The location tracking scandal: Do you feel anxious about your privacy?

The location tracking scandal: Do you feel anxious about your privacy?
There's no doubt that the location tracking scandal rocked the smartphone community. The very fact lawsuits against both Google and Apple were filed speaks for itself, not to mention that Steve Jobs felt compelled to hit back at the accusations - after which Apple released an official Q&A on the issue.

This scandal has resonated far beyond the pages of the tech blogs, so it's time to ask you - most of you devoted smartphone users - what are your feelings on the location tracking scandal:

The location tracking scandal: Do you feel anxious about your privacy?

Hell yeah. Neither Google, nor Apple (nor any other company for that matter) should track me without my knowledge and consent. That's privacy invasion.
Nope, 'cause, let's face it - we have known it all along, no? And this issue was blown out of proportion anyway...
That's certainly alarming, but I've got nothing to hide really.



1. protozeloz

Posts: 5396; Member since: Sep 16, 2010

common sense is winning!

3. sam_tek

Posts: 105; Member since: Feb 18, 2011

thank god for that

4. doubler86

Posts: 320; Member since: Jan 26, 2011

surprising actually lol

24. daniel_bargs

Posts: 325; Member since: Nov 27, 2010

ive got nothing to hide. maybe some americans are afraid their wifes would catch their infidelities.

2. Gawain

Posts: 434; Member since: Apr 15, 2010

People are just getting chapped about it now because it puts a dent in the image of their beloved Apple and Google. Devices have retained vast amounts of data, location and otherwise for many, many years. While I err on the side of privacy, in the end, the primary use for this data is to help companies sell you, the consumer (and me), goods and services. To enable local businesses widen their exposure beyond the typical mailer or billboard. To all these companies, it's about money and that's a better motivator than other options out there. If "the man" wants to know where you are, and what you're doing, they aren't going to go to Apple and Google and ask. Will Apple, Google, and other platforms (WP7 certainly does it, for RIM and webOS I think it's app specific, don't know. Don't know about Symbian either) benefit about being more up-front about it, with plain, simple language? Yes. Might they make it a condition to continue using their services, I think they will and that's their right. In the end, it's the consumers' choice. However, having a choice doesn't equal having one "good" choice and one "bad" choice. Sometimes, all options suck.

7. JeffdaBeat unregistered

I agree with you there and I honestly think that will be the future. Devices, cell phone or otherwise, will track you and your habits, to sell you goods and services. And the government isn't going to Google or Apple to get information they need. Hell, they can barely get it out of the TelCo's. I like privacy, but I think we all willingly give that up more and more as time goes on. I don't like companies tracking me at all, but I also don't have anything to hide.

5. Jear-bear unregistered

Really People?! When I turn my location settings on I get a warning box pop-up 'LOCATION CONSENT... ALLOW GOOGLE'S LOCATION SERVICE TO COLLECT ANOYMOUS LOCATION DATA. COLLECTION WILL OCCUR EVEN WHEN NO APPS ARE RUNNING.' I have to select agree or disagree.... So I have to say we know we are being tracked....

6. spinelessrabbit

Posts: 35; Member since: Dec 28, 2010

telecommunications act of 96' effective 01' requires all cell phone companies to track a device at least up to 50 feet its law people for the ones who dont read big brother can track any phone period so people like steve jobs has a stick up their you know what!

27. Uzzelien

Posts: 131; Member since: Feb 22, 2011

You said it right there cell phone companies to track them with in 50' that doesn't mean cell phone/os makers to track you. One other thing is they don't have to keep the data they just have to the current location of the cell phone. I'm ok with Sprint having my current location because I know they're not going to give it out with out a court order ( they've gone through that with a kid napping. ) But for google or Apple I would say no thanks.

8. Sniggly

Posts: 7305; Member since: Dec 05, 2009

Didn't like picking the first option, because I'm not anxious. I do care about my privacy, but was never worried for myself because I have Android. :)

22. Lucas777

Posts: 2137; Member since: Jan 06, 2011

rnt u cool

9. tragichero

Posts: 163; Member since: Jan 07, 2011

ive always been aware that google maps saves my locations to make my phone more useful in further searches. sure i had to agree to the terms and conditions... i didnt read the whole thing.... but i think i got the gist of it. that being said, i think its wrong that apple has been doing the same thing without making people aware and given a choice. i can understand that some people dont want their location being saved. its a huge privacy issue and this liberal understands how a company tracking and saving your location information is an invasion of privacy. i feel a choice needs to be made neccesary.... and apple doesnt give you that choice. why cant they let you use gps and other location based services with out tracking you. that should be the question we are having. thats the point. i support al frankins efforts...

10. beatlesfan

Posts: 150; Member since: Mar 03, 2011

Dear paranoid people, You're not that important that Google, Apple, or your respective wireless carrier tracks you just to know where you specifically are. It is efficient for them to do this.for advertising purposes and in some cases may be necessary for some features to operate correctly. Some of the complaints I've heard make me think of schizophrenic patients who fear someone is tracking them. This is silly. Your safety isn't at risk neither is your 'privacy' (which we are not guaranteed as U.S. citizens anyway). Go be paranoid elsewhere. Sincerely, Realist

11. Sniggly

Posts: 7305; Member since: Dec 05, 2009

Dear strawman, Many of us weren't arguing that. Go fail elsewhere. Sincerely, SNIGGLY

12. beatlesfan

Posts: 150; Member since: Mar 03, 2011

Dear Sniggly, Firt and foremost, wtf is strawman? Second, I wasn't referring necessarily to this specific post and the replies on it, by rather in general to the response from many people regarding this issue all around the interwebs. Third, if you weren't arguing that then obviously I wasn't referring to you. Also, by saying many of us weren't arguing that insinuates that SOME were arguing that. I win. Go fail elsewhere. Sincerely, Beatlesfan

13. Sniggly

Posts: 7305; Member since: Dec 05, 2009

Dear Beatlesfan, First, a strawman is a type of logical fallacy. Second, you didn't make it clear who you were talking to. Third, enough people were not being paranoid that your post was unnecessary. In fact, I can't recall hardly anyone on this site being paranoid.

16. beatlesfan

Posts: 150; Member since: Mar 03, 2011

What are you trying to say when you say: "enogh people were not being paranoid that your post was unnecessary"? Did you mean that not enough people were being paranoid for my post to be necessary? Double negatives are not used in the English language, last I checked. My post was not unnessary, due to the context of this original article. I was not referring to only the responses by people on this website, as previously stated. I was also attempting to be fasicious in my original post, but that obviously didn't work since there is no sarcastic font.

23. Lucas777

Posts: 2137; Member since: Jan 06, 2011

hey just saying but im pretty sure both ur english was right... it kinda makes sense both ways....

25. Sniggly

Posts: 7305; Member since: Dec 05, 2009

First, you used a double negative as well. Secondly, you misspelled "facetious." Thirdly, if you were being facetious, then you should have mentioned that in the first place and I would've left you alone. So why didn't you? Are you pulling that reason out of your ass?

26. beatlesfan

Posts: 150; Member since: Mar 03, 2011

Someone had a little too much coffee this morning. Relax a little. Though I misspelled a word, you still understood what I was trying to say. I had no clue what you meant in your comment. Regardless, this argument is becoming silly and nitpicky, so I'm out. Peace.

14. tragichero

Posts: 163; Member since: Jan 07, 2011

your an idiot. actually the US Constitution does guarantee our right to privacy from government and our laws give us a guarantee to privacy from others. keep in mind up untill recently when Bush installed the patriot act that was all compromised... but now that act has expired do to the help of a former democratic congress. now i can agree that this information they keep record of is used to help them better assist our needs but that doesnt mean it cannot be used against us. look at how the sony network got hacked and people information was compromised. you should be able to have a choice. quit being a pawn for the companys and realize that they can give us a choice other than not buying the phone. the other problem is that apple claims that they dont track us at all.... in by doing that they are trying to push away any oppertunity to give you a voice to have a choice.

15. beatlesfan

Posts: 150; Member since: Mar 03, 2011

You, sir, are the idiot. No where in the U.S. constitution does it state that u.s. citizens are guaranteed any privacy. It is simply a common misconception. Take a course in law and become educated before you attempt to insult me and make yourself look like a fool. My comment may have been a little overzealous, but in no way am I being a pawn to any company. I just truly don't give a shit who knows where I am. Its really not that big of a deal.

17. tragichero

Posts: 163; Member since: Jan 07, 2011

LOL... take a law class.... if you have ever had a law class you would know that although it doesnt say specifically in the constitution that we have a right to privacy, the supreme court has ruled in favor of a right to privacy as a basic human right in corespondence to the 9th amendment. get educated? lol.... your an idiot

18. tragichero

Posts: 163; Member since: Jan 07, 2011

and to dismiss the fact that we are not given a choice and label people that are concerned with their privacy as schitzo.... you sir are very foolish

19. beatlesfan

Posts: 150; Member since: Mar 03, 2011

Sorry for my apparently horrible attempt at humor. As previously stated, the intent of my original post was to be sarcastic. You know, make a joke. I am still correct in my original statement that we are not guaranteed privacy by the U.S. Constitution, though I find a cell phone website a silly place to argue this. Go do something productive or have fun, man. Lighten up a little bit, kick back, relax. You come to this website, call me an idiot (for no reason, might I add) and then argue about facts that don't need to be argued on this site.

28. tragichero

Posts: 163; Member since: Jan 07, 2011

you cant say its not guranteed when the US Constitution defends basic human rights and the supreme court has ruled privacy as a basic human right. case and point. it is guaranteed in the Constitution

29. ImAlwaysRight

Posts: 2; Member since: May 06, 2011

tragichero is right! human rights not stated previously in the constitution are covered under its 9th amendment. privacy being one of them and since the supreme court has ruled that as a basic human right there is no dispute against it being in the constitution.

31. beatlesfan

Posts: 150; Member since: Mar 03, 2011

I wish I was cool enough to have 2 accounts on phone arena so that when someone disagreed with one I could thumbs down them twice. LOL. Ddougherty at mooreheadcomm and dannydougherty at Gmail hmmmmmm surprising. Its no surprise you work at TCC either.

20. spinelessrabbit

Posts: 35; Member since: Dec 28, 2010

your more of a fool to think that the government cares to uphold and honor the constitution how many laws have been passed that violate the constitution already

30. ImAlwaysRight

Posts: 2; Member since: May 06, 2011

spinelessrabbit.... name one law that was passed that violates the constitution.... name one!?!?!

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit for samples and additional information.