5 ms·

I'm sure this is already being done at a massive scale. It seems like disabling all connectivity when you are not using it would be good for privacy.

by flor1s 9y ago

blowski 9y ago
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23665490 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23665490
timrobinson 9y ago
Transport for London did this for one week on the Tube last year - https://blog.tfl.gov.uk/2016/11/23/wifi-data-trial-understanding-london-underground-customer-journeys/ https://blog.tfl.gov.uk/2016/11/23/wifi-data-trial-understan...
zacmps 9y ago
That's harder than you think, it's not even possible to disable all WiFi connectivity on some choosers.
- zacmps 9y ago
  Can't edit on the app, some *chipsets
golergka 9y ago
Is this an important privacy issue from any practi al standpoint? The 'attacker' only gets a vague idea that some amount of smartphones are working nearby; I can't see any reasons to be concerned with such a privacy 'violation'.
- adolph 9y ago
  Yes and no. Imho the issue at hand is that of a piece to a mosaic of over time and other sensor data. For example, an important piece of data to pharmaceutical companies is which doctors are linked to prescriptions. Some states have rules against disclosing this information. If a company were to monitor target doctor's offices and pharmacies then the distribution data could provide clear indications of who is writing what prescriptions. Would this be a problem? To the degree that prescription filling discloses a health condition that a person considers private, the use of associational wifi monitoring might be seen as a privacy violation. If this is seen as a problem, what could be done? In a sense, I think that the better solution is on the client/protocol side rather than attempting to enforce some "don't sniff" rule. Given the practicalities of updating clients, something on the rules side would have to be done, although I doubt it would be as effective as a speed bump.

I'm sure this is already being done at a massive scale. It seems like disabling all connectivity when you are not using it would be good for privacy.

by flor1s 9y ago

I'm sure this is already being done at a massive scale. It seems like disabling all connectivity when you are not using it would be good for privacy.

blowski 9y ago

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23665490 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23665490

timrobinson 9y ago

Transport for London did this for one week on the Tube last year - https://blog.tfl.gov.uk/2016/11/23/wifi-data-trial-understanding-london-underground-customer-journeys/ https://blog.tfl.gov.uk/2016/11/23/wifi-data-trial-understan...

zacmps 9y ago

That's harder than you think, it's not even possible to disable all WiFi connectivity on some choosers.

zacmps 9y ago
Can't edit on the app, some *chipsets

golergka 9y ago

Is this an important privacy issue from any practi al standpoint? The 'attacker' only gets a vague idea that some amount of smartphones are working nearby; I can't see any reasons to be concerned with such a privacy 'violation'.

adolph 9y ago
Yes and no. Imho the issue at hand is that of a piece to a mosaic of over time and other sensor data. For example, an important piece of data to pharmaceutical companies is which doctors are linked to prescriptions. Some states have rules against disclosing this information. If a company were to monitor target doctor's offices and pharmacies then the distribution data could provide clear indications of who is writing what prescriptions. Would this be a problem? To the degree that prescription filling discloses a health condition that a person considers private, the use of associational wifi monitoring might be seen as a privacy violation. If this is seen as a problem, what could be done? In a sense, I think that the better solution is on the client/protocol side rather than attempting to enforce some "don't sniff" rule. Given the practicalities of updating clients, something on the rules side would have to be done, although I doubt it would be as effective as a speed bump.