Anyone here with real-world experience changing your IMEI on Android?

[VPN user]

Anyone have real-world experience changing their IMEI where they
can enlighten us with suggestions?

In a different thread I found out that Google tracks your IMEI
when/if you use various Google "services" (I'm not sure the sum
total of which services though - but suffice to say that Google
tracks your cellphone's IMEI under some circumstances).

Given that, it's prudent to want to *change* your cellphone IMEI
periodically, and, if your cellphone carrier allows it (T-Mobile
does) and if it's not illegal where you live (it's perfectly legal
to change an IMEI in the USA), then you may wish to explore changing
your own phone's IMEI for privacy reasons.

Googling, I found a few URLs showing how to change the IMEI on
both Android & on iOS, but many of them were sketchy, so I was
wondering if any of you have changed your IMEI, where you can
then suggest real-world experience?

For example, I supposed it's best to change the IMEI to one of
the IMEIs of phones that you have in your drawer, such that the
new IMEI wouldn't conflict with the old.

For some cellphone plans (not mine), it might even matter to
change the IMEI to an IMEI of a "similar" type of phone, so
that all your plan features work (I don't know - I'm just
conjecturing this but that's why I ask for your experience).

It's a given that rooting will always be required, and it
will likely require additional non-Google software, but
certainly it will require detailed procedures to be successful.

Some references I found by googling are this youtube video
which shows how to use the method nospam mentioned in the
other thread of changing the IMEI on Android phones.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq5Pwud6j0s
XPOSED IMEI Changer, By Vivek.V
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.vivek.imeichanger&hl=en
(requires root and xposed framework software)

Do you have real-world experience changing your own phone's
IMEI where you can enlighten us with advice & suggestions?

[VPN user]

VPN user wrote:

> Anyone have real-world experience changing their IMEI where they
> can enlighten us with suggestions?

Before nospam starts screaming about it being illegal, in the USA
it is decidedly legal to change your IMEI.

The bill nospam likes to quote died long ago in the Senate.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1070

Before nospam starts screaming about fraud, there are 5 elements
of fraud which are required, absolutely none of which exist if
you wish to change your IMEI for privacy reasons.
http://www.houston-opinions.com/law-fraud.html

[VPN user]

VPN user wrote:

> In a different thread I found out that Google tracks your IMEI
> when/if you use various Google "services" (I'm not sure the sum
> total of which services though - but suffice to say that Google
> tracks your cellphone's IMEI under some circumstances).

It was news to me that Google tracks your IMEI number, so this
thread applies both to iOS and Android users.

I changed the subject line because it initially was for Android
users but then I realized that iPhone users *might* also be tracked
by their IMEI if they use Google Services (I don't know if this is
the case though).

Certainly it was stated in the references that iPhone users can also
change their IMEI so, this thread "can" apply to iPhone users too.

For any user to see *which* IMEI is used to track your activities,
this reference "may" be useful.

http://www.wikihow.com/Find-the-IMEI-or-MEID-Number-on-a-Mobile-Phone
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Find the IMEI/MEID using Google Dashboard.

Log into the Google account associated with your cell phone.
http://www.google.com/settings/dashboard

- Expand the "Android" section by clicking the "Android" heading.
(I don't know if iPhone users have anything under iPhone sections?)

- Locate your phone in the list.

- If you have multiple devices associated with your account, all of
the devices will be displayed. Find the device that you are trying
to retrieve the IMEI/MEID number for.

- The first entry for your phone should be the IMEI number.
- Only the IMEI will be displayed, even if your phone uses MEID.
- If you need the MEID number ignore the last digit of the IMEI number.

- GSM networks like AT&T and T-Mobile use IMEI numbers.
- CDMA networks such as Sprint, Verizon & US Cellular use MEID numbers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

[VPN user]

VPN user wrote:

> Before nospam starts screaming about it being illegal, in the USA
> it is decidedly legal to change your IMEI.

For the Android folks only, here are three free IMEI changers, all
of which seem to require both root and something called the "xposed"
framework (which is supplied elsewhere).

XPOSED IMEI Changer, By Vivek.V
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.vivek.imeichanger&hl=en

IMEI Changer, By Apptecx Inc
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.magic.imeichanger

Device Id IMEI Changer Xposed, By PLP
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.phoneinfo.changer

[nospam]

In article <ne1dpg$s9d$1...@news.mixmin.net>, VPN user

<vpn...@example.com> wrote:

>
> It was news to me that Google tracks your IMEI number, so this
> thread applies both to iOS and Android users.

no it doesn't.

unlike android devices, an ios user can avoid google entirely.

> I changed the subject line because it initially was for Android
> users but then I realized that iPhone users *might* also be tracked
> by their IMEI if they use Google Services (I don't know if this is
> the case though).

google will track anything and everything it can. that's how they make
money.

your cellphone carrier will also track your imei number along with
other information.

apple *doesn't* track individuals. it's anonymized and aggregated.

for instance, apple might know that *someone* requested a map routing
but they don't know *who* did that. google knows *who* and may serve up
ads based on where you are and where you went.

> Certainly it was stated in the references that iPhone users can also
> change their IMEI so, this thread "can" apply to iPhone users too.

no they can't.

[Lewis]

In message <ne1fdm$uj7$1...@news.mixmin.net>

VPN user <vpn...@example.com> wrote:

> For the Android folks only,

Then why the fuck are you posting this drivel to an iPhone group?


--
'The only reason we're still alive now is that we're more fun alive than
dead,' said Granny's voice behind her. --Lords and Ladies

[Frank Slootweg]

VPN user <vpn...@example.com> wrote:
> VPN user wrote:
[...]

> http://www.wikihow.com/Find-the-IMEI-or-MEID-Number-on-a-Mobile-Phone
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Find the IMEI/MEID using Google Dashboard.
>
> Log into the Google account associated with your cell phone.
> http://www.google.com/settings/dashboard
>
> - Expand the "Android" section by clicking the "Android" heading.
> (I don't know if iPhone users have anything under iPhone sections?)
>
> - Locate your phone in the list.
>
> - If you have multiple devices associated with your account, all of
> the devices will be displayed. Find the device that you are trying
> to retrieve the IMEI/MEID number for.
>
> - The first entry for your phone should be the IMEI number.

It seems that you don't have to worry about Google 'tracking' your
IMEI, because it's completely fscked up!

I had never been to <http://www.google.com/settings/dashboard>, only to
'Android Device Manager' <https://www.google.com/android/devicemanager>
('Manage active devices' in Dashboard).

So I now tried 'Dashboard'.

I have three Android devices, but Google lists *five*. It doesn't list
one of mine (which is OK), so it lists three which are not mine.

For two of the three not-mine ones, it lists a 'Carrier:' which *does
not exist* in my country.

FWIW, the 'Manage active devices' and 'Devices in Play Store' lists
are fscked up in the same way.

So apparently Google 'thinks' that two other phones and one tablet are
also 'me'. That's fine by me!

[...]

[Chris]

VPN user <vpn...@example.com> Wrote in message:
[ paranoid ramblings ]

Clearly mobile phones aren't for you. Why not just give it a rest,
ditch your phone and stick to writing letters (written with an
appropriate cypher, obviously).

I'm getting fed up having to killfile each of nyms.


--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[Frank Slootweg]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <ne1dpg$s9d$1...@news.mixmin.net>, VPN user
> <vpn...@example.com> wrote:
>
> > It was news to me that Google tracks your IMEI number, so this
> > thread applies both to iOS and Android users.
>
> no it doesn't.
>
> unlike android devices, an ios user can avoid google entirely.

Well, these discussions are about Google tracking and about Google
services. In that context, Android devices can also "avoid google
entirely".

Of course the OS is under Google's control, but that (the OS) is not
the subject of these discussions.

[...]

> apple *doesn't* track individuals. it's anonymized and aggregated.
>
> for instance, apple might know that *someone* requested a map routing
> but they don't know *who* did that. google knows *who* and may serve up
> ads based on where you are and where you went.

As has been explained a zillion times, if a user doesn't *want* Google
to know who they are, it's trivial to give them/Google fake information,
so they can't track a *person*, but only a *device*.

BTW, your specific example is wrong, because one can "request a map
routing" without a Google account.

> > Certainly it was stated in the references that iPhone users can also
> > change their IMEI so, this thread "can" apply to iPhone users too.
>
> no they can't.

Why do you keep making these silly bogus statements, which can be
debunked by a five-second search!?

A "iPhone change IMEI" (Duh!) search gives many,many hits. And no, you
don't even have to jailbreak the phone.

[nospam]

In article <dmkeep...@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg

<th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > > It was news to me that Google tracks your IMEI number, so this
> > > thread applies both to iOS and Android users.
> >
> > no it doesn't.
> >
> > unlike android devices, an ios user can avoid google entirely.
>
> Well, these discussions are about Google tracking and about Google
> services. In that context, Android devices can also "avoid google
> entirely".
>
> Of course the OS is under Google's control, but that (the OS) is not
> the subject of these discussions.

the fact that the os is under google's control means that they can (and
do) track usage.

if someone doesn't want to be tracked by google, then using an android
device is the wrong choice.

> > apple *doesn't* track individuals. it's anonymized and aggregated.
> >
> > for instance, apple might know that *someone* requested a map routing
> > but they don't know *who* did that. google knows *who* and may serve up
> > ads based on where you are and where you went.
>
> As has been explained a zillion times, if a user doesn't *want* Google
> to know who they are, it's trivial to give them/Google fake information,
> so they can't track a *person*, but only a *device*.

that doesn't prevent google from tracking someone.

and just because the provided name was fake doesn't mean that google
can't determine what the real name is in some other way.

> BTW, your specific example is wrong, because one can "request a map
> routing" without a Google account.

except that google tracks the route request and associates it with the
person who requested it, whether or not they have a google account.

apple doesn't do that. apple creates *two* (not one) separate ids on
the fly for map routing, completely independent from their apple id,
one for the first half of the trip and the other for the second half,
done solely to maintain privacy of the person requesting it.

> > > Certainly it was stated in the references that iPhone users can also
> > > change their IMEI so, this thread "can" apply to iPhone users too.
> >
> > no they can't.
>
> Why do you keep making these silly bogus statements, which can be
> debunked by a five-second search!?

there's nothing bogus about it and don't believe everything you read.

> A "iPhone change IMEI" (Duh!) search gives many,many hits. And no, you
> don't even have to jailbreak the phone.

wrong. it was possible to change the imei long ago (2008ish) with a
utility called ziphone and only on specific basebands and on a
jailbroken iphone.

those days are *long* gone. that hasn't worked in years.

any recent iphone, where recent is in the last 6-7 years, requires
hardware hacking to change the imei. good luck with that.

[Jolly Roger]

Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <ne1fdm$uj7$1...@news.mixmin.net>
> VPN user <vpn...@example.com> wrote:
>
>> For the Android folks only,
>
> Then why the fuck are you posting this drivel to an iPhone group?

Trolling as usual. He changes nyms constantly but he can't hide who he is.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[Jolly Roger]

Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> VPN user <vpn...@example.com> Wrote in message:
> [ paranoid ramblings ]
>
> Clearly mobile phones aren't for you. Why not just give it a rest,
> ditch your phone and stick to writing letters (written with an
> appropriate cypher, obviously).
>
> I'm getting fed up having to killfile each of nyms.

Get used to it. He changes them constantly, but can't change who he is, so
you can easily figure out its him just by reading his idiotic posts -
always cross posted to android, Linux, and Apple news groups.

[nospam]

In article <dmkmof...@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger

<jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

> >> For the Android folks only,
> >
> > Then why the fuck are you posting this drivel to an iPhone group?
>
> Trolling as usual. He changes nyms constantly but he can't hide who he is.

and yet he thinks he's hiding himself from google with all his crazy
antics.

[Jolly Roger]

He's a ridiculous fool.

[Frank Slootweg]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <dmkeep...@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > > It was news to me that Google tracks your IMEI number, so this
> > > > thread applies both to iOS and Android users.
> > >
> > > no it doesn't.
> > >
> > > unlike android devices, an ios user can avoid google entirely.
> >
> > Well, these discussions are about Google tracking and about Google
> > services. In that context, Android devices can also "avoid google
> > entirely".
> >
> > Of course the OS is under Google's control, but that (the OS) is not
> > the subject of these discussions.
>
> the fact that the os is under google's control means that they can (and
> do) track usage.

Ah! Now it suddenly is tracking "usage" instead of people, is it!?

Nice try, but no cigar. These discussions are about tracking
(individual) *people* (or better, tracking information which can be tied
to a specific individual).

> if someone doesn't want to be tracked by google, then using an android
> device is the wrong choice.

In general, yes. In the context of these discussions, no.

> > > apple *doesn't* track individuals. it's anonymized and aggregated.
> > >
> > > for instance, apple might know that *someone* requested a map routing
> > > but they don't know *who* did that. google knows *who* and may serve up
> > > ads based on where you are and where you went.
> >
> > As has been explained a zillion times, if a user doesn't *want* Google
> > to know who they are, it's trivial to give them/Google fake information,
> > so they can't track a *person*, but only a *device*.
>
> that doesn't prevent google from tracking someone.

Exactly *what* don't you understand about the difference between a
*person* and a *device*. If someone takes the mentioned precautions,
Google can *not* track that person, it can only track that device.

> and just because the provided name was fake doesn't mean that google
> can't determine what the real name is in some other way.

Ah, so 'we' don't only have Apple Magic, but also Google Magic!?
"Google can do the impossible!" Yeah, right!

> > BTW, your specific example is wrong, because one can "request a map
> > routing" without a Google account.
>
> except that google tracks the route request and associates it with the
> person who requested it, whether or not they have a google account.

More bogus Google Magic!

*Prove* your silly bogus claims or kindly STFU!

> apple doesn't do that. apple creates *two* (not one) separate ids on
> the fly for map routing, completely independent from their apple id,
> one for the first half of the trip and the other for the second half,
> done solely to maintain privacy of the person requesting it.

Earth to nospam: In the described Google scenario, there *is* no ID
which is tied to a person, so it's *exactly* the same.

> > > > Certainly it was stated in the references that iPhone users can also
> > > > change their IMEI so, this thread "can" apply to iPhone users too.
> > >
> > > no they can't.
> >
> > Why do you keep making these silly bogus statements, which can be
> > debunked by a five-second search!?
>
> there's nothing bogus about it and don't believe everything you read.

Trust me, I don't, that's exactly why I debunk *your* bogus claims.

> > A "iPhone change IMEI" (Duh!) search gives many,many hits. And no, you
> > don't even have to jailbreak the phone.
>
> wrong. it was possible to change the imei long ago (2008ish) with a
> utility called ziphone and only on specific basebands and on a
> jailbroken iphone.
>
> those days are *long* gone. that hasn't worked in years.
>
> any recent iphone, where recent is in the last 6-7 years, requires
> hardware hacking to change the imei. good luck with that.

Nope. *Do* the search, *read* the documents and enjoy the pie and egg.

[Frank Slootweg]

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > VPN user <vpn...@example.com> Wrote in message:
> > [ paranoid ramblings ]
> >
> > Clearly mobile phones aren't for you. Why not just give it a rest,
> > ditch your phone and stick to writing letters (written with an
> > appropriate cypher, obviously).
> >
> > I'm getting fed up having to killfile each of nyms.
>
> Get used to it. He changes them constantly, but can't change who he is, so
> you can easily figure out its him just by reading his idiotic posts -
> always cross posted to android, Linux, and Apple news groups.

$ grep linux article | wc -w
0
$

[Jolly Roger]

"Oh, look! He didn't include the Linux group - this time!"

If you think the fact that this one time you didn't include Linux or
privacy news groups in your lame post is going to redeem you to anyone
here, you're an idiot.

[Frank Slootweg]

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2016-04-06, Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> > Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >> Chris <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > VPN user <vpn...@example.com> Wrote in message:
> >> > [ paranoid ramblings ]
> >> >
> >> > Clearly mobile phones aren't for you. Why not just give it a rest,
> >> > ditch your phone and stick to writing letters (written with an
> >> > appropriate cypher, obviously).
> >> >
> >> > I'm getting fed up having to killfile each of nyms.
> >>
> >> Get used to it. He changes them constantly, but can't change who he is, so
> >> you can easily figure out its him just by reading his idiotic posts -
> >> always cross posted to android, Linux, and Apple news groups.
> >
> > $ grep linux article | wc -w
> > 0
>
> "Oh, look! He didn't include the Linux group - this time!"
>
> If you think the fact that this one time you didn't include Linux or
> privacy news groups in your lame post is going to redeem you to anyone
> here, you're an idiot.

The idiot here is clearly you, for - apparently - thinking that I am
the multi-sock kook [1] in this/these group(s).

[1] AFAICT, multi-sock kookS.

[VPN user]

Frank Slootweg wrote:

> I have three Android devices, but Google lists *five*. It doesn't list
> one of mine (which is OK), so it lists three which are not mine.

I had a similar issue with the Google Dashboard.

Since I never need to actually type a password, it took quite a few tries
before I was able to log in, because you never need the password on the
phone except the one day you create it.

Finally I logged in, and I found something similar to what you had.

None of the IMEI numbers listed in Google Dashboard were mine.

[VPN user]

nospam wrote:

> unlike android devices, an ios user *can* avoid google entirely.

Ah, but *do* they?

[VPN user]

Jolly Roger wrote:

> Get used to it. He changes them constantly, but can't change who he is, so
> you can easily figure out its him just by reading his idiotic posts -
> always cross posted to android, Linux, and Apple news groups.

I change nyms for privacy reasons, but I never try to hide who I am
and, in fact, if you looked, you'd see I use the same keywords constantly.

What I find hilarious is that you accuse lots of people of being me,
and that you really can't figure it out even though I hand it to you
on a platter.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2016-04-06, VPN user <vpn...@example.com> wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Get used to it. He changes them constantly, but can't change who he is, so
>> you can easily figure out its him just by reading his idiotic posts -
>> always cross posted to android, Linux, and Apple news groups.
>
> I change nyms for privacy reasons, but I never try to hide who I am

Bullshit doublespeak. If you weren't trying to hide who you are, you
wouldn't change nyms.

> What I find hilarious is that you accuse lots of people of being me,
> and that you really can't figure it out even though I hand it to you
> on a platter.

Oh I'm sure you find it "hilarious". Meanwhile, it is of no consequence
to me if my score file has one or two false positives since the list
includes anyone who exhibits behavior similar to yours - namely making
trollish bullshit posts to Apple, Linux, Android, privacy, and other
disparate groups.

[Frank Slootweg]

Hold on! This week *I* am you! Didn't you get the memo!?

But seriously: To be [frank|Frank], I find your MO irritating and a
waste of readers'/posters' time.

What "privacy reasons" could you have, when you're (currently) posting
through Mixmin?

Why can't you use a single nym? Which 'problem' does your morphing
solve?

Bottom line: Posting with a nym is fine, posting in a (nearly)
untraceable way is fine, but EMAK (Excessive Morphing to Avoid
Killfiles), and similar morphing, is not on. If you want to be taken
seriously, you should act seriously.

[nospam]

In article <dmkno5...@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg

<th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > > > > It was news to me that Google tracks your IMEI number, so this
> > > > > thread applies both to iOS and Android users.
> > > >
> > > > no it doesn't.
> > > >
> > > > unlike android devices, an ios user can avoid google entirely.
> > >
> > > Well, these discussions are about Google tracking and about Google
> > > services. In that context, Android devices can also "avoid google
> > > entirely".
> > >
> > > Of course the OS is under Google's control, but that (the OS) is not
> > > the subject of these discussions.
> >
> > the fact that the os is under google's control means that they can (and
> > do) track usage.
>
> Ah! Now it suddenly is tracking "usage" instead of people, is it!?
>
> Nice try, but no cigar. These discussions are about tracking
> (individual) *people* (or better, tracking information which can be tied
> to a specific individual).

google tracks all sorts of things and ties it all together.

once again, you're in over your head.

> > if someone doesn't want to be tracked by google, then using an android
> > device is the wrong choice.
>
> In general, yes. In the context of these discussions, no.

wrong.

> > > > apple *doesn't* track individuals. it's anonymized and aggregated.
> > > >
> > > > for instance, apple might know that *someone* requested a map routing
> > > > but they don't know *who* did that. google knows *who* and may serve up
> > > > ads based on where you are and where you went.
> > >
> > > As has been explained a zillion times, if a user doesn't *want* Google
> > > to know who they are, it's trivial to give them/Google fake information,
> > > so they can't track a *person*, but only a *device*.
> >
> > that doesn't prevent google from tracking someone.
>
> Exactly *what* don't you understand about the difference between a
> *person* and a *device*. If someone takes the mentioned precautions,
> Google can *not* track that person, it can only track that device.

devices do not operate on their own.

even if someone switches among multiple devices and/or spoofs their
name, usage patterns can be matched and google can easily link it all
together. it's not all that difficult.

> > and just because the provided name was fake doesn't mean that google
> > can't determine what the real name is in some other way.
>
> Ah, so 'we' don't only have Apple Magic, but also Google Magic!?
> "Google can do the impossible!" Yeah, right!

it doesn't require magic. in fact, it's rather easy because the person
in question is extremely sloppy about hiding his true identity.

one need not have the resources of google to figure it out.

> > > BTW, your specific example is wrong, because one can "request a map
> > > routing" without a Google account.
> >
> > except that google tracks the route request and associates it with the
> > person who requested it, whether or not they have a google account.
>
> More bogus Google Magic!
>
> *Prove* your silly bogus claims or kindly STFU!

the proof is out there. you're not interested in proof. you're only
interested in arguing.

> > apple doesn't do that. apple creates *two* (not one) separate ids on
> > the fly for map routing, completely independent from their apple id,
> > one for the first half of the trip and the other for the second half,
> > done solely to maintain privacy of the person requesting it.
>
> Earth to nospam: In the described Google scenario, there *is* no ID
> which is tied to a person, so it's *exactly* the same.

all android phones have a google id attached to it, just as all iphones
have an apple id attached.

the point which you continue to miss is that apple does *not* use that
apple id to track users, while google goes out of its way to track
numerous things and link it all together.

google makes money by knowing as much as possible about people. the
more they know, the more they make. that's *totally* different than
apple, who makes its money by selling hardware and software.

> > > > > Certainly it was stated in the references that iPhone users can also
> > > > > change their IMEI so, this thread "can" apply to iPhone users too.
> > > >
> > > > no they can't.
> > >
> > > Why do you keep making these silly bogus statements, which can be
> > > debunked by a five-second search!?
> >
> > there's nothing bogus about it and don't believe everything you read.
>
> Trust me, I don't, that's exactly why I debunk *your* bogus claims.

you haven't debunked a thing.

> > > A "iPhone change IMEI" (Duh!) search gives many,many hits. And no, you
> > > don't even have to jailbreak the phone.
> >
> > wrong. it was possible to change the imei long ago (2008ish) with a
> > utility called ziphone and only on specific basebands and on a
> > jailbroken iphone.
> >
> > those days are *long* gone. that hasn't worked in years.
> >
> > any recent iphone, where recent is in the last 6-7 years, requires
> > hardware hacking to change the imei. good luck with that.
>
> Nope. *Do* the search, *read* the documents and enjoy the pie and egg.

the part you are missing is that i know what's bullshit and what isn't.

chew on these:
<https://discussions.apple.com/thread/7267200?start=0&tstart=0>
There is no way to change the IMEI of an iPhone, except by changing
the logic board.

<http://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/77413/is-that-possible-to-chan
ge-imei-on-iphone-5>
The only way to change IMEi on iPhone is by reassembling another
motherboard with new baseband module

there may be various claims about doing it, but as far as i can tell,
they're scams.

[nospam]

In article <ne3krg$hvq$3...@news.mixmin.net>, VPN user

<vpn...@example.com> wrote:

>
> > unlike android devices, an ios user *can* avoid google entirely.
>
> Ah, but *do* they?

who cares.

some people *want* to use google's services. others don't.

what difference does it make to you what someone else decides to do?

most people aren't paranoid.

[Jolly Roger]

I'd wager most do.

[VPN user]

Jolly Roger wrote:

> I'd wager most do.

This is good to know, because most Google services are evil
in terms of privacy protections.

I, for one, avoid them like I would avoid someone with the
bubonic plague. In fact, I keep a folder on my desktop with
a second copy of all the Google Apps' icons, so that I can
easily check that I'm logged out of each that can be logged
out of as shown in this screenshot below:

https://i.imgur.com/p915GdC.png

a. Google Play Store*
Hamburger > {Settings, My account}
There does not seem to be any way to sign OUT of Google Play!
https://i.imgur.com/vqVFmUI.png
b. Google Search
HardMenu > Settings > Privacy & accounts > Google Account =
I am signed out permanently.
https://i.imgur.com/KjcTYaN.png
c. Google Maps
HardMenu > Settings > Sign in
I am signed out permanently.
https://i.imgur.com/O4iNdBL.png
d. Google Gmail
Hamburger > Sign in
I am signed out permanently.
https://i.imgur.com/Pk96Ab6.png
e. Google YouTube
Hamburger > Sign in
I am signed out permanently.
https://i.imgur.com/LRptwAH.png
f. Google Chrome
HardMenu > Settings
I am signed out permanently.
https://i.imgur.com/cXUdO1t.png
g. Google Hangouts*
Automatically logs you in when you start the app!
Signing out kills the app!
HardMenu > Settings > Sign out
https://i.imgur.com/mq7Ttzd.png
h. Google My Tracks
HardMenu > Settings
Does not have a log-in capability
https://i.imgur.com/QIQA3oY.png

[Rod Speed]

VPN user <vpn...@example.com> wrote

> Jolly Roger wrote

>> I'd wager most do.

It's stupid cutting the quoting back as hard as this.

> This is good to know, because most Google
> services are evil in terms of privacy protections.

> I, for one, avoid them like I would avoid
> someone with the bubonic plague.

More fool you.

> In fact, I keep a folder on my desktop with a second
> copy of all the Google Apps' icons, so that I can easily
> check that I'm logged out of each that can be logged
> out of as shown in this screenshot below:

More fool you.

[VPN user]

nospam wrote:

> who cares.
> some people *want* to use google's services. others don't.
> what difference does it make to you what someone else decides to do?
> most people aren't paranoid.

Actually, "I" care that "other" people sign out of the tracking
that Google does of "my" BSSID (aka MAC address).

Of course, I have "my" ESSID set up with the idiotic postfix _nomap,
just so that I'm not tracked by Google (who knows if it really works).

But I'm polite.

I think it's rude of the majority of (clueless) Android owners
who attempt to track my access point MAC addresses by sending
this information periodically to Google.

So as to not be rude to others, I have *my* phone set up *not*
to send anyone else's MAC address to Google.

Here is the procedure I mapped out so that everyone can stop
tracking each other on Android, only some of which actually
applies to iOS users (i.e., those who use Google apps).

Notice that Google scatters the settings all over the place.

In "Settings > More", turn off all "Location services":
https://i.imgur.com/GmHwRnH.gif
See also:
https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/geolocation/intro

Then, in "Accounts", go to the separate "Google" account section:
https://i.imgur.com/jjmqMW4.gif

This shows the one Google account that you must have by default
https://i.imgur.com/8Gs6Ew6.gif

And which has "Location settings" at that level by default
https://i.imgur.com/FgqiSR6.gif
Basic Android Privacy Settings:

Android 4.3 has Settings > {Connections, My device, Accounts, & More}
https://i.imgur.com/Y2LAgNy.gif

Settings > Accounts > Google > Privacy > {Search, Location settings, Ads}
0. Settings > Accounts > Google
Account: f...@bar.com
Sync turned off
Periodically delete this Google account (e.g., monthly).
(There is usually no need to remember the password unless you use it
which I almost never do, except for step 6 below.)
1. Settings > Accounts > Google > Privacy > Search >
a. Google Account
Signed out for Google Search, and no Google Now cards can be shown.
b. Google location settings
A. Access location: [unchecked]
[Do not] Let Google apps use this device's location any time it is on.
B. Google Location History = blank
c. SafeSearch filter [unchecked]SafeSearch is not active
d. Legal
Web History = off
Personal Results = off
2. Settings > Accounts > Google > Privacy > Location settings >
http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-google-and-everyone-else-gets-wi-fi-location-data/#!
Note that the location services happens periodically!
Note that your neighbors and people driving by send your location to Google!
Note that appending "_nomap" to your router SSID removes it from Google's DB.
Note that your BSSID/ESSID RSSI and GPS location are sent.
Android Location Services periodically obtains GPS, Cell-ID, & Wi-Fi to send
Google the ESSID, BSSID (aka MAC), & RSSI.
a. Location access for your phone is off.
Google applications are unable to access your location because
location access for the phone has been turned off.
To turn it back on click below to go to Settings > Location Access
b. Settings > More > Location services > Access to my location = [unchecked]
https://i.imgur.com/GmHwRnH.gif
c. Settings > More > Location services > Location sources >
Use GPS statellites = [unchecked](and grayed out)
Use wireless networks = [unchecked](and grayed out)
3. Settings > Accounts > Google > Privacy > Ads >
https://i.imgur.com/jjmqMW4.gif
https://i.imgur.com/8Gs6Ew6.gif
https://i.imgur.com/FgqiSR6.gif
a. Ads: Reset advertising ID (click it to reset)
b. Opt out of interest-based ads (check it to opt out)
c. Ads by Google (clicking it will pop up a browser session)
https://www.google.com/ads/preferences/html/mobile-about.html?(x)
[where (x) is a huge encrypted mess of characters]
4. Firefox: HardMenu > Settings > Privacy > CLEAR PRIVATE DATA > Clear now
Firefox: HardMenu > Settings > Privacy > CLEAR PRIVATE DATA > Clear on exit = yes
"Firefox will automatically clear your data whenever
you select 'Quit' from the main menu."
[x] Browsing history
[x] Search history
[x] Downloads
[x] Form history
[x] Cookies & active logins
[x] Saved logins
[x] Cache
[x] Offline website data
[x] Site settings
[x] Synced tabs
5. Log out of all known Google Apps:
https://i.imgur.com/p915GdC.png
6. Check Google Dashboard to view the information they store about you:
http://www.google.com/settings/dashboard
Note: When I log into the phone's Google Play account from a computer
on VPN, Google invariably asks to validate the Google Account
by asking for my phone number to verify via SMS or phone call:
https://i.imgur.com/3JxP6Tg.gif

[VPN user]

Jolly Roger wrote:

>> I change nyms for privacy reasons, but I never try to hide who I am
>
> Bullshit doublespeak. If you weren't trying to hide who you are, you
> wouldn't change nyms.

As you well know, I care about privacy, and yet, I'm a very detailed
person, so I supply a *lot* of detailed screenshots and other information
about my carrier, my location, my phone, my family & friends, etc.

I do this because I am a good Usenet citizen who has been on Usenet
for as long as you have, so, I know what is good and what is bad.

As you also well know, I don't troll, and I try to be responsive,
but when it comes to people calling me names, I generally just
smile (as you have seen many times in the past).

As you also well know, when the thread is done, I leave it, and,
what happens, almost invariably, is that Jamie or Rod or someone
keeps it alive for scores of posts with the Monte Python skits
they play all the time.

[VPN user]

Frank Slootweg wrote:

> Hold on! This week *I* am you! Didn't you get the memo!?

I think that's funny and I realize you do too.
They think I am you and you are me.

I guess, since they don't know any better, anyone who isn't
them, is us.

:)

[VPN user]

Frank Slootweg wrote:

> What "privacy reasons" could you have, when you're (currently)
> posting through Mixmin?

That's a perfectly valid question.

I have communicated quite a few times with Steve Crook, who runs
Mixmin, and I have given him advice which he has taken, which is
to both protect our privacy and to prevent misuse of his servers
(e.g., trolls, EMAK, spam, etc.).

What Steve does is his headers *always* show the same IP address
(hashed) for the NNTP Posting Host (he puts it in "injection-info")
for a given time period which is wholly up to him.

So, if I were to morph from home on Mixmin within that time period,
he'd show the *same* injection-info no matter what nym was used.

Since I use Pan, I have a different nym for each type of newsgroup,
which is controlled by the group preferences. So, by default, the
reply is the same nym since you can only set up one default nym
per newsgroup in Pan (AFAIK).

Obviously, you can override that manually, so I have a personal
rule that no two nyms post to the same thread ever (that's a
cardinal rule for me, which is only broken by mistake, once
every few years as I forget which nym started which thread since
I don't keep any records as the whole point is to be less trackable
by automated means).

I have never tried to hide who I am, and, in fact, I have even
emailed some of the people here (David Empson for one) using my
real email address. That's why I think it's so funny that they
think they're geniuses when they can find the Easter Egg hiding
in plain sight.

What's funnier is that they accuse dozens of people (who aren't
me) of being me. So, I guess their logic is fuzzier than reality.

> Why can't you use a single nym?
> Which 'problem' does your morphing solve?

If I were a "normal" person, I would do better with a single nym.
But, on some newsgroups, I post pictures of the workplace and
of projects I'm working on. And I post details about my equipment
such as serial numbers and MAC addresses for lookups.

I've probably posted a hundred or two hundred screenshots of my
iOS and Android devices for example, to this newsgroup, in the
honest effort to supply as much information as possible to teach
or to ask the question.

I've been on Usenet for decades. I know what a good poster should
do, and I'm highly responsive and spend a great amount of effort
documenting the steps involved, the errors, the setup, etc.

For example, by now, the veterans here can identify my Android
or iOS devices on sight, just from the way I highly organize my
single desktop absolutely perfectly:
https://i.imgur.com/P2DJg3P.gif

There are literally hundreds of pictures like this. I've even
posted recordings of my voice discussing things with Apple
technicians, etc.

How many people on Usenet do you know who give out such a
*tremendous* amount of information in their posts?

I'm unique in that (or almost so).

Given that photo identification on the web is so easy nowadays,
I need to counterbalance all that information with a bit of
ambiguity so that the harvesters out there can't as easily
harvest it all together.

> Bottom line: Posting with a nym is fine, posting in a (nearly)
> untraceable way is fine, but EMAK (Excessive Morphing to Avoid
> Killfiles), and similar morphing, is not on. If you want to be taken
> seriously, you should act seriously.

The funny thing is that I have absolutely no need to avoid
Killfiles. None. Zip. Nada. Anyone who knows me, knows that I
am very responsive. I don't troll. I don't spam. I don't get
into arguing matches. I drop out when *they* troll. In fact,
since some guys here absolutely *must* have the last word, I'm
perfectly fine that they have the last word.

So, while I do plonk people, I only killfile those who provide
absolutely zero value. I, myself, strive to be responsive to
the question and to provide value, and you'll notice that
all my links are tested and all my iOS App Store and Google
Play App Store links are tested and documented fully (e.g.,
I say the name of the app, the developer, and I provide the
link *every* time). Most people just say "get the permission
manager", not even realizing there could be two dozen apps
called "permission manager", all of which are different.

So, absolutely NONE of my nym changing has anything whatsoever
to do with avoiding killfiles. If they want to killfile me,
they're welcome to, as anyone doing so isn't gonna add any
value to the thread anyway.

What's funny is that they killfile *other* people, thinking
they're me; but that's their issue (not mine).

Let me know if you have any questions as my strategy is to
be a very responsive and responsible Usenet poster, giving
out a *tremendous* amount of good information; but that
comes at a cost - which is that I use various methods to
remain as private as I can even as I give out a tremendous
amount of information.

[VPN user]

> It's stupid cutting the quoting back as hard as this.

Hi Rod,

These are the rules I follow for attributions:
https://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html

Am I perfect? No. But, it's a *lot* better than those who simply
quote the entire series of quotes, and, a hellova lot better than
what you and nospam do which is all that "yes" "nope" "more fool
you" meaningless garble.

> More fool you.
> More fool you.
> More fool you.

See what I mean?
What value do you add?

I provide a very detailed and easily followed method to
minimize tracking in a tracking-related thread, and the
only value you can possibly add is "more fool you"?

And then, after adding all the value you had left in you,
you still bothered to end your missive with a hugely
unnecessary score of quoted lines that you didn't even
bother responding to (which were the actual meat of the
message you were responding to in the first place).

Ask yourself how much value you just added?
At the same time, ask yourself if you followed the rules
of attribution yourself?

https://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html

[Lewis]

In message <ne3lae$1cd$1...@news.mixmin.net>

VPN user <vpn...@example.com> wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:

>> Get used to it. He changes them constantly, but can't change who he is, so
>> you can easily figure out its him just by reading his idiotic posts -
>> always cross posted to android, Linux, and Apple news groups.

> I change nyms for privacy reasons,

No, you change nyms because you are asshole who can't stand the idea
that people will not read your shit posts. As soon as you stop getting
replies, you nymshift again to evade the filters.

--
'What can I do? I'm only human,' he said aloud. Someone said, Not all
of you. --Pyramids

[VPN user]

Lewis wrote:

> No, you change nyms because you are asshole who can't stand the idea
> that people will not read your shit posts. As soon as you stop getting
> replies, you nymshift again to evade the filters.

Hi Lewis,
You can think what you like as I was responding to Frank's question,
but you might look at what you wrote to see how much added value you
imparted to the topic of this thread.

Then before you call the kettle black, look at what you wrote since
here, on Usenet, we are what we post.

BTW, if I wanted to "fool" people, I'd just change my vernacular,
and misspell and change my punctuation, etc., so, the fact that I
don't, is indicative of the fact that I am not trying to avoid
social detection.

I'll even discuss things with the old lady Michelle, and I'll talk
trash about JamieK and I'll refer to Rod's location in Australia
and how nospam would make a great politician, and how JR is an
old man who codes well or that Sobriquet is just about the only
one here who can see both sides of the story or how SavageDuck
knows his photog tools, etc.

I wouldn't do *any* of that if I was trying to do what you infer.

Of course, I doubt you'll ever understand, based on what you write,
and, as I noted, you are what you write, so, I'll just leave it
at that.

:)

[Jolly Roger]

VPN user <vpn...@example.com> wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>>> I change nyms for privacy reasons, but I never try to hide who I am
>>
>> Bullshit doublespeak. If you weren't trying to hide who you are, you
>> wouldn't change nyms.
>
> As you well know, I care about privacy, and yet, I'm a very detailed
> person, so I supply a *lot* of detailed screenshots and other information
> about my carrier, my location, my phone, my family & friends, etc.

What we know is you care about trolling. And your long, laborious, asinine
posts full of lies and clueless misinformation prove that time and again.

> I do this because I am a good Usenet citizen who has been on Usenet
> for as long as you have, so, I know what is good and what is bad.

You post here because you love trolling, and it's why you constantly change
your nym to avoid kill files in an attempt to childishly try to irritate
anyone who would rather filter your posts out of their feeds. You are lame.

> As you also well know, I don't troll, and I try to be responsive,
> but when it comes to people calling me names, I generally just
> smile (as you have seen many times in the past).

You typically reply with a smiley once you've been proven wrong and still
refuse to admit defeat in your lame trolls.

> As you also well know, when the thread is done, I leave it

You leave once the smiley replies start.

Your trolls are lame and boring.

[Lewis]

In message <ne4u7n$fa4$1...@news.mixmin.net>

VPN user <vpn...@example.com> wrote:
> Lewis wrote:

>> No, you change nyms because you are asshole who can't stand the idea
>> that people will not read your shit posts. As soon as you stop getting
>> replies, you nymshift again to evade the filters.

> Hi Lewis,
> You can think what you like as I was responding to Frank's question,
> but you might look at what you wrote to see how much added value you
> imparted to the topic of this thread.

The topic *now* is you lying about your pathology.

> BTW, if I wanted to "fool" people, I'd just change my vernacular,

People think this is easy. It is actually impossible to do with any
consistency.

--
'Detectoring is like gambling,' said Vimes, putting down the clove. 'The
secret is to know the winner in advance.'

[Chris]

VPN user <vpn...@example.com> Wrote in message:

> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Get used to it. He changes them constantly, but can't change who he is, so
>> you can easily figure out its him just by reading his idiotic posts -
>> always cross posted to android, Linux, and Apple news groups.
>
> I change nyms for privacy reasons, but I never try to hide who I am
> and, in fact, if you looked, you'd see I use the same keywords constantly.

That makes no sense. Nymshifting is only to avoid killfiles and
*is* trolling behaviour regardless of what you believe.

Any single nym can still be 'private'. Lots of people do it, so
why can't you? That's a rhetorical question, we all know
why.


--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[Chris]

VPN user <vpn...@example.com> Wrote in message:
> Jolly Roger wrote:
>

>

> I do this because I am a good Usenet citizen who has been on Usenet
> for as long as you have, so, I know what is good and what is bad.

That makes your behaviour worse as you should know better.

You're entitled to your opinions and thoughts, but equally ppl are
entitled to ignore you on Usenet. Please be civil and allow us
that opportunity. Stop the nymshifting.

If you find no-one wants to listen to you, then that's life.

[Frank Slootweg]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <dmkno5...@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > > > > It was news to me that Google tracks your IMEI number, so this
> > > > > > thread applies both to iOS and Android users.
> > > > >
> > > > > no it doesn't.
> > > > >
> > > > > unlike android devices, an ios user can avoid google entirely.
> > > >
> > > > Well, these discussions are about Google tracking and about Google
> > > > services. In that context, Android devices can also "avoid google
> > > > entirely".
> > > >
> > > > Of course the OS is under Google's control, but that (the OS) is not
> > > > the subject of these discussions.
> > >
> > > the fact that the os is under google's control means that they can (and
> > > do) track usage.
> >
> > Ah! Now it suddenly is tracking "usage" instead of people, is it!?
> >
> > Nice try, but no cigar. These discussions are about tracking
> > (individual) *people* (or better, tracking information which can be tied
> > to a specific individual).
>
> google tracks all sorts of things and ties it all together.

Sure, sure!

> once again, you're in over your head.

*You* can't prove any of your blabbering and that somehow makes *me*
being in over my head!?

Well, I assume that it makes sense in your parallel universe.

> > > if someone doesn't want to be tracked by google, then using an android
> > > device is the wrong choice.
> >
> > In general, yes. In the context of these discussions, no.
>
> wrong.

*Why*?

> > > > > apple *doesn't* track individuals. it's anonymized and aggregated.
> > > > >
> > > > > for instance, apple might know that *someone* requested a map routing
> > > > > but they don't know *who* did that. google knows *who* and may serve up
> > > > > ads based on where you are and where you went.
> > > >
> > > > As has been explained a zillion times, if a user doesn't *want* Google
> > > > to know who they are, it's trivial to give them/Google fake information,
> > > > so they can't track a *person*, but only a *device*.
> > >
> > > that doesn't prevent google from tracking someone.
> >
> > Exactly *what* don't you understand about the difference between a
> > *person* and a *device*. If someone takes the mentioned precautions,
> > Google can *not* track that person, it can only track that device.
>
> devices do not operate on their own.

Duh!

> even if someone switches among multiple devices and/or spoofs their
> name, usage patterns can be matched and google can easily link it all
> together. it's not all that difficult.

No, your 'magic' isn't all that difficult, but you and your BFF can't
even tell who's who in this group, when the needed info is in plain
sight.

> > > and just because the provided name was fake doesn't mean that google
> > > can't determine what the real name is in some other way.
> >
> > Ah, so 'we' don't only have Apple Magic, but also Google Magic!?
> > "Google can do the impossible!" Yeah, right!
>
> it doesn't require magic. in fact, it's rather easy because the person
> in question is extremely sloppy about hiding his true identity.

Yet another red herring. I'm not talking about "the person in
question". I talk about the *technical* aspects of the described
scenario.

> one need not have the resources of google to figure it out.

You apparently missed my post about Google's fscking up which device
does (not) below to whom!

> > > > BTW, your specific example is wrong, because one can "request a map
> > > > routing" without a Google account.
> > >
> > > except that google tracks the route request and associates it with the
> > > person who requested it, whether or not they have a google account.
> >
> > More bogus Google Magic!
> >
> > *Prove* your silly bogus claims or kindly STFU!
>
> the proof is out there. you're not interested in proof. you're only
> interested in arguing.

The typical bailout of someone which doesn't *have* an argument/proof.

We'll count (also) this one as a silent admission.

> > > apple doesn't do that. apple creates *two* (not one) separate ids on
> > > the fly for map routing, completely independent from their apple id,
> > > one for the first half of the trip and the other for the second half,
> > > done solely to maintain privacy of the person requesting it.
> >
> > Earth to nospam: In the described Google scenario, there *is* no ID
> > which is tied to a person, so it's *exactly* the same.
>
> all android phones have a google id attached to it, just as all iphones
> have an apple id attached.

And *which* "google id" would that be, oh wise one? *In the described
scenario* (Got that bit?), here is *no* Google Account (and no Google
anything).

> the point which you continue to miss is that apple does *not* use that
> apple id to track users, while google goes out of its way to track
> numerous things and link it all together.
>
> google makes money by knowing as much as possible about people. the
> more they know, the more they make. that's *totally* different than
> apple, who makes its money by selling hardware and software.

Contrary to you, I *do* read and *do* comprehend. The *point* is that
what you're saying is *irrelevant* in the context of the scenario which
we are discussing.

> > > > > > Certainly it was stated in the references that iPhone users can also
> > > > > > change their IMEI so, this thread "can" apply to iPhone users too.
> > > > >
> > > > > no they can't.
> > > >
> > > > Why do you keep making these silly bogus statements, which can be
> > > > debunked by a five-second search!?
> > >
> > > there's nothing bogus about it and don't believe everything you read.
> >
> > Trust me, I don't, that's exactly why I debunk *your* bogus claims.
>
> you haven't debunked a thing.

Sure, sure!

> > > > A "iPhone change IMEI" (Duh!) search gives many,many hits. And no, you
> > > > don't even have to jailbreak the phone.
> > >
> > > wrong. it was possible to change the imei long ago (2008ish) with a
> > > utility called ziphone and only on specific basebands and on a
> > > jailbroken iphone.
> > >
> > > those days are *long* gone. that hasn't worked in years.
> > >
> > > any recent iphone, where recent is in the last 6-7 years, requires
> > > hardware hacking to change the imei. good luck with that.
> >
> > Nope. *Do* the search, *read* the documents and enjoy the pie and egg.
>
> the part you are missing is that i know what's bullshit and what isn't.

You should really get some help for that totally misplaced superiority
complex of yours.

> chew on these:
> <https://discussions.apple.com/thread/7267200?start=0&tstart=0>
> There is no way to change the IMEI of an iPhone, except by changing
> the logic board.
>
> <http://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/77413/is-that-possible-to-chan
> ge-imei-on-iphone-5>
> The only way to change IMEi on iPhone is by reassembling another
> motherboard with new baseband module
>
> there may be various claims about doing it, but as far as i can tell,
> they're scams.

Given your track record, I take a multitude of documents (not
discussions) over your word(s).

[nospam]

In article <ne4oud$32r$2...@news.mixmin.net>, VPN user

<vpn...@example.com> wrote:

>
> > who cares.
> > some people *want* to use google's services. others don't.
> > what difference does it make to you what someone else decides to do?
> > most people aren't paranoid.
>
> Actually, "I" care that "other" people sign out of the tracking
> that Google does of "my" BSSID (aka MAC address).

once you broadcast something into the public airspace, you have no say
in what happens.

if you don't want anyone to see your bssid, don't transmit it outside
the walls of your house.

put another way, you're sending your information into other people's
devices, at which point they can do whatever they want with that
information.

and that has nothing to do with using google apps and services anyway.

> Of course, I have "my" ESSID set up with the idiotic postfix _nomap,
> just so that I'm not tracked by Google (who knows if it really works).
>
> But I'm polite.

and stupid.

> I think it's rude of the majority of (clueless) Android owners
> who attempt to track my access point MAC addresses by sending
> this information periodically to Google.

just what do you think google is going to do with your mac address?

[Jolly Roger]

Yep. Privacy has nothing to do with it. Many Usenet posters use private
nyms that don't give away our true identity - without constantly
changing them. He's doing it for one reason: to avoid filters so he can
purposely irritate people who would rather not read his bullshit posts.
If he were a good Usenet citizen he wouldn't be acting like a lame troll.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2016-04-07, VPN user <vpn...@example.com> wrote:
>
> But I'm polite.

Constantly changing your nym to avoid kill files and trolling disparate
groups is the opposite of polite. You're a lame troll and nothing more.

[VPN user]

Frank Slootweg wrote:

> Given your track record, I take a multitude of documents (not
> discussions) over your word(s).

Hi Frank,

Nospam has a flaky track record.

To his credit, he's responsive and does actually know some things.
To his detriment, he makes up about half of his output.

And, when you call him out on it, he just goes into the rod-speed
mode, which is "nope" "more fool you" type stuff, which is a total
waste of everyone's time.

But, he's still worth listening to, because half of what he says
is dead on. The other half is so far off that he must either have
an agenda (like a politician) or he's just in lala land in his
mind.

I like him because he knows more than I do about the things I
know nothing about. So I can still learn from him. But I carry
a bag of salt with me when I do.

RodSpeed is less political but he jumps to wild-assed conclusions
and very often goes into "nope" "more fool you" mode, which is
even more of a waste of everyone's time.

JollyRoger gets far too emotional to be useful, yet, in about
1/3 or 1/4 of the time, both JollyRoger and RodSpeed actually
know what they're talking about - so if you pick your way
carefully and avoid their trollish behavior by not responding
to their taunts, you can still learn something from them.

There are those who almost never provide any value whatsoever
like JamieK or Lewis where JamieK provides just about zero value
just about all the time, while Lewis actually knows something
about on the order of what nospam knows, but Lewis makes up far
more than even nospam does (his recent statement that
Snowden recommends Telegram, for example when it's clear as
the difference between night and day that Snowden deprecates
Telegram).

If you can get David Empson to respond, he actually *always* seems
to know his stuff. Sobriquet doesn't know as much as the rest
of them, but he's very useful because he's the most reasonable
of the entire bunch. Actually, Rod Speed is reasonable sometimes
too, and even nospam once in a while is reasonable. (The rest
are rarely unbiased.)

Poutnik is one of those who is reasonable 100% of the time.
Michelle and The Real Bev are two peas in a pod. They have about
the same knowledge level as I do, so, they know to keep out of
discussions that they know nothing about and don't participate
in the flamefests that most of the above (RS,JK,JR,NS, etc) love.
(Maybe it's 'cuz they're the main females here and they don't
need to prove they're right even when they're wrong, which
most of the main posters have to do to keep their egos intact.)

If you can get SavageDuck to respond, he often has the experience
in certain areas (e.g., photography) that the rest don't have.

I read *every* thread on these newsgroups, so I can make the list
longer if you need to know more about any one person, but that's
a quick summary of the personalities involved and how they can
be useful when you need to learn something from them.

The key, I think, is to (a) ask the question, (b) respond to all
valid queries for more information, (c) read the references they
provide (if any) but discount anything they say that isn't backed
up by facts, and (d) avoid the flame fest which some of them love.

Then, when you get your answer you summarize the answer for
the lurkers, and then disappear (because the Monty Python skits
will go on forever if you stick around).

[Frank Slootweg]

[Only leaving the - for me - essentials:]

VPN user <vpn...@example.com> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> > What "privacy reasons" could you have, when you're (currently)
> > posting through Mixmin?
>
> That's a perfectly valid question.

[...]

> Since I use Pan, I have a different nym for each type of newsgroup,
> which is controlled by the group preferences. So, by default, the
> reply is the same nym since you can only set up one default nym
> per newsgroup in Pan (AFAIK).
>
> Obviously, you can override that manually, so I have a personal
> rule that no two nyms post to the same thread ever

[...]

> > Why can't you use a single nym?
> > Which 'problem' does your morphing solve?
>
> If I were a "normal" person, I would do better with a single nym.
> But, on some newsgroups, I post pictures of the workplace and
> of projects I'm working on. And I post details about my equipment
> such as serial numbers and MAC addresses for lookups.

[...]

> > Bottom line: Posting with a nym is fine, posting in a (nearly)
> > untraceable way is fine, but EMAK (Excessive Morphing to Avoid
> > Killfiles), and similar morphing, is not on. If you want to be taken
> > seriously, you should act seriously.

[...]

> Let me know if you have any questions as my strategy is to
> be a very responsive and responsible Usenet poster, giving
> out a *tremendous* amount of good information; but that
> comes at a cost - which is that I use various methods to
> remain as private as I can even as I give out a tremendous
> amount of information.

You say "I have a different nym for each type of newsgroup", which is
perfectly fine by me, but I'm quite sure that you have used *multiple*
nyms in 'this' newsgroup (which for me is comp.mobile.android).

So did *you* use multiple nyms (in a relatively short time, months,
not years) in comp.mobile.android?

If so, why and why did you break your own one-nym-per-newsgroup rule?

FYI, if you *do* use multiple nyms in one newsgroup (also if you only
use them sequentially), you *do* EMAK and that's not on.

[VPN user]

nospam wrote:

> once you broadcast something into the public airspace, you have no say
> in what happens.

That's not true and you know it, so why do you say that?

For example, Google "says" you can add _nomap to your ESSID and then they
won't track you.

Certainly that's a "say" in what happens.

Also, certain governments have *punished* Google I think, for what they
did with their Google cars and Marius Milner's software.

> if you don't want anyone to see your bssid, don't transmit it outside
> the walls of your house.

Easier said than actually done.

> put another way, you're sending your information into other people's
> devices, at which point they can do whatever they want with that
> information.

Fair enough, especially given how WiFi protocol works, but that's like
saying if you leave your newspaper on your driveway unlocked, then
other people who can access it could just take it, read it, and then
give it back to you.

> and that has nothing to do with using google apps and services anyway.

I'm not sure how much spying that Google Apps do, especially on iOS.
That's part of the original question in a way.

> and stupid.

Fair enough. I wouldn't be asking the questions I ask if I knew the
answers already.

> just what do you think google is going to do with your mac address?

I'm sure you participated on the thread where there was a great
discussion of how to obtain the geolocation of anyone's cellphone
if you had a *guess* of where they were, didn't you?

This is a *public* API!
Anyone can register to use it.

All they need are two ESSIDs in close proximity to each other.
So, an *educated guess* is all you need to track someone, at least
in theory.

Here's how I imagine it would work in one specific instance:
1. Your friend suspects his wife of sleeping overnight with his boss
when he's in China on a business trip.
2. You tell your friend to turn on his wife's cellphone access
point feature.
3. Then, while in the states, you show your friend how to drive by
the boss' house using wifi sniffers to get the boss' BSSID.
4. Now, when your friend is in China, he still has all he needs
to track if her cellphone is staying overnight at the boss' house.

With those two datapoints, Google gives you her current geolocation,
for free. You already knew this because you participated in that thread.

Or did you forget?

[nospam]

In article <ne5uul$930$5...@news.mixmin.net>, VPN user

<vpn...@example.com> wrote:

>
> > once you broadcast something into the public airspace, you have no say
> > in what happens.
>
> That's not true and you know it, so why do you say that?

it's exactly true.

> For example, Google "says" you can add _nomap to your ESSID and then they
> won't track you.

they may say that, but the signal is still received by anyone in the
vicinity and you have no control over that. none whatsoever (other than
turning off the signal).

what someone does *with* that signal requires trusting that what they
say is what they do. maybe so, maybe not.

you also don't know who else *other* than google is picking it up and
what they're doing with whatever information they can obtain.

the point is that you are sending signals into other people's phones,
radio scanners, houses and even into their bodies, so they get to do
whatever the fuck they want with that information.

if you don't want that information in public, then don't send it into
the public airspace.

> Certainly that's a "say" in what happens.

they might say they won't do anything but the signal is still received
and you have to trust that what they say and what they do is the same.

at a minimum, it's logged.

it might not be added to the location database, but they still know it
exists.

> Also, certain governments have *punished* Google I think, for what they
> did with their Google cars and Marius Milner's software.

that was where they saved data that was sent in the clear, which is
perfectly legal since it's *being* *broadcasted* in the clear.

> > if you don't want anyone to see your bssid, don't transmit it outside
> > the walls of your house.
>
> Easier said than actually done.

nobody said otherwise.

> > put another way, you're sending your information into other people's
> > devices, at which point they can do whatever they want with that
> > information.
>
> Fair enough, especially given how WiFi protocol works, but that's like
> saying if you leave your newspaper on your driveway unlocked, then
> other people who can access it could just take it, read it, and then
> give it back to you.

nope, because that requires someone stepping onto your property to read
it.

if you put your newspaper on *their* driveway, you can't have an
expectation that they won't read it. it's on their property. they get
to choose what to do with it.

if you have a conversation in a public setting, you cannot insist that
other people do not listen to it. if you want it private, converse in
private.

> > and that has nothing to do with using google apps and services anyway.
>
> I'm not sure how much spying that Google Apps do, especially on iOS.
> That's part of the original question in a way.

if you use a google app, they track what you do. if you use more than
one google app, they link the info together. search for amusement parks
in google maps and you might see ads for amusement parks in gmail.

that's how they make money. this stuff is not a secret.

> > and stupid.
>
> Fair enough. I wouldn't be asking the questions I ask if I knew the
> answers already.

the problem is you don't listen to the answers given.

[tlvp]

On 7 Apr 2016 13:52:27 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote, anent:

>> you haven't debunked a thing.
>
> Sure, sure!

Thanks for reconfirming, Frank: just as a double negative often acts as an
affirmative, so a double affirmative can act as a negation ;-) !

Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[VPN user]

Jolly Roger wrote:

> Constantly changing your nym to avoid kill files and trolling disparate
> groups is the opposite of polite. You're a lame troll and nothing more.

You can't see the forest for the trees.

If I wanted to, I could *easily* change my entire persona, and I don't.
Because I don't give a hoot about trying to avoid killfiles.

Please, shut up and killfile me already.
You're not adding any value to the discussion anyway because you
have zero real-world experience with the question at hand.

It seems, unfortunately, from the conversation, only one or two
people have *any* real-world experience on this topic, and that
doesn't include me (or I wouldn't have asked in the first place).

In summary, the IMEI seems to be difficult (read probably not possible)
to change on the latest iOS equipment; and while the IMEI seems to be
pretty easy to change on Android equipment, nobody here seems to have
actually done it.

Moreover, we learned that Google dashboard keeps track of the IMEI,
but, the dashboard seems to be tremendously inaccurate, in the two
tests that were run.

Would others please kindly log into your Google Dashboard to report
whether the observations by the two reports are similar in yours?

Check Google Dashboard to view the information they store about you:
http://www.google.com/settings/dashboard

Note: When I log into the phone Google Play account from a computer

[nospam]

In article <ne7avq$ra0$4...@news.mixmin.net>, VPN user

<vpn...@example.com> wrote:

>
> If I wanted to, I could *easily* change my entire persona, and I don't.

you're way too sloppy to do it well enough where someone can't figure
it out.

[VPN user]

nospam wrote:

>> Also, certain governments have *punished* Google I think, for what they
>> did with their Google cars and Marius Milner's software.
>
> that was where they saved data that was sent in the clear, which is
> perfectly legal since it's *being* *broadcasted* in the clear.

Do you just make this stuff up?

Google paid $7 million to 38 states to settle their WiFi
transgressions.

http://business.time.com/2013/03/13/did-google-get-off-easy-with-7-million-wi-spy-settlement/
Did Google Get Off Easy With $7 Million ‘Wi-Spy’ Settlement?

Even Germany fined them for their snooping:
Google fined $190,000 in Germany for illegal WiFi snooping with Street View cars
http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/22/google-street-view-fine-germany/

You really need to be more careful with what you write because
half the time you're dead wrong, yet you say it with such
clarity of conviction that we all have to wonder if you're
just stupid or if you actually believe what you say, or if you
just make it up and hope it sticks.

50% of what you write is dead wrong.
That's a lousy track record.

[VPN user]

nospam wrote:

> if you put your newspaper on *their* driveway, you can't have an
> expectation that they won't read it. it's on their property. they get
> to choose what to do with it.

Your own words prove that you're an idiot.

If you park a car on private property, that simple act of location
doesn't make it their car any more than leaving your wallet or
newspaper in their driveway makes it theirs.

You just make this stuff up, but I would like to inform you that you
are what you write here, and, your track record is dismal with
respect to accuracy.

[VPN user]

nospam wrote:

> the problem is you don't listen to the answers given.

Heh heh ... the problem is that your answers are roughly about 50%
made up and about 50% dead wrong on purpose (easily proved in this
one post alone), so, if someone educated didn't listen to you,
how could you possibly blame them?

Your track record on accuracy is atrocious, and approaching
the spam level.

[VPN user]

Lewis wrote:

> People think this is easy. It is actually impossible to do with any
> consistency.

Heh heh ... I could fool you in a flash if I wanted to.
But, it would be like taking candy from a baby.

Besides, I ask questions here to get value back,and you don't seem
to have any value.

You shot your load in the first post.

[VPN user]

Jolly Roger wrote:

> Your trolls are lame and boring.

Then stop responding to them and answer the original question.

[VPN user]

Chris wrote:

> You're entitled to your opinions and thoughts, but equally ppl are
> entitled to ignore you on Usenet. Please be civil and allow us
> that opportunity. Stop the nymshifting.

You are *welcome* to *not* reply to anything I write.

All my questions are valid.
All my responses are appropriate.

In the end, this thread is pretty much dead, and was from the
beginning, because absolutely nobody who responded seems to have
any real world experience.

We did learn that the Apple equipment is hard to change the IMEI
of, and that the Android equipment is easy to change the IMEI of.

But that's where the experience ended. When/if I root my Android
phone, I will see what this additional Framework entails, and
if it makes sense, I'll try it. But I'm not all that technical
so, it looks that that's how I'll have to learn about it.

Still, it was informative to find out in this thread how
inaccurate the Google Dashboard was for at least the two
of us who bothered to log into it.

The rest didn't even bother to log in, so they really didn't
provide the Usenet citizens with much data. Just opinions,
which everyone has at least one of.

Did you log into your Google Dashboard?
What did you find out about how it reports your IMEI?

[VPN user]

nospam wrote:

> you're way too sloppy to do it well enough where someone can't figure
> it out.

What did *you* find out, for the team, when you logged into the
Google Dashboard?

[nospam]

In article <ne7bcf$v78$1...@news.mixmin.net>, VPN user

<vpn...@example.com> wrote:

>
> >> Also, certain governments have *punished* Google I think, for what they
> >> did with their Google cars and Marius Milner's software.
> >
> > that was where they saved data that was sent in the clear, which is
> > perfectly legal since it's *being* *broadcasted* in the clear.
>
> Do you just make this stuff up?

nope.

> Google paid $7 million to 38 states to settle their WiFi
> transgressions.

what transgressions? the data that was collected was broadcast into the
public space *without* any encryption.

the communications act of 1934 provides for anyone to receive anything
broadcast into the public airspace.

decrypting it is a separate issue, but there was no encryption in this
case. it was *in* *the* *clear*.

not only that, but it was sent *into* google's property (their vans)
and *into* the bodies of those inside said vans, along with everyone
else in the vicinity.

if you said something confidential loud enough for your neighbors
and/or anyone walking past your house to hear, don't blame them for
finding out. *you* broadcasted it.

[nospam]

In article <ne7big$v78$2...@news.mixmin.net>, VPN user

<vpn...@example.com> wrote:

>
> > if you put your newspaper on *their* driveway, you can't have an
> > expectation that they won't read it. it's on their property. they get
> > to choose what to do with it.
>
> Your own words prove that you're an idiot.

resorting to insults again?

> If you park a car on private property, that simple act of location
> doesn't make it their car any more than leaving your wallet or
> newspaper in their driveway makes it theirs.

if you park your car on someone else's private property, they can (and
likely will) have it removed.

they also can use the license plate, make&model and/or vin and figure
out who you are for possible further action.

if you don't want that to happen, don't put it on their property.

[Jolly Roger]

VPN user <vpn...@example.com> wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Constantly changing your nym to avoid kill files and trolling disparate
>> groups is the opposite of polite. You're a lame troll and nothing more.
>
> You can't see the forest for the trees.

> I don't give a hoot about trying to avoid killfiles.
> Please, shut up and killfile me already.

LOL... You're fucking clueless.

[Jolly Roger]

I'll stop after you stop nym shifting, asshole. In the meantime: Eat shit,
troll.

[VPN user]

Frank Slootweg wrote:

> If so, why and why did you break your own one-nym-per-newsgroup rule?

Read that post again. It's one nym per thread, and generally the same
nym per newsgroup, but it's arbitrarily changed as part of the privacy
focus in that I don't keep records nor statistics.

I just ask a question, and remain that nym for the entirety of the
thread.

You will note that all of "my" post are well written, well punctuated,
well composed, well researched, and well responded to. I even spell
perfectly in every single one. I very often attribute where I get my
information; and I commonly include extremely detailed screenshots.

I summarize what was learned in the thread, and very often I write
up detailed tutorials on how to solve the problem once I have solved
it.

That's part of being a good Usenet citizen.

For example, before you chastise me further, see *this* thread,
which summarizes over a *year* of effort learning about VPN privacy:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.os.linux/mW5FQHFi-eQ

> FYI, if you *do* use multiple nyms in one newsgroup (also if you only
> use them sequentially), you *do* EMAK and that's not on.

There may be personal beliefs here, such as with any religion or
philosophy. For example, I would say that to use the same nym for
years on end is anathema, but I wouldn't chastise you for doing so.

If I were trolling, that would be totally different.
If I were spamming, that would be totally different.

But *all* my threads are responsible threads.

[VPN user]

Chris wrote:

> That makes no sense. Nymshifting is only to avoid killfiles and
> *is* trolling behaviour regardless of what you believe.
>
> Any single nym can still be 'private'. Lots of people do it, so
> why can't you? That's a rhetorical question, we all know
> why.

This is what you think the purpose of a nym is.
And that's fine, for a guy named "Chris".

If you think this thread is a troll, then get off of it.
Nobody is forcing you to respond, and, in fact, you've
added zero value anyway in that you haven't even reported
what your Google Dashboard says about your IMEI for example.

That's trolling behavior.

At least "I" researched the topic, found the tools that change
the IMEI, asked the questions, answered all queries, logged into
Google Dashboard, etc.

But all you can do is post off-topic drivel.
You do realize that's trolling behavior on your part, don't you?

[VPN user]

Jolly Roger wrote:

> Yep. Privacy has nothing to do with it. Many Usenet posters use private
> nyms that don't give away our true identity - without constantly
> changing them. He's doing it for one reason: to avoid filters so he can
> purposely irritate people who would rather not read his bullshit posts.
> If he were a good Usenet citizen he wouldn't be acting like a lame troll.

What did you find out for the team when you logged into your
Google Dashboard?

[nospam]

In article <ne7d6j$v78$9...@news.mixmin.net>, VPN user

<vpn...@example.com> wrote:

>
> You will note that all of "my" post are well written, well punctuated,
> well composed, well researched, and well responded to. I even spell
> perfectly in every single one. I very often attribute where I get my
> information; and I commonly include extremely detailed screenshots.

you're delusional.

[VPN user]

Jolly Roger wrote:

> LOL... You're fucking clueless.

What did *you* find out, for the team, when you logged into the
Google Dashboard?

[VPN user]

nospam wrote:

> not only that, but it was sent *into* google's property (their vans)
> and *into* the bodies of those inside said vans, along with everyone
> else in the vicinity.

Yeah. And so is a bullet fired from a gun sent into their bodies.
That doesn't make it legal just because it's sent into their bodies.

In fact, Google paid $7 million to almost two score states because it
wasn't legal.

[VPN user]

nospam wrote:

> if you park your car on someone else's private property, they can (and
> likely will) have it removed.

It's so funny how you waffle.

I think you make this stuff up, and then, when you're called out on it,
you can never say that you just made it up, so you waffle.

Having that car towed away (after due process of law, which, you may
recall from another thread, takes a lot more time, money, and effort
than you would think when it's on private property) doesn't make it
yours.

If it were parked on public property, it would actually be easier.
But that was all covered in a prior thread.

> they also can use the license plate, make&model and/or vin and figure
> out who you are for possible further action.
>
> if you don't want that to happen, don't put it on their property.

You seem to have a very strange view of the law.
You'd make a good defense counsel.

[VPN user]

nospam wrote:

> you're delusional.

:)

[VPN user]

Jolly Roger wrote:

> In the meantime: Eat shit, troll.

:)

[Jolly Roger]

VPN user <vpn...@example.com> wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> LOL... You're fucking clueless.
>
> What

VPN user <vpn...@example.com> wrote:
>
> You can't see the forest for the trees.
> I don't give a hoot about trying to avoid killfiles.
> Please, shut up and killfile me already.

Clueless!

[Jolly Roger]

Now he'll scurry off and change him nym again.

[VPN user]

Jolly Roger wrote:

> Clueless!

:)

[VPN user]

Jolly Roger wrote:

> Now he'll scurry off

:)

[Frank Slootweg]

VPN user <vpn...@example.com> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> > If so, why and why did you break your own one-nym-per-newsgroup rule?
>
> Read that post again. It's one nym per thread, and generally the same
> nym per newsgroup, but it's arbitrarily changed as part of the privacy
> focus in that I don't keep records nor statistics.

*I* did read your post, but you 'conveniently' snipped what I quoted:

> Since I use Pan, I have a different nym for each type of newsgroup,
> which is controlled by the group preferences.

You break that rule of yours.

That you don't change your nym in a thread is irrelevant, because your
one-nym-per-newsgroup rule pre-empts that.

[More irrelevant lame excuses deleted.]

> > FYI, if you *do* use multiple nyms in one newsgroup (also if you only
> > use them sequentially), you *do* EMAK and that's not on.
>
> There may be personal beliefs here, such as with any religion or
> philosophy. For example, I would say that to use the same nym for
> years on end is anathema, but I wouldn't chastise you for doing so.

Please no red-herrings. EMAK has always been abuse on the Net and
still is. None of your whinging and lame excuses will change that.

> If I were trolling, that would be totally different.
> If I were spamming, that would be totally different.

Nope, it would not. EMAK is not dependent on trolling/spamming/
<whatever>.

Your nym-shifting/morphing MO is abuse on the Net, period.

But if you want to continue acting like a jerk, ...

EOD.

[nospam]

In article <ne7g8l$v78$2...@news.mixmin.net>, VPN user

<vpn...@example.com> wrote:

>
> > not only that, but it was sent *into* google's property (their vans)
> > and *into* the bodies of those inside said vans, along with everyone
> > else in the vicinity.
>
> Yeah. And so is a bullet fired from a gun sent into their bodies.
> That doesn't make it legal just because it's sent into their bodies.

totally different and you know it.

> In fact, Google paid $7 million to almost two score states because it
> wasn't legal.

it absolutely is legal to receive *any* rf that's broadcast into the
public airspace and certainly any rf that is sent onto someone else's
private property.

it's not legal to decrypt encrypted content, but if it's in the clear,
there is no issue.

it's analogous to someone standing on a street corner with a megaphone
and you can hear it a block away. what he is saying is *not* private
and he can't restrict you from listening to it.

[nospam]

In article <ne7gdf$v78$2...@news.mixmin.net>, VPN user

<vpn...@example.com> wrote:

>
> > if you park your car on someone else's private property, they can (and
> > likely will) have it removed.
>
> It's so funny how you waffle.

i'm not the one who is waffling.

> I think you make this stuff up, and then, when you're called out on it,
> you can never say that you just made it up, so you waffle.
>
> Having that car towed away (after due process of law, which, you may
> recall from another thread, takes a lot more time, money, and effort
> than you would think when it's on private property) doesn't make it
> yours.

it doesn't matter how much time and money it takes. the property owner
is within his rights to have your car removed and then chase you down
to recover costs for doing so.

that's not a good analogy anyway. parking your car on someone else's
private property is very different than broadcasting rf into pubic
airspace.

if you stand on a street corner with a megaphone you can't then say
others are not allowed to listen to what's being said. you are sending
sound waves *to* other people.

> If it were parked on public property, it would actually be easier.
> But that was all covered in a prior thread.

parking a car on public property may incur parking fees, such as at a
meter, but that's also not relevant.

> > they also can use the license plate, make&model and/or vin and figure
> > out who you are for possible further action.
> >
> > if you don't want that to happen, don't put it on their property.
>
> You seem to have a very strange view of the law.
> You'd make a good defense counsel.

i have a very good view of the law.

[VPN user]

nospam wrote:

> i have a very good view of the law.

:)

[VPN user]

nospam wrote:

> it absolutely is legal to receive *any* rf that's broadcast into the
> public airspace and certainly any rf that is sent onto someone else's
> private property.

Then why did Google get fined in Germany and settled for 7 million
dollars to thirty-odd states?

PS: You know the answer; it's illegal.

[VPN user]

Frank Slootweg wrote:

> Please no red-herrings.

:)

[nospam]

In article <ne8sau$slm$4...@news.mixmin.net>, VPN user

<vpn...@example.com> wrote:

>
> > it absolutely is legal to receive *any* rf that's broadcast into the
> > public airspace and certainly any rf that is sent onto someone else's
> > private property.
>
> Then why did Google get fined in Germany and settled for 7 million
> dollars to thirty-odd states?

germany has different laws and i am not familiar with the specifics of
them nor do i claim to be.

i'm talking about the usa, where it's completely legal to receive (but
not decrypt) anything broadcasted in the public airspace.

[VPN user]

nospam wrote:

> i'm talking about the usa, where it's completely legal to receive (but
> not decrypt) anything broadcasted in the public airspace.

Those 38 states were United States' states.

[nospam]

In article <ne8ssh$slm$9...@news.mixmin.net>, VPN user

again, this is well established law, going back to the communications
act of 1934.

it's because of that why radar detectors are legal, which are normally
used to avoid being caught violating one or more driving regulations.
the signal from the cop's radar gun is in the air and there's nothing
prohibiting detecting its presence or absence.

similarly, police scanners are also legal. some states have laws where
the information heard on a scanner can't be used to further a crime,
but that's very different than just listening for recreational purposes
or news reporters trying to chase down a story.

google may have done something beyond just receiving the signals, or
what they did violated specific laws in certain states but not federal
law.

[Jolly Roger]

Your previous claim that you only reply with a smiley when insulted is
proven bullshit. But then we never believed you anyway.

It won't be long before you scurry off and change your nym yet again.

Troll on, old man.

[PAS]

On 4/8/2016 2:38 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <ne8ssh$slm$9...@news.mixmin.net>, VPN user
> <vpn...@example.com> wrote:
>
>>> i'm talking about the usa, where it's completely legal to receive (but
>>> not decrypt) anything broadcasted in the public airspace.
>> Those 38 states were United States' states.
> again, this is well established law, going back to the communications
> act of 1934.
>
> it's because of that why radar detectors are legal, which are normally
> used to avoid being caught violating one or more driving regulations.
> the signal from the cop's radar gun is in the air and there's nothing
> prohibiting detecting its presence or absence.

Have you ever driven in Maryland? Radar detectors are illegal and the
police have radar detector detectors to sniff them out.

[PAS]

On 4/8/2016 2:50 PM, PAS wrote:
> On 4/8/2016 2:38 PM, nospam wrote:
>> In article <ne8ssh$slm$9...@news.mixmin.net>, VPN user
>> <vpn...@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> i'm talking about the usa, where it's completely legal to receive (but
>>>> not decrypt) anything broadcasted in the public airspace.
>>> Those 38 states were United States' states.
>> again, this is well established law, going back to the communications
>> act of 1934.
>>
>> it's because of that why radar detectors are legal, which are normally
>> used to avoid being caught violating one or more driving regulations.
>> the signal from the cop's radar gun is in the air and there's nothing
>> prohibiting detecting its presence or absence.
> Have you ever driven in Maryland? Radar detectors are illegal and the
> police have radar detector detectors to sniff them out.

Correction, it's Virginia, not Maryland.

[nospam]

In article <ne8uc9$nju$1...@dont-email.me>, PAS <a...@doremi.net> wrote:

> >>> i'm talking about the usa, where it's completely legal to receive (but
> >>> not decrypt) anything broadcasted in the public airspace.
> >> Those 38 states were United States' states.
> > again, this is well established law, going back to the communications
> > act of 1934.
> >
> > it's because of that why radar detectors are legal, which are normally
> > used to avoid being caught violating one or more driving regulations.
> > the signal from the cop's radar gun is in the air and there's nothing
> > prohibiting detecting its presence or absence.
>
> Have you ever driven in Maryland? Radar detectors are illegal and the
> police have radar detector detectors to sniff them out.

no and no. radar detectors are legal in maryland and there's no reason
to sniff for them there.

radar detectors are currently illegal in virginia and washington dc,
only because the law has not been challenged. whenever it comes up, the
case is dismissed because they don't want a precedent.

radar detectors were once illegal in connecticut, but that was
overturned nearly 25 years ago, in 1992.

radar detector detectors, which sniff out detectors by detecting the
local oscillator emissions from a radar detector, don't work all that
well because it's impossible to tell *which* vehicle is causing the
alert.

they're also not needed. it's very easy to figure out if someone is
using a radar detector. pace the driver, hit them with radar and if the
brake lights come on and/or the front of the vehicle drops (because
they suddenly braked), they have a radar detector. works every time.

nevertheless, a couple of radar detector models cannot be detected by
radar detectors and are popular in those areas.

[Savageduck]

On 2016-04-08 18:50:56 +0000, PAS <a...@doremi.net> said:

> On 4/8/2016 2:38 PM, nospam wrote:
>> In article <ne8ssh$slm$9...@news.mixmin.net>, VPN user
>> <vpn...@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> i'm talking about the usa, where it's completely legal to receive (but
>>>> not decrypt) anything broadcasted in the public airspace.
>>> Those 38 states were United States' states.
>> again, this is well established law, going back to the communications
>> act of 1934.
>>
>> it's because of that why radar detectors are legal, which are normally
>> used to avoid being caught violating one or more driving regulations.
>> the signal from the cop's radar gun is in the air and there's nothing
>> prohibiting detecting its presence or absence.

> Have you ever driven in Maryland? Radar detectors are illegal and the
> police have radar detector detectors to sniff them out.

I believe you can add Virginia to the States where radar detectors are illegal.

>>
>> similarly, police scanners are also legal. some states have laws where
>> the information heard on a scanner can't be used to further a crime,
>> but that's very different than just listening for recreational purposes
>> or news reporters trying to chase down a story.

...and there is an App for that:
<https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/police-scanner+/id482833772?mt=8>

>> google may have done something beyond just receiving the signals, or
>> what they did violated specific laws in certain states but not federal
>> law.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Savageduck]

On 2016-04-08 18:55:53 +0000, PAS <a...@doremi.net> said:

> On 4/8/2016 2:50 PM, PAS wrote:
>> On 4/8/2016 2:38 PM, nospam wrote:
>>> In article <ne8ssh$slm$9...@news.mixmin.net>, VPN user
>>> <vpn...@example.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> i'm talking about the usa, where it's completely legal to receive (but
>>>>> not decrypt) anything broadcasted in the public airspace.
>>>> Those 38 states were United States' states.
>>> again, this is well established law, going back to the communications
>>> act of 1934.
>>>
>>> it's because of that why radar detectors are legal, which are normally
>>> used to avoid being caught violating one or more driving regulations.
>>> the signal from the cop's radar gun is in the air and there's nothing
>>> prohibiting detecting its presence or absence.
>> Have you ever driven in Maryland? Radar detectors are illegal and the
>> police have radar detector detectors to sniff them out.
>
> Correction, it's Virginia, not Maryland.

Yup! They have always been illegal in Virginia.

>>
>>>
>>> similarly, police scanners are also legal. some states have laws where
>>> the information heard on a scanner can't be used to further a crime,
>>> but that's very different than just listening for recreational purposes
>>> or news reporters trying to chase down a story.
>>>
>>> google may have done something beyond just receiving the signals, or
>>> what they did violated specific laws in certain states but not federal
>>> law.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[nospam]

In article <2016040813594055679-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> >> it's because of that why radar detectors are legal, which are normally
> >> used to avoid being caught violating one or more driving regulations.
> >> the signal from the cop's radar gun is in the air and there's nothing
> >> prohibiting detecting its presence or absence.
>
> > Have you ever driven in Maryland? Radar detectors are illegal and the
> > police have radar detector detectors to sniff them out.
>
> I believe you can add Virginia to the States where radar detectors are
> illegal.

replace, not add.

he meant virginia. they're legal in maryland.

[VPN user]

nospam wrote:

> it's because of that why radar detectors are legal

Radar detectors are legal in the US except when they're not legal:
http://www.bestradardetectors.net/Radar-Detector-Laws.html

[VPN user]

PAS wrote:

> Have you ever driven in Maryland? Radar detectors are illegal and the
> police have radar detector detectors to sniff them out.

Same strategic result, but different tactical answer.

Google says passenger vehicles in MD can use radar detectors, but
not commercial vehicles.
http://drivinglaws.aaa.com/tag/radar-detectors/

[VPN user]

Savageduck wrote:

> I believe you can add Virginia to the States where radar detectors are illegal.

Google concurs that this is correct:
"Radar detectors are not permitted in Virginia".

For some US states, it's not so simple as "legal" or "not legal" though,
because the legality seems to depend on the type of vehicle in those states.

http://drivinglaws.aaa.com/tag/radar-detectors/

But, nospams point has been refuted, so that's the strategic effect.

[VPN user]

nospam wrote:

> replace, not add.
>
> he meant virginia. they're legal in maryland.

In Maryland, Google says:
"Radar detectors are permitted for passenger vehicles
but prohibited for use by commercial vehicles."

http://drivinglaws.aaa.com/tag/radar-detectors/

So, clearly, your point is invalidated by the capriciousness of
the laws.

[VPN user]

PAS wrote:

> Correction, it's Virginia, not Maryland.

Here are the laws for those two states:

Maryland

Radar detectors are permitted for passenger vehicles but prohibited for use by commercial vehicles.

Virginia
Radar detectors are not permitted.

http://drivinglaws.aaa.com/tag/radar-detectors/

[VPN user]

nospam wrote:

> radar detectors are legal in maryland and there's no reason
> to sniff for them there.

Since radar detectors are illegal in Maryland for certain vehicles,
there would be a reason for radar detector detectors (if they wish
to locate offenders).

[nospam]

In article <ne9nfa$eh5$5...@news.mixmin.net>, VPN user

<vpn...@example.com> wrote:

>
> > I believe you can add Virginia to the States where radar detectors are
> > illegal.
>
> Google concurs that this is correct:
> "Radar detectors are not permitted in Virginia".
>
> For some US states, it's not so simple as "legal" or "not legal" though,
> because the legality seems to depend on the type of vehicle in those states.
>
> http://drivinglaws.aaa.com/tag/radar-detectors/

it does not depend on the type of vehicle.

it depends on the location and type of driver.

radar detectors are currently illegal in virginia and washington dc for
non-commercial drivers regardless of what type of vehicle they're
driving driving. for commercial drivers, they're illegal in all states
unless they're off the clock in their personal vehicle (i.e., not
driving in a commercial capacity).

however, radar detector illegality is unconstitutional for reasons
already given. should the law be challenged, it will be overturned. the
problem is that pursuing a legal challenge is *not* cheap and so far,
nobody has bothered.

virginia used to confiscate radar detectors but that was challenged, so
now they issue a fine and log serial numbers. connecticut overturned
their radar detector ban 25 years ago.

> But, nospams point has been refuted, so that's the strategic effect.

no it hasn't.

[nospam]

In article <ne9nq0$eh5$8...@news.mixmin.net>, VPN user

<vpn...@example.com> wrote:

>
> > radar detectors are legal in maryland and there's no reason
> > to sniff for them there.
>
> Since radar detectors are illegal in Maryland for certain vehicles,

they are legal for all vehicles in maryland.

commercial *drivers* are prohibited from using them on the job,
regardless of vehicle type.

> there would be a reason for radar detector detectors (if they wish
> to locate offenders).

nope, because rdd's don't actually work very well and there are easier
and far less expensive ways to tell.

virginia only has a handful of them statewide.

[Lewis]

In message <ne8uc9$nju$1...@dont-email.me>

PAS <a...@doremi.net> wrote:
> On 4/8/2016 2:38 PM, nospam wrote:
>> In article <ne8ssh$slm$9...@news.mixmin.net>, VPN user
>> <vpn...@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> i'm talking about the usa, where it's completely legal to receive (but
>>>> not decrypt) anything broadcasted in the public airspace.
>>> Those 38 states were United States' states.
>> again, this is well established law, going back to the communications
>> act of 1934.
>>
>> it's because of that why radar detectors are legal, which are normally
>> used to avoid being caught violating one or more driving regulations.
>> the signal from the cop's radar gun is in the air and there's nothing
>> prohibiting detecting its presence or absence.
> Have you ever driven in Maryland? Radar detectors are illegal and the
> police have radar detector detectors to sniff them out.

1) I have driven in Maryland many times and never seen any evidence of
radar detectors being illegal.

2) there is no such thing as a Radar detector detector.

--
Good old Dame Fortune. You can _depend_ on her.

[nospam]

In article <slrnnggt8r....@amelia.local>, Lewis

<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> >> it's because of that why radar detectors are legal, which are normally
> >> used to avoid being caught violating one or more driving regulations.
> >> the signal from the cop's radar gun is in the air and there's nothing
> >> prohibiting detecting its presence or absence.
> > Have you ever driven in Maryland? Radar detectors are illegal and the
> > police have radar detector detectors to sniff them out.
>
> 1) I have driven in Maryland many times and never seen any evidence of
> radar detectors being illegal.

he meant virginia.

> 2) there is no such thing as a Radar detector detector.

yes there is, and there even was a radar detector detector detector.