Internal logs of Andorid (or ios? phones)

[micky]

Internal logs of Andorid (or ios? phones)

I hate to bring up crime but wrt
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/03/02/us/alex-murdaugh-trial-verdict
do you know if the phones involved were Android, Windows, or iOS?

Specifically, one or more of them appear to keep logs that show when the
back light turns on, when the orientation (landscape vs. portrait)
changes, when gps pings, and just about everything. Does Android show
that? Is it available to the average user?

I thought I heard the radio say that GPS continued to ping satellites
even after.... after the phone was turned off? After what?
Because the defense said that the police didn't extract the GPS ping
data right away and it gets overlaid when it fills up. That it doesn't
use the large amount of storage the phone has, but a much smaller amount
devoted only to GPS pinging, and by waiting, the locations at the time
of the crime were overlaid. Do you know more about how this works?

[micky]

In comp.mobile.android, on Fri, 03 Mar 2023 12:14:46 -0500, micky

BTW, the police were also able to tell where the car was or cars were,
based on OnStar records! Which one of them pronounced OwnStar ;-) .

[Carlos E. R.]

On 2023-03-03 18:14, micky wrote:
> Internal logs of Andorid (or ios? phones)
>
> I hate to bring up crime but wrt
> https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/03/02/us/alex-murdaugh-trial-verdict
> do you know if the phones involved were Android, Windows, or iOS?

I can't read it, it wants me to register. Ok, I can, in "reader mode".

>
> Specifically, one or more of them appear to keep logs that show when the
> back light turns on, when the orientation (landscape vs. portrait)
> changes, when gps pings, and just about everything. Does Android show
> that? Is it available to the average user?

I don't know about those logs or how to see them.

I don't find the word "gps" or "ping" in the article, so I have no idea
what you may be talking about.

>
> I thought I heard the radio say that GPS continued to ping satellites
> even after.... after the phone was turned off? After what?
> Because the defense said that the police didn't extract the GPS ping
> data right away and it gets overlaid when it fills up. That it doesn't
> use the large amount of storage the phone has, but a much smaller amount
> devoted only to GPS pinging, and by waiting, the locations at the time
> of the crime were overlaid. Do you know more about how this works?

I have no idea what a GPS ping may be, because GPS is a passive system.
The phone sends nothing to the satellites, only data is received, from
several satellites, then a calculation is made, that yields a position.

The phone, or the chipset, does this periodically. I don't know how the
algorithm decides to do a GPS check or read or calculation.

Yes, it stands to reason that there is a limited space dedicated to
record this. A file, probably. Unless the user has activated tracking
and then data is uploaded to google or apple.

Besides this, the authorities can ask the telephone network provider to
calculate the location of a phone in their network, by doing
triangulation based on the records saved by each tower. The provider has
to keep these records for some time; I don't know for how long and it
depends on the country legislation. Can be two years. Needs a court
order, and the data exists even if the user disables location tracking.
It is not as precise as GPS, yet it is surprisingly good.


This method depends on the phone transmitting something to the network;
basically it periodically checks the signals and says I'm still working,
so that the network can send a phone call when needed. This might be
called a ping.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[dan]

On Fri, 03 Mar 2023 12:29:59 -0500, micky wrote:


> BTW, the police were also able to tell where the car was or cars were,
> based on OnStar records! Which one of them pronounced OwnStar ;-) .

It's getting to the point that I can no longer commit a crime with impunity
when I have my cellphone turned on and in my pocket while I do that.

I can't even drive my own car anymore to commit crimes because someone said
somewhere they have cameras set up to read every license plate on the road.

Do they?
I need to know the answer before I commit my next crime so hurry up. :-->
Seriously though, do they?

And what's with this OnStar cellular?
Can't the owner of the car turn it off when they commit their crimes?

Are they putting cellphones inside of sleep apnea machines nowadays
where I have to fake that I was sleeping by putting a respirator on it?

And on top of the propane tanks (to see how much heat you're using staying
up late at night planning those crimes)? How am I going to fool that?

It's getting to the point that I can't get away with crime anymore.
Besides, the guy probably had an iPhone.
They don't know how to put the iPhone into airplane mode I guess. :-->

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 03.03.23 um 19:18 schrieb Carlos E. R.:

> On 2023-03-03 18:14, micky wrote:
>> I thought I heard the radio say that GPS continued to ping satellites
>> even after.... after the phone was turned off? After what?
>> Because the defense said that the police didn't extract the GPS ping
>> data right away and it gets overlaid when it fills up. That it doesn't
>> use the large amount of storage the phone has, but a much smaller amount
>> devoted only to GPS pinging, and by waiting, the locations at the time
>> of the crime were overlaid. Do you know more about how this works?
>
> I have no idea what a GPS ping may be, because GPS is a passive system.

Very much so!
This is conspiracy crap.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

[micky]

In comp.mobile.android, on Fri, 3 Mar 2023 17:48:38 -0200, dan

<nos...@nospam.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 03 Mar 2023 12:29:59 -0500, micky wrote:
>
>
>> BTW, the police were also able to tell where the car was or cars were,
>> based on OnStar records! Which one of them pronounced OwnStar ;-) .
>
>It's getting to the point that I can no longer commit a crime with impunity
>when I have my cellphone turned on and in my pocket while I do that.
>
>I can't even drive my own car anymore to commit crimes because someone said
>somewhere they have cameras set up to read every license plate on the road.
>
>Do they?
>I need to know the answer before I commit my next crime so hurry up. :-->
>Seriously though, do they?
>
>And what's with this OnStar cellular?
>Can't the owner of the car turn it off when they commit their crimes?

I think if you found the right wire you could put a switch in it**. 3
or 4 years ago there was a story about a driver who left the road and
hit a tree and wrecked his car, and the car called the police, and by
the time the police got there a few minutes later, they found him at a
bar 200 feet away, and already drunk. That is, drunk when he was
driving .

**On my curren car and the previous one, both Toyota Solaras, if I was
going more than 10 or maybe 15 miles an hour, I couldn't put my
convertible top up or down. I didnt' do this the first 10 years but I
have done it the last 30 with no problems. The first car I found the
wire and cut it but the second car, the control box was deep in the
trunk and could barely reach it, coudlnt' really see which wire was
which, and the little trunk was too small to get in (well maybe if I had
someone to hold my legs.) so I did my best and I did cut the right wire.

Of course this is a factory installed part, but OnStar is likely
installed later and the wiring diagram would be even harder to find.
Maybe we can assume it's the red wire.

[Newyana2]

"Carlos E. R." <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote

| > I hate to bring up crime but wrt
| > https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/03/02/us/alex-murdaugh-trial-verdict
| > do you know if the phones involved were Android, Windows, or iOS?
|
| I can't read it, it wants me to register. Ok, I can, in "reader mode".
|

It's hard to believe that people today don't understand their
cellphone, if powered on, is a tracking collar.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/05/28/its-middle-night-do-you-know-who-your-iphone-is-talking/

https://www.vice.com/en/article/nepxbz/i-gave-a-bounty-hunter-300-dollars-located-phone-microbilt-zumigo-tmobile

Some years ago a reporter detailed several weeks worth of location
tracking that Apple was doing on his iPhone. The article about it
showed a map of his movements for that period of time.

Google sells "geofencing" data to ID anyone who has been close to a
given point. For example, the Capitol on 1/6/21. A lot of apps sell that
data. Many apps require location data. A popular trend these days seems
to be whole families who always know where the other family members
are. People are so afraid of being alone that they keep consant contact!
It's highly likely that the services or apps providing that "Where's my
mother?" functionality are also selling the data.

In short, thousands of for-profit entities track you everywhere you
go, and there's no legislation in place to stop them. Both business
and government want it to be legal. And most cellphone users now
want to be tracked, in rorder to use Waze, dating, restaurant
suggestions, etc. I read that the Idaho murder suspect turned off his
phone for hours during the time of the murders, but not at other times.
So the cops got a record of all the times he drove by or cased out
the house. Even someone doing such careful planning never thought
to consider that he was constantly being tracked, because like
most people, he couldn't imagine going anywhere without a cellphone.

[nospam]

In article <ttvk25$2qgbb$1...@paganini.bofh.team>, Newyana2

<Newy...@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>
> Some years ago a reporter detailed several weeks worth of location
> tracking that Apple was doing on his iPhone. The article about it
> showed a map of his movements for that period of time.

what happened with that one was someone noticed location data but
didn't know what it was for and assumed things.

it turns out it was *not* to track the user, but rather was a cache for
wifi geolocation, which apple, google, microsoft, skyhook and others
use (although not necessarily on the same device).

a cached subset of that data on the phone makes geolocation
significantly faster since there doesn't need to be a network query
(and in some cases, there can't be if there's no service).

> Google sells "geofencing" data to ID anyone who has been close to a
> given point. For example, the Capitol on 1/6/21. A lot of apps sell that
> data.

cellphone companies have that information and it requires a search
warrant to obtain, which was not difficult to obtain for jan 6.

there are also numerous femtocells inside the capitol to provide
coverage in areas that otherwise would be dead zones. this is common
for any building that has poor rf reception inside.

those femtocells have logs of the imei numbers that connect without
needing to contact the cellphone company, although that still requires
further investigation to match them to a particular individual.

> Many apps require location data. A popular trend these days seems
> to be whole families who always know where the other family members
> are.

that's not a popular trend, although parents with younger kids might
want to know. once the kids are a little older, they're not going to
want their parents tracking them.

>
> In short, thousands of for-profit entities track you everywhere you
> go, and there's no legislation in place to stop them. Both business
> and government want it to be legal. And most cellphone users now
> want to be tracked, in rorder to use Waze, dating, restaurant
> suggestions, etc.

people have the option to share location data and can decide whether
the benefit is worth it. sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.

that can be done on a per-app basis or for all apps. some people don't
care and share everything while others block it all. most people fall
in between.

> I read that the Idaho murder suspect turned off his
> phone for hours during the time of the murders, but not at other times.

correct. it was off for approximately 2 hours around the time of the
murders.

> So the cops got a record of all the times he drove by or cased out
> the house. Even someone doing such careful planning never thought
> to consider that he was constantly being tracked, because like
> most people, he couldn't imagine going anywhere without a cellphone.

he knew cellphones could be tracked and thought that by turning it off
or put it in airplane mode, his movements would be hidden. that is
true.

except that having a gap looks a lot worse, especially when the start
and stop points are on opposite sides of the town in which the murders
occurred.

he also didn't realize that his car was seen on multiple surveillance
cameras, including one at the house next door to the crime scene, which
is what made him a suspect in the first place.

the cellphone stuff came later, with a search warrant.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

> people have the option to share location data and can decide whether
> the benefit is worth it. sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.

By default, if you're not intelligent about it, Google tracks far more
about you than Apple does - but that's only if you're not intelligent.

Interestingly, nospam is correct that on Android, people have the option of
_not_ logging into the mothership tracking server, but on iOS, that option
is denied by Apple (who maintains a huge amount of tracking data on you).

Apple tracks you even if you're intelligent because your unique identifier
is inserted into almost everything you do (including each & every app).

Google does _not_ do that on Android.

> that can be done on a per-app basis or for all apps. some people don't
> care and share everything while others block it all. most people fall
> in between.

If you're intelligent about it, you can block almost all Google tracking.

Even if you're intelligent, you can't avoid every single thing you do being
tracked by Apple (e.g., Apple uniquely identifies _every single app_ to
your iCloud accounts!) and you can ask for your treasure trove of data.

>> I read that the Idaho murder suspect turned off his
>> phone for hours during the time of the murders, but not at other times.
>
> correct. it was off for approximately 2 hours around the time of the
> murders.

There's an entire thread of his movements, where he used his phone for
everything _except_ the hours of around 4am for a couple of hours only (but
he returned to the crime scene at 9am with his phone apparently back on).

I suspect he owns an iPhone but I scoured the government documents and it
says what his last four digits of his phone number are, but not the model.

> he knew cellphones could be tracked and thought that by turning it off
> or put it in airplane mode, his movements would be hidden. that is
> true.

I suspect he's an iPhone owner, but I don't know that yet - but he had his
phone on for the many trips he made to the residence to case it out prior.

> except that having a gap looks a lot worse, especially when the start
> and stop points are on opposite sides of the town in which the murders
> occurred.

He's an idiot if he didn't take that phone and throw it over a bridge
_before_ committing any component of that crime. IMHO, he's likely an
iPhone owner, so he probably didn't want to waste the money. :)

> he also didn't realize that his car was seen on multiple surveillance
> cameras, including one at the house next door to the crime scene, which
> is what made him a suspect in the first place.

Not really "his" car, but likely his car but they never got a plate
according to the records I read (and they misidentified the years).

> the cellphone stuff came later, with a search warrant.

They say they got his phone number from a traffic stop back in August
(although it wouldn't have been hard to get his number by other methods).
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information
which, in this case, is to wonder if this dumb criminal used an iPhone.

[nospam]

In article <ttvt5g$2reoh$1...@paganini.bofh.team>, Andy Burnelli

<nos...@nospam.net> wrote:

>
> > people have the option to share location data and can decide whether
> > the benefit is worth it. sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.
>
> By default, if you're not intelligent about it, Google tracks far more
> about you than Apple does - but that's only if you're not intelligent.

intelligence has nothing to do with it.

i've been telling you that google tracks users far more than apple for
the longest time, but at least you finally acknowledge it.

> Interestingly, nospam is correct that on Android, people have the option of
> _not_ logging into the mothership tracking server, but on iOS, that option
> is denied by Apple (who maintains a huge amount of tracking data on you).

there is no 'mothership tracking server'.

> Apple tracks you even if you're intelligent because your unique identifier
> is inserted into almost everything you do (including each & every app).

that is very much false.

> Google does _not_ do that on Android.

yes they do.

google also tracks users when they turn off location services.

> > that can be done on a per-app basis or for all apps. some people don't
> > care and share everything while others block it all. most people fall
> > in between.
>
> If you're intelligent about it, you can block almost all Google tracking.

'almost all' is not everything, and that applies to more than just
google.

> Even if you're intelligent, you can't avoid every single thing you do being
> tracked by Apple (e.g., Apple uniquely identifies _every single app_ to
> your iCloud accounts!) and you can ask for your treasure trove of data.

so does google.

not that it matters. since apps can identify users in many *other* ways.

> >> I read that the Idaho murder suspect turned off his
> >> phone for hours during the time of the murders, but not at other times.
> >
> > correct. it was off for approximately 2 hours around the time of the
> > murders.
>
> There's an entire thread of his movements, where he used his phone for
> everything _except_ the hours of around 4am for a couple of hours only (but
> he returned to the crime scene at 9am with his phone apparently back on).
>
> I suspect he owns an iPhone but I scoured the government documents and it
> says what his last four digits of his phone number are, but not the model.

you did not scour much, because his full phone number is in at least
one public document.

not that it matters, since he's in jail and unable to answer your calls.

reportedly, calls go to voicemail (at least they did back in january).

> > he knew cellphones could be tracked and thought that by turning it off
> > or put it in airplane mode, his movements would be hidden. that is
> > true.
>
> I suspect he's an iPhone owner, but I don't know that yet - but he had his
> phone on for the many trips he made to the residence to case it out prior.

sorry to burst your trolling bubble, but reports are that he had an
android phone and an acer laptop, which makes it quite a bit easier to
extract forensic data.

> > except that having a gap looks a lot worse, especially when the start
> > and stop points are on opposite sides of the town in which the murders
> > occurred.
>
> He's an idiot if he didn't take that phone and throw it over a bridge
> _before_ committing any component of that crime. IMHO, he's likely an
> iPhone owner, so he probably didn't want to waste the money. :)

in hindsight, he should have left his phone at his apartment that
night. at least he would have had an alibi that he 'was home'.

not that such an alibi would have any credibility since he was seen on
surveillance video *at* the house at the time the murders occurred, as
well as elsewhere in the area shortly before & after.

> > he also didn't realize that his car was seen on multiple surveillance
> > cameras, including one at the house next door to the crime scene, which
> > is what made him a suspect in the first place.
>
> Not really "his" car, but likely his car but they never got a plate
> according to the records I read (and they misidentified the years).

yes, really his car.

the surveillance images show a vehicle without a front plate, and at
the time, he had pennsylvania plates, which only requires a rear plate.

they also didn't misidentify the years. they had an initial range,
which was later expanded because very little in the car's exterior
changed.

they also were *very* careful in public statements so that he wasn't
spooked into thinking they were on to him (which they very definitely
were). by publicly stating a narrower range, they wanted him to think
he was 'safe'.

> > the cellphone stuff came later, with a search warrant.
>
> They say they got his phone number from a traffic stop back in August
> (although it wouldn't have been hard to get his number by other methods).

once white elantra was identified, washington state university did a
search of vehicles that had parking passes and found a match. that led
to his name, drive's license information, driving record and phone
number from a previous traffic stop.

at that point, they had probable cause for a search warrant to obtain
location data from the cellphone carrier.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

>>> people have the option to share location data and can decide whether
>>> the benefit is worth it. sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.
>>
>> By default, if you're not intelligent about it, Google tracks far more
>> about you than Apple does - but that's only if you're not intelligent.
>
> intelligence has nothing to do with it.

Actually intelligence has a _lot_ to do with people having the basic adult
capacity to understand that the pervasive iPhone privacy marketing is as
much bullshit as Google's do no evil mantra of the past.

An intelligent person realizes two fundamental core concepts here, nospam:
1. The iPhone by default, is more private than Android, by default, but...
2. The privacy you can get with Android is absolutely impossible with iOS.

The reasons are myriad, where _understanding_ them is where intelligence is
required since most people are idiots who believe Apple's marketing lies.
*Your privacy isn't anywhere near what Apple wants you to think it is*
<https://www.pcmag.com/opinions/on-user-privacy-apple-is-not-as-virtuous-as-it-claims-to-be>

> i've been telling you that google tracks users far more than apple for
> the longest time, but at least you finally acknowledge it.

See above where I told _you_ what the difference is, which you are unaware
of, which is Android can be made by a typical user _tremendously_ more
private than iOS ever can be made - simply due to the overall design.

> there is no 'mothership tracking server'.

It's no longer shocking how little you know since you're not aware that
Apple _inserts_ a unique identification key into each app you download.

Google does not. In fact, Google can't.

>> Apple tracks you even if you're intelligent because your unique identifier
>> is inserted into almost everything you do (including each & every app).
>
> that is very much false.

It's no longer shocking that you're completely ignorant of what Apple does.
*Apple now lets you download every bit of data it ever collected from you*
<https://mashable.com/article/apple-data-and-privacy>

>
>> Google does _not_ do that on Android.
>
> yes they do.

It's no longer shocking that you don't understand the difference between an
Android phone set up with a Google Account by default, and one that's not.

You aren't even aware that you fundamentally can't use iOS as a typical
user _without_ handing all your privacy to Apple because the mothership
account is _required_ for iOS (and yes, I know all your excuses for that).

> google also tracks users when they turn off location services.

It's no longer shocking you remain ignorant that we covered how to stop
that in gory detail - which you don't comprehend because you are always
fabricating imaginary functionality for iOS that simply does not exist.

>>> that can be done on a per-app basis or for all apps. some people don't
>>> care and share everything while others block it all. most people fall
>>> in between.
>>
>> If you're intelligent about it, you can block almost all Google tracking.
>
> 'almost all' is not everything, and that applies to more than just
> google.

This is a real question but because you're so ignorant of _everything_ you
speak of, nospam, it becomes a rhetorical question for uneducated iKooks.

Tell us, oh vaunted low-IQ iKook, what tracking you can't stop on Android?
*Name just one*

>> Even if you're intelligent, you can't avoid every single thing you do being
>> tracked by Apple (e.g., Apple uniquely identifies _every single app_ to
>> your iCloud accounts!) and you can ask for your treasure trove of data.
>
> so does google.

It's no longer shocking you don't comprehend that a user can easily use
Android without a Google Account but that same user can't easily use the
iOS devices without the mothership tracking account.

And yes, I know all your lame excuses (three day apps, jailbreaking, etc.).

>
> not that it matters. since apps can identify users in many *other* ways.

The fact is you _hate_ that the advertised iPhone privacy is completely
imaginary nospam. Just the fact Apple tracks every single one of your apps,
nospam, and Google can't, is indicative of the lack of privacy with iOS.

That Apple _requires_ a mothership tracking account, and that iOS is the
_only_ operating system to do that (at least prior to Windows 11 came out),
is indicative of the fact that any privacy on an iPhone is a marketing lie.

At least Google (and Windows 10) doesn't _require_ a mothership tracking
account, nospam. It's no longer shocking you're not even aware of this.

>> I suspect he's an iPhone owner, but I don't know that yet - but he had his
>> phone on for the many trips he made to the residence to case it out prior.
>
> sorry to burst your trolling bubble, but reports are that he had an
> android phone and an acer laptop, which makes it quite a bit easier to
> extract forensic data.

While it's been my observation that the least technically qualified people
gravitate to the Apple "*I'll make you feel safe!*" predatory lies, I read
all the initially released published legal documents, and they didn't
provide the phone model that the idiot criminal used during his crimes.

It's no longer shocking you claim that the idiot owned Android but I feel
it's far more likely, given how stupid he was, that he had an iPhone.

But I'll change my mind on a dime if you show proof, and if you don't show
proof, then it's no longer shocking how much you _lie_ to protect Apple.

> in hindsight, he should have left his phone at his apartment that
> night. at least he would have had an alibi that he 'was home'.

Yeah, but he also took the phone with him when he cased the household.

He was _desperate_ to have his phone with him, which is another observation
which makes me think he's more likely an idiot iPhone than Android owner.

> not that such an alibi would have any credibility since he was seen on
> surveillance video *at* the house at the time the murders occurred, as
> well as elsewhere in the area shortly before & after.

It's no longer shocking that you fabricate things that you don't back up.

I'm not aware that his person was seen in any surveillance video, although
he was seen face to face by one of the surviving roommates (who,
paradoxically, didn't phone police at the time). His vehicle was seen
though, and the dog was heard barking (much as in the Alex Murdaugh case).

If you have a cite for your fabrication that his person was on a video, you
should produce that cite now as you have a history of fabricating lies.

>> Not really "his" car, but likely his car but they never got a plate
>> according to the records I read (and they misidentified the years).
>
> yes, really his car.
>
> the surveillance images show a vehicle without a front plate, and at
> the time, he had pennsylvania plates, which only requires a rear plate.

It's interesting that you are so desperate that you deny what nobody who is
an adult would ever deny, which is that simply having videos of "a car"
that "matches the description of his car" doesn't make that video, in and
of itslf, of his car.

That you can't comprehend something as simple and incontrovertible as that
basic adult comprehensive logic is how I know you have a rather low IQ
nospam.

> they also didn't misidentify the years. they had an initial range,
> which was later expanded because very little in the car's exterior
> changed.

I agree their initial range was faulty and they admitted it themselves.
So this is the _first_ thing you've said, nospam, that is logical.

> they also were *very* careful in public statements so that he wasn't
> spooked into thinking they were on to him (which they very definitely
> were). by publicly stating a narrower range, they wanted him to think
> he was 'safe'.

That may be the case, but that's not what they said when they asked the
expert to identify the vehicle make model and year, but I won't disagree
that they are being "very careful" to eliminate future objections to the
gathering of data.

I still want to know, for sure, if he was using an iPhone though.
Because he's incredibly stupid but he seems to think he's a genius.

Naq lrf, V xabj lbh pna'g erfvfg gnxvat gung onvg orpnhfr lbh'er n puvyq.

>>> the cellphone stuff came later, with a search warrant.
>>
>> They say they got his phone number from a traffic stop back in August
>> (although it wouldn't have been hard to get his number by other methods).
>
> once white elantra was identified, washington state university did a
> search of vehicles that had parking passes and found a match. that led
> to his name, drive's license information, driving record and phone
> number from a previous traffic stop.

You're actually not lying this time, nospam, surprisingly so.

Two university security officers identified the vehicle, and it was
registered to him (although he changed the state registration days later),
outside his known residence, and his drivers license showed bushy eyebrows
and a physical build that matched what the surviving eyewitness said.

Once they had that, they started looking at the rest of the picture.

> at that point, they had probable cause for a search warrant to obtain
> location data from the cellphone carrier.

They actually said they had MORE probable cause than they used to ask for
teh search warrant in the search warrant itself, so as to have a readily
available defense if the criminal's lawyers challenge the search warrant.

For example, they even explained that they didn't use certain evidence that
they had, so that if the evidence that they did use turns out to not
warrant the warrant (if challenged), then they would use the evidence that
they had that they did NOT use when asking for the search warrant.

The fact they're being 'very careful' is another comment you've made that
makes sense, nospam. I just wish you acted like an adult more often.

Anyway, in summary, I suspect he's an iPhone user but we'll have to wait
for you to provide the cite that you say claims he was using an Android.

[nospam]

In article <tu08q6$2sli8$1...@paganini.bofh.team>, Andy Burnelli

<nos...@nospam.net> wrote:

>
> It's no longer shocking you don't comprehend that a user can easily use
> Android without a Google Account but that same user can't easily use the
> iOS devices without the mothership tracking account.

there is no 'mothership tracking account', but regardless, that doesn't
actually matter since apps have many *other* ways to track people.

since you don't understand how, you have no way to block it.

that means you're leaving all sorts of trails.


idaho sidetrack continues:

> > in hindsight, he should have left his phone at his apartment that
> > night. at least he would have had an alibi that he 'was home'.
>
> Yeah, but he also took the phone with him when he cased the household.

he had his phone with him all the time, just like everyone else does.

however, there's no evidence that he *did* case the house. it's likely,
but it's not a guarantee.

it's only known that he was 'using cellular resources' in the area at
least 12 times. that's careful wording.

moscow, idaho is a rural town, and according to the fcc, there are only
*three* cell towers for at&t that serve the area, which is not enough
to pinpoint anyone at any specific location.

> He was _desperate_ to have his phone with him, which is another observation
> which makes me think he's more likely an idiot iPhone than Android owner.

what a colossally stupid thing to say.

>
> I'm not aware that his person was seen in any surveillance video,

his vehicle was seen *at* the house at the time of the murders.

his vehicle was *also* seen the next morning at the albertson's in
clarkston (~30 mi south), with video of him getting into and out of the
vehicle.

that's is a key part of the probable cause affidavit that links him to
a white elantra without a front plate seen at the house (which is
unusual for the area since washington & idaho both require it).

it's also a virtual certainty that he was seen on surveillance video
inside alberston's and what he bought.

if he paid cash, they can pull the register receipt when he is seen
going through the checkout lane.

if he paid by credit card, they don't even need that since the
transaction is linked to his card, with an itemized list of everything
he bought.

they will also be able to see where he went in the store. was he
looking at fresh arugula or was he looking at sponges and detergents.

> although
> he was seen face to face by one of the surviving roommates (who,
> paradoxically, didn't phone police at the time).

she freaked out, which is not unusual.

> His vehicle was seen
> though, and the dog was heard barking (much as in the Alex Murdaugh case).

the dog knew something wasn't normal.

the problem for alex murdaugh was his voice on a phone video that
placed him *at* the crime scene *at* the time it occurred, which
contradicted his claim that he was not there. in other words, it's
proof he lied.

> If you have a cite for your fabrication that his person was on a video, you
> should produce that cite now as you have a history of fabricating lies.

it's not a fabrication. see above.

keep in mind that there is a reasonable chance that the surveillance
video from the house *next* *door* has him on video *that* *night*.

that information is not needed to make an arrest, so there's no need to
disclose it at this time (assuming it does exist).

> I still want to know, for sure, if he was using an iPhone though.

of course you do.

> Because he's incredibly stupid but he seems to think he's a genius.

phd students often are.

he may be academically smart, but he's definitely not street smart.

this is likely his first major crime (and fortunately, his last), which
is why he made a lot of mistakes that a seasoned criminal would never
have done.

oddly enough, it's analogous to you, who *thinks* you're hiding from
google by not having a google account, while not having any idea what
*other* evidence you're leaving.

> They actually said they had MORE probable cause than they used to ask for
> teh search warrant in the search warrant itself, so as to have a readily
> available defense if the criminal's lawyers challenge the search warrant.

they only needed probable cause to make an arrest.

additional evidence will be presented at a future trial, assuming there
is one.

it's possible (and quite likely) that the evidence against him is so
overwhelming that taking a plea deal might be a wise choice.

[Hank Rogers]

nospam wrote:
> In article <tu08q6$2sli8$1...@paganini.bofh.team>, Andy Burnelli
> <nos...@nospam.net> wrote:
>

Bla bla bla.

>
> there is no 'mothership tracking account', but regardless,

Bla bla bla.

[A lot of pure bullshit was snipped]

Guys, there's only one way to settle this:

A duel, with swords. Unfortunately neither of you old geezers can
wield a sword any more. And neither has enough books to win by
using the scholarly genius approach, since you are both adults and
smarter than the other. It's a damn stalemate, old guys. Face it.

Why not call a perpetual truce? You can both go away, claiming you
won the battle and saved the day, for apple, or for android.

You both will be decorated and honored as true heros. Forever.

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-03-04 16:57, nospam wrote:

> moscow, idaho is a rural town, and according to the fcc, there are only
> *three* cell towers for at&t that serve the area, which is not enough
> to pinpoint anyone at any specific location.

Given the location of the three towers around there, you 'could' get
position accuracies of about 10 to 100 metres. Doesn't mean they got
any position by trilateration though.

> it's possible (and quite likely) that the evidence against him is so
> overwhelming that taking a plea deal might be a wise choice.

I think the prosecution would rather he die.

--
“Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present
danger to American democracy.”
- J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16
- Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
committee

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

>> It's no longer shocking you don't comprehend that a user can easily use
>> Android without a Google Account but that same user can't easily use the
>> iOS devices without the mothership tracking account.
>
> there is no 'mothership tracking account', but regardless, that doesn't
> actually matter since apps have many *other* ways to track people.

Unfortunately for you nospam, you don't own the mental capacity to
comprehend that Apple bullshitted you on all its privacy marketing.

The entire setup with respect to privacy is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT in scores
of ways between Android and iOS, nospam. It's not just one privacy hole.

*Apple Is Tracking You Even When Its Own Privacy Settings Say It's Not*
<https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-analytics-tracking-even-when-off-app-store-1849757558>

*Your iOS app may still be covertly tracking you, despite what Apple says*
<https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/04/a-year-after-apple-enforces-app-tracking-policy-covert-ios-tracking-remains/>

> since you don't understand how, you have no way to block it.

What you show no grasp of, nospam, is Apple _inserts_ into every IPA that
you install, a unique key that Google doesn't (and that Google can't).

> that means you're leaving all sorts of trails.

I've never said there are zero trails as it's a cell phone for God's sake.

What I said was very clear, which I'll repeat in summary, since it takes an
intelligent person to understand the facts but people who get all their
information from Apple marketing literature will never understand them.

1. Neither Android nor iOS is completely private...
2. The privacy issues are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT between the two platforms...
3. Hence it's BULLSHIT MARKETING to claim some but ignore others...
Given that...
A. If you added up the sum total of scores of privacy conditions...
B. The count for the default iPhone would be lower than default Android
C. But, a well set up Android will _always_ be more private than iOS can!

Intelligent people understand that Apple MARKETING ignores where they're
not private (e.g., Apple requires a mothership tracking account), while
only focusing on where Apple is private (e.g., allowing you to turn off
some tracking in some apps, for example).

An intelligent person knows that Apple is bullshitting everyone, nospam.
There's no company I can think of other than Wagner that lies like Apple.

You have to understand how Apple's MARKETING skirts the holes in iOS.

To understand all those points, nospam, takes intelligence you don't own.
*Can My Phone Be Tracked If Location Services Are Off?*
<https://www.mcafee.com/learn/can-my-phone-be-tracked-if-location-services-are-off/>

As just _one_ of those points, what you appear to not be aware of is that
the Android phone works perfectly fine without a mothership tracking
account while iOS essentially _requires_ that mothership tracking account.

That means while Apple tracks everything you do via that mothership
tracking account, Google can't (because that mothership tracking account
does not exist).

I'll respond to the iPhone/Android phone murders separately, as there was
one point in there that you said that I was previously unaware of.

[Hank Rogers]

So much for being an adult.

[micky]

In comp.mobile.android, on Sat, 4 Mar 2023 09:19:30 -0500, "Newyana2"

<Newy...@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>"Carlos E. R." <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote
>
>| > I hate to bring up crime but wrt
>| > https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/03/02/us/alex-murdaugh-trial-verdict
>| > do you know if the phones involved were Android, Windows, or iOS?
>|
>| I can't read it, it wants me to register. Ok, I can, in "reader mode".
>|
>
> It's hard to believe that people today don't understand their
>cellphone, if powered on, is a tracking collar.

Yes, but the phone is just near you, in your pocket or purse or hand.

OTOH, the trackers in the covid "vaccine" are inside you, so they give a
more precise location to those people who are tracking you.

>https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/05/28/its-middle-night-do-you-know-who-your-iphone-is-talking/
>
>https://www.vice.com/en/article/nepxbz/i-gave-a-bounty-hunter-300-dollars-located-phone-microbilt-zumigo-tmobile
>
> Some years ago a reporter detailed several weeks worth of location
>tracking that Apple was doing on his iPhone. The article about it
>showed a map of his movements for that period of time.
>
> Google sells "geofencing" data to ID anyone who has been close to a
>given point. For example, the Capitol on 1/6/21. A lot of apps sell that
>data. Many apps require location data. A popular trend these days seems
>to be whole families who always know where the other family members
>are. People are so afraid of being alone that they keep consant contact!
>It's highly likely that the services or apps providing that "Where's my
>mother?" functionality are also selling the data.
>
> In short, thousands of for-profit entities track you everywhere you
>go, and there's no legislation in place to stop them. Both business
>and government want it to be legal. And most cellphone users now
>want to be tracked, in rorder to use Waze, dating, restaurant
>suggestions, etc. I read that the Idaho murder suspect turned off his
>phone for hours during the time of the murders, but not at other times.
>So the cops got a record of all the times he drove by or cased out
>the house. Even someone doing such careful planning never thought
>to consider that he was constantly being tracked, because like
>most people, he couldn't imagine going anywhere without a cellphone.

I need it.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

>>> in hindsight, he should have left his phone at his apartment that
>>> night. at least he would have had an alibi that he 'was home'.
>>
>> Yeah, but he also took the phone with him when he cased the household.
>
> he had his phone with him all the time, just like everyone else does.

First off I must commend you as normally you're completely ignorant of
everythign you claim (you just make it all up); but you seem to have read a
newspaper or two about these murders (which is a good thing, nospam).

Most iKooks appear to have never read the news in their entire lives.
So kudos to you for keeping up on this subject for the most part.
(You even mentioned things I wasn't aware of, but, you also jumped to
brazen conclusions which, typical for you, you provided zero cites for).

I'm different than you iKooks in that I'll change my opinion on a dime if
you show evidence of that or if your arguments are logically sensible.

Therefore I'm not disagreeing that he more than likely kept the phone with
him the whole time and just turned it off during the actual murders.

My main concern with all these crimes where the phone does the person in is
what made them think that having a phone turned on wouldn't be traced back?

Even though my (free) Android phone is set up to be far more private than
even the most expensive iPhones on the planet, there's still data leakage
which isn't necessary when you don't need a phone to commit a crime.

> however, there's no evidence that he *did* case the house. it's likely,
> but it's not a guarantee.

Having read the original public PDFs, I would agree that it's logical that
he might have cased the joint, given the many nearby pings, but it's up to
the police to prove that he did (not that it matters greatly if they can
already pinpoint him at the murder scene anyway on the night of the crime).

> it's only known that he was 'using cellular resources' in the area at
> least 12 times. that's careful wording.
>
> moscow, idaho is a rural town, and according to the fcc, there are only
> *three* cell towers for at&t that serve the area, which is not enough
> to pinpoint anyone at any specific location.

I won't disagree with any of that as it's a logical sensible assessment.

>
>> He was _desperate_ to have his phone with him, which is another observation
>> which makes me think he's more likely an idiot iPhone than Android owner.
>
> what a colossally stupid thing to say.

Actually, it's not. You just don't understand that I'm trying to assess
what kind of person commits a heinous crime like that who feels the need to
bring his phone along. Was he expecting a call from his mother or was he
live streaming the whole thing?

If it's an unplanned spur-of-the-moment crime of passion, for example, then
sure, the phone would be with you most likely - but if it's a carefully
planned murder - then the phone has no business being anywhere near you.

Best to tape the phone to the bottom of a Greyhound bus or something, so
you can plausibly say you were somewhere else the entire time.

The reason I associate iPhone owners with stupidity like this, nospam, is
that I can give you plenty of situations where iPhone owners are bamboozled
by their imaginary belief systems. Do I need to back that up or do you
understand that iPhone owners fall for the dumbest marketing gimmicks.

>> I'm not aware that his person was seen in any surveillance video,
>
> his vehicle was seen *at* the house at the time of the murders.

I haven't read anything on it since the early days of his arrest, so I
wasn't aware there was "visual" (either in person or via cameras) evidence
of the white Elantra _at_ the house - but I wouldn't doubt he'd park it a
block away or so as the white Elantra was seen going down the road and
turning around at the culdesac as I recall.

> his vehicle was *also* seen the next morning at the albertson's in
> clarkston (~30 mi south), with video of him getting into and out of the
> vehicle.

This I wasn't aware of, where what might matter could be what he bought. If
he bought, for example, cleaning supplies that he then used on his car,
that would be different than if he bought a grill cheese sandwich instead.

> that's is a key part of the probable cause affidavit that links him to
> a white elantra without a front plate seen at the house (which is
> unusual for the area since washington & idaho both require it).

I don't know how well you know west coast law enforcement, but I haven't
had a front license plate on a few of my cars for many years. Only once did
I get a ticket (a parking officer gave me a fixit ticket years ago).

I still don't have a front plate on that car, my point being some states
don't enforce their laws (but where I came from, back in NY, they do).

> it's also a virtual certainty that he was seen on surveillance video
> inside alberston's and what he bought.

As I said, I wasn't aware of this but I'm sure he went shopping in the days
between the crime and when he and his father drove across the country.

They're even in the police bodycam video having been pulled over multiple
times on that trip (the guys is apparently a horrible driver.

You'd think a guy who just committed a few murders would drive below the
speed limit, stop at stop signs, not cross over the white lines, etc.

> if he paid cash, they can pull the register receipt when he is seen
> going through the checkout lane.

I'm agreeing that whatever items he bought before and after the murders can
be important, e.g., they found "a knife" and "a mask" at his parent's home.

> if he paid by credit card, they don't even need that since the
> transaction is linked to his card, with an itemized list of everything
> he bought.

The fact he cleaned his car multiple times rather thoroughly will be
certain to be brought up to jurors, where the timing of the purchase of
those supplies will also be of interest (if he did buy them, of course).

>
> they will also be able to see where he went in the store. was he
> looking at fresh arugula or was he looking at sponges and detergents.
>
>> although
>> he was seen face to face by one of the surviving roommates (who,
>> paradoxically, didn't phone police at the time).
>
> she freaked out, which is not unusual.

He was probably looking for lemon juice to hide from the surveillance
cameras. I heard that works for bank robbers anyway...

>> His vehicle was seen
>> though, and the dog was heard barking (much as in the Alex Murdaugh case).
>
> the dog knew something wasn't normal.

What was really creepy was him apparently telling the girls who were crying
that he was going to make it better (or something to that creepy effect).

> the problem for alex murdaugh was his voice on a phone video that
> placed him *at* the crime scene *at* the time it occurred, which
> contradicted his claim that he was not there. in other words, it's
> proof he lied.

It would be interesting to compare how many times Alex Murdaugh lied versus
how many times Apple lied in the same time frame as those murders took.

I think Apple will easily be shown to lie more than Murdaugh did though.
Apple has billion-dollar lies while Murdaugh's are only in the millions.

BTW, on that note, Apple is a horrible company because they perpetrate so
many brazen lies which they have no sense of shame for doing, mostly
because Apple gets rich as a predator of people who can't understand
Apple's marketing lies. Your predatory personality mirrors that of Apple.

>> If you have a cite for your fabrication that his person was on a video, you
>> should produce that cite now as you have a history of fabricating lies.
>
> it's not a fabrication. see above.

I must have misunderstood because I was talking about AT THE TIME of the
crime, and at that time, the only video is of a similar (probably his)
vehicle but not of a _person_ (again, during the time of the crime).

If there _is_ surveillance video _at the time_ of the crime that shows his
person, I wouldn't be surprised though - I just haven't seen a cite saying
that it exists.

> keep in mind that there is a reasonable chance that the surveillance
> video from the house *next* *door* has him on video *that* *night*.

Certainly the camera recorded sounds so it was certainly on and running but
it was supposedly pointed at the side of the house as I recall from the
police reports I read long ago.

This issue seems to be classic for how your strange brain works, nospam,
where I don't jump to the unwarranted conclusion that surveillance video of
his person exists - while you apparently do (but you lack the evidence).

It's classic for people like you who can't handle processing of detail.

> that information is not needed to make an arrest, so there's no need to
> disclose it at this time (assuming it does exist).

I will agree with any logical statement you (or anyone) makes, nospam,
where I am not a lawyer, but I "think" they have to give the defense _all_
that they have at "some point" in time. I don't know when that point in
time is, but certainly it must be before the trial starts I would think.

>> I still want to know, for sure, if he was using an iPhone though.
>
> of course you do.

My hypothesis is clear, nospam, that iPhone owners are gullible.
You can't make that kind of profit off of intelligent people.

But I must agree that there's no evidence I've seen that says either way if
his phone was Android or iOS but you're the one claiming it's Android and
yet I have no expectation of a cite from you since your mind isn't normal.

You fabricate your entire belief system out of usually zero real facts.

>> Because he's incredibly stupid but he seems to think he's a genius.
>
> phd students often are.

A PhD in the sciences needs skills that a PhD in "criminology" doesn't.
There's a reason a huge proportion of "bio sci" majors flunk Freshman
Chemistry & Sophomore Organic, and for the same reason a smaller proportion
but still large proportion of Engineering students flunk statics &
dynamics.

> he may be academically smart, but he's definitely not street smart.

The history and music majors have it easy in comparison to the science and
engineering majors, and this guy was a liberal arts major as I recall -
which doesn't take all that much in smarts.

Earning a sociology degree, for example, may be beyond Jolly Roger, but it
should be within the grasp of people like Ant, Badgolferman & Steve.

> this is likely his first major crime (and fortunately, his last), which
> is why he made a lot of mistakes that a seasoned criminal would never
> have done.

I'm going to agree with you that this appears to be his first major crime,
as leaving the knife sheath and using the phone were simply dumb actions.

> oddly enough, it's analogous to you, who *thinks* you're hiding from
> google by not having a google account, while not having any idea what
> *other* evidence you're leaving.

What you show no evidence of comprehending, nospam, is that the privacy
between Android and iOS is *COMPLETELY DIFFERENT* in myriad ways.

For example, in Android I randomize my Wi-Fi MAC address per connection.
Can you do that with iOS by a simple toggle like you can with Android?

The point is that Apple has you bamboozled that only what Apple MARKETING
touts is about privacy when Apple never advertises they have more zero day
holes in the iPhone than any Android on the planet.

Also Apple touts the privacy settings but Apple doesn't mention they track
almost everything you do, which you can get back from them - but they do so
using the mothership tracking account that Google can't use becuase it
doesn't exist on Android.

What you don't understand, nospam, I can't teach you because you are left
of the first quartile in Dunning Kruger terms of your assessment of your
skills versus your actual knowledge (which you show no evidence of having).
*iPhone apps no better for privacy than Android*
<https://www.tomsguide.com/news/ios-android-app-privacy-parity>

>> They actually said they had MORE probable cause than they used to ask for
>> teh search warrant in the search warrant itself, so as to have a readily
>> available defense if the criminal's lawyers challenge the search warrant.
>
> they only needed probable cause to make an arrest.

We both agree it's highly likely they have much more on this guy than what
they stated in the court documents which were made public and which,
apparently both you and I read.

> additional evidence will be presented at a future trial, assuming there
> is one.

His lawyer isn't in any rush to be tried it seems, which makes sense.
What I'll be looking for is which phone did he own. iPhone or Android.

> it's possible (and quite likely) that the evidence against him is so
> overwhelming that taking a plea deal might be a wise choice.

My bet is he's an iPhone owner.

[nospam]

In article <tu0u55$33c7v$1...@paganini.bofh.team>, Andy Burnelli

<nos...@nospam.net> wrote:

> *Your iOS app may still be covertly tracking you, despite what Apple says*
>
> <https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/04/a-year-after-apple-enf
> orces-app-tracking-policy-covert-ios-tracking-remains/>

that's the *app* doing the tracking, not ios.

apple has *nothing* to do with what app developers choose to do or not
do.

unfortunately, app tracking is self-reported, and although many app
developers are honest about it, some are not. that's just reality.

nothing new about that and it's not specific to apple either. lots of
companies aren't completely honest, in every industry.

> 2. The privacy issues are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT between the two platforms...

no they aren't.

> That means while Apple tracks everything you do via that mothership
> tracking account,

no they don't, nor is there a 'mothership tracking account' that could
even be used for that purpose.

> Google can't (because that mothership tracking account
> does not exist).

almost every android user has an active google id, what you call a
'mothership tracking account'.

what *you* do is not typical. it is also counterproductive, except you
don't realize that.

the only 'tracking' is that apple, google and microsoft keep a record
of which apps someone downloads from their respective app stores, but
that's the extent of it. they don't monitor usage of said apps, nor can
they.

[nospam]

In article <tu10ph$33l5a$1...@paganini.bofh.team>, Andy Burnelli

<nos...@nospam.net> wrote:



> > his vehicle was *also* seen the next morning at the albertson's in
> > clarkston (~30 mi south), with video of him getting into and out of the
> > vehicle.
>
> This I wasn't aware of, where what might matter could be what he bought. If
> he bought, for example, cleaning supplies that he then used on his car,
> that would be different than if he bought a grill cheese sandwich instead.

he's vegan, so he didn't buy anything with cheese in it, that day or
any other day.

> > that's is a key part of the probable cause affidavit that links him to
> > a white elantra without a front plate seen at the house (which is
> > unusual for the area since washington & idaho both require it).
>
> I don't know how well you know west coast law enforcement, but I haven't
> had a front license plate on a few of my cars for many years. Only once did
> I get a ticket (a parking officer gave me a fixit ticket years ago).

this may come to you as a surprise, but idaho is not a 'west coast'
state. in fact, it is not a coastal state of any sort. moscow/pullman
is many hours from the west coast, on the *other* side of the cascades.

he also wasn't cited for no front plate.

what you fail to understand is that not having a front plate in an area
where it's required makes the vehicle more distinctive than it
otherwise would have been.

what you also fail to understand is your practice of not having a
google id makes you more distinctive for tracking, because it's *very*
rare anyone does that.

> They're even in the police bodycam video having been pulled over multiple
> times on that trip (the guys is apparently a horrible driver.

the stops in indiana were very likely pretext stops.

two stops within ten minutes is extremely unusual, especially for
something minor such as tailgating, one of which was by a sheriff who
normally does not patrol the interstates.

> You'd think a guy who just committed a few murders would drive below the
> speed limit, stop at stop signs, not cross over the white lines, etc.

he may have done that driving home the night of the murders, but the
cross-country drive was a month later across multiple states nowhere
near the crime.

>
> It would be interesting to compare how many times Alex Murdaugh lied versus
> how many times Apple lied in the same time frame as those murders took.

you've gone off the deep end. seek help.

>
> > that information is not needed to make an arrest, so there's no need to
> > disclose it at this time (assuming it does exist).
>
> I will agree with any logical statement you (or anyone) makes, nospam,
> where I am not a lawyer, but I "think" they have to give the defense _all_
> that they have at "some point" in time. I don't know when that point in
> time is, but certainly it must be before the trial starts I would think.

it's called discovery and it's happening *now*, ahead of the
preliminary hearing in june. his lawyers need time to review it and
build a defense.

don't expect much to be made public, as the only requirement is
probable cause to continue with the real trial.

> > this is likely his first major crime (and fortunately, his last), which
> > is why he made a lot of mistakes that a seasoned criminal would never
> > have done.
>
> I'm going to agree with you that this appears to be his first major crime,
> as leaving the knife sheath and using the phone were simply dumb actions.

it's also possible that leaving the sheath was intentional, thinking
that it might throw off investigators to search for the 'wrong' type of
knife, a seemingly smart move in his warped mind.

unfortunately for him, that isn't going to be particularly effective.

or it could have been a mistake.

>
> > oddly enough, it's analogous to you, who *thinks* you're hiding from
> > google by not having a google account, while not having any idea what
> > *other* evidence you're leaving.
>
> What you show no evidence of comprehending, nospam, is that the privacy
> between Android and iOS is *COMPLETELY DIFFERENT* in myriad ways.

actually, it isn't.

> For example, in Android I randomize my Wi-Fi MAC address per connection.
> Can you do that with iOS by a simple toggle like you can with Android?

ios does that automatically without needing to toggle anything (it's
the default), and has done it long before android did.

ios also can detect trackers and hide your ip address from them.

either or both can be disabled if desired on a per-network basis.

> > additional evidence will be presented at a future trial, assuming there
> > is one.
>
> His lawyer isn't in any rush to be tried it seems, which makes sense.

the wheels of justice turn slowly, however, they do turn.

lawsuits take time. that's just how it is.

> What I'll be looking for is which phone did he own. iPhone or Android.

of course you will, because that's obviously the most important thing
in the entire case.

the more you keep babbling, the more you outdo yourself in saying
incredibly stupid shit.

meanwhile, everyone else wants to know relevant facts, such as did they
find dna evidence linking him to the crime, have they found the knife,
is this really his first crime and most importantly (but not needed for
a conviction), why the hell did a random person break into a house and
kill four students for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

>
> My bet is he's an iPhone owner.

my bet is you're an idiot.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 04.03.23 um 15:19 schrieb Newyana2:

> "Carlos E. R." <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote
>
> | > I hate to bring up crime but wrt
> | > https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/03/02/us/alex-murdaugh-trial-verdict
> | > do you know if the phones involved were Android, Windows, or iOS?
> |
> | I can't read it, it wants me to register. Ok, I can, in "reader mode".
> |
>
> It's hard to believe that people today don't understand their
> cellphone, if powered on, is a tracking collar.
>
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/05/28/its-middle-night-do-you-know-who-your-iphone-is-talking/
>
> https://www.vice.com/en/article/nepxbz/i-gave-a-bounty-hunter-300-dollars-located-phone-microbilt-zumigo-tmobile
>
> Some years ago a reporter detailed several weeks worth of location
> tracking that Apple was doing on his iPhone. The article about it
> showed a map of his movements for that period of time.

Once more you are spreading *FUD* with very old articles you do not
understand Mayayana. All these geolocation stuff can be turned off on an
iPhone quite easily. It is always a good idea to turn off unused
communication sockets like BT or wifi if not needed. It also saves
energy and extends the range of the battery.

I do not know whether ist is true that service providers can sell
location data of their customers they obtain from their infrastructure
to third parties without consent in the USA. I have difficulties to
believe that.

[Java Jive]

On 05/03/2023 02:31, micky wrote:
>
> OTOH, the trackers in the covid "vaccine" are inside you, so they give a
> more precise location to those people who are tracking you.

Dangerous anti-vax fake news reported to:
a b u s e @ t w e a k n e w s . n l

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

[Andy Burns]

Java Jive wrote:

> Dangerous anti-vax fake news reported to:
>     a b u s e @ t w e a k n e w s . n l

Why do you make a prick of yourself "reporting" this, and making a point
of saying you've "reported" it, you know they just go straight into the
circular filing cabinet ...

[Java Jive]

Why make a prick of yourself by appearing to condone someone else making
a prick of themselves by circulating brainless anti-vax shit?

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2023-03-05 15:19, Java Jive wrote:
> On 05/03/2023 13:49, Andy Burns wrote:
>> Java Jive wrote:
>>
>>> Dangerous anti-vax fake news reported to:
>>>      a b u s e @ t w e a k n e w s . n l
>>
>> Why do you make a prick of yourself "reporting" this, and making a
>> point of saying you've "reported" it, you know they just go straight
>> into the circular filing cabinet ...
>
> Why make a prick of yourself by appearing to condone someone else making
> a prick of themselves by circulating brainless anti-vax shit?
>

It is you who is making a fool of himself. Your report will be garbaged
and ignored. Even if you report an assassination complot on your president.

And telling here about such a report is also naive and foolish.

Grow up.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

>> *Your iOS app may still be covertly tracking you, despite what Apple says*
>>
>> <https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/04/a-year-after-apple-enf
>> orces-app-tracking-policy-covert-ios-tracking-remains/>
>
> that's the *app* doing the tracking, not ios.

What you fail to comprehend is privacy is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT between
Android and iOS such that, in this one component of privacy, Apple
_inserted_ a unique identifier into your _apps_, nospam. Google can't.

> apple has *nothing* to do with what app developers choose to do or not
> do.

You need to understand that privacy is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT between Android
and iOS where in the case of that one article, Apple's predatory
advertising doesn't meet reality for people who actually read the news.

The iKooks like Alan Browne who've never read the news in their lives,
believe everything simply because Apple said it was so; but it's not.

My problem with Apple's brazen lies is how predatory they are to poor
innocent people like Jolly Roger and Alan Baker, and yes, even you.

> unfortunately, app tracking is self-reported, and although many app
> developers are honest about it, some are not. that's just reality.
>
> nothing new about that and it's not specific to apple either. lots of
> companies aren't completely honest, in every industry.
>
>> 2. The privacy issues are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT between the two platforms...
>
> no they aren't.

The fact that you don't understand the platforms are DIFFERENT is not even
shocking anymore, nospam, but please understand that I know your child-like
brain "thinks" you understood what I said - but you don't actually
comprehend what I said about the PLATFORMS are what's very different.

I never said that privacy needs among the phone owners is different.
I said the PLATFORMS are different in how they handle privacy.

If you deny that, then... well... then that's _why_ you're an iKook.

>> That means while Apple tracks everything you do via that mothership
>> tracking account,
>
> no they don't, nor is there a 'mothership tracking account' that could
> even be used for that purpose.

For you to brazenly deny the existence of the iCloud account is typical for
you iKooks and no longer shocking that you deny what even Apple won't deny.

Why do you think Apple inserts that _unique_ identifier into all your apps?
Google doesn't. Google can't.

>> Google can't (because that mothership tracking account
>> does not exist).
>
> almost every android user has an active google id, what you call a
> 'mothership tracking account'.

I never said otherwise. Again, your child-like brain is not comprehending
that I said, very clearly, that on Android, if you want privacy from a
mothership tracking account, you can easily get that. On iOS you can't.

> what *you* do is not typical. it is also counterproductive, except you
> don't realize that.

While you show an adult cognitive comprehension that I set up my Android
from the start without a Google Account (just as I set up my Windows from
the start without a Microsoft Account), you do not show adult comprehensive
skills when you brazenly claim it's counterproductive.

Your brain just made that up, without any basis in fact, other than it _is_
counterproductive on iOS to NOT set up a mothership tracking account
because you can't download any of the apps from the Apple app store.

Like I am trying to teach you ignorant iKooks, nospam, the two platforms
are DIFFERENT when it comes to discussing privacy.

Given I can even more easily install apps from the Google app store
repository WITHOUT a mothership tracking account, where do you get your
facts which you've assessed it to be counterproductive NOT to have a
mothership tracking account on Google?

Are you going to claim that there are no Google replacement apps?

> the only 'tracking' is that apple, google and microsoft keep a record
> of which apps someone downloads from their respective app stores, but
> that's the extent of it. they don't monitor usage of said apps, nor can
> they.

Why do you iKooks always brazenly deny what even Apple doesn't deny?

Remember a decade ago Apple was caught lying about tracking your location?
<https://www.wired.com/2011/04/apple-iphone-tracking/>

You think that Apple stopped collecting your precise location data, nospam?
<https://www.howtogeek.com/437871/how-to-find-your-location-history-on-iphone-or-ipad/>

And that's just _one_ of the many ways Apple collects your private data
partly because they can pinpoint everything you do to your unique Apple
mothership tracking account (which Google can not enforce on Android).

You need to understand, nospam, that the two platforms are COMPLETELY
DIFFERENT in many ways when it comes to how they handle your privacy.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

> what you fail to understand is that not having a front plate in an area
> where it's required makes the vehicle more distinctive than it
> otherwise would have been.

First off, I didn't fail to understand that, but I did fail to _mention_
that I understood that. (BTW, badgolferman, this simple admission by me, an
adult, is fundamentally what the iKooks completely lack in character).

> what you also fail to understand is your practice of not having a
> google id makes you more distinctive for tracking, because it's *very*
> rare anyone does that.

Again, I didn't fail to comprehend what you're claiming, but I didn't
mention that I'm aware that most people do have a Google Account.

My home also has the SSID hidden, nospam, for privacy reasons.
You could argue the same thing with that too, right?
And, my phones and laptops don't broadcast my home SSIDs either, right?
And there's no Microsoft account on my Windows 10 PCs, either, right?

All those things are done for privacy reasons, which, I'll easily grant
you, most people wouldn't even understand, let alone perform. Right?

I agree with you that I'm different in that I set up devices for privacy.
Adults have the capacity to agree with the facts, unlike you iKooks.

>> They're even in the police bodycam video having been pulled over multiple
>> times on that trip (the guys is apparently a horrible driver.
>
> the stops in indiana were very likely pretext stops.

I certainly immediately had thought about that when I read about it, but I
didn't see _any_ evidence that they were pre-planned information gathering
stops, so you have to be guessing when you say that (or you have cites,
which I doubt you have).

We'd also have to look at the timeline as to when the university metermaids
found his car and reported back to the central authority the connection.

> two stops within ten minutes is extremely unusual, especially for
> something minor such as tailgating, one of which was by a sheriff who
> normally does not patrol the interstates.

Again, it sure is indicative of something abnormal, I would agree; but
without any corroborating evidence, I'd have to lean toward Occam's Razor
which is just either bad luck or a very bad driver or good cops as they
were both in the same state, as I recall, just as he was entering it (as I
recall).

For now, I'm not going to jump to any other conclusion but that he was
doing the things which he was pulled over for (I don't recall if he was
actually cited, but I don't think so - I think he got a warning - but I
haven't re-read the documents since they were published).

>> You'd think a guy who just committed a few murders would drive below the
>> speed limit, stop at stop signs, not cross over the white lines, etc.
>
> he may have done that driving home the night of the murders, but the
> cross-country drive was a month later across multiple states nowhere
> near the crime.

I agree with any sensible statement. He was perhaps feeling quite safe, as
the police were tight lipped about the evidence, although I believe the
Elantra make and model was published by then (as I recall).

I wonder why he bothered to change his vehicle registration to another
state, as that stuff can be back tracked rather easily I would think.

>> It would be interesting to compare how many times Alex Murdaugh lied versus
>> how many times Apple lied in the same time frame as those murders took.
>
> you've gone off the deep end. seek help.

My point in bringing up Alex Murdaugh is that he was an inveterate
predatory liar, and my point in equating Apple to inveterate predatory
lying is to make a point that nobody lies like Apple lies.

"*The batteries made us do it*"... for example.
"*Think of the ecosystem*"... for another example.

Apple simply has more money to settle the criminal and civil suits.

>>> that information is not needed to make an arrest, so there's no need to
>>> disclose it at this time (assuming it does exist).
>>
>> I will agree with any logical statement you (or anyone) makes, nospam,
>> where I am not a lawyer, but I "think" they have to give the defense _all_
>> that they have at "some point" in time. I don't know when that point in
>> time is, but certainly it must be before the trial starts I would think.
>
> it's called discovery and it's happening *now*, ahead of the
> preliminary hearing in june. his lawyers need time to review it and
> build a defense.

Thanks for that information, which I appreciate, given I'm not a lawyer
but I knew there was a process where only the prosecution (not the defense)
has to provide all the related information they have on their case.

> don't expect much to be made public, as the only requirement is
> probable cause to continue with the real trial.

One minor datapoint that I'm looking to find out is the phone he owned.

You claimed Android but you didn't back up that claim, which is typical for
you since your belief system doesn't depend on facts.

I think it's more likely, since he was rather stupid, it's an iPhone (and
yes, I realize that you think people easily bamboozled by marketing
gimmickry are smart - so we're going to have to agree to disagree here).

You can't make those ungodly profit margins off an intelligent customer.

>>> this is likely his first major crime (and fortunately, his last), which
>>> is why he made a lot of mistakes that a seasoned criminal would never
>>> have done.
>>
>> I'm going to agree with you that this appears to be his first major crime,
>> as leaving the knife sheath and using the phone were simply dumb actions.
>
> it's also possible that leaving the sheath was intentional, thinking
> that it might throw off investigators to search for the 'wrong' type of
> knife, a seemingly smart move in his warped mind.

When they reported they found a knife at the home, they mentioned the type
but I noted it was NOT the type of Marine K-Bar knife that the sheath was
designed for.

> unfortunately for him, that isn't going to be particularly effective.

They never used the DNA evidence yet in the official court documents, they
just mentioned that they have them and that it's indicative, but if that
DNA evidence holds up in court, it will be particularly effective on jurors
I suspect.

Then again, the jurors believed OJ was innocent... so you never know.

> or it could have been a mistake.

I can't imagine anyone knifing four people to death not making some
mistake, e.g., there must have been blood all over his clothing.

And, as I recall, there was a "latent" shoeprint which will almost
certainly be brought into the juror's eyes if it anywhere fits his.

>>> oddly enough, it's analogous to you, who *thinks* you're hiding from
>>> google by not having a google account, while not having any idea what
>>> *other* evidence you're leaving.
>>
>> What you show no evidence of comprehending, nospam, is that the privacy
>> between Android and iOS is *COMPLETELY DIFFERENT* in myriad ways.
>
> actually, it isn't.

No. You're wrong. But I understand that you aren't thinking deeply about it
since you only believe what you see in glossy Apple marketing brochures.

The privacy of a person is the same overall whether or not they use an
iPhone or an Android phone, but the _way_ that the two platforms go about
it is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

For one salient example, Apple requires a mothership tracking account for
the user to download useful apps; Google doesn't per se - and Google can't.

That's different whether or not you understand that's different.
Likewise, Apple _inserts_ a unique identifier into your iOS apps, nospam.

Google doesn't. Google can't.

Again, that's DIFFERENT whether or not you understand that it's different.

>> For example, in Android I randomize my Wi-Fi MAC address per connection.
>> Can you do that with iOS by a simple toggle like you can with Android?
>
> ios does that automatically without needing to toggle anything (it's
> the default), and has done it long before android did.

I provided the URL in my other thread which shows they are DIFFERENT.
*Privacy question about randomizing the MAC address of the iPhone per each AP connection*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/4UKsKgmXLi0>

You just don't understand that they're rather different approaches.

> ios also can detect trackers and hide your ip address from them.
>
> either or both can be disabled if desired on a per-network basis.

What makes you think Android can't detect trackers, nospam?

I've covered the topic of trackers on the Android newsgroup, for example:
<https://i.postimg.cc/L5gnX3GS/linktopc07.jpg> List the app's trackers

Can you get _that_ kind of detail out of the iOS tracker detection nospam?

>>> additional evidence will be presented at a future trial, assuming there
>>> is one.
>>
>> His lawyer isn't in any rush to be tried it seems, which makes sense.
>
> the wheels of justice turn slowly, however, they do turn.
>
> lawsuits take time. that's just how it is.

I agree. Look how long it took for Apple to finally settle the criminal and
civil lawsuits for their lies about (secretly) throttling iPhones, nospam.

It was interesting though, after you said numerous times Apple "wasn't
worried" about 5G years ago, how _quickly_ Apple _surrendered to Qualcomm.

Apple was so desperate for a teeny tiny modem IC that they paid Qualcomm
enough to build and equip an entire modern aircraft carrier, nospam.

Complete with not only the warship, but also avionics and munitions!

>> What I'll be looking for is which phone did he own. iPhone or Android.
>
> of course you will, because that's obviously the most important thing
> in the entire case.

This is a phone newsgroup, and my salient point is to discuss and
understand how exactly did his phone track his activities, and then, what
could he have done so that his phone did NOT track his activities.

It's not so simple when you consider the possibility of crimes of passion,
the point being that the tracking is happening all the time, which is why
it's important to put a stop to as much tracking as we can stop happening.

It's apropos for this newsgroup, where I completely understand why you're
so desperate to deflect the conversation away from phone tracking.

> the more you keep babbling, the more you outdo yourself in saying
> incredibly stupid shit.

What you fundamentally don't understand, nospam, is that I study what kind
of person _believes_ Apple's predatory lies about their so-called privacy.

> meanwhile, everyone else wants to know relevant facts, such as did they
> find dna evidence linking him to the crime, have they found the knife,
> is this really his first crime and most importantly (but not needed for
> a conviction), why the hell did a random person break into a house and
> kill four students for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

This statement is the kind of child-like conclusions you make all the time
nospam, where it's no longer shocking that not only did I tell you I read
every legal document that was released at the time of his arrest, but I
also caught _you_ in a few lies which it's not lost on me you didn't back
up.

You are like Apple in that you depend on people not being able to discern
your predatory lies, where my point is that I read everything that was
released on this case so your claim that I don't want to know relevant
facts is exactly how I know that your brain was endowed with a low IQ.

For an Apple/Android newsgroup, the relevance is how did the phone do him
in, and what could he have done to prevent that, which is a focus here.

>>
>> My bet is he's an iPhone owner.
>
> my bet is you're an idiot.

And yet, you've never found a fact stated from me to be wrong, and, in this
very thread, I already showed a few "facts" from you to be fabricated.

Anyway, this is a phone newsgroup, and my salient point is to discuss and
understand how exactly did his phone track his activities, and then, what
could he have done so that his phone did NOT track his activities.

[Java Jive]

On 05/03/2023 14:34, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2023-03-05 15:19, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 05/03/2023 13:49, Andy Burns wrote:
>>> Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dangerous anti-vax fake news reported to:
>>>>      a b u s e @ t w e a k n e w s . n l
>>>
>>> Why do you make a prick of yourself "reporting" this, and making a
>>> point of saying you've "reported" it, you know they just go straight
>>> into the circular filing cabinet ...
>>
>> Why make a prick of yourself by appearing to condone someone else
>> making a prick of themselves by circulating brainless anti-vax shit?
>
> It is you who is making a fool of himself. Your report will be garbaged
> and ignored.

Possibly, but possibly not - usenet is a form of social media for
which, ultimately, the people who run the servers are responsible for
what is posted on them, and it's not in their long-term interest to
allow them to be abused by trolls posting fake news.

> And telling here about such a report is also naive and foolish.

It makes the point to the troll that he shouldn't be posting fake news
here, and that if (s)he continues to do so, there may eventually be
consequences.

> Grow up.

Follow your own advice. For myself, I am over 70 years old, and I've
seen enough to know that fake news, if it goes unanswered, becomes
widely believed simply because it's everywhere and goes unanswered, and
thus it is important to answer it.

[Andy Burnelli]

Java Jive wrote:

> Why make a prick of yourself by appearing to condone someone else making
> a prick of themselves by circulating brainless anti-vax shit?

To Carlos, and every one who is an _adult_ on this Android newsgroup.

Andy Burns knows more about Android phones than likely the rest of us
combined, and as such, he has added tremendous _value_ to this ng, which
gives him more of a right to chastise the trolls than you have, Carlos.

Notwithstanding that Andy Burns was correct that Java Jive's post was
nothing but a troll, the topic of this thread is clearly what components of
Android and iOS can _track_ the user, such as these "trackers" for example.
<https://i.postimg.cc/L5gnX3GS/linktopc07.jpg> List app trackers

Interestingly, while I'm no fan of micky's nonsensical musings, the Covid
tracking capability of a phone, inserted at the height of the mass fear, is
probably something we should take up on this newsgroup, as that abnormal
petrifyingly insane fear most people had appears to have abated somewhat.

With respect to the idiotic "anti-vax" comments of Java Jive, I have a
degree in these things and while I got the shot, I argued rather
conclusively it doesn't even meet the CDC's own definition of a vaccine, so
by knowing this fact, does that make me "anti-vax"?

No, right?
And by disliking the inherently easily abused nature of the covid-tracking
capabilities Apple/Google inserted into my phone, does that make me
anti-vax?

My point is Java Jave was out of line, even as micky's statements were
almost nonsensical - and more importantly - Andy Burns was correct, IMHO,
to ask Java Jive to either contribute to the topic or shut up.

IMHO, Andy Burns did what adults _should_ do.

Since Usenet is water under the bridge, Java Jive can redeem himself by
responding in a manner that shows he owns adult cognitive skills, such that
he can improve the quality of our knowledge on the topic of data tracking
on either Android or iOS (as per the original post).

BTW, I've tried to find what data-collection logs Google performs too.
<https://i.postimg.cc/Fs8GDLfX/firebase01.jpg> Clear Firebase app indexes
<https://i.postimg.cc/QtfJ59LP/firebase02.jpg> Firebase indexed app data
<https://i.postimg.cc/KvCkLccr/firebase03.jpg> Firebase location tracking

If micky, Java Jive, Carlos or Andy (or anyone else who is an adult) has
more information on wiping out both "google maps location tracking" records
and wiping out the pernicious "firebase" residual location tracking from
Android, _that_ would be very useful on topic technical information indeed.

--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information

which, in this case, is to bring the newsgroup back on topic for tracking.

[Andy Burnelli]

Java Jive wrote:

> Possibly, but possibly not - usenet is a form of social media for
> which, ultimately, the people who run the servers are responsible for
> what is posted on them, and it's not in their long-term interest to
> allow them to be abused by trolls posting fake news.

Some people are on this newsgroup merely for their own amusement.
Let's get back on topic please as there is useful info to learn here.

If people can pitch in to explain the screenshots below, that would help us
all better understand the location tracking on Android (and on iOS).

>> And telling here about such a report is also naive and foolish.
>
> It makes the point to the troll that he shouldn't be posting fake news
> here, and that if (s)he continues to do so, there may eventually be
> consequences.

Having a degree in such things, I think micky's comments were unwarranted,
but I think Java Jive could have added on topic technical value, probably
far more so than micky or Carlos ever could have.

In that manner, I believe Andy Burns was admonishing you to step up to the
challenge of contributing useful on-topic technical information to this
thread.

>> Grow up.
>
> Follow your own advice. For myself, I am over 70 years old, and I've
> seen enough to know that fake news, if it goes unanswered, becomes
> widely believed simply because it's everywhere and goes unanswered, and
> thus it is important to answer it.

I think the vast majority of the posters to this newsgroup are in
retirement ages, the point being age alone doesn't make anyone an adult.

The whole "fake news" thing should be approached simply by supplying the
facts, and in being credible when you do so, For example, I plea with you
(and other adults on this newsgroup like Andy Burns) to help me better
understand how to identify and stop trackers inside of our Android apps.

Android and iOS can _track_ the user, such as these "trackers" for example.
<https://i.postimg.cc/L5gnX3GS/linktopc07.jpg> List app trackers

In addition to helping us determine how to find the internal logs that apps
seem to keep on our location, it's also useful if someone can shed light on
how to prevent the specific Google Maps app from saving our location logs.
<https://i.postimg.cc/8cS6sYGD/mapsloctrack01.jpg> Clear Maps cache/data
<https://i.postimg.cc/vBR1SKc9/mapsloctrack02.jpg> Clear Services tracks
<https://i.postimg.cc/nhCCVxmB/mapsloctrack03.jpg> Test Firebase tracks
<https://i.postimg.cc/sDfM87Dn/mapsloctrack04.jpg> Clear Firebase tracks
<https://i.postimg.cc/28TZ8TKR/mapsloctrack05.jpg> Disable Maps tracking
<https://i.postimg.cc/Dy7GTR5P/mapsloctrack06.jpg> Stop Maps tracking

In addition to Google Maps' logs, there's also pernicious Firebase logs!

<https://i.postimg.cc/Fs8GDLfX/firebase01.jpg> Clear Firebase app indexes
<https://i.postimg.cc/QtfJ59LP/firebase02.jpg> Firebase indexed app data
<https://i.postimg.cc/KvCkLccr/firebase03.jpg> Firebase location tracking

If micky, Java Jive, Carlos or Andy (or anyone else who is an adult) has

more information on identifying & then preventing, and therefore wiping out
both "google maps location tracking" records and the pernicious "firebase"

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 05.03.23 um 13:17 schrieb Java Jive:

> On 05/03/2023 02:31, micky wrote:
>>
>> OTOH, the trackers in the covid "vaccine" are inside you, so they give a
>> more precise location to those people who are tracking you.
>
> Dangerous anti-vax fake news reported to:
> a b u s e @ t w e a k n e w s . n l

Everybody knows that micky is a bit senile. He needs a problem with his
cell phone every day. Otherwise he gets severe withdrawal symptoms and
the risk increases that he dies from an overdose of frogpills.

[Java Jive]

LOL!

But it's not just no-hopers like Micky that are the problem, it's those
who might come afterwards, read a load of crap that has gone unanswered,
and might therefore think "it must be true, because I read it online,
and no-one questioned it".

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 06.03.23 um 00:10 schrieb Java Jive:

> On 05/03/2023 21:29, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>
>> Am 05.03.23 um 13:17 schrieb Java Jive:
>>>
>>> On 05/03/2023 02:31, micky wrote:
>>>>
>>>> OTOH, the trackers in the covid "vaccine" are inside you, so they give a
>>>> more precise location to those people who are tracking you.
>>>
>>> Dangerous anti-vax fake news reported to:
>>> a b u s e @ t w e a k n e w s . n l
>>
>> Everybody knows that micky is a bit senile. He needs a problem with his
>> cell phone every day. Otherwise he gets severe withdrawal symptoms and
>> the risk increases that he dies from an overdose of frogpills.
>
> LOL!
>
> But it's not just no-hopers like Micky that are the problem, it's those
> who might come afterwards, read a load of crap that has gone unanswered,
> and might therefore think "it must be true, because I read it online,
> and no-one questioned it".

Calm down! Everything is conspiracy crap ...
And everybody knows.

[Java Jive]

On 06/03/2023 06:55, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>
> Everything is conspiracy crap ...
> And everybody knows.

No, sadly, they don't.

[micky]

In comp.mobile.android, on Sun, 5 Mar 2023 12:17:10 +0000, Java Jive

<ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

>On 05/03/2023 02:31, micky wrote:
>>
>> OTOH, the trackers in the covid "vaccine" are inside you, so they give a
>> more precise location to those people who are tracking you.
>
>Dangerous anti-vax fake news reported to:
> a b u s e @ t w e a k n e w s . n l

I guess I should have labeled it as sarcasm, but I thought that was
clear and I've found doing that ruins the humor.

If you really did write to the newsserver, maybe they'll know it was
sarcasm.

[Java Jive]

On 06/03/2023 13:23, micky wrote:
>
> In comp.mobile.android, on Sun, 5 Mar 2023 12:17:10 +0000, Java Jive
> <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Dangerous anti-vax fake news reported to:
>> a b u s e @ t w e a k n e w s . n l
>
> I guess I should have labeled it as sarcasm, but I thought that was
> clear and I've found doing that ruins the humor.

Then use a smiley, that's what they're for.

[nospam]

In article <tu2ht0$38p2e$1...@paganini.bofh.team>, Andy Burnelli

<nos...@nospam.net> wrote:

>
> First off, I didn't fail to understand that, but I did fail to _mention_
> that I understood that.

that's not supported by evidence

> My home also has the SSID hidden, nospam, for privacy reasons.

it's trivial to determine what a hidden ssid is.

it has no effect on those who know how to hack wifi, potentially making
them more interested in why it's hidden.

> And, my phones and laptops don't broadcast my home SSIDs either, right?

further proving how little you understand about wifi, privacy and
security.

>
> > two stops within ten minutes is extremely unusual, especially for
> > something minor such as tailgating, one of which was by a sheriff who
> > normally does not patrol the interstates.
>
> Again, it sure is indicative of something abnormal, I would agree; but
> without any corroborating evidence, I'd have to lean toward Occam's Razor
> which is just either bad luck or a very bad driver or good cops as they
> were both in the same state, as I recall, just as he was entering it (as I
> recall).

he was under surveillance for the entire cross-country drive, using
assets on both the ground and in the air.

the two stops in quick succession reek of a pretext stop, versus bad
driving.

no citations were issued and they didn't even run his license in
*either* instance. it was just a couple minutes of chit chat and that
was it.

> I wonder why he bothered to change his vehicle registration to another
> state, as that stuff can be back tracked rather easily I would think.

he had to because his existing pennsylvania plates were about to expire.

> >> I will agree with any logical statement you (or anyone) makes, nospam,
> >> where I am not a lawyer, but I "think" they have to give the defense _all_
> >> that they have at "some point" in time. I don't know when that point in
> >> time is, but certainly it must be before the trial starts I would think.
> >
> > it's called discovery and it's happening *now*, ahead of the
> > preliminary hearing in june. his lawyers need time to review it and
> > build a defense.
>
> Thanks for that information, which I appreciate, given I'm not a lawyer
> but I knew there was a process where only the prosecution (not the defense)
> has to provide all the related information they have on their case.

discovery works both ways.

> > don't expect much to be made public, as the only requirement is
> > probable cause to continue with the real trial.
>
> One minor datapoint that I'm looking to find out is the phone he owned.
>
> You claimed Android but you didn't back up that claim, which is typical for
> you since your belief system doesn't depend on facts.

i've been following the case and i saw it mentioned at some point,
probably on reddit, but it's irrelevant to the case and not worth
finding again.

[nospam]

In article <tu2e7p$38bl3$1...@paganini.bofh.team>, Andy Burnelli

<nos...@nospam.net> wrote:

>
> >> *Your iOS app may still be covertly tracking you, despite what Apple says*
> >>
> >>
> >> <https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/04/a-year-after-apple-
> >> enf
> >> orces-app-tracking-policy-covert-ios-tracking-remains/>
> >
> > that's the *app* doing the tracking, not ios.
>
> What you fail to comprehend is privacy is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT between
> Android and iOS such that, in this one component of privacy, Apple
> _inserted_ a unique identifier into your _apps_, nospam. Google can't.

they can, but that is completely irrelevant since it's not used for
what you think it is.

further, the above link is about *apps* collecting data and lying about
it, to both apple and to users.

it is *not* about apple or google doing any sort of tracking.

try reading it first before spewing your usual bullshit, and you don't
even need to get very far. the *headline* is clear:

Your iOS app may still be covertly tracking you, despite what Apple
says



>

> Remember a decade ago Apple was caught lying about tracking your location?

they weren't caught lying about anything.

what happened was that someone saw location data on their phone and
immediately assumed it was for a nefarious purpose.

it turned out to be nothing more than a wifi geolocation cache, because
using a cache is *much* faster than a network query.

that's what happens when people who don't know what they're looking at
make baseless assumptions about things they do not understand.


meanwhile, google street view cars were caught collecting wifi data as
they drove around:
<https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/may/15/google-admits-storin
g-private-data>
German request for data audit reveals the web giant 'accidentally'
stored payload information from open networks

the word 'accidentally' is doing a lot of work there.

[Carlos E.R.]

They will just garbage the letter.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

>> What you fail to comprehend is privacy is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT between
>> Android and iOS such that, in this one component of privacy, Apple
>> _inserted_ a unique identifier into your _apps_, nospam. Google can't.
>
> they can, but that is completely irrelevant since it's not used for
> what you think it is.

Hi nospam,
I'm going to try a dialog with you as if you own the mind of an adult, ok?

An example of an adult mind working properly is the case of the Tor browser
on iOS, where any normal adult would notice it's conspicuously missing from
iOS - and then they'd ask why.

Once you ask _why_, you realize that the reason is webkit; but until you
ask why, you will never understand why iOS lacks the Tor browser privacy
that _every_ other common consumer operating system enjoys, including
macOS.

Same _adult_ thinking concept here, nospam, where adults notice Apple does
something verrrrrrrrrrry _different_ with iOS than is done for all other
normal consumer operating systems, nospam (we can ignore macOS for this).

Apple _inserts_ a unique id into _every_ app you install on iOS, nospam.
Google doesn't.

As an adult, you have to ask why.

> meanwhile, google street view cars were caught collecting wifi data as
> they drove around:

It's no longer shocking that you constantly claim Google made Apple do it.
You can't blame Google constantly, nospam, for Apple mothership tracking.

The fact is Google does not put a unique identifier into each of your apps.
Apple does.

The adult question to ask is why.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

>> My home also has the SSID hidden, nospam, for privacy reasons.
>
> it's trivial to determine what a hidden ssid is.

Jesus Christ nospam. Every time you say something _that_ incredibly stupid,
I have to wonder if your brain is permanently stuck as that of a five year
old.

I'd expect _that_ kind of ignorance to be from the mouth of Alan Browne,
not you, nospam.

You're _supposed_ to know something about privacy.
Yet you don't know the most basic of the most fundamental things.

Sheesh. This is how I know your IQ is far lower than normal, nospam.

> it has no effect on those who know how to hack wifi, potentially making
> them more interested in why it's hidden.

I'm not even going to explain to you why that thought process is that of a
five year old, nospam, in light of the fact I've put entire tutorials out
there for the steps required _after_ you stop broadcasting your SSID.

You're literally not an adult, nospam, because you can't comprehend a topic
that is insanely simple and yet you only believe what Alan Baker would.

>> And, my phones and laptops don't broadcast my home SSIDs either, right?
>
> further proving how little you understand about wifi, privacy and
> security.

You're incredibly ignorant, nospam, because you _think_ I'm not
broadcasting the SSID for _security_ (which is NOT why I'm doing it).

You have no concept of why not broadcasting the SSID is for _privacy_ and
the reason is that you're incapable of understanding nuance in detail.

You're not an adult nospam, if you can't comprehend this simple topic.
It's not for _security_ (as anyone can find the SSID in the packets).

It's for privacy.
The problem with uneducated low-IQ people like you, nospam, which we see in
Alan Browne and Alan Baker and Jolly Roger too, is you jump to conclusions
based on what you _think_ you know about the subject.

What you know is what _everyone_ knows, nospam, which is that not
broadcasting your SSID has almost no impact on your _security_.

What you don't know is what the impact is on privacy.
If I may be blunt, you're actully too stupid to learn.

Because you think you know it all.
And yet, every statement from you above shows you have no idea.

It whooshed over your head _why_ and _how_ not broadcasting the SSID helps
privacy, and, worse, you don't know the following steps you should also do
given you have to _also_ tell the phone not to auto-reconnect.

I could go into gory detail but I wrote entire tutorials on this.

And they're in the XDA Developers site too (in addition to Usenet) so I
already know you'll say they're wrong but the fact is they're NOT wrong.

What's wrong is your brain is that of a five year old child nospam.
You can't conceive of any other use of hiding the SSID other than security.

All you iKooks suffer from the same character flaws.
1. You "think" you're smart (but you're actually uneducated ignorant kooks)
2. You "jump to conclusions" based on _zero_ evidence
3. And, you're too stupid to check your work against the facts.

Anyway, the fact you _think_ not hiding the SSID was for _security_ is how
I know, nospam, you don't own the normal mental acuity of an adult.

[Java Jive]

On 07/03/2023 08:12, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
> They will just garbage the letter.

Not necessarily IME, I have received human written replies in the past.

[Newyana2]

"Carlos E.R." <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote

| They will just garbage the letter.
|

Which is what others should do. I see 11 posts
criticizing people who should be filtered out in the
first place. Why would anyone not block nospam?
He's a compulsive arguer and Apple groupie. Micky
just likes to gab. Andy (Dave?) never says anything
relevant. Joerg, ditto.

I posted a simple, concise list of security/privacy
risks. There must be 20+ posts under that, most of which
I can't see. All of them are just arguing.

Maybe it's me. Maybe I should
just be hanging out with 80-year-olds at the local
donut shop instead of coming to usenet. At least I'd
hear about the latest sales at the supermarket, along
with the complaining. And maybe I'll run into Micky there. :)

[Andy Burnelli]

Newyana2 wrote:

> Which is what others should do. I see 11 posts
> criticizing people who should be filtered out in the
> first place.

Hi Newyana2,
I originally thought you were an apple/micky troll, but I've seen the work
you do on the Windows newsgroup especially and I now very much respect you.

However... had I filtered you out from the start, I'd never have learned
that respect of your useful technical acumen (e.g., in firefox settings).

I'm guessing perhaps (based on your use of "Andy/Dave" (how'd you know my
real name?), that you filter me out too - which would be your loss.

A _lot_ of people filter me out, for example, like Steve, for example, but
then Steve says a _lot_ of things that are ignorant as a result (e.g., he
recently claimed a whole bunch of ignorance on battery health meters on
iOS, which weren't discussed here but which I had tested in gory detail).
<https://i.postimg.cc/bNGJbphn/battery02.jpg> 3utools battery info

By blocking me, Steve will _remain_ ignorant, which is the danger.
You too (if that's what you do).

So be it.
My goals on this Android newsgroup are always the same because they're
based on my morals and conviction of trying to learn from & help people.

--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information

which, in this case, is to faithfully try to expound on the filter concept.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 07.03.23 um 15:07 schrieb Newyana2:

> "Carlos E.R." <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote
>
> | They will just garbage the letter.
> |
>
> Which is what others should do. I see 11 posts
> criticizing people who should be filtered out in the
> first place. Why would anyone not block nospam?
> He's a compulsive arguer and Apple groupie. Micky
> just likes to gab. Andy (Dave?) never says anything
> relevant. Joerg, ditto.

*You* are the motorist driving against the traffic on the interstate.
You are simply lacking the knowledge to discuss these issues.

> I posted a simple, concise list of security/privacy
> risks. There must be 20+ posts under that, most of which
> I can't see. All of them are just arguing.
>
> Maybe it's me. Maybe I should
> just be hanging out with 80-year-olds at the local
> donut shop instead of coming to usenet.

Yes please, Mayayana. *You* are the motorist driving against the traffic
on the interstate.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2023-03-07 13:01, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>>> My home also has the SSID hidden, nospam, for privacy reasons.
>>
>> it's trivial to determine what a hidden ssid is.
>
> Jesus Christ nospam. Every time you say something _that_ incredibly stupid,
> I have to wonder if your brain is permanently stuck as that of a five year
> old.
>
> I'd expect _that_ kind of ignorance to be from the mouth of Alan Browne,
> not you, nospam.
>
> You're _supposed_ to know something about privacy. Yet you don't know
> the most basic of the most fundamental things.
>
> Sheesh. This is how I know your IQ is far lower than normal, nospam.

<https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-e&q=How+to+scan+hidden+SSID+WIFI%3F&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjVkcOsvMr9AhVJTaQEHXr5BeYQ3rMBegQIJhAC&biw=1113&bih=721>

Is there an app to find hidden Wi-Fi networks?
Use a WiFi scanner app: There are a number of WiFi scanner apps
available on the Google Play Store, like WiFi Analyzer and Network
Scanner. Once you've installed one of these apps, open it and scan for
networks. The app will show you a list of all the WiFi networks in the
area, including hidden ones.Nov 2, 2022

How To See Hidden Wifi Networks On Android?
Androidphonesoft
https://www.androidphonesoft.com › blog › how-to-se...


<https://www.androidphonesoft.com/blog/how-to-see-hidden-wifi-networks-on-android/>


How do I unhide wireless networks on Android?

There are a few different ways to unhide wireless networks on Android:

1. Use the Settings app to unhide networks.
2. Use a third-party app to unhide networks.
3. Use a custom ROM that includes the ability to unhide networks.

...




--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Andy Burnelli]

Carlos E.R. wrote:

> Is there an app to find hidden Wi-Fi networks?

Hi Carlos,

*Do you think appending "_nomap" to your SSID stops it from being*
*uploaded by most phones to Google mothership tracking servers?*

I won't lash into you like I did with nospam, because of two reasons.
1. I think you were trying to be helpful (while nospam was not), and,
2. I know SSID privacy is a hard concept for most people (even adults).

There's so much I know about SSID privacy that most of you, save for
perhaps one or two of the knowledgeable Android folks, don't know.

So I must patiently explain to you the hiding of the SSID is for privacy
from Google, and not privacy from some hacker that wants to know your SSID.

It's not just you, by the way, so I'm _not_ attacking you in the least.
It's not even only nospam. He just doesn't know what he "thinks" he knows.

With that caveat having been openly stated, allow me to ask one question.
(The answer to that question is a yes or no, and it tells me a lot.)

*Do you think appending "_nomap" to your SSID stops it from being*
*uploaded by most phones to Google mothership tracking servers?*

a. Yes?
b. No"
You must pick one.

--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information

which, in this case, is to faithfully help people understand SSID privacy.

[nospam]

In article <tu8395$496b$1...@paganini.bofh.team>, Andy Burnelli

<nos...@nospam.net> wrote:

> *Do you think appending "_nomap" to your SSID stops it from being*
> *uploaded by most phones to Google mothership tracking servers?*

it's uploaded no matter what you call it.

all that does is flag it to not be publicly indexed, and only for
google. other aggregators ignore it entirely.

>
> There's so much I don't know about SSID privacy

ftfy

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2023-03-07 20:28, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>> Is there an app to find hidden Wi-Fi networks?
>
> Hi Carlos,
>
> *Do you think appending "_nomap" to your SSID stops it from being*
> *uploaded by most phones to Google mothership tracking servers?*

Probably, but that may happen regardless of it being hidden or not.

Unless you are saying that Google (and others) do not map hidden WiFis,
which is not what you said previously. I have no idea what they do in
this case.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Andy Burnelli]

Carlos E.R. wrote:

>> *Do you think appending "_nomap" to your SSID stops it from being*
>> *uploaded by most phones to Google mothership tracking servers?*
>
> Probably, but that may happen regardless of it being hidden or not.
>
> Unless you are saying that Google (and others) do not map hidden WiFis,
> which is not what you said previously. I have no idea what they do in
> this case.

Hi Carlos,

Thank you for answering. I will not chastise you, as I think your intent
was purposefully helpful (unlike nospam's almost sociopathic intent).

I also apologize for having to put you on the spot because I am well aware
almost all people do NOT understand what I understand about hidden SSIDs.

I just wanted you to _learn_ from what I had to teach you. That's all.
I want _everyone_ to learn from what I can teach them, in fact.

And... I want to learn from you!
But, quite unfortunately, the sad fact is that most people are stupid.

For example, every time someone mentions hiding their SSID, people who
don't have a clue what hiding the SSID accomplishes, confuse its purpose.

This is, an example of that happening on the Wigle wardriving group.
<https://wigle.net/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=1983>

It's why I had to say "Jesus Christ" to nospam, whom I had simply assumed
wasn't an idiot when he's so very confident that he knows so much about it.

That's because most people are stupid - like nospam was - because they
assume there's no other reason to hide the SSID other than for security.
*Hiding your SSID is _not_ for security*
*Hiding your SSID is for privacy*

Privacy from whom you may ask...
*Privacy from Google public databases*
*Privacy from Mozilla public databases*
*Privacy from Wigle Wifi Wardriving public databases*
*Privacy from NetStumbler public databases*
*Privacy from Kismac public databases*
*Privacy from Kismet public databases*
*Privacy from DStumbler public databases*
*Privacy from G-Mon public databases*
*Privacy from inSSIDer public databases*
*Privacy from MacStumbler public databases*
*Privacy from NetStumbler public databases*
*Privacy from Pocket Warrior public databases*
*Privacy from Wardrive-Android public databases*
*Privacy from WiFiFoFum public databases*
*Privacy from WiFi-Where public databases*
etc.

So thank you for answering the question instead of trying to evade it.
The answer to the question shows _why_ I hide my SSID on my home APs.

Understanding the nuance of detail takes adult cognitive skills that many
people lack but which I'm patiently attempting to explain to adults here.

A bit of added detail is that it's not only the SSID that I'm trying to
prevent from being uploaded to Google & Mozilla servers, but four things:
1. The SSID
2. The BSSID (unique)
3. The GPS location (extremely unique!)
4. The signal strength

Each of those privacy holes (and more, but those are the big privacy hits)
are uploaded to Google servers whenever someone rude drives by your home.

So how do you stop rude people from giving Google your privacy?
1. The _nomap does NOT prevent the upload by rude Android owners, but,
2. Google & Mozilla are on record for NOT UPLOADING if the SSID is hidden!

Note that we discussed this in gory detail in the past, so I'm not even
going to provide the cites unless you feel that it's not factually correct.

The problem, of course, is that it's not only Google & Mozilla, but Wigle
and NetStumbler, and Wireshark and others "can" upload to _their_ servers.

This _unofficial" discussion implies hiding the SSID works for Wigle too.
<https://wigle.net/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=1655>

This says NetStumbler will also miss all hidden access points:
<https://wigle.net/wiki/index.cgi?Cardinal_Rules_Of_Wardriving_FAQ>

I don't know about passive scanners such as Kismac/Kismet but that implies
same reference implies that they obtain the SSID (which isn't surprising).

The question is whether they _upload_ the SSID to the respective servers.

--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information

which, in this case, is to patiently explain vast nuance in SSID detail.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

>> *Do you think appending "_nomap" to your SSID stops it from being*
>> *uploaded by most phones to Google mothership tracking servers?*
>
> it's uploaded no matter what you call it.

Dead wrong, nospam.

You jump to unwarranted imaginary belief systems, which most people do.
But you "think" you know what clearly you have no clue about.

Steve and you and Jolly Roger just performed that same stupidity moments
ago with respect to comparing iOS MAC randomization privacy to Android.

*Privacy question about randomizing the MAC address of the iPhone per each AP connection*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/4UKsKgmXLi0>

You "think" you understood what Apple wrote; but you didn't comprehend the
nuance in detail inherent in the adult comprehension of what Apple _said_.
*About Wi-Fi privacy using MAC address randomization*
<https://support.apple.com/guide/security/wi-fi-privacy-secb9cb3140c/web>

I was gentle with Carlos, nospam, because he was _trying_ to be helpful.
I'm not going to be gentle with you, nospam, because you are decidedly not.

*You are stupid nospam*
*Incredibly stupid*
*And Ignorant*

You have absolutely zero idea of what hiding the SSID actually does.
And yet, you're so incredibly stupid you will never comprehend why.

HINT: You're completely wrong on what you said about iOS randomizations.
You just don't comprehend the nuance in detail.

> all that does is flag it to not be publicly indexed, and only for
> google. other aggregators ignore it entirely.

Please see my patient and rather detailed for Carlos, nospam.
*Internal logs of Andorid (or ios? phones)*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/NC_e_g3u6dA/m/c1FiJHHhBQAJ>

Pointedly, I didn't rip into Carlos because he was _trying_ to be helpful.

I simply patiently explained that people incorrectly often assume that
hiding the SSID is for security when the reason I hide it is for privacy.

>> There's so much I don't know about SSID privacy
>
> ftfy

Every time you do ftfy stuff, nospam, you prove to own the brain of a child
(because you can't respond to the facts like a normal adult would do).

SO you _change_ the quoted text, like a small child erasing his F on his
redlined test & placing an A in its place hoping his parents won't notice.

The fact is that one post to Carlos explains more about SSID privacy than
you will _ever_ know in your entire sordid despicable life, nospam.

Your only goal is to defend all Apple's flaws to the death, nospam.
Like you did defending Apple's lack of MAC randomization privacy.

--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information

which, in this case, is to make sure nospam realizes that he's dead wrong.

[Ken Blake]

On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 19:52:43 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:

>On 2023-03-07 13:01, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> nospam wrote:
>>
>>>> My home also has the SSID hidden, nospam, for privacy reasons.
>>>
>>> it's trivial to determine what a hidden ssid is.
>>
>> Jesus Christ nospam.

The answer to the question "What is nospam's full name?"

[nospam]

In article <tu8a4f$4vum$1...@paganini.bofh.team>, Andy Burnelli

<nos...@nospam.net> wrote:

> > all that does is flag it to not be publicly indexed, and only for
> > google. other aggregators ignore it entirely.
>
> Please see my patient and rather detailed for Carlos, nospam.
> *Internal logs of Andorid (or ios? phones)*

you don't have 'internal logs' of what google does with any information
it collects, or anyone else for that matter.

google definitely collects it. however, it's not publicly indexed.

it also doesn't matter since microsoft, apple, skyhook and other
geolocation databases also collect it, and unlike google, *will*
publicly index it.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

>>> all that does is flag it to not be publicly indexed, and only for
>>> google. other aggregators ignore it entirely.
>>
>> Please see my patient and rather detailed for Carlos, nospam.
>> *Internal logs of Andorid (or ios? phones)*
>
> you don't have 'internal logs' of what google does with any information
> it collects, or anyone else for that matter.
>
> google definitely collects it. however, it's not publicly indexed.
>
> it also doesn't matter since microsoft, apple, skyhook and other
> geolocation databases also collect it, and unlike google, *will*
> publicly index it.

First, you show you have no clue what an SSID even is, nospam.
And now you're telling all of us what you "think" you know.

*Sans a single cite*

However...
Since I'm extremely well educated and rather intelligent, nospam, I will
simply ask you to back up your claims with credible factual cites.

*That's all I ask of you iKooks*

I promise...
If you can back up your claims with cites, I'll read & understand them.

Deal?

[micky]

In comp.mobile.android, on Tue, 7 Mar 2023 09:12:19 +0100, "Carlos E.R."

I'm pretty sure you're right, but I think about 2 years ago there was a
guy, on this ng and maybe others, who outright lied about me, several
times, on the newsgroup, and shortly afterwards, my news server stopped
working. Just a coincidence? Only the Shadow knows.

I tried to enroll again, or I did enroll again, more than once, but it
never worked. Maybe they know user's IP address and if you continue to
use it they continue to keep you off?

So I changed news servers and almost** everything has been fine. **I
could read but not post to a moderated group, but after a year or two
that started working too.


BTW, you may have heard the crackpot notion that Italian satellites were
used to change the USA presidential vote in 2020, and that story had
something to do with Germany. I think Venezuela was part of another
alleged scheme to miscount the vote. But today, I don't remember the
specific people involved so I can't find a link about it, but so you
won't feel left out, Spain was included in another version of how the
vote was, they say, miscounted in favor of Joe Biden. Stay tuned.

[Carlos E.R.]

His claim is that indexers (some? all?) do not collect wifis with hidden
SSIDs. And that is his privacy reason for setting ssid to hide.

I have no idea if this is true or not. It may be.


Now, someone may verify this be creating an AP with hidden SSID, close
to another with normal SSID, and wait (years?) to see which appear on
public access wifi databases.

Someone is willing? :-)

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Carlos E.R.]

Well, they don't bother to remove known spammers. We have to use our own
filters, instead of running them on the servers.

>
>
> BTW, you may have heard the crackpot notion that Italian satellites were
> used to change the USA presidential vote in 2020, and that story had
> something to do with Germany. I think Venezuela was part of another
> alleged scheme to miscount the vote. But today, I don't remember the
> specific people involved so I can't find a link about it, but so you
> won't feel left out, Spain was included in another version of how the
> vote was, they say, miscounted in favor of Joe Biden. Stay tuned.

LOL, some people will believe anything :-D

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[nospam]

In article <687mdjx...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.

<robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:

> >>> all that does is flag it to not be publicly indexed, and only for
> >>> google. other aggregators ignore it entirely.
> >>
> >> Please see my patient and rather detailed for Carlos, nospam.
> >> *Internal logs of Andorid (or ios? phones)*
> >
> > you don't have 'internal logs' of what google does with any information
> > it collects, or anyone else for that matter.
> >
> > google definitely collects it. however, it's not publicly indexed.
> >
> > it also doesn't matter since microsoft, apple, skyhook and other
> > geolocation databases also collect it, and unlike google, *will*
> > publicly index it.
>
> His claim is that indexers (some? all?) do not collect wifis with hidden
> SSIDs. And that is his privacy reason for setting ssid to hide.

the geolocation database correlates bssid and location data, along with
other stuff such as signal strength.

the ssid is unimportant because it's not unique and can change at any
time. being hidden makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.

he also claims that adding _nomap will prevent collection. it does not.
all that does is stop it from being publicly indexed, and only by
google, not by others. it also requires the ssid to not be hidden, so
that _nomap can be 'seen'.

> I have no idea if this is true or not. It may be.

it's very much not true.

> Now, someone may verify this be creating an AP with hidden SSID, close
> to another with normal SSID, and wait (years?) to see which appear on
> public access wifi databases.

that was done 15 years ago when wifi geolocation first began, and
doesn't take years to verify either.

the geolocation database is typically updated within a day or two at
the most, many times less than that if it's in a busy area with a lot
of people.

[Andy Burnelli]

Hi Carlos,

My belief system, unlike nospam's, is based completely on facts.
In fact, I'll change my mind on a dime, if given reliable facts.
*That's what normal well educated intelligent people do*

While nospam is trying to lower the conversation to the kindergarten level,
I'm not even going refute all the fabricated strawmen nospam created above.

At first I said "Jesus Christ" because I was truly shocked how ignorant
nospam was, but as he fabricates strawmen above, I realize he's stupid too.
*It's clear nospam has no comprehension of how the SSID works*

Notwithstanding nospam's ignorance, I hope _you_ can comprehend facts.

Keeping in mind I've scoured the Internet so I'm aware of more than one URL
which is what I base my belief systems on, I value your time greatly.

Hence, here's only _one_ URL from one of the most respected wardrivers.
*Hidden networks and android*
<https://wigle.net/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=1655>

Please take a look at that one URL and allow me to ask you _one_ question.

Q: *Do multiple admins say that hiding the SSID prevents Wigle seeing it?*
a. Yes

b. No
You must pick one.

Helpful but very casual definitions of keywords used are placed in the sig.
--
Note: WiGle will see _your_ own hidden network if you're _connected_ to it!
Beacon === the SSID is hidden or not
Promiscuiously === all traffic (whether hidden or not)
Probe === similar to promiscuious (gets everything hidden or not)
Android system framework == what Android feeds to the applications

[nospam]

In article <tuadji$gfac$1...@paganini.bofh.team>, Andy Burnelli

<nos...@nospam.net> wrote:

> Q: *Do multiple admins say that hiding the SSID prevents Wigle seeing it?*
> a. Yes
> b. No
> You must pick one.

moving the goalposts as always.


In article <tu8395$496b$1...@paganini.bofh.team>, Andy Burnelli

<nos...@nospam.net> wrote:
> *Do you think appending "_nomap" to your SSID stops it from being*
> *uploaded by most phones to Google mothership tracking servers?*
>

> a. Yes?

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-03-08 06:13, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2023-03-07 22:40, nospam wrote:
>> In article <tu8a4f$4vum$1...@paganini.bofh.team>, Andy Burnelli
>> <nos...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> all that does is flag it to not be publicly indexed, and only for
>>>> google. other aggregators ignore it entirely.
>>>
>>> Please see my patient and rather detailed for Carlos, nospam.
>>>   *Internal logs of Andorid (or ios? phones)*
>>
>> you don't have 'internal logs' of what google does with any information
>> it collects, or anyone else for that matter.
>>
>> google definitely collects it. however, it's not publicly indexed.
>>
>> it also doesn't matter since microsoft, apple, skyhook and other
>> geolocation databases also collect it, and unlike google, *will*
>> publicly index it.
>
> His claim is that indexers (some? all?) do not collect wifis with hidden
> SSIDs. And that is his privacy reason for setting ssid to hide.
>
> I have no idea if this is true or not. It may be.

Nobody knows what really happens when hidden SSID's are discovered in
the sense of data collection. Only that discovering them is somewhat
trivial - so they are likely saved in many databases.

> Now, someone may verify this be creating an AP with hidden SSID, close
> to another with normal SSID, and wait (years?) to see which appear on
> public access wifi databases.

I have several SSID's that are not hidden that I cannot find on various
publicly available lists. I do change the business SSID's about every
year and my home SSID's every couple/few years.

I also change my WiFi/routers every 3 - 5 years depending on the state
of support from the vendor (and to get higher performance).

10+ years ago I used hidden SSID's until I realized it's not useful.
Also maintained a bait SSID with the co. name for a bit. (An unused and
unconnected router - but got rid of that too after a while).

--
“Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present
danger to American democracy.”
- J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16
- Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
committee

[Michael]

On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 12:13:42 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> Now, someone may verify this be creating an AP with hidden SSID, close
> to another with normal SSID, and wait (years?) to see which appear on
> public access wifi databases.

Google makes it very hard to keep your location out of its databases.
https://www.businessinsider.com/unredacted-google-lawsuit-docs-detail-efforts-to-collect-user-location-2021-5

You can't turn the beacon off but you can remove the ssid from it.
https://lwn.net/Articles/468914/

If the beacon ssid ends with _nomap, google servers remove it.
https://www.computerworld.com/article/2471686/here-s-how-to-opt-out-of-google-s-wi-fi-snooping.html

Google "encourages" others like apple & microsoft to respect _nomap.
https://support.google.com/maps/answer/1725632?hl=en

If the beacon ssid does not end with nomap, it appears within days.
https://www.cnet.com/news/privacy/removing-your-wi-fi-network-from-googles-map/

This says microsoft does it too, in addition to apple & google.
https://www.howtogeek.com/788837/your-wi-fi-info-is-in-google-and-microsofts-databases-should-you-care/
When you use "location services," your devices are regularly sending lists
of nearby networks to the platform holder: Google, Microsoft, or Apple.

These say the entire industry does it the same way.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/how-google-and-everyone-else-gets-wi-fi-location-data/
"it's not just Google. Apple and Microsoft do the same thing with their
smartphones and tablets." "this isn't just how Google does it; it's how
everyone does it"

This personal opinion says that he doesn't think apple respects it.
https://lonesysadmin.net/2011/11/16/dear-google-im-not-changing-my-ssid/
"your hope that this is "adopted universally" is absurd. None of your
competitors are going to honor this. For example, Apple is using iOS 5 on
millions of handsets to build a "crowdsourced" database of access points
for their location database. Are they going care about _nomap? No."

Removing the beacon ssid does not add to your wi-fi security.
https://www.howtogeek.com/28653/debunking-myths-is-hiding-your-wireless-ssid-really-more-secure/

When the beacon ssid is removed, promiscuous probes can still see it.
https://www.acrylicwifi.com/en/blog/hidden-ssid-wifi-how-to-know-name-of-network-without-ssid/

But the android reporting framework doesn't report promiscuous probes.
https://lwn.net/Articles/468914/

Without the beacon ssid there is nothing to report to google servers.
https://developer.android.com/guide/topics/connectivity/wifi-scan

But if you remove the beacon ssid you need to do a few more things.
https://support.apple.com/en-au/HT202068
--
[I filter out Google Groups posts so if I don't reply, that may be why.]

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

>> Q: *Do multiple admins say that hiding the SSID prevents Wigle seeing it?*
>> a. Yes
>> b. No
>> You must pick one.
>
> moving the goalposts as always.

Hi nospam,

Please allow Carlos (who had tried to help) to answer the question.
Everyone knows you have absolutely zero knowledge nor intent to help.

BTW, let's assume I'm intelligent (for the moment).... :)
And, let's assume I'm knowledgeable on this topic (for the moment... :)
Because I care.

*Which means I've read _everything_ I can find on it.*
*You have not!*

That alone, already shows _why_ you are as ignorant as you clearly are.
*You are completely ignorant of what the SSID does wrt privacy*
*I'm not*

Having said that, the fact is that _most_ people are as ignorant as you.

To that point you can assume I'm extremely well aware almost everyone who
posts "security advice" for routers is _ignorant_ of what hiding the SSID
does for _privacy_ (which means they are just as ignorant as you are).

I know more than they do, nospam (hard as that is for you to believe).

Notice the clear point here that I'm intelligent so I can come up with
solutions that almost all others on the net can't even think of, nospam.

Clearly, you can't compete with me as you don't even own a normal IQ.
Let alone a high one. But I'm not competing with you.

I'm just telling you that you do NOT understand a thing about the SSID.
That's not saying I know everything about the SSID - just more than most.

I've scoured the net on my proposal and it is backed up by the facts.

Rest assured, I'll believe any _credible_ cite that shows that they
_understand_ the difference in _privacy_ from public servers of _hiding_
the SSID (but rest assured, most of the articles do not know this).

Here are the _credible_ facts, nospam (which I know you can't understand).
1. Your location is more than the SSID but for convenience, we'll refer to
your location in Google public servers _as_ the SSID alone (for now).

2. Android phones rudely set up are uploading your SSID if they get it.

3. Even ruder Android phones can get your SSID if they probe for it.

4. But all evidence (so far) shows the Android Location API doesn't.

Most people (you included, nospam) don't own the basic adult cognitive
skills to comprehend the implications of those four statements, nospam.

But I do.

However, since I'm a well educated scientist and engineer, I'm aware of
technical details which I will state when I don't know what they are.

I'm going to state the two fundamental sides of the open questions.
But I'm not playing kindergarten games with you nospam.

That means EVERY response from you fabricating denials requires a cite.

FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION #1:
Q: Does a rude Android/Apple phone upload your SSID when it's hidden?
A: So far, it seems the API used by the rude Android phone does not.
But we don't know about rude Apple phones yet. (See previous cites.)

This is the DEEPER question (which you've never even _thought_ of, nospam).
And yet, I have (because I'm intelligent and I know a lot about the SSID).

Assuming you do NOT use the _nomap on the SSID but it's still hidden...
Q: If a rude Android/Apple phone does upload your beacon without the SSID,
what does Google/Apple/Microsoft/Mozilla/etc. servers do with it?

Notice most people haven't even thought of these issues, least of all you.
And I already know you'll "answer" them without a single cite, which is BS.

In summary, I'm sure (based on research) that hiding the SSID is a clear
tell to (most of) the location gathering public databases, to have their
_devices_ (i.e., rude iPhones, rude Androids, rude laptops, etc.)
NOT (and I repeat the NOT!) upload _any_ information to their databases.

Notice that doesn't even require the _nomap, but adding the _nomap makes it
doubly clear to well-behaved public databases that you want your privacy.

Bear in mind Google has been sued (ala Marcus Milner's actions) so while
I'm not a lawyer, I suspect uploading HIDDEN networks would be a decent
argument to a prosecuting lawyer that Google/Apple/Microsoft went too far.

But if you know of (and can cite!) legal cases where a HIDDEN network is
_allowed_ in a public database (which it has to be uploaded to first), then
please cite those cites.
--
I'm well educated and nospam is not so I must make it clear to uneducated
people like nospam that their unsubstantiated guesses have no place here.

I'm extremely well aware that most people are stupid like nospam is.
But I'm trying to teach Carlos the facts - so that _he_ can benefit.

[Andy Burnelli]

Alan Browne wrote:

> 10+ years ago I used hidden SSID's until I realized it's not useful.

For those who aren't aware of the genesis of Alan Browne's statement that
he used to hide his SSID's (for _security_ purposes), but no longer does...

You can find a million web articles saying the same thing...
a. People long ago thought hiding the SSID was useful for _security_...
b. But what happened in the interim was better tools for discovery came out
c. Such that it's no longer advised to hide the SSID for _security_.

Worse, given most people are stupid so they don't even know what happens
next, if you do hide your SSID, instantly you have to do more stuff for
privacy (I'm not even going to get into that as most people are stupid).

However...

The reason for hiding the SSID still remains valid for _privacy_.
Specifically, privacy from Apple/Google/Microsoft/Wigle/etc. public
databases (all of whom are dependent on the tools uploading the data).

I must repeat the salient observation that most people are stupid because I
will then say that even those stupid people (like nospam) now about _nomap.

But a problem with _nomap is your data is _still uploaded_ to the servers!
The goal here, is to prevent the _upload_ in the first place.

All evidence so far (see previous cites) shows the Android "Google Mobile
Services" (aka gms for short) does NOT (and I repeat, NOT!) report the
broadcasts if the SSID is hidden.

*This is _different_ behavior from promiscuous modes.*

If this is correct (where I'll read and understand any cite you provide if
you claim it's not correct), then it's a good first step for _privacy_ to
hide your SSID in the broadcast because that prevents the primary upload.

In summary, if you have a reliable cite that knows about _both_ the
security and privacy implications of hiding your SSID, I'll read it.

Otherwise, you're just as ignorant about the topic as nospam is.
--
Which is fine (most people are ignorant); but it means you can't help
anyone, let alone your own 'customers' (you and Alan Baker always claim to
have 'customers' whom, if you do, I feel sorry for, as you're an idiot).

[mike]

If these people you're trying to convince are as stupid as you say they
are, then you're never going to convince them with any number of facts.

You prolly need to find another forum.
One with people who are smarter than you.

[Carlos E.R.]

I don't know if they are admins. Ah, you mean people that register as
admin to that forum site. There are two.

They say that the wigle tool does not record hidden ssids, except the
one of the phone where it is running, because the Android API doesn't
list them, I assume unless probing for them.

>
> Helpful but very casual definitions of keywords used are placed in the sig.

--

Cheers, Carlos.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2023-03-08 14:13, nospam wrote:
> In article <687mdjx...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
> <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>> all that does is flag it to not be publicly indexed, and only for
>>>>> google. other aggregators ignore it entirely.
>>>>
>>>> Please see my patient and rather detailed for Carlos, nospam.
>>>> *Internal logs of Andorid (or ios? phones)*
>>>
>>> you don't have 'internal logs' of what google does with any information
>>> it collects, or anyone else for that matter.
>>>
>>> google definitely collects it. however, it's not publicly indexed.
>>>
>>> it also doesn't matter since microsoft, apple, skyhook and other
>>> geolocation databases also collect it, and unlike google, *will*
>>> publicly index it.
>>
>> His claim is that indexers (some? all?) do not collect wifis with hidden
>> SSIDs. And that is his privacy reason for setting ssid to hide.
>
> the geolocation database correlates bssid and location data, along with
> other stuff such as signal strength.
>
> the ssid is unimportant because it's not unique and can change at any
> time. being hidden makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.

Ok, but it seems that if the SSID is hidden, the Android AP doesn't
register it at all, so neither will it register the BSSID.

>
> he also claims that adding _nomap will prevent collection. it does not.
> all that does is stop it from being publicly indexed, and only by
> google, not by others. it also requires the ssid to not be hidden, so
> that _nomap can be 'seen'.
>
>> I have no idea if this is true or not. It may be.
>
> it's very much not true.
>
>> Now, someone may verify this be creating an AP with hidden SSID, close
>> to another with normal SSID, and wait (years?) to see which appear on
>> public access wifi databases.
>
> that was done 15 years ago when wifi geolocation first began, and
> doesn't take years to verify either.

The google car takes years to pass again.

>
> the geolocation database is typically updated within a day or two at
> the most, many times less than that if it's in a busy area with a lot
> of people.

Ok, tell me how can I read the database that lists my own access point,
then I will add a guest AP with hidden SSID and I can search for it a
week later.

Unless the BSSID is the same as for the main SSID which is not hidden,
in the same hardware AP. In that case, I need to add a new or unused AP
to my house, near the street.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Carlos E.R.]

And start writing less and more concisely, and politely.

When I see pages of text mixed with how stupid or childish is someone, I
move on.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Andy Burnelli]

Carlos E.R. wrote:

> I don't know if they are admins. Ah, you mean people that register as
> admin to that forum site. There are two.

Hi Carlos,

Thank you for answering, which means a lot to me, as what I'm trying to do
most people have never tried (one in a million perhaps) so there's not a
lot about it specifically on the Internet.

The reason that they are WiGle admins mattered is only because anyone can
say anything (witness the garbage from nospam, for example), but for an
admin to say it, and, for multiple admins to say it, and for nobody else to
contradict them, tells us (most likely) that it's the correct answer.

I only picked WiGle but I could have found similar answers elsewhere.
Yet I have NEVER found a credible cite which DENIED that hidden SSIDs were
omitted from the collection process. *That's important*.
*It's important because nospam denied that hidden SSIDs were omitted.*

But nospam just makes this stuff up.
I don't.
*I base my belief systems upon credible cites*.

> They say that the wigle tool does not record hidden ssids, except the
> one of the phone where it is running, because the Android API doesn't
> list them, I assume unless probing for them.

Thank you for understanding what the reliable cite said. Much appreciated.
(If only nospam could understand it, he might be able to help people out.)

>> Helpful but very casual definitions of keywords used are placed in the sig.

I should be clear, as I read the post from Michael and all his cites, that
the hidden SSID is actually zeroed out in the broadcast. I didn't know that
but it doesn't change anything in the concept of hiding the SSID for
privacy from being *UPLOADED* to the mothership servers by rude devices.

Rude devices include iOS, Android, macOS, Windows, Linux, etc.
Public servers include Google's, Apple's, Microsoft's, WiGle's, etc.

In summary, it's my belief (but I need more reliable cites to confirm),
that simply setting up your SSID to be hidden (i.e., zeroed out) in the
broadcast packets will _prevent uploading_ by rude devices to well-behaved
public databases (which we can presume Apple, Google & Microsoft are).

However, if anyone can provide a cite that either agrees or disagrees with
that, then please provide it as I can change my assessment on a dime if
reliable data is forthcoming.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2023-03-08 18:27, Michael wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 12:13:42 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>> Now, someone may verify this be creating an AP with hidden SSID, close
>> to another with normal SSID, and wait (years?) to see which appear on
>> public access wifi databases.
>
> Google makes it very hard to keep your location out of its databases.
> https://www.businessinsider.com/unredacted-google-lawsuit-docs-detail-efforts-to-collect-user-location-2021-5
>
> You can't turn the beacon off but you can remove the ssid from it.
> https://lwn.net/Articles/468914/
>
> If the beacon ssid ends with _nomap, google servers remove it.
> https://www.computerworld.com/article/2471686/here-s-how-to-opt-out-of-google-s-wi-fi-snooping.html
>
> Google "encourages" others like apple & microsoft to respect _nomap.
> https://support.google.com/maps/answer/1725632?hl=en
>
> If the beacon ssid does not end with nomap, it appears within days.
> https://www.cnet.com/news/privacy/removing-your-wi-fi-network-from-googles-map/

Where, exactly, is that list? I can not find a link there.

I want to find out if mine is there.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Andy Burnelli]

Carlos E.R. wrote:

> And start writing less and more concisely, and politely.
>
> When I see pages of text mixed with how stupid or childish is someone, I
> move on.

Hi Carlos,
Thanks for the kind advice which I can tell is purposefully helpful.
You'll note I react differently to purposefully non-helpful posters.

However, to your advice, I'll try to be more succinct.
If I do better, let me know.

If Michael knows of a forum with smarter people, please let me know.
I _already_ have a long-standing XDA-Developers thread on this though.

Nobody on XDA disputed it.
But nobody on XDA proved it either.

[Andy Burnelli]

Carlos E.R. wrote:

>> the geolocation database correlates bssid and location data, along with
>> other stuff such as signal strength.
>>
>> the ssid is unimportant because it's not unique and can change at any
>> time. being hidden makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.
>
> Ok, but it seems that if the SSID is hidden, the Android AP doesn't
> register it at all, so neither will it register the BSSID.

What's clear is Carlos understands the setup & action; nospam does not.
The issue is the AP location (unique) & the related BSSID (mostly unique).

Carlos understood what nospam did not understand, which is we are only
talking about the SSID because the mere action of _hiding_ that SSID
(reputedly) prevents the collection of the rest of the location stuff.

What Carlos understood but nospam can't is it has nothing per se to do with
hiding the SSID other than that mere act prevents the location collection!

And that's the whole point because it solves _two_ problems at once.
a. Well behaved mothership databases won't even get the data;
b. But also not-so-well-behaved mothership databases won't get it either.

That's how being smart helps people gain privacy.

>> that was done 15 years ago when wifi geolocation first began, and
>> doesn't take years to verify either.
>
> The google car takes years to pass again.

Google was sued and that's when they implemented the _nomap process.
However, that doesn't help with the not-so-well-behaved motherships.

Which is why being smart helps keep the AP location out of their hands.
One out of a million people is that smart though...

>> the geolocation database is typically updated within a day or two at
>> the most, many times less than that if it's in a busy area with a lot
>> of people.
>
> Ok, tell me how can I read the database that lists my own access point,
> then I will add a guest AP with hidden SSID and I can search for it a
> week later.

I'm not sure what answer nospam will give you but we covered in detail on
this very newsgroup the Google public API to query the database.

The problem with you or me doing it is that Google has to give you a key,
which they will provide for free, but we have to ask for it first.

Once we have the key, Google implemented two more "security" issues which
is that you can't get just one AP location if you only have one in hand.

You need two.

> Unless the BSSID is the same as for the main SSID which is not hidden,
> in the same hardware AP. In that case, I need to add a new or unused AP
> to my house, near the street.

While it's "possible" to have two distinct NICs with the same BSSID, it's
unlikely and, for the purposes of this thread, we'll consider that moot.

In summary, nospam doesn't understand any of this so he is concentrating on
the (meaningless) SSID where the whole point is to be intelligent about it.

It's my educated assessment (but I would love to prove or disprove this),
that the mere action of hiding the SSID tells well-behaved Android devices
to not collect the rest of the location information and that's the point.

If they don't collect it, they can't upload it to the mothership servers.
I'll betcha' only one in a million people know this...

[Alan Browne]

Here is a publicly gathered list. Will not have Google or other
"corporate" data in it.

I believe you need to create an account in order to search by SSID.

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-03-08 15:15, Carlos E.R. wrote:

er ... here: https://wigle.net/

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2023-03-08 21:47, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2023-03-08 15:15, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2023-03-08 18:27, Michael wrote:
>>> On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 12:13:42 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>
>>>> Now, someone may verify this be creating an AP with hidden SSID, close
>>>> to another with normal SSID, and wait (years?) to see which appear on
>>>> public access wifi databases.
>>>
>>> Google makes it very hard to keep your location out of its databases.
>>> https://www.businessinsider.com/unredacted-google-lawsuit-docs-detail-efforts-to-collect-user-location-2021-5
>>>
>>> You can't turn the beacon off but you can remove the ssid from it.
>>> https://lwn.net/Articles/468914/
>>>
>>> If the beacon ssid ends with _nomap, google servers remove it.
>>> https://www.computerworld.com/article/2471686/here-s-how-to-opt-out-of-google-s-wi-fi-snooping.html
>>>
>>> Google "encourages" others like apple & microsoft to respect _nomap.
>>> https://support.google.com/maps/answer/1725632?hl=en
>>>
>>> If the beacon ssid does not end with nomap, it appears within days.
>>> https://www.cnet.com/news/privacy/removing-your-wi-fi-network-from-googles-map/
>>
>> Where, exactly, is that list? I can not find a link there.
>>
>> I want to find out if mine is there.
>
>
> er ... here: https://wigle.net/
>

Ok, nice. It requires login to show data about points. Not sure if I
want to do that.


Amazing the precision of the map itself. From the national geographic
institute (of Spain), it is the first time I see it used in a site.


--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-03-08 16:00, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2023-03-08 21:47, Alan Browne wrote:

>>
>> er ... here: https://wigle.net/
>>
>
> Ok, nice. It requires login to show data about points. Not sure if I
> want to do that.

Burner.

> Amazing the precision of the map itself. From the national geographic
> institute (of Spain), it is the first time I see it used in a site.

The location is where the "driveby" roamer recorded the hit. Not the
precise location of the WiFi.

Why most are in the street.

One could theoretically hone this down somewhat (hits on street behind,
hit on perpendicular street, signal level weighting) - not sure if they
do any of that - most likely not.

[Andy Burnelli]

Alan Browne wrote:

> I believe you need to create an account in order to search by SSID.

Hi Carlos,

I'll try to be succinct...

The Google database requires an account and two nearby SSIDs to query the
data, the second one being required as a minor hurdle to prevent abuse.

However, if you're intelligent about it, you can query on Android.
But not on iOS.

Probably only 1 out of thousands of people would know how to do it.
I know how.

If Carlos wants to do it, I'll tell him how, but he has to be on Android.

Carlos... do you want to try it?
a. It's free
b. It's easy
c. But it only works on Android (not on iOS).
--
Steve can explain why as it's listed in his iOS/Android comparison doc.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2023-03-08, Carlos E.R. <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2023-03-08 21:47, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2023-03-08 15:15, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>
>>> Where, exactly, is that list? I can not find a link there.
>>>
>>> I want to find out if mine is there.
>>
>> er ... here: https://wigle.net/
>>
>
> Ok, nice. It requires login to show data about points. Not sure if I
> want to do that.

I don't see much harm in creating one using bogus details.

--
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

[Andy Burnelli]

Jolly Roger wrote:

>> Ok, nice. It requires login to show data about points. Not sure if I
>> want to do that.
>
> I don't see much harm in creating one using bogus details.

Hi Carlos,
I'll try to be succinct...

If you want to create quick and easy bogus details, here's an approach that
I use (which probably only 1 in 10 would think about using to obtain them).

First thing I do is test the forum site to see if they actually care about
the email address (most do, probably 9 out of 10, but some don't test it).

If the forum actually cares, then there are many bogus email accounts, but
to be succinct, most of them won't work (e.g., mailinator & the like).

So what works 9 out of 10 times, but to be succinct, is to go in with a
proxy and create a proxy email account that you'll only use once. (Or, do
what I do, which is use that proxy email account only for web forums.)

Works every time.

[nospam]

In article <di5ndjx...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.

<robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:


> >> His claim is that indexers (some? all?) do not collect wifis with hidden
> >> SSIDs. And that is his privacy reason for setting ssid to hide.
> >
> > the geolocation database correlates bssid and location data, along with
> > other stuff such as signal strength.
> >
> > the ssid is unimportant because it's not unique and can change at any
> > time. being hidden makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.
>
> Ok, but it seems that if the SSID is hidden, the Android AP doesn't
> register it at all, so neither will it register the BSSID.

it will see the bssid. the ssid does not matter.

> >> Now, someone may verify this be creating an AP with hidden SSID, close
> >> to another with normal SSID, and wait (years?) to see which appear on
> >> public access wifi databases.
> >
> > that was done 15 years ago when wifi geolocation first began, and
> > doesn't take years to verify either.
>
> The google car takes years to pass again.

that's for street view, a totally different product.

the geolocation database is crowdsourced by *everyone* with a
smartphone or tablet who comes within range of wifi access points. in
an urban area, that's a *lot* of people.

note that there is no need for any of those people to associate with a
wifi network. if it's within range, the wifi access point will be seen
and its info with the user's location will be sent.

the more people who pass by, the sooner it will be in the system and
the more accurate its location will be, which can be *very* accurate.

the original skyhook wireless database (15+ years ago) began when there
weren't that many smartphones, so they *also* used people driving
around with a wifi scanner that they provided. preference was given to
those taking a variety of longer trips, versus commuting the same route
every day. there was a signup page on their website.

> > the geolocation database is typically updated within a day or two at
> > the most, many times less than that if it's in a busy area with a lot
> > of people.
>
> Ok, tell me how can I read the database that lists my own access point,
> then I will add a guest AP with hidden SSID and I can search for it a
> week later.

you will need to have a new access point that's not (yet) in the
database, or its data is stale (i.e., was previously used in another
location). an old 802.11g/n that's been collecting dust should work
fine.

you also will need to conduct the test in an area where there aren't
any other wifi access points so that you know *only* yours is being
used for the test. this is *very* important.

however, there will need to be people passing by so that they can 'see'
it and the database can be updated.

use a weather app or similar that only checks for approximate location
(.e., does not try to use the gps). be sure cellular, bluetooth and gps
are disabled. there is no need to associate with the wifi network. it
just has to be within range.

if your location can be determined, then your wifi access point is in
the database because it's the only method that's active. all other
location methods have been disabled.

bonus points for testing this with both android and ios devices (two
separate databases).

for extra credit, relocate the access point to a new location and test
it again.

if you check your location immediately, you should get the old location
because the database hasn't been updated yet.

wait a couple of days for the database to update and check again. it
should show the new location.

[nospam]

In article <tub0lk$ieke$1...@paganini.bofh.team>, Andy Burnelli
<nos...@nospam.net> wrote:

> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
> ...

> Hi Carlos,
> I'll try to be succinct...

how about you try to fix your worthless buggy scripts, which can't even
get the attributions correct.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

>> Ok, but it seems that if the SSID is hidden, the Android AP doesn't
>> register it at all, so neither will it register the BSSID.
>
> it will see the bssid. the ssid does not matter.

Unfortunately nospam doesn't get it that nobody cares about the SSID.
It's the mere _action_ of hiding the SSID that makes this work.

The switch could have been any toggle for all that the SSID matters:
Google Database = on/off

> the geolocation database is crowdsourced by *everyone* with a
> smartphone or tablet who comes within range of wifi access points. in
> an urban area, that's a *lot* of people.

Let's qualify that nospam is talking about stupid people when he uses the
word *everyone* because some people have their phone set up for privacy.

It's likely 1 out of thousands though that know how to do that.
Particularly for the iPhone where it's likely ten times worse.

Stupid people abound.

> note that there is no need for any of those people to associate with a
> wifi network. if it's within range, the wifi access point will be seen
> and its info with the user's location will be sent.

At least nospam understands that it's the many rude phone owners who are
uploading your location to the public databases without your permission.

> the more people who pass by, the sooner it will be in the system and
> the more accurate its location will be, which can be *very* accurate.

It's easy to check if for sure if you're in the system on Android for free.
How would you check if you're in the system on iOS for free, nospam?

> the original skyhook wireless database (15+ years ago) began when there
> weren't that many smartphones, so they *also* used people driving
> around with a wifi scanner that they provided. preference was given to
> those taking a variety of longer trips, versus commuting the same route
> every day. there was a signup page on their website.

WiGle does that now, I think.

> you will need to have a new access point that's not (yet) in the
> database, or its data is stale (i.e., was previously used in another
> location). an old 802.11g/n that's been collecting dust should work
> fine.

I believe that's bad advice as it's much easier to do what Carlos asked.

> you also will need to conduct the test in an area where there aren't
> any other wifi access points so that you know *only* yours is being
> used for the test. this is *very* important.

That would work for me as I'm in the boonies. Not feasible for some people.

> however, there will need to be people passing by so that they can 'see'
> it and the database can be updated.

Takes a day or few for a Google public location database to be updated.
But there are many of these location databases so each one may differ.

> use a weather app or similar that only checks for approximate location
> (.e., does not try to use the gps). be sure cellular, bluetooth and gps
> are disabled. there is no need to associate with the wifi network. it
> just has to be within range.

Agree that "an app" that consults the public database would be needed.

> if your location can be determined, then your wifi access point is in
> the database because it's the only method that's active. all other
> location methods have been disabled.

There's an easier way to be sure of this, nospam.
But you haven't thought of it.

Most people wouldn't.
You need to be smart.

But it only works on Android.

> bonus points for testing this with both android and ios devices (two
> separate databases).

See above. There's a better way but only for Android, and, get this... it's
actually listed tangentially in Steve's iOS:Android document as something
that is impossible to do on iOS and yet which is trivially easy on Android.

> for extra credit, relocate the access point to a new location and test
> it again.

All that work just because nospam can't figure out an easier method.
But that easier method only works on Android. It won't work on iOS.

> if you check your location immediately, you should get the old location
> because the database hasn't been updated yet.

Unfortunately, the clusterfuck of moving the AP is only needed for iOS.

> wait a couple of days for the database to update and check again. it
> should show the new location.

As far as I know, Carlos is on Android so it's muuuuch easier than that.

[nospam]

In article <tub2io$ikop$1...@paganini.bofh.team>, Andy Burnelli

<nos...@nospam.net> wrote:

>
> Unfortunately nospam doesn't get it that nobody cares about the SSID.

then there's no need to hide the ssid, by your own admission.


> Stupid people abound.

yes, i can see that.

> Takes a day or few for a Google public location database to be updated.
> But there are many of these location databases so each one may differ.

the two main ones are apple and google.

with the demise of windows phone, microsoft's database is not
particularly important, if it even exists anymore.

there are others, for different purposes.

>
> Agree that "an app" that consults the public database would be needed.

that's not how it works.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

>> Takes a day or few for a Google public location database to be updated.
>> But there are many of these location databases so each one may differ.
>
> the two main ones are apple and google.

How do you query the Apple database without using Apple Maps, nospam?

>> Agree that "an app" that consults the public database would be needed.
>
> that's not how it works.

Funny, you just said that it worked that way and now you say it doesn't.

"use a weather app or similar that only checks for approximate location
(.e., does not try to use the gps). be sure cellular, bluetooth and gps
are disabled. there is no need to associate with the wifi network. it
just has to be within range."

How is "a weather app" suddenly _not_ "an app" nospam?

[nospam]

In article <tub5u9$ivql$1...@paganini.bofh.team>, Andy Burnelli

<nos...@nospam.net> wrote:

>
> >> Agree that "an app" that consults the public database would be needed.
> >
> > that's not how it works.
>
> Funny, you just said that it worked that way and now you say it doesn't.

i didn't say any such thing.

[Alan]

On 2023-03-08 10:27, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> 10+ years ago I used hidden SSID's until I realized it's not useful.
>
> For those who aren't aware of the genesis of Alan Browne's statement that
> he used to hide his SSID's (for _security_ purposes), but no longer does...
> You can find a million web articles saying the same thing... a. People
> long ago thought hiding the SSID was useful for _security_...
> b. But what happened in the interim was better tools for discovery came out
> c. Such that it's no longer advised to hide the SSID for _security_.
>
> Worse, given most people are stupid so they don't even know what happens
> next, if you do hide your SSID, instantly you have to do more stuff for
> privacy (I'm not even going to get into that as most people are stupid).

You're just an asshole.