5 ms·

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 An

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.
  - xvector 5y ago
    There are open, crowd-driven databases like Wigle with over 10 billion SSID observations. I just don't see why this is a problem when apps can't even access your SSID without a location permission.
  - scottyah 5y ago
    Isn't that just what companies are all about? Anyone can do it if they want, (it's not like Google has a State defined monopoly), it's just that it isn't worth it to others. If you want everyone to have that data publicly then have your government do it...
    - mindslight 5y ago
      The point is to weigh whether the mass collection of personal data is justified. The reason why it is being done matters - if the data is easy to collect and is merely being format shifted by a curious person, then there clearly isn't much of a barrier to anyone doing the same. Meanwhile a company investing a significant amount to create a proprietary database for their own purposes has much different incentives - cf Google's sorry excuse for an opt out. Furthermore, a published dataset is transparent in that it allows individuals to see exactly what data has been collected about them, act to remove themselves, complain politically, etc, whereas most people will never become aware of the proprietary database.
  - 8note 5y ago
    They're adding value to the public data by organizing into that location search. I'd think it similar to a journalist reporting on a story. Its public, butthe value they add is private

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.
- xvector 5y ago
  There are open, crowd-driven databases like Wigle with over 10 billion SSID observations. I just don't see why this is a problem when apps can't even access your SSID without a location permission.
- scottyah 5y ago
  Isn't that just what companies are all about? Anyone can do it if they want, (it's not like Google has a State defined monopoly), it's just that it isn't worth it to others. If you want everyone to have that data publicly then have your government do it...
  - mindslight 5y ago
    The point is to weigh whether the mass collection of personal data is justified. The reason why it is being done matters - if the data is easy to collect and is merely being format shifted by a curious person, then there clearly isn't much of a barrier to anyone doing the same. Meanwhile a company investing a significant amount to create a proprietary database for their own purposes has much different incentives - cf Google's sorry excuse for an opt out. Furthermore, a published dataset is transparent in that it allows individuals to see exactly what data has been collected about them, act to remove themselves, complain politically, etc, whereas most people will never become aware of the proprietary database.
- 8note 5y ago
  They're adding value to the public data by organizing into that location search. I'd think it similar to a journalist reporting on a story. Its public, butthe value they add is private