3 ms·

I think that it is important to consider the reason _why_ we make some information public. We make our SSID public so that we, or our friends, can easily acces

I think that it is important to consider the reason _why_ we make some information public. We make our SSID public so that we, or our friends, can easily access our WiFi, not so that somebody else use it as a tracking tool. Just because I make something possible, it doesn't mean that somebody else should take advantage of it ("hey, your car was unlocked, so of course I took it for a ride"), even more so when we talk about a huge corporation where the effort of taking advantage of this is much more than the effort that an individual must put to protect him/herself. Want to use my SSID as a location tool ? I'm fine, but first you ask, and the let's talk about how much you're gonna pay for it.

gruez 5y ago
>Want to use my SSID as a location tool ? I'm fine, but first you ask, and the let's talk about how much you're gonna pay for it. Should companies have to ask you to use your house number as a location tool?
- bellyfullofbac 5y ago
  Yeah, curious, it's like when someone calls a taxi and says "Well I'm on Elm Street, I see the house in front of me has the number 73.". That number isn't on display for this person to use, it's more for your friends and mailmen to find your house, but well... I guess the problem is the worldwide database it's put in.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >I guess the problem is the worldwide database it's put in. Why is it a problem to know the gps location of a specific street name + house number? That seems like a pretty useful piece of information, especially in north america where a single street can span the entire width of a city. As for the downsides, what's the privacy implications of knowing that 73 elm street is located at -52.024290244005,101.13123390478796?
  - LeifCarrotson 5y ago
    The scale is exactly the problem. The social contract of what's acceptable for friends, mailmen, or passersby hailing a cab does not apply when extended to automated processes running on computers of global megacorps. I have no issue with a police officer tailing and tracking a suspect with license plate ABC1234. That license plate number is publicly visible information. I do take issue with the police installing license plate cameras that give them a location history of the entire driving population of a city. I have no issue with an acquaintance recognizing me by the shape of my face. If I go out in public, I expect to be publicly visible. I do take issue with Facebook running facial recognition on photos taken by their users, or installing their own facial recognition cameras, and sending advertisements and connection suggestions to me based on my proximity to other people. I have no issue with my neighbor, trying to connect his wifi, seeing my SSID alongside his. The router needs to broadcast a publicly visible management beacon so that he can locate his wireless network and I can locate mine. I do take issue with Google making a global database to allow devices to use the visible SSIDs to determine their location. I have no issue with a web server querying my browser to see what system fonts I have available, or what size my browser window is. These and other bits of information are useful to display the website I'm requesting to me. I do take issue with the server or their advertising partners using these characteristics to construct a fingerprint to track me across sessions or sites. I recognize that there's no empirical difference between these uses. Public information is public, it's not obvious why the source should be able to determine how it's used or where the line is between acceptable, intended, private party use and unacceptable, automated, exploitative use. But I think I know what's acceptable when I see it.
    - throwaway09223 5y ago
      Interestingly, the initial example of a street address has always existed in large centralized databases. These databases are even published for mass distribution in the form of a phone book, and they've also been available via online queries for the past 25 years (mapquest, et al)
- morsch 5y ago
  Maybe? I think one could make a good faith argument that they should.
  - gruez 5y ago
    Care to make it? I think it'll be a logistical nightmare (eg. how do you get consent? Do you have to sign a form and send it to tomtom/google? Does filling in your address imply consent? Who can give consent? The property owner? The occupant? If I'm at at a party and want other friends to come over, do I have to explicitly ask the occupant/owner for permission? Google can probably easily get consent from people, but what about mapping startups? What if the previous owners gave consent, can you revoke that consent?), and provide little to zero privacy benefits.
    - yzombinator 5y ago
      Maybe something being a logistical nightmare is quite the point.
    - morsch 5y ago
      I don't really care to make the argument, no, since I think street numbers are reasonably expected to be in the public domain in the culture I've grown up with. But I wouldn't rule out that someone else looks at it differently to the degree that I'd pose it as a rhetorical question, as an example that's illuminating in its absurdity. That was really all I was trying to say. Though whether or not it'd be a logistical nightmare for Google or startups really doesn't play into it; all kinds of privacy (and other) regulations are logistical nightmares for those whose business it is to violate them. E.g. kyc regulations were a logistical nightmare for financial services that didn't bother or didn't want to k their cs.
- duped 5y ago
  If they want to associate it with my identity, absolutely.
- sp332 5y ago
  I didn't set my house number. The house number was here before I was and it can't be used to track me.
gist 5y ago
> Just because I make something possible, it doesn't mean that somebody else should take advantage of it ("hey, your car was unlocked, so of course I took it for a ride") This is specifically prohibited by law. Now there are gray areas of things that are not prohibited by law that are usually not acceptable but I don't think this is even one of those. [1] [1] Example might be if there is ketchup at a restaurant and no sign which says 'limit X packets' you could take all of the ketchup (does not violate any law) assuming you are in the restaurant as a customer.
- oasisbob 5y ago
  An example of theft of a free product is newspaper theft. It's not much of a grey area in the US, plenty of precedent. https://splc.org/newspaper-theft-resources/ https://splc.org/newspaper-theft-resources/
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

gruez 5y ago

>Want to use my SSID as a location tool ? I'm fine, but first you ask, and the let's talk about how much you're gonna pay for it. Should companies have to ask you to use your house number as a location tool?

bellyfullofbac 5y ago
Yeah, curious, it's like when someone calls a taxi and says "Well I'm on Elm Street, I see the house in front of me has the number 73.". That number isn't on display for this person to use, it's more for your friends and mailmen to find your house, but well... I guess the problem is the worldwide database it's put in.
- gruez 5y ago
  >I guess the problem is the worldwide database it's put in. Why is it a problem to know the gps location of a specific street name + house number? That seems like a pretty useful piece of information, especially in north america where a single street can span the entire width of a city. As for the downsides, what's the privacy implications of knowing that 73 elm street is located at -52.024290244005,101.13123390478796?
- LeifCarrotson 5y ago
  The scale is exactly the problem. The social contract of what's acceptable for friends, mailmen, or passersby hailing a cab does not apply when extended to automated processes running on computers of global megacorps. I have no issue with a police officer tailing and tracking a suspect with license plate ABC1234. That license plate number is publicly visible information. I do take issue with the police installing license plate cameras that give them a location history of the entire driving population of a city. I have no issue with an acquaintance recognizing me by the shape of my face. If I go out in public, I expect to be publicly visible. I do take issue with Facebook running facial recognition on photos taken by their users, or installing their own facial recognition cameras, and sending advertisements and connection suggestions to me based on my proximity to other people. I have no issue with my neighbor, trying to connect his wifi, seeing my SSID alongside his. The router needs to broadcast a publicly visible management beacon so that he can locate his wireless network and I can locate mine. I do take issue with Google making a global database to allow devices to use the visible SSIDs to determine their location. I have no issue with a web server querying my browser to see what system fonts I have available, or what size my browser window is. These and other bits of information are useful to display the website I'm requesting to me. I do take issue with the server or their advertising partners using these characteristics to construct a fingerprint to track me across sessions or sites. I recognize that there's no empirical difference between these uses. Public information is public, it's not obvious why the source should be able to determine how it's used or where the line is between acceptable, intended, private party use and unacceptable, automated, exploitative use. But I think I know what's acceptable when I see it.
  - throwaway09223 5y ago
    Interestingly, the initial example of a street address has always existed in large centralized databases. These databases are even published for mass distribution in the form of a phone book, and they've also been available via online queries for the past 25 years (mapquest, et al)
morsch 5y ago
Maybe? I think one could make a good faith argument that they should.
- gruez 5y ago
  Care to make it? I think it'll be a logistical nightmare (eg. how do you get consent? Do you have to sign a form and send it to tomtom/google? Does filling in your address imply consent? Who can give consent? The property owner? The occupant? If I'm at at a party and want other friends to come over, do I have to explicitly ask the occupant/owner for permission? Google can probably easily get consent from people, but what about mapping startups? What if the previous owners gave consent, can you revoke that consent?), and provide little to zero privacy benefits.
  - yzombinator 5y ago
    Maybe something being a logistical nightmare is quite the point.
  - morsch 5y ago
    I don't really care to make the argument, no, since I think street numbers are reasonably expected to be in the public domain in the culture I've grown up with. But I wouldn't rule out that someone else looks at it differently to the degree that I'd pose it as a rhetorical question, as an example that's illuminating in its absurdity. That was really all I was trying to say. Though whether or not it'd be a logistical nightmare for Google or startups really doesn't play into it; all kinds of privacy (and other) regulations are logistical nightmares for those whose business it is to violate them. E.g. kyc regulations were a logistical nightmare for financial services that didn't bother or didn't want to k their cs.
duped 5y ago
If they want to associate it with my identity, absolutely.
sp332 5y ago
I didn't set my house number. The house number was here before I was and it can't be used to track me.

gist 5y ago

> Just because I make something possible, it doesn't mean that somebody else should take advantage of it ("hey, your car was unlocked, so of course I took it for a ride") This is specifically prohibited by law. Now there are gray areas of things that are not prohibited by law that are usually not acceptable but I don't think this is even one of those. [1] [1] Example might be if there is ketchup at a restaurant and no sign which says 'limit X packets' you could take all of the ketchup (does not violate any law) assuming you are in the restaurant as a customer.

oasisbob 5y ago
An example of theft of a free product is newspaper theft. It's not much of a grey area in the US, plenty of precedent. https://splc.org/newspaper-theft-resources/ https://splc.org/newspaper-theft-resources/

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]