More reason NOT to have an Advertising ID or Ads on your mobile device based on an expose for the USA & the UK (and others) in the Wall Street Journal today

[Arlen Holder]

Does anyone know details on what specific tracking data the UK & US
goverment is obtaining from advertisers & carriers for this project?
o If it's thru the Advertising ID, I suggest you simply instantly eliminate it.
o If it's thru cleverly crafted ads, I suggest using ad-elimination freeware.
o If you're in the UK, you're hosed as the carrier-privacy laws don't
appear to be as strict in the UK as they are in the USA (see details below).

"In the U.S., so far, the data being used has largely been drawn from the
advertising industry. The mobile marketing industry has billions of
geographic data points on hundreds of millions of U.S. cell mobile
devices - mostly drawn from applications that users have installed on
their phones and allowed to track their location. Huge troves of this
advertising data are available for sale."

"The industry is largely unregulated under existing privacy laws because
consumers have opted-in to tracking... and because each consumer is
represented by an alphanumeric string."

Here's the original Wall Street Journal article which broke the news:
o Government Tracking How People Move Around in Coronavirus Pandemic
<https://www.wsj.com/articles/government-tracking-how-people-move-around-in-coronavirus-pandemic-11585393202>

This is the subtitle:
"Goal is to get location data in up to 500 U.S. cities to help
plan response; privacy concerns call for strong legal safeguards
activist says"

And here are some notable technical quotes:

"In one such case, researchers found that New Yorkers were congregating
in large numbers in Brooklyn┬ Prospect Park and handed that information
over to local authorities, one person said."

"San Francisco-based LotaData launched a public portal analyzing movement
patterns within Italy"

"Foursquare Labs Inc., one of the largest location-data players, said it
is in discussions with numerous state and local governments about use of
its data."

Note that carrier-based privacy is said to be less in other countries:

"Telecom carriers in Germany, Austria, Spain, Belgium, the U.K. and other
countries have given data over to authorities"...

The WSJ says privacy laws in the US are stricter than in the UK:
"Cellphone carriers also have access to massive amounts of geolocation
data, which is granted much stricter privacy protection under U.S. law
than in most other countries. The largest U.S. carriers, including AT&T
Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc., say they have not been approached
by the government to provide location data, according to spokespeople.
There have been discussions about trying to obtain U.S. telecom data for
this purpose, however the legality of such a move isn┤ clear."

In short, be advised that the "advertising" information is what's being
sold in the USA while even your carrier data is being turned over in less
protective places such as in the UK.

*Does anyone know details on what specific tracking data they are obtaining?*
o If it's thru the Advertising ID, I suggest you simply eliminate that!
o If it's thru background ads, I suggest you simply eliminate them also!
--
Oh, you can't eliminate the Advertising ID on iOS; too bad for privacy.

[David Wade]

On 29/03/2020 17:09, Arlen Holder wrote:
>
> *Does anyone know details on what specific tracking data they are obtaining?*
> o If it's thru the Advertising ID, I suggest you simply eliminate that!
> o If it's thru background ads, I suggest you simply eliminate them also!
>

Why would they need any of that stuff. Each phone has a unique IMEI
number. The network needs to know which tower you are connected to, and
to do this it tracks the IMEI. It needs to know who owns the IMEI to
bill you.


D.

[Martyn Barclay]

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 17:04:34 +0000, Tim+ wrote:

> Arlen Holder <arlen_...@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>
> Get back in the sin bin you fecking cross posting nym-shifter...

I binned the troll on a header he /can't/ change. :-)

--
Debian 10.2 "Buster"

[Frank Slootweg]

Martyn Barclay <m...@dev.null> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 17:04:34 +0000, Tim+ wrote:
>
> > Arlen Holder <arlen_...@example.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> > Get back in the sin bin you fecking cross posting nym-shifter...
>
> I binned the troll on a header he /can't/ change. :-)

Technically speaking, there's only one header which he can't change/
set, but he can - and did in the past - have several different ones.

But of late, his nyms and addresses are rather stable, so the point is
moot.

[Arlen Holder]

On 30 Mar 2020 10:51:15 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

>> I binned the troll on a header he /can't/ change. :-)
>
> Technically speaking, there's only one header which he can't change/
> set, but he can - and did in the past - have several different ones.
>
> But of late, his nyms and addresses are rather stable, so the point is
> moot.

Hi Frank Slootweg,

I don't see Martyn Barclay posts because he's a worthless piece of shit.
o However, I _do_ see your posts, Frank Slootweg...

Hence, the _adult_ question for you, Frank Slootweg, clearly is simply:
o *Can you, Frank, add on-topic technical value to this thread ... or not?*

The permanent Usenet record clearly shows this Martyn Barclay troll has
never even once in the entire history of Usenet, ever posted a thread of on
topic value to this newsgroup (or to any newsgroup archived by Google!).
o Not even once!

Think about that fact.
o *This worthless piece of shit, Martyn Barclay, can only _subtract_ value*.

Every single post.

FACT:
The permanent Usenet record shows is this Martyn Barclay troll posts
single-sentence hate-filled tirades against those who _do_ post value.

This isn't even an ad hominem attack when I assess this Martyn Barclay
troll as what I generally refer to as a "worthless piece of shit".

The Usenet record on this Martyn Barclay troll proves that point for me.

If you, Frank Slootweg, have any evidence that this Martyn Barclay troll is
_not_ a worthless piece of shit, please lay it out now, as I ascertain:

1. I posted a thread of topical on-topic truthful technical value.
2. This worthless piece of shit Martyn Barclay troll can't stand the facts.
3. You, Frank Slootweg, ignore the topic completely.

Hence, the trolls have taken over this thread, where even my response to
both of you worthless pieces of shit _detracts_ value from this thread.

Frank ... I'm aware that the worthless piece of shit Martyn Barclay, has
_never_ even once in the entire history of Usenet, _ever_ added on-topic
technical value to _any_ thread.

But you, Frank Slootweg ... you _can_ add on-topic technical value.

Please, Frank Slootweg, don't prove that you too are a worthless piece of
shit....

Is there _anything_ you know, technically, that _adds_ on-topic technical
value to this thread, or not Frank Slootweg?
o Nothing?

Really?
o You have absolutely _zero_ on topic technical value ot add Frank?

Zero?

You may as well join the crowd of worthless pieces of shit, Frank.
o FACT: Martyn Barclay has proven to be a worthless piece of shit.

What about you, Frank?
o Can you add on-topic technical value to this thread ... or not?
--
Those who have never once provided value already proved they can't.

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 10:24:06 +0100, David Wade wrote:

> Why would they need any of that stuff. Each phone has a unique IMEI
> number. The network needs to know which tower you are connected to, and
> to do this it tracks the IMEI. It needs to know who owns the IMEI to
> bill you.

Hi David Wade,

I don't know if you're in the UK or in the USA (or elsewhere), where in the
USA, the government and private companies aren't allowed to share the IMEI
location based information of individuals without a specific court order
(AFAIK), as explained rather clearly in the well-cited Wall Street Journal
article referenced (was it not?).

However, even in the UK, you can _still_ protect yourself from privacy
leaks, although less so because, as the WSJ clearly noted, you have fewer
protections from government intrusion on your activities.

To be clear, this thread is a _technical_ thread, for adults only.
o The topic is based on the information exposed in the WSJ article cited.

These are _adult_ topics, for _technically astute_ people.
o These are not topics for worthless pieces of shit like Martyn Barclay is.

*This is an _adult_ topic - of technical import*.

Clearly, any adult who read the WSJ article was therefore apprised of:
A. Ad related privacy leaks
B. Advertiser related privacy leaks
C. Location services related privacy leaks

The intent of this technical thread is to further our knowledge of:
1. Privacy leaks via advertisements served (which can be blocked); and,
2. Privacy leaks via the Advertiser ID (which can be eliminated);
3. Privacy leaks via location services (which can be blocked).

For example..
a. I automatically block all ads (if any) served "to" my phone; and,
b. I instantly eliminated the Advertiser ID on my phone long ago; and,
c. I automatically wipe out all unnecessary location services on sight.

*AD LEAKS*
However, I don't know everything there is to know about how to do those
things (e.g., I only wrote the tutorial on AdClear just last week, after a
purposefully helpful technically astute _adult_ user on c.m.a suggested
it).

*ADVERTISER ID LEAKS*
Facts show I long ago wrote the tutorial on instantly eliminating the
Advertiser ID on Android (unfortunately, it's impossible to have this kind
of privacy on iOS and still have full functionality, which we also covered
in detailed threads by _adults_ who are technically competent).

*LOCATION SERVICES LEAKS*
And facts show I wrote the tutorials on how to eliminate spurious
location-related spying of such a wide variety of means that it entails
likely scores of threads overall related to intelligent use of location
services).

However, even as I've written tutorials on all three topics exposed in the
WSJ, I can always learn more from technically astute adults on this ng.

In the UK, as you noted, people apparently have fewer privacies,
particularly from the IMEI and location data being shared between the
government and the carrier - but even those in the UK can benefit from a
technical discussion by adults on these three salient points covered in the
WSJ article cited in the OP:
A. Eliminating ad related privacy leaks
B. Eliminating advertiser related privacy leaks
C. Eliminating location services related privacy leak

Does _anyone_ have more technical knowledge on this subject than I do?
o I certainly hope so.
--
Every thread to Usenet should strive to add on-topic technical value.

[nospam]

In article <r5svl9$j69$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder

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

> For example..
> a. I automatically block all ads (if any) served "to" my phone; and,
> b. I instantly eliminated the Advertiser ID on my phone long ago; and,
> c. I automatically wipe out all unnecessary location services on sight.

there are many other ways you can be tracked, nearly all of which you
can't 'wipe out'.

> However, I don't know everything there is to know about how to do those
> things

that much is very clear.

>
> Does _anyone_ have more technical knowledge on this subject than I do?

many people do, however, you aren't interested in learning from them.

> o I certainly hope so.

no you don't. you want to pretend to have all the answers, when in
reality, you have none.

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 12:35:49 -0400, nospam wrote:

> there are many other ways you can be tracked, nearly all of which you
> can't 'wipe out'.

Hi nospam,

*FACTS*

Bullshitters always fail this simple 3-word BS test of their belief system:
o Name just one.

If they can't name even one fact that forms the basis of their entire
belief system, then the fact is their belief system is based on exact zero
(0) facts.

FACTS are what _adults_ use to form their belief systems, nospam.

Name just one fact supporting your entire stated belief system, nospam.
o Name just one.

> that much is very clear.

*FACTS*

You apologists _never_ post with _any_ purposefully helpful intent.
o You _hate_ facts so much that facts turn you into instant children.

You make bold claims of your imaginary belief systems, & yet, you will
almost certainly fail a simple 3-word test of your stated belief system.

You claim:
o There are _many_ other ways you can be tracked, nearly all of which you
can't wipe out.

OK, nospam.

Let's assume you're not bullshitting us.
o Let's assume, for a moment, that you're actually an adult.

An adult who bases his belief system on more than zero (0) actual facts.
o Name just one.
--
Bullshitters always fail the simplest of tests of imaginary belief systems.

[Bob Eager]

On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 12:35:49 -0400, nospam wrote:

> In article <r5svl9$j69$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder
> <arlen_...@example.com> wrote:

Everyone - please stop replying to this troll.

[Arlen Holder]

On 30 Mar 2020 18:38:06 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:

> Everyone - please stop replying to this troll.

Can't you worthless pieces of shit sock creators do better than to bring up
the same well-known socks of yours when you claim everyone with facts you
don't like is a troll?

Seriously.
o None of your worthless socks has _ever_ posted any value in its history!

At least create a sock that has contributed even one iota of value to this
newsgroup in the entire history of Usenet.

You can't even do that?
o This proves further - it's a mere sock of a worthless piece of shit.

You can't even create a sock that has any value whatsoever.
o You're _that_ worthless of a piece of shit who created this Eager sock!

*FACTS about this worthless piece of shit Bob Eager troll sock*
o This "Bob Eager" is another sock of the proven worthless pieces of shit!

Which worthless piece of shit?
o I don't know - and I don't care.
Path: *fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail*
From: Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx>
Date: 30 Mar 2020 18:38:06 GMT
Message-ID: <heeske...@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net sohAaAycIAZ09IB84evDEgTVuxDof41UyHhfwa2h82dWxtzvCn
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)

Facts indicate clearly it's a sock of one of the worthless pieces of shit.

FACTS:

The facts clearly show this Bob Eager troll sock has _never_ once in the
history of Google's archives of Usenet, even once posted a thread of
on-topic value to this newsgroup.

Not even one thread of value.
o And not even a single post of value.

In fact, this Bob Eager troll sock has done exactly what the Martyn Barclay
proven piece of shit sock has done ... where it has never once contributed
so much as a single thread of adult value in it's entire Usenet history.

FACTS:

*uk.telecom.mobile Google archives on this Bob Eager WPOS troll sock*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!activity/uk.telecom.mobile/EpsqKwfgAQAJ>

*comp.mobile.android Google archives on this Bob Eager WPOS troll sock*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!activity/comp.mobile.android/GI2RQjJ3BAAJ>

*misc.phone.mobile.phone Google archives on this Bob Eager WPOS troll sock*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!activity/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/qSKuc_QiAwAJ>

*alt.privacy Google archiveds on this Bob Eager piece of shit troll sock*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!activity/alt.privacy/j3K5R0VfBAAJ>
--
HINT: If you're gonna childishlyh call adults a troll, at least don't be so
easily proven to be a mere worthless piece of shit sock when you play your
childish games.

[Martyn Barclay]

+1

--
Debian 10.2 "Buster"

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 22:10:36 +0100, Martyn Barclay wrote:

> +1

I edited my killfile to check out this Martyn Barclay troll sock, after
proving this Martyn Barclay troll sock never once in its entire life has
ever authored even a single thread of any value on _any_ of these ngs!
o <http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-android>
o <http://tinyurl.com/misc-phone-mobile-iphone>
o <http://tinyurl.com/uk-telecom-mobile>
o <http://tinyurl.com/alt-privacy>

In fact, this Martyn Barclay troll sock has never even posted a single
_article_ of value in any of these newsgroups in its entire history!
o <http://comp.mobile.android.narkive.com>
o <http://misc.phone.mobile.iphone.narkive.com>
o <http://uk.telecom.mobile.narkive.com>
o <http://alt.privacy.narkive.com>

If it has, nobody has ever been able to find it.

Which worthless piece of shit created this Martyn Barclay sock?
o I don't know, and I don't care, but there are similarities...

Path: border2.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.brightview.co.uk!news.brightview.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 16:10:36 -0500
From: Martyn Barclay <m...@dev.null>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 22:10:36 +0100
User-Agent: The Original All-singing All-dancing Pan
Message-Id: <pan.2020.03.30....@dev.null>
X-OS: Debian 10.2
MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-PtKg5bv/aifH2MqIfF3iL1adlzh/9uGV79MszoSRx+QpLessJByyURQtwCf1+sxrLuvBOnIkxP0uHg/!q1w4x+nmfVuX7d30S45vBzYSzv3s62KFd+/IApF9qWGwTsXMN8Kr8FKqwfNWpHGeiZaR2Xz3gIAb!A2GB8+0J97K0MA==

The fact remains that these proven worthless pieces of shit can't even
create a sock that has _ever_ posted any value to this newsgroup in the
entire history of Usenet (as recorded by Google groups& NArkive searches).
--
This post contains more value than either sock added in its entire history.

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 11:30:13 +0100, Martyn Barclay wrote:

> I binned the troll on a header he /can't/ change. :-)

I cry for the future of mankind when I realize that the _best_ these
worthless pieces of shit can do, is create a sock that itself, has _never_
added any value to this newsgroup in the entire history of Usenet.

Not even a _single_ thread of value from it:
o <http://tinyurl.com/alt-privacy>
o <http://tinyurl.com/uk-telecom-mobile>
o <http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-android>
o <http://tinyurl.com/misc-phone-mobile-iphone>

Not even a _single_ article of value from it:
o <http://alt.privacy.narkive.com>
o <http://uk.telecom.mobile.narkive.com>
o <http://comp.mobile.android.narkive.com>
o <http://misc.phone.mobile.iphone.narkive.com>

Absolutely zero posts of any on-topic technical value from it:
o <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!activity/alt.privacy/j3K5R0VfBAAJ>
o <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!activity/uk.telecom.mobile/EpsqKwfgAQAJ>
o <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!activity/comp.mobile.android/GI2RQjJ3BAAJ>
o <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!activity/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/qSKuc_QiAwAJ>

These worthless pieces of shit can't even create a sock that has posted at
least one article or thread of value in the entire history of that sock!
--
Those who have never once posted value already proved that they can't.

[Arlen Holder]

On 30 Mar 2020 10:51:15 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> Technically speaking, there's only one header which he can't change/
> set, but he can - and did in the past - have several different ones.

BTW Frank Slootweg, (this is only going to a.m.a for test purposes)
o *What header do you claim we can't either trivially set or easily change?*
--
Usenet is a place for adults to gather to politely discuss technical stuff.

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what Arlen Holder <arlen_...@example.com> wrote on Mon,
30 Mar 2020 22:40:32 +0000 (UTC) :

Hi Frank,

I changed a few headers to ask you, with examples, what header are you
claiming can't easily be changed by anyone who knows anything about nntp?

[Arlen Holder]

For adults only... (i.e., people who own adult cognitive skills)...

*The Advertiser ID is a privacy flaw in iOS that was exploited by Zoom*.
o *Zoom exploited this only on iOS* (as far as any cite yet has shown).

FACTS:

Yet another factual reason to never have an Advertising ID on your mobile
device was outlined in gory detail just today, in this fact-filled thread:
o *Zoom shares your data with Facebook*, by collector
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.os.linux.advocacy/HfgGxhP8kHU>

FACTS:

While Apple highly advertises the rare few links in the privacy chain where
they're more private, Apple completely ignores the very many well known
links in the privacy chain where they're decidedly not more private.

FACTS:

Only on iOS, Zoom was sending the unique iCloud users' Advertiser ID along
with the users' location to Facebook, even for users (like me) who don't
even own a Facebook account.

ASSESSMENT:

I point this out, to adults who own adult cognitive skills, to further
cement the salient fact of this thread ... that this is yet another factual
reason for adults to remove the Advertising ID completely from their mobile
devices.
--
Unfortunately, this is yet another privacy feature _not_ practical on iOS.