5 ms·

It is different because this behaviour fits a well know pattern of a certain type of criminal. The child molester. There is no such established pattern where w

It is different because this behaviour fits a well know pattern of a certain type of criminal. The child molester. There is no such established pattern where we can reasonably assume that a company collecting SSIDs will usually do this to act in a criminal way. By the way I didn't down vote you, but I think this is the "common sense" reason why people reject your position.

kuschku 10y ago
Well, but it applies to every other such case, too. You can't publicly index newspaper articles that are already decades old and irrelevant, you can't publicly index photos of buildings, you can't publicly index the names of people even. Every of these things requires written approval of everyone listed, be it StreetView, the application of the Right to be Forgotten, or collecting WiFi SSIDs. So the question is: why does everything require approval, except for SSIDs?
- grkvlt 10y ago
  Does it? I didn't give written approval for the Google StreetView car to photography the front of my house. If I was to create a database of photographs of buildings, taken from a public location and indexed by street address, I don't believe I have to get permission, and the product could be released publicly, or even sold to estate agents or similar. I used to have to give the phone company written (or st least explicit) notice to opt out of their public index of numbers and names. So, it seems most things operate the same way as SSIDs, public information requires an opt-out to be available, not an opt-in.
  - kuschku 10y ago
    Well, here Google had to run a media campaign and had to wait for people explicitly say yes or no to streetview, and the phone books have been opt-in for decades, since the market was liberalized and the Postmonopol ended with it being split into Deutsche Post DHL, Postbank and T-Online. At least for Germany Google could have stayed within of this single law. I don’t care if Google literally would enslave and rape US-Americans – they chose to vote for politics that allows that – but Google should at least stay within of German law in Germany.
    - KirinDave 10y ago
      It was never illegal. It has always been legal. Debates were around asking if people could change the law to make it retroactively illegal. Also: down voted again for emotionally manipulative and outright vile rhetoric. If Hacker News is a place for free speech and open debate, you casually turning every conversation you can to molestation, rape and violence is a violation of the social contract we all have to keep the tone civil, and hurts the goal of honest debate.
      - kuschku 10y ago
        But that's literally what I don't care about? Google cando whatever they want, no matter how crazy it would be, in the US, as long as they follow the laws Ivoted for where I live. I use that hyperbole to make it specifically clear that I would literally not care. I literally wouldn't care if they used Blackwater's army to level entire cities if the people chose to allow this by voting. It's literally the worst case scenario, and hundred times more, and I wouldn't care. But I do care about them following the laws I voted for where I live. And yes, it was already illegal. German law has a principle where an action being done once or twice is very different from the same being automatically done thousands of times. That includes collecting SSIDs, likely.
        KirinDave 10y ago
        > And yes, it was already illegal. Oh really. Fascinating. That seems to line up with the history. > I use that hyperbole to make it specifically clear that I would literally not care. I would like to make it clear I specifically don't care what your justification is for invoking that specter. It's at best utterly irrelevant and unneeded. At worst, it's threatening. Find a better way to express this and you won't get downvotes. It's on you to communicate yourself in a socially acceptable way. If you don't care about that, then accept the downvotes as salty fluid that waters the tree of your liberty.
      - nerdponx 10y ago
        Did you just see the word "rape" and downvote blindly?

kuschku 10y ago

Well, but it applies to every other such case, too. You can't publicly index newspaper articles that are already decades old and irrelevant, you can't publicly index photos of buildings, you can't publicly index the names of people even. Every of these things requires written approval of everyone listed, be it StreetView, the application of the Right to be Forgotten, or collecting WiFi SSIDs. So the question is: why does everything require approval, except for SSIDs?

grkvlt 10y ago
Does it? I didn't give written approval for the Google StreetView car to photography the front of my house. If I was to create a database of photographs of buildings, taken from a public location and indexed by street address, I don't believe I have to get permission, and the product could be released publicly, or even sold to estate agents or similar. I used to have to give the phone company written (or st least explicit) notice to opt out of their public index of numbers and names. So, it seems most things operate the same way as SSIDs, public information requires an opt-out to be available, not an opt-in.
- kuschku 10y ago
  Well, here Google had to run a media campaign and had to wait for people explicitly say yes or no to streetview, and the phone books have been opt-in for decades, since the market was liberalized and the Postmonopol ended with it being split into Deutsche Post DHL, Postbank and T-Online. At least for Germany Google could have stayed within of this single law. I don’t care if Google literally would enslave and rape US-Americans – they chose to vote for politics that allows that – but Google should at least stay within of German law in Germany.
  - KirinDave 10y ago
    It was never illegal. It has always been legal. Debates were around asking if people could change the law to make it retroactively illegal. Also: down voted again for emotionally manipulative and outright vile rhetoric. If Hacker News is a place for free speech and open debate, you casually turning every conversation you can to molestation, rape and violence is a violation of the social contract we all have to keep the tone civil, and hurts the goal of honest debate.
    - kuschku 10y ago
      But that's literally what I don't care about? Google cando whatever they want, no matter how crazy it would be, in the US, as long as they follow the laws Ivoted for where I live. I use that hyperbole to make it specifically clear that I would literally not care. I literally wouldn't care if they used Blackwater's army to level entire cities if the people chose to allow this by voting. It's literally the worst case scenario, and hundred times more, and I wouldn't care. But I do care about them following the laws I voted for where I live. And yes, it was already illegal. German law has a principle where an action being done once or twice is very different from the same being automatically done thousands of times. That includes collecting SSIDs, likely.
      - KirinDave 10y ago
        > And yes, it was already illegal. Oh really. Fascinating. That seems to line up with the history. > I use that hyperbole to make it specifically clear that I would literally not care. I would like to make it clear I specifically don't care what your justification is for invoking that specter. It's at best utterly irrelevant and unneeded. At worst, it's threatening. Find a better way to express this and you won't get downvotes. It's on you to communicate yourself in a socially acceptable way. If you don't care about that, then accept the downvotes as salty fluid that waters the tree of your liberty.
    - nerdponx 10y ago
      Did you just see the word "rape" and downvote blindly?