Google has detected unusual traffic

[williamwright]

This was on an iPhone. So I'm presented with a capcha thing then one of
those things where you have to say which picture has a bridge or a car
or whatever, then another, then another, then another. And I was doing
it carefully. It seemed to be going on forever so I gave up. The next
time I tried, the internet access was just as normal.
1. Was this some sort of scam?
2. If it happens again is there a different way to access the internet
on an iPhone?

Bill

[charles]

In article <ieau36...@mid.individual.net>,

I've had this on my desktop computer

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

[Robin]

If it was an iPhone using its SIM rather than a local network then
Google sees an IP address which may have been misused by other people.
Same when you use a public VPN. If the misuse triggers Google's security
against robots then they stick in the captcha.


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

[Andy Burns]

williamwright wrote:

> 1. Was this some sort of scam?

No sometimes google is on a hair-trigger for unusual traffic, notmuch
you can do about it.

if it's on mobile data, could be that the previous user of the same IP
address you're now using did something suspicious ...

[SH]

What I did was to:

Apply for and obtain a static WAN IP for my FTTH broadband

Built a Wireguard server and a pi hole on a raspberry pi

Set up port forwarding from my static WAN IP to the LAN IP of my
wireguard server.

Installed wireguard on my mobile phone.

My phone now has an encrypted tunnel right back to my home fibre over
either Mobile 4g or public Wi-Fi

I also setup HTTPS and DoH between the Pi Hole and the upstream DNS
servers which is CLoudflare on 1.1.1.1 and 1.0.0.1.

I then avoid issues of

Rogue/bad/nosy "public" Wifi Access points
block all the unwanted trackers and adverts (the pi Hole rejects almost
50% of all DNS requests)
Avoids issues where a dynamically allocated IP to either mobiles or hoem
routers has previous history due to previous users.
My ISP logging my DNS request history.....

[Brian Gregory]

On 21/04/2021 16:50, Andy Burns wrote:

AFAIK all UK mobile networks put you behind CGNAT so you are sharing
your public IPv4 address with others who could well be doing suspicious
things.

--
Brian Gregory (in England).

[SH]

(and CGNAT is carrier grade network address translation)

Indeed, and a very good reason for using a VPN back to your own home
from your mobile phone.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <ieavtd...@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns

<use...@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> williamwright wrote:

> > 1. Was this some sort of scam?

> No sometimes google is on a hair-trigger for unusual traffic, notmuch
> you can do about it.

Well, I don't use google, so I assume that may be why I've not encountered
it. (Don't use an iPhone, either.)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[Brian Gaff (Sofa)]

Whatever it is, I've complained as its inaccessible to the blind in any
case. The way to manage this is surely to warn and present a yes or no
button. My last experience of this on a computer showed me that the site
certificate had expired that morning but it was back up to date next day,
very odd.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"williamwright" <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:ieau36...@mid.individual.net...

[Brian Gaff (Sofa)]

Hmm I suspect its looking at both ends for anything that looks odd, but
surely if you are using the native browser on Iphone, its unlikely to be
going via google in the first place, unless in some way its been linked from
the search, but even then, you can turn tracking off.
I had it on chrome on a pc, and I now only use Firefox, waterfox, or edge
for browsing as Microsoft removed all the google snooping in favour of their
own.

Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

"Robin" <r...@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:bd14cbfa-9602-0183...@outlook.com...

[Andy Burns]

Brian Gaff wrote:

> The way to manage this is surely to warn and present a yes or no
> button.

It's trivial for automated systems (maybe trying to rig popularity of
search terms) to always press the yes button, hence the captcha.

[williamwright]

On 21/04/2021 17:02, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> Well, I don't use google, so I assume that may be why I've not encountered
> it. (Don't use an iPhone, either.)
>
> Jim

That was a sort of non-contribution to my search for answers!

Bill

[Tweed]

It was a bit of trendy virtue signalling.....

[SH]

yeah it was, he was saying living in the Stone age was better! :-)

[Java Jive]

On 22/04/2021 14:08, SH wrote:
>
> On 22/04/2021 14:04, Tweed wrote:
>>
>> williamwright <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 21/04/2021 17:02, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well, I don't use google, so I assume that may be why I've not
>>>> encountered it. (Don't use an iPhone, either.)
>>>

>>> That was a sort of non-contribution to my search for answers!
>>

>> It was a bit of trendy virtue signalling.....
>
> yeah it was, he was saying living in the Stone age was better!   :-)

I don't think so, I read it as Jim saying that he uses a non-tracking
search engine such as DuckDuckGo, and doesn't need a smartphone, or
possibly even a mobile.

--

Fake news kills!

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

[SH]

On 22/04/2021 17:53, Java Jive wrote:
> On 22/04/2021 14:08, SH wrote:
>>
>> On 22/04/2021 14:04, Tweed wrote:
>>>
>>> williamwright <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 21/04/2021 17:02, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I don't use google, so I assume that may be why I've not
>>>>> encountered it. (Don't use an iPhone, either.)
>>>>
>>>> That was a sort of non-contribution to my search for answers!
>>>
>>> It was a bit of trendy virtue signalling.....
>>
>> yeah it was, he was saying living in the Stone age was better!   :-)
>
> I don't think so, I read it as Jim saying that he uses a non-tracking
> search engine such as DuckDuckGo, and doesn't need a smartphone, or
> possibly even a mobile.
>

Its really easy to degooglify your life.....

https://www.milanvit.net/post/how-to-de-googlify-your-life/

https://decloudus.com/index.html

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <ied9i2...@mid.individual.net>, williamwright

Not if the answer is to avoid google and iphones. :-)

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <s5rs93$jrt$1...@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Actually I assume it makes me very NON 'trendy'.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <s5rsgt$1nmv$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, SH <i.lov...@spam.com>
wrote:

To know, you'd have to find out. :-)

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <s5s9lc$1027$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Java Jive

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

> I don't think so, I read it as Jim saying that he uses a non-tracking
> search engine such as DuckDuckGo, and doesn't need a smartphone, or
> possibly even a mobile.

Indeed. We do have an old mobile phone - as in a *phone*. This gets used
when we need to call a taxi or an ambulance if something happens like Chris
having a bad fit whilst we are out shopping. Not been using that much over
the last year as we haven't actually been going shopping, though!

But yes, I usually use Duck Duck Go and a light browser that has scripting
off. When necessary I also use FireFox or other browsers, but only when I
decide it makes sense.

No need for 'mobile devices', and have plenty of (RO and Linux) boxes to
use at home, thanks. Mainly for writing documents and programs. e.g. this
recent one http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/USB/ScopePlus.html

That runs on ARM systems, but not on most mobile phones. :-)

Most of our video watching and audio listening tends to come via one of the
computers these days.

[Tweed]

Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <s5rs93$jrt$1...@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> williamwright <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:
>>> On 21/04/2021 17:02, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>> Well, I don't use google, so I assume that may be why I've not
>>>> encountered it. (Don't use an iPhone, either.)
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>>
>>> That was a sort of non-contribution to my search for answers!
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>
>> It was a bit of trendy virtue signalling.....
>
> Actually I assume it makes me very NON 'trendy'.
>
> Jim
>

Sorry, but virtue signalling is very trendy.

Not using Google is a personal ethical decision.
Telling the world about it, unprompted, is the virtue signalling bit.
A characteristic of virtue signalling is telling the world you are doing an
apparently good thing, but without much personal cost. If you were really
sincere about your objections to Google’s business practices you’d be
lobbying your MP etc, ie putting yourself out. (Perhaps you do do this?).

We all engage in this to some extent or another....

[Java Jive]

On 23/04/2021 10:37, Tweed wrote:
>
> Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> In article <s5rs93$jrt$1...@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet...@gmail.com>
>>>

>>> It was a bit of trendy virtue signalling.....
>>
>> Actually I assume it makes me very NON 'trendy'.
>

> Sorry, but virtue signalling is very trendy.

I don't think Jim was virtue-signalling, merely pointing out that Google
is not a necessity of modern life

> Not using Google is a personal ethical decision.

Ethics don't necessarily have anything to do with it. A good reason to
avoid using Google is to avoid them tracking you and then selling your
data to others.

> Telling the world about it, unprompted, is the virtue signalling bit.
> A characteristic of virtue signalling is telling the world you are doing an
> apparently good thing, but without much personal cost. If you were really
> sincere about your objections to Google’s business practices you’d be
> lobbying your MP etc, ie putting yourself out. (Perhaps you do do this?).
>
> We all engage in this to some extent or another....

As you just did!

Anyway, would you rather that Jim signalled the opposite of virtue?
AFAICR, you and others don't appreciate selfish-shit signalling when it
happens here!

Nowadays, accusing others of virtue-signalling seems to be the most
widely used excuse for the avoidance of thought when someone makes a
point that perhaps requires some thought.

[Tweed]

I entirely admit that I’m not without fault.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <s5u4ge$s4r$1...@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <s5rs93$jrt$1...@dont-email.me>, Tweed
> > <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> williamwright <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:
> >>> On 21/04/2021 17:02, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> >>>> Well, I don't use google, so I assume that may be why I've not
> >>>> encountered it. (Don't use an iPhone, either.)
> >>>>
> >>>> Jim
> >>>
> >>> That was a sort of non-contribution to my search for answers!
> >>>
> >>> Bill
> >>>
> >
> >> It was a bit of trendy virtue signalling.....
> >
> > Actually I assume it makes me very NON 'trendy'.
> >
> > Jim
> >

> Sorry, but virtue signalling is very trendy.

> Not using Google is a personal ethical decision. Telling the world about
> it, unprompted, is the virtue signalling bit.

Or simply giving a "head's up" to people who apparently assume oranges are
the only fruit. :-)

> A characteristic of virtue signalling is telling the world you are doing
> an apparently good thing, but without much personal cost. If you were
> really sincere about your objections to Google's business practices
> you'd be lobbying your MP etc, ie putting yourself out. (Perhaps you do
> do this?).

Yes. I have. I also have pointed out books on this concern elsewhere to
people who seem unaware of the way google, etc, have been hoovering up and
using personal data. Plus various aspects of the misbehaviour of Amazon,
etc.

Alas, we seem to have a situation where, for many, it is a case of "fish
aren't aware of water".

[brightside]

On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 09:25:36 +0100, Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:

[snip]

>Yes. I have. I also have pointed out books on this concern elsewhere to
>people who seem unaware of the way google, etc, have been hoovering up and
>using personal data. Plus various aspects of the misbehaviour of Amazon,
>etc.
>
>Alas, we seem to have a situation where, for many, it is a case of "fish
>aren't aware of water".
>

New book coming May 13 2021 titled:-
Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It
Matters.

Author Steven Koonin. (look him up).

--
brightside S9

This book will start it all off again Jim..

[Java Jive]

On 25/04/2021 11:08, brightside wrote:
>
> On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 09:25:36 +0100, Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk>
> wrote:
>>
>> Yes. I have. I also have pointed out books on this concern elsewhere to
>> people who seem unaware of the way google, etc, have been hoovering up and
>> using personal data. Plus various aspects of the misbehaviour of Amazon,
>> etc.
>>
>> Alas, we seem to have a situation where, for many, it is a case of "fish
>> aren't aware of water".
>
> New book coming May 13 2021 titled:-
> Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It
> Matters.
>
> Author Steven Koonin.

Firstly ...

Question: WTF has that got to do with this subthread about Google
harvesting other people's data?

Answer: Nothing at all.

... so this is another example of a denialist crowbarring their OT and
irrelevant religion into other people's conversation - preaching their
religion in fact.

Secondly ...

> (look him up).

If you look at the sort of search results you get from Steve Koonin, the
preponderance of known denialist political organisations in the hits
tells you all you need to know, so it's no surprise to find this sort of
thing:

h t t p s : / / p l a y . g o o g l e . c o m / s t o r e / b o o k s /
d e t a i l s / S t e v e n _ E _ K o o n i n _ U n s e t t l e d ? i d
= u V M A E A A A Q B A J

"[...] despite a dramatic rise in greenhouse gas emissions, global
temperatures actually decreased from 1940 to 1970."

And the same happened between around 1870 to 1890, so what? These are
short to mid-term decadal oscillations such as El Nino/La Nina. Mr
Koonin, stay in after school and write out 1000 times: "Climate science
is about long-term effects over many decades into centuries."

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/18/did-a-physicist-become-a-climate-truth-teller/

"There’s, of course, nothing wrong with challenging our current
understanding, but continually repeating well-debunked talking points is
not the ideal way to do so."

[Java Jive]

On 25/04/2021 11:34, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> Google etc. collect all this data, why? I cannot see any innocent use
> for knowing SSID,password,location for millions of people. If that
> data is ever used, it will not be for our benefit that's for sure. I
> think there should be some legislation covering this but I suspect,
> GCHQ get a copy of the collected data.

There is legislation actually, it's called GDPR ...

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation

... though whether it goes as far as some of us might wish is of course
a matter for debate.

[Andy Burns]

Java Jive wrote:

> Bob Latham wrote:
>
>> Google etc. collect all this data, why? I cannot see any innocent use
>> for knowing SSID,password,location for millions of people. If that
>> data is ever used, it will not be for our benefit that's for sure.

Being able to find where you are is a possible benefit

>> I think there should be some legislation covering this but I
>> suspect, GCHQ get a copy of the collected data.
>
> There is legislation actually, it's called GDPR ...

Only if an SSID is considered data held about an identifiable person ...

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <s63s29$lm9$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Java Jive

<ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 25/04/2021 11:34, Bob Latham wrote:
> >
> > Google etc. collect all this data, why? I cannot see any innocent use
> > for knowing SSID,password,location for millions of people. If that
> > data is ever used, it will not be for our benefit that's for sure. I
> > think there should be some legislation covering this but I suspect,
> > GCHQ get a copy of the collected data.

> There is legislation actually, it's called GDPR ...

> https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation

> ... though whether it goes as far as some of us might wish is of course
> a matter for debate.

On this, I'm with Bob. The problem is that the 'big tech' companies aren't
UK organisations but 'transnationals' who basically do whatever they fancy
and can get away with. Witness also the epic scale of their tax dodging by
'offshoring' business, etc. Basically, if you want their 'services' you
have to accept it on *their* terms.

e.g I've never signed up in any way to YouTube. But when I go to any of
their URLs now with a 'lite' browser I get zip. Go with a browser that does
scripting, etc, and I get a page telling me that a list of companies as
long as yer arm want my 'approval' to collect all data they can about me
and use it however they fancy from then on to forever. The service is
'free' because I'm the (potential) product! Most of the companies are
outwith the UK and can therefore ignore UK law.

Against this GDPR is about as useful as a wet paper hankie.

[Java Jive]

On 25/04/2021 15:26, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
> Against this GDPR is about as useful as a wet paper hankie.

Well that was why I mentioned that whether the legislation went far
enough was a matter for debate, but, also, if it was only the UK that
implemented it, your remark would have more truth, but GDPR is simply
the UK's implementation of EU-wide legislation, so that's a significant
chunk of the subset of the world's population having easy and
near-universal access to tech that enforces this. Hence EU and
EU-member courts suing the companies involved. For example ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_vs._Google

... and ...

https://techcrunch.com/2019/12/20/france-slaps-google-with-166m-antitrust-fine-for-opaque-and-inconsistent-ad-rules/

... however, I grant that still there's the question of whether it is
really enough.

[Brian Gregory]

On 25/04/2021 15:11, Andy Burns wrote:
> Only if an SSID is considered data held about an identifiable person ...

Surely Google would be recording BSSIDs not SSIDs.

SSIDs are likely to be duplicated in different locations.

[Andy Burns]

Brian Gregory wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
> Surely Google would be recording BSSIDs not SSIDs.

Well yes (or probably both) you may remember a thread in
comp.mobile.android with "Arlen" aka "Alice" regarding location lookup?

<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/-PK03bCEheM/m/feKn0AfpGgAJ>

[SH]

On 26/04/2021 01:05, Brian Gregory wrote:
> On 25/04/2021 15:11, Andy Burns wrote:
>> Only if an SSID is considered data held about an identifiable person ...
>
> Surely Google would be recording BSSIDs not SSIDs.
>
> SSIDs are likely to be duplicated in different locations.
>

I think its possible on some Wifi AP's to NOT broadcast the BSSID
publically.

It does mean though you have to do a bit more on the client end to get
it to conenct to an Wi FI AP that s not broadcasting its presence.

I also deployed a MAC white list on the AP so a limited number of
devices are permitted to connect and also set up a strong password.....

[Roderick Stewart]

On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 11:34:13 +0100, Bob Latham
<b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

>I'm told Google make a note of Wi-Fi SSIDs as they drive around the
>country for their maps etc. So unless you change them regularly, they
>know everyone's SSID and to within a few houses where it is based.

Your SSID is no use to anyone beyond about fifty yards from your
house, and if you're worried about anyone hacking it you can keep a
look out for suspicious vehicles parked nearby, or regularly check the
connection table in your router. You should be more concerned about
the dispersal of personal information that can be made use of via the
internet, because that could be done from anywhere.

Rod.

[Chris Green]

Brian Gregory <void-invalid...@email.invalid> wrote:
> On 25/04/2021 15:11, Andy Burns wrote:
> > Only if an SSID is considered data held about an identifiable person ...
>
> Surely Google would be recording BSSIDs not SSIDs.
>
> SSIDs are likely to be duplicated in different locations.
>

In most places I fail to see how Google would know which SSID belonged
to which house/flat/whatever too.

--
Chris Green
·

[Andy Burns]

Chris Green wrote:

> In most places I fail to see how Google would know which SSID belonged
> to which house/flat/whatever too.

If a resident of the house owns an android device, it will know which
SSID it connects to, and if its GPS is turned on it will know where it
is, this can be reported back to google HQ and tallied up with the
SSIDs/BSSIDs that the streetview cars see ...

I don't /think/ they care which house it's in, just that wifi
triangulation makes a reasonable substitute for location when GPS is
turned off.

[MrSpook...@kq1p1dhm37gtim76zsitp.edu]

On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 10:10:30 +0100
Roderick Stewart <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 11:34:13 +0100, Bob Latham
><b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>I'm told Google make a note of Wi-Fi SSIDs as they drive around the
>>country for their maps etc. So unless you change them regularly, they
>>know everyone's SSID and to within a few houses where it is based.
>
>Your SSID is no use to anyone beyond about fifty yards from your
>house, and if you're worried about anyone hacking it you can keep a
>look out for suspicious vehicles parked nearby, or regularly check the

Google AFAIK doesn't currently allow ssids to be shown or searched for in
Maps, but if it did all a hacker would need to do is hack your router to get
it then use your IP to get your rough location and narrow it down from there.

[SH]

Interestingly enough, my AP has automatic Rogue Wi Fi detection...

I get an email everytime one is detected.

In the report it often has the SSID logged, and a big clue was SSIDs
such as Julies Car or Steves Van along with the date and time of the
detection.

Upon checking the CCTV, sure enough, a vehicle is driving down the road
at around the same time teh Rogue AP was detected and logged....

It appears some cars now have WiFi APs on board and presumably with a 4g
modem on board too.....

[MrSpo...@cn3uc7wt_h0j.tv]

It doesn't need to. Within a few 10s of metres is good enough to show your
location.

[Andy Burns]

SH wrote:

> It appears some cars now have WiFi APs on board and presumably with a 4g
> modem on board too.....

Since 2018 the EU has required all cars to have "eCall" so manufacturers
have been fitting 4G modules for some time leading up to that.

Clearly it's not a big leap from there to providing an in-car wifi
hotspot, hence the Vauxhall "casanova" wifi adverts. My current car has
4G+wifi, connection was free for 3 years, after which it's silly money
per month so I don't bother.

[Andy Burns]

MrSpook wrote:

> Google AFAIK doesn't currently allow ssids to be shown or searched for in
> Maps

I don't think they provide a way to ask "what wifi should I be able to
see from here", but they do allow a query like "I can see these wifi
signals at these strengths, where am I?"

[charles]

In article <s6617f$jfc$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,

At least on App I use thinks I live in Leighton Buzzard which is at least
60 miles away.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

[Chris Green]

Ah, I see, Google connects the two.

Though as far as I know the streetview cars have never been down our
private road, the Google maps pictures stop at the junction with the
public road at the end.

--
Chris Green
·

[MrSpoo...@yw49v.com]

Who knows. Clearly there is some API that says "Here's an IP, here's an SSID,
tell me where I am" because thats how phones do it without GPS. But whether
it can be accessed by Dave Developer rather than only Google itself is another
matter.

[MrSpook...@4t45457.edu]

On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 10:44:02 +0100
Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>SH wrote:
>
>> It appears some cars now have WiFi APs on board and presumably with a 4g
>> modem on board too.....
>
>Since 2018 the EU has required all cars to have "eCall" so manufacturers
>have been fitting 4G modules for some time leading up to that.

Which hopefully can be disabled quite easily. Either through a software
flag or by physically ripping it out.

>Clearly it's not a big leap from there to providing an in-car wifi
>hotspot, hence the Vauxhall "casanova" wifi adverts. My current car has
>4G+wifi, connection was free for 3 years, after which it's silly money
>per month so I don't bother.

Having a wifi connection to any car is a moronic idea given how time and
again its been shown that these can be hacked and most car manufacturers
don't bother with a firewall between the ICE and the other car systems.

https://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-highway/

[Roderick Stewart]

That looks like a useful feature. What kind of AP is it? My Draytek
modem/router will show me what is connected, but as far as I know only
if I take the trouble to look. Maybe I'll take a trawl through the
settings again in case there's a feature I never noticed before. Being
informed automatically of unusual behaviour would be handy.

Rod.

[SH]

My Access points are from Ubiquiti and the model I have is the Unifi AP
AC LR Pro

https://www.4gon.co.uk/ubiquiti-unifi-ac-lr-p-6642.html

There is also the Pro version:

https://www.4gon.co.uk/ubiquiti-unifi-ac-pro-indoor-outdoor-access-point-uapacpro-p-6638.html

I also have a Raspberry pi that runs the Unifi Network controller
software which I use to set up the AP and have the email alerts and the
logs.....

Its definately NOT a fit and forget device...... I get alerts to update
the firmware in the AP and also to update the Network controller software.

The following link is a demo of the Unifi Network controller software,
which I interface with over a web browser.

[jon]

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:37:18 +0000, Tweed wrote:

> Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <s5rs93$jrt$1...@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> williamwright <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:
>>>> On 21/04/2021 17:02, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>>> Well, I don't use google, so I assume that may be why I've not
>>>>> encountered it. (Don't use an iPhone, either.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Jim
>>>>
>>>> That was a sort of non-contribution to my search for answers!
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It was a bit of trendy virtue signalling.....
>>
>> Actually I assume it makes me very NON 'trendy'.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
> Sorry, but virtue signalling is very trendy.
>
> Not using Google is a personal ethical decision.
> Telling the world about it, unprompted, is the virtue signalling bit.

> A characteristic of virtue signalling is telling the world you are doing
> an apparently good thing, but without much personal cost. If you were
> really sincere about your objections to Google’s business practices
> you’d be lobbying your MP etc, ie putting yourself out. (Perhaps you do
> do this?).
>

> We all engage in this to some extent or another....

....or obtaining a new Huawei phone. My new one is google depleted thanks
to trump.

[Brian Gregory]

On 26/04/2021 14:05, jon wrote:
> ....or obtaining a new Huawei phone. My new one is google depleted thanks
> to trump.

How do how get apps safely without the Play Store?

[Andy Burns]

Bob Latham wrote:

> I very much dislike the idea that Google and maybe others, collect
> information like this and are free to do so.

The answer is to turn off wifi and use ethernet cables everywhere and
only 3G/4G to your mobile ..

[SH]

On 26/04/2021 20:20, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <ieoh0o...@mid.individual.net>,

> :-)
>
> Bob.
>

Even if you turn off wifi, if teh mobile phone is an Android, Android
was created by Google....

I don't know about the inner workings of Apple iphones though.

didn't anyone look at degooglifying their life using decloudus DNS?

[Brian Gregory]

Maybe I do.

But I really don't get the Google paranoia at all and I can't really get
what bothers people about Google.

[#Paul]

Brian Gregory <void-invalid...@email.invalid> wrote:
> On 26/04/2021 14:05, jon wrote:
>> ....or obtaining a new Huawei phone. My new one is google
>> depleted thanks to trump.
>
> How do how get apps safely without the Play Store?

Perhaps apkmirror.com ? It has copies of a fair amount of what
is in the play store.

I also use f-droid.org , but as it's free software you do not
always get all the bells and whistles you might want.

#Paul

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <s6479v$2dl$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Java Jive

<ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 25/04/2021 15:26, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> >
> > Against this GDPR is about as useful as a wet paper hankie.

> Well that was why I mentioned that whether the legislation went far
> enough was a matter for debate, but, also, if it was only the UK that
> implemented it, your remark would have more truth, but GDPR is simply
> the UK's implementation of EU-wide legislation, so that's a significant
> chunk of the subset of the world's population having easy and
> near-universal access to tech that enforces this.

Erm, if.when it suits them the companies in question can simply put their
relevent actitives in places like offshore islands or banana republics,
etc. Wherever what they want to do gets no scrutiny or is legal.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 15:08:11 +0100, Bob Latham
<b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

>As for "suspicious vehicles parked nearby", how about being hacked in
>the night, my NAS is always on though admittedly you would need
>another password.

My computer is normally switched off at night, so there would be
nothing for anyone to hack. My backup drives are connected by USB, not
network, and they're always switched off except shortly before the
automatic daily backup every morning.

If you're running a more elaborate setup then of course it would be
appropriate to run more elaborate security measures, but I'd guess
that most people's domestic computer arrangements are pretty simple.

Rod.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 13:05:11 -0000 (UTC), jon <j...@nospam.cn> wrote:

>....or obtaining a new Huawei phone. My new one is google depleted thanks
>to trump.

On the other hand, Huawei phones are made by a company which, even if
it has the most public spirited intentions itself, will be obliged to
obey commands from the communist dictatorship that runs the country
where it's made.

There's no way of being absolutely certain of the security of anything
that's too complicated for you to examine in its entirety yourself, no
matter where it comes from.

Rod.

[Java Jive]

On 26/04/2021 10:16, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
> Erm, if.when it suits them the companies in question can simply put their
> relevent actitives in places like offshore islands or banana republics,
> etc. Wherever what they want to do gets no scrutiny or is legal.

So can any company, for example shipping companies. That's not a
problem unique to Google or modern technology.

--

Fake news kills!

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

[Brian Gregory]

On 27/04/2021 07:32, Charlie+ wrote:
> Shoshana Zuboff

She's not even a scientist.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <ieotrh...@mid.individual.net>, Brian Gregory

<void-invalid...@email.invalid> wrote:

> But I really don't get the Google paranoia at all and I can't really get
> what bothers people about Google.

The problem is that once you accept Google's ability to collect whatever
data they can, you also accept they can sell it on to whoever they decide
for whatever purposes. And via cookies and 'analytics' they can do this vai
many other sites, etc, which aren't Google.

Since I have never registered with YouTube I now get a page when I try to
look at the details of a video placed there. This blocks access to the
actual page and tells me I have to agree to a list of 3rd parties as long
as my arm being fed my data an becoming allowed to track me, etc, on the
basis I have 'agreed' to this.

I don't want to agree. But as this 'infection' spreads we find that was
once an open free internet becomes one where information we want is onl
available in exchange for all our own *personal* data. For unknown 3rd and
Nth parties to use as they fancy *beyond* the reach of mere UK law. Indeed,
beyond EU, USA, etc, law also as companies simple do it where the Sun don't
shine.

I never use Google. More than one search engine exists.

[MrSpo...@stylrmbeo.co.uk]

On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 10:15:17 +0100
Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>Since I have never registered with YouTube I now get a page when I try to
>look at the details of a video placed there. This blocks access to the
>actual page and tells me I have to agree to a list of 3rd parties as long
>as my arm being fed my data an becoming allowed to track me, etc, on the
>basis I have 'agreed' to this.

If you don't have a google account the only thing they can use is your IP
address and browser/machine details. I wouldn't worry about it , they don't
know who you are so your information is of very limited use to a 3rd party.
Plus you can always run your browser in private mode to it doesn't store
any cookies or just delete them manually after the session.

[SH]

and run a Pi Hole! you can then block the google trackers :-)

[Tim+]

Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <ieotrh...@mid.individual.net>, Brian Gregory
> <void-invalid...@email.invalid> wrote:
>
>> But I really don't get the Google paranoia at all and I can't really get
>> what bothers people about Google.
>
> The problem is that once you accept Google's ability to collect whatever
> data they can, you also accept they can sell it on to whoever they decide
> for whatever purposes. And via cookies and 'analytics' they can do this vai
> many other sites, etc, which aren't Google.
>
> Since I have never registered with YouTube I now get a page when I try to
> look at the details of a video placed there. This blocks access to the
> actual page and tells me I have to agree to a list of 3rd parties as long
> as my arm being fed my data an becoming allowed to track me, etc, on the
> basis I have 'agreed' to this.
>
> I don't want to agree. But as this 'infection' spreads we find that was
> once an open free internet becomes one where information we want is onl
> available in exchange for all our own *personal* data. For unknown 3rd and
> Nth parties to use as they fancy *beyond* the reach of mere UK law. Indeed,
> beyond EU, USA, etc, law also as companies simple do it where the Sun don't
> shine.
>
> I never use Google. More than one search engine exists.
>
> Jim
>

I use so many Google products it would be hypocritical of me to refuse a
certain amount of “quid pro quo” in exchange for free access to so many
useful apps and sites.

I don’t lose too much sleep over it.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

[Java Jive]

On 28/04/2021 10:32, MrSpo...@stylrmbeo.co.uk wrote:
>

> If you don't have a google account the only thing they can use is your IP
> address and browser/machine details. I wouldn't worry about it , they don't
> know who you are so your information is of very limited use to a 3rd party.
> Plus you can always run your browser in private mode to it doesn't store
> any cookies or just delete them manually after the session.

You are missing the point, but before I answer your actual quote above,
let me link more generally to a story on the BBC News website today
about a current Google case that may interests people contributing to or
reading this thread:

Google data case to be heard in Supreme Court
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56901364

To return to your points above ...

While no single one of the pieces of information that you mention above
ON ITS OWN seems to identify very much, put together with other metadata
that can be gathered, they can reveal an astonishing amount, often being
able to identify a particular individual.

https://panopticlick.eff.org/

When I last visited this site some years back (this post is largely a
repost of one first made some years back), clicking 'Test Me' resulted
in (fuller details appended for those interested in what can be
gathered) ...

Test Result
Is your browser blocking tracking ads? ✗ no
Is your browser blocking invisible trackers? ✗ no
Does your browser unblock 3rd parties that promise to honor Do Not
Track? ✗ no
Does your browser protect from fingerprinting? ✗
your browser has a unique fingerprint

Note particularly that last result. It meant that I was easily tracked
as an individual.

For UK residents, I'd recommend listening to a then recent episode of
BBC Inside Science via the BBC iPlayer. Throughout every summer they
showcase the short list for the Royal Society Book Prize. One of the
then candidates was a book by mathematician Dr Hannah Fry called "Hello
World!" about the modern use of computer algorithms. In this clip she
explains how disparate pieces of information, each apparently
insignificant on its own, are pieced together to be able to draw
surprising conclusions. Perhaps the best example she gives is that if
you have a store loyalty card, are female, and buy vitamin pills and
unscented body lotion, they can work out that you're pregnant, and send
you offers for nappies, etc:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/play/b0bgw30j 19:02 minutes in

Alternatively, some time previously she was a guest panellist on The
Infinite Monkey Cage, where she expounded on this story in greater
detail, including that it was an American store called 'Target' and that
in 2012 a father of a teenage daughter had actually gone to his local
store in Minneapolis to complain about her being sent these coupons as
it seemed to be 'normalising' teenage pregnancy, but by the time the
store rang him at home to apologise, his daughter had admitted to him
that she was indeed pregnant.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b9wbf8 7:38 minutes in

Much of the following needs updating, but nevertheless it's still quite
a good canter around some of the individual threats, but the real danger
is how small, apparently insignificant, pieces of information get
combined into a larger more revealing picture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_privacy

Cookies:
"The original developers of cookies intended that only the website that
originally distributed cookies to users could retrieve them, therefore
returning only data already possessed by the website. However, in
practice programmers can circumvent this restriction. Possible
consequences include:
* the placing of a personally-identifiable tag in a browser to
facilitate web profiling (see below)
* use of cross-site scripting or other techniques to steal
information from a user's cookies.
[...] one of the most common ways of theft is hackers taking one's
username and password that a cookie saves. While a lot of sites are
free, they have to make a profit somehow so they sell their space to
advertisers. These ads, which are personalized to one's likes, can often
freeze one's computer or cause annoyance. Cookies are mostly harmless
except for third-party cookies.[23] These cookies are not made by the
website itself, but by web banner advertising companies. These
third-party cookies are so dangerous because they take the same
information that regular cookies do, such as browsing habits and
frequently visited websites, but then they give out this information to
other companies."

Photographs on the Internet
"Face recognition technology can be used to gain access to a person's
private data, according to a new study. Researchers at Carnegie Mellon
University combined image scanning, cloud computing and public profiles
from social network sites to identify individuals in the offline world.
Data captured even included a user's social security number.[45] Experts
have warned of the privacy risks faced by the increased merging of our
online and offline identities. The researchers have also developed an
'augmented reality' mobile app that can display personal data over a
person's image captured on a smartphone screen.[46] Since these
technologies are widely available, our future identities may become
exposed to anyone with a smartphone and an Internet connection.
Researchers believe this could force us to reconsider our future
attitudes to privacy."

Google Street View
" In one instance, Ruedi Noser, a Swiss politician, barely avoided
public scandal when he was photographed in 2009 on Google Street View
walking with a woman who was not his wife – the woman was actually his
secretary"

and so on. Also ...

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/new-fingerprinting-techniques-identify-users-across-different-browsers-on-the-same-pc/

https://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-security/client-identification-mechanisms

https://pet-portal.eu/files/articles/2011/fingerprinting/cross-browser_fingerprinting.pdf


Here are the detailed findings from the browser tracking test ...

Browser Characteristic bits of identifying information one in x
browsers have this value value
Limited supercookie test
0.37

1.29
DOM localStorage: Yes, DOM sessionStorage: Yes, IE userData: No
Hash of canvas fingerprint
20.05

1088160.0
de7fbe2badf5c8a7fff29615325949c3
Screen Size and Color Depth
2.85

7.2
1366x768x24
Browser Plugin Details
21.05

2176320.0
Plugin 0: Java Deployment Toolkit 8.0.1410.15; NPRuntime Script
Plug-in Library for Java(TM) Deploy; npdeployJava1.dll; (;
application/java-deployment-toolkit; ). Plugin 1: Java(TM) Platform SE 8
U141; Next Generation Java Plug-in 11.141.2 for Mozilla browsers;
npjp2.dll; (Java Applet; application/x-java-applet; ) (JavaBeans;
application/x-java-bean; ) (; application/x-java-vm; ) (;
application/x-java-applet;version=1.1.1; ) (;
application/x-java-bean;version=1.1.1; ) (;
application/x-java-applet;version=1.1; ) (;
application/x-java-bean;version=1.1; ) (;
application/x-java-applet;version=1.2; ) (;
application/x-java-bean;version=1.2; ) (;
application/x-java-applet;version=1.1.3; ) (;
application/x-java-bean;version=1.1.3; ) (;
application/x-java-applet;version=1.1.2; ) (;
application/x-java-bean;version=1.1.2; ) (;
application/x-java-applet;version=1.3; ) (;
application/x-java-bean;version=1.3; ) (;
application/x-java-applet;version=1.2.2; ) (;
application/x-java-bean;version=1.2.2; ) (;
application/x-java-applet;version=1.2.1; ) (;
application/x-java-bean;version=1.2.1; ) (;
application/x-java-applet;version=1.3.1; ) (;
application/x-java-bean;version=1.3.1; ) (;
application/x-java-applet;version=1.4; ) (;
application/x-java-bean;version=1.4; ) (;
application/x-java-applet;version=1.4.1; ) (;
application/x-java-bean;version=1.4.1; ) (;
application/x-java-applet;version=1.4.2; ) (;
application/x-java-bean;version=1.4.2; ) (;
application/x-java-applet;version=1.5; ) (;
application/x-java-bean;version=1.5; ) (;
application/x-java-applet;version=1.6; ) (;
application/x-java-bean;version=1.6; ) (;
application/x-java-applet;version=1.7; ) (;
application/x-java-bean;version=1.7; ) (;
application/x-java-applet;version=1.8; ) (;
application/x-java-bean;version=1.8; ) (;
application/x-java-applet;jpi-version=1.8.0_141; ) (;
application/x-java-bean;jpi-version=1.8.0_141; ) (;
application/x-java-vm-npruntime; ) (;
application/x-java-applet;deploy=11.141.2; ) (;
application/x-java-applet;javafx=8.0.141; ). Plugin 2: PDF-XChange
Viewer; PDF-XChange Viewer Netscape Gecko Plugin;
npPDFXCviewNPPlugin.dll; (Portable Document Format; application/pdf;
pdf). Plugin 3: Shockwave Flash; Shockwave Flash 31.0 r0;
NPSWF64_31_0_0_108.dll; (Adobe Flash movie;
application/x-shockwave-flash; swf) (FutureSplash movie;
application/futuresplash; spl).
Time Zone
3.1

8.59
-60
DNT Header Enabled?
0.84

1.79
True
HTTP_ACCEPT Headers
16.1

70203.87
text/html, */*; q=0.01 gzip, deflate, br en-GB,en;q=0.7,fr;q=0.3
Hash of WebGL fingerprint
12.08

4335.3
83663cdc2084dc0bace5dcbde258572b
Language
4.15

17.72
en-GB
System Fonts
16.88

120906.67
Arial, Arial Unicode MS, Book Antiqua, Bookman Old Style, Calibri,
Cambria, Cambria Math, Century, Comic Sans MS, Consolas, Courier,
Courier New, Garamond, Georgia, Helvetica, Impact, Lucida Console,
Lucida Sans Unicode, Microsoft Sans Serif, Monotype Corsiva, MS Gothic,
MS Outlook, MS PGothic, MS Reference Sans Serif, MS Sans Serif, MS
Serif, Palatino Linotype, Segoe Print, Segoe Script, Segoe UI, Segoe UI
Symbol, Tahoma, Times, Times New Roman, Trebuchet MS, Verdana,
Wingdings, Wingdings 2, Wingdings 3 (via javascript)
Platform
3.0

8.02
Win64
User Agent
15.63

50612.09
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:52.9) Gecko/20100101
Goanna/3.4 Firefox/52.9 PaleMoon/27.9.0
Touch Support
0.59

1.51
Max touchpoints: 0; TouchEvent supported: false; onTouchStart
supported: false
Are Cookies Enabled?
0.22

1.17
Yes

[#Paul]

MrSpo...@stylrmbeo.co.uk wrote:
> If you don't have a google account the only thing they can use is your IP
> address and browser/machine details. I wouldn't worry about it , they don't
> know who you are so your information is of very limited use to a 3rd party.
> Plus you can always run your browser in private mode to it doesn't store
> any cookies or just delete them manually after the session.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-anonymization

#Paul

[MrSpook_...@vuxk8.info]

They can't magic data up from nowhere. Yes google etc could store all your
searches and build up a picture of what you like and who you are, but its
still useless without your actual ID. Unless you're stupid enough to provide
it to them of course via an unencrypted session.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <s68vck$16dt$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Java Jive

<ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 26/04/2021 10:16, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> >
> > Erm, if.when it suits them the companies in question can simply put
> > their relevent actitives in places like offshore islands or banana
> > republics, etc. Wherever what they want to do gets no scrutiny or is
> > legal.

> So can any company, for example shipping companies. That's not a
> problem unique to Google or modern technology.

Agreed. But Google and the other 'big tech' companies make exploiting user
data a feature of their 'business models'. And use a variety of
legal/tax/law jurisdictions to maximise what they can do. They can access
and correlate a vast amount of diverse data in a way that a UK shipping
company could not.