Append "_nomap" to your AP's SSID to opt out of Google Location Services (2011)
googleblog.blogspot.com
googleblog.blogspot.com
Posted: Monday, November 14, 2011It appears "rename and opt-out" is the latest model. I'm guessing even fewer lay users will take this step.
Technically this allows Google to claim it gives people an easy way to opt out, but in practice nothing much is likely to change as those who were worried about privacy were probably not broadcasting their SSID publicly to begin with.
They are mapping public WiFi APs, public data, it's well within their right and that of other to do so. Offering an opt-out is just going over and beyond to appease the stubbornly misinformed.
And since when is publicly broadcast SSIDs are anyone's private data?
It's very unfortunate that zealots and hateful people are increasingly finding a home on HN.
"Intended" is a description of your subjective mental state, not an objective quality of the broadcast.
> Are cordless phone transmissions publicly broadcast? Baby monitors? Burglar alarms? Home automation devices? Bluetooth headsets?
If they aren't encrypted, yes.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/may/15/google-adm...
http://searchengineland.com/its-official-google-settles-wisp...
When you put up a wireless network in your apartment, your intention to make it public is a lot less clear. You are putting it in public, so the argument for opt-out is at least coherent. But I don't buy it because it's clearly not most peoples' intention.
Though it seems unintuitive Not broadcasting your SSID is actually less secure than broadcasting it.
Those truly worried about privacy never use wireless transmission directly, instead using a VPN (only allowing the VPN wrapped traffic go out over the air) and set their own APs to block any traffic that isn't to/from the VPN end-point(s).
What if I had some established nomenclature. My old SSID was Nikola with a password some variant of Tesla... Nikola_nomap just doesn't have the same spark.
Google is doing nothing wrong here.
This hack does not resolve the ethical conundrum of indexing a huge amount of publicly available data for private use. We already have technical solutions if we want to make hidden access point, not having to rely on the good faith of an outsider.
What's next, if I don't want google street view to photograph my house I paint "Do Not Photograph" on the wall?
I don't even understand why google took steps to implement that. It means that they acknowledge there's a potential privacy issue but at the same time offer a solution they must know won't satisfy anybody who's concerned about this issue.
e: spelling
There's a startup that tracks the location of customers across stores using the MAC addresses of their cell phones, without their knowledge. In order to opt-out, you have to register your MAC address with them: http://nomi.com/privacy/
The key to both Nomi and (to a lesser extent) Google is that users don't even know when they are being tracked. Opt-out only makes sense when there is a reasonable expectation that the user knows that the tracking exists.
How to look for access points near you (view this from a mobile): http://test-geolocation.appspot.com/
Or just use curl! Put in a mac address to query for:
curl -d '{version:"1.1.0",request_address:true,wifi_towers:[{mac_address:"00:00:00:00:00:00"}]}' www.google.com/loc/json
Even though I'm happy with my AP broadcasting it's identity in the clear, the idea that anyone else might find that useful is just wrong and infringes on my privacy or something.
Screw those guys!
Also isn't it about as useful as the do not track header? What about other vendors mapping it and data sense etc?
I moan on behalf of others as my network is ethernet due to things like this.
There are enough AP's around me for Apple Maps to know if I'm in bed or having a poo. You can see the marker move.
More services like this are bad.
They already know who I am.
What could possibly go wrong?
Edit: when I say more services are bad like this I mean we should be opt-in for both collection and usage rather than opt out.
Mapping the source of radio signals is common and expected. Your Wifi router is basically a big bright lightbulb that flashes with a unique pattern, and can be seen through walls. You can't legitimately ask the rest of the world not to notice it, the same way you can't request that no one use your porch light as a landmark.
Nowadays it shouldn't, no, but Google's had some lawsuits where their Streetview cars accidentally scooped up random bits of data crossing over the wifi lines. This measure was added afterwards, iirc.
"Google long maintained that the engineer was solely responsible for this aspect of the project, which resulted in official investigations, some still unresolved, in more than a dozen countries. But a complete version of the F.C.C.’s report, released by Google on Saturday, has cast doubt on that explanation, saying that the engineer informed at least one superior and that seven engineers who worked on the code were all in a position to know what was going on." - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/technology/engineer-in-goo...
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-05/03/googles-wi-fi...
That doesn't sound like very much data for a fleet of vehicles to collect over the course of a few years. Pretty sure it was just a handful of packets per (unencrypted) access point, but please correct me if I'm wrong.
(I suspect they don't, but again, who knows?)