deleted is not possible. In Australia most records might be dumped, shredded, after 7 years but just as in the case of the illegal Robodebt Centrelink has computer accessible data records going back decades which are held in huge archives in several places throughout Australia just so they can recover this sort of information. Google, Amazon and many others have similar or even more sophisticated back up strategies. Data that is 6 years old may hold little value on it’s own but it isn’t on it’s own. I don’t think that they care too much about each individual but they do care about the combined data of many.
1 Like
And i am still pretty sure its gone.
Often there are numerous levels of ‘live’ … ‘live as far as the person the data relates to’ being just one of them.
I suspect in some cases, audit and legal purposes are why the data is scrubbed 
and claimed unintentional/accidental/failure of course …
3 Likes
The point is … once the data is collected, it’s not your data. It’s their data.
If it suits their purposes to delete it (e.g. going to get themselves into trouble), they will delete it.
If it suits their purposes to keep it, they will keep it.
“Data is the currency of the 21st century”
5 Likes
Currently the State of Arizona is suing Google for “Accidental” Location tracking. The State lodged it’s case in May this year (the suit documentation includes what the State investigated in regards to the tracking):
They are seeking the following outcomes:
WHEREFORE, Arizona respectfully requests that the Court enter Judgment against Google as follows:
A. Order Google to disgorge all profits, gains, gross receipts, and other benefits obtained by means of any unlawful practice as alleged herein, pursuant to A.R.S. §44-1528(A)(3);
B. Order Google to pay full restitution to consumers, pursuant to A.R.S. §44-1528(A)(2);
C. Order Google to pay Arizona a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for each willful violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, pursuant to A.R.S. § 44-1531;
D. Enter an injunction against Google, permanently prohibiting it from continuing the unlawful acts and practices alleged in this Complaint or doing any acts in furtherance of such unlawful acts of practices, pursuant to A.R.S. § 44-1528(A)(1);
E. Order Google to pay Arizona its costs of investigation and prosecution of this matter, including its reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to A.R.S. § 44-1534; and
F. Award Arizona such further relief as the Court deems just and proper under the circumstances.
1 Like
How do you go about proving that it’s a wilful violation?
2 Likes
I might be wrong, but isn’t Arizona a Republican State?
It raises some interesting questions about individual rights and freedom from a Republican stand point vs the ultimate rights of free enterprise to make a fortune from the individual.
Why are we even discussing American constitutional and democratic values? Everyone knows Google is …?
Meanwhile in Australia, 
we all know where the … we are? And so does everyone else!
I raised the current litigation because some of the information garnered during the investigation and the release of documentation from Google’s personnel has implications here as well for the way they track us. If Az win why couldn’t the Privacy Commissioner here or other various agencies such as the ACCC take action here to “protect” users.
1 Like
