Generate an appropriate title for the given text. The generated title must be short and include the main topic of the text. The preferred titles are under fifteen words.

By Jane WakefieldTechnology reporter The issue could affect up to two billion Android and Apple devices which use Google for maps or search. The study, verified by researchers at Princeton University, has angered US law-makers. Google said in response that it provides clear descriptions of its tools and how to turn them off. The study found that users' whereabouts are recorded even when location history has been disabled. For example: 'Pretty sneaky' To illustrate the effect of these location markers, AP created a visual map showing the movements of Princeton researcher Gunes Acar who was using an Android phone with location history turned off. The map showed his train commute around New York as well as visits to The High Line park, Chelsea Market, Hell's Kitchen, Central Park and Harlem. It also revealed his home address. To stop Google saving these location markers, users have to turn off another setting called Web and App Activity, which is enabled by default and which does not mention location data. Disabling this prevents Google storing information generated by searches and other activities which can limit the effectiveness of its digital assistant. "You would think that telling Google that you didn't want your location to be tracked by disabling an option called "Location History" would stop the internet giant from storing data about your location," writes security researcher Graham Cluley on his blog. "It seems pretty sneaky to me that Google continues to store location data, unless you both disable "Location history" and "Web & App Activity."" In response, Google told AP: "There are a number of different ways that Google may use location to improve people's experience, including: Location History, Web and App Activity, and through device-level Location Services. "We provide clear descriptions of these tools, and robust controls so people can turn them on or off, and delete their histories at any time." Corporate practices Following its research, AP created a guide to show users how to delete location data. Presented with the evidence of the AP study, Democratic senator Mark Warner accused technology companies of having "corporate practices that diverge wildly from the totally reasonable expectation of their users". Democratic congressman Frank Pallone called for "comprehensive consumer privacy and data security legislation". In the UK, a spokesman for the Information Commissioner's Office told the BBC: "Under the GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018, organisations have a legal duty to be open, transparent and fair with the public about how their personal data is used. "Anybody who has concerns about how an organisation is handling their personal information can contact the ICO." Technology firms are under fire for not being clear about privacy settings and how to use them. In June, a report from the Norwegian Consumer Council found evidence that privacy-friendly options are hidden away or obscured. Location-based advertising offers big opportunities to marketers. According to research firm BIA/Kelsey, US brands are poised to spend up to $20.6bn (£16.3bn) on targeted mobile ads in 2018. Since 2014, Google has let advertisers track the effectiveness of online adverts with a feature based on footfall data, which relies on location history.
Google tracks users who turn off location history

MI5's chief of staff, known as Witness G, said the security service had received a report about an extremist called "Saddique" in March 2005. The information was not followed up for good operational reasons, he argued. Counsel for the families of the 52 people killed in the 2005 London attacks were questioning Witness G. Four suicide bombers detonated their devices on London's transport network on 7 July 2005. Mohammad Sidique Khan, 30, Shehzad Tanweer, 22, Hasib Hussain, 18, and Germaine Lindsay, 19, targeted Tube trains at Aldgate, Edgware Road and Russell Square and a bus in Tavistock Square. Many of the relatives of those who died want to know why those under surveillance were not subjected to detailed scrutiny. On Monday, MI5's chief of staff told the inquests the security service could not be held responsible for the attacks. Giving evidence anonymously, Witness G said on Tuesday that MI5 knew of many individuals involved in Islamist extremism but that was not the same as planning terrorist attacks. In particular, they knew that many of these people took part in "Jihadi tourism" during which they would go to Pakistan to have a look around. 'National security' West Yorkshire Police received intelligence between January and March 2005 that a committed extremist called "Saddique" from Batley, West Yorkshire, received training in Afghanistan in the late 1990s or early 2000s. He is also believed to have undergone military instruction at a camp while in Pakistan in 2001. MI5 and West Yorkshire Police failed to identify the man, but it emerged after the 7 July bombings that he was Khan. Witness G told the hearing if the information had been pursued, he had a high degree of confidence MI5 would have identified the extremist as Khan. When it was put to Witness G that if the intelligence had been looked into, then Khan's plans might have come to light before the attacks, the senior spy replied: "Yes, I think that's fair." However Witness G said the decision had been taken not to further investigate the real identity of "Saddique" for good operational reasons - but he insisted it was impossible for him to explain the decision because of national security. Hugo Keith QC, counsel to the inquests, pressed Witness G further, suggesting that had they identified the man as Khan, they would have been able to also see the links between him and the 2004 fertiliser bomb plot, and to a known al-Qaeda facilitator living in Luton. But Witness G said the greatest chance to have identified Khan would possibly have been intelligence that a man known as "Ibrahim" had attended a terrorist training camp in Pakistan. That man was only identified as Khan after the bombings. Misleading categories The court also heard how in 2005 the security service did not categorise suspects according to the level of threat they posed and it did not keep separate records of any assessments made. A report by the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), published in May 2009, said the security service divided people of interest into "essential", "desirable" and "other". MI5 judged Khan and Tanweer to be "desirable" targets in February and March 2004, the report said. But Witness G admitted the terms were not categories employed operationally by security service officers - and in fact no terms were used to categorise Khan and Tanweer - and the words were used in the ISC report as a "term of art". The inquests have already heard that ringleader Khan appeared on the periphery of another investigation, codenamed Crevice, in 2004 - but the security service concluded at the time he was not a threat to the UK. It also heard how MI5 missed an opportunity to identify Khan when they failed to show Mohammed Junaid Babar - their key informant - a photograph of the 7 July bomber. Khan and suicide bomber Shehzad Tanweer were photographed by a surveillance team in front of a Burger King outlet at the Toddington Services on the M1 in Bedfordshire on 2 February 2004. But instead of using this sharp colour picture, MI5 provided only a very badly cropped image of Tanweer to US investigators interrogating the supergrass. A photograph of Khan was also edited but it was never shown to Babar - apparently because the quality was so poor. The inquest was also shown a police mugshot of Khan taken when he was arrested and cautioned in February 1993, aged 18, for an assault committed the previous Boxing Day. The photograph was sent to MI5 in July 2004 but it was not compared to the surveillance pictures taken at Toddington Services or shown to Babar, the hearing was told. MI5 chiefs have previously told the Intelligence and Security Committee that in late 2004, their officers had an enormous workload because of massive growth in al-Qaeda-linked plots. On Monday Witness G said this workload, revealed in documents to the inquests, meant the service was forced to "prioritise ruthlessly". Last month, the coroner Lady Justice Hallett granted a request from Home Secretary Theresa May for Witness G to give evidence anonymously. But she refused to rule that the witness should be screened from the families of those who died.
7/7 inquests: MI5 'could have identified ringleader'

By Jamie BartlettPresenter, The Missing Cryptoqueen About £2bn from across the world was spent on OneCoin tokens, including tens of millions of pounds from British families. Then, in late 2017, Ruja disappeared and the scheme was exposed to be a scam. There was no cryptocurrency. It was an old-fashioned Ponzi scheme. For 18 months, I've investigated the scandal for BBC Sounds, for the podcast The Missing Cryptoqueen, alongside my producer, Georgia Catt. After a break, we returned for a new episode last week, which focused in part on the UK's Financial Conduct Authority. Just three and a bit months after the London extravaganza, the watchdog posted an online warning about the get-rich scheme, headlined: "Beware trading virtual currencies with OneCoin". It said consumers should be "wary of dealing with OneCoin" and the organisation was being investigated by the City of London Police. "This firm is not authorised by us and we do not believe it is undertaking any activities that require our authorisation. However, we are concerned about the potential risks this firm poses to UK consumers," it added. This helped counteract the claims of OneCoin promoters, who were trying to pull in more victims. And delighted critics would spend their evenings sending the FCA warning to potential new recruits. But on or around 1 August 2017, with the scam in full momentum, the authority suddenly removed its notice. Now, it was Ruja's turn to be thrilled. According to retired libel lawyer David Hooper, it should have been obvious to the regulator OneCoin's promoters were going to use this "as a marketing opportunity". And OneCoin promoters quickly began claiming it meant the FCA no longer considered OneCoin a risk. One triumphantly told his followers: "If [the FCA] still thought we were a fraudulent company… then, guess what, that warning's not removed." While making the podcast, we've seen letters a UK law firm hired by Ruja sent to her critics. The letters threatened legal action unless they deleted online posts claiming OneCoin was a pyramid scheme run by a criminal organisation. And at some point, one of Ruja's advisors - although it's still not clear exactly who or when - realised the FCA might have overstepped its regulatory authority. And, according to multiple sources, the law firm pressured the FCA to have the notice removed. Heavily promoted All regulators have their own turf to referee. The FCA's covers financial products and services. What's included isn't always clear, especially with new products. And being so novel, cryptocurrencies were, and still are, outside this "perimeter". In response to a query at the time of its removal, the FCA said it "had been on our website for a sufficient amount of time to make investors aware of our concerns". However, several alerts have remained live on the FCA's website for years, even decades. Not to mention the scam was still being heavily promoted in the UK at the time. When we asked again, it told us the initial decision to publish the notice had been at City of London Police's request and the decision to take it down had been made "in conjunction" with the force. "It did not appear that OneCoin was carrying on any activities that required FCA authorisation," it said. "The FCA does not regulate crypto-assets and therefore it could not take this matter further. "Any queries should be directed to the City of London Police on this." We followed this up with the police force. But it made clear responsibility for the notice was the regulator's alone. "The City of London Police was made aware of the FCA's intention to take down their alert on OneCoin and their reasons for doing so," said a spokesman. "The force accepted that the decision belonged to the FCA given that this was their alert." We went back to the FCA to ask again what its reasons were but it declined to comment further. City of London Police ultimately dropped its own investigation, citing "insufficient evidence to support criminal proceedings" but was thanked by US prosecutors for helping them convict a lawyer who had helped launder $400m (£300m) of OneCoin's proceeds. However, neither of these events happened until two years later, in 2019. And critics believe once the decision had been made to issue the original warning, there was an obligation for the FCA and police to stick with it. "They clearly had responsibilities not to pour a bucket of whitewash over OneCoin," Mr Hooper told us. The hunt for Ruja continues - if caught, she faces up to 80 years in a US jail. For the many thousands conned out of their savings, justice won't be served until the matter is revolved. But in the meantime, many can't help feeling the UK authorities could have done more to thwart the scam and at the very least shouldn't have backtracked from keeping their concerns public. Download or stream the Missing Cryptoqueen podcast on BBC Sounds. _______ Additional reporting by Leo Kelion

Missing Cryptoqueen: Why did the FCA drop its warning about the OneCoin scam?

