Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Joined: Apr 14, 2010 Posts: 1262 Location: West London
Posted: Sun May 01, 2011 10:47 am Post subject:
Another factor...apparently TT get their camera info from Road Angel. About a year ago the boss of RA posted on 'YourTomTom' to say he did not understand what TT did to their data to get it so error prone. _________________ Mike R [aka Wyvern46]
Go 530T - unsupported
Go550 Live [not renewed]
Kia In-dash Tomtom
You need to provide evidence to support your claims as you're obviously so pro TomTom. It is not credible that a data services firm (TomTom) did not know the data would be used in the ways you describe...
Since you know TomTom so well, tell us what TomTom will do on the subject of selling on data when the likes of Daimler roll out their Google enhanced in car web services with SatNav? Do you think they'll be selling that data on in as naive a way as TomTom seem to have? There are so many obvious and well-established ways of restricting data licenses - TomTom will have internal as well as external people advising on risks and opportunities based on those best practices. Most people on here could imagine dozens of applications of that data.
All written in good humour, of course.
Ok, Galvany, let me get my point of view clear. Obviously I am biased or considered to be so. Then read between the lines and make up your own judgement.
First of all, the general discussion should be where you are talking about data being "personal" or not. Our whole society is filled with aggregated data. For instance, there is a site in the Netherlands called funda.nl, which is the biggest marketplace for homes to sell or buy.
Per street I can see the average income, and the average persons per household. On another site I can find data about unemployment rates per neighborhood. And I heard that in the UK you can now find data about the numbers of burglaries per neighborhood.
In my point of view, as long as these data are aggregated, and doesn't tell who is umemployed and who is not, there is no problem.
TomTom has in many previous occasions told how they use the aggregated data of average speed per road. They bragged about helping governments to make decisions where to build extra infrastructure and so on. So they never really hided the fact that they sell these aggregated data, they were actually quite proud of it.
Now offcourse you have to be carefull with data. Cause when you use different streams of data from different resources, you might just be able to narrow things down, or data might be used for purposes yet unknown and also unwanted.
So these data from tomtom were used by this traffic consultancy firm called 'Via', and this company then resold this information to police. Is this a problem?
Well tomtom says it is, but it's a bit of double standards here. They are not happy with it, "because our customers don't like it", is what the video says. That's not really having an opinion of your own. I believe they never really thought about this type of usage, and probably don't know what to think about it yet, but damage control needed to be done first. So then you get these kind of statements, which is the best to say at this moment.
Damage control was needed, because the way that the news was twisted is that "personal data" from users were sold "directly to the police". Some customers were even afraid that they would receive a fine at home, based on their tomtom data. You must know that not all people are savvy when it comes to technology or privacy. So to me this is intentionally and unnecessarily scaring tomtom customers. So from my perspective a newspaper harmed tomtoms interests and the confidence of their customers.
I don't say that tomtom doesn't need to rethink the way they offer data. I do say that I believe their intentions of helping govts to fight congestion and had not foreseen data to be used this way.
Joined: Jun 04, 2005 Posts: 19991 Location: West and Southwest London
Posted: Sun May 01, 2011 1:14 pm Post subject: Re: Tom Tom ---- its worse than kiss and tell
mike19444 wrote:
Of course, not finding any does not prove the claim. It does not, for instance, rule out DennisN's suggestion of bad administration -- although this seems a little unlikely in a large organisation with demonstrable competence in similar areas.
I don't know how you can possibly say that... TomTom have been repeatedly demonstrated to have appalling Incompetence when it comes to managing their POI and Fuel Price databases.
The accuracy of those is appalling (and for some examples see my post here).
Now on to your "challenge".....
mike19444 wrote:
TomTom's own camera database is deliberately kept a year out of date.
mike19444 wrote:
There is a way of testing the claim.
Use the PocketGPS database to check the age of each member of a set of randomly selected cameras from the Tom Tom database.
Find one that is less than, say, 9 months** old, and my claim falls.
OK, I like a challenge!
I chose to look for fixed, permanent cameras, as SPECS are usually temporary, so it is impossible to work out when they appeared on the TT database if they have since been removed again.
Here's one that's 11 months old, for starters:
GATSO:74275@40 on the A51 Litchfield Road, Sandon (Latitude: 52.86025 Longitude: -2.07707).
It was verified for the PGPSW database on Thu May 13, 2010 and went into the main database the week after that.
I don't know when it appeared in the TomTom database, but it is certainly warning me today.
Here's one that is 8 months old:
REDLIGHT:9594@30 on the A49 Chapel Lane, Wigan (Latitude: 53.54115 Longitude: -2.63128).
It was verified for the PGPSW database on Wed Sep 01, 2010 and went into the main database that week, or the week after that.
I don't know when it appeared in the TomTom database, but it is certainly warning me today.
And here's one from just a couple of months ago:
GATSO:90557@50 on the A6119, Yew Tree Drive, Blackburn. (Latitude: 53.76406 Longitude: -2.51484).
It was verified for the PGPSW database on Thu Mar 31, 2011 and went into the main database the week after that.
I don't know when it appeared in the TomTom database, but it is certainly warning me today.
So although I agree the TomTom-supplied database is poor, I think the above examples show your "deliberately one year out of date" claim is wrong, I'm afraid.
Last edited by Andy_P on Sun May 01, 2011 1:28 pm; edited 2 times in total
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40 Posts: 23848 Location: Hampshire, UK
Posted: Sun May 01, 2011 1:23 pm Post subject:
I'd have to agree that this conspiracy theory is bunkum. The TomTom database is undeniably poor but there is no conspiracy to keep the data out of date nor would there be any benefit in them doing so.
And the data that Dutch police used in this case was not supplied to them directly nor was it sold. It was gifted to local government as part of their pledge to reduce congestion. They are guilty of being a little naive in failing to foresee the usage that resulted but talk of conspiracy and collusion is unfounded. _________________ Darren Griffin
Joined: Sep 06, 2006 Posts: 1618 Location: East Hertfordshire
Posted: Sun May 01, 2011 1:39 pm Post subject:
Quote:
They are guilty of being a little naive in failing to foresee the usage that resulted
such naivety is a VERY serious failing in my view for ANY company that passes on information in this way.
More importantly, I think they are guilty of unprofessional conduct in that, not only should they have foreseen such onward-passing possibilities, they should have explicitly CONTROLLED it by a licensing agreement - you do not after all HAVE to foresee all possible misuse to use a general licence clause to minimise it.
This surely applies whether they sold it, or gifted it, direct to an authority, or via a third party, as appears to be the case here. _________________ David
(Navigon 70 Live, Nuvi 360)
TomTom shareholder, I won't respond to the detail of your response except to say that you're naive (maybe not as much as TomTom) if you believe what you wrote, and if you truly believe TomTom's public statements. Ask any information management or data management/services professional and they will confirm the broad terms of my argument (which is also repeated above).
Better still, read the post above this one which, in my professional judgement, is accurate. BigPerk, I agree with you entirely.
Every person/institution that holds shares in TomTom would benefit from the press coverage as it indicates the quality of management in the company. Every naive shareholder should try to understand what this means - because TomTom loses every time. There is no win for TomTom in any scenario here.
They are guilty of being a little naive in failing to foresee the usage that resulted
such naivety is a VERY serious failing in my view for ANY company that passes on information in this way.
More importantly, I think they are guilty of unprofessional conduct in that, not only should they have foreseen such onward-passing possibilities, they should have explicitly CONTROLLED it by a licensing agreement - you do not after all HAVE to foresee all possible misuse to use a general licence clause to minimise it.
This surely applies whether they sold it, or gifted it, direct to an authority, or via a third party, as appears to be the case here.
Onward-passing should be in a licence agreement. I think (but I will check) that onward-passing is already forbidden in their agreement. TomTom said that if it's not explicit enough in their EXISTING licence agreement, that they will make it more explicit.
But governments tend to think that these agreements do not apply for them. Since they are the ones to create and control the rules. It also happens that in criminal investigations the police check the 'recent destinations' of for instance a drugdealer, and use this information in combination with other 'evidence'.
So - I'm not 100% sure - but I think that some governments and police are unprofessional when it comes to privacy, or they feel that privacy is just standing in their way.
For instance, this news about tomtom came together with the news that in the netherlands in 50% of the cases where phones of possible criminals are being tapped, the files that are needed to get permission to tap a phone are either incomplete or missing.
Last edited by tomtom_shareholder on Sun May 01, 2011 2:05 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14892 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Sun May 01, 2011 2:03 pm Post subject: Re: Tom Tom ---- its worse than kiss and tell
Andy_P wrote:
OK, I like a challenge!
I chose to look for fixed, permanent cameras
Sorry, Andy, not quite accurate....
74275 was first reported to us on 13th September 2009, so TT have had at least 15 months to get it into their database (the date of verification by us serves to demonstrate that we sometimes take time to do so, but our timelag varies as we have often said).
Redlight 9594 is actually pre-2006, before pgpsw started the verification team - my records don't go back any further and it was already well-established when I started downloading the database. I'd guess that one was verified as a result of a change submission.
90557 is the only one we can look at really - I don't know the date it was submitted to us, but it is certainly since Christmas 2010. What we don't know with any of these examples is the date the camera was commissioned - so we can't demonstrate whether pgpsw is any different from TT. PGPSW might also be (falsely) accused of deliberately witholding cameras from the database because we don't put them in as soon as somebody reports them, but in our case, as you well know, they don't go in until we verify them. Only last week I "verified" three cameras in Bamstaple which had been submitted to us in April 2009, June 2010 and December 2010 - I (and obviously any other pgpsw Verifier) have not been near Barnstaple for quite a long time!
But there's a big difference between us and TT - we don't pay anybody to verify the data. Our verification is voluntary, when we are passing, and sometimes we don't pass for ages! We have to assume (for lack of any transparency from them) that TT do pay somebody/bodies. Therefore, TT cameras should be getting into their database far quicker than ours. Just imagine if they did the same timetable as we do - issue latest submissions to verifiers once a week. If that were my paid area I should be able to sort out every last one (say from here to Lands End) during that one week (last week, in 3 days, I was able to drive 1,300 miles, so it would be a piece of cake). Glancing at my map of unverified camera reports last month, I see something liked 80 between here and Lands End, absolute doddle if that was my full time job! _________________ Dennis
sorry but i can't see what you're referring to? the legal page: http://www.tomtom.com/legal/ just shows generic terms. what license did they give when they passed it to the local government?
Posted: Sun May 01, 2011 3:41 pm Post subject: OK, I like a challenge! I chose to look for fixed, permanen
OK, I like a challenge!
I chose to look for fixed, permanent cameras
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Andy_P for the research, and for finding apparent counter examples.
And thanks to DennisN for pointing out that a comparison was not that simple.
I suggest the matter can still be resolved by
a) taking the PocketGPS data as the baseline (tho' I agree camera commission date would be better)
b) sticking to fixed permanent cameras
c) finding one or more TT reported cameras less than 9 months old
(9 months instead of a year allows for some fuzziness in our knowledge of the baseline data)
Am quite happy for my claim to be refuted in this way. If it can't be, then I would like to hear TT's comments.
I defer to DennisN on the matter of TT's incompetence, as he has obviously researched the matter more deeply than I.
Whatever TT's level of incompetence, it would not be unreasonable of the police to offer their full database on the undertaking the most recent parts would not be published. They have costs to cover too. But, if this is the case, it would be dishonest of TT to sell the database.
sorry but i can't see what you're referring to? the legal page: http://www.tomtom.com/legal/ just shows generic terms. what license did they give when they passed it to the local government?
MaFt
7) General Restrictions
Renting, lending, public presentation, performance or broadcasting or any other kind of distribution of the TomTom Content Services, TomTom Content or (Modified) User Generated Content is prohibited......you will not, and will not allow any person to, alter, distort or modify the TomTom Content Services... or any part thereof, to analyse it by means of reverse engineering, to decompile or disassemble the TomTom Content Services....
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15137 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
Posted: Sun May 01, 2011 4:26 pm Post subject:
But that seems to relate to the bog standard TomTom content such as POIs through Home etc. It's states all services are free. I doubt very much that they would give access to HD Traffic / IQ Routes data for free! It's their main asset and USP as far as I'm concerned.
To argue this properly we would need to know what license, exactly, that the Government were given.
But that seems to relate to the bog standard TomTom content such as POIs through Home etc. It's states all services are free. I doubt very much that they would give access to HD Traffic / IQ Routes data for free! It's their main asset and USP as far as I'm concerned.
To argue this properly we would need to know what license, exactly, that the Government were given.
I can't check any further. I can ask them. But is it only a legal issue? I wonder where the services to governments like these http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HRVZ9AAH2BU are really harming privacy? They're not, as far as I can see. Nor has there been any secrecy to their offerings to governments. As you can see in the video uploaded in january. That's also a media spin. 'Secretly selling'. There is nothing secretive. And selling is what corporations do, exploit their assets, and it's for a meaningful purpose.
Joined: Jun 04, 2005 Posts: 19991 Location: West and Southwest London
Posted: Sun May 01, 2011 6:49 pm Post subject: Re: Tom Tom ---- its worse than kiss and tell
DennisN wrote:
Andy_P wrote:
OK, I like a challenge!
I chose to look for fixed, permanent cameras
Sorry, Andy, not quite accurate....
74275 was first reported to us on 13th September 2009...
Ahem, I was accurate in what I said and the dates I gave, but the data I had to work from was not complete.
As verifiers we do not have full access to the original submission dates of every camera, only the ones still pending verification (...and only some of those).
I realised that by it's ID number, that particular camera must have been first submitted a bit earlier, but as I only keep the last year or so's 'comment' files, the only system I could use to date my examples was the verification date.
If you can trawl your longer records for some more examples, that's great, but to be honest, there are very few FIXED, non-SPECS cameras passed to us for verification that actually exist. As you know, most are wrongly reported!
The only other way to finally put this to bed is would be to ask MaFt if he would like to waste some time on it!
Posted: Today Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising
We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in for private messages
Log in
