Austin Airport Tracks Cell Phones To Measure Security Line Wait 168
jfruh writes If you get into the TSA security line at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport, you'll see monitors telling you how long your wait will be — and if you have a phone with Wi-Fi enabled, you're helping the airport come up with that number. A system implemented by Cisco tracks the MAC addresses of phones searching for Wi-Fi networks and sees how long it takes those phones to traverse the line, giving a sense of how quickly things are moving. While this is useful information to have, the privacy implications are a bit unsettling.
Not sure about this one (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sources tell Fox 9 News that normally, an airport would be shut down for a situation like the one described. The terminals would need to be evacuated so that everyone could be re-screened -- but that didn't exactly happen in the Twin Cities. Instead, a TSA spokesperson confirmed that 5 minutes after the breach, screening operations were suspended for about 7 minutes while TSA officials and airport police swept the C concourse. When the passengers involved landed, they were reverse-screened and questioned before being released without charges.
They didn't shut down the entire airport and declare a national emergency and crash the plane into the ground?
What? The TSA reacted sanely?
Those people are too smart to be working for the TSA. FIRE THEM!!!
Re:Not sure about this one (Score:5, Insightful)
and its not like your mac address isn't seen by the access points and likely logged anyway simply organizing the information they alerady have to provide other useful insights
Re:Not sure about this one (Score:5, Insightful)
and its not like your mac address isn't seen by the access points and likely logged anyway
Indeed. Articles like this are not just stupid, they are harmful. By declaring every routine event to be "privacy violation", they are creating confusion and "outrage fatigue" which leads to apathy about the real violations of privacy that people should actually care about.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
DING! Get that man, or woman, a prize! I think "outrage fatigue" is a very important piece of the pie as far as DHS and taking away our privacy goes. The more fatigue the more they can take away.
Re: (Score:2)
You miss the point.
Anyway, my dear, betrayed American friends. You are being fucked over by 'authorities' (can you btw. vote those out or is hanging them from lamp posts the only
way to a clean slate?), you're being shafted by your own countrymen more than you'll ever even be slightly bothered by lessay the Chinese.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Think about it. They already know who you are unless you anonymously purchased a "drop" phone. With either GPS or LBS, they know where the phone's been. It was with you, likely. You fell asleep where you live, so that's your address, resolved to about 1m most places. There's a MAC address on the phone, very difficult to spoof. There are two more IDs on the phone, one as your EIMI or equiv, and other that's buried in a firmware-reachable mem location.
You drove by the sniffing cell towers on your way into the
Who cares (Score:5, Informative)
Modern IOS versions randomize the MAC used for passive wifi scans. I'd imagine android is also doing the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Modern IOS versions randomize the MAC used for passive wifi scans. I'd imagine android is also doing the same.
Android is all about tracking everything you do to send you ads, so I doubt it's doing the same. I should check mine sometime.
Re:Who cares (Score:5, Informative)
Modern IOS versions randomize the MAC used for passive wifi scans. I'd imagine android is also doing the same.
Android is all about tracking everything you do to send you ads, so I doubt it's doing the same. I should check mine sometime.
Just checked with my LG G3, I can confirm MAC is being randomized for passive scans.
Re: (Score:2)
Opt out (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't use the FREE effing wifi, if you don't like it. If you're not paying for the product, you are the product.
Re: (Score:2)
It uses the phone's scanning in some instances, so it's enough for your phone to scan for a new Wifi to be tracked (unless you're using an iPhone where your MAC is randomised...)
Simple solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Turn off wi-fi. Done.
You can be tracked anywhere anytime you're using a communication radio. Deal with it.
Sounds legit (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a huge privacy advocate... but how far are we going to go with this?
You're in a public place.
You're connecting to their network at various points.
They're using that info to figure out how long it takes for you to get through the line.
How is this any different than them using your check ins with your boarding pass?
"I just dumped the entire contents of my luggage in the middle of food court. I appreciate the offer to help me pick it up bu how dare you invade my privacy!"
Re: (Score:2)
How is this any different than them using your check ins with your boarding pass?
Good question. This whole thing seems over-engineered.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really because you don't have to scan your boarding pass AFTER going through security, you do it only ENTERING security. If they added this extra step it would just slow everything down even more.
Re: (Score:2)
What 'extra step'? Just have the scanner hook-up to the system.
It would only measure throughput though, not queue-length, so there is a difference.
Re: (Score:2)
If everyone getting out of security has to scan their boarding pass AGAIN, it will just make another line. It is a horrible idea.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll ask again:
What 'extra step'? Just have the scanner hook-up to the system.
I was quite clear: there's no obvious need to scan twice.
Re: (Score:2)
Hook up to what system? You are not making any sense at all.
Like I said already, currently you only scan your boarding pass pre-security. to do your plan, you have to add a second scan, after security. This second scan will be another bottleneck just like the line entering security.
You aren't making any sense. I fly a lot, and the last thing I want to deal with is more BS in the security line to collect simple stats that can be collected in other ways.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are that worried about privacy, There are already security cameras recording everything you
Re: (Score:2)
It happens automatically and reliably.
The TSA can use more detailed information about line delays in order to shorten the lines. I don't know that they *will,* but it's easy to see that it could help.
How will that work with new iOS random MAC? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Randomized MAC for background scans ... (Score:3)
If you've got a recent iPhone [apple.com], it's already randomizing the MAC used for background scans:
Of course, that doesn't work if you are using the phone to read Twitter while waiting in line, because seriously, what else are you expected to do while shuffling along?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, that doesn't work if you are using the phone to read Twitter while waiting in line, because seriously, what else are you expected to do while shuffling along?
Reading Slashdot?
Re: (Score:3)
Before I get on a plane? No thanks, I really like to try and relax before my flight,
Re: (Score:2)
If you've got a recent iPhone, it's already randomizing the MAC used for background scans:
Sort of.
http://www.imore.com/closer-lo... [imore.com]
The key is 'device's processor is asleep'. Any time it wakes up, it probes with its real mac. So if your in line at the store, phone is in your pocket, and twitter gets an update (over cellular data), that still wakes your phone up, and it probes with its real mac.
Or, since your in line at the store and bored, you pull out your phone and check the time, and respond to an sms...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, when you get to the front of the line you should pay attention to the instructions. In the meantime, while you are waiting to get to the front of the line, there's nothing to pay attention to.
What privacy concerns? (Score:4, Informative)
While this is useful information to have, the privacy implications are a bit unsettling.
As best I can tell from the description, this sounds similar to what Disney and other themeparks use to track their wait times for rides, except the amusement parks occasionally hand out little RFID "things" to guests at the ride entrance and ask the guest to give it to the operator.
As far as I'm aware, any time you're polling for WiFi networks you're broadcasting your MAC; this just seems like a fairly benign way to get information about a process without getting actual data on an individual.
Granted, you can somewhat reliably tie together a MAC addy's travel path if you have the ability to see all the places that MAC has been, but that was true even without this particular software.
So, yeah, what is the concern about this software in particular? It seems like the complaint is more with how the scanning for networks works.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much what I was thinking.
"People everywhere are constantly scanning with their beady little eyes. If they see someone in public they have met before, they recognize them and are able to track them through the crowd with these eyes. The privacy implications of this being used in a place that is not at all private and completely public, are unsettling."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Benefit far outweighs privacy concerns (Score:2)
On the freeways where I live are large signs that show transit times to various points-- those are very accurate and very nice to have.If you're concerned about privacy and tracking, don't wear a device that can track you.
But if you're in an airport, you can assume your name and travel details will be reported to the government. Even if your local coffee shop wants to know how many you stop in for a lat
Privacy? This is the ID and BODY SCAN line (Score:5, Insightful)
Certainly I don't want them to know I have a cell phone, that would be an invasion of my privacy while I wait in line for my NAKED BODY SCAN, right after I hand them my government-issued ID. There are privacy invasions happening there, but they aren't wifi related.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't do the naked body scan anymore, at least not to any monitors that I can see.
It's just a rough outline of a generic person and indicates where anything odd is going on.
The problem is, if I pull my sweat pants up too high while in line (to prevent accidental dropped pants in case of pat-down), it sometimes picks up the waist band being up that high as suspicious and I get a pat-down.
Re: (Score:2)
The monitor only shows an outline, but the scan itself gets a lot more detail, and that is all stored in the system.
So...? (Score:2)
I don't see the need for a tinfoil hat here. If my phone is actively searching for a network, and the airport is using that information in a way that doesn't identify me, doesn't make my phone think it should be sending any other data, and generally makes my experience better, I don't see a problem. They're even letting me know that they do it.
I love my privacy, but this use seems perfectly sane. Yes, they could hire a Walmart greeter to sit on a stool and watch the line, periodically holding up a chalk
Sigh. (Score:2)
Erm... how do you think the traffic apps work on your satnav?
They ask you to "anonymously" contribute statistics, they talk home over 3G to service centres, who spot traffic moving slowly (given speed and position is easy on a satnav), mark those roads with appropriate average speeds and then transmit that out to everyone with traffic services.
Sure, they use roadside monitors and other things as well but the "HD" traffic you might get from any large satnav provider uses exactly the same technology.
The quest
Turn your wifi off (Score:2)
Okay, so turn your WiFi off before you walk into the airport. Super secret line monitoring DEFEATED! The TSA will never know where you are in line! You'll be like the Spanish Inquisition.
Oh, please... (Score:2)
PDX (Score:2)
At PDX and other places a TSA guy gives you a little colored card with a number on it.
At the other end of the line a TSA guy takes it from you.
They time of the line is measured by the transit time of the card.
Is this more or less creepy?
Re: (Score:2)
If there are two people who are earning a living wage doing nothing more than handing out/retrieving cards and logging times, I find that far more disturbing than an automated process.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. There are many things wrong with the TSA.
Singapore Airport (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course, there are other instances where Governments have been rather crass about it:
A few years ago I was transiting at Singapore's Changi Airport. They had free WiFi, but subject to me giving them the MAC
Re: (Score:2)
Um, you do realize that to even get in the line you have to a) prove who you are (goverment issued ID) and b) show where you are going (boarding pass). I don't think they need something obscure like a MAC address to know who is in the airport and where they are going.
Re: (Score:2)
True about showing ID and tickets, but as far as I know, they don't record that information, they just inspect it. (I could be wrong on that one too).
Until we have randomized MAC addresses, the MAC is one common denominator.
Perhaps I wasn't explicit enough, its not where you are going, it is where you have been, that is equally or more important to a Police State.
Re: (Score:2)
True about showing ID and tickets, but as far as I know, they don't record that information, they just inspect it. (I could be wrong on that one too).
TSA don't need to record your information at the checkpoint, because they already get it from the airline as part of the Secure Flight [wikipedia.org] program.
For those of us keeping score... (Score:3)
To get to that point, one has to:
1.) buy airplane tickets, most likely by credit card (I'm sure there's some way to use cash to pay for airplane tickets, but I don't know a single person who's done that in a decade). These tickets give a very good probability as to where you are going to be, when. ...so now they're using the MACs of cell phones to figure out how long people are going to be in the queue, and we're worried about "privacy concerns"? You're in the wrong place if you're worried about privacy in the security line at an airport.
2.) check in - in other words, directly inform the airline that you are at the airport.
3.) get onto a line whose exit involves partial undress (shoes, belts, jackets), placing your personal effects on a conveyor belt to be searched, and an X-Ray of your body.
What privacy concerns exactly? (Score:2)
Counting unique MAC addresses means nothing.
It is literally just the same as watching the airport cameras and counting the passengers as they move through security.
Do you really honestly think there are no cameras at airports? Are you that clueless?
Your ignorance is a bit unsettling. Put away the tin foil.
Doesn't bother me (Score:2)
You're broadcasting again! (Score:2)
I don't see a great privacy implication here. WiFi is, again, a broadcast medium. If you've got WiFi turned on, you already know your phone is broadcasting to access points and that those access points know you're inside their range (and with the way modern beam-forming tech works, they have a good idea exactly where you are). If I were interested in privacy, I'd have WiFi turned off so I wasn't broadcasting my presence constantly.
Copenhagen Airport's doing it with Bluetooth (Score:2)
Why not just use cameras? (Score:2)
There are probably security cameras watching the line already. Use them to count the people. Software for this is available from several suppliers.
Cameras at intersections already do this, as part of traffic signal control. The best systems report things like "3 cars waiting at signal, then a big gap, then more approaching cars". The controller can then let three cars through, then turn the light for that intersection face red and let the other direction go.
iOS8 (Score:2)
Am I the first to point out iOS8 fixes this.
http://appleinsider.com/articl... [appleinsider.com]
Slashdot LOVES cell phone tracking (Score:2)
I don't know what it is, but slashdot editors just LOVE the hell out of cell phone tracking. I mean, there has probably been a story or two on the subject before now:
http://slashdot.org/story/05/1... [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/story/05/1... [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/story/05/1... [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/story/05/1... [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/story/02/1... [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/story/02/0... [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/story/06/0... [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/story/07/0... [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/story/12/1... [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/story/06/1... [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot [slashdot.org]
Re:A bit???? (Score:5, Insightful)
And, it's not like you can opt out .. unless you simply don't fly.
...if you have a phone with Wi-Fi enabled
You could always just, you know, turn off wifi on your phone.
Re:A bit???? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sigh. Ok people, let me explain something ... if your cell phone is on, you are being tracked. You always have been. The cell towers have to communicate with your phone, and therefore you are always being tracked.
This particular instance of tracking (by noting with a MAC address enters/leaves an area) is no more invasive than what has been happening at the airport for decades with the cameras that are up at every airport everywhere. Tracking a MAC address doesn't indicate who you are or give them access to any information about you as an individual.
Furthermore, if you have your WiFi on, you are again always locatable. If you really think that someone someone being able to know that MAC 00:11:22:33:44:55:66 has left the building is an invasion of privacy, turn off your phone - or better yet don't have a cell phone, because you are being tracked and inspected in far more invasive ways than that if you have a cell phone.
Re:A bit???? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. This to me actually seems fine. We can't cry foul on everything every time, if so our complaints, even the legitimate ones become noise.
Re: (Score:2)
Better yet, don't go to the airport. You're probably being tracked on dozens of cameras via your face alone. You could cover your face with something to prevent tracking, but that might cause other problems.
These systems, assuming they are in place, are not active systems. They're passive systems, used to address events after the fact. Somebody jumps the terminal exit? Track them back to when they entered. Somebody caught with a bag that didn't go through security? Track them back to the person who gave it
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone that paranoid about tracking should basically avoid the larger parts of society. Live out in a cabin in the woods near some small town, or in a trailer park in the middle of nowhere. Hell, that's what most people trying to avoid being tracked already do.
Because that's acceptable in a supposedly free society? Maybe we should instead change our government (no mass surveillance, no TSA, etc.) and enact sensible privacy laws.
Re: (Score:2)
The new iPhone os randomized your Mac address daily so ppl can't do long term tracking. It's just one of the privacy improvements. Apple is really awesome about privacy which is one reason I use an iPhone.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Again, what does any of this have to do with using free services?
Re:A bit???? (Score:4, Insightful)
A bit????
No, the privacy implications of this are downright creepy. Because the most unsettling thing is governments and corporations feel they have a right to this information.
And, it's not like you can opt out .. unless you simply don't fly.
And, then what does Cisco et al do with this information? Oh, right, sell it for profit.
Assholes.
They A) Already know you have a flight booked B) Already know where you are going. C) When you check in, they know you are there. If you want privacy of how long you are waiting in line. Don't broadcast your location over the air waves with a transmitter.
Re: (Score:2)
C) When you check in, they know you are there.
No, they know you've checked in, and they can assume you expect to be there sometime before the flight. They don't know you are there because you don't have to be there to check in.
Re:A bit???? (Score:4, Insightful)
You are dumb.
Re:A bit???? (Score:5, Insightful)
The manufacturer of your phone already knows your mac address. It has no value to anyone else beyond the first network hop. You like the author are an idiot who knows nothing about MAC addresses.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A bit???? (Score:5, Informative)
I disagree. Although i do think my phone should change its mac address regularly so that the tracking is at most session based. They know -a phone- was in line for 30 minutes. They don't know the phone is my phone. And when they see a phone a for 30 minutes next week they won't know its the -same phone-.
Also, just a heads up to those excited about Apple's ios mac randomization -- its proving to be not remotely as good as they led us to believe it would be. (It only sends out a random mac when a) not connected to a network, b) AND asleep.
Any time anything wakes up the phone it probes with its real mac. (So for example, if your on cellular data, and twitter or email or something gets a message to your phone, it wakes up and probes wifi with its real mac...) rendering the feature all but useless. Apparently the fake probes also include your recent SSID list too making them even more useless.
http://www.imore.com/closer-lo... [imore.com]
So... not worse than ios7 ... but not exactly useful either.
And on that note, does anyone recommend a good automatic mac randomizer for android?
Re:A bit???? (Score:5, Informative)
MAC address randomization is currently being argued back and forth in IEEE 802.
It breaks many things. It might work randomizing between sessions on a simple LAN, but in the presence of the the 802.1 network features (bridges, vlans, STP, provider bridges etc. etc.) it simply breaks.
It doesn't sit well with the various authentication schemes that mix the MAC address into the security header and key derivation.
It doesn't sit will with MAC based routing entities that are not on the local segment.
People with a deep knowledge of 802 protocols are looking at this and it isn't simple or easy.
Re: (Score:2)
How do probes with random macs break it? If a known network it wants to connect to is present it can use its real address.
But for probing -- for determining what available in-range SSIDs are present; so that location services can use the SSID list to assist positioning, and so that it can decide whether it wants to present its real address in a follow up / probe / connection request... that seems like something simple that shouldn't break anything.
And beyond that other than filtering by mac (which is idioti
Re: (Score:3)
>How do probes with random macs break it? If a known network it wants to connect to is present it can use its real address.
You can probe with a random mac all you like.
But you can't then connect with a random mac and expect the connectivity to work. Not when the mac is changing faster than the network attachment. If it isn't changing that fast (like in Apple's products) it can work, but it doesn't stop a broad class of tracking.
So yes, you can probe all day with a random mac. Just expect to have to revea
Re:A bit???? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I fail to see how people taking note of information that you're basically shouting out loud to everyone around you can be considered creepy.
I mean, you phone is basically saying "Hi I'm John Smith the <48 bit MAC ID> and I'm looking for WiFi, anyone offering some?" over and over again.
So you're saying it's not right for someone to overhear it and write that down? "I just heard a John Smith out there".
You must be real fun at parties when people overhear your conversations.
Re: (Score:3)
This made me laugh. I imagined the loud mouth guy from Dilbert doing this.
Put away the tinfoil hat and turn your radio off (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the privacy implications of this are downright creepy. Because the most unsettling thing is governments and corporations feel they have a right to this information.
If you are in an airport your are IN PUBLIC. Your privacy rights are significantly reduced when you are in public. You have no legal expectation of privacy in public. There is nothing remotely creepy about this. In fact I actually think this is a fairly clever use of the technology which allows people to easily opt out if desired.
And, it's not like you can opt out .. unless you simply don't fly.
There is an incredibly easy solution. Turn off your Wifi. Tada! Problem solved. If you have Wifi turned on then you are quite literally broadcasting your presence to anyone who cares to listen. It's like shouting at the top of your lungs in the airport and then telling everyone you have no way to opt out. YOU are the one broadcasting. It is YOUR choice. If you don't want people to listen then turn off your radio.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are in an airport your are IN PUBLIC. Your privacy rights are significantly reduced when you are in public. You have no legal expectation of privacy in public. There is nothing remotely creepy about this. In fact I actually think this is a fairly clever use of the technology which allows people to easily opt out if desired.
Excuse me... When I'm in a public place, I can see everyone who can see me. It's symmetrical. The other passengers can see me, I can see them.
When someone spies on me electronically, that spy doesn't actually know whether I'm in public or not. Airports have lots of rooms where I could be that are not public. I can't see any justification why the fact that people can see me would mean that people can electronically spy on me.
Privacy != Seclusion (Score:2)
When someone spies on me electronically, that spy doesn't actually know whether I'm in public or not.
Explain how the airport does not know you are in public when you are standing in a security line and broadcasting a radio signal.
Airports have lots of rooms where I could be that are not public.
You are confusing seclusion with the legal concept of privacy. They are not the same thing. The airport is not private property owned by you. Generally speaking you have no objective expectation of privacy [wikipedia.org] anywhere on the airport grounds so long as your Fourth Amendment rights to unreasonable search and seizure are not violated. It does not matter if you are alone in a room or
Re: (Score:2)
If it comes to worse, I guess you could also put the tin foil hat on your cellphone and ground the hat. If that helps.
Re: (Score:2)
Worrying about this does seem a bit silly, given that it's trivially avoided by turning off WiFi and that by flying you're already participating in one of the most surveilled activities anywhere on the planet. I mean, this is a field where for some reason a lot of people just accept behaviour like strip searches (of the virtual and/or physical variety) and/or pat downs that would get the patter classified as a sex offender under normal conditions and/or pretty much arbitrary confiscation and examination of
Legal expectation of objective privacy (Score:3)
However, the argument that when you're out in public you don't deserve any privacy needs to die. The law in most places may not have kept up with technology and its implications
It's not that you have no privacy in public but rather that your expectations of privacy are (and should be) rather limited. You might be noticed or you might not be but you should have no objective legal expectation that your actions will go unnoticed by anyone. As a general practical matter is is basically impossible to provide you with the sort of privacy you might expect in your home when out in public. There are legitimate public safety concerns as well as practical considerations. Are we supposed
Re: (Score:2)
Of course there can be no reasonable expectation that if you step outside your home then someone walking past won't see you, any more than they have a reasonable expectation that you would not see them.
However, technology lets us do a lot more than we naturally can, sometimes in very asymmetric ways, and potentially with very different implications. Saying we can't/shouldn't consider how much we want to regulate behaviour using those technologies is a bit like saying someone could climb up a ladder and peer
Re: (Score:2)
There is an incredibly easy solution. Turn off your Wifi. Tada! Problem solved.
These days, it isn't easy being an electronic ninja. Don't forget to turn off Cell, Bluetooth and NFC, the radios in your glasses, watch, fitness monitor, Tesla fob, headphones, tablet and gameboy, and disable the RFID tags in your wallet, luggage, shoes and clothing.
Re: (Score:3)
So what you're saying is:
When you are standing in line... ...at the security checkpoint of an airport... ...it's an invasion of privacy for them to know where you are...?
Re: (Score:2)
My airline knows I'm there. TSA knows I'm there.
But Cisco and anybody doing marketing? Not likely.
So, if you were in line and someone came up and said "we're doing this mandatory customer survey, we just need you to fill out this form" you'd think it was OK if a TSA agent was standing there to ensure you filled it out? This is about the equivalent for most people.
This crosses the line from me being in a place I need to be, and a private company having access to information they didn't have otherwise. No
Re: (Score:2)
Some amount of paranoia can be healthy. But youre BSI.
As the other dude said: just turn off your wifi and dont connect.
If they really wanted data on whos going to the airport, there is little to stop Cisco from just partnering with the airlines in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
My airline knows I'm there. TSA knows I'm there.
Your airline doesn't know you are standing in the security line, and it may not even know you are at the airport. The TSA doesn't know you are there until you hit the boarding pass/id check.
It's not like the other people in line with you have any real way of knowing and transmitting your identity.
Your MAC address isn't your identity any more than your IP address is. But yes, they can easily snap a photo of you and send it off to the web.
Re: (Score:2)
You must be new here. :-P
Nobody reads TFA ... everybody jumps to their own wild speculation and paranoia. Hilarity ensues.
Do I come down heavily on the tin-foil hat/privacy/conspiracy theory end of the spectrum??? Absolutely.
Does that make me wrong? Less often than I'd prefer, actually. It gets a little depressing.
The world continuously reinforces my cynicism by mak
Re: (Score:2)
When do you first connect to a public Wifi? When you're bored to death waiting in line to check-in, drop off luggage or go through security...
Re: (Score:2)
IP? The technical level of /. isn't increasing...
Re: (Score:2)
Most people are here for the politics and outrage, now, not the tech.
Re: (Score:2)
It was OK when I joined. The decline started about 977668 users later.
http://www.hamuniverse.com/ips... [hamuniverse.com]
To put it another way, whoooooosh!
Re: (Score:2)
Is that seriously a federal law now? "Real-time traffic information" has been available on the radio since my grandfather was driving. Waze, Google Maps, and virtually every other software-based GPS provides traffic information. Can we all agree that this is allowed to be filed under "completely useless legislation"?