Call me old fashioned, but I put it in the same bucket as a prenup
I don’t agree. Prenups are passive, they don’t do anything until not needed. all the while this is a major breach of privacy, for both parties, and also of trust.
the while this is a major breach of privacy, for both parties, and also of trust.
How? My situation is similar to the person you’re replying to and I’m curious how two consenting adults sharing their location with each other is “ la major breach of privacy, for both parties, and also of trust”.
Maybe if one party is unwilling or has no say/control in location sharing but specifically in the scenario at hand I don’t see it.
because you are not sharing your location with each other. you are sharing your location with a greedy company that also lets your significant other, and then the highest bidder access this information. they are doing whatever they please with it to make (even more) money.
see, I was so into google’s timeline feature years ago. but soon after I realized privacy is a thing I was disgusted of it and turned it off. if you run nextcloud and that addon I don’t remember, or reitti, at home and use that, and you keep is somewhat safe*, then it’s fine, and I could imagine using that, even just for myself.
I should have explained that. for some reason I tend to assume that lemmy users are privacy conscious, but that’s probably not true.
* don’t expose the services because your data will get stolen and you’ll get hacked by automated systems. run a VPN on the server, only expose the port of that. then you can access the services through a VPN. wireguard is relatively simple, and it’s secure.
I get that it’s not privacy focused; so much these days isn’t, but I’m still not understanding how two adults knowingly enabling location sharing via a 3rd party service is “a major breach of privacy, for both parties, and also of trust”.
I’m gathering that your intent was more along the lines of “it’s not very privacy conscious since you have no control over how the 3rd party uses that data or any way to control it”, would that be accurate?
I get that it’s not privacy focused
its not “not privacy focused”, but it is completely against it.
I’m gathering that your intent was more along the lines of “it’s not very privacy conscious since you have no control over how the 3rd party uses that data or any way to control it”, would that be accurate?
well, for the most part yes, very mildly
My wife and I share our location. We both trust each other implicitly and neither of us consider it a breach of privacy, but rather a willing sharing of information. I think if this is demanded of someone unilaterally, it would be both a breach of privacy and trust, but it's just so damn convenient for our lives and makes us both feel safer. If I'm out late in the city to see a friend, my wife can easily see that I'm safe making it to my car and driving home. If my wife is working late and forgets to text, I can easily check and know she's still in the building. As two gay women, it was a no-brainer for us. I would never demand that of someone. It seems like a lot of people in the comments see sharing location as an intrinsically harmful or negative action, whereas it's far more context and consent dependent for me. Hell, I even share my location with a friend for a few hours if I'm doing something sketchy.
We both trust each other implicitly and neither of us consider it a breach of privacy, but rather a willing sharing of information.
I was unclear on what I meant by the breach of privacy. there’s another comment chain discussing that but tldr: it’s not about sharing your location with your SO, but entrusting profit driven careless companies with both of your sensitive information.
Additionally, there’s something I haven’t written in that other thread. It’s not only about the both of you. I as a host (in my house, this does not apply to public places) don’t want to have guests who’s phones are uploading their visit at my place to any such services, because that also affects my privacy. but it’s also a bit weird, because I don’t feel I have the right to ask if they have such an app, let alone asking them to turn it off.
so, my point is not about not trusting your SO, but about not trusting random companies, because they are repeatedly showing both neglect and a big tendency to sell user data and lie to their benefit.
This has nothing to do with the tracking. You should have the same problem with anyone that has location turned on in their phone. Turning on GPS tracking for me and my wife has not given Google new data on our locations, as we use Google maps to navigate as is. I reject the premise that I'm violating someone else's privacy by doing so. I've also opted out of any app using my location without my express permission. You certainly wouldn't have the right to ask someone to turn something like that off simply because you don't trust the corporations on the other end, because you have no idea what service, what precautions they've taken, and if they're actively sharing. If you were going to do so, then you should also inspect people's phones for having location turned on, and check all their apps permissions for location.
This has nothing to do with the tracking.
what is “this”? location sharing apps? if yes, why do you think these are unrelated?
You should have the same problem with anyone that has location turned on in their phone.
I don’t care about a random person having location turned on. why should I? there’s plenty of offline uses for that function, I use it regularly. maps, sports tracking, reminders, …
, as we use Google maps to navigate as is. I reject the premise that I’m violating someone else’s privacy by doing so.
that’s ok, when it only affects you. but when you are navigating to a friend’s place, with this thinking you are just ignorant about what is actually happening. I’m genuinely sorry to point this out.
this is a bit similar to when people refuse the fact that by uploading a picture of someone to facebook they might be violating their privacy.
or when people haphazardly allow contacts access to random apps, or to apps like facebook messenger because it asks so nicely, and then disclaim responsibility over where does that contact information go.
You certainly wouldn’t have the right to ask someone to turn something like that off simply because you don’t trust the corporations on the other end,
not just the corporations, but the tech hygiene of the average person. I am aware that it sounds bad, and I hate it that it is warranted.
lucidinferno@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Legally and practically, prenups are anything but passive. They’re proactive tools. They’re usually dormant, but they’re ready to be called into action.
Marriage is different things to different people. Some have every intention to make it work, no matter what. To them, a prenup is an anti-“burn the ship”. It’s a statement.
Also, tools like “find my” are not major breaches of privacy if both parties jointly agree to use them. For me and my family, it’s the ultimate expression of trust. I’m never somewhere I shouldn’t be, and I like my family knowing where I am, for a multitude of reasons.
There are two types of people who a tracker wouldn’t be effective for: those who are in an inappropriate location, and those who are constantly questioning why someone is in an innocent place, regardless of where it may be. However, at that point, the issue isn’t the trackers; it’s the people.
Count042@lemmy.ml 4 weeks ago
This comment is just ‘what do you have to worry about it you’re not doing anything wrong’ with extra words.
erin@piefed.blahaj.zone 4 weeks ago
Consensually choosing to share my location with my wife is not the same as not caring about my data being collected or sold. I don't have any intention to break her trust, but that has nothing to do with why we share location. It's all about safety and convenience. I know when she's working late. She knows when I made it back to my car safely after a night out. I know when she's on her way home, even when she forgets to text me, so I can start cooking. As two gay women in a conservative area, it just made sense.
lucidinferno@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Nope. That’s part of it. But if that’s what you walked away with, that’s fine.
WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
that’s what I meant by passive. they don’t do anything until invoked, once.
It’s like comparing a personal forcefield with an always worn camera and mic that streams your life to google’s personal security subsidiary, if I want to magnify the differences.
I don’t see why what you said makes it not passive. maybe we understand that term differently.
that’s how abusers learn they can do whatever they want
I don’t necessarily mean breach of privacy that way. if everyone voluntarily agrees, without “problems”, that’s good. but more that the service provider has access to a fuckton of sensitive data! I can imagine people who accept that… and then who also condemn others for wanting to escape shit privacy invading services