Apple literally manually removed my SSIDs from their database, as a result
of my RADAR bug report and Apple literally changed their documentation.
<https://support.apple.com/en-ie/102515>
That's new.
That's solely because of me.
The entire reason for a hidden SSID is privacy.
If the SSID is hidden, it tells everyone you want to be private
Chris wrote:
I don't remember whether you addressed this ... how does someone who
hasn't visited your address (i.e they already know where you live)
discover what the BSSID of your router is?
Apparently it's a complete invasion of privacy in the same way google maps >> having actual pictures of his house and the phone book having his name,
address *and* phone number isn't.
Hi Andy and Chris,
I'm going to give you an example of how absurd your attempt at ridiculing
the documented situation is, using your own analogies, by way of impact.
Your questions are good ones, but it's getting tiresome to answer them over and over and over and over and over and over again, so please think first.
The question is the wrong question, as it's kind of like asking what's so dangerous about everyone in the world having your social security number.
Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> writes:
[...]
Then you have the trolls like Keith Thompson claiming that running python[...]
on Windows to prove what Apple & Android devices do by default with respect >> to Wi-Fi protocols has absolutely nothing to do with running python on
windows to prove how Apple & Google devices differ from how they handle
Wi-Fi metadata.
WTF?
That is, of course, not at all what I wrote.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you actually understood my point, which is that you are writing multiple long
posts on comp.lang.python with no content about programming in
Python, and that that's inappropriate. Assuming that you're
intelligent enough to understand that, I can only conclude that
you are deliberately lying about me.
(On the other hand, if you actually believe what you wrote above,
that raises more serious concerns about your veracity.)
The fact that you would lie about something so easily verifiable
does not fill me with confidence that you're being truthful about
whatever issue you're talking about with respect to Apple and Wi-Fi.
It's obviously something that you consider very important, so you
might consider not behaving in a manner that will piss off reasonable
people and lead them to question your honesty.
I lack both the background and the interest to directly verify or
refute your claims. For all I know, everything you've been saying
might be perfectly accurate. But because of the reputation you've constructed for yourself here, I can't be sure of that.
I urge everyone participating in this thread to *at least* drop comp.lang.python from the "Newsgroups:" header line, even if Maria
adds it back. (I've left it in place for this followup, since I'm
discussing topicality in comp.lang.python.)
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-09-06, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-09-06 17:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
1. Apple are storing the location of "hidden" WiFi Access Points.
(My opinion: low priority.)
Only Apple?
I think that is what Maria is saying, and I have no information to the
contrary.
Allegedly: Apple are adhering to this exclusion, but are not also
excluding BSSIDs which are not broadcasting any SSID at all (i.e.
"hidden" networks). Other organisations (e.g. Google) do exclude such
"hidden" networks.
And if it is hidden they would not see if the SSID ends in _nomap.
But is there a consensus that hidden SSIDs should not be listed? In
writing? Maybe there is such a consensus now.
To me it's fairly intuitive that if someone has taken the unusual step
of explicitly marking their network as "hidden", then its location
should not be included in these databases - especially given the fact
that the "_nomap" SSID method doesn't work for "hidden" networks.
I guess the challenge here is how can they know not to add the MAC address
if the SSID with the "_nomap" request invisible.
Related: What did Arlen (aka Maria) achieve? That Apple agreed to
remove all hidden and _nomap entries, or that they removed only his
entry?
My impression is that as a result of Maria's communications with them,
Apple updated their documentation to note that "hidden" networks are
still listed in their database, and removed Maria's own BSSID(s) from
the database.
That's purely a correlation. It could be a coincidence. And is there any evidence that the documentation did change? We only have his say so.
On 2026-09-07, Keith Thompson wrote:
Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> writes:
[...]
Then you have the trolls like Keith Thompson claiming that running python >>> on Windows to prove what Apple & Android devices do by default with respect >>> to Wi-Fi protocols has absolutely nothing to do with running python on[...]
windows to prove how Apple & Google devices differ from how they handle
Wi-Fi metadata.
WTF?
That is, of course, not at all what I wrote.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you actually
understood my point, which is that you are writing multiple long
posts on comp.lang.python with no content about programming in
Python, and that that's inappropriate. Assuming that you're
intelligent enough to understand that, I can only conclude that
you are deliberately lying about me.
(On the other hand, if you actually believe what you wrote above,
that raises more serious concerns about your veracity.)
The fact that you would lie about something so easily verifiable
does not fill me with confidence that you're being truthful about
whatever issue you're talking about with respect to Apple and Wi-Fi.
It's obviously something that you consider very important, so you
might consider not behaving in a manner that will piss off reasonable
people and lead them to question your honesty.
I lack both the background and the interest to directly verify or
refute your claims. For all I know, everything you've been saying
might be perfectly accurate. But because of the reputation you've
constructed for yourself here, I can't be sure of that.
I once thought like you did and still gave them the benefit of
doubt. (Check the "How does whatsapp work?" thread (subjects changed
halfway several times, rooted at [1]) on comp.mobile.android.) Then they attacked you and Frank in this fashion.
[1] <n1ua9ltc3losq5kj0lfkh8lim4t3bp4npf@4ax.com>
In the end, they destroyed any value their words could have had. In the
past few hours there was another post with nice words to somebody else,
but those words mean nothing, for all it takes is a small bit flip
somewhere and you're suddenly a "troll" to them.
I urge everyone participating in this thread to *at least* drop
comp.lang.python from the "Newsgroups:" header line, even if Maria
adds it back. (I've left it in place for this followup, since I'm
discussing topicality in comp.lang.python.)
Yeah, indeed. But which groups are you reading, of the remaining ones?
Chris wrote:
Or, worse, trackable information like your car's number plate?
Hi Chris,
I get it you are desperate to defend Apple to the death, no matter what... But that analogy of the car license plate in a Flock system is absurd.
For anyone to claim that, means they didn't read the paper.
*Surveilling the Masses with Wi-Fi-Based Positioning Systems*
<https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.14975>
Once you read that paper,
Nobody, in my decades on Usnent, has ever found a fact I've claimed to be a fact, ever to be wrong, and if, perchance, I make a typo or a forgetful
faux pas, everyone knows I admit to it immediately, as what matters is only the facts that remain in the Usenet record for generations to read later.
Carlos E.R. wrote:
Keith Thompson argues that your post is off topic in comp.lang.python,
because you are not discussing python code. You simply posted a link
that contains a reference to a Python program and said you run it. You
are not discussing the code itself or making any question about it.
And he is right, IMNSHO.
People can't understand what the issue is if they don't understand the breadcrumb trail from your router access point to my Win10 python runs.
They just can't.
Their stone-age knowledge of networking doesn't prepare them for it.
Keith didn't understand that you have to run the python code that was
pointed to in the very first post, Carlos, which Jon found easily.
Carlos E.R. wrote:
The point we are saying is not what you claim it to be. It is not about
Apple storing and publishing BSSIDs of hidden SSIDs. This is bad
behaviour by them. Ok. But our point is that you gain nothing by making
your AP hidden in the first place.
Hi Carlos,
I disagree.
The answer to *this* question, will tell you why what you said is wrong:
Q: Will Google's WPS database contain a BSSID:GPS pair for an access point
whose SSID broadcast is set to hidden (i.e., empty or null)?
A: Please answer "yes", or "no".
I know the answer to that question.
You clearly do not.
Once you know the answer to that question, you'll see why what you said,
is dead wrong.
I could ask the same question of the Mozilla MLS, but it's now defunct,
but they document this (and we published that documentation elsewhere).
Only Apple ignores the clear privacy intent of setting a hidden SSID.
Nobody else.
Just Apple. (to our knowledge)
Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Or, worse, trackable information like your car's number plate?
Hi Chris,
I get it you are desperate to defend Apple to the death, no matter what... >> But that analogy of the car license plate in a Flock system is absurd.
It's notable to everyone here that you are consistently and obstinately not answering the core question. Why is the collection of public information
that does not relate to an individual a privacy risk?
The Flock issue is off topic here so the only thing I'll say is that this a consequence of lack of American's trust in government. That leaves the door open to commercial companies to collect data and sell it to government agencies with little to no oversight.
In the UK we have the ANPR system which does the same thing, but is run by and for the law enforcement agencies. It's use is controlled and regulated. There are no issues.
For anyone to claim that, means they didn't read the paper.
*Surveilling the Masses with Wi-Fi-Based Positioning Systems*
<https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.14975>
Once you read that paper,
I have and have understood it better than you.
R.Wieser wrote:
I don't remember whether you addressed this ... how does someone
who hasn't visited your address (i.e they already know where you live)
discover what the BSSID of your router is?
What you mention there has been explained to him in the thread here
[Tutorial: Query the Apple database with Python for your access point BSSID] >> <10h1qmr$2alo$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
First, let's address Andy's point because Andy didn't read the paper,
so Andy thinks it's about individuals, and not about the masses.
*Surveilling the Masses with Wi-Fi-Based Positioning Systems*
<https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.14975>
Ok, suppose I run the scripts, and have in my power the BSSIDs and SSIDs
of the entire world.
Carlos,
Ok, suppose I run the scripts, and have in my power the BSSIDs and SSIDs
of the entire world.
And thats another of Arlens problems : You can't just retrieve records from that database.
You could plug your own BSSID into the database and get a number of other, near BSSIDs which you than also query (rinse and repeat), hoping to spread
it like a water-ripple, any kind of "dead space" stops that ripple.
IOW, if there is any distance between the town you're in and the next town over you won't see that one in your results. And as good-old 'Murrica has a LOT of "dead space" (neighbours lliving miles apart) the chance that Arlens "the entire world" is nothing more than *very* wishfull thinking.
I had intended, in that other thread, to put that forward to Arlen. But seeing that he could not even grasp that the translation from a persons name to that persons (routers) BSSID was already wrought with problems I thought better of it.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
On 2026-09-08 09:10, Chris wrote:
Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Or, worse, trackable information like your car's number plate?
Hi Chris,
I get it you are desperate to defend Apple to the death, no matter what... >>> But that analogy of the car license plate in a Flock system is absurd.
It's notable to everyone here that you are consistently and obstinately not >> answering the core question. Why is the collection of public information
that does not relate to an individual a privacy risk?
The Flock issue is off topic here so the only thing I'll say is that this a >> consequence of lack of American's trust in government. That leaves the door >> open to commercial companies to collect data and sell it to government
agencies with little to no oversight.
And the lack of data protection laws like the GDPR in Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation
On Tue, 8 Sep 2026 22:18:02 +0400, Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
Well, that's a problem. I'm getting old (78 currently), tired and
lazy. Debating the finer points of some technology eventually turns
into an endless time burn. Your endless discussion with "Carlos E.R."
is a good example. Carlos seems to baiting you with less than
brilliant one-line comments, which usually results literary effluvia
from you. All that does is waste everyone's time. Yours is wasted
because you write more than anyone is willing to read. My time is
wasted, but I just don't have the time to read the entire thread. I
suspect the typical Usenet reader thinks in a similar manner.
On 2026-09-10 04:46, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 8 Sep 2026 22:18:02 +0400, Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
...
Well, that's a problem. I'm getting old (78 currently), tired and
lazy. Debating the finer points of some technology eventually turns
into an endless time burn. Your endless discussion with "Carlos E.R."
is a good example. Carlos seems to baiting you with less than
brilliant one-line comments, which usually results literary effluvia
from you. All that does is waste everyone's time. Yours is wasted
because you write more than anyone is willing to read. My time is
wasted, but I just don't have the time to read the entire thread. I suspect the typical Usenet reader thinks in a similar manner.
Baiting! Interesting idea, but no, I have no such intention. Not
knowingly, at least.
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-09-10 04:46, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 8 Sep 2026 22:18:02 +0400, Maria Sophia
<mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
...
Well, that's a problem. I'm getting old (78 currently), tired and
lazy. Debating the finer points of some technology eventually turns
into an endless time burn. Your endless discussion with "Carlos E.R."
is a good example. Carlos seems to baiting you with less than
brilliant one-line comments, which usually results literary effluvia
from you. All that does is waste everyone's time. Yours is wasted
because you write more than anyone is willing to read. My time is
wasted, but I just don't have the time to read the entire thread. I
suspect the typical Usenet reader thinks in a similar manner.
Baiting! Interesting idea, but no, I have no such intention. Not
knowingly, at least.
Agreed. (You) Refusing to get engaged in his sprees of insults, misrepresentations, lies, etc., is in *no* way 'baiting'. Quite the
opposite. Any and all baiting is purely on 'Arlen''s side.
That said, (obviously) no ill feelings at all towards Jeff.
Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-09-10 04:46, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 8 Sep 2026 22:18:02 +0400, Maria Sophia
<mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
...
Well, that's a problem. I'm getting old (78 currently), tired and
lazy. Debating the finer points of some technology eventually turns
into an endless time burn. Your endless discussion with "Carlos E.R." >>>> is a good example. Carlos seems to baiting you with less than
brilliant one-line comments, which usually results literary effluvia
from you. All that does is waste everyone's time. Yours is wasted
because you write more than anyone is willing to read. My time is
wasted, but I just don't have the time to read the entire thread. I
suspect the typical Usenet reader thinks in a similar manner.
Baiting! Interesting idea, but no, I have no such intention. Not
knowingly, at least.
Agreed. (You) Refusing to get engaged in his sprees of insults,
misrepresentations, lies, etc., is in *no* way 'baiting'. Quite the
opposite. Any and all baiting is purely on 'Arlen''s side.
That said, (obviously) no ill feelings at all towards Jeff.
I concur. Although, the curt responses from Carlos are a symptom of being >vilified for days by Arlen.
I also tend to ignore one-line replies because they tend to contain
little or nothing of value.
Whether this was intentional trolling by Carlos, or frustration
dealing with Alren, is unknown.
All I saw was long and repetitive comments by Arlen
Jeff,
I also tend to ignore one-line replies because they tend to contain
little or nothing of value.
Whether this was intentional trolling by Carlos, or frustration
dealing with Alren, is unknown.
You already said it yourself :
All I saw was long and repetitive comments by Arlen
Arlen is well know for ignoring everything he doesn't want to hear, and keep reposting his own "truths" - even if they have been shown to be wrong.
And as you probably have noticed by now, everyone who does not agree with
him is either dumb, or a troll.
| Sysop: | Jacob Catayoc |
|---|---|
| Location: | Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines |
| Users: | 4 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 497103:12:11 |
| Calls: | 182 |
| Files: | 744 |
| D/L today: |
70 files (10,038K bytes) |
| Messages: | 73,675 |