4 ms·

I guess you have a better suggestion, and am curious to hear about it.

by zz1 12y ago

walterbell 12y ago
An option during router setup when SSID is named? An organized promotion of this approach, e.g. list of routers that make it simple, list of services that honor it. A cool name other than "Do Not Track".
- zz1 12y ago
  That would require an action on the router-side, not on the mapping one. I think it could be a good option, but this doesn't apply for this case. Also, what if I agree to put my SSID into an open database but not in a locked one? Apple's and Google's location databases do not compare, for me, to Mozilla's one: I am more than glad to be in the latter, but not to be in the two formers.
justcommenting 12y ago
the obvious option is to request consent instead of violating people's privacy and make a dragnet data collection effort like this opt-in instead of opt-out. but that's clearly not the intention here, because how dare anyone question someone else's motives/objectives/priorities for collecting data about devices they don't own. in fact, we're supposed to think this is the "nice" version because a google-funded nonprofit is doing it instead of google doing it unlawfully with cars or through waze. seeing mozilla move in this direction while talking about how much they respect everyone's privacy is a strategic stumble indeed.
- zz1 12y ago
  Did you ever count APs during a short walk in a relatively low density neighbourhood? You have hundreds in under 100m. Tell me, how do you plan to ask each and everyone of them? Ring on every doorbell? -Sorry, is FritzBox!239? -No, here is YouMakeTooMuchNoiseWTF -Oh, I see, could you please pass a message to your neighbour? I'd very much appreciate if he could please fill in this form and send it back through paper mail to Mozilla…
  - justcommenting 12y ago
    that would be one respectful way to do it, and yes, challenging. but the premise of your comment is that of course my device's SSID and related location should be collected in someone else's database because a google-funded nonprofit wrote an app for people to go wardriving with. just because SSIDs can be legally observed and collected doesn't mean i have to be happy about it. I wasn't talking about this as a technical problem as much as an ethical/political one for an organization that claims to be committed to my privacy...except when it's not.
    - Touche 12y ago
      Your SSID is being broadcast on public property. You have no claims of privacy there.
      - justcommenting 12y ago
        i never disputed the lawfulness of doing this--in fact i explicitly acknowledged it in my last comment. i'm not making any legal claims to privacy--just pointing out that collecting everything that's lawful to collect runs counter to mozilla's policy stance of being committed to users' privacy.
    - Ygg2 12y ago
      How is this any different than robots.txt? I don't see your point. If you are ignorant enough to not know how to secure against such measly attempts at privacy breach, how will you secure against a more determined hacker? Further more the SSID is publicly broadcast, so that any device you authorized can identify and connect.
      - justcommenting 12y ago
        i didn't say i didn't know how to secure against something like this or that it was not legal. my point was that this approach to data collection, consent, and privacy sharply and directly contradicts claims mozilla makes to users about being committed to their privacy. i think this reflects the opposite. maybe a better analogy would be someone from the ACLU photographing everyone they saw in public: legal and easy to defend against, but hypocritical/not cool in my opinion and it might make me question the organization's priorities.
- paulojreis 12y ago
  > seeing mozilla move in this direction while talking about how much they respect everyone's privacy is a strategic stumble indeed. Yup. I'm as heartbroken as I can be with a company. A "hand-washing" attitude towards privacy from Google, Facebook or a telco is expectable. But from Mozilla? This saddens me, way more than the support of DRM in the web.
  - justcommenting 12y ago
    agree completely--it's one thing to do this sort of thing (it's probably legal, etc.), but to do it while claiming to be fighting for user privacy is really galling to me.
paulojreis 12y ago
Of course I do. Make this "opt-in". Using SSID naming conventions to do this is just dishonest: most of the people who will be scanned won't know what an SSID is. Even if they do, and do have the competence to change it, how many of them will know about this convention? More than this: how many "home network owners" know that their networks are being scanned and georeferenced? This opt-out scheme is ridiculous and plain "hand-washing" - they obviously don't expect people to use it.
- zz1 12y ago
  "Make this "opt-in"" is a statement, not a procedure. How, and why? Would the cons outwheigh the pros?
  - paulojreis 12y ago
    > "Make this "opt-in"" is a statement, not a procedure. How, and why? I don't really care about the procedure; Snailmail, if need be. Convenience is not a valid argument for breaking privacy. > Would the cons outwheigh the pros? The answer to this is dependent on one's stance. As you may imagine, from where I stand, they do (clearly). I can't see any "logistical inconvenience" justify breaking privacy by default.
  - anonymousDan 12y ago
    Why not simply require the SSID to end in _map? If Google think it's so easy for users to do, then surely this shouldn't present a problem?

I guess you have a better suggestion, and am curious to hear about it.

by zz1 12y ago

I guess you have a better suggestion, and am curious to hear about it.

An option during router setup when SSID is named? An organized promotion of this approach, e.g. list of routers that make it simple, list of services that honor it. A cool name other than "Do Not Track".

zz1 12y ago
That would require an action on the router-side, not on the mapping one. I think it could be a good option, but this doesn't apply for this case. Also, what if I agree to put my SSID into an open database but not in a locked one? Apple's and Google's location databases do not compare, for me, to Mozilla's one: I am more than glad to be in the latter, but not to be in the two formers.

justcommenting 12y ago

the obvious option is to request consent instead of violating people's privacy and make a dragnet data collection effort like this opt-in instead of opt-out. but that's clearly not the intention here, because how dare anyone question someone else's motives/objectives/priorities for collecting data about devices they don't own. in fact, we're supposed to think this is the "nice" version because a google-funded nonprofit is doing it instead of google doing it unlawfully with cars or through waze. seeing mozilla move in this direction while talking about how much they respect everyone's privacy is a strategic stumble indeed.

zz1 12y ago
Did you ever count APs during a short walk in a relatively low density neighbourhood? You have hundreds in under 100m. Tell me, how do you plan to ask each and everyone of them? Ring on every doorbell? -Sorry, is FritzBox!239? -No, here is YouMakeTooMuchNoiseWTF -Oh, I see, could you please pass a message to your neighbour? I'd very much appreciate if he could please fill in this form and send it back through paper mail to Mozilla…
- justcommenting 12y ago
  that would be one respectful way to do it, and yes, challenging. but the premise of your comment is that of course my device's SSID and related location should be collected in someone else's database because a google-funded nonprofit wrote an app for people to go wardriving with. just because SSIDs can be legally observed and collected doesn't mean i have to be happy about it. I wasn't talking about this as a technical problem as much as an ethical/political one for an organization that claims to be committed to my privacy...except when it's not.
  - Touche 12y ago
    Your SSID is being broadcast on public property. You have no claims of privacy there.
    - justcommenting 12y ago
      i never disputed the lawfulness of doing this--in fact i explicitly acknowledged it in my last comment. i'm not making any legal claims to privacy--just pointing out that collecting everything that's lawful to collect runs counter to mozilla's policy stance of being committed to users' privacy.
  - Ygg2 12y ago
    How is this any different than robots.txt? I don't see your point. If you are ignorant enough to not know how to secure against such measly attempts at privacy breach, how will you secure against a more determined hacker? Further more the SSID is publicly broadcast, so that any device you authorized can identify and connect.
    - justcommenting 12y ago
      i didn't say i didn't know how to secure against something like this or that it was not legal. my point was that this approach to data collection, consent, and privacy sharply and directly contradicts claims mozilla makes to users about being committed to their privacy. i think this reflects the opposite. maybe a better analogy would be someone from the ACLU photographing everyone they saw in public: legal and easy to defend against, but hypocritical/not cool in my opinion and it might make me question the organization's priorities.
paulojreis 12y ago
> seeing mozilla move in this direction while talking about how much they respect everyone's privacy is a strategic stumble indeed. Yup. I'm as heartbroken as I can be with a company. A "hand-washing" attitude towards privacy from Google, Facebook or a telco is expectable. But from Mozilla? This saddens me, way more than the support of DRM in the web.
- justcommenting 12y ago
  agree completely--it's one thing to do this sort of thing (it's probably legal, etc.), but to do it while claiming to be fighting for user privacy is really galling to me.

paulojreis 12y ago

Of course I do. Make this "opt-in". Using SSID naming conventions to do this is just dishonest: most of the people who will be scanned won't know what an SSID is. Even if they do, and do have the competence to change it, how many of them will know about this convention? More than this: how many "home network owners" know that their networks are being scanned and georeferenced? This opt-out scheme is ridiculous and plain "hand-washing" - they obviously don't expect people to use it.

zz1 12y ago
"Make this "opt-in"" is a statement, not a procedure. How, and why? Would the cons outwheigh the pros?
- paulojreis 12y ago
  > "Make this "opt-in"" is a statement, not a procedure. How, and why? I don't really care about the procedure; Snailmail, if need be. Convenience is not a valid argument for breaking privacy. > Would the cons outwheigh the pros? The answer to this is dependent on one's stance. As you may imagine, from where I stand, they do (clearly). I can't see any "logistical inconvenience" justify breaking privacy by default.
- anonymousDan 12y ago
  Why not simply require the SSID to end in _map? If Google think it's so easy for users to do, then surely this shouldn't present a problem?