HN user

sapski

138 karma
Posts7
Comments11
View on HN

Author of the underlying study here.

Facebook has been insisting that non-discrimination should be the responsibility of the purchasers, but we've shown over [0] and over [1] again [2] that even when the advertiser targets all groups proportionally (no misuse of advertising options), Facebook subselects who to show their ads to in a skewed way, leaving the advertiser and the users no recourse.

[0] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.02095.pdf

[1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1912.04255.pdf

[2] https://sapiezynski.com/papers/sapiezynski2019algorithms.pdf

It's true: Skyhook, Google, Apple, and Microsoft have been doing it for a while. Even more, there are free databases that you can use to map WiFi routers to locations (for example wiggle.net), but for some reason this is still not enough for Google to treat WiFi as equivalent to location. This also has consequences in age rating: if you explicitly require location access, you fall into a different age category than if you require "only" the WiFi permission.

You can control the scanning settings in settings -> WiFi -> advanced -> scanning always available. It's ON by default, but you can disable it there.

Apart from what you mention, what is new is the measurement of how many access point you actually need to know to track my location: it's costly to look up all the routers I see during a day, but we show that people spend a vast majority of the time close to a very small number of unique access points (~20 routers per person over 6 months).

Yes, but: 1) you can circumvent this problem by randomizing your mac between probes, as apple already does, and that doesn't help with the threat we present

2) ssids are not unique - when it says "airport" it can be any airport. When you have access to the mac of the device, you can pin point it uniquely - that's the threat we present.

3) with the threat you link, you theoretically might be able to recover some of the past locations of the user where they did connect to WiFi. With the threat we present you get the location history with time resolution of up to 20 seconds, whether the user connects to WiFi or not, and even if they disable WiFi, and you don't have to control any routers. I would say this constitutes a novelty.

=== EDIT ====

4) the link only mentions a theoretical possibility, we show that the threat is real based on real data collected over 6 months about multiple people.

Good point, thanks! We didn't watch the traffic of these apps yet, we just point out that they have the ability to report it back, beyond the user's control.

I did however read through the privacy policies of the apps, and one of the top 20 with WiFi but not location permission mentioned collecting your location data.

This is something different: they just know when you visit a location with a router that they control. We show that you don't need to control any routers to track people's location, as long as you have an app with the "WiFi information" permission (and most of the apps do have it).