Live data from Hacker News

How does Google know where I am?

security.stackexchange.com

141–150 of 158 posts

Re: How does Google know where I am?

#141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I down voted and left a comment. Appealing to child stalking as a way to emotionally charge your argument about radio reception is a disingenuous tactic for this conversation. What's more, people who actually work to promote and secure a safer environment for kids don't need people like you constantly exacerbating parental paranoia with a constant back chatter stranger danger. Please refrain from emotionally manipula…

Then assume I'm talking about taking a picture of every living room through the window whenever no one is there. Or anything else that's that personal. The point isn't about what is collected, but that this type of broad data collection exists in the first place. Let's recap: not eventhe government can do video surveillance of public places, streetview became opt in, the phone book is opt in. But Google collects SSID…

> Then assume I'm talking about taking a picture of every living room through the window whenever no one is there.

No. That's not my job to arbitrarily re-interpret what you said to give you a free pass for your disingenuous rhetoric.

> Let's recap: not eventhe government can do video surveillance of public places, streetview became opt in, the phone book is opt in.

The government CAN do video surveillance though. Both our governments do it. What varies is how its deployed and who has access.

> Collecting only the router mac or BSSID might possibly be justifiable, because it's just a map of technical data, but collecting a string where people but creative works in, or names, or jokes?

Look, responsibility has to be exercised in all forms of data collection. But it's also the case that the light that shines out of your house is subject to public interpretation. Standing nude in your window facing a crowded street CAN be illegal in both our countries, as could placing a sign that says threatening things to passerbys. The trigger conditions for this vary between our countries, but they exist in both cases.

> Collecting such PII can be problematic.

COLLECTING PII is seldom the problem. Storing it or promptly and thoroughly deleting it is the challenge. You might argue that you shouldn't have collected it in the first place, and maybe that's true. But given the modern world where we have a rapidly expanding frontier of data analytics, it's actually difficult for real (re: not rhetorical trashbag arguments on HackerNews) people. Often times it's not obvious what PII is until later.

For example, there are people who claim that transactional data can be "anonymized". Do not believe these people; it is nearly impossible to anonymize transactional data. Even mixing users and attempting to delocalize vendor strings will not fix the problems.

Re: How does Google know where I am?

#143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you just see the word "rape" and downvote blindly?

I read the whole thing, understood it, dismissed it. Vague or explicit allusions to sexual violence are about as funny/helpful/fair/meaningful/good/logical/whatever as vague allusions to racial violence. So yeah, free downvote for mentioning it outside of a discussion that actually includes it meaningfully.

That's a shame. Extreme/hyperbolic examples have an important place in discourse. They force you to consider your ideas to their logical ends. In this case it illustrated that a line needs to be drawn somewhere by giving an example of something we all agree is reprehensible.

As far as I can tell, though, you're opposed to mentioning racial and sexual violence at all in conversation. What is the point of that kind of self-censorship? Rape will continue to be rape even if you never read or say that word again.

Re: How does Google know where I am?

#144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read the whole thing, understood it, dismissed it. Vague or explicit allusions to sexual violence are about as funny/helpful/fair/meaningful/good/logical/whatever as vague allusions to racial violence. So yeah, free downvote for mentioning it outside of a discussion that actually includes it meaningfully.

That's a shame. Extreme/hyperbolic examples have an important place in discourse. They force you to consider your ideas to their logical ends. In this case it illustrated that a line needs to be drawn somewhere by giving an example of something we all agree is reprehensible. As far as I can tell, though, you're opposed to mentioning racial and sexual violence at all in conversation. What is the point of that kind of…

You seem to think that maintaining a polite level in discourse amounts to be censorship.

Curiously, we never feel the need to make these hyperbolic examples in the highest levels of discourse (be they academic or political), and yet somehow feel incredibly strongly about allowing them on internet sites.

Attempting to evoke violence, sexual assault and child abuse in discourse about something as abstract as the proper rules for radio light interpretation is not a positive addition.

We have plenty of opportunities to actually discuss said topics and no dearth of extreme metaphors to reach for to extend arguments to the absurd. We need not pretend this speech is vital for this community. Eroding the bulwark that protects this low and lazy standard as discourse is a net good for the community.

Perhaps maybe the author should have compared the practice to how Germans correlate re-naturalozed jewish citizens with health care use and reporting them for it, a quiet but severe controversy for that country.

Re: How does Google know where I am?

#145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the phone books have been opt-in for decades Where I live, it used to cost extra to have an unlisted number (it might still, don't know). "Enslave and rape"? You are quite the master of hyperbole, aren't you? Your point might be better made if you dialed back the emotional rhetoric a bit.

I used the hyperbole tomake specifically clear I don't want to appeal to any "protect X group" or similar rhetoric — I literally wouldn't care if the US was wiped out if it was democratically legitimated — but I do care about Google following those democratically legitimated laws wherever they operate, and that means not collecting SSIDs where I live. BSSIDs might possibly be legal to collect, but SSIDs definitely no…

What is the standard for "democratically legitimated"?

Like what if there is some group that is a substantial portion of a population and they decide to force their will on a smaller portion of the population. Say it gets severe. Does their larger number legitimize their actions?

Or does it mean something else?

Re: How does Google know where I am?

#146
post #86

Wifi mapping is the method by which google has no idea where I am. My roommate moved across the country and moved in with me, and android thinks I'm at his old house whenever I connect to his wifi router, even with GPS enabled, and even having installed OpenWRT and changed the ssid of the router. It's pretty maddening.

You can switch your phone to "Device Only", to use only the actual GPS chip.

I have apps that ask to switch it back. They won't run without crap positioning.

Re: How does Google know where I am?

#147
post #104
post #86

Wifi mapping is the method by which google has no idea where I am. My roommate moved across the country and moved in with me, and android thinks I'm at his old house whenever I connect to his wifi router, even with GPS enabled, and even having installed OpenWRT and changed the ssid of the router. It's pretty maddening.

It's because Google and other mapping companies use the BSSID (MAC) which doesn't change if you just change the SSID.

Of course. I just wanted to point out that I changed everything that could be changed apart from buying a new router. I am at Google's mercy, they created the problem and only they can fix it.

Re: How does Google know where I am?

#148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used the hyperbole tomake specifically clear I don't want to appeal to any "protect X group" or similar rhetoric — I literally wouldn't care if the US was wiped out if it was democratically legitimated — but I do care about Google following those democratically legitimated laws wherever they operate, and that means not collecting SSIDs where I live. BSSIDs might possibly be legal to collect, but SSIDs definitely no…

What is the standard for "democratically legitimated"? Like what if there is some group that is a substantial portion of a population and they decide to force their will on a smaller portion of the population. Say it gets severe. Does their larger number legitimize their actions? Or does it mean something else?

Democratically legitimated means there is a consensus within of the majority of society, yes.

Society can not cater to every minority, but has to hear them at least out, if they can present a logical argument for their position, and consider that. (See also: Petition laws, Election laws)

Re: How does Google know where I am?

#149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then assume I'm talking about taking a picture of every living room through the window whenever no one is there. Or anything else that's that personal. The point isn't about what is collected, but that this type of broad data collection exists in the first place. Let's recap: not eventhe government can do video surveillance of public places, streetview became opt in, the phone book is opt in. But Google collects SSID…

> Then assume I'm talking about taking a picture of every living room through the window whenever no one is there. No. That's not my job to arbitrarily re-interpret what you said to give you a free pass for your disingenuous rhetoric. > Let's recap: not eventhe government can do video surveillance of public places, streetview became opt in, the phone book is opt in. The government CAN do video surveillance though. Bo…

> The government CAN do video surveillance though. Both our governments do it. What varies is how its deployed and who has access.

But they literally can not at any point ever do it. Video surveillance of public space is a crime, even for the police, government, or security agencies, and it does not happen.

> COLLECTING PII is seldom the problem. Storing it or promptly and thoroughly deleting it is the challenge. You might argue that you shouldn't have collected it in the first place, and maybe that's true. But given the modern world where we have a rapidly expanding frontier of data analytics, it's actually difficult for real (re: not rhetorical trashbag arguments on HackerNews) people. Often times it's not obvious what PII is until later.

The law literally makes that a crime. You have to stop collection of PII, not just delete it at any later point.

Re: How does Google know where I am?

#150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Others have explained it, but I downvoted without comment because, to paraphrase Jules in Pulp Fiction: "that's not only not in the same ballpark, it's not even the same fuckin' sport." I wouldn't know how to comment beyond that. (That, and your "think of the children" didn't help.)

Then assume I'm talking about photographing every building and putting a list of that online. Also illegal. Or putting video surveillance up in public spaces. Also illegal, even for the government. Or whatever. Collect the router mac and BSSID? Possibly justifiable. That's like making a map where phone numbers are, physically. But collecting the SSID? Looking at the wifi list, I see "Meier family WiFi" and "Meier WiF…

> Then assume I'm talking about photographing every building and putting a list of that online. Also illegal.

How is that illegal? That's called a map.

Post reply on HN