8 ms·

> Google, in its wisdom, has tied "Location" into things like BLE Scanning and WiFi scanning. The excuse is that you can use these things as a proxy for locatio

> Google, in its wisdom, has tied "Location" into things like BLE Scanning and WiFi scanning. The excuse is that you can use these things as a proxy for location. That is, if I know you are near access point X your location is probably near Y. It’s not an “excuse”, it’s a fact. If you allow an app to scan SSIDs you are allowing it to know your location. No amount of sarcasm on the part of OP is going to change that.

seanalltogether 8y ago
But this is a failure on Googles part to not have a streamlined api for detecting external devices, a feature which is becoming more and more popular with smart devices. Apple has protocols like WAC that you can conform to and be visible to an iOS user without anything special. Inside your app you hand off control to the user to identify and pair that device so that you as a developer don't need special permissions and custom code to link things up. Our iOS app is able to run without any special prompts for the user on first run, whereas our Android app has to ask for location services with lengthy explanations before they can get past the first screen.
- kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
  Google desperately wants location services enabled and will use any wedge possible to force it on. They even disable the center on my location button in the maps app even though the app knows very well where your current location is.
- bbulkow 8y ago
  This seems the classic 'ease of use' vs privacy. Google has done the right thing for privacy, because an app that can scan for ssid can determine location and report it if it has any outside connection. Good for google to equate the two, this was always a well known hole. One suggestion- please update your blog, if this thread convinces you that Google did the right thing. Those posts hang around and impact product engineering. What kind of api would you propose? The only one i can think of is one that says 'connect to x' instead of 'list all ssid', which still tells you about location but not a lot. I occasionally think about g+ shutdown, and how Google engineered quite a bit for privacy, and removed things like games that leak location and quizzes, and forced people to create groups, which is the right thing but people liked the rich experience of facebook. Now that many are fleeibg from fb, they can't go to g+. Sorry to thread-jack. Clearly i have a blog post pent up.
elcomet 8y ago
This is only true if they have access to a ssid database. This is very expensive to build, I guess Google has one, I think they don't give you directly access to it.
- deadbunny 8y ago
  Or just use https://wigle.net https://wigle.net
  - icebraining 8y ago
    Or https://location.services.mozilla.com/ https://location.services.mozilla.com/ or one of the multiple paid APIs.
- icebraining 8y ago
  They do: https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/geolocation/intro https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/geolocation...
jfnixon 8y ago
Um, no, that's not correct. SSIDs aren't tied to geographic location. The mothership might infer location by looking at the list of SSIDs and checking it against a geotagged list compiled by a mapper, but that's a completely different thing that saying if you let an app look for an SSID you are allowing to it to know your location. You might as well say that by giving a camera the ability to know the time, you are allowing it to know your location, as someone could look at the sun's shadows or weather and infer location.
- icebraining 8y ago
  By that reasoning, nothing is; even GPS signals aren't tied to geographic locations, you infer it based on timing calculations. BSSIDs can be easily mapped to a location using free and readily-available services. They are as good as most geolocation mechanisms you can get.
  - jsight 8y ago
    Thanks to how difficult GPS signals can be indoors, they can be better than some other geolocation mechanisms. Google did this for the right reasons.
    - justanother- 8y ago
      Yes. The reason is showing ads and spying on their users. Right reasons for THEM.
- mannykannot 8y ago
  If inferring location works well enough in enough cases (for the purposes of the inferrer), the fact that it is not completely accurate or reliable is moot.
- imglorp 8y ago
  SSID's pretty much ARE tied to geo, and those that aren't tied are easy to identify. The basic tech is known to both major players [1,2]. First you crowdsource as much of the data collection as you can: various apps can collect both SSID, BT, etc. sightings and report them with GPS. So you have a giant DB of locations vs network IDs. Then you tag any network ID which appears at differing locations: it's somehow mobile for whatever reason. The untagged ones are not mobile and probably dependable indications of location to within a few dozen meters. If they do move, they get tagged at your next sweep. 1. https://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-lawsuit-motorola-samsung https://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-l... 2. https://xconomy.com/boston/2010/08/04/skyhook-wireless-digs-in-touts-location-patents-after-apple-drops-technology-from-iphone/ https://xconomy.com/boston/2010/08/04/skyhook-wireless-digs-...
mtgx 8y ago
> Google, in its wisdom, has tied "Location" into things like BLE Scanning and WiFi scanning That line implies Google made a "stupid mistake" here, when to me it seems like it was very much a calculated/malicious move.
- _underfl0w_ 8y ago
  I think by this point Google is an exception to Hanlon's Razor.
- ryanbrunner 8y ago
  I'm failing to understand how it would be malicious - without this permission setting apps would absolutely be able to pinpoint a user's location. I can sort of agree that more fine-grained permissions could be helpful, but asking for something like "Allow this app to access Wifi signals" doesn't convey the privacy risk to the user, and so putting it under location makes sense to me.
edent 8y ago
Perhaps I am being harsh on Big G here. But is there a better way to do this? Could an app request a list of all BT/WiFi devices starting with the first few digits of a MAC? In this case, the remote wants to know if it is near the receiver. It doesn't want to search all devices - just to know if it is near a specific group.
deelowe 8y ago
There's a bit of history to this. Not going speculate too much on this, but I bet it has to do with some events in Germany a few years back.
jnurmine 8y ago
I am probably missing something about the BLE scanning process, but why does one need the location permission after the first pairing? Could one not just try to connect to the paired devices without scanning? There are presumably not that many paired devices.
Johnny555 8y ago
How about a limited API that lets a program scan for a particular SSID - so it can look for a "PioneerSoundsystem" SSID, but it's much harder to scan for all SSID's. Still not perfect, since it can search for well-known SSID's like "StarbucksWifi" or "Comcast", but it limits the exposure - the API could have a limit on how many SSID's can be searched for by the app before you need to re-authorize it, so it can only search for 6 SSID's instead of the top 10,000 SSID's. Or the permission request can include the SSID "This app asking for permission to search for PioneerSoundsystem SSID" or maybe a prefix like "PioneerSoundsystem-*" so they can append unique ID's. Though in reality it will never happen because few people care -- most people are happy granting the app whatever permission it requests.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  Why not just forward the SSID of any device matching that companies MAC, as a default, then allow customers to let an app access top-10, top-100, all, selected, etc., using normal permission requests.
  - Johnny555 8y ago
    manufacturer ID's in the MAC don't always match the branding on the hardware - some companies (especially smaller companies) use third-party hardware that has a MAC belonging to the component maker.

seanalltogether 8y ago

But this is a failure on Googles part to not have a streamlined api for detecting external devices, a feature which is becoming more and more popular with smart devices. Apple has protocols like WAC that you can conform to and be visible to an iOS user without anything special. Inside your app you hand off control to the user to identify and pair that device so that you as a developer don't need special permissions and custom code to link things up. Our iOS app is able to run without any special prompts for the user on first run, whereas our Android app has to ask for location services with lengthy explanations before they can get past the first screen.

kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
Google desperately wants location services enabled and will use any wedge possible to force it on. They even disable the center on my location button in the maps app even though the app knows very well where your current location is.
bbulkow 8y ago
This seems the classic 'ease of use' vs privacy. Google has done the right thing for privacy, because an app that can scan for ssid can determine location and report it if it has any outside connection. Good for google to equate the two, this was always a well known hole. One suggestion- please update your blog, if this thread convinces you that Google did the right thing. Those posts hang around and impact product engineering. What kind of api would you propose? The only one i can think of is one that says 'connect to x' instead of 'list all ssid', which still tells you about location but not a lot. I occasionally think about g+ shutdown, and how Google engineered quite a bit for privacy, and removed things like games that leak location and quizzes, and forced people to create groups, which is the right thing but people liked the rich experience of facebook. Now that many are fleeibg from fb, they can't go to g+. Sorry to thread-jack. Clearly i have a blog post pent up.

elcomet 8y ago

This is only true if they have access to a ssid database. This is very expensive to build, I guess Google has one, I think they don't give you directly access to it.

deadbunny 8y ago
Or just use https://wigle.net https://wigle.net
- icebraining 8y ago
  Or https://location.services.mozilla.com/ https://location.services.mozilla.com/ or one of the multiple paid APIs.
icebraining 8y ago
They do: https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/geolocation/intro https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/geolocation...

jfnixon 8y ago

Um, no, that's not correct. SSIDs aren't tied to geographic location. The mothership might infer location by looking at the list of SSIDs and checking it against a geotagged list compiled by a mapper, but that's a completely different thing that saying if you let an app look for an SSID you are allowing to it to know your location. You might as well say that by giving a camera the ability to know the time, you are allowing it to know your location, as someone could look at the sun's shadows or weather and infer location.

icebraining 8y ago
By that reasoning, nothing is; even GPS signals aren't tied to geographic locations, you infer it based on timing calculations. BSSIDs can be easily mapped to a location using free and readily-available services. They are as good as most geolocation mechanisms you can get.
- jsight 8y ago
  Thanks to how difficult GPS signals can be indoors, they can be better than some other geolocation mechanisms. Google did this for the right reasons.
  - justanother- 8y ago
    Yes. The reason is showing ads and spying on their users. Right reasons for THEM.
mannykannot 8y ago
If inferring location works well enough in enough cases (for the purposes of the inferrer), the fact that it is not completely accurate or reliable is moot.
imglorp 8y ago
SSID's pretty much ARE tied to geo, and those that aren't tied are easy to identify. The basic tech is known to both major players [1,2]. First you crowdsource as much of the data collection as you can: various apps can collect both SSID, BT, etc. sightings and report them with GPS. So you have a giant DB of locations vs network IDs. Then you tag any network ID which appears at differing locations: it's somehow mobile for whatever reason. The untagged ones are not mobile and probably dependable indications of location to within a few dozen meters. If they do move, they get tagged at your next sweep. 1. https://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-lawsuit-motorola-samsung https://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-l... 2. https://xconomy.com/boston/2010/08/04/skyhook-wireless-digs-in-touts-location-patents-after-apple-drops-technology-from-iphone/ https://xconomy.com/boston/2010/08/04/skyhook-wireless-digs-...

mtgx 8y ago

> Google, in its wisdom, has tied "Location" into things like BLE Scanning and WiFi scanning That line implies Google made a "stupid mistake" here, when to me it seems like it was very much a calculated/malicious move.

_underfl0w_ 8y ago
I think by this point Google is an exception to Hanlon's Razor.
ryanbrunner 8y ago
I'm failing to understand how it would be malicious - without this permission setting apps would absolutely be able to pinpoint a user's location. I can sort of agree that more fine-grained permissions could be helpful, but asking for something like "Allow this app to access Wifi signals" doesn't convey the privacy risk to the user, and so putting it under location makes sense to me.

edent 8y ago

Perhaps I am being harsh on Big G here. But is there a better way to do this? Could an app request a list of all BT/WiFi devices starting with the first few digits of a MAC? In this case, the remote wants to know if it is near the receiver. It doesn't want to search all devices - just to know if it is near a specific group.

deelowe 8y ago

There's a bit of history to this. Not going speculate too much on this, but I bet it has to do with some events in Germany a few years back.

jnurmine 8y ago

I am probably missing something about the BLE scanning process, but why does one need the location permission after the first pairing? Could one not just try to connect to the paired devices without scanning? There are presumably not that many paired devices.

Johnny555 8y ago

How about a limited API that lets a program scan for a particular SSID - so it can look for a "PioneerSoundsystem" SSID, but it's much harder to scan for all SSID's. Still not perfect, since it can search for well-known SSID's like "StarbucksWifi" or "Comcast", but it limits the exposure - the API could have a limit on how many SSID's can be searched for by the app before you need to re-authorize it, so it can only search for 6 SSID's instead of the top 10,000 SSID's. Or the permission request can include the SSID "This app asking for permission to search for PioneerSoundsystem SSID" or maybe a prefix like "PioneerSoundsystem-*" so they can append unique ID's. Though in reality it will never happen because few people care -- most people are happy granting the app whatever permission it requests.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago
Why not just forward the SSID of any device matching that companies MAC, as a default, then allow customers to let an app access top-10, top-100, all, selected, etc., using normal permission requests.
- Johnny555 8y ago
  manufacturer ID's in the MAC don't always match the branding on the hardware - some companies (especially smaller companies) use third-party hardware that has a MAC belonging to the component maker.