Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Lane W Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.lang.python,comp.mobile.android,alt.internet.wireless,alt.comp.os.windows-10 Subject: Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2026 09:47:27 -0600 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 53 Message-ID: <117pamf$a6ji$3@dont-email.me> References: <117b5u0$1q77$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <117b9uu$3glj7$1@dont-email.me> <117c8t3$ifv$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <117cmbk$1e7a$3@dont-email.me> <117fmvs$27up$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <117fpti$18lf$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <117hhrg$1jqn$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <117hplp$oha$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <117ndpv$3m9jr$1@dont-email.me> <117p2g1$773b$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2026 15:47:28 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; logging-data="334450"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX187BqHVM5yA1qiOuj9VMVs6epXBE0MXBFQ="; posting-host="6ee342b69b079d7140ee64a6190ea7d9" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:140.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/140.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.24 Cancel-Lock: sha1:WXyXQEtZswxaLjU8/0IJun2rIo8= sha256:JsvTZ+NRRrTZoX3r73aSt0v70zM/7CbqEwumX0tU5j0= sha1:p6AGKtOyCrRRs45oljpNNM560L8= sha256:9rTGBiHb34UuWTdxs92f71U614BleCjMi7gDljhCZXI= In-Reply-To: <117p2g1$773b$1@dont-email.me> Xref: csiph.com misc.phone.mobile.iphone:202183 comp.lang.python:197992 comp.mobile.android:155772 alt.internet.wireless:19025 alt.comp.os.windows-10:195661 Chris wrote: > Jon Ribbens wrote: >> On 2026-09-07, Chris wrote: >>> Jon Ribbens wrote: >>>> To me it's fairly intuitive that if someone has taken the unusual step >>>> of explicitly marking their network as "hidden", then its location >>>> should not be included in these databases - especially given the fact >>>> that the "_nomap" SSID method doesn't work for "hidden" networks. >>> >>> I guess the challenge here is how can they know not to add the MAC >>> address if the SSID with the "_nomap" request invisible. >> >> That's the core of the issue - I would guess that Android devices are >> only uploading BSSIDs to the Google database when they see that Access >> Point broadcast an SSID, and that SSID doesn't end with "_nomap". >> >> iPhones on the other hand, I would guess are uploading BSSIDs to the >> Apple database as soon as they see that Access Point broadcasting >> anything, regardless of whether they have seen an SSID from it. >> >> If it works the way I am suggesting, then it means that Google's >> database would automatically exclude "hidden" networks, and Apple's >> wouldn't - and not only that, Apple would have no way of immediately >> excluding them. They would need to issue updated iPhone software, >> and then wait until almost all iPhones in the world that were still >> in use were using the new software. >> >>>>> Related: What did Arlen (aka Maria) achieve? That Apple agreed to >>>>> remove all hidden and _nomap entries, or that they removed only his >>>>> entry? >>>> >>>> My impression is that as a result of Maria's communications with them, >>>> Apple updated their documentation to note that "hidden" networks are >>>> still listed in their database, and removed Maria's own BSSID(s) from >>>> the database. >>> >>> That's purely a correlation. It could be a coincidence. And is there >>> any evidence that the documentation did change? We only have his say so. >> >> We can't prove what prompted Apple to change their documentation, but >> we certainly can prove that it did indeed change, using archive.org. >> In December 2025 the page did not mention hidden networks, and today >> it does. >> >> https://web.archive.org/web/20251221213139/https://support.apple.com/en-ie/102515 >> https://support.apple.com/en-ie/102515 > > I agree. And I did the same. The fact that Arlen couldn't very easily > evidence his assertion, despite my challenge above, speaks volumes. > Why do you call him/her Arlen if his/her preferred name is Maria? Are you from the 70s?