Skip to content

‘If I switch it off, my girlfriend might think I’m cheating’: inside the rise of couples location sharing

Technology
415 217 160
  • Wtf? Is this the outcome of growing up with helicopter parents or where are those trust issues coming from?

    It's nothing about trust issues- privacy is just a foreign concept to that generation. It was dead and gone before they were born. They take for granted that eveyone has their phone on them at all times and is never unreachable, so knowing where all your friends are is just a matter of convenience.

  • Since you're one of the few people that admit to you and your partner using it: What do you think about the company knowing where you are at all times?

    Yes, somebody pointed that out already. I need to find out more about how it's done.

  • Risk assessment is probability and severity. The probability can be vanishingly low, but if the severity is astoundingly high then acting like a high risk situation could be appropriate.

    Take asteroids. The last planet killer to hit us was 94million years ago. A rudimentary estimate could put the probably as 1:94mil. The severity of an asteroid impact of that magnitude is off the charts, so it is reasonable to consider it a risk and act accordingly to spend resources to search for and track asteroid trajectories.

    The severity of abduction, murder, and rape is probably pretty high for most people, so considering it a risk even with a very small probability is not unreasonable.

    Location sharing doesn't prevent any of that though?

    Like, no criminal who would want to rape/murder/abduct you knows whether you are sharing your location with anyone. They would do so regardless before anyone can arrive to help you.

    Also, no kidnapper on this planet is stupid enough to take your phone with them. You have a slightly higher chance for authorities to be alerted sooner but that's about it.

  • If you just see this and, like 20 others, blindly say "you should trust your partner" then you haven't thought about it at all. If you trust your partner completely, then you trust them to use your location information responsibly, right? So trust does not have any bearing on whether to use it or not.

    The issue for me is that we should try to avoid normalising behaviour which enables coercive control in relationships, even if it is practical. That means that even if you trust your partner not to spy on your every move and use the information against you, you shouldn't enable it because it makes it harder for everyone who can't trust their partner to that extent to justify not using it.

    On a more practical level, controlling behaviour doesn't always manifest straight away. What's safe now may not be safe in two years, and if it does start ramping up later, it may be much, much harder to back out of agreements made today which end up impacting your safety.

    oh good lord no. years, decades, centuries even couples have trusted each other WITHOUT the need to tracking their where abouts. suddenly this is something we need? no it isn't. but sure, you go ahead and slap a tag on your "loved one" so you know where they are at all times and so will whatever company is selling your data from said tag.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    Even when I need the security aspect of tracking I'd share my location with my mother or a close friend rather than my partner.

  • This is like, the opposite of old-fashioned. Calling your wife when you're on the way home is old-fashioned.

    This article is the first time I'm actually hearing about this idea because it never even occurred to me as something people would actually want to do. I frankly don't see the point of this nonsense. I would much rather talk to my wife on the phone and communicate with her about plans. It's much more human and normal, and facilitates good communication habits. It takes 2 minutes to give my wife a call and, you know what, I get to talk to my wife! We don't need technology invading absolutely every aspect of our lives. We don't need to be constantly plugged in and attached to our phones at the hip.

    It also has other downsides, like making it hard to surprise your partner, constant battery drain from the constant location chatter, etc. In fact, it seems like all downside with no actual benefit (setting aside the trust stuff, because it's pretty irrelevant either way).

    I get where you're coming from, but I loathe talking on the phone. I love talking to my wife, but we do that when sitting down for coffee and breakfast in the morning.

  • Legally and practically, prenups are anything but passive. They’re proactive tools. They’re usually dormant, but they’re ready to be called into action.

    Marriage is different things to different people. Some have every intention to make it work, no matter what. To them, a prenup is an anti-“burn the ship”. It’s a statement.

    Also, tools like “find my” are not major breaches of privacy if both parties jointly agree to use them. For me and my family, it’s the ultimate expression of trust. I’m never somewhere I shouldn’t be, and I like my family knowing where I am, for a multitude of reasons.

    There are two types of people who a tracker wouldn’t be effective for: those who are in an inappropriate location, and those who are constantly questioning why someone is in an innocent place, regardless of where it may be. However, at that point, the issue isn’t the trackers; it’s the people.

    This comment is just 'what do you have to worry about it you're not doing anything wrong' with extra words.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    Man I took my kids off location sharing when they got their first phones at 12. Shit is creepy.

    Just communicate!

  • Man I took my kids off location sharing when they got their first phones at 12. Shit is creepy.

    Just communicate!

    Exactly! My kids aren't getting phones until I trust them, and if I trust them, I don't need location sharing.

  • If you just see this and, like 20 others, blindly say "you should trust your partner" then you haven't thought about it at all. If you trust your partner completely, then you trust them to use your location information responsibly, right? So trust does not have any bearing on whether to use it or not.

    The issue for me is that we should try to avoid normalising behaviour which enables coercive control in relationships, even if it is practical. That means that even if you trust your partner not to spy on your every move and use the information against you, you shouldn't enable it because it makes it harder for everyone who can't trust their partner to that extent to justify not using it.

    On a more practical level, controlling behaviour doesn't always manifest straight away. What's safe now may not be safe in two years, and if it does start ramping up later, it may be much, much harder to back out of agreements made today which end up impacting your safety.

    I appreciate the sentiment here, but I disagree with the premise in the first paragraph. It sounds like the age-old "nothing to hide" argument.

    I trust my SO with my location information and I have nothing to hide, but I don't provide it because they don't need it. That's it. Why should I compromise my privacy and potentially security just because I trust someone? That's dumb. They don't need it so I don't provide it, that's my primary reason and that should be enough.

    I have other reasons too, such as:

    • I don't trust my or my SO's phone manufacturer to keep that data confidential, and I don't want them selling that to someone
    • I don't trust my government to steal that information en masse, and I'd really rather not trigger some alarm somewhere
    • I don't trust most of the apps on my phone with location information, and I'd really rather not trust my phone's app security to prevent them from getting it
    • breaches happen, and I'd really rather my location information not end up in criminals' hands

    And so on. There's no upside and tons of potential downsides, so why do it?

  • My wife always has my location. I regularly go out for hours on my motorcycle and I'll tell her I'm going for a hour ride and get lost in the woods for 3. Years ago I had to call her to pick me up after a truck decided to go left in front of me and shattered my arm into 4 pieces. Caller her from the hospital bed high as fuck on morphine. She has my location so if I stop responding for hours she can make sure I didn't wind up in a medical center LOL.

    Sure, then maybe enable it before those rides and disable afterward, and send her a text when you'd like her to keep an eye on it.

    Keeping it on all the time has tons of potential privacy-related problems since phones a aren't perfect.

  • That is entirely different than suspecting you of cheating every moment she doesn't have eyes on you.

    Some of the arguments for mutual tracking relate to safety, not cheating.

  • This. If your partner is jealous, you're not the problem. If they can't work through it with you, walk.

    People with trust issues are exhausting. Make sure they're worth it without losing yourself.

    Signed,
    Experienced

    My SO gets super jealous/anxious, probably because of all the horror stories in the news. Having access to my location would only make that worse, because then every time I drop a coworker off at home or something and forget to tell my SO, they'll get super suspicious.

    I'd much rather work off trust than need to explain every little deviation from my normal schedule just to avoid some anxiety.

  • Isn’t it strange that “trusting” someone now, means letting them constantly spy on you?

    I talked to some late teens about it some months ago. They see it as an “I give you permission to see my every move” kind of thing, as in they have nothing to hide. And they do it pretty early on in relationships, as a show of commitment.

    I got my SO to turn off location tracking on Snapchat because I got a message from a family member about his location. She had screenshotted his location from the snap map, searched the address, found the person living there, searched him up, found out he’s also gay, and wondered if I knew he was out with another man?! FYI we attended a dinner party at the guys home.

    That’s the level of insane some people get. Constant surveillance, mixed with insecurities and stories of cheating, and you’ve got a shitty ass cocktail.

    Me having location shared with my partner of 20 years is one thing. But sharing it with anyone else? Fuck no.

    I wouldn't even share my location with my SO of 10+ years. Why? They don't need it, and there's tons of potential negative things with that (phone manufacturer sells it, gov't takes it w/ backdoor deals, breach reveals it, etc).

    I don't want my SO's location information, and they shouldn't want mine. If I'm doing some high risk activity, like doing a long hike alone, sure, but it's going off immediately after.

  • My girlfriend and I share our locations mainly for convenience and safety. It’s nice to know that she’s 3 tram stops away from home so I can start cooking dinner for example. She’s also terrible at responding to texts and calls though lol

    She could text you, no? It seems like getting her to be better at that is better than opening the can of worms involved with location sharing. For example, here's some bad stuff that could happen:

    • phone sells that data to advertisers
    • gov't gets that info and you trigger an alarm (maybe you went hiking a little too close to a sensitive area)
    • data breach happens and now crooks know when you're not home
    • SO's creepy friend sees your location and is secretly stalking you

    Etc. Those probably aren't super likely, but being able to avoid it all entirely with a little better communication sounds a lot better.

    Sometimes it's worth it, like you're going hiking alone or going to a bad part of town.

  • If you just see this and, like 20 others, blindly say "you should trust your partner" then you haven't thought about it at all. If you trust your partner completely, then you trust them to use your location information responsibly, right? So trust does not have any bearing on whether to use it or not.

    The issue for me is that we should try to avoid normalising behaviour which enables coercive control in relationships, even if it is practical. That means that even if you trust your partner not to spy on your every move and use the information against you, you shouldn't enable it because it makes it harder for everyone who can't trust their partner to that extent to justify not using it.

    On a more practical level, controlling behaviour doesn't always manifest straight away. What's safe now may not be safe in two years, and if it does start ramping up later, it may be much, much harder to back out of agreements made today which end up impacting your safety.

    My mom the other day sent me like 5 texts in a row because I didn't see them while working.
    Had to stop and tell her "For the past century, if most people wanted to contact their kids they waited months for letters to go back and forth. No need to panic over not talking for a day."

  • I appreciate the sentiment here, but I disagree with the premise in the first paragraph. It sounds like the age-old "nothing to hide" argument.

    I trust my SO with my location information and I have nothing to hide, but I don't provide it because they don't need it. That's it. Why should I compromise my privacy and potentially security just because I trust someone? That's dumb. They don't need it so I don't provide it, that's my primary reason and that should be enough.

    I have other reasons too, such as:

    • I don't trust my or my SO's phone manufacturer to keep that data confidential, and I don't want them selling that to someone
    • I don't trust my government to steal that information en masse, and I'd really rather not trigger some alarm somewhere
    • I don't trust most of the apps on my phone with location information, and I'd really rather not trust my phone's app security to prevent them from getting it
    • breaches happen, and I'd really rather my location information not end up in criminals' hands

    And so on. There's no upside and tons of potential downsides, so why do it?

    There's no upside

    • Know when they come home or if they are stuck in traffic
    • "oh you are still in the store can you get me ..."
    • security if they get kidnapped

    It is insanely useful to know where your partner is. It is not necessary. It is still useful. I would not allow my partner 24/7 location information. It is still useful. I don't trust any app/manufacturer that allows such a feature. It is still useful.

  • oh good lord no. years, decades, centuries even couples have trusted each other WITHOUT the need to tracking their where abouts. suddenly this is something we need? no it isn't. but sure, you go ahead and slap a tag on your "loved one" so you know where they are at all times and so will whatever company is selling your data from said tag.

    I didn't say it's something you need. Read the rest of my comment.

  • I appreciate the sentiment here, but I disagree with the premise in the first paragraph. It sounds like the age-old "nothing to hide" argument.

    I trust my SO with my location information and I have nothing to hide, but I don't provide it because they don't need it. That's it. Why should I compromise my privacy and potentially security just because I trust someone? That's dumb. They don't need it so I don't provide it, that's my primary reason and that should be enough.

    I have other reasons too, such as:

    • I don't trust my or my SO's phone manufacturer to keep that data confidential, and I don't want them selling that to someone
    • I don't trust my government to steal that information en masse, and I'd really rather not trigger some alarm somewhere
    • I don't trust most of the apps on my phone with location information, and I'd really rather not trust my phone's app security to prevent them from getting it
    • breaches happen, and I'd really rather my location information not end up in criminals' hands

    And so on. There's no upside and tons of potential downsides, so why do it?

    They don’t need it so I don’t provide it, that’s my primary reason and that should be enough.

    It is enough. In fact, it's better than the "you should trust your SO" argument which doesn't make any sense.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    This is a huge no from me. My SO doesn't need my location, and sharing it has a lot of potential downsides, like:

    • phone manufacturer selling it to advertisers
    • gov't getting it and I accidentally trust trigger some alarm
    • data getting exposed in a breach
    • apps without location access getting it through some means

    There's a lot of potential downside and the upside is... my SO knows when I'm almost home?

    Yeah, no. Maybe I'll share if I'm doing something risky like hiking alone, but that's never staying on constantly.

  • When A Face Scan Decides Who Eats And Who Keeps Their Job

    Technology technology
    2
    1
    24 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    24 Aufrufe
    R
    Someone heard about IBM providing punch card machines for Auschwitz and thought that was insufficiently banal.
  • How Cops Can Get Your Private Online Data

    Technology technology
    5
    1
    107 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    33 Aufrufe
    M
    Private and online doesn't mix. Except if it's encrypted.
  • FREE BETTING TIPS-Draws

    Technology technology
    1
    2
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    12 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Uber, Lyft oppose some bills that aim to prevent assaults during rides

    Technology technology
    12
    94 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    62 Aufrufe
    F
    California is not Colorado nor is it federal No shit, did you even read my comment? Regulations already exist in every state that ride share companies operate in, including any state where taxis operate. People are already not supposed to sexually assault their passengers. Will adding another regulation saying they shouldn’t do that, even when one already exists, suddenly stop it from happening? No. Have you even looked at the regulations in Colorado for ride share drivers and companies? I’m guessing not. Here are the ones that were made in 2014: https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/2021/title-40/article-10-1/part-6/section-40-10-1-605/#%3A~%3Atext=§+40-10.1-605.+Operational+Requirements+A+driver+shall+not%2Ca+ride%2C+otherwise+known+as+a+“street+hail”. Here’s just one little but relevant section: Before a person is permitted to act as a driver through use of a transportation network company's digital network, the person shall: Obtain a criminal history record check pursuant to the procedures set forth in section 40-10.1-110 as supplemented by the commission's rules promulgated under section 40-10.1-110 or through a privately administered national criminal history record check, including the national sex offender database; and If a privately administered national criminal history record check is used, provide a copy of the criminal history record check to the transportation network company. A driver shall obtain a criminal history record check in accordance with subparagraph (I) of paragraph (a) of this subsection (3) every five years while serving as a driver. A person who has been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol in the previous seven years before applying to become a driver shall not serve as a driver. If the criminal history record check reveals that the person has ever been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to any of the following felony offenses, the person shall not serve as a driver: (c) (I) A person who has been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol in the previous seven years before applying to become a driver shall not serve as a driver. If the criminal history record check reveals that the person has ever been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to any of the following felony offenses, the person shall not serve as a driver: An offense involving fraud, as described in article 5 of title 18, C.R.S.; An offense involving unlawful sexual behavior, as defined in section 16-22-102 (9), C.R.S.; An offense against property, as described in article 4 of title 18, C.R.S.; or A crime of violence, as described in section 18-1.3-406, C.R.S. A person who has been convicted of a comparable offense to the offenses listed in subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (c) in another state or in the United States shall not serve as a driver. A transportation network company or a third party shall retain true and accurate results of the criminal history record check for each driver that provides services for the transportation network company for at least five years after the criminal history record check was conducted. A person who has, within the immediately preceding five years, been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to a felony shall not serve as a driver. Before permitting an individual to act as a driver on its digital network, a transportation network company shall obtain and review a driving history research report for the individual. An individual with the following moving violations shall not serve as a driver: More than three moving violations in the three-year period preceding the individual's application to serve as a driver; or A major moving violation in the three-year period preceding the individual's application to serve as a driver, whether committed in this state, another state, or the United States, including vehicular eluding, as described in section 18-9-116.5, C.R.S., reckless driving, as described in section 42-4-1401, C.R.S., and driving under restraint, as described in section 42-2-138, C.R.S. A transportation network company or a third party shall retain true and accurate results of the driving history research report for each driver that provides services for the transportation network company for at least three years. So all sorts of criminal history, driving record, etc checks have been required since 2014. Colorado were actually the first state in the USA to implement rules like this for ride share companies lol.
  • Gov. Landry signs new drone defense law; first in nation

    Technology technology
    30
    105 Stimmen
    30 Beiträge
    168 Aufrufe
    J
    I'm sure the 2 iq police in Louisiana will be able to figure any of this out. That equipment will be rotting in some storage unit in 3 months.
  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    11 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 12 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    14 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Apple acquires RAC7, its first-ever video game studio

    Technology technology
    16
    1
    67 Stimmen
    16 Beiträge
    80 Aufrufe
    E
    I'm not questioning whether or not the game is good, just wondering why Apple would want to limit their customer base so much.