5 ms·

Unethical business. Privacy should not be for sale.

ozim 5y ago
I don't see this as unethical. It is just pinging around. If someone is using that data to connect IP address with real people then it becomes unethical. It is like making cars would be unethical because someone is using cars in a bank robbery.
- usr1106 5y ago
  > It is just pinging around. Google did just drive around and listen on 2.4 GHz. I think there was wide agreement that collecting the data was unethical.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - tentacleuno 5y ago
    Why drive around when you can deploy a software update on billions of mobile phones that'll do that for you?
    - teddyh 5y ago
      “Beautiful. Unethical. Dangerous.” — Lucius Fox, The Dark Knight, 2008
  - gruez 5y ago
    >I think there was wide agreement that collecting the data was unethical. AFAIK the unethical bit was that they were collecting unencrypted wifi traffic, which at the time could contain sensitive information (many popular sites were unencrypted back then). I don't think there's "wide agreement" that collecting wifi beacons was "unethical".
- aronpye 5y ago
  < “It is just pinging around.” Would you feel any differently if people were recording your activities by pointing a camera at your window from the street? Or even just pressing random doorbells to see if anyone lives there? Personally I think there is little difference between virtual unwarranted data collection and physical intrusions, and just because there isn’t some kind of barrier doesn’t make it acceptable. “Privacy is the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves or information about themselves, and thereby express themselves selectively.” I’d posit that recording the location of every IP address, which in many cases can be directly tied to an individual, violates a user’s right to privacy by publishing information about them without their consent.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >Would you feel any differently if people were recording your activities by pointing a camera at your window from the street? that's what curtains are for. if you were caught doing a shameful activity because your windows were wide open and a onlooker saw, that's on you. >Or even just pressing random doorbells to see if anyone lives there? so... jehovah's witnesses? >I’d posit that recording the location of every IP address, which in many cases can be directly tied to an individual, violates a user’s right to privacy by publishing information about them without their consent. How is this any different than going around and recording the coordinates of every street address? You can also make the argument that a street address can be correlated to an individual, and by associating a coordinate with it, you are violating "user’s right to privacy by publishing information about them without their consent"
    - starfleet_bop 5y ago
      > that's what curtains are for. if you were caught doing a shameful activity because your windows were wide open and a onlooker saw, that's on you. People have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their own home. In addition, the right to privacy is not limited by arbitrary definitions of shamefulness. > so... jehovah's witnesses? That’s a whataboutism logical fallacy. Just because some people do it and get away with it doesn’t make it acceptable. > How is this any different than going around and recording the coordinates of every street address? You can also make the argument that a street address can be correlated to an individual, and by associating a coordinate with it, you are violating "user’s right to privacy by publishing information about them without their consent" That’s kind of a straw man IMO. An IP address is public information and is transmitted by every IP packet. You can’t compare it to someone’s home address which is normally private by default. By associating a location with an IP address, you are effectively transmitting your location with every IP packet.
softwarebeware 5y ago
Just use a proxy or Tor
- alam2000 5y ago

ozim 5y ago

I don't see this as unethical. It is just pinging around. If someone is using that data to connect IP address with real people then it becomes unethical. It is like making cars would be unethical because someone is using cars in a bank robbery.

usr1106 5y ago
> It is just pinging around. Google did just drive around and listen on 2.4 GHz. I think there was wide agreement that collecting the data was unethical.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- tentacleuno 5y ago
  Why drive around when you can deploy a software update on billions of mobile phones that'll do that for you?
  - teddyh 5y ago
    “Beautiful. Unethical. Dangerous.” — Lucius Fox, The Dark Knight, 2008
- gruez 5y ago
  >I think there was wide agreement that collecting the data was unethical. AFAIK the unethical bit was that they were collecting unencrypted wifi traffic, which at the time could contain sensitive information (many popular sites were unencrypted back then). I don't think there's "wide agreement" that collecting wifi beacons was "unethical".
aronpye 5y ago
< “It is just pinging around.” Would you feel any differently if people were recording your activities by pointing a camera at your window from the street? Or even just pressing random doorbells to see if anyone lives there? Personally I think there is little difference between virtual unwarranted data collection and physical intrusions, and just because there isn’t some kind of barrier doesn’t make it acceptable. “Privacy is the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves or information about themselves, and thereby express themselves selectively.” I’d posit that recording the location of every IP address, which in many cases can be directly tied to an individual, violates a user’s right to privacy by publishing information about them without their consent.
- gruez 5y ago
  >Would you feel any differently if people were recording your activities by pointing a camera at your window from the street? that's what curtains are for. if you were caught doing a shameful activity because your windows were wide open and a onlooker saw, that's on you. >Or even just pressing random doorbells to see if anyone lives there? so... jehovah's witnesses? >I’d posit that recording the location of every IP address, which in many cases can be directly tied to an individual, violates a user’s right to privacy by publishing information about them without their consent. How is this any different than going around and recording the coordinates of every street address? You can also make the argument that a street address can be correlated to an individual, and by associating a coordinate with it, you are violating "user’s right to privacy by publishing information about them without their consent"
  - starfleet_bop 5y ago
    > that's what curtains are for. if you were caught doing a shameful activity because your windows were wide open and a onlooker saw, that's on you. People have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their own home. In addition, the right to privacy is not limited by arbitrary definitions of shamefulness. > so... jehovah's witnesses? That’s a whataboutism logical fallacy. Just because some people do it and get away with it doesn’t make it acceptable. > How is this any different than going around and recording the coordinates of every street address? You can also make the argument that a street address can be correlated to an individual, and by associating a coordinate with it, you are violating "user’s right to privacy by publishing information about them without their consent" That’s kind of a straw man IMO. An IP address is public information and is transmitted by every IP packet. You can’t compare it to someone’s home address which is normally private by default. By associating a location with an IP address, you are effectively transmitting your location with every IP packet.

softwarebeware 5y ago

Just use a proxy or Tor

alam2000 5y ago