Geotag in EXIF invasion of privacy?

[L David Tomei]

I saw this article regarding Path's use of geotag location information in EXIF data and how it is an invasion of privacy. Is it better to strip EXIF data before uploading images to sites? Do RFFers care about the fact that their images normally can contain GPS info and how does RFF handle such access to GPS location data when we upload images?

See: http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/1/39...tagging-posts-when-location-services-disabled

David Tomei

 

[btgc]

Better yet is to refuse to buy cameras with GPS-enabled without specific reason. At least, ones without option to completely disable geotagging. In future hacking out GPS from electronic appliances will be as widespread as unlocking phones from pre-set network today.

 

[sevo]

I have no idea what "Path" may be. But if you don't want to leave a trace of all your movements, don't upload personal photographs to public information systems, regardless of whether they are GPS tagged or not, as the latter will eventually be reverse added by someone, whether you want it or not.

The virtual global database of GPS tagged images located on publicly accessible web servers will sooner or later be dense enough that software systems can identify locations inside un-tagged images by building or landscape pattern comparison or even by tracing the intersections between the movements of the people in the images identified by face recognition.

 

[hepcat]

I don't know where folks have gotten this "right to privacy" thing. You have no privacy past the walls of your own dwelling. There is certainly no privacy when using anything on the web. Welcome to the internet age. You can, however, edit your exif data if that concerns you.

 

[L David Tomei]

I'm not sure what "right to privacy" means but people clearly do have the right to know what information they are uploading when they post images from GPS-enabled cameras. Many people don't even know what EXIF means much less what information this file contains. Personally, the only "camera" I have that can save GPS data is my iPad. My old D70 thankfully doesn't.

 

[majid]

I saw this article regarding Path's use of geotag location information in EXIF data and how it is an invasion of privacy.

That sleazy company has a history of playing fast and loose with users' personal data. They were caught previously uploading address book information from the phone, and were hit with a $800,000 fine as well as a consent decree requiring third party privacy audits every other year for the next 20 years. They don't get the benefit of the doubt no matter how much they claim it was inadvertent. EXIF tags don't just read themselves without active intent of the programmer.

On the other hand, since iOS 6 Apple warns you pretty clearly about the risks of letting an app access your photos. The world needs another scummy social network like it needs a hole in the head and it is advisable never to install native apps for ad-supported companies, since they have mostly open access to your data unlike websites. Facebook is a necessary evil but a further layer of protection is to use a different browser to quarantine it, as they are not able to share cookies with the system browser

Is it better to strip EXIF data before uploading images to sites?

Yes, absolutely.

Do RFFers care about the fact that their images normally can contain GPS info and how does RFF handle such access to GPS location data when we upload images?

Geotagging is a valuable feature and I've bought GPS dongles for my old Nikon D3 and my current Canon 5DmkIII. The M typ 240's optional accessory grip will reportedly include GPS. That doesn't mean I want to share the info with the wide world. Lightroom includes an option to minimize metadata other than keywords when exporting.

 

[Ronald M]

I have no idea what "Path" may be. But if you don't want to leave a trace of all your movements, don't upload personal photographs to public information systems, regardless of whether they are GPS tagged or not, as the latter will eventually be reverse added by someone, whether you want it or not.

The virtual global database of GPS tagged images located on publicly accessible web servers will sooner or later be dense enough that software systems can identify locations inside un-tagged images by building or landscape pattern comparison or even by tracing the intersections between the movements of the people in the images identified by face recognition.

A few years ago a photo was posted of an orange tree (fall season) on the far side of a narrow river. The poster was shocked I knew the exact location of that tree. So you see it is possible.

 

[Richard G]

Better yet is to refuse to buy cameras with GPS-enabled without specific reason. At least, ones without option to completely disable geotagging. In future hacking out GPS from electronic appliances will be as widespread as unlocking phones from pre-set network today.

I agree with this. Your son arrives home unexpectedly with a new bride and a six week old child. You stay home and get to work late. Your cousin posts online the photo you sent her by email, and your disgruntled colleague obtains it from Flickr or somewhere and uses it against you.

 

[sevo]

A few years ago a photo was posted of an orange tree (fall season) on the far side of a narrow river. The poster was shocked I knew the exact location of that tree. So you see it is possible.

Personal identification has always been possible. My point is that the high number of public location tagged photographs combined with applying the algorithms used for face recognition to the entire image content makes it possible to tag every un-tagged image on the internet, if shot in enough of a public place that at least one camera-tagged image of the same background architecture or landscape with enough overlap is available. And once enough of the world has been charted that way, even the private spaces become identifiable through interpolation.