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

Google Maps now requires WiFi scanning to use navigation

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 447 posts

Re: Google Maps now requires WiFi scanning to use navigation

#41

Post by SllX »

notacoward wrote: post #36
mcast wrote: post #19

Maybe someone should build a portable (FCC compliant?) device to put in your car that spoofs and rotates a bunch of 2.4/5Ghz SSIDs periodically to "trick" apps that mine wifi data with GPS location. Bonus points for bogus names like "Starbucks Wifi" or "McDonalds Free Wifi" in the middle of the highway. Even easier, just reverse engineer the API and send the SSIDs yourself.

> Bonus points for bogus names like "Starbucks Wifi" or "McDonalds Free Wifi" in the middle of the highway. I find no joy in saying it, but I bet that would get you some unwelcome attention - trademark infringement, defamation, tortious interference - from one of those companies. :(

Out of curiosity, has anyone ever been sued over their SSID?

Re: Google Maps now requires WiFi scanning to use navigation

#42

Post by jtbayly »

Schiendelman wrote: post #15
bkovacev wrote: post #3

What are some reliable alternatives for both iOS and Android? I'm unsure how are Apple Maps, but they were hideous a while back for Eastern Europe at least.

There are still places in the world where Apple Maps isn't great, but for 90% of people they're now as good for navigation, if not better (since they've built a data gathering operation). Last year I used Apple Maps for a 34,000 mile road trip. No significant issues.

Woah. That’s quite the road trip! What was it?

Re: Google Maps now requires WiFi scanning to use navigation

#43

Post by notacoward »

SllX wrote: post #41
notacoward wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bonus points for bogus names like "Starbucks Wifi" or "McDonalds Free Wifi" in the middle of the highway. I find no joy in saying it, but I bet that would get you some unwelcome attention - trademark infringement, defamation, tortious interference - from one of those companies. :(

Out of curiosity, has anyone ever been sued over their SSID?

Good question. I'd be surprised if those companies would go after an individual over an "infringing" SSID, but if you sold a product using them that would be a different matter. An open-source project would probably fall somewhere in between.

Re: Google Maps now requires WiFi scanning to use navigation

#44

Post by jevoten »

buran77 wrote: post #33
onion2k wrote: post #20

Hanlon's Razor ("Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.") may well apply here. It could just be a bug.

Google has been explicitly conditioning access to some features on users agreeing to share data [0]. This is perfectly in line with that strategy. Bugs which happen to work out that way aren't bugs. [0] https://bgr.com/tech/google-maps-forces-you-to-share-locatio...

That article reads like a corporate press release, and is full of misleading statements and outright lies, from the very first sentence:

If you use Google Maps to get around, you probably know that Google has to access your location information. That’s the only way that it can offer turn-by-turn navigation and direction features.

Plenty of map apps can calculate a route offline and offer navigation, without any data leaving the device. But Google and other companies want to keep people ignorant of how much can be done offline, so they have an excuse to spy on us.

Re: Google Maps now requires WiFi scanning to use navigation

#48

Post by pzumk »

Trias11 wrote: post #23
nvr219 wrote: post #21

I've been using Waze this whole time

Waze is owned by google.

I always liked Waze but I don't like Google. I've been blocking as many Google domains as possible but still kept some unblocked just to use Waze (and YouTube). Google changed something, Waze stopped working, I switched to Apple Maps. No regrets.

Re: Google Maps now requires WiFi scanning to use navigation

#49

Post by can16358p »

notacoward wrote: post #36
mcast wrote: post #19

Maybe someone should build a portable (FCC compliant?) device to put in your car that spoofs and rotates a bunch of 2.4/5Ghz SSIDs periodically to "trick" apps that mine wifi data with GPS location. Bonus points for bogus names like "Starbucks Wifi" or "McDonalds Free Wifi" in the middle of the highway. Even easier, just reverse engineer the API and send the SSIDs yourself.

> Bonus points for bogus names like "Starbucks Wifi" or "McDonalds Free Wifi" in the middle of the highway. I find no joy in saying it, but I bet that would get you some unwelcome attention - trademark infringement, defamation, tortious interference - from one of those companies. :(

Is there a law regarding which names you can't use for hotspots/APs?

Even if there is, I doubt anyone will go after that unless the "attacker" involves some serious crime with that combined.

Attacking innocent people with rogue SSIDs would be definitely wrong, but if done only to trick Google it would be a fun experiment - and they deserve it (maybe not for this particular change but as a company in general).

Re: Google Maps now requires WiFi scanning to use navigation

#50

Post by notacoward »

can16358p wrote: post #49
notacoward wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bonus points for bogus names like "Starbucks Wifi" or "McDonalds Free Wifi" in the middle of the highway. I find no joy in saying it, but I bet that would get you some unwelcome attention - trademark infringement, defamation, tortious interference - from one of those companies. :(

Is there a law regarding which names you can't use for hotspots/APs? Even if there is, I doubt anyone will go after that unless the "attacker" involves some serious crime with that combined. Attacking innocent people with rogue SSIDs would be definitely wrong, but if done only to trick Google it would be a fun experiment - and they deserve it (maybe not for this particular change but as a company in general).

It doesn't have to be a case they can win to be extremely troublesome for you (though they probably could win if their trademark is embedded in your code). Unless you can afford to make your own lawyers rich, it's a bit unwise to go "I dare you" to large US companies. Better to ship something less incriminating, and leave the spicier suggestions for anonymous comments on web forums.
Post reply on HN