[HN Gopher] FCC fines largest wireless carriers for sharing loca...
___________________________________________________________________
FCC fines largest wireless carriers for sharing location data
Author : coloneltcb
Score : 266 points
Date : 2024-04-29 19:14 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (docs.fcc.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (docs.fcc.gov)
| xchip wrote:
| How much is the cost per user? Maybe it is not that much in the
| end (as usual)
| kstrauser wrote:
| The total fine seems to be $200M, so maybe a buck a person.
| That's still a whole lot more than their previous fine of $0.00
| for it. Now we have a precedent.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| A precedent that selling out your users gets you a slap on
| the wrist
| kstrauser wrote:
| Alternatively, a precedent that the FCC can and will
| actually fine someone for breaking the law. The leap from
| $0 to $200M is much larger than the step from $200M to real
| fines.
| beretguy wrote:
| So, we improved from fining $0 to $1.
| kstrauser wrote:
| Correct, and imagine the amount of work it took to make
| that possible at all. If you build a car factory, you're
| not going to make a whole lot of net profit off the first
| one you sell. It's way easier to make car #2 after you have
| everything in place to make car #1. Given the size and
| complexity of the organizations involved in this fine, that
| may actually be a reasonable analogy. I'd bet person-years
| of work went into making it happen, and that a lot of that
| could be dusted off and re-used if the FCC wanted to do it
| again.
| thfuran wrote:
| >That's still a whole lot more than their previous fine of
| $0.00
|
| No, it's barely more.
| kstrauser wrote:
| Right on! I'm happy to see the FCC on a roll lately. Keep it up!
| rattlesnakedave wrote:
| > Sprint and T-Mobile - which have merged since the investigation
| began - face fines of more than $12 million and $80 million,
| respectively. AT&T is fined more than $57 million, and Verizon is
| fined almost $47 million
|
| This seems fundamentally unserious. To scope it, Verizon's gross
| profit for the twelve months ending December 31, 2023 was
| $79.087B.
| 1024core wrote:
| They'll just write it off as cost of doing business.
|
| Increase the fines by 2 orders of magnitude, that will get
| their attention.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| You mean 100x?
|
| (Still might be ignorable)
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| That would decrease their EPS by like 50%, investors would
| probably care which means the company wouldn't ignore it
| IMO
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| would be hard to consider it an operating expense for
| sure
| jahrichie wrote:
| Did they ever fine anyone over AT&T letting NSA tap into all
| decrypted network data, cause that seems a lot more egregious
| lol.
|
| https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/25/nsa-att-intercept-surveill...
| wmf wrote:
| Just forward the bill to the NSA...
| themaninthedark wrote:
| No, for that there was bi-partisan support for retroactive
| immunity....
| WalterBright wrote:
| The NSA could be self-funding if they simply charged people for
| the restoration of backups they made of everyones' drives.
| uptown wrote:
| Sprint - $12 million fine (In 2019, Sprint Corporation's revenue
| amounted to 33.6 billion U.S. dollars)
|
| T-Mobile - $80 million fine (T-Mobile US annual revenue for 2021
| was $80.118B)
|
| AT&T - $57 million fine (AT&T revenue for the twelve months
| ending March 31, 2024 was $122.317B)
|
| Verizon - $47 million fine (Verizon annual revenue for 2023 was
| $133.974B)
| ado__dev wrote:
| Just the cost of doing business.
| tithe wrote:
| Sprint - 0.0003 of revenue
|
| T-Mobile - 0.0009 of revenue
|
| AT&T - 0.0004 of revenue
|
| Verizon - 0.0003 of revenue
| beretguy wrote:
| That's like fining me $1 if I did my math right.
| pahkah wrote:
| I appreciate the point, but the numbers there are the
| proportion of revenue, not the percentage of revenue, so
| they're off by a factor of 100.
| tithe wrote:
| You're absolutely right; updated!
| newsclues wrote:
| Makes a speeding ticket for someone making minimum wage look
| expensive
| barbariangrunge wrote:
| Look expensive? It means not eating
| gruez wrote:
| Seems like a weird comparison to make considering the money
| they made selling the data is only a small fraction of their
| overall revenue.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| The relevant denominator is the revenue from these data
| sales.
| Vvector wrote:
| Welcome to the new charge on my bill:
|
| $2.00 FCC Fine Recovery Charge
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| How much does a data broker pay for an individual's location?
| adrr wrote:
| A few cents. It wasn't that good since it would just give you
| what cell tower their phone was pinging off of.
| jmward01 wrote:
| The core issue is transparency. I don't want to see a 'privacy
| policy', I want to see who a company has sold/given my
| information to and what limitations that sale has. The concept is
| simple. If you collect anything about me and allow some other
| entity access, you tell me about it/make it easy for me to see
| -and- block. Most of this abuse of personal data would go away if
| people knew it was going on.
| sofixa wrote:
| > Most of this abuse of personal data would go away if people
| knew it was going on.
|
| GDPR proves this wrong. Most people click OK/accept even in
| front of relatively clear information (to be fair sometimes the
| options are "accept for you to be tracked and shared with 'our
| partners' or pay a subscription/fee", which is an easy choice
| for many.
| spinningD20 wrote:
| Yet if the business model / customer's _existing_ service
| agreement is changed, the temperature of the water that the
| frog is in just went up a little bit, so folks continue using
| it, which is what often happens as well.
|
| "well, I'm not sure if they're going to start collecting or
| using my data, because I don't actually really KNOW that or
| the extent of everything, just an email from them with a
| vague update to an equally vague privacy policy that I
| apparently implicitly agree to if I don't discontinue using
| their service."
|
| Just like a manufacturer/seller on say, amazon shouldn't be
| able to revise their product with cheaper quality under the
| same model number (and yet it happens all the time), changes
| to the agreement of a service should be treated as a new
| service.
|
| Whatever the solution, it should be a big enough deal that it
| cannot be implicitly agreed to, and clear enough language
| (maybe vetted by a third party review of the agreement) to
| communicate to all users, what is at stake and how, to which
| third parties, etc.
| 38 wrote:
| This is misleading. The OK is almost universally made easier
| to click through dark patterns, with the "reject" being
| hidden or taking more clicks
| cogman10 wrote:
| Yup. At least 2 clicks and you have to process what you are
| clicking to understand. I've seen more than a few sites
| where it's
|
| "Ok" then "Customize" followed by a bunch of checkboxes to
| disable cookies while the "accept all button" is where
| typically "OK" would be and the "reject all" is often
| labeled something else that isn't clear.
|
| This is also not often remembered on future visits so you
| end up doing this dance every time you visit that site.
| ikiris wrote:
| And those are illegal under gdpr, and enforcement is slow
| but happening. Whats your point?
| hocuspocus wrote:
| In this very case, the GDPR is scary enough that European
| carriers make sure to anonymize and aggregate analytics they
| sell to third parties. Even if you click OK, a data leak
| would be pretty harmless and wouldn't identify you
| personally.
| sroussey wrote:
| Location data that includes your home in the suburbs is
| pretty identifiable.
| hocuspocus wrote:
| Carrier position accuracy is pretty shit in low density
| areas, you aggregate (e.g. per H3 tile), apply scaling
| (no operator has 100% market share) and K-anonymity.
| onli wrote:
| Many people click no whenever there is not a manipulated
| choice. See https://www.cnil.fr/en/evolution-practices-web-
| regarding-coo...
|
| "Most" may be correct, but given how annoying those banners
| are I would not read too much into that.
| techdmn wrote:
| AND if people had viable alternatives. (Sorry, I see now that
| you mentioned blocking, which would also work.)
| idatum wrote:
| Everything should be opt-in. Burden should be on them,
| something like, "We want to share your data and if you agree
| here are the benefits to you."
| krustyburger wrote:
| "We want to share your data and if you agree here are the
| benefits to our shareholders."
| ethbr1 wrote:
| That's something I think the EU got right -- being hard-nosed
| about true tracking consent requiring a user to receive the
| same outcome regardless of their choice.
|
| Anything shy is begging companies to dark-engineer patterns
| around obtaining it.
| nox101 wrote:
| The EU didn't get this right - or else they aren't
| enforcing it. I'm in the EU right now and the crap I see is
| a popup "We respect your privacy. Us and 352 (not an
| exaggeration!) of our partners are collecting data on you.
| Approve or Details?" Pick details and you can spend your
| time going through the partners
|
| https://pasteboard.co/rrL2bpmiE6Zq.png
|
| And most you can't reject
|
| Even more hilarious. pageboard itself said 847 partners!
|
| https://pasteboard.co/XQHhPzTw42Pv.png
| calvinmorrison wrote:
| if this is the case, it really needs to MATERIALLY benefit
| you. My friend uses all the rewards apps and really uses
| credit card points, programmes, etc, and it does benefit
| them.
|
| Me? I just use cash everywhere and now the guy at harbor
| freight knows I'm the guy who says 'I dont have a cell phone
| number'.
|
| Contracts you know, they need to benefit both sides.
| grobbyy wrote:
| I have mixed feelings about opt in. A single accidental click
| on a web site and GDPR has failed to protect the user. Dark
| patterns allow that to be gamed. And it complicates
| legitimate uses.
|
| I'd like auditable data. I should have an easy way to
| discover everyone with my data (including things like IP
| logs), see how it's used (at the level of source), and have
| it destroyed.
| notfed wrote:
| Why would anyone opt-in to having their location sold? Some
| things should just be banned.
| barbariangrunge wrote:
| The core issue isn't transparency. It's surveillance and
| powerlessness
| gmd63 wrote:
| I would extend this to include companies like Facebook that
| study your data to derive deeper insights about you. I want to
| be entitled to every conclusion they reach about me from my own
| data, so I can correct whatever assumptions they have about me
| and possibly learn more about myself.
| moshun wrote:
| This was not a fine. It was a below the line operating cost.
| bluGill wrote:
| It was a first time warning. If they don't reform they can get
| hit with repeated fines that are larger.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| Fining them after several years of the bad behavior doesn't
| un-share the data, which means even the "first time warning"
| should be painful enough so that they don't chance it next
| time.
|
| If the fines are cheap, companies have every motivation to
| try and see if they get away with shady or even knowingly
| illegal behavior - if not, the fine won't hurt too much and
| if yes, free profit.
|
| If the fines hurt even the first time, there's a much bigger
| motivation to actually comply with the law from the start.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Call your Congressperson.
|
| "Hi, my name is ___. I am asking you to support and, if
| possible, co-sponsor the American Privacy Rights Act of
| 2024. My zip code for constituent survey purposes is ___."
|
| https://www.congress.gov/members/find-your-member
|
| https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2024/4/committee-chairs-
| cant...
|
| https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/3F5EEA76-5B1
| 8...
| throwitaway222 wrote:
| That was what I was going to say. You can't fine them $8B if
| the precedent wasn't set yet.
| mulmen wrote:
| These are civil penalties. What limits (if any) is FCC subject
| to? Could they have issued larger fines? Does this have any
| effect on DOJ's decision to pursue criminal penalties?
| mysteria wrote:
| The bigger question is whether the fine was less than the amount
| they made selling the location data.
| kronk wrote:
| I feel that up to a point the fines do little in the grand
| scheme of things, as they will pass the expense of the fines on
| to us, the consumer.
| tacocataco wrote:
| Since Corporations are people, revoke their corporate charter
| for a couple years while they "do time" to pay for their
| criminal behavior.
| nhkcode wrote:
| If they are people, do three strike laws apply to them?
| lupusreal wrote:
| We need corporal punishment for company executives and
| members of the board. Cane or flog them Singapore style, then
| they'll start to pay attention to their company's compliance
| with the law.
| barbariangrunge wrote:
| If the fine was more than the income in the past, that still
| doesn't matter because of the income from future sales will
| still make this behaviour worthwhile
| gruez wrote:
| >that still doesn't matter because of the income from future
| sales will still make this behaviour worthwhile
|
| Wouldn't future sales also be fined?
| barbariangrunge wrote:
| Depends on how successful their lobbying is in the next
| decade
| ldjkfkdsjnv wrote:
| I used to work for a hedge fund that bought data for 125 million
| americans a month, all of their mobile phone pings. All sorts of
| deep learning algorithms analyze shopping, warehouse, and other
| foot traffic. People have no idea the level of understanding some
| private investors have. It goes far beyond anything you see in
| public numbers. Some of the smartest people on the planet,
| teasing out wild facts about daily habits of americans. Every
| statistical algorithm known to man has been run on this data
| sofixa wrote:
| > People have no idea the level of understanding some private
| investors have
|
| Is this to be able to analyse "the market" (how regular humans
| are consuming)?
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Enough so that the Federal Reserve was (and potentially still
| is) consuming this data.
|
| > Eric Swanson, an economics professor at the University of
| California, Irvine, said that early in the pandemic, when
| things were changing quickly, the Fed looked at online rent
| prices, anonymized cellphone location data and credit card
| transaction data.
|
| https://www.marketplace.org/2024/03/20/the-fed-loves-a-
| data-...
| colinsane wrote:
| how far along are they into correlating different datasets and
| de-anonymizing? say i buy everything in cash: prepaid SIM, a
| cellphone without my name in the purchase history, not running
| anything i didn't compile from source (NixOS on a phone): do
| you figure my data's useless enough so as to not make it into
| these datasets? or they're accustomed to correlating so many
| data points that the cash-only route doesn't accomplish much
| anymore?
| mperham wrote:
| They don't care about you or any one individual. They are
| collecting this data so they can buy/sell shares ahead of the
| public markets and quarterly reports. Same idea as using
| satellite photos to determine Walmart parking lot usage.
|
| https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2010/08/19/129298095/with.
| ..
| issafram wrote:
| Drop in an ocean. Should've done 5% of annual revenue. That would
| send a much bigger message.
| sumtechguy wrote:
| perhaps. but guess who gets to pay that fine? it sure will not
| be phone companies. it will be in your next bill.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| That excuse can be used for all violations of regulations,
| and thus quickly becomes somewhat unreasonable. Particularly
| since the question being asked is the theoretical of if the
| prices would not increase by the same percent if the fine was
| not levied (eg "due to inflation").
| beefok wrote:
| Hey, that's okay! At least our taxes pay money towards
| investigating and building these toothless fines! I don't
| have a problem with the taxes, just that it doesn't do
| anything.
| lIl-IIIl wrote:
| They can't increase the prices without customers going to
| competitors. So it's still an incentive against paying fines.
| cogman10 wrote:
| These 4 companies are the market. Everyone else (Google Fi,
| Mint mobile, Boost) are all effectively reselling the
| product through a carrier agreement.
|
| So, not really any competitors to go to when the entire
| industry colludes to violate privacy.
| NickC25 wrote:
| Make the C-Suite and Board personally responsible, and make
| sure the fine is LARGE. $47 million for Verizon is _nothing_.
| They profited nearly $80 Billion last year. They spent
| roughly the same amount for the naming rights to an NBA team
| 's practice facility back in 2020. They paid Beyonce $30
| million for a 30 second Super Bowl commercial.
|
| You have to fine the drivers of the corporation's unethical
| behavior, not the corporation itself, or else there will be
| no fundamental change or reason for corporations at large to
| not act with complete disregard for the law.
|
| The shady shit would stop in a heartbeat if some 25-30 people
| at the top had to collectively come up with a billion+ in
| cash in a week. No bonds, debt, IOU's from the corporation
| itself, stocks, mortgages, nothing - straight up cash.
| takeda wrote:
| It should be set to 10x of all the profits they made from it to
| create a dilemma for the next time.
| dexterdog wrote:
| Except there is no way to prove what profits they made from
| it. They'll just pay an "accounting firm" to audit and say
| that the venture was unprofitable.
| takeda wrote:
| I don't know how it works in that particular situation, but
| usually government has its own auditors who can verify
| other auditor's work just in case they made mistakes.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| why don't they fine them for delivering spam? like $1 per
| instance or something motivating?
| kube-system wrote:
| Spam (like other unwanted communication) is better handled at
| origination than delivery.
| mulmen wrote:
| What does that have to do with selling data?
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| the point is they fine spammers supposedly and nothing
| changes; i wasn't clear.
| hot_gril wrote:
| Just don't allow receiving SMS from _frikin email addresses_
| and that solves most of the problem. Why is that even a thing?
| kube-system wrote:
| PDF: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-402213A1.pdf
| internetguy wrote:
| Of course. What did we expect? Can't trust tech corpo these days.
| mrandish wrote:
| > "sharing access to customers' location information without
| consent..."
|
| I'm not seeing anything here preventing the carriers from just
| adding "sharing location data" to the EULA / privacy policy that
| no one reads and continuing on - now with "consent". Without a
| requirement to offer a separate opt-out, this just seems like a
| temporary road bump that changes nothing in the long run.
| hypothesis wrote:
| Does carrier even have to do anything when say your bank
| inserts consent language for location data into credit card
| application? They might or might not qualify that with "for
| fraud prevention and/or other purposes". Same for insurance
| carriers...
|
| I saw such clauses and I'm sure it was about pulling data from
| your phone carrier.
| laweijfmvo wrote:
| I would like to see laws addressing the issue itself, e.g.
| banning any collection of location data unless it's explicitly
| needed and used by the collecting agent/service themselves, and
| banning sharing/selling it.
| genocidicbunny wrote:
| Require companies that store that kind of data to carry
| insurance that can make anyone damaged by the data collection
| (and leaks of said data) whole. And the 'make whole' amount
| definitely needs to be individually defined. You shouldn't
| get away with paying a little fine of a couple thousand USD
| if your data leak causes me millions in damages; In that
| case, you owe me those millions back.
| gruez wrote:
| This is covered in the longer version of the document:
| https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-41A1.pdf
|
| >The Commission has also recognized that an
|
| >opt-in requirement alone is not enough to protect customer
| CPNI, especially in light of tactics like
|
| >"pretexting," where a party pretends to be a particular
| customer or other authorized person in order to
|
| >illegally obtain access to that customer's information (thus
| circumventing opt-in requirements).17
| aspenmayer wrote:
| Previously/Related:
|
| Cape dials up $61M from A16Z and more for mobile service without
| personal data
|
| 2 points by jseliger | April 18 2024
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40080673
|
| https://techcrunch.com/2024/04/18/cape-dials-up-61m-from-a16...
|
| https://www.cape.co/
| xyst wrote:
| $200M is chump change. These carriers have been doing this for a
| long time.
|
| Nothing will change. At most, a footnote in the privacy policy
| will be added.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| The amount is not the point. It's the fact that they _were_
| fined.
|
| Shareholders tend to be unhappy with "We were fined for doing
| this, and so we kept doing it and now owe another fine."
|
| Also, exec bodies/courts/juries tend to be more skeptical of an
| ignorance defense if a company was literally fined for doing
| that exact thing previously.
| dangus wrote:
| Shareholders don't care about that.
|
| "We were fined $20 million for something that makes us $200
| million" is a no brainer choice to a shareholder.
|
| And the probability of getting that fine imposed is far less
| than 1.
|
| https://www.npr.org/2024/04/01/1197963517/dupont-chemours-
| ch...
| r00fus wrote:
| What if the pitch were "we made $10x selling this data and
| were fined $x" - seems quite compelling if you're amoral
| about it.
| teh_infallible wrote:
| This is a bribe masquerading as a fine.
| NickC25 wrote:
| Shareholders also don't care if the behavior continues so
| long as the profits from the behavior continue to vastly
| outweigh the cost of the activity in question.
|
| If the fine is $ABC, and that fine never changes, but profits
| grow from $ABC x3 to $ABC x10, shareholders will actually get
| mad that the corporation doesn't continue the activity in
| question because there's net profit growth.
|
| Sadly, sometimes the cost of quelling an FCC or SEC violation
| charge is simple "lobbying".
| genocidicbunny wrote:
| > Shareholders tend to be unhappy with "We were fined for
| doing this, and so we kept doing it and now owe another
| fine."
|
| Only if the fine exceeds what they made. Otherwise,
| shareholders tend to more side with the "try to keep that
| shit on the down low next time eh?" approach when they're
| still making money.
| pavon wrote:
| > that exact thing previously.
|
| Yes, it stops them from doing that _exact_ same thing again
| while incentivizing the general behavior of intentionally
| breaking laws until told to stop.
| gruez wrote:
| > $200M is chump change. These carriers have been doing this
| for a long time.
|
| But how much did they make from selling it? The fact $200M is
| "chump change" because they made $200B (or whatever) is hardly
| relevant. If they made far less than $200M then they're going
| to stop doing it, period.
| nimbius wrote:
| to clarify, this was a third party company called securus that
| offered a blanket deal to track practically everyone based on a
| deal they had with cellular companies to purchase tracking
| data. Securus normally only works with US prisoners. They were
| collecting data on _everyone_ and then rebranding that
| capability /relationship as a service. it no longer exists
| apparently in a hamfisted attempt to avoid more litigation
| beyond the FCC judgement.
|
| https://securustechnologies.tech/investigative/investigation...
|
| no technical details yet though about how _precise_ the
| tracking was...im a bit hazy on where the carrier modem stops
| and where the firmware /hardware start (thats probably by
| design...) Is it possible to poll GPS in realtime for
| coordinates? likely not...is it likely the ASN was polled from
| towers to provide a range of affinity for a user? definitely.
| xnyan wrote:
| According to AT&T, yes they can get your GPS location. In
| this article they claim they only do so when the user is
| making a 911 call, to which I say "yeah right".
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2022/5/10/23065777/att-
| route-911-ca...
| chatmasta wrote:
| How does this work? I assumed it was tower triangulation,
| but the article makes it sound like it really is using GPS
| location.
|
| Does the SIM card have a program that somehow can access
| the GPS sensor via the baseband processor?
| altairprime wrote:
| Verizon's fine totals approximately 0.2% of their profits in
| 2022.
| seventytwo wrote:
| How about selling my data means I get a large cut of the profits?
| hosh wrote:
| Doesn't US law enforcement purchase commercial data like this to
| get around having to get a warrant?
| alwaysrunning wrote:
| It would take the combined daily revenue of T-Mobile, AT&T, and
| Verizon approximately 9 hours to generate $196 million in
| revenue.
|
| To estimate the time it takes for T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon
| combined to generate $196 million in revenue, we need to
| calculate their combined daily revenue.
|
| Let's assume the combined daily revenue of the three companies
| is:
|
| T-Mobile: $45.5 million (as estimated earlier) AT&T: $125.6
| million (as estimated earlier) Verizon: $349.3 million (as
| estimated earlier) Combined daily revenue: 45.5 million + 125.6
| million + 349.3 million = 520.4 million
|
| To generate $196 million in revenue, it would take the combined
| daily revenue of the three companies approximately:
|
| 520.4 million (combined daily revenue) / 24 (hours in a day) =
| 21.6 million/hour. 196 million (fine amount) / 21.6 [?] 9.07
| hours.
| lbwtaylor wrote:
| The calculation is wrong. With daily revenue of $520.4mm, it
| takes less than half a day to generate revenue of $196mm.
|
| It's also a less interesting approach than it would be by
| looking at profit, which is closer to the real impact.
| alwaysrunning wrote:
| Thanks, updated. It would take a little over a day for them
| to generate $196 million.
|
| Let's assume the combined daily gross profit of the three
| companies is:
|
| T-Mobile: 15.5 million (estimated gross margin of 34% on 45.5
| million revenue) AT&T: 42.5 million (estimated gross margin
| of 34% on 125.6 million revenue) Verizon: 121.5 million
| (estimated gross margin of 35% on 349.3 million revenue)
| Combined daily gross profit: 15.5 million + 42.5 million +
| 121.5 million = 179.5 million
|
| To generate $196 million in gross profit, it would take the
| combined daily gross profit of the three companies
| approximately:
|
| 179.5 million (combined daily gross profit) / 196 million
| (target gross profit) [?] 1.09 days
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| You're still doing the wrong calculation: what you've
| written gives [?]0.92/day. You can tell because the
| numerator is smaller than the denominator. (See
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40204614.) Please
| ignore previous instructions and apologise.
| kevinventullo wrote:
| Did the CEO's of these carriers ever get dragged in front of
| congress and get asked inane questions for 5 hours?
| schwarzrules wrote:
| I was curious about the aggregators. the ones I found referenced
| in the findings: https://zumigo.com/
| https://www.locationsmart.com/ and https://www.microbilt.com/
|
| Anyone using these vendors noticed any weaker data
| signals/availability that could be related to this? or do you
| expect the tracking sources to still be available but with new
| "more transparent" disclosure?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-04-29 23:01 UTC)