I’d wager 99.9% of the users didn’t realize that they are effectively sending their live GPS coords to a random website when taking a photo.
But yes, a prop to the input tag ’includeLocation’ which would then give the user some popup confirmation prompt would have been nice
I'd wager 90% of the photos on Google Maps associated with various listings don't actually know their photos are in public. I keep coming across selfies and other photos that look very personal, but somehow someone uploaded to Google Maps, the photo is next to a store or something and Google somehow linked them together, probably by EXIF.
I sometimes do that for random pictures, even like selfies, which I don't mind popping up there.
You review the photo and go "lol, sure".
At least for me that doesn't even feel like posting due to how frictionless it is and that it's about natural discoverability (someone has to click that POI and scroll through photos to find it).
Android used to ask you "do you want to alllow internet access?" as an app permission. Google removed that, as it would stop ads from showing up. Devastating change for privacy and security, great for revenue.
Something that is very useful to 1% of users is stripped away. And we end up with dumb appliances (and ironically - most likely still no privacy )
I think the linked spec suggestion makes the most sense: make the feature opt-in in the file picker, probably require the user to grant location permissions when uploading files with EXIF location information.
I don't think this has anything to do with Google Photos. People fall victim to doxxing or stalking or even location history tracking by third party apps all the time because they don't realize their pictures contain location information. It's extra confusion to laypeople now that many apps (such as Discord) will strip EXIF data but others (websites, some chat apps) don't.
Its better to do it from the source, obviously.
This sounds like a downward spiral concerning freedom.
https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/268079113 Status: Won't Fix (Intended Behavior).
If you want filenames, you need to request access to a directory, not to an image
/User/user/Images/20240110/happy_birthday.jpg
and
/User/user/Desktop/happy_birthday.jpg
are the same image.
Not impossible, just different and arguably better - comparing hashes is a better tool for finding duplicates.
I bet almost 100% of photo uploads using the default Android photo picker, or the default Android web browser, are of photos that were taken with the default Android camera app. If Google feels that the location tags and filenames are unacceptably invasive, it can stop writing them that way.
I want exactly that: the OS to translate between that boundary with a sane default. It’s unavoidable to have cases where this is inconvenient or irritating.
I don’t even know on iPhone how files are named “internally” (nor do I care), since I do not access the native file system or even file format but in 99% of all use cases come in contact only with the exported JPEGs. I do want to see all my photos on a map based on the location they were taken, and I want a timestamp. Locally. Not when I share a photo with a third party.
The word default is more appropriately used when the decision can be changed to something the user finds more suitable for their usecase
Google’s main business is ads, ie running hostile code on your machine.
Something can be "not invasive" when only done locally, but turn out to be a bad idea when you share publicly. Not hard to imagine a lot of users want to organize their libraries by location in a easy way, but still not share the location of every photo they share online.
To _their phone_ specifically? Probably almost nobody. But to their Google/Apple Photos library?
A lot, if not most of people who use DSLRs and other point-and-shoot cameras. Most people want a single library of photos, not segregated based on which device they shot it on.
Element (the matrix client) used to not strip geolocation metadata for the longest time. I don't know if they fixed that yet.
Unfortunately, there is no good way to solve the problem while maintaining convenience. As the author noted, prompts while uploading don't really work. Application defaults don't really work for web browsers, since what is acceptable for one website isn't necessarily acceptable for another. Having the user enter the location through the website make the user aware of the information being disclosed, but it is inconvenient.
Does the situation suck? Yes. On the other hand, I think Google is doing the responsible thing here.
I used to run a small website that allowed users to upload pictures. Most people were not aware that they were telling me where they were, when the picture was taken, their altitude, which direction they were facing, etc.
Bluetooth is not QuickShare, stop conflating them. Bluetooth works. I just tried it. It just sends the entire file to the destination, filename intact with all EXIF, no gimmicks, tricks, or extra toggles. As it has always done for 20+ years.
I don't know how modern your Android phone is, but on all of mine sharing via Bluetooth strips away some of the EXIF.
Not sure if there's a way to do that by default, I've never checked.
Wish android copied them for once lol
I'm pretty sure this is what happens in the iPhone at least, so I'd imagine it is the same in Android.
Well that's a good thing, isn't it?
I get it. This unequivocally sucks. It's a clear loss of functionality for a group of people who are educated about the advantages and disadvantages of embedded EXIF data. But I don't honestly think Google could have consulted their community. It's just too big. So when the author says:
> Because Google run an anticompetitive monopoly on their dominant mobile operating system.
I don't think the problem here is that Google is anticompetitive (though that's a problem in other areas). I think it's just too big that they can't possibly consult with any meaningful percentage of their 1 billion customers (or however many Android users are out there). They may also feel it's impossible to educate their users about the benefits and dangers of embedded location information (just thinking about myself personally, I'm certain that I'd struggle to convey they nuances of embedded location data to my parents).
I will note that Google Photos seems to happily let you add images to shared albums with embedded location information. I can't recall if you get any privacy-related warnings or notices.
[0] https://www.bellingcat.com/resources/2025/08/14/llms-vs-geol...