19 ms·

Are you aware that if you don't want Google to use your WiFi name for location based tracking, you have to opt-out by changing your SSID[0]? [0]https://support

Are you aware that if you don't want Google to use your WiFi name for location based tracking, you have to opt-out by changing your SSID[0]? [0]https://support.google.com/maps/answer/1725632#how_opt_out&zippy=%2Chow-do-i-opt-my-access-point-out-of-google-location-services https://support.google.com/maps/answer/1725632#how_opt_out&z... EDIT: Added "name" after "WiFi" to try and clarify they're not using your actual WiFi network/bandwidth, just its name to link it with its location for GPS-free location tracking.

ocdtrekkie 5y ago
It's still so incredible to me that someone thought "oh, yeah, let's make people change their SSID explicitly to opt-out of being used by our services, such that it forces them to re-add all of their Wi-Fi devices", and that passed any sort of muster at Google. Presumably the only reason they picked this strategy is that they know it is such an absolutely ridiculous step that nobody does it.
- mattzito 5y ago
  I'm trying to think of how one could do this in a way that wasn't even more intrusive? This way Google doesn't have to tie any identifying information about you to your SSID/AP, it can just silently discard the location data about those SSIDs. Otherwise people could abusively de-register SSIDs by doing the same sort of scanning Google is doing to improve location services, or have to force a user to authenticate and "claim" an SSID, which is much more intrusive. (disclosure: googler, but not in any way associated with any of this)
  - awakeasleep 5y ago
    Opt-in
    - whatshisface 5y ago
      Well, then nobody would do it. Maybe Google would have to pay them, or give them free stuff.
      - ocdtrekkie 5y ago
        If Google wants to use other people's stuff for their purposes, they should pay them. Not force them to jump through hoops to avoid Google abusing them.
        betterunix2 5y ago
        How would that work? Keep in mind that we are talking about parts of the radio spectrum that were deliberately set aside for unlicensed use, without any sort of registration, centralized control, or reporting on the part of users. So how would Google or any other company know who to pay? Do you want to force users to register their APs, or to include some kind of payment information in wifi beacons? Or are you proposing that new restrictions be added to the ISM rules e.g. forbidding people from monitoring the band without first asking for permission from each station operator (note: this would completely break wifi)?
        ocdtrekkie 5y ago
        I think a user registration system would make sense: People who wanted to register their APs are probably using Google Location Services, and the incentive is hence, self-serving. Businesses may want to register their APs to help customers' devices locate themselves at their buildings. And yes, Google could incentivize people to register in some way. One thing you'll notice is that the most valuable companies in the world seem incredibly reliant on free labor: They take for free what other companies used to pay for or pay staff to create or gather themselves.
        alyandon 5y ago
        Those FCC registration records would then be public information. Would you feel comfortable with your name, address and MAC + SSID of your wireless AP(s) being registered in a public database and the onus on you to keep that registration information up to date every time you changed the SSID or swapped in something with a different MAC address? I'm not sure I would be. The ethics around Google's behavior aside - this is a tricky problem to solve. Edit: Why the downvotes? I'd really like for people that disagree to engage and tell me where I am either wrong or not arguing in good faith. If you believe this is a Google specific problem or somehow an easy problem to solve under the current FCC regulatory regime I'd be happy to hear about it.
  - CogitoCogito 5y ago
    > I'm trying to think of how one could do this in a way that wasn't even more intrusive? Not to do it.
    - oh_sigh 5y ago
      We haven't figured out how to make websites not be able to fingerprint you. Better not use the internet until we do.
      - Retric 5y ago
        We have figured out how to avoid being tracked. Hide your IP address behind Tor. Transmit identical information as a significant group of people. Don’t store information from websites. The issue is that degrades the web in ways unrelated to tracking.
        NaturalPhallacy 5y ago
        >The issue is that degrades the web in ways unrelated to tracking. And so many sites, and CDNs treat those as hostile by default, and some outright refuse service. It's infuriating as a mere VPN user.
        paranoidrobot 5y ago
        I suspect that this is because a huge amount of traffic coming from those services is abusive. I know that's the reason we classed all traffic from those sources as suspicious unless they were willing to log in.
  - hn8788 5y ago
    Instead of thinking "We can't think of a less intrusive way, so deal with it", how about "We can't think of a less intrusive way, so let's not do it until we do".
    - calvinmorrison 5y ago
      I frequently get something like "why would you want to do that" running my unconventional browser settings. It's like people can't even comprehend people don't want to get tracked by FAANG
      - jfrunyon 5y ago
        I'm not sure how "associating a publicly broadcast BSSID with coordinates" is tracking a person.
        drofmij 5y ago
        This is probably related to them getting in trouble for scanning networks while mapping. If I remember correctly they were doing a bit of port scanning and looking for share drives in an attempt to id which SSID was attached to which address. This is probably part of the wrist slap they got from FCC. "Oh well you can totally opt out now so it's ok"
        bingidingi 5y ago
        If I have a unique SSID (let's say, my social security number because why not at this point) and I move to a different apartment and keep the same SSID... then Google's effectively tracking a person. If you have basic address/name info you can even pinpoint who owns the SSID.
        callmeal 5y ago
        >I'm not sure how "associating a publicly broadcast BSSID with coordinates" is tracking a person. But it's not just that is it? If you log in to a google site from that publicly broadcast BSSID, you will get tracked by association, even if you have your location tracking turned off.
  - stefan_ 5y ago
    You can transfer lots of information elements in a beacon, you don't need to shit on the SSID.
    - jfrunyon 5y ago
      Okay, now how do users set their devices to transfer this non-standard information in the beacon?
      - stefan_ 5y ago
        The same way you configure everything? You check a box where you configured your SSID in the first place.
        Sebb767 5y ago
        If you run OpenWRT you might have hope for this (assuming the firmware supports it). This would not land in your average consumer router for a few years, if at all.
        ocdtrekkie 5y ago
        I mean, if Google was as zealous about standardizing privacy as they are about standardizing ways to track people, Google could get that configuration option introduced to the firmware of most common consumer routers.
  - iudqnolq 5y ago
    The guide says to open Google maps after making the change so that it can propagate. That makes me think it isn't that they ignore _nomaps, it's that they submit their locations to a database and clear the previous data for there. At that point it could just be a webpage that asks you for your location and SSID.
  - utucuro 5y ago
    Actually, having read the opt-out method article and knowing the personal data protection law of my country due to professional needs, I can say that what Google is doing is illegal in certain cases here. If Google ends up personal data as defined by law here, which does include present location coupled with name, then that ends up being illegal without a detailed data protection declaration and withdrawable explicit consent granted before ANY data can be collected at all. Intrusivity is not important, convenience must not be allowed to trump legality though.
- notriddle 5y ago
  It doesn't seem hard to understand. They figured that SSIDs aren't private information, so having any method of opting-out at all is just a courtesy.
  - stingraycharles 5y ago
    By that definition, IP addresses are also public information. It’s not about the SSID or IP itself, it’s about it being connected to an individual.
    - TheCapn 5y ago
      Its one of those cases where data becomes dangerous when there's enough of it. Google knows practically every SSID location in the developed world. Now your Android phone browsing and mapping every SSID it sees as you move about is a reliable "Location mapping" of the user even though they may have no GPS or have it disabled. You can map a person's movement through cities/towns just based on the SSIDs their device(s) saw as they moved about.
      - skybrian 5y ago
        You say that like it’s always a bad thing, but sometimes we actually do want to use our phones to find out our location, and GPS is often slow or doesn’t always work. The issue here is having control over when your phone looks up your location, not the existence of a database that makes it work.
        mindslight 5y ago
        The existence of that database under the control of a surveillance company is the problem. If Google published the dataset so that many others could use it freely, then they would have an argument that they're just promulgating public data. However, by keeping it to themselves and forcing queries to go through Google (with a bunch of fine print attached), they're agglomerating personal data for their own private purpose.
- taneq 5y ago
  It's perfectly in line with all of the other Google policies which are thinly disguised versions of "we want your data and if you don't give it to us, we'll punish you."
  - oblio 5y ago
    Simple example, at least in Google Maps on Android. They have some sort of activity tracking. If you enable that, you can save locations, so that, for example, you can "favorite" your home and your office for easy access. If you disable activity tracking, you can't save anything. Those two are totally unrelated, and you're still using Google Maps through your Google account, so there are 0 technical reasons they couldn't just persist your saved locations in the Google Cloud. They just don't do it to force you to let them track your location.
    - mateo1 5y ago
      To me the most infuriating practice is that if you don't enable your location when you open google maps they will passive aggressively position your view at the most inconvenient place possibly, some times in the middle of the atlantic, as if they can't tell which city you are in.
      - Nasrudith 5y ago
        Personally I consider that an odd form of "politeness". It is 'creepy' when you buy a large ticket item and ad networks try to seranade you with a demand you already fuffilled. They can geolocate by IP but instead choose to "look away". I guess they do that because those who aren't familiar with it would be freaked out at how close it got. Geo-IP is mostly just hilarious to me from how they get it off like when loging in to gmail in Pennsylvania saying there was a login attempt from Washington DC. It shows some respect that you don't want focus on your actual geography but I also do stuff like look at real life places to see how well it matched with my initial imagination.
        tyingq 5y ago
- oh_sigh 5y ago
  How would you prove ownership of an SSID otherwise?
- 8note 5y ago
  It sounds a lot like robots.txt
- anfilt 5y ago
  Just don't broadcast your SSID. While it still possible for google to probably scan for these I doubt they do.
- NaturalPhallacy 5y ago
  >Presumably the only reason they picked this strategy is that they know it is such an absolutely ridiculous step that nobody does it. Oh absolutely. But to play devil's advocate, your wifi device is basically an always broadcasting radio antenna that rarely moves or changes. And SSIDs are broadcast by design. It's a digital landmark. I bet there are a lot of other companies other than google using it too. And even if you used google's opt out, they're not going to care. So opting out is pretty pointless anyway. So while it feels invasive because we lack a sensory organ for radio, your router is constantly broadcasting (advertising?) itself as a part of normal operations. SSIDs aren't private information. It's more akin to an amateur radio callsign, except you can change it at will. And since they're no consistent convention for naming your wifi there are probably 10,000 "FBI surveillance van"s. The only useful data to an outsider is location. This was going to be utilized by someone, and probably already is by the NSA. So google doing it is no big surprise. Again, devil's advocate here, but SSIDs are broadcast on purpose. Sacrificing security for convenience as always when people are involved.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - soraminazuki 5y ago
    By your logic, your house is a "landmark," so it'd be totally okay to surveil it. I don't think that flies.
    - aeraiC5m 5y ago
      Houses can indeed be landmarks. Why are you equating landmarks to surveillance. That makes zero sense. No one is surveilling you through your WiFi SSID.
      - just-ok 5y ago
        Except they are: Google undoubtedly uses the set of WiFi networks near you for location-based tracking on Android, even if your GPS is off.
- hetspookjee 5y ago
  Well Judging by the blog a person working in ads recently published it's perfectly fine to throw up these dark patterns and misleading terms in the name of "free internet". And to top it off half of their half million salary is donated so any residing moral debt is taken care off like so.
- aconsult1 5y ago
  Pretty sure in a few years people will have to name their kids John Notrack Doe as the only way to have FB stop ghosting them.
  - crocodiletears 5y ago
    Being able to prevent that at all would be a massive improvement
- DannyBee 5y ago
  Yeah, i mean who else would ever do such a thing https://location.services.mozilla.com/optout https://location.services.mozilla.com/optout https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207056 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207056 Presumably the only reason they picked this strategy is that they know it is such an absolutely ridiculous step that nobody does it. No, actually, i'm just kidding. Mozilla, for example, literally blames it all on everyone else in their page. You see, they are forced to do this because everyone else did it!
LegitShady 5y ago
Is there a link somewhere that says how they collect that information? If they're geolocating through chrome and building a database out of that I'd consider it a ubusive but if they're just driving around reading brooadcasted wifi ssids and correlating with the vehicles how position I'm not sure that's any worse than using any other landmark.
- alias_neo 5y ago
  It's collected by every Android device on the planet which has background scanning enabled. Have neighbours? Have WiFi? Neighbour has GPS on? They can GPS pinpoint your WiFi by signal strength between the devices that "see" it, then correlate that with the GPS from the devices that are allowing it. I moved home a few years ago, just 200M away, my location in GMaps, when on WiFi remained at my old address 200M away for a good year (I moved my AP with me and kept the SSID).
- tgv 5y ago
  But your telephone can tell them who's connected to that access point and what it's IP address is. Then they suddenly know more.
- yesbabyyes 5y ago
  Any device that has GPS and wifi can contribute data positioning that wifi BSSID. Google has Android which will do that for any device that has opted in (presumably, anyone using the feature for better positioning will participate in the collection). Others use other sources. Google's (and others) stance is likely that cellular and wifi information is publicly broadcast.
  - LegitShady 5y ago
    I agree that wifi beacons are publicly broadcast. The issue is no way to use google services that require location without contributing to that data and not being up front about its use. But all the big companies are abusive in terms of privacy so it seems like it’s par for the course. I know its not technically a product but it always feels like these sorts of schemes should be illegal tying. Can’t make an iOS app without supporting safari? Should be illegal tying. Can’t use google maps without feeding google information about the wifi networks around you? Should be illegal tying.
isaacdl 5y ago
> To help apps like Google Maps work better, you can let Google's Location services use your Wi-Fi access point. Wow, that's pretty nasty. That sentence sure makes it sound like you're opting in, but in fact you have to rename the SSID with a "_nomap" suffix to opt out.
edoceo 5y ago
Was not aware, thank you. Creepy.
- gruez 5y ago
  Why is it creepy?
  - xvector 5y ago
    It's not. I'm super surprised at the lack of understanding by HNers here. It's like folks here haven't heard of wardriving!? Open databases with 10B+ observations exist: https://wigle.net/ https://wigle.net/ Furthermore, it doesn't matter that these databases exist, because your SSID is hidden behind the location permission API for basically every OS. So practically speaking, your SSID being public is meaningless.
varispeed 5y ago
This must be illegal, right?
- Sr_developer 5y ago
  In a sane country, yes.In corporate ruled America no. But the important thing is that Google put some rainbows from time to time.
- lupire 5y ago
  Why would collecting publicly advertised information be illegal?
  - black_puppydog 5y ago
    I get your sentiment, but there is a big difference between that information being publicly available somewhere and someone building a centralized private database of it. At least, IF you assume that e.g. "database copyright" serves a valid purpose, then you could make a similar case here that the collection of all these data points is qualitatively different from collecting any single data point. Note: I used a capital "IF" up there because I do have issues with database copyright. But that's the world we live in...
  - 0xEFF 5y ago
    If they did the same tracking but to other phones instead of access points would that cross a line?
    - betterunix2 5y ago
      Are you uncomfortable with the idea of someone monitoring the ISM band and collecting information about what is being transmitted and by which stations? If so, maybe you should stop using wifi, since that is actually part of the wifi standard (your phone is literally monitoring transmissions on your neighbors' wifi networks to avoid interference).
  - tobr 5y ago
    Lots of publicly available information is illegal to collect, for copyright reasons, privacy reasons, security reasons, etc.
mike-cardwell 5y ago
Don't forget to add `_optout` to prevent Windows hoovering it up as well. E.g, `mywifiname_optout_nomap`
- kozziollek 5y ago
  At least somebody at Microsoft thought and _optout can be anywhere in the SSID. Good thing that you don't have to have two specific suffixes at the same time!
  - wadkar 5y ago
    I can’t make sense of this. Are you telling me that any Android user with “default” pixel setup will use my SSID for location tracking? And that if my WiFi shouldn’t be part of Google’s (and Microsoft as well) data collection I need to suffix my SSID with _optout_nomap?? This has to be a joke. Any docs/refs/links?
    - mike-cardwell 5y ago
      Yes. That is precisely what you're being told. The Google evidence is linked upthread. Although, I've just done a search and it looks like the Microsoft feature that required the "_optout" substring was removed at some point. I'm going to leave it in my SSID for posterity.
    - jfrunyon 5y ago
      When a user's phone attempts to get a location fix, it will use the beacons which are publicly transmitted by Wifi networks around it (I assume it's the BSSID/MAC address, specifically) to reference against (or update) a Google database mapping those BSSID's to coordinates.
    - betterunix2 5y ago
      Your neighbors are currently monitoring your wifi network. That is how wifi works -- we all monitor each other's transmissions to avoid interfering with each other's networks. Most wifi APs will also monitor the ISM bands to find the least-congested channel to use, and will typically do so continuously and change to a different channel as needed. You may also have noticed that when you connect to a new network you start with a list of nearby SSIDs that you can choose from -- do you think looking at that list is a violation of privacy? Moreover, there are companies that operate large numbers of APs across a broad geographic region, and they may have a centralized system for managing those APs -- which means that they are collecting information about all nearby wifi stations (including client devices) across a broad region in a single place. Do you have a problem with that practice or view that as a violation of privacy? Radio is not private (except, possibly, cellular services, which may be treated as phone services with legal restrictions on wiretapping), especially when you are talking about unlicensed operation.
mortehu 5y ago
WiFi beacons are extremely important for good geolocation in buildings and in cities. Are you saying we should get rid of this functionality just to ensure nobody has a database of the physical location of hardware addresses? Phones already have random hardware addresses, so it's not like your movements are being tracked because of your mobile hotspot.
- quotemstr 5y ago
  > Are you saying we should get rid of this functionality just to ensure nobody has a database of the physical location of hardware addresses? "Privacy" advocates constantly demand that all of us bear the costs of worse technology just so they can have a little fake relief from their imaginary harms. We're long past the point of diminishing returns in preserving real privacy: now privacy advocacy is all about holiness spiraling. That said, I don't blame Amazon here: why wouldn't they take advantage of an opportunity to hurt a competitor at no cost to themselves?
- alias_neo 5y ago
  I didn't make any comment for nor against, I simply stated a fact. As for my opinion, I have no issue with the collection of the physical location of access points, I take issue with making me litter my chosen SSID with garbage so that I can opt out. Regarding hotspot, I'm not sure what you mean, none of this discussion is about mobile hotspot.
  - mortehu 5y ago
    I wasn't responding to you, but what other way would you choose to opt out? SSID is one of the few things you can adjust on almost any access point. Hotspots are relevant because they are often personal and they follow you around, so if they didn't randomize their hardware address, then anyone could track your movements.
    - jeromegv 5y ago
      This is Google's problem to figure out (how we should opt-out, or if it should be a opt-in service), the fact that you are putting the responsibility on the user is crazy in itself. We are talking of a billion dollar company tracking the location of your own router against your will and without permission.
dheera 5y ago
Can one make a GPS spoofer with software-defined radio such that Google/Microsoft/Mozilla store the wrong GPS location for your SSID, while not being powerful enough to influence GPS users outside your premises?
- Sebb767 5y ago
  Probably, but it would still be illegal (sidenote: IANAL) and they usually don't enter your premise to find your WiFi. So the "easy" no-jail way to do this would be to reduce your transmit power.
hatchnyc 5y ago
Is this any kind of standard? Like if Microsoft comes along and says you need to change your SSID to end in "_noloc" rather than "_nomap" what are you supposed to do?
- yesbabyyes 5y ago
  Close, but no cigar! Microsoft has "_optout", but it can appear anywhere in the SSID. See https://superuser.com/questions/1005235/wi-fi-opt-out-microsoft-google#1202168 https://superuser.com/questions/1005235/wi-fi-opt-out-micros... Mozilla Location Services (and Combain which I think they collaborate with), WiGLE and others use "_nomap", though, so MS seems to walk their own path on this one.
pratnala 5y ago
So I have to change my custom Wi-Fi SSD (something that I like) and add a brain-dead suffix called "_nomap" to prevent Google from tracking me? Who the hell greenlights such changes?
- mikro2nd 5y ago
  So my network just became "Google Listening Post _nomap"...
  - laurent92 5y ago
    I think people have been condemned for insults over SSID, so trademarks definitely apply ;)
  - godelski 5y ago
    > Google/Microsoft Listening Post _optout_nomap FTFY
    - mikro2nd 5y ago
      To be clear, it was already "Google Listening Post" before I learned of this opt-out thing. The 5GHz network is/was "Facebook Listening Post _nomap" I find it absurd that we have to put this guff into our own networks just to opt out of the surveillance panopticon.
- extra88 5y ago
  Your router is publicly broadcasting its SSID ("Pretty fly for a WiFi" or whatever). Google Street View cars, Android devices, etc. have noticed the SSID in their vicinity and submitted the SSID with an approximate location to database. Now, when another device using Google's location service is trying determine it's location, it can submit the list of SSIDs (including yours) it can detect to get back a fairly accurate location. If you add "_nomap" to your SSID, Google won't use it; it's crude because broadcasting metadata along with SSIDs isn't a part of the WiFi specs. I don't see how using public router SSIDs as a landmark is "tracking you." If you use Google location services to determine your location based on your SSID or others, particularly while logged in to a Google account, then in some sense they're tracking you.
cptskippy 5y ago
To be fair, they aren't using your WiFi. The SSID is like your house number. Claiming Google using your Wifi when it reads your SSID is like claiming someone is using your toilet because they read your house number off the front of your house.
- Sebb767 5y ago
  It's far more unique than your house number. Nobody expects that I can show up directly at their house, if they just say their SSID or simply send me a screenshot of their Android home screen. Just search your SSID [0] and see for yourself. [0] https://openwifimap.net https://openwifimap.net
  - extra88 5y ago
    > Nobody expects that I can show up directly at their house, if they just say their SSID or simply send me a screenshot of their Android home screen. (It's not relevant to the discussion but Android home screens show the name of the connected WiFi network?) Where can someone look up a lat,lng by entering an SSID? It sure doesn't work on the site you cited. It looks like the information that is there was explicitly shared by the router operator. SSIDs only need to differ from neighbors' SSIDs for convenience, to help tell them apart. If you already have neighbors using a default, like "xfinity", you might not want to choose that to avoid extra hassle when setting up new devices. But if you're concerned about someone learning your SSID and finding a database to map it to a location, can pick a generic manufacturer's SSID of which there will be thousands, if not millions, of devices using the same SSID.
    - alias_neo 5y ago
      I'm not making any judgement on the practice itself, however, for the purposes of tracking, I suspect they use the BSSID The SSID is just the mutable part so you can opt-out, the actual identifier used is much more likely to be the BSSID which should be universally unique, and is (generally, or at least practically) immutable for any one piece of hardware.
quotemstr 5y ago
Why wouldn't I want my wifi beacon used for geolocation? Good geolocation helps everyone. What exactly is the harm that Google is perpetuating here? This SSID stuff is a great example of something that sounds sinister when presented in vague and ominous terms by "privacy" advocates but is actually benign if you think about it for five minutes.
kbenson 5y ago
I'm not sure this one matters to me much. It's something you spew into the public space, and they're just recording the name and where it is. To me it seems no different than your address, or if your door is a certain color, or the color of your house. Zillow likely has a picture of the front of your house if you're in one, and a bunch of other info about it as well. Changing the SSID to prevent them collecting the info is sort of like hanging a big sign that says "no pictures" to prevent services from taking pictures of your house. It's a little ridiculous to have to do that, but it's also a little ridiculous to expect that people are going to ignore what is publicly visible. Honestly, I'm a little impressed that Google lets you opt out (and Microsoft apparently as someone noted, although with a different suffix).
dang 5y ago
A reader emailed to point out that this massive subthread is actually more on topic for https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27517547 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27517547 than it is for https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27515230 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27515230, so we've moved it thence hither.
- thatguy0900 5y ago
  Isn't the whole point of this comment to alert people who were concerned enough to check the other thread? Seems to defeat the point of it to move it to this thread, even if the comments are more on topic here.
  - dang 5y ago
    I'm going by memory here, but I think it was the other way around - the comment preceded the other thread.
    - alias_neo 5y ago
      It did. The other thread creator pointed out they were inspired by my comment to post it.

ocdtrekkie 5y ago

It's still so incredible to me that someone thought "oh, yeah, let's make people change their SSID explicitly to opt-out of being used by our services, such that it forces them to re-add all of their Wi-Fi devices", and that passed any sort of muster at Google. Presumably the only reason they picked this strategy is that they know it is such an absolutely ridiculous step that nobody does it.

mattzito 5y ago
I'm trying to think of how one could do this in a way that wasn't even more intrusive? This way Google doesn't have to tie any identifying information about you to your SSID/AP, it can just silently discard the location data about those SSIDs. Otherwise people could abusively de-register SSIDs by doing the same sort of scanning Google is doing to improve location services, or have to force a user to authenticate and "claim" an SSID, which is much more intrusive. (disclosure: googler, but not in any way associated with any of this)
- awakeasleep 5y ago
  Opt-in
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    Well, then nobody would do it. Maybe Google would have to pay them, or give them free stuff.
    - ocdtrekkie 5y ago
      If Google wants to use other people's stuff for their purposes, they should pay them. Not force them to jump through hoops to avoid Google abusing them.
      - betterunix2 5y ago
        How would that work? Keep in mind that we are talking about parts of the radio spectrum that were deliberately set aside for unlicensed use, without any sort of registration, centralized control, or reporting on the part of users. So how would Google or any other company know who to pay? Do you want to force users to register their APs, or to include some kind of payment information in wifi beacons? Or are you proposing that new restrictions be added to the ISM rules e.g. forbidding people from monitoring the band without first asking for permission from each station operator (note: this would completely break wifi)?
        ocdtrekkie 5y ago
        I think a user registration system would make sense: People who wanted to register their APs are probably using Google Location Services, and the incentive is hence, self-serving. Businesses may want to register their APs to help customers' devices locate themselves at their buildings. And yes, Google could incentivize people to register in some way. One thing you'll notice is that the most valuable companies in the world seem incredibly reliant on free labor: They take for free what other companies used to pay for or pay staff to create or gather themselves.
        alyandon 5y ago
        Those FCC registration records would then be public information. Would you feel comfortable with your name, address and MAC + SSID of your wireless AP(s) being registered in a public database and the onus on you to keep that registration information up to date every time you changed the SSID or swapped in something with a different MAC address? I'm not sure I would be. The ethics around Google's behavior aside - this is a tricky problem to solve. Edit: Why the downvotes? I'd really like for people that disagree to engage and tell me where I am either wrong or not arguing in good faith. If you believe this is a Google specific problem or somehow an easy problem to solve under the current FCC regulatory regime I'd be happy to hear about it.
- CogitoCogito 5y ago
  > I'm trying to think of how one could do this in a way that wasn't even more intrusive? Not to do it.
  - oh_sigh 5y ago
    We haven't figured out how to make websites not be able to fingerprint you. Better not use the internet until we do.
    - Retric 5y ago
      We have figured out how to avoid being tracked. Hide your IP address behind Tor. Transmit identical information as a significant group of people. Don’t store information from websites. The issue is that degrades the web in ways unrelated to tracking.
      - NaturalPhallacy 5y ago
        >The issue is that degrades the web in ways unrelated to tracking. And so many sites, and CDNs treat those as hostile by default, and some outright refuse service. It's infuriating as a mere VPN user.
        paranoidrobot 5y ago
        I suspect that this is because a huge amount of traffic coming from those services is abusive. I know that's the reason we classed all traffic from those sources as suspicious unless they were willing to log in.
- hn8788 5y ago
  Instead of thinking "We can't think of a less intrusive way, so deal with it", how about "We can't think of a less intrusive way, so let's not do it until we do".
  - calvinmorrison 5y ago
    I frequently get something like "why would you want to do that" running my unconventional browser settings. It's like people can't even comprehend people don't want to get tracked by FAANG
    - jfrunyon 5y ago
      I'm not sure how "associating a publicly broadcast BSSID with coordinates" is tracking a person.
      - drofmij 5y ago
        This is probably related to them getting in trouble for scanning networks while mapping. If I remember correctly they were doing a bit of port scanning and looking for share drives in an attempt to id which SSID was attached to which address. This is probably part of the wrist slap they got from FCC. "Oh well you can totally opt out now so it's ok"
      - bingidingi 5y ago
        If I have a unique SSID (let's say, my social security number because why not at this point) and I move to a different apartment and keep the same SSID... then Google's effectively tracking a person. If you have basic address/name info you can even pinpoint who owns the SSID.
      - callmeal 5y ago
        >I'm not sure how "associating a publicly broadcast BSSID with coordinates" is tracking a person. But it's not just that is it? If you log in to a google site from that publicly broadcast BSSID, you will get tracked by association, even if you have your location tracking turned off.
- stefan_ 5y ago
  You can transfer lots of information elements in a beacon, you don't need to shit on the SSID.
  - jfrunyon 5y ago
    Okay, now how do users set their devices to transfer this non-standard information in the beacon?
    - stefan_ 5y ago
      The same way you configure everything? You check a box where you configured your SSID in the first place.
      - Sebb767 5y ago
        If you run OpenWRT you might have hope for this (assuming the firmware supports it). This would not land in your average consumer router for a few years, if at all.
        ocdtrekkie 5y ago
        I mean, if Google was as zealous about standardizing privacy as they are about standardizing ways to track people, Google could get that configuration option introduced to the firmware of most common consumer routers.
- iudqnolq 5y ago
  The guide says to open Google maps after making the change so that it can propagate. That makes me think it isn't that they ignore _nomaps, it's that they submit their locations to a database and clear the previous data for there. At that point it could just be a webpage that asks you for your location and SSID.
- utucuro 5y ago
  Actually, having read the opt-out method article and knowing the personal data protection law of my country due to professional needs, I can say that what Google is doing is illegal in certain cases here. If Google ends up personal data as defined by law here, which does include present location coupled with name, then that ends up being illegal without a detailed data protection declaration and withdrawable explicit consent granted before ANY data can be collected at all. Intrusivity is not important, convenience must not be allowed to trump legality though.
notriddle 5y ago
It doesn't seem hard to understand. They figured that SSIDs aren't private information, so having any method of opting-out at all is just a courtesy.
- stingraycharles 5y ago
  By that definition, IP addresses are also public information. It’s not about the SSID or IP itself, it’s about it being connected to an individual.
  - TheCapn 5y ago
    Its one of those cases where data becomes dangerous when there's enough of it. Google knows practically every SSID location in the developed world. Now your Android phone browsing and mapping every SSID it sees as you move about is a reliable "Location mapping" of the user even though they may have no GPS or have it disabled. You can map a person's movement through cities/towns just based on the SSIDs their device(s) saw as they moved about.
    - skybrian 5y ago
      You say that like it’s always a bad thing, but sometimes we actually do want to use our phones to find out our location, and GPS is often slow or doesn’t always work. The issue here is having control over when your phone looks up your location, not the existence of a database that makes it work.
      - mindslight 5y ago
        The existence of that database under the control of a surveillance company is the problem. If Google published the dataset so that many others could use it freely, then they would have an argument that they're just promulgating public data. However, by keeping it to themselves and forcing queries to go through Google (with a bunch of fine print attached), they're agglomerating personal data for their own private purpose.
taneq 5y ago
It's perfectly in line with all of the other Google policies which are thinly disguised versions of "we want your data and if you don't give it to us, we'll punish you."
- oblio 5y ago
  Simple example, at least in Google Maps on Android. They have some sort of activity tracking. If you enable that, you can save locations, so that, for example, you can "favorite" your home and your office for easy access. If you disable activity tracking, you can't save anything. Those two are totally unrelated, and you're still using Google Maps through your Google account, so there are 0 technical reasons they couldn't just persist your saved locations in the Google Cloud. They just don't do it to force you to let them track your location.
  - mateo1 5y ago
    To me the most infuriating practice is that if you don't enable your location when you open google maps they will passive aggressively position your view at the most inconvenient place possibly, some times in the middle of the atlantic, as if they can't tell which city you are in.
    - Nasrudith 5y ago
      Personally I consider that an odd form of "politeness". It is 'creepy' when you buy a large ticket item and ad networks try to seranade you with a demand you already fuffilled. They can geolocate by IP but instead choose to "look away". I guess they do that because those who aren't familiar with it would be freaked out at how close it got. Geo-IP is mostly just hilarious to me from how they get it off like when loging in to gmail in Pennsylvania saying there was a login attempt from Washington DC. It shows some respect that you don't want focus on your actual geography but I also do stuff like look at real life places to see how well it matched with my initial imagination.
      - tyingq 5y ago
oh_sigh 5y ago
How would you prove ownership of an SSID otherwise?
8note 5y ago
It sounds a lot like robots.txt
anfilt 5y ago
Just don't broadcast your SSID. While it still possible for google to probably scan for these I doubt they do.
NaturalPhallacy 5y ago
>Presumably the only reason they picked this strategy is that they know it is such an absolutely ridiculous step that nobody does it. Oh absolutely. But to play devil's advocate, your wifi device is basically an always broadcasting radio antenna that rarely moves or changes. And SSIDs are broadcast by design. It's a digital landmark. I bet there are a lot of other companies other than google using it too. And even if you used google's opt out, they're not going to care. So opting out is pretty pointless anyway. So while it feels invasive because we lack a sensory organ for radio, your router is constantly broadcasting (advertising?) itself as a part of normal operations. SSIDs aren't private information. It's more akin to an amateur radio callsign, except you can change it at will. And since they're no consistent convention for naming your wifi there are probably 10,000 "FBI surveillance van"s. The only useful data to an outsider is location. This was going to be utilized by someone, and probably already is by the NSA. So google doing it is no big surprise. Again, devil's advocate here, but SSIDs are broadcast on purpose. Sacrificing security for convenience as always when people are involved.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- soraminazuki 5y ago
  By your logic, your house is a "landmark," so it'd be totally okay to surveil it. I don't think that flies.
  - aeraiC5m 5y ago
    Houses can indeed be landmarks. Why are you equating landmarks to surveillance. That makes zero sense. No one is surveilling you through your WiFi SSID.
    - just-ok 5y ago
      Except they are: Google undoubtedly uses the set of WiFi networks near you for location-based tracking on Android, even if your GPS is off.
hetspookjee 5y ago
Well Judging by the blog a person working in ads recently published it's perfectly fine to throw up these dark patterns and misleading terms in the name of "free internet". And to top it off half of their half million salary is donated so any residing moral debt is taken care off like so.
aconsult1 5y ago
Pretty sure in a few years people will have to name their kids John Notrack Doe as the only way to have FB stop ghosting them.
- crocodiletears 5y ago
  Being able to prevent that at all would be a massive improvement
DannyBee 5y ago
Yeah, i mean who else would ever do such a thing https://location.services.mozilla.com/optout https://location.services.mozilla.com/optout https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207056 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207056 Presumably the only reason they picked this strategy is that they know it is such an absolutely ridiculous step that nobody does it. No, actually, i'm just kidding. Mozilla, for example, literally blames it all on everyone else in their page. You see, they are forced to do this because everyone else did it!

LegitShady 5y ago

Is there a link somewhere that says how they collect that information? If they're geolocating through chrome and building a database out of that I'd consider it a ubusive but if they're just driving around reading brooadcasted wifi ssids and correlating with the vehicles how position I'm not sure that's any worse than using any other landmark.

alias_neo 5y ago
It's collected by every Android device on the planet which has background scanning enabled. Have neighbours? Have WiFi? Neighbour has GPS on? They can GPS pinpoint your WiFi by signal strength between the devices that "see" it, then correlate that with the GPS from the devices that are allowing it. I moved home a few years ago, just 200M away, my location in GMaps, when on WiFi remained at my old address 200M away for a good year (I moved my AP with me and kept the SSID).
tgv 5y ago
But your telephone can tell them who's connected to that access point and what it's IP address is. Then they suddenly know more.
yesbabyyes 5y ago
Any device that has GPS and wifi can contribute data positioning that wifi BSSID. Google has Android which will do that for any device that has opted in (presumably, anyone using the feature for better positioning will participate in the collection). Others use other sources. Google's (and others) stance is likely that cellular and wifi information is publicly broadcast.
- LegitShady 5y ago
  I agree that wifi beacons are publicly broadcast. The issue is no way to use google services that require location without contributing to that data and not being up front about its use. But all the big companies are abusive in terms of privacy so it seems like it’s par for the course. I know its not technically a product but it always feels like these sorts of schemes should be illegal tying. Can’t make an iOS app without supporting safari? Should be illegal tying. Can’t use google maps without feeding google information about the wifi networks around you? Should be illegal tying.

isaacdl 5y ago

> To help apps like Google Maps work better, you can let Google's Location services use your Wi-Fi access point. Wow, that's pretty nasty. That sentence sure makes it sound like you're opting in, but in fact you have to rename the SSID with a "_nomap" suffix to opt out.

edoceo 5y ago

Was not aware, thank you. Creepy.

gruez 5y ago
Why is it creepy?
- xvector 5y ago
  It's not. I'm super surprised at the lack of understanding by HNers here. It's like folks here haven't heard of wardriving!? Open databases with 10B+ observations exist: https://wigle.net/ https://wigle.net/ Furthermore, it doesn't matter that these databases exist, because your SSID is hidden behind the location permission API for basically every OS. So practically speaking, your SSID being public is meaningless.

varispeed 5y ago

This must be illegal, right?

Sr_developer 5y ago
In a sane country, yes.In corporate ruled America no. But the important thing is that Google put some rainbows from time to time.
lupire 5y ago
Why would collecting publicly advertised information be illegal?
- black_puppydog 5y ago
  I get your sentiment, but there is a big difference between that information being publicly available somewhere and someone building a centralized private database of it. At least, IF you assume that e.g. "database copyright" serves a valid purpose, then you could make a similar case here that the collection of all these data points is qualitatively different from collecting any single data point. Note: I used a capital "IF" up there because I do have issues with database copyright. But that's the world we live in...
- 0xEFF 5y ago
  If they did the same tracking but to other phones instead of access points would that cross a line?
  - betterunix2 5y ago
    Are you uncomfortable with the idea of someone monitoring the ISM band and collecting information about what is being transmitted and by which stations? If so, maybe you should stop using wifi, since that is actually part of the wifi standard (your phone is literally monitoring transmissions on your neighbors' wifi networks to avoid interference).
- tobr 5y ago
  Lots of publicly available information is illegal to collect, for copyright reasons, privacy reasons, security reasons, etc.

mike-cardwell 5y ago

Don't forget to add `_optout` to prevent Windows hoovering it up as well. E.g, `mywifiname_optout_nomap`

kozziollek 5y ago
At least somebody at Microsoft thought and _optout can be anywhere in the SSID. Good thing that you don't have to have two specific suffixes at the same time!
- wadkar 5y ago
  I can’t make sense of this. Are you telling me that any Android user with “default” pixel setup will use my SSID for location tracking? And that if my WiFi shouldn’t be part of Google’s (and Microsoft as well) data collection I need to suffix my SSID with _optout_nomap?? This has to be a joke. Any docs/refs/links?
  - mike-cardwell 5y ago
    Yes. That is precisely what you're being told. The Google evidence is linked upthread. Although, I've just done a search and it looks like the Microsoft feature that required the "_optout" substring was removed at some point. I'm going to leave it in my SSID for posterity.
  - jfrunyon 5y ago
    When a user's phone attempts to get a location fix, it will use the beacons which are publicly transmitted by Wifi networks around it (I assume it's the BSSID/MAC address, specifically) to reference against (or update) a Google database mapping those BSSID's to coordinates.
  - betterunix2 5y ago
    Your neighbors are currently monitoring your wifi network. That is how wifi works -- we all monitor each other's transmissions to avoid interfering with each other's networks. Most wifi APs will also monitor the ISM bands to find the least-congested channel to use, and will typically do so continuously and change to a different channel as needed. You may also have noticed that when you connect to a new network you start with a list of nearby SSIDs that you can choose from -- do you think looking at that list is a violation of privacy? Moreover, there are companies that operate large numbers of APs across a broad geographic region, and they may have a centralized system for managing those APs -- which means that they are collecting information about all nearby wifi stations (including client devices) across a broad region in a single place. Do you have a problem with that practice or view that as a violation of privacy? Radio is not private (except, possibly, cellular services, which may be treated as phone services with legal restrictions on wiretapping), especially when you are talking about unlicensed operation.

mortehu 5y ago

WiFi beacons are extremely important for good geolocation in buildings and in cities. Are you saying we should get rid of this functionality just to ensure nobody has a database of the physical location of hardware addresses? Phones already have random hardware addresses, so it's not like your movements are being tracked because of your mobile hotspot.

quotemstr 5y ago
> Are you saying we should get rid of this functionality just to ensure nobody has a database of the physical location of hardware addresses? "Privacy" advocates constantly demand that all of us bear the costs of worse technology just so they can have a little fake relief from their imaginary harms. We're long past the point of diminishing returns in preserving real privacy: now privacy advocacy is all about holiness spiraling. That said, I don't blame Amazon here: why wouldn't they take advantage of an opportunity to hurt a competitor at no cost to themselves?
alias_neo 5y ago
I didn't make any comment for nor against, I simply stated a fact. As for my opinion, I have no issue with the collection of the physical location of access points, I take issue with making me litter my chosen SSID with garbage so that I can opt out. Regarding hotspot, I'm not sure what you mean, none of this discussion is about mobile hotspot.
- mortehu 5y ago
  I wasn't responding to you, but what other way would you choose to opt out? SSID is one of the few things you can adjust on almost any access point. Hotspots are relevant because they are often personal and they follow you around, so if they didn't randomize their hardware address, then anyone could track your movements.
  - jeromegv 5y ago
    This is Google's problem to figure out (how we should opt-out, or if it should be a opt-in service), the fact that you are putting the responsibility on the user is crazy in itself. We are talking of a billion dollar company tracking the location of your own router against your will and without permission.

dheera 5y ago

Can one make a GPS spoofer with software-defined radio such that Google/Microsoft/Mozilla store the wrong GPS location for your SSID, while not being powerful enough to influence GPS users outside your premises?

Sebb767 5y ago
Probably, but it would still be illegal (sidenote: IANAL) and they usually don't enter your premise to find your WiFi. So the "easy" no-jail way to do this would be to reduce your transmit power.

hatchnyc 5y ago

Is this any kind of standard? Like if Microsoft comes along and says you need to change your SSID to end in "_noloc" rather than "_nomap" what are you supposed to do?

yesbabyyes 5y ago
Close, but no cigar! Microsoft has "_optout", but it can appear anywhere in the SSID. See https://superuser.com/questions/1005235/wi-fi-opt-out-microsoft-google#1202168 https://superuser.com/questions/1005235/wi-fi-opt-out-micros... Mozilla Location Services (and Combain which I think they collaborate with), WiGLE and others use "_nomap", though, so MS seems to walk their own path on this one.

pratnala 5y ago

So I have to change my custom Wi-Fi SSD (something that I like) and add a brain-dead suffix called "_nomap" to prevent Google from tracking me? Who the hell greenlights such changes?

mikro2nd 5y ago
So my network just became "Google Listening Post _nomap"...
- laurent92 5y ago
  I think people have been condemned for insults over SSID, so trademarks definitely apply ;)
- godelski 5y ago
  > Google/Microsoft Listening Post _optout_nomap FTFY
  - mikro2nd 5y ago
    To be clear, it was already "Google Listening Post" before I learned of this opt-out thing. The 5GHz network is/was "Facebook Listening Post _nomap" I find it absurd that we have to put this guff into our own networks just to opt out of the surveillance panopticon.
extra88 5y ago
Your router is publicly broadcasting its SSID ("Pretty fly for a WiFi" or whatever). Google Street View cars, Android devices, etc. have noticed the SSID in their vicinity and submitted the SSID with an approximate location to database. Now, when another device using Google's location service is trying determine it's location, it can submit the list of SSIDs (including yours) it can detect to get back a fairly accurate location. If you add "_nomap" to your SSID, Google won't use it; it's crude because broadcasting metadata along with SSIDs isn't a part of the WiFi specs. I don't see how using public router SSIDs as a landmark is "tracking you." If you use Google location services to determine your location based on your SSID or others, particularly while logged in to a Google account, then in some sense they're tracking you.

cptskippy 5y ago

To be fair, they aren't using your WiFi. The SSID is like your house number. Claiming Google using your Wifi when it reads your SSID is like claiming someone is using your toilet because they read your house number off the front of your house.

Sebb767 5y ago
It's far more unique than your house number. Nobody expects that I can show up directly at their house, if they just say their SSID or simply send me a screenshot of their Android home screen. Just search your SSID [0] and see for yourself. [0] https://openwifimap.net https://openwifimap.net
- extra88 5y ago
  > Nobody expects that I can show up directly at their house, if they just say their SSID or simply send me a screenshot of their Android home screen. (It's not relevant to the discussion but Android home screens show the name of the connected WiFi network?) Where can someone look up a lat,lng by entering an SSID? It sure doesn't work on the site you cited. It looks like the information that is there was explicitly shared by the router operator. SSIDs only need to differ from neighbors' SSIDs for convenience, to help tell them apart. If you already have neighbors using a default, like "xfinity", you might not want to choose that to avoid extra hassle when setting up new devices. But if you're concerned about someone learning your SSID and finding a database to map it to a location, can pick a generic manufacturer's SSID of which there will be thousands, if not millions, of devices using the same SSID.
  - alias_neo 5y ago
    I'm not making any judgement on the practice itself, however, for the purposes of tracking, I suspect they use the BSSID The SSID is just the mutable part so you can opt-out, the actual identifier used is much more likely to be the BSSID which should be universally unique, and is (generally, or at least practically) immutable for any one piece of hardware.

quotemstr 5y ago

Why wouldn't I want my wifi beacon used for geolocation? Good geolocation helps everyone. What exactly is the harm that Google is perpetuating here? This SSID stuff is a great example of something that sounds sinister when presented in vague and ominous terms by "privacy" advocates but is actually benign if you think about it for five minutes.

kbenson 5y ago

I'm not sure this one matters to me much. It's something you spew into the public space, and they're just recording the name and where it is. To me it seems no different than your address, or if your door is a certain color, or the color of your house. Zillow likely has a picture of the front of your house if you're in one, and a bunch of other info about it as well. Changing the SSID to prevent them collecting the info is sort of like hanging a big sign that says "no pictures" to prevent services from taking pictures of your house. It's a little ridiculous to have to do that, but it's also a little ridiculous to expect that people are going to ignore what is publicly visible. Honestly, I'm a little impressed that Google lets you opt out (and Microsoft apparently as someone noted, although with a different suffix).

dang 5y ago

A reader emailed to point out that this massive subthread is actually more on topic for https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27517547 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27517547 than it is for https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27515230 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27515230, so we've moved it thence hither.

thatguy0900 5y ago
Isn't the whole point of this comment to alert people who were concerned enough to check the other thread? Seems to defeat the point of it to move it to this thread, even if the comments are more on topic here.
- dang 5y ago
  I'm going by memory here, but I think it was the other way around - the comment preceded the other thread.
  - alias_neo 5y ago
    It did. The other thread creator pointed out they were inspired by my comment to post it.