4 ms·
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
by 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 agoWhy 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?