4 ms·
Once upon a time the default privacy model used to be "opt-in". Which then became "opt-out" thanks in large parts to Google. Of course it helped that very few "
by r0h1n 13y ago
Once upon a time the default privacy model used to be "opt-in". Which then became "opt-out" thanks in large parts to Google. Of course it helped that very few "lay people" take active steps to opt-out.
It appears "rename and opt-out" is the latest model. I'm guessing even fewer lay users will take this step.
Technically this allows Google to claim it gives people an easy way to opt out, but in practice nothing much is likely to change as those who were worried about privacy were probably not broadcasting their SSID publicly to begin with.
- eli 13y agoShould you have to opt in to having your street listed in Google Maps too? Some people think so. I think that's a little nutty.
- qKyuu 13y agoAlso once upon a time people knew what they were talking about before launching into a nonsensical speech filled with privacy cliches. They are mapping public WiFi APs, public data, it's well within their right and that of other to do so. Offering an opt-out is just going over and beyond to appease the stubbornly misinformed.
- droopybuns 13y agoWhy are you slandering anyone who thinks google is a shitty company and doesn't want them profiting on their data?
- qKyuu 13y agoWhat does that have to do with the correctness of the statements? And since when is publicly broadcast SSIDs are anyone's private data? It's very unfortunate that zealots and hateful people are increasingly finding a home on HN.
- droopybuns 13y agoPost under a non throw away account if you want to cut down on the hateful zealots.
- rsanders 13y agoHow is a signal generated by something owned by me, located inside my private residence, intended for use inside my house by my family and guests only, considered "publicly broadcast"? Are cordless phone transmissions publicly broadcast? Baby monitors? Burglar alarms? Home automation devices? Bluetooth headsets?
- dragonwriter 13y ago> intended for use inside my house by my family and guests only "Intended" is a description of your subjective mental state, not an objective quality of the broadcast. > Are cordless phone transmissions publicly broadcast? Baby monitors? Burglar alarms? Home automation devices? Bluetooth headsets? If they aren't encrypted, yes.
- r0h1n 13y agoYou do know Google has a history of having helped themselves to much more data than just public SSIDs, right? The reason I bring these up is to point out that Google's past behavior in this space hasn't exactly fostered trust. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/may/15/google-admits-storing-private-data http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/may/15/google-adm... http://searchengineland.com/its-official-google-settles-wispy-case-for-7-million-151319 http://searchengineland.com/its-official-google-settles-wisp...
- furyofantares 13y agoI assume you are referring to web crawling? When you put up a web page, your intention to make it public is pretty clear, barring a mistake. Your intention to have it crawled and indexed is a lot less clear, but you usually don't get a lot of say in how people consume things you make public. So I think opt-out makes sense for that. When you put up a wireless network in your apartment, your intention to make it public is a lot less clear. You are putting it in public, so the argument for opt-out is at least coherent. But I don't buy it because it's clearly not most peoples' intention.
- dspillett 13y ago> those who were worried about privacy were probably not broadcasting their SSID publicly to begin with Though it seems unintuitive Not broadcasting your SSID is actually less secure than broadcasting it. Those truly worried about privacy never use wireless transmission directly, instead using a VPN (only allowing the VPN wrapped traffic go out over the air) and set their own APs to block any traffic that isn't to/from the VPN end-point(s).