XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, alt.comp.os.windows-10, comp.mobile.android   
   From: robin_listas@es.invalid   
      
   On 2025-12-10 09:07, Chris wrote:   
   > Carlos E.R.  wrote:   
   >> On 2025-12-08 08:54, Chris wrote:   
   >>> Marian  wrote:   
   >>>> Chris wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> They also report that 0.06% of all APs moved month to month. That's a   
   >>>>> really poor hit rate for "tracking" people.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Any imaginative person can think of many instances where having a database   
   >>>> of all the people who moved and exact where from and to, is useful.   
   >>>   
   >>> Not people. WAPs.   
   >>>   
   >>>> Let's just say California wanted to find all the people who moved from   
   >>>> California to Florida who retired to ask them to pay their 401K taxes.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It would be trivial, using Apple's WPS system, to find everyone in any   
   >>>> given county in Florida who recently moved there from California.   
   >>>   
   >>> Go on then. If it's so trivial, why don't you do it?   
   >>>   
   >>> Show us with step by step instructions how many *people* - as you claim -   
   >>> moved to FL from CA in the last six months.   
   >>>   
   >>> You have a week. If you can't then I call bullshit.   
   >>>   
   >>> I know what will happen, however. You won't even try. You will cry, shout   
   >>> and stomp your feet blaming everyone else apart from yourself. Just like a   
   >>> big baby.   
   >>>   
   >>> You'll not hear from me until next week so as to not direct you from this   
   >>> important privacy risk study.   
   >>   
   >> His point is correct, though. An interested party could dig out this   
   >> information, even if Arlen doesn't come out with code to do it.   
   >   
   > I disagree. Just because a router moves doesn't mean a particular person   
   > has moved . Or vice versa.   
      
   This is also true.   
      
   > Trying to infer this kind of information is also not as trivial as Donald   
   > claims.   
   >   
   > In addition, in the above scenario, the tax authorities would have far   
   > better information at their disposal on actual people rather than some   
   > vague technical proxy. A MAC is not a person. Not yet at least ;)   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   Cheers, Carlos.   
   ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)