Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Density.io

density.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 189 posts

Re: Density.io

#121

Post by tracker1 »

shiftpgdn wrote: post #78
chrisfarms wrote: post #5

Risky. MAC address tracking is definitely a legal 'grey area' at the moment. I can imagine mining/fingerprinting in this way could easily become illegal in the not-to-distant future. In the UK, City of London already banned the wifi-enabled bins that were tracking MAC addresses. It would be really easy to tie a name to MAC address (from point of purchase with a credit card), then see exactly where that person went vi…

City of Houston does MAC address tracking on the freeways and surface streets to power their traffic tracking measures. It's probably used in hundreds of other places you haven't thought about. If you're concerned about your privacy just turn wifi off. http://traffic.houstontranstar.org/layers/

Does this still work when you disable wifi on your phone?

Re: Density.io

#123

Post by joeshaw »

Karunamon wrote: post #110
parennoob wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're concerned about your privacy just turn wifi off. No, you shouldn't have to turn off a very commonly used service so that people can do better business by tracking it in an intrusive manner. Privacy should be the default option in such programs. If the city used a ton of cameras + facial recognition to track you and your car everywhere and then sold that data to companies so they could optimize for whateve…

Devil's advocate mode: What privacy is that? Your device is broadcasting information, in the clear, to anyone who cares to receive that information. You've taken no steps to prevent anyone from receiving that information. Your device is doing the equivalent of standing on the street corner and screaming various things. You can't rightly tell someone not to listen or write down what's being said. I don't see how this…

> Your device is doing the equivalent of standing on the street corner and screaming various things.

Except there's one huge difference: anyone with eyes and ears can understand what the person is screaming. I would wager that even fewer than half of HN readers realize what's being broadcasted here.

What you're saying is that every human must have complete technological and implementation knowledge of any possible invention or they are not deserving of privacy. That position is not only elitist as a technophile, it's arrogant to think that any one person could possess that knowledge, let alone billions. At some point, you'll be the clueless one.

Re: Density.io

#126

Post by reddit_clone »

shiftpgdn wrote: post #99
parennoob wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're concerned about your privacy just turn wifi off. No, you shouldn't have to turn off a very commonly used service so that people can do better business by tracking it in an intrusive manner. Privacy should be the default option in such programs. If the city used a ton of cameras + facial recognition to track you and your car everywhere and then sold that data to companies so they could optimize for whateve…

It's trivial to turn off the wireless on your phone. If you want privacy in this day and age it's not going to be convenient. The difference is I can't turn off my face.

I blame the WiFi protocol. Since the routers are already broadcasting their SSID why are devices themselves broadcasting sensitive information back to them before the user has shown any interest in any particular hotspot?

This over sharing should be addressed at protocol level.

Re: Density.io

#127

Post by mixedbit »

MPetitt wrote: post #112
albertsun wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no point in trying to assess any privacy claims they make — it's not a technological thing. The only value they offer is violating people's privacy.

> The only value they offer is violating people's privacy. I don't think reading a value being freely broadcast by a person in your building is an invasion of privacy, how is this any different from having security cameras with audio or anything else. Saying you have privacy to something you are broadcasting in public, even more specifically in this case a privately owned building is a little daft. Do you think it's…

If I enter Starbucks I indeed expect that everyone around knows about it. I don't expect that some system will store this information and will be able to associate it with my other activities.

Re: Density.io

#128

Post by reddit_clone »

adamio wrote: post #104
droob wrote: post #45

Don't surveil your customers. It's creepy.

Most businesses have video cameras

Well at least the cameras have stated purpose of preventing theft and possibly solving crimes.

Also Cameras are fairly visible.

This tech is stealthy and most people won't have any idea that this is actually happening.

Re: Density.io

#130

Post by reddit_clone »

pfraze wrote: post #31

Great execution, completely unethical

Looks like I need to turn off WiFi (or Airplane Mode) when I leave home.

People need to know about this and it should be an opt in!

This is why we can't have nice things.

Post reply on HN