Location History: Consumer advocates take action against the fury of Google's data collection



[ad_1]

Several European consumer organizations are pressuring Google to ensure that the storage of their users' location data is not transparent. As the European Consumer Protection Association (Beuc) announced on Tuesday, consumer advocates from six countries want to lodge a complaint with data protection authorities. The Federation of German Consumer Organizations (VZBV), however, examines the opening of an injunction proceedings. By the end of September, Google had been warned, said Heiko Dünkel, lawyer, at the request of Golem.de.

Job market

  1. Robert Bosch GmbH, Abstatt
  2. Robert Bosch GmbH, Berlin



Consumer advocates blame Google, various "Tips and Procedures" for Android users and Google Maps to share location data. They would not be sufficiently informed of the real meaning of the release. Associations from Norway, the Netherlands, Greece, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Poland and Sweden participate in the dispute in addition to the VZBV.

Several reports on storage practices

Last August, there were several reports of Google's significant and unnoticed storage of location data. For example, the AP News Agency reported on August 13, 2018 that Google continued to collect the location history of its users, although the corresponding options were disabled on Android devices and iPhones. A study published on August 21, 2018 claimed that even a non-mobile Android phone with a browser running in the background Chrome sent 340 location data to Google within 24 hours. A potential clbad action has already been filed in the United States.

A 44-page study (PDF) by the Norwegian Consumer Protection Association Forbruker Radet summarizes data protection claims. For example, it is considered problematic that Google collects and stores location data, even if the location history is disabled in Android. Even if history is disabled, many location data is collected and can be verified at https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity. A location symbol is badigned to each stored activity if geodata are available. This applies for example to each search request. Google determines the location not only using GPS data, but also using IP addresses, WLAN networks or other data.

The approval is well hidden

Consumer advocates complain that Google hides Web activities in the default settings. It is therefore possible that they are activated unintentionally during the configuration of the account. In addition, users would not be sufficiently informed of the real meaning of site activation and activation of web activity. Google has also designed the configuration process for Android to easily encourage users to turn on history.

In addition, Google constantly annoys users by asking them to reactivate the disabled history option. "Instead of answering" no "to Google, users must repeat the selection"says the study. Consumer advocates are also bothered by the link between certain services and the location history. This applies for example to Google Photos and Google Assistant. Instead of allowing the user a granular attitude, he places himself before the choice in the site to follow: all or nothing. Users of Google services on iPhone, however, would have better settings.

Consent is not always voluntary and enlightened

The Data Protection Act therefore raises the question of whether the user really has the required consent. Pursuant to Article 4, No. 11, GDPR, consent must be given "voluntarily for the specific case, in an informed and unequivocal way" can be delivered. By the described "Tips and Procedures" such consent would be made more difficult.

Because web activity storage is enabled by default, Google must use location data processing. "legitimate interest" claim. In this case, the study doubted that the interest of Google for the sale of personalized ads outweighs the privacy of its users. In addition, users did not know how and to what extent location data would be collected.

According to the VZBV, Google was notified on September 21 by a warning to change collection practices. Google having refused to sign the corresponding explanation of omission, the injunction procedure is now being examined.

[ad_2]
Source link