4 ms·

I don't intend for it to go outside of my house. I have not placed any access points in locations designed to make the signal reachable outside my own home. I

I don't intend for it to go outside of my house. I have not placed any access points in locations designed to make the signal reachable outside my own home. I expect that at some points near the perimeter of my property, passerby may detect the existence of my WiFi network. I expect them to politely ignore it and move on, just like I expect them to pay no mind to normal everyday sounds coming from inside my home. It becomes a different issue when a corporation collects this information for business purposes. They are not random passersby. But I expect them to treat it with the same courtesy -- ignore, move on.

joshuamorton 5y ago
Do you expect there to be legal recourse when someone does not treat you with the courtesy you prefer?
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  If it is a business snooping around my house to collect data about me, then yes, absolutely.
freediver 5y ago
This is a clear case of unintended consequences? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences If you care about this, the burden is on you to make sure the signal does not go outside of your house or to make our wifi work in private mode (probably easiest solution). Google is simply taking advantage of what is essentially public information, they are doing it at scale and this should not be problematic at all. We need to understand that when we live in a technologically advanced civilization (sufficiently advanced as to have Google cars driving around) there are some things we will have to give up as a part of enabling the technologically advanced environment that we chose to live in. What we would have a problem with is not collecting then, but the way it is being used. A reasonable way to handle this for Google would be: rather than having a SSID opt out, have ad-tech opt-in as in 'we can optimize our ads based on your detected wifi location, would you like that?' Meaning: yes, it's fine that you collect publicly available information at scale, but if you want to use it for me (or against me, depending on your view), you have to ask me. Otherwise it would be violating my right to privacy.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  > private mode (probably easiest solution) There is no such thing. I have no problem finding the SSID for "hidden" networks. > they are doing it at scale and this should not be problematic at all. In fact it is my entire point that this is extremely problematic. Technology enables a whole new range of behavior not previously feasible, and society hasn't yet developed a way to deal with it. Just because Google can do something it does not mean they should do it. > yes, it's fine that you collect publicly available information at scale, but if you want to use it for me (or against me, depending on your view), you have to ask me. Otherwise it would be violating my right to privacy. I disagree. The existence of the aggregated data on me is itself the risk, itself the violation of privacy, not the moment when they leverage it for a particular purpose. This data aggregation is dangerous and needs to be regulated. I do not believe in a utopian corporate world where everything Google does is for my benefit.
  - freediver 5y ago
    > There is no such thing. I have no problem finding the SSID for "hidden" networks. Yes I meant hidden networks, and I didn't know they were discoverable. Really? Why are are they called hidden then? > The existence of the aggregated data on me is itself the risk, itself the violation of privacy Yes it is a risk, but it is not in itself a violation of privacy. I think you are conflating secrecy and privacy a bit here. You parents or close family posses a lot of private information about you and the very act of possession is not violation of privacy (but it does pose a risk that you have to live with, hoping and expecting they will respect your privacy). Violation of privacy occurs at the moment this information is used in a way you would not approve. Anonymity - you do not know about me Secrecy - I do not want to share information with you Privacy - I am OK to share my information with you and I trust you to not use it in a way that I would not approve of

joshuamorton 5y ago

Do you expect there to be legal recourse when someone does not treat you with the courtesy you prefer?

rootusrootus 5y ago
If it is a business snooping around my house to collect data about me, then yes, absolutely.

freediver 5y ago

This is a clear case of unintended consequences? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences If you care about this, the burden is on you to make sure the signal does not go outside of your house or to make our wifi work in private mode (probably easiest solution). Google is simply taking advantage of what is essentially public information, they are doing it at scale and this should not be problematic at all. We need to understand that when we live in a technologically advanced civilization (sufficiently advanced as to have Google cars driving around) there are some things we will have to give up as a part of enabling the technologically advanced environment that we chose to live in. What we would have a problem with is not collecting then, but the way it is being used. A reasonable way to handle this for Google would be: rather than having a SSID opt out, have ad-tech opt-in as in 'we can optimize our ads based on your detected wifi location, would you like that?' Meaning: yes, it's fine that you collect publicly available information at scale, but if you want to use it for me (or against me, depending on your view), you have to ask me. Otherwise it would be violating my right to privacy.

rootusrootus 5y ago
> private mode (probably easiest solution) There is no such thing. I have no problem finding the SSID for "hidden" networks. > they are doing it at scale and this should not be problematic at all. In fact it is my entire point that this is extremely problematic. Technology enables a whole new range of behavior not previously feasible, and society hasn't yet developed a way to deal with it. Just because Google can do something it does not mean they should do it. > yes, it's fine that you collect publicly available information at scale, but if you want to use it for me (or against me, depending on your view), you have to ask me. Otherwise it would be violating my right to privacy. I disagree. The existence of the aggregated data on me is itself the risk, itself the violation of privacy, not the moment when they leverage it for a particular purpose. This data aggregation is dangerous and needs to be regulated. I do not believe in a utopian corporate world where everything Google does is for my benefit.
- freediver 5y ago
  > There is no such thing. I have no problem finding the SSID for "hidden" networks. Yes I meant hidden networks, and I didn't know they were discoverable. Really? Why are are they called hidden then? > The existence of the aggregated data on me is itself the risk, itself the violation of privacy Yes it is a risk, but it is not in itself a violation of privacy. I think you are conflating secrecy and privacy a bit here. You parents or close family posses a lot of private information about you and the very act of possession is not violation of privacy (but it does pose a risk that you have to live with, hoping and expecting they will respect your privacy). Violation of privacy occurs at the moment this information is used in a way you would not approve. Anonymity - you do not know about me Secrecy - I do not want to share information with you Privacy - I am OK to share my information with you and I trust you to not use it in a way that I would not approve of