5 ms·

Opt-in

by 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.
        ratww 5y ago
        There's no need for a database. Just add the suffix "_optin" to your SSDI and you're opted in. This is what they're currently requiring for the opt-out, I can't see why the same solution can't be used for opt-in...
        alyandon 5y ago
        I just don't see either approach (opt-in vs opt-out) being workable in practice though. Taking it to a bit of a silly extreme - what happens when 100 different companies want to use public SSID data? 100 different opt-in codes? 1 code for all? What if I want to allow 5 companies out of that 100 to use that data and exclude the other 95?
        shkkmo 5y ago
        Doesn't the exact same argument apply to using an opt-out approach, but much worse? If two companies use different suffixes, that makes it impossible to opt out of both. Edit: The only reason this isn't already an issue is because Microsoft made their opt-out work anywhere in the SSID
      - betterunix2 5y ago
        I think you misunderstood what "registration" meant in this context. Right now consumer wifi operates in the unlicensed ISM bands, which are parts of the radio spectrum that are set aside for use by the general public without requiring any coordination -- stations can freely interfere with each other's operation as long as they transmit below the legal power limit (which is antenna-dependent). In other words, you are allowed to buy a wifi router, plug it in, set up whatever SSID you want (or no SSID at all for a BSSID-only network) and use it with as many client devices as you want, without having to ask anyone's permission or register your new AP with anyone. For comparison, take a look at 802.11y, which operates in the 3.6Ghz band, a "lightly" licensed part of the radio spectrum. Before you can set up 802.11y stations you must first register with the FCC (or whatever the equivalent in your country is called) and receive a license, and all your stations must be identifiable (you are not free to choose your SSID). That is already far too much for consumer devices (802.11y is meant for WISPs; it has better propagation characteristics than the unlicensed bands and you are allowed to transmit at higher power), and that is a "lightly" regulated radio band. Typical regulations e.g. the bands used by cell phones require far more coordination with governments -- more paperwork, more money, and many more rules about permissible operations. Finally, for what it's worth, nobody has ever had to pay anyone for ISM band operations, including just recording transmissions on the band. In fact, if you are using wifi, you have been monitoring and analyzing nearby wifi transmissions this whole time without ever paying anyone -- that is part of the wifi standard. Just connecting to a wifi network means your device is monitoring transmissions from other people. So here is a final bit of snark for you: HOW DARE YOU USE WIFI WITHOUT PAYING YOUR NEIGHBORS?!?!?!?!?!
- loudmax 5y ago
  Free stuff, like a free web browser? Or a free smartphone OS? If you don't want to be tracked by Google, don't use their software. Now, if you're having a hard time avoiding their software because it's become a de-facto standard that's a separate problem. The bottom line is that we shouldn't be in a position where we don't have a choice not to use software from Google (or Apple, or Microsoft, etc). As long as these companies are in a position to offer software that can't reasonably be avoided, you should expect them to optimize these offerings at the expense of their users.
  - ratww 5y ago
    But this whole discussion is not about software. I don't have to use their free browser, their free smartphone OS or even their search engine, but they will still freeload on my Wi-Fi for location tracking and will record my router location without consent, and the only way to opt-out is appending a stupid _nomap to the end of my ID.
    - betterunix2 5y ago
      That is kind of like saying, "How dare you listen to me when I am shouting my name in public?!" You are broadcasting your SSID on an unlicensed band, all wifi stations in your area have been listening to and analyzing those transmissions, and your wifi stations (APs and client devices) have done the same with all your neighbors' wifi networks. In fact the wifi standard requires more than just monitoring nearby beacons -- wifi stations monitor all wifi frames being transmitted from nearby stations, even those connected to a different AP, to avoid interference. You don't want anyone to monitor your wifi network? Either don't use wifi, or switch to a band that will not propagate beyond your home (60 ghz).
      - ratww 5y ago
        > "How dare you listen to me when I am shouting my name in public?!" Listening and putting it in a massive database along with other sensitive data, such as location, are two completely different things, though.

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.
      - ratww 5y ago
        There's no need for a database. Just add the suffix "_optin" to your SSDI and you're opted in. This is what they're currently requiring for the opt-out, I can't see why the same solution can't be used for opt-in...
        alyandon 5y ago
        I just don't see either approach (opt-in vs opt-out) being workable in practice though. Taking it to a bit of a silly extreme - what happens when 100 different companies want to use public SSID data? 100 different opt-in codes? 1 code for all? What if I want to allow 5 companies out of that 100 to use that data and exclude the other 95?
        shkkmo 5y ago
        Doesn't the exact same argument apply to using an opt-out approach, but much worse? If two companies use different suffixes, that makes it impossible to opt out of both. Edit: The only reason this isn't already an issue is because Microsoft made their opt-out work anywhere in the SSID
    - betterunix2 5y ago
      I think you misunderstood what "registration" meant in this context. Right now consumer wifi operates in the unlicensed ISM bands, which are parts of the radio spectrum that are set aside for use by the general public without requiring any coordination -- stations can freely interfere with each other's operation as long as they transmit below the legal power limit (which is antenna-dependent). In other words, you are allowed to buy a wifi router, plug it in, set up whatever SSID you want (or no SSID at all for a BSSID-only network) and use it with as many client devices as you want, without having to ask anyone's permission or register your new AP with anyone. For comparison, take a look at 802.11y, which operates in the 3.6Ghz band, a "lightly" licensed part of the radio spectrum. Before you can set up 802.11y stations you must first register with the FCC (or whatever the equivalent in your country is called) and receive a license, and all your stations must be identifiable (you are not free to choose your SSID). That is already far too much for consumer devices (802.11y is meant for WISPs; it has better propagation characteristics than the unlicensed bands and you are allowed to transmit at higher power), and that is a "lightly" regulated radio band. Typical regulations e.g. the bands used by cell phones require far more coordination with governments -- more paperwork, more money, and many more rules about permissible operations. Finally, for what it's worth, nobody has ever had to pay anyone for ISM band operations, including just recording transmissions on the band. In fact, if you are using wifi, you have been monitoring and analyzing nearby wifi transmissions this whole time without ever paying anyone -- that is part of the wifi standard. Just connecting to a wifi network means your device is monitoring transmissions from other people. So here is a final bit of snark for you: HOW DARE YOU USE WIFI WITHOUT PAYING YOUR NEIGHBORS?!?!?!?!?!
loudmax 5y ago
Free stuff, like a free web browser? Or a free smartphone OS? If you don't want to be tracked by Google, don't use their software. Now, if you're having a hard time avoiding their software because it's become a de-facto standard that's a separate problem. The bottom line is that we shouldn't be in a position where we don't have a choice not to use software from Google (or Apple, or Microsoft, etc). As long as these companies are in a position to offer software that can't reasonably be avoided, you should expect them to optimize these offerings at the expense of their users.
- ratww 5y ago
  But this whole discussion is not about software. I don't have to use their free browser, their free smartphone OS or even their search engine, but they will still freeload on my Wi-Fi for location tracking and will record my router location without consent, and the only way to opt-out is appending a stupid _nomap to the end of my ID.
  - betterunix2 5y ago
    That is kind of like saying, "How dare you listen to me when I am shouting my name in public?!" You are broadcasting your SSID on an unlicensed band, all wifi stations in your area have been listening to and analyzing those transmissions, and your wifi stations (APs and client devices) have done the same with all your neighbors' wifi networks. In fact the wifi standard requires more than just monitoring nearby beacons -- wifi stations monitor all wifi frames being transmitted from nearby stations, even those connected to a different AP, to avoid interference. You don't want anyone to monitor your wifi network? Either don't use wifi, or switch to a band that will not propagate beyond your home (60 ghz).
    - ratww 5y ago
      > "How dare you listen to me when I am shouting my name in public?!" Listening and putting it in a massive database along with other sensitive data, such as location, are two completely different things, though.