[ssl-3]

Your method sounds like a good way to inject noise into the system -- and perhaps it is. Except the article describes integrating this MAC-sniffing business into ALPR camera installations.

In this way: You drive by with your noisemaking-device, and it records that noise along with the presence of your license plate.

It won't take a senior data analyst to correlate the bursts of noise with your proximity. Instead, you'll stand out like a sore thumb and they'll see you coming even before they have optical line-of-sight.

(It could scale, but as a practical matter it simply won't. Most people aren't interested in this kind of obfuscation; it'd be amazing to me if even 1/10,000 people were to actually adopt it. This level of rarity would identify you as one of the 0.01% of troublemakers.)

[Peacefulz]

I totally agree with the sentiment that interested parties are few and far between, but they exist. I have several disparate layers of obfuscation on the data I generate that I have control over. I understand that that is a signal in itself, but I'd rather my signal be a fog than rich data points.

My wife calls it paranoia but I call it protest.

[ssl-3]

Noises that are easy to identify also tend to be easy to eliminate.

I wish I felt better about this idea, but it seems like it'll be very trivial to erase.

(But that doesn't mean you shouldn't do it!)