Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #155580 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-09-03 16:30 +0930 |
| Last post | 2026-09-08 22:30 +0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 142 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android
Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-03 16:30 +0930
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-03 08:09 +0000
Apple tracking of WLAN APs (was: Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-03 11:19 +0100
Re: Apple tracking of WLAN APs (was: Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy) Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-09-04 22:58 +0000
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-04 02:27 +0930
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-03 20:46 +0000
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-05 06:15 +0600
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2026-09-05 00:34 +0000
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-05 07:05 +0600
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2026-09-05 01:47 +0000
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-05 14:00 -0300
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2026-09-05 17:49 +0000
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-05 16:14 -0300
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2026-09-06 00:06 +0000
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-06 13:39 +0200
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2026-09-06 15:37 +0000
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-06 20:23 +0200
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-07 02:16 +0300
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-07 13:42 +0200
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-07 21:06 +0300
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-07 19:11 +0100
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-07 21:29 +0200
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-08 05:58 +0300
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-08 09:57 +0100
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-07 21:28 +0200
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-08 06:38 +0300
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-08 09:48 +0200
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-08 22:36 +0400
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-08 10:09 +0100
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 15:28 -0700
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-08 00:46 +0100
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-08 06:58 +0300
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 07:39 +0000
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-08 08:58 +0200
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-08 10:18 +0100
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-08 12:02 +0200
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy "....winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 02:01 -0400
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Hank Rogers <Hank@nospam.invalid> - 2026-09-07 01:47 -0500
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2026-09-07 10:18 +0000
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-07 13:30 +0200
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-07 21:22 +0300
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 22:28 +0000
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-08 01:50 +0200
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-08 07:29 +0300
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-08 07:22 +0300
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 07:24 +0000
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2026-09-08 10:44 +0000
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 13:27 +0000
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-08 09:47 -0600
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-08 19:51 +0300
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2026-09-08 10:23 -0700
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-09-08 18:12 +0000
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-08 22:18 +0400
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2026-09-09 19:46 -0700
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-10 09:38 +0200
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-09-10 10:21 +0000
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-09-11 07:45 +0000
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2026-09-11 09:49 -0700
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2026-09-11 19:29 +0200
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-11 20:26 +0200
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-09-25 23:43 +0800
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2026-09-25 13:14 -0700
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-09-26 04:41 +0800
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-25 22:17 +0000
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-09-26 07:26 +0800
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-08 18:59 +0200
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-08 21:20 +0400
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-08 19:37 +0200
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2026-09-08 17:56 +0000
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-08 20:03 +0200
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-09 11:11 +0100
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2026-09-08 19:26 +0200
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-08 11:36 -0600
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-08 20:05 +0200
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2026-09-08 20:35 +0200
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 19:06 +0000
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-07 10:47 +0100
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-07 13:34 +0200
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-07 18:48 +0200
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-07 18:46 +0100
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-09-07 14:04 +0000
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-07 03:47 +0300
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Nick Charles <none@none.none> - 2026-09-05 01:11 +0000
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-05 07:24 +0600
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-04 23:15 -0700
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-05 14:18 -0300
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-05 16:40 -0700
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-07 02:40 +0300
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-07 03:09 +0300
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-07 03:12 +0300
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-07 03:13 +0300
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-07 03:14 +0300
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-07 03:16 +0300
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-07 03:18 +0300
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-07 04:23 +0300
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-06 19:03 -0700
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-09-06 11:57 +0000
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-05 11:01 +0100
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-05 15:14 -0300
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-06 01:06 +0100
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-09-06 18:10 +0000
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-06 20:27 +0200
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-07 03:31 +0300
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-07 13:52 +0200
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-05 06:44 +0000
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-05 14:35 -0300
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2026-09-03 15:48 -0700
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2026-09-04 02:02 +0300
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-05 07:46 +0600
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-04 10:28 +0200
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2026-09-04 11:44 +0000
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-04 13:44 +0100
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-05 06:55 +0600
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-07 20:28 +0300
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-07 21:45 +0300
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-07 21:28 +0200
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-08 07:38 +0300
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-08 09:54 +0200
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-09-04 22:58 +0000
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-05 07:13 +0600
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-09-05 07:57 +0000
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-05 14:48 -0300
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-05 12:13 -0600
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-05 15:18 -0300
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-05 12:25 -0600
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-05 16:22 -0300
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-09-06 00:11 +0000
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-09-05 09:17 +0100
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-09-05 11:22 +0000
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-05 15:13 -0300
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-09-06 07:55 +0000
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-08 07:50 +0300
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 07:10 +0000
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-08 09:58 +0200
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-08 21:00 +0400
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 21:26 +0000
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2026-09-06 20:39 +0200
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-08 08:07 +0300
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-08 10:04 +0200
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2026-09-08 13:03 +0200
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-08 13:38 +0200
Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> - 2026-09-08 22:30 +0400
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-07 21:22 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <117mvdq$157d$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #155706 |
Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>> 1. Apple are storing the location of "hidden" WiFi Access Points. >>>> (My opinion: low priority.) >>> >>> Only Apple? >> >> I think that is what Maria is saying, and I have no information to the >> contrary. >> >>>> Allegedly: Apple are adhering to this exclusion, but are not also >>>> excluding BSSIDs which are not broadcasting any SSID at all (i.e. >>>> "hidden" networks). Other organisations (e.g. Google) do exclude such >>>> "hidden" networks. >>> >>> And if it is hidden they would not see if the SSID ends in _nomap. >>> >>> But is there a consensus that hidden SSIDs should not be listed? In >>> writing? Maybe there is such a consensus now. >> >> 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. >> >>> 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. > > AH! Understood. Hi Jon & Carlos, The two of you show potential in being able to understand the problem set. Below are a few very important details that you don't know yet. You're pretty far ahead of everyone else though. Vert far ahead, in fact, in terms of understanding the problem set. Everyone else is in the stone age, but you're in the modern era. So this is just listing a few more important details you need to know. I appreciate that Jon Ribbens not only reproduced my own horror when I found my own BSSID in Apple's database (and in no other databases!), but that he explained correctly to Carlos that only Apple does this. While every one of us likely has the same stone-age knowledge of Wi-Fi networking, the information in this thread is new to almost all of you. It was even new to me, last December, when, much to my horror, after I read this paper, I found my own hidden-broadcast BSSID/GPS pairs in Apple's db! *Surveilling the Masses with Wi-Fi-Based Positioning Systems* <https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.14975> I was horrified! The instant I read that paper, I did what almost all of us would do, which is I ran the code to see if what the researches said was true. It was true! I was shocked. As Jon has said elsewhere in this thread, what Apple does is "highly implausible" Especially for a company that claims "we value your privacy" But the facts are shown, in this thread, easily reproduced as Jon and I have done so, that no application of our stone-age wireless networking prepares us for the shock that Apple ignores all common privacy conventions. Shockingly, even Google respects the hidden-broadcast BSSID. And those who know me know I don't congratulate Google easily. But to Jon in particular, and Lawrence, and maybe also Andy, what you don't suspect most likely, is HOW the hidden-broadcast is handled by Apple/Google. What almost nobody will know unless they researched it with the security professionals, as I have done so, is they handle it different. Mozilla is documented to say they won't even COLLECT it. a. Let alone save it on the device. Let alone upload it to a cloud db. b. Let alone Likewise, Android devices never even *see* it (Winston's absurd denial to that fact being brought out as this is the point of me explaining that Winston's stone-age understanding is two or three decades old). If Android devices can't even *see* it, they don't collect it, save it on device, upload it, store it in a database (or even cull it from the database), nor can they let anyone in the world see it as it's not there. Only Apple does it the way Apple does it. Not only does Apple see it, but they collect it. a. They save it on device. b. They upload it to the cloud c. They do not cull it (even though the SSID ends with _nomap! Worse. unlike Google/Mozilla and everyone else we know of, Apple does not protect it from being tracked by anyone in the world. That's pretty bad. Is it not? -- When I write a thread, it's about something important most people can't even fathom, so it takes intelligence to understand the topic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-07 22:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <117ndpv$3m9jr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155702 |
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote: > On 2026-09-06, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >> On 2026-09-06 17:37, Jon Ribbens wrote: >>> 1. Apple are storing the location of "hidden" WiFi Access Points. >>> (My opinion: low priority.) >> >> Only Apple? > > I think that is what Maria is saying, and I have no information to the > contrary. > >>> Allegedly: Apple are adhering to this exclusion, but are not also >>> excluding BSSIDs which are not broadcasting any SSID at all (i.e. >>> "hidden" networks). Other organisations (e.g. Google) do exclude such >>> "hidden" networks. >> >> And if it is hidden they would not see if the SSID ends in _nomap. >> >> But is there a consensus that hidden SSIDs should not be listed? In >> writing? Maybe there is such a consensus now. > > 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. >> 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-08 01:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <m6v3nmx3b6.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #155731 |
Removing comp.lang.python on the petition from them. On 2026-09-08 00:28, Chris wrote: > Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote: >> On 2026-09-06, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >>> On 2026-09-06 17:37, Jon Ribbens wrote: >>>> 1. Apple are storing the location of "hidden" WiFi Access Points. >>>> (My opinion: low priority.) >>> >>> Only Apple? >> >> I think that is what Maria is saying, and I have no information to the >> contrary. >> >>>> Allegedly: Apple are adhering to this exclusion, but are not also >>>> excluding BSSIDs which are not broadcasting any SSID at all (i.e. >>>> "hidden" networks). Other organisations (e.g. Google) do exclude such >>>> "hidden" networks. >>> >>> And if it is hidden they would not see if the SSID ends in _nomap. >>> >>> But is there a consensus that hidden SSIDs should not be listed? In >>> writing? Maybe there is such a consensus now. >> >> 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. The thing is, the single thing of hiding the SSID marks the intention that this AP should not be mapped. Maybe there is not a paper that says this, but google and Mozilla are doing so. Apple was not doing it, and apparently they wrote now in their documentation that they not doing it. ie, they wrote that they will record hidden sites. > >>> 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. > -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-08 07:29 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <117o2ug$287m$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #155734 |
Carlos E.R. wrote: >> I guess the challenge here is how can they know not to add the MAC address >> if the SSID with the "_nomap" request invisible. > > The thing is, the single thing of hiding the SSID marks the intention > that this AP should not be mapped. > > Maybe there is not a paper that says this, but google and Mozilla are > doing so. Apple was not doing it, and apparently they wrote now in their > documentation that they not doing it. ie, they wrote that they will > record hidden sites. Carlos, to his credit, is correct. Chris is a known Apple religious zealot who is reaching at straws to defend his Apple God to the death, using the first absurd denial he can come up with. Chris claimed there's no proof that we proved already long ago what Apple documentation said, which is bullshit but even so, we know what it says now. <https://support.apple.com/en-ie/102515> The Apple religious zealots can spew all the nutcase bullshit they want to spew, but none of their defenses of Apple's honor changes that documentation. Only I got that documentation changed. Not them. And that's because Apple *knew* I was right. They're not stupid. They're a lot of bad things, but stupid is never one of them. They knew I had threatened legal consequences if they didn't change it. Or fix it. But they decided NOT to fix it. We covered the EXACT documentation, long ago, where both Mozilla and Google clearly stated they won't even COLLECT the BSSID if it's hidden broadcast. I provided it already, elsewhere in this thread, so that's a given. It's well known that a hidden-broadcast is an indicator of desired privacy. The difference is: a. Apple ignores that privacy indicator b. Google/Mozilla respect it Likely only one out of ten million people know what I'm saying below... (which is why having a stone-age knowledge of networking, doesn't help) 1. Only Apple iOS devices, by default, upload a hidden-broadcast BSSID. Specifically, Apple devices see them, they save them, they collect them into a packet, they upload them, & Apple never scrubs them, by default. 2. Google Android devices, by default, don't even see them (AFAIK). Certainly Google devices don't upload them to the Google WPS database. 3. Both Apple and Google devices, by default, will upload a non-hidden broadcast BSSID/GPS pair, but both will scrub those with _nomap. 4. Far worse, and the topic of the paper, Google will NOT allow just anyone to read their WPS database, and Google has restrictions on number of outputs and quality of request, and in number of requests per day, etc. 5. Apple has NONE of those controls! None. Zip. Nada. (That's the main point of the paper for God's sake!). 6. Worse, Apple will give me (and they have) every single BSSID:GPS pair in the world - that's BILLIONS (which the researchers themselves gathered using the Python code that Jon & I both used to test it for ourselves). I only collected tens of thousands, but anyone with almost no technical skills whatsoever, can clearly track every single BSSID:GPS pair in the world, from anywhere in the world, using the Python code Jon and I ran. Those of you who only own the stone-age networking knowledge we all learned decades ago won't be prepared to understand what I just explained to you. Only Apple does this. Nobody else (to my knowledge). The BSSID:GPS breadcrumb trail is very DIFFERENMT between iOS & Android devices & it's very DIFFRERENT between Python & the Apple/Google databases. -- People can't understand what the issue is if they don't understand the breadcrumb trail from your router access point to my Win10 python runs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-08 07:22 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <117o2hf$rqc$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #155731 |
Chris wrote: >> 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. Removing all but alt.internet.wireless from the f'up since the Apple trolls (Chris, in this instance) are bullshitting us like there's no tomorrow. The BSSID:GPS breadcrumb trail is very DIFFERENMT between iOS & Android devices & it's very DIFFRERENT between Python & the Apple/Google databases. First off, we discussed this in December, in gory detail, and we covered EXACTLY what the Apple documentation said, and we discussed EXACTLY that I went to a my next-door neighbor, who is an executive at Apple to get it corrected, and we discussed, THEN, that it wasn't documented, for God's sake. Moreso, as we know now, it's corrected. <https://support.apple.com/en-ie/102515> So the bullshit that Chris (a known Apple religious zealot troll) spewed is classic Apple troll bullshit spewed for no other reason than to defend his Apple God to the death, no matter what, using the first absurdly preposterous argument he can come up with. Hell, even if everything I said wasn't true (& in the record) the very fact that Apple documentation says it TODAY proves the veracity of my point. The Apple religious zealots will stop at nothing to protect Apple's honor. Yet, what matters for the people on this newsgroup who are not Apple religious zealots who defend Apple to the death no matter what, using the first preposterous excuse they can think off... the facts remain facts. Likely only one out of ten million people know what I'm saying below... (which is why having a stone-age knowledge of networking, doesn't help) 1. Only Apple iOS devices, by default, upload a hidden-broadcast BSSID. Specifically, Apple devices see them, they save them, they collect them into a packet, they upload them, & Apple never scrubs them, by default. 2. Google Android devices, by default, don't even see them (AFAIK). Certainly Google devices don't upload them to the Google WPS database. 3. Both Apple and Google devices, by default, will upload a non-hidden broadcast BSSID/GPS pair, but both will scrub those with _nomap. 4. Far worse, and the topic of the paper, Google will NOT allow just anyone to read their WPS database, and Google has restrictions on number of outputs and quality of request, and in number of requests per day, etc. 5. Apple has NONE of those controls! None. Zip. Nada. (That's the main point of the paper for God's sake!). 6. Worse, Apple will give me (and they have) every single BSSID:GPS pair in the world - that's BILLIONS (which the researchers themselves gathered using the Python code that Jon & I both used to test it for ourselves). I only collected tens of thousands, but anyone with almost no technical skills whatsoever, can clearly track every single BSSID:GPS pair in the world, from anywhere in the world, using the Python code Jon and I ran. Those of you who only own the stone-age networking knowledge we all learned decades ago won't be prepared to understand what I just explained to you. Only Apple does this. Nobody else (to my knowledge). The BSSID:GPS breadcrumb trail is very DIFFERENMT between iOS & Android devices & it's very DIFFRERENT between Python & the Apple/Google databases. -- People can't understand what the issue is if they don't understand the breadcrumb trail from your router access point to my Win10 python runs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-08 07:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <117od76$3v9uo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155740 |
Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote: > Chris wrote: >>> 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. > > Removing all but alt.internet.wireless from the f'up If you can't even set follow-ups correctly how can we trust any of your technical assertions? [Narrator: We can't. He has all the traits of a troll. Although, he has stopped nymshifting] <all but the android and iphone ngs removed > > First off, we discussed this in December, in gory detail, and we covered > EXACTLY what the Apple documentation said, and we discussed EXACTLY that I > went to a my next-door neighbor, who is an executive at Apple to get it > corrected, and we discussed, THEN, that it wasn't documented, for God's > sake. The story of the Apple exec is just hearsay. > Moreso, as we know now, it's corrected. > <https://support.apple.com/en-ie/102515> Evidence? Someone with your technical skill and "highly educated" should be able to demonstrate it beyond having to rely on other people's memory. You are claiming that you are the reason it changed. Again simply hearsay.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-08 10:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn119vpp2.8k8.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> |
| In reply to | #155731 |
On 2026-09-07, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote: > Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-08 13:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <117p2g1$773b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155764 |
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote: > On 2026-09-07, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote: >> Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-08 09:47 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <117pamf$a6ji$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155771 |
Chris wrote: > Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote: >> On 2026-09-07, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> 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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-08 19:51 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <117peeh$1iaj$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #155772 |
Lane W wrote: >> 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? I've answered this question a thousand times, and it simply won't stick. Do you think I care about privacy? Yes, or No? Do you think I say privacy is a million things, of which most people know 3 for no good reason? I used to have a security clearance at Fort Mead (which dates me, as the NSA is no longer at Fort Mead, as far as I can recall). I know privacy. I can always learn more. But headers are a component of privacy just as much as is rotating the time zones (which you likely didn't notice) and the IP address (via rotating VPN). I care about privacy. For privacy, typically on the first of the year, but it can be any time I feel it's needed, I send a thread to every newsgroup I frequent, letting them know that the headers are randomized (much like a BSSID should be). This is to foil robotic aggregators, not you. Robots. Not people. The trolls can't fathom that privacy concept. The trolls can't fathom that you have to actually rob a bank to be a bank robber, and not that you just happen to wear a mask for privacy reasons. The header is the wrapping paper. It's the gift of the immense content in the body that has great value. But aggregators "can" track your posts across the Internet. I post to many (many!) forums (web forums like XDA, Telegram, etc.) I don't want my ID to be tracked, so I change the header. But not the body. The body is always the same well-educated engineer/scientist. The same phone (since 2021) and the same unique screenshots. The same PC (since 2009) and again, the same unique screenshots. The same Santa Cruz Mountains location. The same excellent grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Same newsserver (although they change over time as they come and go). Hell, the same educational degrees, both undergrad and graduate. Hell, the same source for the images, and I even re-use images, so anyone wanting to track me not by the headers, could track, oh, say, these jpegs. <https://i.postimg.cc/hjj3tFR9/scrcpy34.jpg> Manage Android from Windows <https://i.postimg.cc/pr8NPNKs/scrcpy33.jpg> sndcpy is the default now <https://i.postimg.cc/zGNNXftK/scrcpy32.jpg> ADB port errors creep up <https://i.postimg.cc/KvTvtMS8/scrcpy31.jpg> HNS stop/start solution <https://i.postimg.cc/WbpYsfqg/scrcpy30.jpg> Windows Update is the problem <https://i.postimg.cc/Hs1ZZ5H0/scrcpy29.jpg> net stop hns & net start hns <https://i.postimg.cc/pdyTjwnT/scrcpy28.jpg> Android assigns random ports <https://i.postimg.cc/25XrGW9R/scrcpy27.jpg> Nobody can find locked ports <https://i.postimg.cc/Dz1rcpDX/scrcpy26.jpg> Windows Update locks ports <https://i.postimg.cc/tgvzsMRm/scrcpy25.jpg> Connect over Wi-Fi sans USB <https://i.postimg.cc/Hnw59ZHm/scrcpy24.jpg> Compare Vysor to scrcpy <https://i.postimg.cc/mrz6gJpC/scrcpy23.jpg> Android SMS/MMS on Windows <https://i.postimg.cc/c4Wq5x9j/scrcpy22.jpg> Vysor IP address option <https://i.postimg.cc/9FJMKYch/scrcpy21.jpg> Windows Drive: === Android <https://i.postimg.cc/Y9jbTtcN/scrcpy20.jpg> Start /b as a CMD works! :) <https://i.postimg.cc/3R6nTz7s/scrcpy19.jpg> Start /b TARGET fails :( <https://i.postimg.cc/Y93b1z0n/scrcpy18.jpg> Free Automation APKs <https://i.postimg.cc/bvRXdbxg/scrcpy17.jpg> AutoIT & IFFT & Automate <https://i.postimg.cc/5NrK7jtg/scrcpy16.jpg> powershell hide-console trick <https://i.postimg.cc/g2yNftw0/scrcpy15.jpg> Trick to pin batch shortcut <https://i.postimg.cc/XqZsmVFM/scrcpy14.jpg> AppPath & shortcut TARGET <https://i.postimg.cc/CxXH6N2r/scrcpy13.jpg> No scrcpy console window! <https://i.postimg.cc/yYKNnHxD/scrcpy12.jpg> REG test of showwin.lnk <https://i.postimg.cc/7LWJhWxq/scrcpy11.jpg> Shortcut test of showwin.lnk <https://i.postimg.cc/fyWw2nXh/scrcpy10.jpg> The console came up :( <https://i.postimg.cc/66Gn2t2g/scrcpy09.jpg> REG test of showwin.bat <https://i.postimg.cc/nV6K0Cfn/scrcpy08.jpg> CMD test of showwin.bat <https://i.postimg.cc/hjkVFyqJ/scrcpy07.jpg> Android mnt as drive letter <https://i.postimg.cc/Sx1hgWmY/scrcpy06.jpg> Press two hardware buttons <https://i.postimg.cc/wvsbcNBz/scrcpy05.jpg> Drag APK from Windows <https://i.postimg.cc/Y00vx4yp/scrcpy04.jpg> Extraneous cmd window (&) <https://i.postimg.cc/Vvrq0K0m/scrcpy03.jpg> The efficient setup explained <https://i.postimg.cc/tTmdgKTB/scrcpy02.jpg> An efficient program setup <https://i.postimg.cc/N0G1TXcZ/scrcpy01.jpg> Mirror Android on any PC Who does that, but me. Yet, the trolls, who can never add value, say that by wanting privacy, I'm a troll. They say that crap all the time, which says a lot about them. I'm not hiding from anyone in the body. Everything is the same in the body. It's only the header that is randomized. Hell, few people notice but I try to end each line perfectly, even as most people might let the 80-character line wrap do it for them (that's because I wrote my own newsreader which uses gvim macros to equalize line content). What's sadly hilarious is that, after hundreds of posts of EXACTLY the same me in every say, the trolls (especially on Apple ngs) excitedly claim I FOUND YOU!!!!!! It's like you put this big fat egg in the middle of the lawn for the mentally challenged people, and they shout out with glee that they found what was never even for a moment hidden from people with a normal IQ. -- Privacy is a million little things, of which most people only know 3.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-08 10:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6mg0altqn3o84rm15tj8ugrj3l9iunlmas@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #155776 |
On Tue, 8 Sep 2026 19:51:29 +0300, Maria Sophia
<mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
>But aggregators "can" track your posts across the Internet.
>I post to many (many!) forums (web forums like XDA, Telegram, etc.)
"Ads You See Online Are Now Police Surveillance"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq36YXrfyJE>
"This video explores how advertising data became a powerful
surveillance tool."
We're all doomed.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272 AE6KS 831-336-2558
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-08 18:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <117pq71.5c8.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #155783 |
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote: > On Tue, 8 Sep 2026 19:51:29 +0300, Maria Sophia > <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote: > > >But aggregators "can" track your posts across the Internet. > >I post to many (many!) forums (web forums like XDA, Telegram, etc.) > > "Ads You See Online Are Now Police Surveillance" > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq36YXrfyJE> > "This video explores how advertising data became a powerful > surveillance tool." > > We're all doomed. Exactly! If the aggregators don't get you, the trolls will! BTW, I hid my SSID and now I can't find it anywhere!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-08 22:18 +0400 |
| Message-ID | <117pjgq$1naf$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #155783 |
Jeff Liebermann wrote: >>But aggregators "can" track your posts across the Internet. >>I post to many (many!) forums (web forums like XDA, Telegram, etc.) > > "Ads You See Online Are Now Police Surveillance" > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq36YXrfyJE> > "This video explores how advertising data became a powerful > surveillance tool." > > We're all doomed. Hi Jeff, I was wondering where you've been as you seem to have retired from the Internet service business in recent years. I see you on the electronics repair ng sometimes, but rarely here nowadays. I still remember you proved how the router transmit power claims are completely bogus, much as Apple's claims of battery efficiency were. You, of all people, have my true identity as we've conversed a few times over the years in email and on Usenet about our shared WISP experiences, e.g., surfnet, ridge, etheric, hilltop, xfinity, et al., and you and I both personally know most of the local operators, e.g., mike, loren, dave. When I moved to the Santa Cruz Mountains from flatland in San Jose, I was shocked there was no wired services, so people only had satellite or WISP. I ended up inviting the local WISP team to serve me, for free, and as a result, they serve the whole mountain as I have a repeater on my rooftop. For years, I provided them with good business by setting up all my neighbors with 2.4GHz radios and eventually the 5GHz rocket dishes. At some point they started doing the installations themselves, so I no longer had to log into every neighbor's router to update the firmware. I want to THANK YOU for teaching me a LOT of what I know about Wi-Fi networking, particularly you're pretty clear on how they lie about decibels, where we have control over our transmit strength if we like. You also taught me a lot about changing the BSSID, or not, which was well before Google became big so it's fundamental knowledge you imparted to me. I very much APPRECIATE all the help you've provided over the decades. You haven't posted much lately, so I'm happy to know you're still around! I think we're almost the same age, where I'm an octogenarian, while you're most likely still a young kid in your 70's, as I recall (but maybe not). In summary, I love the sagacious sharpness of your sarcasm, which is, like Paul's, well honed by decades of experience finding things out the hard way. I'm HAPPY you're still around, as you, & maybe Jon, & perhaps Lawrence, & maybe even Andy, are the only ones seemingly capable of understanding this topic, where if we follow the breadcrumb of the BSSID:GPS pair, the way Apple does it is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the way everyone else does it. Apple claims "we care about your privacy"... except when they don't. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-09 19:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0l04al5meg35n4sgk3okmonc62i9pf458p@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #155792 |
On Tue, 8 Sep 2026 22:18:02 +0400, Maria Sophia
<mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>But aggregators "can" track your posts across the Internet.
>>>I post to many (many!) forums (web forums like XDA, Telegram, etc.)
>>
>> "Ads You See Online Are Now Police Surveillance"
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq36YXrfyJE>
>> "This video explores how advertising data became a powerful
>> surveillance tool."
>>
>> We're all doomed.
>
>Hi Jeff,
>
>I was wondering where you've been as you seem to have retired from the
>Internet service business in recent years.
I officially retired on Dec 31, 2020, after the CZU fire and the
middle of the Covid 19 pandemic. At the time, I was 72 years old,
which I thought was a good age to retire.
>I see you on the electronics
>repair ng sometimes, but rarely here nowadays.
alt.internet.wireless was intended to cover various methods of radio
communications technology (cellular, wi-fi, satellite, point to point,
etc) to obtain internet access. Initially, most of the design and
testing work was in the US. By the time I retired, it had mostly
moved to the far east.
>I still remember you proved how the router transmit power claims are
>completely bogus, much as Apple's claims of battery efficiency were.
Yeah, that got me rather angry. That was a clear example of Apple
hiding what I consider to be a design error by burying the problem
under a mountain of technobabble and claiming a rubber bumper had
solved the problem.
"Cell Phone Antenna Hand Tests"
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/cellular/cell-test.htm>
"Apple iPhone users angry about the "death grip" won $15 in federal
court."
<https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/national-international/phapple-settles-iphone-4-death-grip-lawsuit/2078168/>
>You, of all people, have my true identity as we've conversed a few times
>over the years in email and on Usenet about our shared WISP experiences,
>e.g., surfnet, ridge, etheric, hilltop, xfinity, et al., and you and I both
>personally know most of the local operators, e.g., mike, loren, dave.
Don't worry. I may have your secret identity somewhere on my computer
but at this time, I can't find it.
>When I moved to the Santa Cruz Mountains from flatland in San Jose, I was
>shocked there was no wired services, so people only had satellite or WISP.
I moved to the hills in about 1974(?). There were enough lines and
phone numbers for everyone. Near the end of the 1970's, the BBS's
(bulleting board services) and garage ISP's arrived. Available phone
lines and numbers suddenly became scarce. In about 1994, the BBS and
garage ISP's moved into problem office buildings, which freed up quite
a few phone lines, which were immediately consumed by a student
population increase inspired by rapidly rising real estate costs.
<https://www.biggestuscities.com/city/santa-cruz-california>
>I ended up inviting the local WISP team to serve me, for free, and as a
>result, they serve the whole mountain as I have a repeater on my rooftop.
Nice. Good to see you made it work. I tried to organize something
similar but using buried twisted pair, coax cable, fiber and some
Wi-Fi distributing internet, cable TV, satellite TV, and some CATV
cameras. It worked fairly well, until a newly arrive resident decided
to complain about the service to the county, instead of to us. I was
tired of getting midnight support calls and was more than happy to see
the service calls disappear with the equipment.
>For years, I provided them with good business by setting up all my
>neighbors with 2.4GHz radios and eventually the 5GHz rocket dishes.
>
>At some point they started doing the installations themselves, so I no
>longer had to log into every neighbor's router to update the firmware.
Good plan. I took the middle road by having the neighbors bring their
equipment to my house, where I had a proper messy workbench to deal
with updates and rat damage. House calls were billable and intended
only for installations. The parents tolerated that because it saved
them money and gave the local teenagers some networking experience.
>I want to THANK YOU for teaching me a LOT of what I know about Wi-Fi
>networking, particularly you're pretty clear on how they lie about
>decibels, where we have control over our transmit strength if we like.
That's a rather odd way to describe the problem. Wi-Fi TPC (transmit
power control) was NOT required for the early Wi-Fi hardware. By the
time it became mandatory, the number of Wi-Fi devices was many times
larger than was the systems were originally designed to handle. TPC
was one solution for keeping interference down to a tolerable level. I
have some opinions on the matter, but they can wait for some other
time.
"8 reasons to turn down the transmit power of your Wi-Fi"
<https://metis.fi/en/2017/10/txpower/>
Remember the "alligator"? Spoiler: An alligator is an animal with a
very big mouth and tiny ears. The Wi-Fi equivalent is a radio running
very high transmit power but had a deaf receiver. Such a system, will
cover a wide area in transmit, but can't hear any small devices
(laptops, smartphones, IoT device, etc over the same area.
>You also taught me a lot about changing the BSSID, or not, which was well
>before Google became big so it's fundamental knowledge you imparted to me.
Y're welcome. If you know the fundamentals, you can use them to build
a model of how the network works. In the other direction, knowing how
the higher levels of the network works, without knowing the
fundamentals, leaves you trying to reverse engineer the fundamentals
from the upper network layers. That's much more difficult than
starting with fundamentals.
>I very much APPRECIATE all the help you've provided over the decades.
Y'er welcome. It's good to know someone was listening.
>You haven't posted much lately, so I'm happy to know you're still around!
Well, that's a problem. I'm getting old (78 currently), tired and
lazy. Debating the finer points of some technology eventually turns
into an endless time burn. Your endless discussion with "Carlos E.R."
is a good example. Carlos seems to baiting you with less than
brilliant one-line comments, which usually results literary effluvia
from you. All that does is waste everyone's time. Yours is wasted
because you write more than anyone is willing to read. My time is
wasted, but I just don't have the time to read the entire thread. I
suspect the typical Usenet reader thinks in a similar manner.
Hint: Adjust your quality and quantity to that of your audience. Too
much is sometimes worse than too little.
>I think we're almost the same age, where I'm an octogenarian, while you're
>most likely still a young kid in your 70's, as I recall (but maybe not).
Close. I'm 78. I look and feel somewhat younger for a rather odd
reason. From my parking space by the road to the upper level of my
house is about 50 stairs. Everything that goes in and out of the
house needs to navigate those stairs. My cardiologist believes that
the stair climbing is largely responsible for my tolerable health.
Unfortunately, exercise is not a cure of geriatric (old age) problems.
For example, I discovered that I was lactose intolerant about a month
ago. I've also had to deal with some more serious medical problems
(and medical fire drills). Eventually, I'll need to build a firewood
and funicular lift.
>In summary, I love the sagacious sharpness of your sarcasm, which is, like
>Paul's, well honed by decades of experience finding things out the hard
>way.
Thanks.
>I'm HAPPY you're still around, as you, & maybe Jon, & perhaps Lawrence, &
>maybe even Andy, are the only ones seemingly capable of understanding this
>topic, where if we follow the breadcrumb of the BSSID:GPS pair, the way
>Apple does it is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the way everyone else does it.
Apple's success has been primarily from their "walled garden"
philosophy. The implication is that everything inside their "walled
garden" is different for what is outside. Also, if something is the
same both inside and outside of their "walled garden" (i.e.
standards), Apple will do everything they can to make their part of
the problem as different as possible. USB-C chargers perhaps?
>Apple claims "we care about your privacy"... except when they don't.
I'll pass. I had dinner at midnight last night and don't want a
repeat performance. Good luck.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272 AE6KS 831-336-2558
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-10 09:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pb3anmxfm1.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #155827 |
On 2026-09-10 04:46, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > On Tue, 8 Sep 2026 22:18:02 +0400, Maria Sophia > <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote: ... > Well, that's a problem. I'm getting old (78 currently), tired and > lazy. Debating the finer points of some technology eventually turns > into an endless time burn. Your endless discussion with "Carlos E.R." > is a good example. Carlos seems to baiting you with less than > brilliant one-line comments, which usually results literary effluvia > from you. All that does is waste everyone's time. Yours is wasted > because you write more than anyone is willing to read. My time is > wasted, but I just don't have the time to read the entire thread. I > suspect the typical Usenet reader thinks in a similar manner. Baiting! Interesting idea, but no, I have no such intention. Not knowingly, at least. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-10 10:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <117u7cc.os0.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #155830 |
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > On 2026-09-10 04:46, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > > On Tue, 8 Sep 2026 22:18:02 +0400, Maria Sophia > > <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote: > > ... > > > Well, that's a problem. I'm getting old (78 currently), tired and > > lazy. Debating the finer points of some technology eventually turns > > into an endless time burn. Your endless discussion with "Carlos E.R." > > is a good example. Carlos seems to baiting you with less than > > brilliant one-line comments, which usually results literary effluvia > > from you. All that does is waste everyone's time. Yours is wasted > > because you write more than anyone is willing to read. My time is > > wasted, but I just don't have the time to read the entire thread. I > > suspect the typical Usenet reader thinks in a similar manner. > > Baiting! Interesting idea, but no, I have no such intention. Not > knowingly, at least. Agreed. (You) Refusing to get engaged in his sprees of insults, misrepresentations, lies, etc., is in *no* way 'baiting'. Quite the opposite. Any and all baiting is purely on 'Arlen''s side. That said, (obviously) no ill feelings at all towards Jeff.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-11 07:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1180bj2$2moi7$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155833 |
Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: > Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >> On 2026-09-10 04:46, Jeff Liebermann wrote: >>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2026 22:18:02 +0400, Maria Sophia >>> <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote: >> >> ... >> >>> Well, that's a problem. I'm getting old (78 currently), tired and >>> lazy. Debating the finer points of some technology eventually turns >>> into an endless time burn. Your endless discussion with "Carlos E.R." >>> is a good example. Carlos seems to baiting you with less than >>> brilliant one-line comments, which usually results literary effluvia >>> from you. All that does is waste everyone's time. Yours is wasted >>> because you write more than anyone is willing to read. My time is >>> wasted, but I just don't have the time to read the entire thread. I >>> suspect the typical Usenet reader thinks in a similar manner. >> >> Baiting! Interesting idea, but no, I have no such intention. Not >> knowingly, at least. > > Agreed. (You) Refusing to get engaged in his sprees of insults, > misrepresentations, lies, etc., is in *no* way 'baiting'. Quite the > opposite. Any and all baiting is purely on 'Arlen''s side. > > That said, (obviously) no ill feelings at all towards Jeff. I concur. Although, the curt responses from Carlos are a symptom of being vilified for days by Arlen.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-11 09:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <12b8aldgeinf4s33bjq76i6uh3qana1165@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #155843 |
On Fri, 11 Sep 2026 07:45:38 -0000 (UTC), Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2026-09-10 04:46, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2026 22:18:02 +0400, Maria Sophia
>>>> <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Well, that's a problem. I'm getting old (78 currently), tired and
>>>> lazy. Debating the finer points of some technology eventually turns
>>>> into an endless time burn. Your endless discussion with "Carlos E.R."
>>>> is a good example. Carlos seems to baiting you with less than
>>>> brilliant one-line comments, which usually results literary effluvia
>>>> from you. All that does is waste everyone's time. Yours is wasted
>>>> because you write more than anyone is willing to read. My time is
>>>> wasted, but I just don't have the time to read the entire thread. I
>>>> suspect the typical Usenet reader thinks in a similar manner.
>>>
>>> Baiting! Interesting idea, but no, I have no such intention. Not
>>> knowingly, at least.
>>
>> Agreed. (You) Refusing to get engaged in his sprees of insults,
>> misrepresentations, lies, etc., is in *no* way 'baiting'. Quite the
>> opposite. Any and all baiting is purely on 'Arlen''s side.
>>
>> That said, (obviously) no ill feelings at all towards Jeff.
>
>I concur. Although, the curt responses from Carlos are a symptom of being
>vilified for days by Arlen.
Good point. I didn't read the entire thread. All I saw was long and
repetitive comments by Arlen and short, one-line replies by Carlos. I
interpreted the short replies as an attempt to extend the discussion
without adding anything of value. I also tend to ignore one-line
replies because they tend to contain little or nothing of value.
Whether this was intentional trolling by Carlos, or frustration
dealing with Alren, is unknown.
I have a simple solution to the problem. When I'm involved in a
discussion that has devolved into on-line comments (which incidentally
seems to be the fashion with text-messaging style comments), I just
stop adding my fuel to the fire. Similarly, when the argument has
reached an impasse, I also stop as further repetition will serve no
useful purpose. When the discussion inevitably changes topic, I
immediately question my continued involvement. Basically, if I don't
think it's worth reading, I won't write anything. Those are a big
part of why I avoid posting comments in newsgroups and forums.
Gone to help a friend with his camper resurrection project.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272 AE6KS 831-336-2558
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-11 19:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1181dqo$33kbg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155851 |
Jeff, > I also tend to ignore one-line replies because they tend to contain > little or nothing of value. > Whether this was intentional trolling by Carlos, or frustration > dealing with Alren, is unknown. You already said it yourself : > All I saw was long and repetitive comments by Arlen Arlen is well know for ignoring everything he doesn't want to hear, and keep reposting his own "truths" - even if they have been shown to be wrong. And as you probably have noticed by now, everyone who does not agree with him is either dumb, or a troll. Regards, Rudy Wieser
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-11 20:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1otdnmxfd4.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #155855 |
On 2026-09-11 19:29, R.Wieser wrote: > Jeff, > >> I also tend to ignore one-line replies because they tend to contain >> little or nothing of value. >> Whether this was intentional trolling by Carlos, or frustration >> dealing with Alren, is unknown. > > You already said it yourself : > >> All I saw was long and repetitive comments by Arlen > > Arlen is well know for ignoring everything he doesn't want to hear, and keep > reposting his own "truths" - even if they have been shown to be wrong. > > And as you probably have noticed by now, everyone who does not agree with > him is either dumb, or a troll. The reasons I typically reply with a short text are usually: * After reading the post, I have an unanswered question. I don't need to reply to it all, specially if it is a repeat and doesn't address the question that I made perhaps on a previous post, so I insist on the question. I don't say more because I want focus. * I don't accept some stated fact as a fact, and just say so and ignore the rest of the text as superfluous. * The other person is insulting long and wide. I stop reading and ignore the rest of the post. In this long thread, I stopped answering to de escalate. I would ask Jeff Liebermann to please read the entire thread before forming an opinion about me. Or, if you do not want all that work, just read the posts by, for example, Keith Thompson, and Arlen answers, then conclude if Keith is a troll as Arlen says. I do not want to explain anything, to not influence you. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web