Posted by Rambler | in privacy

In a Tuesday piece presenting the backstory, the Pillar reported that it had obtained information based on the data Grindr collects from its users, and hired an independent firm to analyze it.

"A mobile device correlated to Burrill emitted app data signals from the location-based hookup app Grindr on a near-daily basis during parts of 2018, 2019, and 2020 - at both his USCCB office and his USCCB-owned residence, as well as during USCCB meetings and events in other cities," the Pillar reported.

"The data obtained and analyzed by The Pillar conveys mobile app date signals during two 26-week periods, the first in 2018 and the second in 2019 and 2020. The data was obtained from a data vendor and authenticated by an independent data consulting firm contracted by The Pillar," the site reported. It did not identify who the vendor was or if the site bought the information or got it from a third party.

It wasn't clear who had collected the information about Burrill. USCCB spokespeople declined to answer questions Tuesday about what it knew about the information-gathering and what its leadership said about the information. They also declined to clarify if Burrill's alleged actions were tracked on a private or church-owned phone

Hypocrisy of the the man in question aside, this is a huge privacy concern for all people.

A private, non-government agency was able to acquire app data and correlate it with locations, and determine who that data corresponded to. (Thus, shaming them for their hypocrisy).

And what Grindr does isn't even unique for many mobile apps, in regards to selling 'non identifying data' to 3rd parties.



You must log in or register to comment.

dontvisitmyintentions said ()

Some Twitter replies express frustration in their being so cagey about something they claim is so easy. A few others condemn Pillar's privacy violations, but obviously those are built in to the software.

Still others question whether they contacted the right person in the RCC. I'm beginning to wonder myself whether they went more for bombast than concern. Did they show his superiors the data, or is this all a "trust me, bro" situation? We can't expect the mainstream media to care about the distinction, but this guy's organization would. I imagine they found a lot of other correlations. Was this just the first guy to resign?

I wish we had more information.