[AusNOG] Google creepier than Conroy?

[Bevan Slattery]

Phil,

> > The data or data fragments that Google may have collected was 
> unintentional - they clearly don't need it to do geo-location 
> - and it would be difficult to associate it with a particular 
> individual or business - like taking a photo in a public place.

First, grabbing such information isn't so they can use it to create a
geo-reference.  They capture it so they can attach it to a
geo-reference.  Having someone's MAC address or IP address along with
the 'photo' taken at that time, along with the position of the car,
which is then cross referenced to the GNAF database is what is going on
here.  So they will know that at any physical address where a photo is
captured, so too is the IP address, MAC address and whatever other
information was transmitted.  Handy to know that when you log-in to your
Gmail account or any of the millions of sites that run ad-words.

If you think a photo is difficult to associate with a person or business
then you clearly have no idea of the vast amount of information that
organisations such as Google already have and are continually
collecting, geo-referencing and cross-referencing.  I was recently told
by a Google employee about this amazing piece of technology that can now
scan photo's of people, things or places taken from their phones,
facebook images etc. and recognise them/it against a massive image
library.  In particular it was mentioned that he took a photo of a
reasonably popular person and the software called to the library and
pushed up the persons Wikipedia entry.

Think about it.

[b]