5 ms·

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

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?!?!?!?!?!

Dylan16807 5y ago
None of that is stored. Knock it off with your all caps strawman.
- betterunix2 5y ago
  1. I clearly said I was being snarky and there was a lot more in what I wrote than a single snarky sentence. 2. I have APs that do collect and store data about nearby wifi stations and transmission patterns as part of a system that improved wireless throughput. 3. What difference does it make if it is being stored?
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    > 2. I have APs that do collect and store data about nearby wifi stations and transmission patterns as part of a system that improved wireless throughput. If it's just nearby ones then that's much less of a problem. > 3. What difference does it make if it is being stored? Imagine saying that about someone else's telephone call... Listening out for interference is not at all the same as siphoning up information.
    - betterunix2 5y ago
      Speaking of strawmen..."siphoning up?" We are talking about a database of wifi beacons (SSID/BSSID) and GPS coordinates for where the beacons were received. It is no different from a database of street addresses and corresponding GPS coordinates. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy for SSIDs or wifi beacons -- everyone knows they can see their neighbor's SSIDs. You seem to be saying that if an AP stores information about other "nearby" APs there is no problem. What if I am operating thousands of APs across a broad geographic region using a centrally managed AP controller? That is a common practice for large organizations and that is exactly the setting where you see APs collecting and storing information about other wifi stations. Is that not a large enough scale to be a concern? I have to wonder at what point you are drawing the line here. What is an unacceptable scale?
      - Dylan16807 5y ago
        The bigger it gets the less acceptable it is. Even if I can't draw a hard line it doesn't mean everything is the same. > It is no different from a database of street addresses and corresponding GPS coordinates. The locations of streets are public records. > There is no reasonable expectation of privacy for SSIDs or wifi beacons -- everyone knows they can see their neighbor's SSIDs. Being able to see your neighbor is very different from being able to see everyone's neighbor.
        betterunix2 5y ago
        "Street address" refers to the address of an individual home or building here in the US. How is being a matter of public record relevant here? Are you suggesting that there is nothing wrong with a company that queries public records across thousands of municipalities to build a unified database? In any case, that something is a matter of public record is irrelevant because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy to begin with. Even if there were no public records to query, anyone could go out and start creating a map of any town, recording specific details of the locations of any structures they believe to be relevant to their map. It is relatively common to do so because of the inaccuracies and missing information in most public records (e.g. people often make unauthorized modifications to properties, fail to file the proper paperwork after otherwise legal work is completed, report incorrect information, etc.) and it is done at national or even global scale. I do not see how SSIDs are in different in any meaningful way. We are literally talking about building a map -- a map that includes the locations of SSIDs, to be used as a kind of landmark, no different from a map that includes other landmarks (e.g. "the house with the red siding") that could conceivably be used to help a person identify their position on the map. There is zero expectation of privacy for SSIDs, just like there is zero expectation of privacy for the exterior of your home. Is there any specific objection beyond, "This is happening at a large scale?"

Dylan16807 5y ago

None of that is stored. Knock it off with your all caps strawman.

betterunix2 5y ago
1. I clearly said I was being snarky and there was a lot more in what I wrote than a single snarky sentence. 2. I have APs that do collect and store data about nearby wifi stations and transmission patterns as part of a system that improved wireless throughput. 3. What difference does it make if it is being stored?
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  > 2. I have APs that do collect and store data about nearby wifi stations and transmission patterns as part of a system that improved wireless throughput. If it's just nearby ones then that's much less of a problem. > 3. What difference does it make if it is being stored? Imagine saying that about someone else's telephone call... Listening out for interference is not at all the same as siphoning up information.
  - betterunix2 5y ago
    Speaking of strawmen..."siphoning up?" We are talking about a database of wifi beacons (SSID/BSSID) and GPS coordinates for where the beacons were received. It is no different from a database of street addresses and corresponding GPS coordinates. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy for SSIDs or wifi beacons -- everyone knows they can see their neighbor's SSIDs. You seem to be saying that if an AP stores information about other "nearby" APs there is no problem. What if I am operating thousands of APs across a broad geographic region using a centrally managed AP controller? That is a common practice for large organizations and that is exactly the setting where you see APs collecting and storing information about other wifi stations. Is that not a large enough scale to be a concern? I have to wonder at what point you are drawing the line here. What is an unacceptable scale?
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      The bigger it gets the less acceptable it is. Even if I can't draw a hard line it doesn't mean everything is the same. > It is no different from a database of street addresses and corresponding GPS coordinates. The locations of streets are public records. > There is no reasonable expectation of privacy for SSIDs or wifi beacons -- everyone knows they can see their neighbor's SSIDs. Being able to see your neighbor is very different from being able to see everyone's neighbor.
      - betterunix2 5y ago
        "Street address" refers to the address of an individual home or building here in the US. How is being a matter of public record relevant here? Are you suggesting that there is nothing wrong with a company that queries public records across thousands of municipalities to build a unified database? In any case, that something is a matter of public record is irrelevant because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy to begin with. Even if there were no public records to query, anyone could go out and start creating a map of any town, recording specific details of the locations of any structures they believe to be relevant to their map. It is relatively common to do so because of the inaccuracies and missing information in most public records (e.g. people often make unauthorized modifications to properties, fail to file the proper paperwork after otherwise legal work is completed, report incorrect information, etc.) and it is done at national or even global scale. I do not see how SSIDs are in different in any meaningful way. We are literally talking about building a map -- a map that includes the locations of SSIDs, to be used as a kind of landmark, no different from a map that includes other landmarks (e.g. "the house with the red siding") that could conceivably be used to help a person identify their position on the map. There is zero expectation of privacy for SSIDs, just like there is zero expectation of privacy for the exterior of your home. Is there any specific objection beyond, "This is happening at a large scale?"