Microsoft Collects Locations of Windows Phone Users

April 27th, 2011

Via: Cnet:

Like Apple and Google, Microsoft collects records of the physical locations of customers who use its mobile operating system.

Windows Phone 7, supported by manufacturers including Dell, HTC, LG, Nokia, and Samsung, transmits to Microsoft a miniature data dump including a unique device ID, details about nearby Wi-Fi networks, and the phone’s GPS-derived exact latitude and longitude.

A Microsoft representative was not immediately able to answer questions that CNET posed this afternoon, including how long the location histories are stored and how frequently the phone’s coordinates are transmitted over the Internet. Windows Phone currently claims about a 6 percent market share but, according to IDC, will capture about 21 percent by 2015 thanks to Microsoft’s partnership with Nokia.

Microsoft does say, however, that location histories are not saved directly on the device. That’s different from Apple’s practice of recording the locations of visible cell towers on iPhone and iPad devices, which can result in more than a year’s worth of data being quietly logged. Google’s approach, by contrast, records only the last few dozen locations on Android phones.

The privacy practices of mobile software companies have come under extensive scrutiny after a researcher at a conference last week in Santa Clara, Calif., described in detail how the iPhone’s location logging works. A CNET report, however, showed that law enforcement and forensics analysts had been aware of and relied on the undocumented feature since at least last year.

4 Responses to “Microsoft Collects Locations of Windows Phone Users”

  1. Eileen says:

    I bought and returned one of those fancy phones this month. Whoah. Too much for me. Don’t think I’d of figured out how to use it unless I had all day (for weeks) to play with the phone.
    The old one seems great in comparison now. I just now put it in an empty metal Ghiradelli chocolate tin, closed the lid, called the number. Phone didn’t ring. From now on, I’m gonna be keeping that phone and my ID (that has a locator chip in as well) in that tin. Heck, I don’t even have an EZ pass because its just another tracking device.
    Maybe its inevitable we’re all going to be tracked like so many cattle. But for now, I’m not going not to make it easy for them. Why should I?
    I haven’t committed a crime, and I refuse to be treated like someone who has to wear a bracelet around their ankle to ensure they stay at home.
    This is humbug and bullshit.
    Should be a crime that these companies put this BS in their phones. But whose going to care what they do? Big brother is reveling in his glory, and there’s no stopping him now. Or so it seems.

  2. Kevin says:

    Re: the tin box. While it may be acting as a sort of Faraday cage, since it’s not grounded, I doubt that it’s totally effective.

    The way to be sure that a phone isn’t being used as a tracking device is to remove the battery.

    The reality is that the tracking capability has existed from the start of mobile phones in the 1980s. The main differences between then and now: the precision of the location data has increased and it’s now much easier to generate/archive/search large amounts of that data.

  3. Eileen says:

    Only have had a cell phone because of Mom. I really don’t need it now but it came in handy a few weeks ago when I had a rental car with a flat tire.
    What’s the difference between taking the battery out and keeping it in a shielded place?
    My phone has a SIM chip. Is it the distance between the two that diables tracking?
    Going to get some rack. Will read A.M.
    Thanks for Cryptogon Kevin.

  4. Kevin says:

    What’s the difference between taking the battery out and keeping it in a shielded place?

    How effective is the shielding?

    Hint: I can guarantee you that this is not an easy question to answer without specialized equipment. Without quantitative testing, no assumptions should be made. In general, a Faraday cage needs to be grounded to work properly. Your tin box isn’t grounded.

    Because the phone didn’t ring in one place or another inside the box doesn’t mean that one should assume that the shielding is completely effective at preventing the phone from talking to the network. Your proximity to the towers, the building materials around you and a million other variables are in play. So, why rely on questionable assumptions when one could remove the battery and be absolutely sure?

    If you had a properly constructed and grounded Faraday cage and the equipment and skill to properly test for emissions, then I’d have more confidence in believing that the shielding was effective.

    Short of that, I’d take the battery out of the phone.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.