4 ms·

Which is pretty spoofable.

• tekacs 10y ago
  True, although that's hardly common and completely impossible on many embedded devices - devices which are only becoming more common.
  • lorenzhs 10y ago
    Embedded devices and public WiFi seem like an odd combination. Do you have any examples in mind which embedded devices you'd like to connect to something like that?
  • detaro 10y ago
    don't iPhones do that by default? Not sure if it is common in Android-land by now, my old-ish phone required a custom ROM for that.
    • __david__ 10y ago
      Sort of [1]. It also sounds like it's just for scanning networks. If you ever actually connect it still uses your real MAC. [1] An older article about the feature that may be out of date: http://9to5mac.com/2014/09/26/more-details-on-how-ios-8s-mac-address-randomization-feature-works-and-when-it-doesnt/ http://9to5mac.com/2014/09/26/more-details-on-how-ios-8s-mac...
• danjc 10y ago
  The point is that normally having your mac address is a unique way to identify you. Unless I've misunderstood you, you seem to be saying that because it's possible to spoof your mac you shouldn't worry about it being collected?
  • ultramancool 10y ago
    How about an actual solution? https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=eu.chainfire.pryfi https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=eu.chainfire.p... It's pretty much set-and-forget, randomized per-AP macs and random changes while scanning.
    • smacktoward 10y ago
      But the whole point is that you shouldn't have to do that. The burden shouldn't be on the individual to constantly be finding ways to keep one step ahead of surveillance. The burden should be on those who would surveil them to justify why it's necessary.
      • throwanem 10y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem
        • inanutshellus 10y ago
          I infer from this you're saying "crap in one hand, wish in the other and see which fills up first"?
          • throwanem 10y ago
            That's an unduly reductive take. A more accurate way to put it would be that, regardless of what should be the case, it's necessary to cope with what is.
            • deleted 10y ago
              [deleted]
            • inanutshellus 10y ago
              It's pretty impressive to be reductive against a post with no words! In all seriousness, it's a perfectly legitimate--albeit crass--interpretation, given the expressed intent (none). GGP says "these things ought to be true". Then there's a reply with a bare link saying, effectively, "is" statements are true, "ought" statements are fantasy/desire/normative. The rest of any kind of interpretation requires more context and intent.
      • ultramancool 10y ago
        > you shouldn't have to do that Unfortunately, like with many things, there's no way to prevent them from doing it, so "shouldn't" has no relevance here. If it's profitable or entertaining to exploit that data, people will do so. Legislate and regulate as you may, I can't depend on it because I can't validate it on my side. If you have no way to verify something, you must always counteract it to the best of your ability.