Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google To Allow Location Service Opt-out

Posted by timothy on from the right-gracious-of-them dept.

TripleP writes "In a kind gesture from Google, they're allowing wireless AP owners to opt out of their location service. You only have to change your SSID to include '_nomap' as a suffix. Is it just me, or should this 'service' be an explicit opt-in?"

43 of 284 comments (clear)

  1. you dont opt in to webcrawling by lemur3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    you use a special robots.txt file to opt out of websurfing.. why should this be any different?

    1. Re:you dont opt in to webcrawling by Lost+Found · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I basically agree with your point aside from the fact that you don't have to change your domain name to add a _norobots.com suffix in order to opt out of web crawling.

    2. Re:you dont opt in to webcrawling by poetmatt · · Score: 2

      uh, do you know anything about networking?

      Not broadcasting your SSID causes *problems*. Parts of network detection and certain devices/software have problems with turning off your SSID. It also doesn't add anything as far as security, not even remotely.

      So adding _nomap sounds pretty reasonable to me, aside from that SSID's are not the best of concepts as they are implemented anyway.

    3. Re:you dont opt in to webcrawling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      The last place where I used to work used lots (over 25 per location) of barcode scanners that work over WiFi, and runs 24/7 shifts for order picking, loading and unloading. Changing the SSID may not entail much if you have a centralized management system, but these scanners have to be configured by hand through a touchscreen.

      So no, changing SSIDs is not "always trivial". I would have much preferred if they just used the broadcast flag for it (i.e. don't catalog hidden SSIDs)

    4. Re:you dont opt in to webcrawling by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure why you want to limit my rights to publish the location of something that you broadcast to the public. I'm not cracking it, and I'm not even trying to log into it. I just capture the beacons and note the likely location based on GPS triangulation. Why do you consider that so private that I cannot publish it even though you're making it possible for me to see and locate it, especially when you accept that it's not an issue that I can see it?

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    5. Re:you dont opt in to webcrawling by DJRumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not nearly the same situation either. When you put something on the web, you make it accessible to millions/billions of people. Your home AP is accessible to maybe 2 or 3 houses.

      You shouldn't have to 'opt out' of this. It should be opt in.

    6. Re:you dont opt in to webcrawling by justin12345 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is a pretty clunky, it's akin to adding _nomap to every url you don't want indexed. Google might want to come up with a more elegant solution.

      At the same time, Google doesn't really need to offer any solution at all. "Is it just me, or should this 'service' be an explicit opt-in?" You are opting in when you decide to start broadcasting radio waves. Complaining about having your wifi recorded is like yelling in a public place and then complaining that people notice.

      Google might offer to ignore a network, but no one else will.

      --
      Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
    7. Re:you dont opt in to webcrawling by justin12345 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, but most people don't walk around with scanners in their pocket.

      Yes they do, they're called phones.

      --
      Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
  2. For Facebook and Google+ by klingens · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Everyone who doesn't want to get tracked by Facebook please change his name to Joe_NoFacebook Smith. Everyone who doesn't want to get tracked by Google +, add a "noPlus" instead. And everyone who doesn't want to get tagged by the Facebook picture recognition will please use a neon green colored "F" tattoo on their forehead.

    Thank you for your cooperation.

    Is anyone at Google still thinking anything? Do no Evil my ass.

    1. Re:For Facebook and Google+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hello,

      I changed my name to Peter_NoFacebook Jones, but now I also want to opt out of Google+.

      I tried various iterations of the following:

      Peter_NoFacebook_noPlus Jones
      Peter_NoFacebook_NoPlus Jones
      Peter_noPlus_NoFacebook Jones
      Peter_NoPlus_NoFacebook Jones ...but none of them seem to be working.

      Is the "noPlus" flag case-sensitive, and is the ordering specific to either Facebook or Google? What is the delimeter for the Google+ opt-out.

      What should I name my daughter? Are these flags compatible with feminine names? I'd like to do this for the rest of my family, by default. Does it matter if I add the flag to our last name? ...I guess they'll have to change their names if they want to opt back in.

    2. Re:For Facebook and Google+ by morgauxo · · Score: 2

      How is recording your SSID and the location it was found at tracking you? If you set it to your name, or to some personal information then that's your fault for broadcasting your name or whatever personal information. Radio is a common resource. If you are broadcasting your info out into the public domain then it's nobody's fault but your own if someone records and shares it. Fortunately.. if you have encryption turned on that's pretty much all they get. Your SSID. If you don't have encryption turned on then it is YOUR FAULT. Whatever you are broadcasting IS public.

    3. Re:For Facebook and Google+ by zmooc · · Score: 2

      WTF is this crap doing being modden up?! Is this slashdot? Or did I somehow get lost on the Internet?! There is nothing evil about receiving and decoding radio signals. Keep your radiowaves to yourself if you don't want to be noticed. Just don't broadcast. It's that simple.

      It is utterly ridiculous it is somehow considered normal for just about anybody to transmit their filthy radio waves right through my body while listening to them is somehow considered evil. This is so incredibly wrong.

      Go Google! Keep up the good work in protecting my rights to use a fucking radio!

      --
      0x or or snor perron?!
  3. If you don't want your SSID to be mappable by samael · · Score: 5, Informative

    Then don't broadcast it!

    They aren't doing any snooping on your private data here, just noting where different SSIDs are broadcasting. Unless your SSID name consists of your name, DOB, mother's maiden name, etc. you have nothing to worry about.

    --
    My Journal
    1. Re:If you don't want your SSID to be mappable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My SSID does consist of my name, so that if my neighbors have a problem with my wi-fi, they know to contact me.

      I'm fine with everyone within wi-fi range knowing my name and where my house is (since they already do). I'm less fine with my name and house being pin-pointed on a map for everyone to see.

    2. Re:If you don't want your SSID to be mappable by samael · · Score: 4, Informative

      But it's not. Nobody can look on a map and see your name, If they're standing by your house and can receive the signal then they can tell where they are, but that's all.

      (Unless Google are now publishing the complete lookup table, in which case I feel somewhat different.)

      --
      My Journal
    3. Re:If you don't want your SSID to be mappable by Missing.Matter · · Score: 2

      They're not mapping SSIDs (not unique), they're mapping MAC addresses (unique), which I can find easily even if you're not broadcasting an SSID.

  4. Opt-in by C_Kode · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Everything should be opt-in. Never opt-out.

    1. Re:Opt-in by Hermanas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is it okay with you if I reply to your comment?

    2. Re:Opt-in by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 2

      AC has a good point -- the vast majority of people are NOT organ donors in localities where it is opt-in, vs. the vast majority participating when it is opt-out. It is really hard to argue that this is not a good thing. You could, however, argue that it reflects VERY poorly on us that we need organ donation to be opt-out before we see a large number of organ donors...

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    3. Re:Opt-in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      He won't answer that because you didn't give him permission to.

  5. Yes by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It should require an explicit opt-in.

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
  6. Why do you care? by Manip · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While it is nice of Google to offer this, I don't really understand why people care. The SID was always public information as are the location of the AP. So to then turn around and accuse Google of invade your privacy by recording what essentially you've told your AP to shout from the rooftops seems a little contradictory to me. It isn't like SIDs are personal or in any way linked to you as an individual or even your surfing activity.

    So as I said, nice of Google to do this, but I'd question what anyone who opted out really hopes to accomplish by doing so...

    1. Re:Why do you care? by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Interesting

      While it is nice of Google to offer this, I don't really understand why people care. The SID was always public information as are the location of the AP. So to then turn around and accuse Google of invade your privacy by recording what essentially you've told your AP to shout from the rooftops seems a little contradictory to me. It isn't like SIDs are personal or in any way linked to you as an individual or even your surfing activity. So as I said, nice of Google to do this, but I'd question what anyone who opted out really hopes to accomplish by doing so...

      An SSID of "I hate Islam" might work well in the leafy suburbs of Surrey, but you might not want the location broadcast world wide

    2. Re:Why do you care? by LubosD · · Score: 3, Insightful

      but you might not want the location broadcast world wide

      Sorry, where can I download the complete database of AP locations? Because as far as I know, the database "read access" works the other way around. Your phone submits a list of APs around you to Google's servers and in turn you get your approximate location. I don't understand what the problem here is.

    3. Re:Why do you care? by vagabond_gr · · Score: 2

      "Public information => no need for privacy" is a very typical logical fallacy. Privacy is not a black-or-white thing, categorizing things into private/public misses the point.

      For example: when you move out of your home, your location is public information. Anyone who can see you knows that you're there. Similarly, your "image" is public information, anyone can take a picture of you. This does not violates your privacy, as long as it happens by random people in the street. If someone tracks your every movement, takes a picture every minute and publishes this information on the net, your privacy is clearly violated.

      I don't care that much about the SID thing, but people have every right to feel that their privacy is violated by automatic collection of data, even if the data are "public". Privacy has a lot to do with who has access to the data, what it does with it and even how easy the access is.

    4. Re:Why do you care? by kqs · · Score: 2

      Sorry, where can I download the complete database of AP locations?

      I seem to recall that there are a number of war-driving sites which have fairly large databases of APs. And they don't provide an opt-out method. Neither does Apple nor any of the geolocation companies which collect this info. So once again, Google leads in privacy. And for their pains, gets blasted by many commentators (not you, but many others) who complain about Google but not about any of the others. Hell, I bet the loudest complainers were happy when the first wardrivers started publishing their databases.

  7. Considering the value to society... by mebollocks · · Score: 2

    ... then it should be opt-out.

    1. Re:Considering the value to society... by Eponymous+Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You have the right answer. Nobody seems to think about the greater good any more. Large corporations and governments already have access to all of this data. Google is just making it available for regular people in an incredibly useful way. It's perfectly valid to have problems with this, but don't ignore the benefits as well.

  8. Opt-in is not an option by mikeplokta · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There's no point saying "It should be opt-in", because it can't possibly work on an opt-in basis. There's no way to get a sufficient number of opted-in wireless access points. The available options are "Opt-out is OK" or "The service shouldn't exist".

    1. Re:Opt-in is not an option by HarrySquatter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's no way to get a sufficient number of opted-in wireless access points.

      Boohoo? Since when is that information owed to Google?

    2. Re:Opt-in is not an option by Tim+C · · Score: 2

      It's not owed to Google, but that's not the point. The point is that Google is taking public information and turning it into a service that is useful to ordinary people. You may disagree, but personally I think that's socially useful and I for one will not be opting out.

      --
      It's official. Most of you are morons.
  9. I don't really mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't care that much if Google maps my AP. Because if someone is lost out where I am, they're going to need all the help they can get.

  10. Re:What about other mapping systems? by Nerdfest · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My guess that they didn't make it nogoogle so that Apple and the other mappers can respect it if they wish. Personally, I think broadcasting your SSID is opting in and this is not required.

  11. Paranoia much? by ZorinLynx · · Score: 2

    Why in the heck do you people care if Google maps your AP's location? It's not like this information can be used for anything but it's intended purpose: wifi location services.

    Making it opt-in would make it useless as people won't care enough to opt-in.

    This isn't a privacy issue at all. The tinfoil-hat crowd really needs to get a life.

  12. You are BROADCASTING your SSID. by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Google has every right to use your SSID for geolocation purposes. The privacy whiners all seem to conveniently forget that when you operate a wifi access point, you are BROADCASTING your SSID to anyone within range. It is the same as if you switched on an AM or FM radio transmitter in your home or business and continuously spoke into the microphone: "My network is named kitty-net ... my network is named kitty-net ... my network is named kitty-net ..."

    If you don't want something known to anyone within range, you might consider not BROADCASTING it. Every access point in the world has the ability to shut off its SSID announcements.

    --
    Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
    1. Re:You are BROADCASTING your SSID. by Missing.Matter · · Score: 4, Informative

      Every access point in the world has the ability to shut off its SSID announcements.

      If you're not broadcasting your SSID, Google will still map it. If you don't want them to, you'll actually have to broadcast an SSID, and append _nomap to it, since anyone can find your router's MAC address even if you're not broadcasting your SSID.

  13. Re:reality vs expectation by ciderbrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think people would be shocked that wifi and mobile phones use radio waves. I think they expect it to be "digital". If you said "propagate over distances" you'll have lost them at propagate.

  14. Hidden SSID is not the Answer... by CimmerianX · · Score: 2

    Not broadcasting your SSID is not going to keep Google, Apple, Skyhook, etc... from learning your Wifi MAC address and mapping it. The best answer to this is to manually define your Wifi MAC address. Many consumer based routers let you specify a specific mac. So does DD-WRT. So everyone who doesn't like this idea shoud just change their MAC address to a random address from the DB from another country such as DE:AD:BE:EF:13:37. This MAC address geolocates to Latitude: 44.4899982 Longitude: 11.3569865 Piazza di Porta Maggiore, 2-4 40125 Bologna, Italy.

  15. Publically broadcasted info by Nanosphere · · Score: 5, Funny

    My SSID is:

    Nanosphere'); Drop
    Table SSIDs;--

  16. Line your walls with lead by bigtrike · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Prevent your SSID from going outside of your property and you won't have a problem, then.

  17. The SSID isn't actually used by the service by kakris · · Score: 4, Informative

    Just to clarify what seems to confuse some people here, the actual service doesn't use the SSID for location, it uses the MAC address. They're using the SSID to allow you to opt out, but when someone submits WIFI info for location, they're sending the mac address of the station, not the SSID. MAC addresses are unique (or at least they're supposed to be. I'm looking at you Shanzai.) SSIDs are not unique. If they used SSIDs, you'd never be able to figure out where "linksys" or "netgear" actually are.

  18. COMMENT_NOMODTROLL_MODFUNNY by alostpacket · · Score: 2

    _nomodunderrated_nomodflamebait_modawesome_doubleawesome_kthx

    --
    PocketPermissions Android Permission Guide
  19. Why not make it work the way DoNotCall.gov works? by ugen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why not allow users to enter their MAC address on something like donottrack.google.com - and remove AP from their database based on the entered information? That would be a proper method, that would work instantly, rather than relying on periodic rescan of your general vicinity. It would also avoid having to reconfigure every computer, wireless printer and other devices on the network, having a ridiculous looking SSID and general douchebaggery.