Live data from Hacker News

Xfinity using WiFi signals in your house to detect motion

xfinity.com

481–490 of 517 posts

Re: Xfinity using WiFi signals in your house to detect motion

#481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What law would you propose? I think the hard part is "Instagram and TikTok remain free-with-ads."

Good riddance to everything supported by ads. I genuinely wonder if people would wind up spending less money if they had to pay for services than if they get exposed to ads that lead them to buy more things. But either way, once ads and "free with ads" are gone, there's much more room for other competitors.

Okay, you think that, but as we've seen even banning TikTok alone is incredibly controversial and ultimately seems to have failed. Banning Instagram and TikTok doesn't seem politically feasible. So what do you do?

Re: Xfinity using WiFi signals in your house to detect motion

#482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They will classify the data as necessary for business purposes and collect it under a different name. Laws are powerful enough to stop that. > wiretaps I said 99%, not 100%. > any third party in range of the WiFi network can likely do the same thing passively But they won't do it in bulk without a lot of motivation (like profit).

When they are compelled to do it, they will not even know it is happening. Only the people doing it would know. That’s the reality of why it is done now. That there is a market for it should never have been allowed but the capability is necessary to troubleshoot the network. I guess it seems silly to say this is even a legal issue. They shouldn’t do a lot of things, but they are going to be legally compelled to do th…

> When they are compelled to do it, they will not even know it is happening.

That ... might or might not be an issue, but it's not _this_ issue, ie the one we were originally talking about here.

A targeted order to wiretap (or otherwise spy on) a specific person or entity is entirely different from widespread data collection, retention, and sale for whatever corporate purpose. With widespread collection the data is then sitting there in a data lake waiting to be subpoenaed by law enforcement at their leisure for any arbitrary reason they happen to think up potentially years in the future.

> they are going to be legally compelled to do them, so the network structure’s form follows that function

You can't be compelled to hand over that which you do not have. Neither can you be compelled to modify your product in a particular manner absent market wide legislation; see FBI v Apple if you doubt that.

Re: Xfinity using WiFi signals in your house to detect motion

#483
post #461
post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read: https://gdpr.eu/cookies/ …after you dismiss the cookie banner, of course. I add this not only as a quip but to highlight that even a gdpr explainer website which you’d expect isn’t doing the evil thing of tracking users, has interpreted the relevant laws such that it finds it necessary to promt the user in order to simply explain the gdpr and epd/epr…

The way I read this proves you wrong: > Cookie compliance [heading] > To comply with the regulations governing cookies under the GDPR and the ePrivacy Directive you must: > Receive users’ consent before you use any cookies except strictly necessary cookies. (emphasis not mine, but would have added it)

A language preference cookie is colloquially considered a preferences cookie, which is included in the except strictly necessary cookies.

Re: Xfinity using WiFi signals in your house to detect motion

#484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When they are compelled to do it, they will not even know it is happening. Only the people doing it would know. That’s the reality of why it is done now. That there is a market for it should never have been allowed but the capability is necessary to troubleshoot the network. I guess it seems silly to say this is even a legal issue. They shouldn’t do a lot of things, but they are going to be legally compelled to do th…

> When they are compelled to do it, they will not even know it is happening. That ... might or might not be an issue, but it's not _this_ issue, ie the one we were originally talking about here. A targeted order to wiretap (or otherwise spy on) a specific person or entity is entirely different from widespread data collection, retention, and sale for whatever corporate purpose. With widespread collection the data is t…

> A targeted order to wiretap (or otherwise spy on) a specific person or entity is entirely different from widespread data collection, retention, and sale for whatever corporate purpose. With widespread collection the data is then sitting there in a data lake waiting to be subpoenaed by law enforcement at their leisure for any arbitrary reason they happen to think up potentially years in the future.

I do see what you mean, but they are differences of degree, not kind. It could be considered a best practice to minimize PII etc, but even other groups don’t do any better. Signal still uses phone numbers.

> > they are going to be legally compelled to do them, so the network structure’s form follows that function

> You can't be compelled to hand over that which you do not have. Neither can you be compelled to modify your product in a particular manner absent market wide legislation; see FBI v Apple if you doubt that.

I agree. However, Apple is also confident enough in their legal team, reasoning, funding, and likely legal outcomes that they will flout NSLs in America, and yet they will cave to UK in that they disabled Apple’s Advanced Data Protection (in UK) which means that iCloud files aren’t really E2EE if the government can just say that you can’t do that anymore. Not your keys, not your files and the security and privacy of said effects thereof.

Re: Xfinity using WiFi signals in your house to detect motion

#485
post #236
post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disconnect and ground the antenna and supply your own equipment?

I thought we were talking about a solution that the tech industry could implement and deploy en masse to users, because it’s just, like TLS and browser standards. That’s usually what is being discussed when these give everyone privacy topics come up. The people that care enough to ground their antenna are already using their own hardware. And the ISP will deter hardware modification by charging you for damaged leased…

>Do people pay for tinfoil hats these days?

Only with cash.

Re: Xfinity using WiFi signals in your house to detect motion

#486
post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but you can replace that with your own unit they don't have control over.

…and most people don’t. it’s an additional expense, additional work, and frankly not worth the headache for like 80%+ of users. I used to work in this space, and have first-hand knowledge about the prevalence of third party modems with a sample set of over 100k people. What’s your experience?

Nobody is arguing against that. I fully agree that most people don't. The point was only that you can.

Re: Xfinity using WiFi signals in your house to detect motion

#487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> do their job of representing the people rather than a handful of corporations There is no incentive to represent the civically disengaged. Particularly on niche issues like privacy. > We have no people with any moral compass in charge No system works if reliant on wishing up on a star that people were better. We have a lot of problems with our republic's design. None of them can address problems people don't care t…

> There is no incentive to represent the civically disengaged You're repeatedly misrepresenting or misunderstanding the issue. The tl'dr is that Bezos' civic engagement weighs more than my civic engagement, more than a million of me even. This is one easy way to take the casual and overly general "you're civically disengaged" victim blaming off the table. Your elected representatives already know your interests, they…

From The Onion, but I'm starting to wonder if this is feasible:

https://theonion.com/american-people-hire-high-powered-lobby...

Re: Xfinity using WiFi signals in your house to detect motion

#488
post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The law requires consent before using a cookie to store even a mundane option that was just directly modified by a user Nope. That's exactly why the evil cookie modals are not on the GDPR but only on the sites that want to track you and now need to ask you for your consent before doing so. That's usually exactly where good faith GDPR detractors are wrong, and that's what needs to be repeated again and again in thos…

You're correct that the GDPR specifically doesn't require this, but you're incorrect that "the law" doesn't—the 2004 EU ePrivacy Directive requires affirmative consent for all cookies, and it's being enforced much more strictly now in a post-GDPR world

I answered that at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44426726#44434685

Re: Xfinity using WiFi signals in your house to detect motion

#489
post #483
post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way I read this proves you wrong: > Cookie compliance [heading] > To comply with the regulations governing cookies under the GDPR and the ePrivacy Directive you must: > Receive users’ consent before you use any cookies except strictly necessary cookies. (emphasis not mine, but would have added it)

A language preference cookie is colloquially considered a preferences cookie, which is included in the except strictly necessary cookies.

I'm not sure what you mean but our ancestor comment describes this clearly.

A language preference cookie is not tracking.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44426726#44431268

Re: Xfinity using WiFi signals in your house to detect motion

#490
post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The law requires consent before using a cookie to store even a mundane option that was just directly modified by a user. If your are referring to GDPR this is wrong. GDPR does not require consent for strictly necessary cookies. >Strictly necessary cookies — These cookies are essential for you to browse the website and use its features, such as accessing secure areas of the site. Cookies that allow web shops to hold…

No I am referring to the EPD as I state in my comment, an acronym you should know since it’s defined in the explainer you link. As someone who has experience in this area, it’s not as simple as “just use the Accept-Language header it will be fine”. In any event, that’s besides then point. There are non-tracking cookies that get swept up in the EPD’s consent requirements. This causes way more popups than needed to add…

> There are non-tracking cookies that get swept up in the EPD’s consent requirements

Still not sure where you and nightpool got this.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44426726#44434685

Post reply on HN