From: mariond@facts.com   
      
   Chris wrote:   
   >> 1. University of Maryland researchers (Erik Rye and Dave Levin)   
   >> demonstrated that Apple's API could be queried at scale to harvest hundreds   
   >> of millions of BSSID-GPS pairs worldwide.   
   >   
   > And? This doesn't equate to "tracking". Again, you're full of shit.   
      
   What's FACT Chris, is researchers showed it was easy for them to gather   
   millions of BSSID:GPS pairs, which is millions of homes, which, by name,   
   can be found by simple public address lookups. That's simply fact.   
      
   If you have a hotspot on your phone, or if you MOVE your router to a new   
   location, then you can easily be tracked from anywhere in the world.   
      
   That's a fact too, but we don't know the latency of how often Google   
   updates the database by removing stale routers & hotspots. A lot probably   
   depends on how many rude people walk by your home every day (since Google's   
   and Apple's databases are populated almost exclusively by rude people).   
      
   >> 2. They proved that even without special privileges, a developer could   
   >> collect a near-global snapshot of Wi-Fi access point locations in days.   
   >   
   > Yawn. How often is this snapshot updated?   
      
   Google & Apple do not publish, as far as I know, how often they publish a   
   database, but I remember from long ago when I researched the "_nomap", that   
   it was days at least, not hours or minutes.   
      
   So, for example, it's not tracking by the second, but tracking of movement   
   by days (such as if you take your phone hotspot with you on vacation).   
      
   I used to bring my router with me when visiting hotels in the olden days   
   when I was working, and when they charged exorbitant prices for the hotel   
   connections which were tied to your MAC address for example.   
      
   If I stayed a few days, I could be tracked. But not if it was only 1 day.   
      
   >> 3. Because BSSIDs are unique and often tied to households, this enables   
   >> deanonymization by linking a router to a specific address, and potentially   
   >> to the owner via public property records.   
   >   
   > Knowing where someone's house is is not sensitive information. By   
   > definition of the law.   
      
   It's more sinister than that if (and the "IF" is a big if), if you have   
   bluetooth devices and if you have items that move around with you.   
      
   If you have bluetooth devices in the database, and if they move around with   
   you, they "might" be traceable, but the researchers, as far as I recall,   
   didn't check that. They only checked Wi-Fi access points (as I recall).   
      
   Also, we have to consider the potential for "sensitive" belongings, such as   
   XBoxes or smart TV's (or even alarm systems) which might have persistent   
   MAC addresses or other identifiers that can be linked across locations.   
      
   That's where the real privacy risk emerges... not just from knowing where   
   someone lives, but from being able to correlate their movements, devices,   
   and behaviors over time.   
      
   Devices like smart TVs, gaming consoles, alarm systems, and even medical   
   equipment may have   
    a. Persistent identifiers   
    b. Known manufacturer signatures   
    c. Usage patterns that reveal personal habits or vulnerabilities.   
      
   >> a. Global harvesting is possible: The University of Maryland team showed   
   >> Apple's API could be queried at scale to collect BSSID-GPS pairs worldwide.   
   >   
   > So what? Google maps is even more disclosive. About 10 years ago you could   
   > see me in my garden laying a new lawn. Plus you could see what car we   
   > drove.   
   >   
   > I bet you're scared of your own shadow as well.   
      
   I find it interesting that your claim that the mere fact I am intelligent   
   enough to understand what is being tracked, means "I'm scared of my   
   shadow".   
      
   Your equating of intelligence & knowledge with "fear" is rather telling.   
      
   I could point out that a baby sitting in the road ignorant of the traffic   
   is how you're acting, Chris.   
      
   So please stop equating the intelligent search for knowledge with abject   
   fear. They're completely different things, Chris.   
      
   You ridicule knowledge.   
   And equate knowledge to fear.   
      
   Stop that.   
   It's absurd.   
      
   >> b. Deanonymization risk: Because BSSIDs are unique and tied to households,   
   >> they can be linked to addresses and owners via public records.   
   >   
   > Remember phonebooks? Everyone's name and address was available to everyone.   
   > Electoral registers are also public information.   
      
   Need I repeat that connected devices like smart TVs, gaming consoles, alarm   
   systems, and even medical equipment may have...   
    a. Persistent identifiers   
    b. Known manufacturer signatures   
    c. Usage patterns that reveal personal habits or vulnerabilities.   
      
   You've already said that anyone who is intelligent and knowledgeable means   
   they're afraid of their own shadow, so how can you understand this concept?   
      
   Why is it that your strange brain equates knowledge, only with fear?   
      
   >> c. Potential for surveillance: If a router or hotspot moves, its new   
   >> location can be inferred from the database.   
   >   
   > On any given day that does not affect 99.9999999% (approx) of people.   
      
   People who are intelligent search for knowledge, Chris.   
   I get it that you equate that search for knowledge with fear.   
      
   But just stop it with equating intelligence with fear.   
   That's absurd.   
      
   >> It's even worse for people who carry around a mobile router or hotspot.   
   >   
   > OH MY GOD THE WORLD IS GOING TO END.   
   >   
   > In other news, cat goes missing...   
      
   Stop equating knowledge with fear.   
   You act like you own the brain of a dog.   
      
   Stop it.   
   The search for knowledge does not equate to being afraid of your shadow.   
      
   You are nothing like me Chris.   
   Stop thinking that I'm anything like you.   
      
   I'm intelligent.   
   I search for answers.   
      
   You ridicule knowledge.   
   And equate knowledge to fear.   
      
   Which is absurd.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)