In article <s7ljdj$ilc$2@gioia.aioe.org>, R.Wieser
<address@not.available> wrote:

> >> broadcasting ssids is not 'identifiable personal information'
> >> unless one or more of your ssids contains such information.
> >
> > +1
> > It is an identifier like Blue, Red, Yellow or a numeration.
>
> Do you have a SSN yourself ? How is that /not/ an identifier ?

ssn and bssid are two totally different things. one is for a person and
the other for a hardware device.

> And even though its just an identifier, the American gouverment strongly
> suggests you to keep it to yourself.

no they don't.

the social security administration says to be careful and to ask
questions before disclosing it.

<https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10064.pdf>
You should be careful about sharing your number, even when
you¹re asked for it. You should ask why your number is needed,
how it¹ll be used, and what will happen if you refuse. The answers
to these questions can help you decide if you want to give out your
Social Security number.

> Do you have any idea why ?
>
> IOW : put your brain into gear before you put your mouth into motion.

you should try that sometime.

In article <s7ljdg$ilc$1@gioia.aioe.org>, R.Wieser
<address@not.available> wrote:

> You are up to your old tricks : claiming a lot, but explaining / supporting
> none of it. And oh yeah, lets not forget your habit of "misunderstanding"
> what someone has said.

i'm not the one who is misunderstanding anything.

that would be *you* along with 'arlen', currently using the nym 'paul'
in this thread.

> Personally I think this one is a hoot :

only because you don't understand what is being discussed.

what's actually a hoot is thinking that an ssn and bssid are 'just
numbers' and somehow equivalent.

> > broadcasting ssids is not 'identifiable personal information'
> > unless one or more of your ssids contains such information.
>
> In that case you will have no problem with posting the SSNs of yourself and
> all your family members here.
>
> I mean, if a (B)SSID number cannot contain 'identifiable personal
> information' than neither can a SSN number. Both are just numbers, right
> ?

very much wrong.

an ssn is personally identifiable information (pii).

a bssid is not.

a bssid is unique for a particular hardware device (not a person). it
can be spoofed, but that is rare.

do you not understand the difference between a person and an inanimate
object?

> And before you think of replying how a SSN *can be used as* a key into some
> big, PII containing list somewhere, how/why do you think that that is
> impossible for any other number ?

there would need to be a database indexed by 'any other number' that
links to a particular person's identity.

there aren't any databases linking a bssid to a particular person, nor
can there be.

the geolocation databases link a bssid to a *location*, not a person.

almost always, there will be more than one person at a given location,
particularly in urban areas, where there could be thousands of people
associated with a particular location.

Am 13.05.21 um 22:57 schrieb paul:
> nospam wrote on 13.05.2021 22:08
>
>> a unique ssid doesn't make much of a difference.
>
> You clearly don't understand how those published hash tables are generated.

Completely irrelevant in this discussed case.

>> learn about cracking wifi first.
>
> As always nospam turned into a bumbling idiot when confronted with fact.

You are spreading fake news.
You are a Troll.

Am 12.05.21 um 18:18 schrieb nospam:
> In article <s7gpgo$r47$1@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
> wrote:
>
>>> he wants to switch off his home base station when away, not the phone.
>>
>> For what purpose? He can easily stop that forever on the router.
>
> his stated goal is to prevent his wifi network from being included in
> various databases, and the only way to do that is by switching it off.

Once turned on it takes milliseconds to find it and to geolocate it as
well as to include it in any database.

Our dear paul should never dare to turn on his WiFi anymore.

Joerg Lorenz wrote on 14.05.2021 16:44

> Our dear paul should never dare to turn on his WiFi anymore.

*Do these morons like Joerg Lorenz & nospam _ever_ post with helpful intent?*

Have they ever even once in this thread or in any thread ever added any value?

Why do they always prove to be idiot little children playing their childish games?

Nospam,

> ssn and bssid are two totally different things. one is for a person
> and the other for a hardware device.

Which is absolutily inconsequential to what you yourself where talking
about. Good try, but no dice I'm afraid. Try again.

>> And even though its just an identifier, the American gouverment
>> strongly suggests you to keep it to yourself.
>
> no they don't.
>
> the social security administration says to be careful and to
> ask questions before disclosing it.
[snip link]

Thats a nice "no, but actually yes" example. :-)

>> IOW : put your brain into gear before you put your mouth into motion.
>
> you should try that sometime.

Nah. I don't really need to when talking to the likes of you. :-p

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Nospam,

> i'm not the one who is misunderstanding anything.

*Ofcourse* you're not. Its *everyone else* who does that, right ? :-)

> that would be *you*

Kid, you are again giving a prime example of a claim which you do not even
try to explain, let lone underbuild.

But I'll bite : /how/ did I misunderstand this thread (you *and* Paul) ?

> along with 'arlen', currently using the nym 'paul' in this thread.

Lol. The Arlen I know responds with violent personal attacks whenever
someone disagrees with him. In comparision Paul here is an angel, with the
worst he's done is calling you out on your nonsense.

> only because you don't understand what is being discussed.

Well ? What stopped you from educating me there ? Maybe a lack of
understanding it yourself ?

> what's actually a hoot is thinking that an ssn and bssid are
> 'just numbers' and somehow equivalent.

And again : claiming that someone is wrong, but not giving an iota in
explanation or underbuilding it.

Although .... I can understand that it might be a bit hard for some people
to distinguish between what something *is*, and what it's *used as*.

> very much wrong.
>
> an ssn is personally identifiable information (pii).
>
> a bssid is not.

Wrong. Neither number is. Or both are. Take your pick.

(I could explain that, but I'm trying to behave just like you in this
regard. Am I considerate or what ? )

> a bssid is unique for a particular hardware device (not a person).
> it can be spoofed, but that is rare.

Too bad that you can't seem to imagine some "particular hardware device"
that's considered /very/ personal, and as such seldom (if ever) leaves its
owners side.

I'll give you a hint : It starts with a "P" and ends with "hone".

> do you not understand the difference between a person and
> an inanimate object?

How is it you can't seem to figure out that access-points, even though they
seldom used for communication solely between themselves, are not the only
devices using (B)SSIDs ?

> there would need to be a database indexed by 'any other number'
> that links to a particular person's identity.

You mean, just like what needs to happen with a SSN ?

> there aren't any databases linking a bssid to a particular person,
> nor can there be.

Kiddo, you *must/ be trolling. You can't be *that* oblivious to what is
happening all around you.

Hint : it starts with "G" and ends with "oogle".

> the geolocation databases link a bssid to a *location*, not a person.

Who said anything about a *geolocation* database ? I surely didn't.

Besides, what makes you think such databases can't also contain PII ?

> almost always, there will be more than one person at a given
> location,

While that /might/ be true, you're still (willfully?) oblivious to any other
device than an access-point.

> particularly in urban areas, where there could be thousands of
> people associated with a particular location.

And thats utter bullshit.

If not, isn't it rather inconvenient having to share one street address with
all the people of your whole, multiple square mile neighbourhood ? :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

In comp.mobile.android, R.Wieser <address@not.available> wrote:
> I mean, if a (B)SSID number cannot contain 'identifiable personal
> information' than neither can a SSN number. Both are just numbers,
> right?

Nonsense. If I invite you into my home, I'll tell you which of the 20+
SSIDs you can find in my area is mine, and I'll share the password with
you. I would not share SSNs so freely.

Because SSIDs can be used to geolocate someone, I'm not going to post
mine or the ones that are near me unchanged. I'm fine with people
knowing I live in San Francisco, but I'm not giving out my street
address for everyone.

SSNs are "PII": personally identifiable information.
SSIDs are just "personal data".

https://techgdpr.com/blog/difference-between-pii-and-personal-data/

There are three people regularlly using my wifi network, and six or so
others using it sporatically. That means my wifi network will not
identify any particular person, but it does mean that it narrows the
possibilities to a very large degree.

Elijah
------
access to the wifi also grants access to the printer

paul <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg wrote on 13.05.2021 20:43
[...]

> The funny thing regarding your statement that Location may not necessarily
> mean "GPS" is that the "Location" forms don't explicitly say the GPS radio
> is what the Location teardrop tile turns on but there is no _other_ way to
> explicitly turn on the GPS radios that I can find - so that teardrop tile
> Location icon _must_ be turning on the GPS receivers.
>
> What else can that "teardrop" tile switch be doing but turning on GPS?

I assume that with "the Location teardrop tile", you mean the 'tile'
(I would say icon) on the panel which you slide down from the top. If
so, if you *fully* slide down that panel, you don't just get the
main/'important' tiles, but all tiles and then these tiles have
*descriptions* below them, for example under the Bluetooth tile, it says
'Bluetooth'. And under "the Location teardrop tile" it says 'Location',
*not* GPS. So, as I mentioned, "the Location teardrop tile" switches the
*Location service* on/off, not GPS (GPS is turned on/off by *apps*, not
by settings).

[...]

> With "Turn on Wi-Fi automatically" blue and set to on, the instant I turn
> off the Location teardrop or I turn off Wi-Fi scanning the
> "Turn on Wi-Fi automatically" stays in the on position but it grays out.
>
> I'm confused for a few reasons, one of which is that I'm not sure what a
> grayed out indication means when the switch position remains at "on"
> and another of which is that if the teardrop pulldown "Location" tile
> doesn't turn on the GPS receiver - what does it do and how do you turn on
> the GPS receiver then?

I do not know what a grayed out switch in the on position means and I
cannot reproduce your scenario. For me the switch is off-and-gray or
on-and-blue, not another combination.

As to "how do you turn on the GPS receiver then?": As I mentioned,
*you* don't turn it on, the *app(s)* you use turn it on. Yes, in The Old
Days (Android 4/5) the teardrop button/tile/<whatever> switch GPS
on/off, but not anymore, at least not on my Samsung Galaxy A51 with
Android 10.

On 2021-05-14 3:07 a.m., R.Wieser wrote:
> Nospam,
>
> The below is *everything* you responded with in all four posts in this
> thread :
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> [Wed, 12 May 2021 10:35:28]
>
>> yep
>
>> the last four words should be removed for a more accurate statement.
>
> [Wed, 12 May 2021 17:19:25]
>
>> broadcasting ssids is not 'identifiable personal information'
>> unless one or more of your ssids contains such information.
>
> [ Thu, 13 May 2021 09:24:17]
>
>> nonsense.
>>
>> the bssid does not contain any personally identifiable information
>> and is not in any way like a social security number.
>
> You might notice that the above quote is just a repeat of the statement you
> made a day before to the same person, with nothing (new) added. Which
> makes it a NULL post.
>
> [Thu, 13 May 2021 16:08:18]
>
>> it's not his video and it doesn't say what you think it does.
>
>> you understand even less than he does, which is quite the
>> accomplishment, and not a good one.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> You are up to your old tricks : claiming a lot, but explaining / supporting
> none of it. And oh yeah, lets not forget your habit of "misunderstanding"
> what someone has said.
>
>
> Personally I think this one is a hoot :
>
>> broadcasting ssids is not 'identifiable personal information'
>> unless one or more of your ssids contains such information.
>
> In that case you will have no problem with posting the SSNs of yourself and
> all your family members here.

How does that even follow?

I'll happily post my SSID here: Telus-Baker-5G and Telus-Baker-2.4G

Fill your boots.

>
> I mean, if a (B)SSID number cannot contain 'identifiable personal
> information' than neither can a SSN number. Both are just numbers, right

One is a number that is used to access additional personal information
(SSN) while the other serves a single purpose and is absolutely no use
to anyone trying to obtain other personal information (SSID).

> ?
>
> And before you think of replying how a SSN *can be used as* a key into some
> big, PII containing list somewhere, how/why do you think that that is
> impossible for any other number ?

You tell me:

In what way is my SSID associated with any other information about me?

Eli,

>> I mean, if a (B)SSID number cannot contain 'identifiable personal
>> information' than neither can a SSN number. Both are just numbers,
>> right?
>
> Nonsense.

I've got a full reply to you ready to post, but when I do it also answers
most of what I'm trying to get nospam to think about and respond to. Give
me/him a few days.

I can send it to you using email if you want though (just make sure its a
throw-away address).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

In comp.mobile.android, R.Wieser <address@not.available> wrote:
> Eli,
>
> I've got a full reply to you ready to post, but when I do it also answers
> most of what I'm trying to get nospam to think about and respond to. Give
> me/him a few days.
>
> I can send it to you using email if you want though (just make sure its a
> throw-away address).

If you want to email me, my From: line address works. But I'm quite
willing to wait and see the response in the group.

Elijah
------
is still willing to consider Usenet very asychronous

On 2021-05-14 9:39 a.m., R.Wieser wrote:
> Nospam,
>
>> i'm not the one who is misunderstanding anything.
>
> *Ofcourse* you're not. Its *everyone else* who does that, right ? :-)
>
>> that would be *you*
>
> Kid, you are again giving a prime example of a claim which you do not even
> try to explain, let lone underbuild.
>
> But I'll bite : /how/ did I misunderstand this thread (you *and* Paul) ?
>
>> along with 'arlen', currently using the nym 'paul' in this thread.
>
> Lol. The Arlen I know responds with violent personal attacks whenever
> someone disagrees with him. In comparision Paul here is an angel, with the
> worst he's done is calling you out on your nonsense.

Nope. The attacks take precisely the same form for either nym.

>
>> only because you don't understand what is being discussed.
>
> Well ? What stopped you from educating me there ? Maybe a lack of
> understanding it yourself ?
>
>> what's actually a hoot is thinking that an ssn and bssid are
>> 'just numbers' and somehow equivalent.
>
> And again : claiming that someone is wrong, but not giving an iota in
> explanation or underbuilding it.
>
> Although .... I can understand that it might be a bit hard for some people
> to distinguish between what something *is*, and what it's *used as*.
>
>> very much wrong.
>>
>> an ssn is personally identifiable information (pii).
>>
>> a bssid is not.
>
> Wrong. Neither number is. Or both are. Take your pick.

How is an ssid associated with a PERSON?

>
> (I could explain that, but I'm trying to behave just like you in this
> regard. Am I considerate or what ? )
>
>> a bssid is unique for a particular hardware device (not a person).
>> it can be spoofed, but that is rare.
>
> Too bad that you can't seem to imagine some "particular hardware device"
> that's considered /very/ personal, and as such seldom (if ever) leaves its
> owners side.

Actually, it regularly leaves its owner's "side"...

....when the owner is elsewhere.

Frank Slootweg wrote on 15.05.2021 07:40

>> What else can that "teardrop" tile switch be doing but turning on GPS?
>
> I assume that with "the Location teardrop tile", you mean the 'tile'
> (I would say icon) on the panel which you slide down from the top.

I always called them "tiles" but you can call them "icons" if you want.
https://android.gadgethacks.com/how-to/add-your-own-quick-settings-tiles-android-nougat-0173307/

I think the top bar location teardrop icon is called a "quick settings tile"
https://www.learn2crack.com/2017/02/android-using-quick-settings-tiles.html

Apparently each tile is associated with a tile service on Android
https://medium.com/androiddevelopers/quick-settings-tiles-e3c22daf93a8

> If so, if you *fully* slide down that panel, you don't just get the
> main/'important' tiles, but all tiles and then these tiles have
> *descriptions* below them, for example under the Bluetooth tile, it says
> 'Bluetooth'. And under "the Location teardrop tile" it says 'Location',
> *not* GPS.

Yes. I see that under the teardrop tile it says only "Location" & not GPS.

This article implies the teardrop tile turns on "GPS" but it may be wrong.
https://www.wikihow.tech/Turn-on-GPS-on-Android
"The Location icon may look like a pin or a world icon depending on
your Android version. On some versions of Android, this option is
listed as GPS."

And this article implies you can turn on specific location methods
https://answersdrive.com/how-do-i-turn-on-gps-on-my-android-phone-2400040
"Select desired locating method: GPS, Wi-Fi, and mobile networks"

> So, as I mentioned, "the Location teardrop tile" switches the
> *Location service* on/off, not GPS (GPS is turned on/off by *apps*, not
> by settings).

That is probably why I was confused as there is _nothing_ in the "Location"
quick settings tile for GPS options. Everything is Wi-Fi or Bluetooth.

Even the "app permissions" section just says the apps in the list can access
the "location" (without saying _how_ that app figures out the location).

>
>> With "Turn on Wi-Fi automatically" blue and set to on, the instant I turn
>> off the Location teardrop or I turn off Wi-Fi scanning the
>> "Turn on Wi-Fi automatically" stays in the on position but it grays out.
>>
>> I'm confused for a few reasons, one of which is that I'm not sure what a
>> grayed out indication means when the switch position remains at "on"
>> and another of which is that if the teardrop pulldown "Location" tile
>> doesn't turn on the GPS receiver - what does it do and how do you turn on
>> the GPS receiver then?
>
> I do not know what a grayed out switch in the on position means and I
> cannot reproduce your scenario. For me the switch is off-and-gray or
> on-and-blue, not another combination.

Here's what I just did just now to set it up the way you have it set up.

Using the Quick Settings Location tile I set Location = On.
And I set "Improve Accuracy" "Wi-Fi scanning" also = On.

Since I have Wi-Fi automated I made sure the Wi-Fi was connected to my AP
when I pulled down the Quick Settings Wi-Fi tile and then I pressed the 3
dots at the top right of the Wi-Fi settings to get to the "Advanced" menu.

That Advanced menu took me to "Intelligent Wi-Fi" which is now blue and
set to "Turn on Wi-Fi automatically = On"
'Turn on Wi-Fi automatically when you're in places you use it frequently
and turn it off elsewhere.'

The only problem with this set of settings is "Location" must be on
and "Wi-Fi scanning" must be on. Otherwise it's perfect.

> As to "how do you turn on the GPS receiver then?": As I mentioned,
> *you* don't turn it on, the *app(s)* you use turn it on. Yes, in The Old
> Days (Android 4/5) the teardrop button/tile/<whatever> switch GPS
> on/off, but not anymore, at least not on my Samsung Galaxy A51 with
> Android 10.

Mine is the A32 5G where I'll believe you that the old Android turned
on the GPS but this Android 11 let's the apps decide what to turn on.

Thank you for teaching me that bit of Android lore which is useful.
To see which apps are using the GPS, when I long press on the Quick Settings
tile for Location I can then tap on "App permissions" which says
"Apps with this permission can access this device's location"
Allowed all the time = No apps allowed
Allowed only while in use = (there are many apps listed there)
Denied = (there are many apps listed there too)

What is confusing to me but I believe you as what you say seems to be born
out in Android 11 is there is no System setting to turn GPS on or off.

Yet the Android support from Google says the teardrop icon in the top of
your screen indicates an app is specifically using GPS to get your location.
https://support.google.com/android/answer/3467281?hl=en
"When an app is using your phone's location via GPS,
the top of your screen shows Location (teardrop)"

It's confusing but I thank you for pointing out this Samsung feature.

I have it set right now but I probably won't use it long term because
it requires location to be turned on where I would rather only cellular
be turned on instead of location always having to be turned on.

Frank Slootweg wrote:
> As to "how do you turn on the GPS receiver then?": As I mentioned,
> *you* don't turn it on, the *app(s)* you use turn it on. Yes, in
> The Old Days (Android 4/5) the teardrop button/tile/<whatever>
> switch GPS on/off, but not anymore, at least not on my Samsung
> Galaxy A51 with Android 10.

The Old Days comprise Android 6/7 too, at least on my S6.

-p

Alan,

> Nope. The attacks take precisely the same form for either nym.

Yup. On first glance I mistook his later posts as annoyance towards
persons I also found annoying. Sh*t happens.

> How is an ssid associated with a PERSON?

I can read that in at least two different ways, and have already tried to
answered both.

1) The "I've got a (B)SSID and now want to know which person is accociated
with it" tecnical part.
The same way a SSN is tied to a person : you ask a database.

Though in the case if a (B)SSID than being in the vincinity of the target
than using you own phones WiFi and a small "compass" style program will
allow you to identify the person (bypassing the name, DoB and address
requirements :-) ).

2) The "how is a (B)SSID of a device bound to a person" ?
"mobile communication devices" (aka "phones") nowerdays are rather, if not
/very/ personal. Protected by biometric passwords and whatnot. If the
owner does not want you to use it than you, as a common person, are not
going to.

IOW, if-and-when that phone is used than its under the say-so of the owner.
As such I consider the (B)SSID of that persons phone to be bound to that
person. And yes, thats a caveat - not /all/ used (B)SSIDs are bound to a
specific persons.

>Actually, it regularly leaves its owner's "side"...
>
> ...when the owner is elsewhere.

:-) Thats a nice circular redenation.

Yes, It *can*. But I'm arguing that it nowerdays seldom, if ever, does.
Do you disagree with that ?

And no, I cannot solve all the misuses of (B)SSIDs used as a personal
identifier. And no, I cannot do that for SSNs either. :-)

You know what I find remarkable ?

So many posts in which I have tried to explain myself, and *not one*
response in which anyone tries to counter it by explaining how it wouldn't.
Instead of a honest discussion about how it could or could not work
(exchanging information!) all I get is "youre wrong, explain yourself !"
style demands. And that makes me quite tired.

For *once* I would like to see how someone explains how-and-why that it
would not be possible, preferrably compared to how a SSN doesn't have a
similar problem.

:-) It just sprung into focus for me : if nothing changes than this is my
last post on the matter.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

R.Wieser <address@not.available> wrote:
[...]

> 1) The "I've got a (B)SSID and now want to know which person is accociated
> with it" tecnical part.
> The same way a SSN is tied to a person : you ask a database.
>
> Though in the case if a (B)SSID than being in the vincinity of the target
> than using you own phones WiFi and a small "compass" style program will
> allow you to identify the person (bypassing the name, DoB and address
> requirements :-) ).

That might work somewhat (FSVSVO 'somewhat') for houses which are
spread over some distance, but won't work for houses in a row,
multi-storey houses, appartment buildings, etc..

For example in our appartment building, I 'see' tens and tens of SSIDs
of everybodies Wi-Fi Access Points (APs). No way to tell which SSID/AP
'belongs' to whom, at least not for many/most/all of them.

> 2) The "how is a (B)SSID of a device bound to a person" ?
> "mobile communication devices" (aka "phones") nowerdays are rather, if not
> /very/ personal. Protected by biometric passwords and whatnot. If the
> owner does not want you to use it than you, as a common person, are not
> going to.
>
> IOW, if-and-when that phone is used than its under the say-so of the owner.
> As such I consider the (B)SSID of that persons phone to be bound to that
> person. And yes, thats a caveat - not /all/ used (B)SSIDs are bound to a
> specific persons.

AFAICT, you've got the situation wrong:

The (B)SSID is not associated with a - mobile - *phone* [1] but with
some - normally stationary - *Access Point* (AP). An AP *can* be
'personal', but normally is not. (The *ownership* of the AP might be
'personal', but often even that's not the case.)

[,,,]

[1] Except when the phone is *used as* and AP, which is a small
minority.

In article <s7m955$1lsh$1@gioia.aioe.org>, R.Wieser
<address@not.available> wrote:

> > ssn and bssid are two totally different things. one is for a person
> > and the other for a hardware device.
>
> Which is absolutily inconsequential to what you yourself where talking
> about. Good try, but no dice I'm afraid. Try again.

it's not inconsequential.

they are two very different things, for two very different purposes.

> >> And even though its just an identifier, the American gouverment
> >> strongly suggests you to keep it to yourself.
> >
> > no they don't.
> >
> > the social security administration says to be careful and to
> > ask questions before disclosing it.
> [snip link]
>
> Thats a nice "no, but actually yes" example. :-)

you have a habit of snipping links that prove you wrong.

being careful is *not* the same as 'strongly suggests you keep it to
yourself'.

In article <s7m957$1lsh$2@gioia.aioe.org>, R.Wieser
<address@not.available> wrote:

> > i'm not the one who is misunderstanding anything.
>
> *Ofcourse* you're not. Its *everyone else* who does that, right ? :-)

nope. just you.

even 'paul' (aka 'arlen') mostly understands it, although he is blinded
by his pathological paranoia.

> > that would be *you*
>
> Kid, you are again giving a prime example of a claim which you do not even
> try to explain, let lone underbuild.
>
> But I'll bite : /how/ did I misunderstand this thread (you *and* Paul) ?

first, by thinking that because an ssn and bssid are both numbers, they
are somehow equivalent. i'm still laughing at that one.

second, your claim that there is a database linking a bssid to a
particular person. there isn't, nor can there be.

next, you don't understand what bssid and ssid actually are, especially
since you repeatedly lump them together by writing '(b)ssid'.

lastly, you don't understand how wifi geolocation works, what 'paul' is
trying to do to thwart it and why his attempts are futile.

> > along with 'arlen', currently using the nym 'paul' in this thread.
>
> Lol. The Arlen I know responds with violent personal attacks whenever
> someone disagrees with him. In comparision Paul here is an angel, with the
> worst he's done is calling you out on your nonsense.

they're the same person, and you clearly have missed the numerous
personal attacks 'paul' has spewed.

> > only because you don't understand what is being discussed.
>
> Well ? What stopped you from educating me there ? Maybe a lack of
> understanding it yourself ?

maybe that you suddenly appeared in this thread and that you aren't
actually interested in learning anything.

but on the off chance you do want to learn something, there is plenty
of information already in this thread. start there. you could also use
the resource you mention below to find even more information.

based on your comments, it's safe to say that you haven't read much of
anything about the topic and will not be doing so in the future.

> > what's actually a hoot is thinking that an ssn and bssid are
> > 'just numbers' and somehow equivalent.
>
> And again : claiming that someone is wrong, but not giving an iota in
> explanation or underbuilding it.
>
> Although .... I can understand that it might be a bit hard for some people
> to distinguish between what something *is*, and what it's *used as*.

at least you understand that you're having such difficulties.

> > very much wrong.
> >
> > an ssn is personally identifiable information (pii).
> >
> > a bssid is not.
>
> Wrong. Neither number is. Or both are. Take your pick.

nope.

one is, the other is not.

> (I could explain that, but I'm trying to behave just like you in this
> regard. Am I considerate or what ? )

or what.

> > a bssid is unique for a particular hardware device (not a person).
> > it can be spoofed, but that is rare.
>
> Too bad that you can't seem to imagine some "particular hardware device"
> that's considered /very/ personal, and as such seldom (if ever) leaves its
> owners side.
>
> I'll give you a hint : It starts with a "P" and ends with "hone".

nobody said that devices which can be linked to a particular person do
not exist.

what you fail to understand is that wifi access points are not among
such devices.

you're also ignoring company-owned phones, where the person using it is
*not* the owner.

the same applies to company-owned wifi access points, which is the norm
for any business offering public wifi.

> > do you not understand the difference between a person and
> > an inanimate object?
>
> How is it you can't seem to figure out that access-points, even though they
> seldom used for communication solely between themselves, are not the only
> devices using (B)SSIDs ?

you could have saved yourself a lot of typing and simply answered 'no'.

also, mesh wifi says hello.

but out of morbid curiosity, what else in your list of devices has a
bssid other than wifi access points?

> > there would need to be a database indexed by 'any other number'
> > that links to a particular person's identity.
>
> You mean, just like what needs to happen with a SSN ?

but not a bssid.

> > there aren't any databases linking a bssid to a particular person,
> > nor can there be.
>
> Kiddo, you *must/ be trolling. You can't be *that* oblivious to what is
> happening all around you.
>
> Hint : it starts with "G" and ends with "oogle".

it ain't me who is oblivious.

google's wifi database (as well as others) maps a bssid to a location.
it does not and cannot map it to a particular person.

the location of a wifi access point tells you absolutely nothing about
who may have used that access point in the past, who is using it right
now, who might use it in the future or who owns the hardware.

> > the geolocation databases link a bssid to a *location*, not a person.
>
> Who said anything about a *geolocation* database ? I surely didn't.

nobody said you did.

you obviously haven't read the thread, which is specifically about such
databases and how to avoid being included in them, despite it being a
complete waste of time and effort in trying.

> Besides, what makes you think such databases can't also contain PII ?

what pii is included in google's wifi database, where did it come from
and how is it kept accurate and up to date? be specific.

> > almost always, there will be more than one person at a given
> > location,
>
> While that /might/ be true, you're still (willfully?) oblivious to any other
> device than an access-point.

it ain't me who is oblivious, although there are more appropriate words
that could be used.

> > particularly in urban areas, where there could be thousands of
> > people associated with a particular location.
>
> And thats utter bullshit.

it's not.

a public wifi hotspot in an urban area can easily have thousands of
people who have used it at some point, sometimes in just one day for
very busy locations.

> If not, isn't it rather inconvenient having to share one street address with
> all the people of your whole, multiple square mile neighbourhood ? :-)

you definitely don't understand how things work.

nospam wrote on 16.05.2021 08:43

> the location of a wifi access point tells you absolutely nothing about
> who may have used that access point in the past, who is using it right
> now, who might use it in the future or who owns the hardware.

The location of home router Wi-Fi access points we are talking about here is
your own home which is _easily_ tied to a database of who you are. Period.

The BSSID === you. Period.

If your phone shouts out that BSSID away from home it can be traced to you.
Period.

This thread is about how to prevent that from happening.

You haven't added _any_ value on how to prevent that from happening.
Others have.

I'm testing their proposals & will report back when successful.
It's a worthwhile skill to have to protect our BSSID from interception.

Nospam,

> it's not inconsequential.
>
> they are two very different things, for two very different purposes.

Warning: Statement has been posted before, no additional information has
been supplied.
Warning: Statement ignored, due to no explanation or substanciation to it
being offered.

> you have a habit of snipping links that prove you wrong.

My condolances to you. Most people here are smart enough to be able to
leaf up to the parent post to see what I was responding to, including that
link.

> being careful is *not* the same as 'strongly suggests you keep
> it to yourself'.

Warning: Statement ignored, due to no explanation or substanciation to it
being offered.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

nospam,

> first, by thinking that because an ssn and bssid are both numbers, they
> are somehow equivalent. i'm still laughing at that one.

Warning: Statement has been posted before, no additional information has
been supplied.
Warning: Statement ignored, due to no explanation or substanciation to it
being offered.

> second, your claim that there is a database linking a bssid to a
> particular person. there isn't, nor can there be.

Warning: Statement has been posted before, no additional information has
been supplied.
Warning: Statement ignored, due to no explanation or substanciation to it
being offered.

> lastly, you don't understand how wifi geolocation works,

Warning: Statement ignored, due to no explanation or substanciation to it
being offered.

> what 'paul' is trying to do to thwart it and why his attempts are futile.

Warning: Statement ignored - an attempted introduction of a subject that has
no relevance to the subject discussed.

[snip rest of post]

Kid, I'm getting tired of you.

Most, if not all of what you do is saying "No, your're wrong!" <full stop> ,
while keeping your hands over your ears, some sleigh-of-hand deflection
attempts and simple innuendo.

Go take a hike, and only come back when you're able to *explain* why you
think someone is wrong. Maybe than we can have an actual discussion on the
merrits of what we both think we know.

Goodbye,
Rudy Wieser

I almost forgot to post it. :-)

Eli,

>> I mean, if a (B)SSID number cannot contain 'identifiable personal
>> information' than neither can a SSN number. Both are just numbers,
>> right?
>
> Nonsense. If I invite you into my home, I'll tell you which of the 20+
> SSIDs you can find in my area is mine, and I'll share the password with
> you. I would not share SSNs so freely.

Ofcourse its nonsense. :-) I wrote that to provoke nospam to think
about it a bit.

But *WHY* is it nonsense ? I don't think you will disagree with me when I
say that both are numbers. So *what makes the one number some much more
special than the other one* ?

I give you a hint : its not the number itself.

> Because SSIDs can be used to geolocate someone, I'm not going
> to post mine or the ones that are near me unchanged.

I'm sorry ? You just told me that you would have no problem with giving us
20+ of the SSIDs in your neighbourhood, including your own, but directly
after that tell us that you won't do such a thing ? I'm confused ...

Also, that latter "I'm not going to post mine" has a reason. What is it ?
Is it maybe that such an SSID can be easily used to figure out who you are ?
If not by the company which have stuffed milions of them in a database (and
keeps updating them), but also have access to quite a bit more of your
personal data thru other means ?

> SSNs are "PII": personally identifiable information.
> SSIDs are just "personal data".
>
> https://techgdpr.com/blog/difference-between-pii-and-personal-data/

I'm sorry, but could you point out where in that document you found either
of the above (preferrably both) definitions, as I can't seem to find them
....

Besides the point that, as you have already made clear yourself, the
distinguishing of them that way is razor-thin, I also disagree with your
classification there - simply because you left stuff out.

You see, a SSN is worthless if you do not have access to the (gouvermental)
DB containing your associated PII. And as most common citizens do not
have that access ... And thats besides the simple fact you can easily hide
your a SSN, just by putting something, anything over it. Which you, as
you've already made clear, have the full intention of doing so.

And SSID on the other hand is something your phone sends out all the time
whenever you want to be able to use a WiFi accesspoint (and possible even
when you have disabled that - as the "assisted" in A-GPS seems to be
overriding that setting ...) Pretty-much the same happens when you have
(Low Energy) BlueTooth enabled by the way.

And as most phones nowerdays are /very/ personal (protected by biometric
passwords and what not) that SSID might as well be burned onto your
forehead. And yes, thats a reference to"the number of the beast".

So yes, I do think that both a SSN *as well as* a SSID can be used to figure
out a single person. With the SSID winning hands-down. And its also way
easier to track you with. :-)

> There are three people regularlly using my wifi network, and six
> or so others using it sporatically. That means my wifi network will
> not identify any particular person,

No, you have *chosen* not to identify them. Thats something quite different.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Frank,

> That might work somewhat (FSVSVO 'somewhat') for houses which
> are spread over some distance, but won't work for houses in a row,
> multi-storey houses, appartment buildings, etc..

:-) Than how do you think that geolocation of WiFi accesspoints for use
with A-GPS works ?

No, I think its quite possible to figure out where a certain (B)SSID comes
from. Either by just walking towards the signal, or by triangulation -
which works as well for vertical seperation.

> No way to tell which SSID/AP 'belongs' to whom, at least not for
> many/most/all of them.

Sigh ... If it can be done for a SSN, why do you think its impossible for
a (B)SSID ?

But yes, someone, either you yourself or someone else must have created such
a list first.

In the above I've already mentioned the existence of a geolocation database
(for use by A-GPS) that will translate the SSIDs of WiFi accesspoints to a
specific location. That would be enough for one-person households -
stripping the "/all" an perhaps even "/most/all" from your "at least not
for" claim ...

I can also /easily/ imagine that some of the bigger companies (one of them
starts with "G" and ends on "oogle") have created an even more extensive
database for tracking -> ad-selling purposes, which contains the BSSIDs of
WiFi-capable devices and whatever they got from such devices as the result
of signing up to one or more "social media" accounts.

> The (B)SSID is not associated with a - mobile - *phone* [1] but
> with some - normally stationary - *Access Point* (AP).

:-) You're conflating a certain usage with it being the /only/ usage.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

R.Wieser <address@not.available> wrote:
> Frank,
>
> > That might work somewhat (FSVSVO 'somewhat') for houses which
> > are spread over some distance, but won't work for houses in a row,
> > multi-storey houses, appartment buildings, etc..
>
> :-) Than how do you think that geolocation of WiFi accesspoints for use
> with A-GPS works ?
>
> No, I think its quite possible to figure out where a certain (B)SSID comes
> from. Either by just walking towards the signal, or by triangulation -
> which works as well for vertical seperation.

I explained why it's not feasible, but you chose to silently snip that
argument. Learning from nospam, are we!? :-(

> > No way to tell which SSID/AP 'belongs' to whom, at least not for
> > many/most/all of them.
>
> Sigh ... If it can be done for a SSN, why do you think its impossible for
> a (B)SSID ?

I explained that in the part you snipped.

> But yes, someone, either you yourself or someone else must have created such
> a list first.

So you confirm such a list doesn't exist and you've not explained how
such a list *could* be created. Noted.

Remember: One can't prove a negative. So the burden of proof - how
such a list *can* be created - is on you.

> In the above I've already mentioned the existence of a geolocation database
> (for use by A-GPS) that will translate the SSIDs of WiFi accesspoints to a
> specific location. That would be enough for one-person households -
> stripping the "/all" an perhaps even "/most/all" from your "at least not
> for" claim ...

Nope, it would *not* be enough for "one-person households", because
you - implicitly - assume that there's enough physical distance between
those housholds, which is often not the case - especially in build-up
areas.

There's a public map which shows the SSIDs in a certain area. I
checked my location and could not find my SSID - nor several others I
know are close by - because there were just too many. I didn't save the
URL of the service, because it was useless for me.

> I can also /easily/ imagine that some of the bigger companies (one of them
> starts with "G" and ends on "oogle") have created an even more extensive
> database for tracking -> ad-selling purposes, which contains the BSSIDs of
> WiFi-capable devices and whatever they got from such devices as the result
> of signing up to one or more "social media" accounts.

You can imagine all kinds of things. I prefer (technical) facts,
logic, proof, etc.. Silly me!

And don't get me started on the 'smartness' of Google. As long as they
can't tell the difference between multiple people using the same router
and can't tell that I have already *bought* what they're advertizing,
while that purchase is *recorded* in *Gmail* for crying out loud,
they're not 'smart', but rather dumb.

> > The (B)SSID is not associated with a - mobile - *phone* [1] but
> > with some - normally stationary - *Access Point* (AP).
>
> :-) You're conflating a certain usage with it being the /only/ usage.

Explain. That comment is as clear as mud.

And BTW, stop snipping my arguments - yes, you snipped other arguments
as well -, if not, it's EOD. (Yes, *I* can look up a parent article, but
one can't assume that others will assume foul play.)