221–230 of 264 posts
Also, does this apply to the other ID being broadcast, the Bluetooth MAC?
If this becomes the trend (which in my opinon would be nice) it will become a big problem for companies that specialise in customer tracking e.g. for supermarkets and big department stores. Previously it was quite easy to track a customer, how long he or she spends time in the store, which floors he or she visits, etc. by putting up dummy WiFI-networks that the customers phones find by giving out their MAC-addresses.
"We'd like to learn a little about your shopping habits, and that includes sending anonymized data about your time in our store. In exchange for this, we'd love to offer you 25% off this purchase and 10% off all future purchases".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your assumption is incorrect - Probe requests do not contain the MAC of the AP, only the SSID. Wifi clients usually only save the name and security type/PSK of previously joined networks. In many situations, the same SSID is broadcast by multiple different APs with different MAC addresses in the same area so it wouldn't make sense to remember a specific SSID/MAC pair. If the same client (iPhone) probes for a list of…
each individual probe request will be coming from a randomized MAC, so there shouldn't be any "list" of SSIDs to compare.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your assumption is incorrect - Probe requests do not contain the MAC of the AP, only the SSID. Wifi clients usually only save the name and security type/PSK of previously joined networks. In many situations, the same SSID is broadcast by multiple different APs with different MAC addresses in the same area so it wouldn't make sense to remember a specific SSID/MAC pair. If the same client (iPhone) probes for a list of…
unless Apple also decided to stop sending out the SSID list..
I think this is a feature for stores implementing WiFi tracking systems, not a hindrance. If I own a store, I really want to understand traffic patterns. If I can do that without causing a privacy shitstorm, I think that's a benefit.
You can't understand patterns from random data. Am I missing something you're seeing?
We learned during the prosecution of Swartz that MAC addresses are the analog of VIN number numbers, and that tampering with them is a sign of ill intent. I await the federal case against Apple or an Apple customer with bated breath.
I think this is a feature for stores implementing WiFi tracking systems, not a hindrance. If I own a store, I really want to understand traffic patterns. If I can do that without causing a privacy shitstorm, I think that's a benefit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks, everyone, for reminding me why I stopped reading and commenting on Apple-related threads on HN. 27+ downvotes later, I still haven't changed my mind, but if you wish to try, logic works better than weak justifications for exploitative, sociopathic corporate behavior and targeted downvoting.
I don't think your downvotes relate to criticising Apple per se; they're due to a poor argument style. I am no great fan of Apple, but hurling vague accusations and FUD, then shifting the goalposts when anyone tries to refute you, adds little to the conversation besides noise. > I still haven't changed my mind Well you should have. You've been thoroughly shot down. The fact you don't accept that says more about you t…
------
I'll admit I haven't invested my best efforts into my comments on this thread, but where other than an Apple thread would every single comment by one person be downvoted beyond -4? It's not worth the effort if one knows one's comments will be grayed out anyway.
Even mpyne's much more thorough comment was downvoted, so it's clear that the downvotes aren't strictly targeting poor argumentation. Furthermore, if that were the case, there's no reason to target every single comment by a person equally, as inevitably some of them must be better argued than others.
------
I never shifted any goalposts. All I said was that it's difficult to reconcile user IBM's claim that Apple wants to be the "privacy" company with their actual behavior, then provided clarifications when prompted.
------
Where? I see lots of disagreement, but no disproof. Show me the counterargument of the form, "Apple can be trusted despite these events because...".
It's easy to shoot somebody down. Just yell louder. What I've yet to see is a solid refutation to any of the things I said. A downvote is argumentatively equivalent to yelling, "Shut up!" So let's see how many "Shut ups" there are, and how many refutations.
It takes 5 counted downvotes to bring a comment from +1 to -4, where all of my other comments currently lie (I don't know how the HN anti-voting-ring algo turns clicks into actual downvotes, so there may be even more). However, beyond -4 points the comments can still get lighter. I'll assume that #aeaeae is the original -4 comment, since it's the darkest of my comments on this thread. I also have comments at #bebebe, #cecece and #dddddd. So I'll count #ae as 5, #be as 6, #ce as 7, and #dd as 8 or more.
Original comment - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7865747 - #dddddd - 8+
Location history - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7865843 - #bebebe - 6
[Tracking] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7866011 - #dddddd - 8+
[Logging] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7866147 - #dddddd - 8+
Physical access - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7866013 - #dddddd - 8+
Cloud sync - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7866132 - #cecece - 7
Good citizen - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7865835 - #dddddd - 8+
Worthy of trust - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7865835 - #cecece - 7
Thanks, everyone - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7866375 - #aeaeae - 5
------
Total: 65+ downvotes
Still don't know - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7865810
This again? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7865877
Tracking semantics - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7866094
User's devices - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7865867
Do you have proof - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7866098
Orthogonal - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7865778
Big corps not good - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7865871
------
Total: 7 comments (4 one-liners)
So again, where's the refutation? MAC address randomization is awesome, but why can I trust Apple to take the position of the "privacy" company?