7 ms·

> SSIDs are public, just like house fronts. Yet, they allow you to pixelate your house front in Europe. That's the cultural standard of privacy there, so it sh

by fl3tch 15y ago

> SSIDs are public, just like house fronts. Yet, they allow you to pixelate your house front in Europe. That's the cultural standard of privacy there, so it shouldn't be surprising that SSIDs matter to them.

Angostura 15y ago
That's correct. They offer an opt-out mechanism. Same here.
- fl3tch 15y ago
  That's not really the point of this thread. The point was the next two sentences about "data protection hounds" and a failed ideology. European standards of privacy are not less legitimate just because they are different from American standards. His argument apparently was that since we allow house fronts to be photographed (in America), we should have no problem with SSIDs being captured. I was explaining why they would matter in Europe.
ugh 15y ago
I’m German so don’t tell me about European cultural standards of privacy. There was a huge outcry in Germany when Google announced that they wanted to start Street View there. Photographing the fronts of homes is perfectly legal in Germany (and will continue to be legal), the ability to opt-out was a concession from Google, not a legal requirement. That said, Google certainly caved in to prevent a Lex Google. I despise the official German view on data protection that found its expression in this outcry, fueled by many politicians. To me it’s nothing more than thinly veiled anti-americanism and a reduction of data protection to limiting freedom and not the state. Google’s freedom to photograph the fronts of homes or collect SSIDs is my freedom, too – at least if the law isn’t selectively enforced (and it shouldn’t be). Data protection’s main goal should be to limit the state and not my (and Google’s) freedom. That’s what I mean by failed ideology of data protection: 1) Its meaning can easily be twisted and turned and consequently it can have perverse consequences. 2) Control over data is practically impossible and we should much rather try and find ways to better arrange us with a world in which privacy is hard or impossible to achieve.

by fl3tch 15y ago

Angostura 15y ago

That's correct. They offer an opt-out mechanism. Same here.

fl3tch 15y ago
That's not really the point of this thread. The point was the next two sentences about "data protection hounds" and a failed ideology. European standards of privacy are not less legitimate just because they are different from American standards. His argument apparently was that since we allow house fronts to be photographed (in America), we should have no problem with SSIDs being captured. I was explaining why they would matter in Europe.

ugh 15y ago

I’m German so don’t tell me about European cultural standards of privacy. There was a huge outcry in Germany when Google announced that they wanted to start Street View there. Photographing the fronts of homes is perfectly legal in Germany (and will continue to be legal), the ability to opt-out was a concession from Google, not a legal requirement. That said, Google certainly caved in to prevent a Lex Google. I despise the official German view on data protection that found its expression in this outcry, fueled by many politicians. To me it’s nothing more than thinly veiled anti-americanism and a reduction of data protection to limiting freedom and not the state. Google’s freedom to photograph the fronts of homes or collect SSIDs is my freedom, too – at least if the law isn’t selectively enforced (and it shouldn’t be). Data protection’s main goal should be to limit the state and not my (and Google’s) freedom. That’s what I mean by failed ideology of data protection: 1) Its meaning can easily be twisted and turned and consequently it can have perverse consequences. 2) Control over data is practically impossible and we should much rather try and find ways to better arrange us with a world in which privacy is hard or impossible to achieve.