[kstrauser]

I find that incredibly irksome. I'm glad they provide an opt-out mechanism, but strongly dislike that it requires me to give my Wi-Fi network an ugly name. And what if 2 vendors have different opt-out strings such that I can't choose to stay out of, say, Apple and Google's DBs at the same time?

[madars]

This is already happening: Microsoft's opt-out is _optout (can appear anywhere in SSID), Google/Apple's _nomap has to be at the end so prepare for YourAPName_optout_nomap! https://superuser.com/questions/1005235/wi-fi-opt-out-micros...

[runjake]

The original link no longer includes the information about _optout. At least when I load the page.

https://privacy.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-10-open-wi-fi-ho...

[kstrauser]

Oh FFS. Sure, why not.

[Arrath]

In the near future it will be required that your wi-fi SSID be <your exact address and house/apt number>_optout_notrack_nothanks_offgrid_nomap

Your address is needed so they can know exactly which place _not_ to map, of course.

[kstrauser]

That'll never be required.

But if you do it, you'll save $2 off the ad-supported Netflix tier.

[runjake]

I feel you and agree, but there's a good argument to be made that BSSIDs are "public information".

It's a slippery slope to walk trying to regulate that one. One example: "No public citizen, you are not allowed to monitor our frequencies without paying our corporation a subscription fee."

[kstrauser]

I understand. I have a ham radio license and I can listen in to all sorts of things sent out into the public airwaves. That's what broadcasting is.

At the same time, I write a blog for other humans to read. I'm annoyed that some companies are likely scraping it to train their LLMs. Beyond my annoyance, I don't know how far I'd want to go toward making it possible for humans to consume it but not AIs. The legal cures for that seem like they'd be worse than the disease.

[QuercusMax]

Welcome to the future where our wifi network names are as ugly as browsers' User-Agent strings