nospam wrote:

>>> people have the option to share location data and can decide whether
>>> the benefit is worth it. sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.
>>
>> By default, if you're not intelligent about it, Google tracks far more
>> about you than Apple does - but that's only if you're not intelligent.
>
> intelligence has nothing to do with it.

Actually intelligence has a _lot_ to do with people having the basic adult
capacity to understand that the pervasive iPhone privacy marketing is as
much bullshit as Google's do no evil mantra of the past.

An intelligent person realizes two fundamental core concepts here, nospam:
1. The iPhone by default, is more private than Android, by default, but...
2. The privacy you can get with Android is absolutely impossible with iOS.

The reasons are myriad, where _understanding_ them is where intelligence is
required since most people are idiots who believe Apple's marketing lies.
*Your privacy isn't anywhere near what Apple wants you to think it is*
<https://www.pcmag.com/opinions/on-user-privacy-apple-is-not-as-virtuous-as-it-claims-to-be>

> i've been telling you that google tracks users far more than apple for
> the longest time, but at least you finally acknowledge it.

See above where I told _you_ what the difference is, which you are unaware
of, which is Android can be made by a typical user _tremendously_ more
private than iOS ever can be made - simply due to the overall design.
> there is no 'mothership tracking server'.

It's no longer shocking how little you know since you're not aware that
Apple _inserts_ a unique identification key into each app you download.

Google does not. In fact, Google can't.

>> Apple tracks you even if you're intelligent because your unique identifier
>> is inserted into almost everything you do (including each & every app).
>
> that is very much false.

It's no longer shocking that you're completely ignorant of what Apple does.
*Apple now lets you download every bit of data it ever collected from you*
<https://mashable.com/article/apple-data-and-privacy>

>
>> Google does _not_ do that on Android.
>
> yes they do.

It's no longer shocking that you don't understand the difference between an
Android phone set up with a Google Account by default, and one that's not.

You aren't even aware that you fundamentally can't use iOS as a typical
user _without_ handing all your privacy to Apple because the mothership
account is _required_ for iOS (and yes, I know all your excuses for that).

> google also tracks users when they turn off location services.

It's no longer shocking you remain ignorant that we covered how to stop
that in gory detail - which you don't comprehend because you are always
fabricating imaginary functionality for iOS that simply does not exist.

>>> that can be done on a per-app basis or for all apps. some people don't
>>> care and share everything while others block it all. most people fall
>>> in between.
>>
>> If you're intelligent about it, you can block almost all Google tracking.
>
> 'almost all' is not everything, and that applies to more than just
> google.

This is a real question but because you're so ignorant of _everything_ you
speak of, nospam, it becomes a rhetorical question for uneducated iKooks.

Tell us, oh vaunted low-IQ iKook, what tracking you can't stop on Android?
*Name just one*
>> Even if you're intelligent, you can't avoid every single thing you do being
>> tracked by Apple (e.g., Apple uniquely identifies _every single app_ to
>> your iCloud accounts!) and you can ask for your treasure trove of data.
>
> so does google.

It's no longer shocking you don't comprehend that a user can easily use
Android without a Google Account but that same user can't easily use the
iOS devices without the mothership tracking account.

And yes, I know all your lame excuses (three day apps, jailbreaking, etc.).

>
> not that it matters. since apps can identify users in many *other* ways.

The fact is you _hate_ that the advertised iPhone privacy is completely
imaginary nospam. Just the fact Apple tracks every single one of your apps,
nospam, and Google can't, is indicative of the lack of privacy with iOS.

That Apple _requires_ a mothership tracking account, and that iOS is the
_only_ operating system to do that (at least prior to Windows 11 came out),
is indicative of the fact that any privacy on an iPhone is a marketing lie.

At least Google (and Windows 10) doesn't _require_ a mothership tracking
account, nospam. It's no longer shocking you're not even aware of this.

>> I suspect he's an iPhone owner, but I don't know that yet - but he had his
>> phone on for the many trips he made to the residence to case it out prior.
>
> sorry to burst your trolling bubble, but reports are that he had an
> android phone and an acer laptop, which makes it quite a bit easier to
> extract forensic data.

While it's been my observation that the least technically qualified people
gravitate to the Apple "*I'll make you feel safe!*" predatory lies, I read
all the initially released published legal documents, and they didn't
provide the phone model that the idiot criminal used during his crimes.

It's no longer shocking you claim that the idiot owned Android but I feel
it's far more likely, given how stupid he was, that he had an iPhone.

But I'll change my mind on a dime if you show proof, and if you don't show
proof, then it's no longer shocking how much you _lie_ to protect Apple.

> in hindsight, he should have left his phone at his apartment that
> night. at least he would have had an alibi that he 'was home'.

Yeah, but he also took the phone with him when he cased the household.

He was _desperate_ to have his phone with him, which is another observation
which makes me think he's more likely an idiot iPhone than Android owner.

> not that such an alibi would have any credibility since he was seen on
> surveillance video *at* the house at the time the murders occurred, as
> well as elsewhere in the area shortly before & after.

It's no longer shocking that you fabricate things that you don't back up.

I'm not aware that his person was seen in any surveillance video, although
he was seen face to face by one of the surviving roommates (who,
paradoxically, didn't phone police at the time). His vehicle was seen
though, and the dog was heard barking (much as in the Alex Murdaugh case).

If you have a cite for your fabrication that his person was on a video, you
should produce that cite now as you have a history of fabricating lies.

>> Not really "his" car, but likely his car but they never got a plate
>> according to the records I read (and they misidentified the years).
>
> yes, really his car.
>
> the surveillance images show a vehicle without a front plate, and at
> the time, he had pennsylvania plates, which only requires a rear plate.

It's interesting that you are so desperate that you deny what nobody who is
an adult would ever deny, which is that simply having videos of "a car"
that "matches the description of his car" doesn't make that video, in and
of itslf, of his car.

That you can't comprehend something as simple and incontrovertible as that
basic adult comprehensive logic is how I know you have a rather low IQ
nospam.

> they also didn't misidentify the years. they had an initial range,
> which was later expanded because very little in the car's exterior
> changed.

I agree their initial range was faulty and they admitted it themselves.
So this is the _first_ thing you've said, nospam, that is logical.

> they also were *very* careful in public statements so that he wasn't
> spooked into thinking they were on to him (which they very definitely
> were). by publicly stating a narrower range, they wanted him to think
> he was 'safe'.

That may be the case, but that's not what they said when they asked the
expert to identify the vehicle make model and year, but I won't disagree
that they are being "very careful" to eliminate future objections to the
gathering of data.

I still want to know, for sure, if he was using an iPhone though.
Because he's incredibly stupid but he seems to think he's a genius.

Naq lrf, V xabj lbh pna'g erfvfg gnxvat gung onvg orpnhfr lbh'er n puvyq.

>>> the cellphone stuff came later, with a search warrant.
>>
>> They say they got his phone number from a traffic stop back in August
>> (although it wouldn't have been hard to get his number by other methods).
>
> once white elantra was identified, washington state university did a
> search of vehicles that had parking passes and found a match. that led
> to his name, drive's license information, driving record and phone
> number from a previous traffic stop.

In article <tu08q6$2sli8$1@paganini.bofh.team>, Andy Burnelli
<nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

>
> It's no longer shocking you don't comprehend that a user can easily use
> Android without a Google Account but that same user can't easily use the
> iOS devices without the mothership tracking account.

there is no 'mothership tracking account', but regardless, that doesn't
actually matter since apps have many *other* ways to track people.

since you don't understand how, you have no way to block it.

that means you're leaving all sorts of trails.

idaho sidetrack continues:

> > in hindsight, he should have left his phone at his apartment that
> > night. at least he would have had an alibi that he 'was home'.
>
> Yeah, but he also took the phone with him when he cased the household.

he had his phone with him all the time, just like everyone else does.

however, there's no evidence that he *did* case the house. it's likely,
but it's not a guarantee.

it's only known that he was 'using cellular resources' in the area at
least 12 times. that's careful wording.

moscow, idaho is a rural town, and according to the fcc, there are only
*three* cell towers for at&t that serve the area, which is not enough
to pinpoint anyone at any specific location.

> He was _desperate_ to have his phone with him, which is another observation
> which makes me think he's more likely an idiot iPhone than Android owner.

what a colossally stupid thing to say.

>
> I'm not aware that his person was seen in any surveillance video,

his vehicle was seen *at* the house at the time of the murders.

his vehicle was *also* seen the next morning at the albertson's in
clarkston (~30 mi south), with video of him getting into and out of the
vehicle.

that's is a key part of the probable cause affidavit that links him to
a white elantra without a front plate seen at the house (which is
unusual for the area since washington & idaho both require it).

it's also a virtual certainty that he was seen on surveillance video
inside alberston's and what he bought.

if he paid cash, they can pull the register receipt when he is seen
going through the checkout lane.

if he paid by credit card, they don't even need that since the
transaction is linked to his card, with an itemized list of everything
he bought.

they will also be able to see where he went in the store. was he
looking at fresh arugula or was he looking at sponges and detergents.

> although
> he was seen face to face by one of the surviving roommates (who,
> paradoxically, didn't phone police at the time).

she freaked out, which is not unusual.

> His vehicle was seen
> though, and the dog was heard barking (much as in the Alex Murdaugh case).

the dog knew something wasn't normal.

the problem for alex murdaugh was his voice on a phone video that
placed him *at* the crime scene *at* the time it occurred, which
contradicted his claim that he was not there. in other words, it's
proof he lied.

> If you have a cite for your fabrication that his person was on a video, you
> should produce that cite now as you have a history of fabricating lies.

it's not a fabrication. see above.

keep in mind that there is a reasonable chance that the surveillance
video from the house *next* *door* has him on video *that* *night*.

that information is not needed to make an arrest, so there's no need to
disclose it at this time (assuming it does exist).

> I still want to know, for sure, if he was using an iPhone though.

of course you do.

> Because he's incredibly stupid but he seems to think he's a genius.

phd students often are.

he may be academically smart, but he's definitely not street smart.

this is likely his first major crime (and fortunately, his last), which
is why he made a lot of mistakes that a seasoned criminal would never
have done.

oddly enough, it's analogous to you, who *thinks* you're hiding from
google by not having a google account, while not having any idea what
*other* evidence you're leaving.

> They actually said they had MORE probable cause than they used to ask for
> teh search warrant in the search warrant itself, so as to have a readily
> available defense if the criminal's lawyers challenge the search warrant.

they only needed probable cause to make an arrest.

additional evidence will be presented at a future trial, assuming there
is one.

it's possible (and quite likely) that the evidence against him is so
overwhelming that taking a plea deal might be a wise choice.

nospam wrote:
> In article <tu08q6$2sli8$1@paganini.bofh.team>, Andy Burnelli
> <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>
Bla bla bla.
>
> there is no 'mothership tracking account', but regardless,
Bla bla bla.

[A lot of pure bullshit was snipped]

Guys, there's only one way to settle this:

A duel, with swords. Unfortunately neither of you old geezers can
wield a sword any more. And neither has enough books to win by
using the scholarly genius approach, since you are both adults and
smarter than the other. It's a damn stalemate, old guys. Face it.

Why not call a perpetual truce? You can both go away, claiming you
won the battle and saved the day, for apple, or for android.

You both will be decorated and honored as true heros. Forever.

On 2023-03-04 16:57, nospam wrote:

> moscow, idaho is a rural town, and according to the fcc, there are only
> *three* cell towers for at&t that serve the area, which is not enough
> to pinpoint anyone at any specific location.

Given the location of the three towers around there, you 'could' get
position accuracies of about 10 to 100 metres. Doesn't mean they got
any position by trilateration though.

> it's possible (and quite likely) that the evidence against him is so
> overwhelming that taking a plea deal might be a wise choice.

I think the prosecution would rather he die.

--
“Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present
danger to American democracy.”
- J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16
- Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
committee

nospam wrote:

>> It's no longer shocking you don't comprehend that a user can easily use
>> Android without a Google Account but that same user can't easily use the
>> iOS devices without the mothership tracking account.
>
> there is no 'mothership tracking account', but regardless, that doesn't
> actually matter since apps have many *other* ways to track people.

Unfortunately for you nospam, you don't own the mental capacity to
comprehend that Apple bullshitted you on all its privacy marketing.

The entire setup with respect to privacy is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT in scores
of ways between Android and iOS, nospam. It's not just one privacy hole.

*Apple Is Tracking You Even When Its Own Privacy Settings Say It's Not*
<https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-analytics-tracking-even-when-off-app-store-1849757558>

*Your iOS app may still be covertly tracking you, despite what Apple says*
<https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/04/a-year-after-apple-enforces-app-tracking-policy-covert-ios-tracking-remains/>

> since you don't understand how, you have no way to block it.

What you show no grasp of, nospam, is Apple _inserts_ into every IPA that
you install, a unique key that Google doesn't (and that Google can't).

> that means you're leaving all sorts of trails.

I've never said there are zero trails as it's a cell phone for God's sake.

What I said was very clear, which I'll repeat in summary, since it takes an
intelligent person to understand the facts but people who get all their
information from Apple marketing literature will never understand them.

1. Neither Android nor iOS is completely private...
2. The privacy issues are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT between the two platforms...
3. Hence it's BULLSHIT MARKETING to claim some but ignore others...
Given that...
A. If you added up the sum total of scores of privacy conditions...
B. The count for the default iPhone would be lower than default Android
C. But, a well set up Android will _always_ be more private than iOS can!

Intelligent people understand that Apple MARKETING ignores where they're
not private (e.g., Apple requires a mothership tracking account), while
only focusing on where Apple is private (e.g., allowing you to turn off
some tracking in some apps, for example).

An intelligent person knows that Apple is bullshitting everyone, nospam.
There's no company I can think of other than Wagner that lies like Apple.

You have to understand how Apple's MARKETING skirts the holes in iOS.

To understand all those points, nospam, takes intelligence you don't own.
*Can My Phone Be Tracked If Location Services Are Off?*
<https://www.mcafee.com/learn/can-my-phone-be-tracked-if-location-services-are-off/>

As just _one_ of those points, what you appear to not be aware of is that
the Android phone works perfectly fine without a mothership tracking
account while iOS essentially _requires_ that mothership tracking account.

That means while Apple tracks everything you do via that mothership
tracking account, Google can't (because that mothership tracking account
does not exist).

I'll respond to the iPhone/Android phone murders separately, as there was
one point in there that you said that I was previously unaware of.

Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>>> It's no longer shocking you don't comprehend that a user can
>>> easily use
>>> Android without a Google Account but that same user can't easily
>>> use the
>>> iOS devices without the mothership tracking account.
>>
>> there is no 'mothership tracking account', but regardless, that
>> doesn't
>> actually matter since apps have many *other* ways to track people.
>
> Unfortunately for you nospam, you don't own the mental capacity to
> comprehend that Apple bullshitted you on all its privacy marketing.
>
> The entire setup with respect to privacy is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT in
> scores
> of ways between Android and iOS, nospam. It's not just one privacy
> hole.
>
> *Apple Is Tracking You Even When Its Own Privacy Settings Say It's
> Not*
> <https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-analytics-tracking-even-when-off-app-store-1849757558>
>
>
> *Your iOS app may still be covertly tracking you, despite what
> Apple says*
> <https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/04/a-year-after-apple-enforces-app-tracking-policy-covert-ios-tracking-remains/>
>
>
>> since you don't understand how, you have no way to block it.
>
> What you show no grasp of, nospam, is Apple _inserts_ into every
> IPA that
> you install, a unique key that Google doesn't (and that Google can't).
>
>> that means you're leaving all sorts of trails.
>
> I've never said there are zero trails as it's a cell phone for
> God's sake.
>
> What I said was very clear, which I'll repeat in summary, since it
> takes an
> intelligent person to understand the facts but people who get all
> their
> information from Apple marketing literature will never understand
> them.
>
> 1. Neither Android nor iOS is completely private... 2. The privacy
> issues are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT between the two platforms...
> 3. Hence it's BULLSHIT MARKETING to claim some but ignore others...
> Given that... A. If you added up the sum total of scores of privacy
> conditions... B. The count for the default iPhone would be lower
> than default Android
> C. But, a well set up Android will _always_ be more private than
> iOS can!
>
> Intelligent people understand that Apple MARKETING ignores where
> they're
> not private (e.g., Apple requires a mothership tracking account),
> while
> only focusing on where Apple is private (e.g., allowing you to turn
> off
> some tracking in some apps, for example).
>
> An intelligent person knows that Apple is bullshitting everyone,
> nospam.
> There's no company I can think of other than Wagner that lies like
> Apple.
>
> You have to understand how Apple's MARKETING skirts the holes in iOS.
>
> To understand all those points, nospam, takes intelligence you
> don't own.
> *Can My Phone Be Tracked If Location Services Are Off?*
> <https://www.mcafee.com/learn/can-my-phone-be-tracked-if-location-services-are-off/>
>
>
> As just _one_ of those points, what you appear to not be aware of
> is that
> the Android phone works perfectly fine without a mothership tracking
> account while iOS essentially _requires_ that mothership tracking
> account.
>
> That means while Apple tracks everything you do via that mothership
> tracking account, Google can't (because that mothership tracking
> account
> does not exist).
>
> I'll respond to the iPhone/Android phone murders separately, as
> there was
> one point in there that you said that I was previously unaware of.

So much for being an adult.

nospam wrote:

>>> in hindsight, he should have left his phone at his apartment that
>>> night. at least he would have had an alibi that he 'was home'.
>>
>> Yeah, but he also took the phone with him when he cased the household.
>
> he had his phone with him all the time, just like everyone else does.

First off I must commend you as normally you're completely ignorant of
everythign you claim (you just make it all up); but you seem to have read a
newspaper or two about these murders (which is a good thing, nospam).

Most iKooks appear to have never read the news in their entire lives.
So kudos to you for keeping up on this subject for the most part.
(You even mentioned things I wasn't aware of, but, you also jumped to
brazen conclusions which, typical for you, you provided zero cites for).

I'm different than you iKooks in that I'll change my opinion on a dime if
you show evidence of that or if your arguments are logically sensible.

Therefore I'm not disagreeing that he more than likely kept the phone with
him the whole time and just turned it off during the actual murders.

My main concern with all these crimes where the phone does the person in is
what made them think that having a phone turned on wouldn't be traced back?

Even though my (free) Android phone is set up to be far more private than
even the most expensive iPhones on the planet, there's still data leakage
which isn't necessary when you don't need a phone to commit a crime.

> however, there's no evidence that he *did* case the house. it's likely,
> but it's not a guarantee.

Having read the original public PDFs, I would agree that it's logical that
he might have cased the joint, given the many nearby pings, but it's up to
the police to prove that he did (not that it matters greatly if they can
already pinpoint him at the murder scene anyway on the night of the crime).

> it's only known that he was 'using cellular resources' in the area at
> least 12 times. that's careful wording.
>
> moscow, idaho is a rural town, and according to the fcc, there are only
> *three* cell towers for at&t that serve the area, which is not enough
> to pinpoint anyone at any specific location.

I won't disagree with any of that as it's a logical sensible assessment.

>
>> He was _desperate_ to have his phone with him, which is another observation
>> which makes me think he's more likely an idiot iPhone than Android owner.
>
> what a colossally stupid thing to say.

Actually, it's not. You just don't understand that I'm trying to assess
what kind of person commits a heinous crime like that who feels the need to
bring his phone along. Was he expecting a call from his mother or was he
live streaming the whole thing?

If it's an unplanned spur-of-the-moment crime of passion, for example, then
sure, the phone would be with you most likely - but if it's a carefully
planned murder - then the phone has no business being anywhere near you.

Best to tape the phone to the bottom of a Greyhound bus or something, so
you can plausibly say you were somewhere else the entire time.

The reason I associate iPhone owners with stupidity like this, nospam, is
that I can give you plenty of situations where iPhone owners are bamboozled
by their imaginary belief systems. Do I need to back that up or do you
understand that iPhone owners fall for the dumbest marketing gimmicks.

>> I'm not aware that his person was seen in any surveillance video,
>
> his vehicle was seen *at* the house at the time of the murders.

I haven't read anything on it since the early days of his arrest, so I
wasn't aware there was "visual" (either in person or via cameras) evidence
of the white Elantra _at_ the house - but I wouldn't doubt he'd park it a
block away or so as the white Elantra was seen going down the road and
turning around at the culdesac as I recall.

> his vehicle was *also* seen the next morning at the albertson's in
> clarkston (~30 mi south), with video of him getting into and out of the
> vehicle.

This I wasn't aware of, where what might matter could be what he bought. If
he bought, for example, cleaning supplies that he then used on his car,
that would be different than if he bought a grill cheese sandwich instead.

> that's is a key part of the probable cause affidavit that links him to
> a white elantra without a front plate seen at the house (which is
> unusual for the area since washington & idaho both require it).

I don't know how well you know west coast law enforcement, but I haven't
had a front license plate on a few of my cars for many years. Only once did
I get a ticket (a parking officer gave me a fixit ticket years ago).

I still don't have a front plate on that car, my point being some states
don't enforce their laws (but where I came from, back in NY, they do).

> it's also a virtual certainty that he was seen on surveillance video
> inside alberston's and what he bought.

As I said, I wasn't aware of this but I'm sure he went shopping in the days
between the crime and when he and his father drove across the country.

They're even in the police bodycam video having been pulled over multiple
times on that trip (the guys is apparently a horrible driver.

You'd think a guy who just committed a few murders would drive below the
speed limit, stop at stop signs, not cross over the white lines, etc.

> if he paid cash, they can pull the register receipt when he is seen
> going through the checkout lane.

I'm agreeing that whatever items he bought before and after the murders can
be important, e.g., they found "a knife" and "a mask" at his parent's home.

> if he paid by credit card, they don't even need that since the
> transaction is linked to his card, with an itemized list of everything
> he bought.

The fact he cleaned his car multiple times rather thoroughly will be
certain to be brought up to jurors, where the timing of the purchase of
those supplies will also be of interest (if he did buy them, of course).

>
> they will also be able to see where he went in the store. was he
> looking at fresh arugula or was he looking at sponges and detergents.
>
>> although
>> he was seen face to face by one of the surviving roommates (who,
>> paradoxically, didn't phone police at the time).
>
> she freaked out, which is not unusual.

He was probably looking for lemon juice to hide from the surveillance
cameras. I heard that works for bank robbers anyway...

>> His vehicle was seen
>> though, and the dog was heard barking (much as in the Alex Murdaugh case).
>
> the dog knew something wasn't normal.

What was really creepy was him apparently telling the girls who were crying
that he was going to make it better (or something to that creepy effect).

> the problem for alex murdaugh was his voice on a phone video that
> placed him *at* the crime scene *at* the time it occurred, which
> contradicted his claim that he was not there. in other words, it's
> proof he lied.

It would be interesting to compare how many times Alex Murdaugh lied versus
how many times Apple lied in the same time frame as those murders took.

I think Apple will easily be shown to lie more than Murdaugh did though.
Apple has billion-dollar lies while Murdaugh's are only in the millions.

BTW, on that note, Apple is a horrible company because they perpetrate so
many brazen lies which they have no sense of shame for doing, mostly
because Apple gets rich as a predator of people who can't understand
Apple's marketing lies. Your predatory personality mirrors that of Apple.
>> If you have a cite for your fabrication that his person was on a video, you
>> should produce that cite now as you have a history of fabricating lies.
>
> it's not a fabrication. see above.

I must have misunderstood because I was talking about AT THE TIME of the
crime, and at that time, the only video is of a similar (probably his)
vehicle but not of a _person_ (again, during the time of the crime).

If there _is_ surveillance video _at the time_ of the crime that shows his
person, I wouldn't be surprised though - I just haven't seen a cite saying
that it exists.

> keep in mind that there is a reasonable chance that the surveillance
> video from the house *next* *door* has him on video *that* *night*.

Certainly the camera recorded sounds so it was certainly on and running but
it was supposedly pointed at the side of the house as I recall from the
police reports I read long ago.

This issue seems to be classic for how your strange brain works, nospam,
where I don't jump to the unwarranted conclusion that surveillance video of
his person exists - while you apparently do (but you lack the evidence).

It's classic for people like you who can't handle processing of detail.

> that information is not needed to make an arrest, so there's no need to
> disclose it at this time (assuming it does exist).

In article <tu0u55$33c7v$1@paganini.bofh.team>, Andy Burnelli
<nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

> *Your iOS app may still be covertly tracking you, despite what Apple says*
>
> <https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/04/a-year-after-apple-enf
> orces-app-tracking-policy-covert-ios-tracking-remains/>

that's the *app* doing the tracking, not ios.

apple has *nothing* to do with what app developers choose to do or not
do.

unfortunately, app tracking is self-reported, and although many app
developers are honest about it, some are not. that's just reality.

nothing new about that and it's not specific to apple either. lots of
companies aren't completely honest, in every industry.

> 2. The privacy issues are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT between the two platforms...

no they aren't.

> That means while Apple tracks everything you do via that mothership
> tracking account,

no they don't, nor is there a 'mothership tracking account' that could
even be used for that purpose.

> Google can't (because that mothership tracking account
> does not exist).

almost every android user has an active google id, what you call a
'mothership tracking account'.

what *you* do is not typical. it is also counterproductive, except you
don't realize that.

the only 'tracking' is that apple, google and microsoft keep a record
of which apps someone downloads from their respective app stores, but
that's the extent of it. they don't monitor usage of said apps, nor can
they.

In article <tu10ph$33l5a$1@paganini.bofh.team>, Andy Burnelli
<nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

> > his vehicle was *also* seen the next morning at the albertson's in
> > clarkston (~30 mi south), with video of him getting into and out of the
> > vehicle.
>
> This I wasn't aware of, where what might matter could be what he bought. If
> he bought, for example, cleaning supplies that he then used on his car,
> that would be different than if he bought a grill cheese sandwich instead.

he's vegan, so he didn't buy anything with cheese in it, that day or
any other day.

> > that's is a key part of the probable cause affidavit that links him to
> > a white elantra without a front plate seen at the house (which is
> > unusual for the area since washington & idaho both require it).
>
> I don't know how well you know west coast law enforcement, but I haven't
> had a front license plate on a few of my cars for many years. Only once did
> I get a ticket (a parking officer gave me a fixit ticket years ago).

this may come to you as a surprise, but idaho is not a 'west coast'
state. in fact, it is not a coastal state of any sort. moscow/pullman
is many hours from the west coast, on the *other* side of the cascades.

he also wasn't cited for no front plate.

what you fail to understand is that not having a front plate in an area
where it's required makes the vehicle more distinctive than it
otherwise would have been.

what you also fail to understand is your practice of not having a
google id makes you more distinctive for tracking, because it's *very*
rare anyone does that.

> They're even in the police bodycam video having been pulled over multiple
> times on that trip (the guys is apparently a horrible driver.

the stops in indiana were very likely pretext stops.

two stops within ten minutes is extremely unusual, especially for
something minor such as tailgating, one of which was by a sheriff who
normally does not patrol the interstates.

> You'd think a guy who just committed a few murders would drive below the
> speed limit, stop at stop signs, not cross over the white lines, etc.

he may have done that driving home the night of the murders, but the
cross-country drive was a month later across multiple states nowhere
near the crime.

>
> It would be interesting to compare how many times Alex Murdaugh lied versus
> how many times Apple lied in the same time frame as those murders took.

you've gone off the deep end. seek help.

>
> > that information is not needed to make an arrest, so there's no need to
> > disclose it at this time (assuming it does exist).
>
> I will agree with any logical statement you (or anyone) makes, nospam,
> where I am not a lawyer, but I "think" they have to give the defense _all_
> that they have at "some point" in time. I don't know when that point in
> time is, but certainly it must be before the trial starts I would think.

it's called discovery and it's happening *now*, ahead of the
preliminary hearing in june. his lawyers need time to review it and
build a defense.

don't expect much to be made public, as the only requirement is
probable cause to continue with the real trial.

> > this is likely his first major crime (and fortunately, his last), which
> > is why he made a lot of mistakes that a seasoned criminal would never
> > have done.
>
> I'm going to agree with you that this appears to be his first major crime,
> as leaving the knife sheath and using the phone were simply dumb actions.

it's also possible that leaving the sheath was intentional, thinking
that it might throw off investigators to search for the 'wrong' type of
knife, a seemingly smart move in his warped mind.

unfortunately for him, that isn't going to be particularly effective.

or it could have been a mistake.

>
> > oddly enough, it's analogous to you, who *thinks* you're hiding from
> > google by not having a google account, while not having any idea what
> > *other* evidence you're leaving.
>
> What you show no evidence of comprehending, nospam, is that the privacy
> between Android and iOS is *COMPLETELY DIFFERENT* in myriad ways.

actually, it isn't.

> For example, in Android I randomize my Wi-Fi MAC address per connection.
> Can you do that with iOS by a simple toggle like you can with Android?

ios does that automatically without needing to toggle anything (it's
the default), and has done it long before android did.

ios also can detect trackers and hide your ip address from them.

either or both can be disabled if desired on a per-network basis.

> > additional evidence will be presented at a future trial, assuming there
> > is one.
>
> His lawyer isn't in any rush to be tried it seems, which makes sense.

the wheels of justice turn slowly, however, they do turn.

lawsuits take time. that's just how it is.

> What I'll be looking for is which phone did he own. iPhone or Android.

of course you will, because that's obviously the most important thing
in the entire case.

the more you keep babbling, the more you outdo yourself in saying
incredibly stupid shit.

meanwhile, everyone else wants to know relevant facts, such as did they
find dna evidence linking him to the crime, have they found the knife,
is this really his first crime and most importantly (but not needed for
a conviction), why the hell did a random person break into a house and
kill four students for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

>
> My bet is he's an iPhone owner.

my bet is you're an idiot.

nospam wrote:

>> *Your iOS app may still be covertly tracking you, despite what Apple says*
>>
>> <https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/04/a-year-after-apple-enf
>> orces-app-tracking-policy-covert-ios-tracking-remains/>
>
> that's the *app* doing the tracking, not ios.

What you fail to comprehend is privacy is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT between
Android and iOS such that, in this one component of privacy, Apple
_inserted_ a unique identifier into your _apps_, nospam. Google can't.
> apple has *nothing* to do with what app developers choose to do or not
> do.

You need to understand that privacy is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT between Android
and iOS where in the case of that one article, Apple's predatory
advertising doesn't meet reality for people who actually read the news.

The iKooks like Alan Browne who've never read the news in their lives,
believe everything simply because Apple said it was so; but it's not.

My problem with Apple's brazen lies is how predatory they are to poor
innocent people like Jolly Roger and Alan Baker, and yes, even you.

> unfortunately, app tracking is self-reported, and although many app
> developers are honest about it, some are not. that's just reality.
>
> nothing new about that and it's not specific to apple either. lots of
> companies aren't completely honest, in every industry.
>
>> 2. The privacy issues are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT between the two platforms...
>
> no they aren't.

The fact that you don't understand the platforms are DIFFERENT is not even
shocking anymore, nospam, but please understand that I know your child-like
brain "thinks" you understood what I said - but you don't actually
comprehend what I said about the PLATFORMS are what's very different.

I never said that privacy needs among the phone owners is different.
I said the PLATFORMS are different in how they handle privacy.

If you deny that, then... well... then that's _why_ you're an iKook.
>> That means while Apple tracks everything you do via that mothership
>> tracking account,
>
> no they don't, nor is there a 'mothership tracking account' that could
> even be used for that purpose.

For you to brazenly deny the existence of the iCloud account is typical for
you iKooks and no longer shocking that you deny what even Apple won't deny.

Why do you think Apple inserts that _unique_ identifier into all your apps?
Google doesn't. Google can't.

>> Google can't (because that mothership tracking account
>> does not exist).
>
> almost every android user has an active google id, what you call a
> 'mothership tracking account'.

I never said otherwise. Again, your child-like brain is not comprehending
that I said, very clearly, that on Android, if you want privacy from a
mothership tracking account, you can easily get that. On iOS you can't.

> what *you* do is not typical. it is also counterproductive, except you
> don't realize that.

While you show an adult cognitive comprehension that I set up my Android
from the start without a Google Account (just as I set up my Windows from
the start without a Microsoft Account), you do not show adult comprehensive
skills when you brazenly claim it's counterproductive.

Your brain just made that up, without any basis in fact, other than it _is_
counterproductive on iOS to NOT set up a mothership tracking account
because you can't download any of the apps from the Apple app store.

Like I am trying to teach you ignorant iKooks, nospam, the two platforms
are DIFFERENT when it comes to discussing privacy.

Given I can even more easily install apps from the Google app store
repository WITHOUT a mothership tracking account, where do you get your
facts which you've assessed it to be counterproductive NOT to have a
mothership tracking account on Google?

Are you going to claim that there are no Google replacement apps?

> the only 'tracking' is that apple, google and microsoft keep a record
> of which apps someone downloads from their respective app stores, but
> that's the extent of it. they don't monitor usage of said apps, nor can
> they.

Why do you iKooks always brazenly deny what even Apple doesn't deny?

Remember a decade ago Apple was caught lying about tracking your location?
<https://www.wired.com/2011/04/apple-iphone-tracking/>

You think that Apple stopped collecting your precise location data, nospam?
<https://www.howtogeek.com/437871/how-to-find-your-location-history-on-iphone-or-ipad/>

And that's just _one_ of the many ways Apple collects your private data
partly because they can pinpoint everything you do to your unique Apple
mothership tracking account (which Google can not enforce on Android).

You need to understand, nospam, that the two platforms are COMPLETELY
DIFFERENT in many ways when it comes to how they handle your privacy.

nospam wrote:

> what you fail to understand is that not having a front plate in an area
> where it's required makes the vehicle more distinctive than it
> otherwise would have been.

First off, I didn't fail to understand that, but I did fail to _mention_
that I understood that. (BTW, badgolferman, this simple admission by me, an
adult, is fundamentally what the iKooks completely lack in character).

> what you also fail to understand is your practice of not having a
> google id makes you more distinctive for tracking, because it's *very*
> rare anyone does that.

Again, I didn't fail to comprehend what you're claiming, but I didn't
mention that I'm aware that most people do have a Google Account.

My home also has the SSID hidden, nospam, for privacy reasons.
You could argue the same thing with that too, right?
And, my phones and laptops don't broadcast my home SSIDs either, right?
And there's no Microsoft account on my Windows 10 PCs, either, right?

All those things are done for privacy reasons, which, I'll easily grant
you, most people wouldn't even understand, let alone perform. Right?

I agree with you that I'm different in that I set up devices for privacy.
Adults have the capacity to agree with the facts, unlike you iKooks.

>> They're even in the police bodycam video having been pulled over multiple
>> times on that trip (the guys is apparently a horrible driver.
>
> the stops in indiana were very likely pretext stops.

I certainly immediately had thought about that when I read about it, but I
didn't see _any_ evidence that they were pre-planned information gathering
stops, so you have to be guessing when you say that (or you have cites,
which I doubt you have).

We'd also have to look at the timeline as to when the university metermaids
found his car and reported back to the central authority the connection.

> two stops within ten minutes is extremely unusual, especially for
> something minor such as tailgating, one of which was by a sheriff who
> normally does not patrol the interstates.

Again, it sure is indicative of something abnormal, I would agree; but
without any corroborating evidence, I'd have to lean toward Occam's Razor
which is just either bad luck or a very bad driver or good cops as they
were both in the same state, as I recall, just as he was entering it (as I
recall).

For now, I'm not going to jump to any other conclusion but that he was
doing the things which he was pulled over for (I don't recall if he was
actually cited, but I don't think so - I think he got a warning - but I
haven't re-read the documents since they were published).
>> You'd think a guy who just committed a few murders would drive below the
>> speed limit, stop at stop signs, not cross over the white lines, etc.
>
> he may have done that driving home the night of the murders, but the
> cross-country drive was a month later across multiple states nowhere
> near the crime.

I agree with any sensible statement. He was perhaps feeling quite safe, as
the police were tight lipped about the evidence, although I believe the
Elantra make and model was published by then (as I recall).

I wonder why he bothered to change his vehicle registration to another
state, as that stuff can be back tracked rather easily I would think.

>> It would be interesting to compare how many times Alex Murdaugh lied versus
>> how many times Apple lied in the same time frame as those murders took.
>
> you've gone off the deep end. seek help.

My point in bringing up Alex Murdaugh is that he was an inveterate
predatory liar, and my point in equating Apple to inveterate predatory
lying is to make a point that nobody lies like Apple lies.

"*The batteries made us do it*"... for example.
"*Think of the ecosystem*"... for another example.

Apple simply has more money to settle the criminal and civil suits.

>>> that information is not needed to make an arrest, so there's no need to
>>> disclose it at this time (assuming it does exist).
>>
>> I will agree with any logical statement you (or anyone) makes, nospam,
>> where I am not a lawyer, but I "think" they have to give the defense _all_
>> that they have at "some point" in time. I don't know when that point in
>> time is, but certainly it must be before the trial starts I would think.
>
> it's called discovery and it's happening *now*, ahead of the
> preliminary hearing in june. his lawyers need time to review it and
> build a defense.

Thanks for that information, which I appreciate, given I'm not a lawyer
but I knew there was a process where only the prosecution (not the defense)
has to provide all the related information they have on their case.
> don't expect much to be made public, as the only requirement is
> probable cause to continue with the real trial.

One minor datapoint that I'm looking to find out is the phone he owned.

You claimed Android but you didn't back up that claim, which is typical for
you since your belief system doesn't depend on facts.

I think it's more likely, since he was rather stupid, it's an iPhone (and
yes, I realize that you think people easily bamboozled by marketing
gimmickry are smart - so we're going to have to agree to disagree here).

You can't make those ungodly profit margins off an intelligent customer.

>>> this is likely his first major crime (and fortunately, his last), which
>>> is why he made a lot of mistakes that a seasoned criminal would never
>>> have done.
>>
>> I'm going to agree with you that this appears to be his first major crime,
>> as leaving the knife sheath and using the phone were simply dumb actions.
>
> it's also possible that leaving the sheath was intentional, thinking
> that it might throw off investigators to search for the 'wrong' type of
> knife, a seemingly smart move in his warped mind.

When they reported they found a knife at the home, they mentioned the type
but I noted it was NOT the type of Marine K-Bar knife that the sheath was
designed for.
> unfortunately for him, that isn't going to be particularly effective.

They never used the DNA evidence yet in the official court documents, they
just mentioned that they have them and that it's indicative, but if that
DNA evidence holds up in court, it will be particularly effective on jurors
I suspect.

Then again, the jurors believed OJ was innocent... so you never know.
> or it could have been a mistake.

I can't imagine anyone knifing four people to death not making some
mistake, e.g., there must have been blood all over his clothing.

And, as I recall, there was a "latent" shoeprint which will almost
certainly be brought into the juror's eyes if it anywhere fits his.

>>> oddly enough, it's analogous to you, who *thinks* you're hiding from
>>> google by not having a google account, while not having any idea what
>>> *other* evidence you're leaving.
>>
>> What you show no evidence of comprehending, nospam, is that the privacy
>> between Android and iOS is *COMPLETELY DIFFERENT* in myriad ways.
>
> actually, it isn't.

No. You're wrong. But I understand that you aren't thinking deeply about it
since you only believe what you see in glossy Apple marketing brochures.

The privacy of a person is the same overall whether or not they use an
iPhone or an Android phone, but the _way_ that the two platforms go about
it is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

For one salient example, Apple requires a mothership tracking account for
the user to download useful apps; Google doesn't per se - and Google can't.

That's different whether or not you understand that's different.
Likewise, Apple _inserts_ a unique identifier into your iOS apps, nospam.
Google doesn't. Google can't.

Again, that's DIFFERENT whether or not you understand that it's different.
>> For example, in Android I randomize my Wi-Fi MAC address per connection.
>> Can you do that with iOS by a simple toggle like you can with Android?
>
> ios does that automatically without needing to toggle anything (it's
> the default), and has done it long before android did.

I provided the URL in my other thread which shows they are DIFFERENT.
*Privacy question about randomizing the MAC address of the iPhone per each AP connection*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/4UKsKgmXLi0>

You just don't understand that they're rather different approaches.
> ios also can detect trackers and hide your ip address from them.
>
> either or both can be disabled if desired on a per-network basis.

What makes you think Android can't detect trackers, nospam?

I've covered the topic of trackers on the Android newsgroup, for example:
<https://i.postimg.cc/L5gnX3GS/linktopc07.jpg> List the app's trackers

In article <tu2ht0$38p2e$1@paganini.bofh.team>, Andy Burnelli
<nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

>
> First off, I didn't fail to understand that, but I did fail to _mention_
> that I understood that.

that's not supported by evidence

> My home also has the SSID hidden, nospam, for privacy reasons.

it's trivial to determine what a hidden ssid is.

it has no effect on those who know how to hack wifi, potentially making
them more interested in why it's hidden.

> And, my phones and laptops don't broadcast my home SSIDs either, right?

further proving how little you understand about wifi, privacy and
security.

>
> > two stops within ten minutes is extremely unusual, especially for
> > something minor such as tailgating, one of which was by a sheriff who
> > normally does not patrol the interstates.
>
> Again, it sure is indicative of something abnormal, I would agree; but
> without any corroborating evidence, I'd have to lean toward Occam's Razor
> which is just either bad luck or a very bad driver or good cops as they
> were both in the same state, as I recall, just as he was entering it (as I
> recall).

he was under surveillance for the entire cross-country drive, using
assets on both the ground and in the air.

the two stops in quick succession reek of a pretext stop, versus bad
driving.

no citations were issued and they didn't even run his license in
*either* instance. it was just a couple minutes of chit chat and that
was it.

> I wonder why he bothered to change his vehicle registration to another
> state, as that stuff can be back tracked rather easily I would think.

he had to because his existing pennsylvania plates were about to expire.

> >> I will agree with any logical statement you (or anyone) makes, nospam,
> >> where I am not a lawyer, but I "think" they have to give the defense _all_
> >> that they have at "some point" in time. I don't know when that point in
> >> time is, but certainly it must be before the trial starts I would think.
> >
> > it's called discovery and it's happening *now*, ahead of the
> > preliminary hearing in june. his lawyers need time to review it and
> > build a defense.
>
> Thanks for that information, which I appreciate, given I'm not a lawyer
> but I knew there was a process where only the prosecution (not the defense)
> has to provide all the related information they have on their case.

discovery works both ways.

> > don't expect much to be made public, as the only requirement is
> > probable cause to continue with the real trial.
>
> One minor datapoint that I'm looking to find out is the phone he owned.
>
> You claimed Android but you didn't back up that claim, which is typical for
> you since your belief system doesn't depend on facts.

i've been following the case and i saw it mentioned at some point,
probably on reddit, but it's irrelevant to the case and not worth
finding again.

In article <tu2e7p$38bl3$1@paganini.bofh.team>, Andy Burnelli
<nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

>
> >> *Your iOS app may still be covertly tracking you, despite what Apple says*
> >>
> >>
> >> <https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/04/a-year-after-apple-
> >> enf
> >> orces-app-tracking-policy-covert-ios-tracking-remains/>
> >
> > that's the *app* doing the tracking, not ios.
>
> What you fail to comprehend is privacy is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT between
> Android and iOS such that, in this one component of privacy, Apple
> _inserted_ a unique identifier into your _apps_, nospam. Google can't.

they can, but that is completely irrelevant since it's not used for
what you think it is.

further, the above link is about *apps* collecting data and lying about
it, to both apple and to users.

it is *not* about apple or google doing any sort of tracking.

try reading it first before spewing your usual bullshit, and you don't
even need to get very far. the *headline* is clear:

Your iOS app may still be covertly tracking you, despite what Apple
says

>
> Remember a decade ago Apple was caught lying about tracking your location?

they weren't caught lying about anything.

what happened was that someone saw location data on their phone and
immediately assumed it was for a nefarious purpose.

it turned out to be nothing more than a wifi geolocation cache, because
using a cache is *much* faster than a network query.

that's what happens when people who don't know what they're looking at
make baseless assumptions about things they do not understand.

meanwhile, google street view cars were caught collecting wifi data as
they drove around:
<https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/may/15/google-admits-storin
g-private-data>
German request for data audit reveals the web giant 'accidentally'
stored payload information from open networks

the word 'accidentally' is doing a lot of work there.

nospam wrote:

>> What you fail to comprehend is privacy is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT between
>> Android and iOS such that, in this one component of privacy, Apple
>> _inserted_ a unique identifier into your _apps_, nospam. Google can't.
>
> they can, but that is completely irrelevant since it's not used for
> what you think it is.

Hi nospam,
I'm going to try a dialog with you as if you own the mind of an adult, ok?

An example of an adult mind working properly is the case of the Tor browser
on iOS, where any normal adult would notice it's conspicuously missing from
iOS - and then they'd ask why.

Once you ask _why_, you realize that the reason is webkit; but until you
ask why, you will never understand why iOS lacks the Tor browser privacy
that _every_ other common consumer operating system enjoys, including
macOS.

Same _adult_ thinking concept here, nospam, where adults notice Apple does
something verrrrrrrrrrry _different_ with iOS than is done for all other
normal consumer operating systems, nospam (we can ignore macOS for this).

Apple _inserts_ a unique id into _every_ app you install on iOS, nospam.
Google doesn't.

As an adult, you have to ask why.

> meanwhile, google street view cars were caught collecting wifi data as
> they drove around:

It's no longer shocking that you constantly claim Google made Apple do it.
You can't blame Google constantly, nospam, for Apple mothership tracking.

The fact is Google does not put a unique identifier into each of your apps.
Apple does.

The adult question to ask is why.

nospam wrote:

>> My home also has the SSID hidden, nospam, for privacy reasons.
>
> it's trivial to determine what a hidden ssid is.

Jesus Christ nospam. Every time you say something _that_ incredibly stupid,
I have to wonder if your brain is permanently stuck as that of a five year
old.

I'd expect _that_ kind of ignorance to be from the mouth of Alan Browne,
not you, nospam.

You're _supposed_ to know something about privacy.
Yet you don't know the most basic of the most fundamental things.

Sheesh. This is how I know your IQ is far lower than normal, nospam.

> it has no effect on those who know how to hack wifi, potentially making
> them more interested in why it's hidden.

I'm not even going to explain to you why that thought process is that of a
five year old, nospam, in light of the fact I've put entire tutorials out
there for the steps required _after_ you stop broadcasting your SSID.

You're literally not an adult, nospam, because you can't comprehend a topic
that is insanely simple and yet you only believe what Alan Baker would.

>> And, my phones and laptops don't broadcast my home SSIDs either, right?
>
> further proving how little you understand about wifi, privacy and
> security.

You're incredibly ignorant, nospam, because you _think_ I'm not
broadcasting the SSID for _security_ (which is NOT why I'm doing it).

You have no concept of why not broadcasting the SSID is for _privacy_ and
the reason is that you're incapable of understanding nuance in detail.

You're not an adult nospam, if you can't comprehend this simple topic.
It's not for _security_ (as anyone can find the SSID in the packets).

It's for privacy.
The problem with uneducated low-IQ people like you, nospam, which we see in
Alan Browne and Alan Baker and Jolly Roger too, is you jump to conclusions
based on what you _think_ you know about the subject.

What you know is what _everyone_ knows, nospam, which is that not
broadcasting your SSID has almost no impact on your _security_.

What you don't know is what the impact is on privacy.
If I may be blunt, you're actully too stupid to learn.

Because you think you know it all.
And yet, every statement from you above shows you have no idea.

It whooshed over your head _why_ and _how_ not broadcasting the SSID helps
privacy, and, worse, you don't know the following steps you should also do
given you have to _also_ tell the phone not to auto-reconnect.

I could go into gory detail but I wrote entire tutorials on this.

And they're in the XDA Developers site too (in addition to Usenet) so I
already know you'll say they're wrong but the fact is they're NOT wrong.

What's wrong is your brain is that of a five year old child nospam.
You can't conceive of any other use of hiding the SSID other than security.

All you iKooks suffer from the same character flaws.
1. You "think" you're smart (but you're actually uneducated ignorant kooks)
2. You "jump to conclusions" based on _zero_ evidence
3. And, you're too stupid to check your work against the facts.

Anyway, the fact you _think_ not hiding the SSID was for _security_ is how
I know, nospam, you don't own the normal mental acuity of an adult.

On 2023-03-07 13:01, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>>> My home also has the SSID hidden, nospam, for privacy reasons.
>>
>> it's trivial to determine what a hidden ssid is.
>
> Jesus Christ nospam. Every time you say something _that_ incredibly stupid,
> I have to wonder if your brain is permanently stuck as that of a five year
> old.
>
> I'd expect _that_ kind of ignorance to be from the mouth of Alan Browne,
> not you, nospam.
>
> You're _supposed_ to know something about privacy. Yet you don't know
> the most basic of the most fundamental things.
>
> Sheesh. This is how I know your IQ is far lower than normal, nospam.

<https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-e&q=How+to+scan+hidden+SSID+WIFI%3F&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjVkcOsvMr9AhVJTaQEHXr5BeYQ3rMBegQIJhAC&biw=1113&bih=721>

Is there an app to find hidden Wi-Fi networks?
Use a WiFi scanner app: There are a number of WiFi scanner apps
available on the Google Play Store, like WiFi Analyzer and Network
Scanner. Once you've installed one of these apps, open it and scan for
networks. The app will show you a list of all the WiFi networks in the
area, including hidden ones.Nov 2, 2022

How To See Hidden Wifi Networks On Android?
Androidphonesoft
https://www.androidphonesoft.com › blog › how-to-se...

<https://www.androidphonesoft.com/blog/how-to-see-hidden-wifi-networks-on-android/>

How do I unhide wireless networks on Android?

There are a few different ways to unhide wireless networks on Android:

1. Use the Settings app to unhide networks.
2. Use a third-party app to unhide networks.
3. Use a custom ROM that includes the ability to unhide networks.

....

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Carlos E.R. wrote:

> Is there an app to find hidden Wi-Fi networks?

Hi Carlos,

*Do you think appending "_nomap" to your SSID stops it from being*
*uploaded by most phones to Google mothership tracking servers?*

I won't lash into you like I did with nospam, because of two reasons.
1. I think you were trying to be helpful (while nospam was not), and,
2. I know SSID privacy is a hard concept for most people (even adults).

There's so much I know about SSID privacy that most of you, save for
perhaps one or two of the knowledgeable Android folks, don't know.

So I must patiently explain to you the hiding of the SSID is for privacy
from Google, and not privacy from some hacker that wants to know your SSID.

It's not just you, by the way, so I'm _not_ attacking you in the least.
It's not even only nospam. He just doesn't know what he "thinks" he knows.

With that caveat having been openly stated, allow me to ask one question.
(The answer to that question is a yes or no, and it tells me a lot.)

*Do you think appending "_nomap" to your SSID stops it from being*
*uploaded by most phones to Google mothership tracking servers?*

a. Yes?
b. No"
You must pick one.
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information
which, in this case, is to faithfully help people understand SSID privacy.

In article <tu8395$496b$1@paganini.bofh.team>, Andy Burnelli
<nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

> *Do you think appending "_nomap" to your SSID stops it from being*
> *uploaded by most phones to Google mothership tracking servers?*

it's uploaded no matter what you call it.

all that does is flag it to not be publicly indexed, and only for
google. other aggregators ignore it entirely.

>
> There's so much I don't know about SSID privacy

ftfy

On 2023-03-07 20:28, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>> Is there an app to find hidden Wi-Fi networks?
>
> Hi Carlos,
>
> *Do you think appending "_nomap" to your SSID stops it from being*
> *uploaded by most phones to Google mothership tracking servers?*

Probably, but that may happen regardless of it being hidden or not.

Unless you are saying that Google (and others) do not map hidden WiFis,
which is not what you said previously. I have no idea what they do in
this case.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Carlos E.R. wrote:

>> *Do you think appending "_nomap" to your SSID stops it from being*
>> *uploaded by most phones to Google mothership tracking servers?*
>
> Probably, but that may happen regardless of it being hidden or not.
>
> Unless you are saying that Google (and others) do not map hidden WiFis,
> which is not what you said previously. I have no idea what they do in
> this case.

Hi Carlos,

Thank you for answering. I will not chastise you, as I think your intent
was purposefully helpful (unlike nospam's almost sociopathic intent).

I also apologize for having to put you on the spot because I am well aware
almost all people do NOT understand what I understand about hidden SSIDs.

I just wanted you to _learn_ from what I had to teach you. That's all.
I want _everyone_ to learn from what I can teach them, in fact.

And... I want to learn from you!
But, quite unfortunately, the sad fact is that most people are stupid.

For example, every time someone mentions hiding their SSID, people who
don't have a clue what hiding the SSID accomplishes, confuse its purpose.

This is, an example of that happening on the Wigle wardriving group.
<https://wigle.net/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=1983>

It's why I had to say "Jesus Christ" to nospam, whom I had simply assumed
wasn't an idiot when he's so very confident that he knows so much about it.

That's because most people are stupid - like nospam was - because they
assume there's no other reason to hide the SSID other than for security.
*Hiding your SSID is _not_ for security*
*Hiding your SSID is for privacy*

Privacy from whom you may ask...
*Privacy from Google public databases*
*Privacy from Mozilla public databases*
*Privacy from Wigle Wifi Wardriving public databases*
*Privacy from NetStumbler public databases*
*Privacy from Kismac public databases*
*Privacy from Kismet public databases*
*Privacy from DStumbler public databases*
*Privacy from G-Mon public databases*
*Privacy from inSSIDer public databases*
*Privacy from MacStumbler public databases*
*Privacy from NetStumbler public databases*
*Privacy from Pocket Warrior public databases*
*Privacy from Wardrive-Android public databases*
*Privacy from WiFiFoFum public databases*
*Privacy from WiFi-Where public databases*
etc.

So thank you for answering the question instead of trying to evade it.
The answer to the question shows _why_ I hide my SSID on my home APs.

Understanding the nuance of detail takes adult cognitive skills that many
people lack but which I'm patiently attempting to explain to adults here.

A bit of added detail is that it's not only the SSID that I'm trying to
prevent from being uploaded to Google & Mozilla servers, but four things:
1. The SSID
2. The BSSID (unique)
3. The GPS location (extremely unique!)
4. The signal strength

Each of those privacy holes (and more, but those are the big privacy hits)
are uploaded to Google servers whenever someone rude drives by your home.

So how do you stop rude people from giving Google your privacy?
1. The _nomap does NOT prevent the upload by rude Android owners, but,
2. Google & Mozilla are on record for NOT UPLOADING if the SSID is hidden!

Note that we discussed this in gory detail in the past, so I'm not even
going to provide the cites unless you feel that it's not factually correct.

The problem, of course, is that it's not only Google & Mozilla, but Wigle
and NetStumbler, and Wireshark and others "can" upload to _their_ servers.

This _unofficial" discussion implies hiding the SSID works for Wigle too.
<https://wigle.net/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=1655>

This says NetStumbler will also miss all hidden access points:
<https://wigle.net/wiki/index.cgi?Cardinal_Rules_Of_Wardriving_FAQ>

I don't know about passive scanners such as Kismac/Kismet but that implies
same reference implies that they obtain the SSID (which isn't surprising).

The question is whether they _upload_ the SSID to the respective servers.
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information
which, in this case, is to patiently explain vast nuance in SSID detail.

nospam wrote:

>> *Do you think appending "_nomap" to your SSID stops it from being*
>> *uploaded by most phones to Google mothership tracking servers?*
>
> it's uploaded no matter what you call it.

Dead wrong, nospam.

You jump to unwarranted imaginary belief systems, which most people do.
But you "think" you know what clearly you have no clue about.

Steve and you and Jolly Roger just performed that same stupidity moments
ago with respect to comparing iOS MAC randomization privacy to Android.
*Privacy question about randomizing the MAC address of the iPhone per each AP connection*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/4UKsKgmXLi0>

You "think" you understood what Apple wrote; but you didn't comprehend the
nuance in detail inherent in the adult comprehension of what Apple _said_.
*About Wi-Fi privacy using MAC address randomization*
<https://support.apple.com/guide/security/wi-fi-privacy-secb9cb3140c/web>

I was gentle with Carlos, nospam, because he was _trying_ to be helpful.
I'm not going to be gentle with you, nospam, because you are decidedly not.

*You are stupid nospam*
*Incredibly stupid*
*And Ignorant*

You have absolutely zero idea of what hiding the SSID actually does.
And yet, you're so incredibly stupid you will never comprehend why.

HINT: You're completely wrong on what you said about iOS randomizations.
You just don't comprehend the nuance in detail.

> all that does is flag it to not be publicly indexed, and only for
> google. other aggregators ignore it entirely.

Please see my patient and rather detailed for Carlos, nospam.
*Internal logs of Andorid (or ios? phones)*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/NC_e_g3u6dA/m/c1FiJHHhBQAJ>

Pointedly, I didn't rip into Carlos because he was _trying_ to be helpful.

I simply patiently explained that people incorrectly often assume that
hiding the SSID is for security when the reason I hide it is for privacy.

>> There's so much I don't know about SSID privacy
>
> ftfy

Every time you do ftfy stuff, nospam, you prove to own the brain of a child
(because you can't respond to the facts like a normal adult would do).

SO you _change_ the quoted text, like a small child erasing his F on his
redlined test & placing an A in its place hoping his parents won't notice.

The fact is that one post to Carlos explains more about SSID privacy than
you will _ever_ know in your entire sordid despicable life, nospam.

Your only goal is to defend all Apple's flaws to the death, nospam.
Like you did defending Apple's lack of MAC randomization privacy.
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information
which, in this case, is to make sure nospam realizes that he's dead wrong.

On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 19:52:43 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

>On 2023-03-07 13:01, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> nospam wrote:
>>
>>>> My home also has the SSID hidden, nospam, for privacy reasons.
>>>
>>> it's trivial to determine what a hidden ssid is.
>>
>> Jesus Christ nospam.

The answer to the question "What is nospam's full name?"

>> Every time you say something _that_ incredibly stupid,
>> I have to wonder if your brain is permanently stuck as that of a five year
>> old.
>>
>> I'd expect _that_ kind of ignorance to be from the mouth of Alan Browne,
>> not you, nospam.
>>
>> You're _supposed_ to know something about privacy. Yet you don't know
>> the most basic of the most fundamental things.
>>
>> Sheesh. This is how I know your IQ is far lower than normal, nospam.
>
><https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-e&q=How+to+scan+hidden+SSID+WIFI%3F&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjVkcOsvMr9AhVJTaQEHXr5BeYQ3rMBegQIJhAC&biw=1113&bih=721>
>
>Is there an app to find hidden Wi-Fi networks?
>Use a WiFi scanner app: There are a number of WiFi scanner apps
>available on the Google Play Store, like WiFi Analyzer and Network
>Scanner. Once you've installed one of these apps, open it and scan for
>networks. The app will show you a list of all the WiFi networks in the
>area, including hidden ones.Nov 2, 2022
>
>How To See Hidden Wifi Networks On Android?
>Androidphonesoft
>https://www.androidphonesoft.com › blog › how-to-se...
>
>
><https://www.androidphonesoft.com/blog/how-to-see-hidden-wifi-networks-on-android/>
>
>
>How do I unhide wireless networks on Android?
>
>There are a few different ways to unhide wireless networks on Android:
>
>1. Use the Settings app to unhide networks.
>2. Use a third-party app to unhide networks.
>3. Use a custom ROM that includes the ability to unhide networks.
>
>...

In article <tu8a4f$4vum$1@paganini.bofh.team>, Andy Burnelli
<nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

> > all that does is flag it to not be publicly indexed, and only for
> > google. other aggregators ignore it entirely.
>
> Please see my patient and rather detailed for Carlos, nospam.
> *Internal logs of Andorid (or ios? phones)*

you don't have 'internal logs' of what google does with any information
it collects, or anyone else for that matter.

google definitely collects it. however, it's not publicly indexed.

it also doesn't matter since microsoft, apple, skyhook and other
geolocation databases also collect it, and unlike google, *will*
publicly index it.

nospam wrote:

>>> all that does is flag it to not be publicly indexed, and only for
>>> google. other aggregators ignore it entirely.
>>
>> Please see my patient and rather detailed for Carlos, nospam.
>> *Internal logs of Andorid (or ios? phones)*
>
> you don't have 'internal logs' of what google does with any information
> it collects, or anyone else for that matter.
>
> google definitely collects it. however, it's not publicly indexed.
>
> it also doesn't matter since microsoft, apple, skyhook and other
> geolocation databases also collect it, and unlike google, *will*
> publicly index it.

First, you show you have no clue what an SSID even is, nospam.
And now you're telling all of us what you "think" you know.

*Sans a single cite*

However...
Since I'm extremely well educated and rather intelligent, nospam, I will
simply ask you to back up your claims with credible factual cites.

*That's all I ask of you iKooks*

I promise...
If you can back up your claims with cites, I'll read & understand them.

Deal?

On 2023-03-07 22:40, nospam wrote:
> In article <tu8a4f$4vum$1@paganini.bofh.team>, Andy Burnelli
> <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>> all that does is flag it to not be publicly indexed, and only for
>>> google. other aggregators ignore it entirely.
>>
>> Please see my patient and rather detailed for Carlos, nospam.
>> *Internal logs of Andorid (or ios? phones)*
>
> you don't have 'internal logs' of what google does with any information
> it collects, or anyone else for that matter.
>
> google definitely collects it. however, it's not publicly indexed.
>
> it also doesn't matter since microsoft, apple, skyhook and other
> geolocation databases also collect it, and unlike google, *will*
> publicly index it.

His claim is that indexers (some? all?) do not collect wifis with hidden
SSIDs. And that is his privacy reason for setting ssid to hide.

I have no idea if this is true or not. It may be.

Now, someone may verify this be creating an AP with hidden SSID, close
to another with normal SSID, and wait (years?) to see which appear on
public access wifi databases.

Someone is willing? :-)

--
Cheers, Carlos.