Congratulations; I hope this gives us a safe, effective, open location service.
The privacy policy[1] could be clarified for less technical readers, and even for others. I infer that collected data is anonymous because you write,
1) We receive publicly observable data about WiFi access points and cell towers around you, your estimated latitude and longitude, and the date -- Not associated with anything else, that may be anonymous data -- though you could guess my home network or home location by the most common/strongest wifi signals. If you track data by submitter, you also would have a good idea of their travels.
2) we may receive certain temporary data such as your IP address. This data is deleted after being used as follows ... -- You seem to be implying that you do receive non-anonymous data, and delete it after innocuous uses.
3) You can send us data anonymously or under a nickname -- Which implies anonymity is possible.
If what I infer is correct, why not restate it directly and unequivocally with something like the following:
Unless you choose otherwise, the data you send will be anonymous and not associated with you in any way. We will not record who you are or what phone sent the data. We do receive some non-anonymous data, but we delete it within X hours/days after using it as follows ...
Good questions! The stumbler reports Wi-Fi and cell tower locations and an optional nickname. The location data is stored anonymously. The nickname and just the number of reported networks is stored separately, solely for display on the leaderboard [1] or other gamification in the future.
The IP addresses are just a fact of life of web server logging. They are not stored in the location or leaderboard databases.
"fact of life of web server logging" = screw you, we're not even going to consider deleting our logs even as we talk a good line about how much we respect your privacy
edit after downvote: also, mozilla engineering PMs will intimate on hackernews that it won't internally correlate and potentially sell any of the location and other information it most obviously could correlate about people, even though it has already announced its intention to advertise.
one industry norm that makes these things tough (again, not Mozilla's fault) is that at least under US law, Mozilla could change its privacy policies at some point in the future and do a lot more than it currently does.
and... my parent comment was brash and probably deserved the downvote it received.
Selling user data would be completely against our mission and values, and I think it would be extraordinarily hard for such a change to make it through the internal immune system for such things. I think Mozilla is less likely to do bad things with your data than just about any other company (or government for that matter) out there.
(Disclosure: I work for Mozilla. I am helping write an updated set of privacy guidelines for engineering teams, to be as explicit as possible about how careful and respectful we need to be with data.)
"2) we may receive certain temporary data such as your IP address. This data is deleted after being used as follows". So yes, they do say they delete it. Also, Mozilla has a better track record with respecting user privacy than anyone else in this space. (And where is their intention to advertise?)
i agree that Mozilla has a better track record than most large tech companies in most areas, but that also sets a pretty low bar. i'm more of the opinion that if Mozilla really were as committed to user privacy as they claim to be, they might not respond so flippantly to questions about server logs. If it wanted to, Mozilla could even stop logging "certain temporary data such as your IP address."
there are indeed many useful ways that server logs can positively contribute to improving user privacy; i just thought the attitude of "well of course...that's what everyone else does" (even though that's true!) was dismissive of good-faith privacy concerns.
I feel very ashamed, as someone who works in IT, everytime this happens. I mean, people can opt-out, of course - but, in order to do that, they need to know what an SSID is, and how to change it. What about people who don't? Will we just assume that they don't care or that their opinion doesn't matter?
As someone who works in IT, I always feel ashamed to see outrage over this. We somehow want both privacy as well as a freaking radio beacon spreading out a signal to hundreds of meters away. Let there be no mistake: using a Wi-Fi router in your house means you are voluntarily broadcasting an identifier to anyone within hundreds of meters. There can be no honest expectation of privacy there.
If you don't want people obtaining information from a radio beacon in your house then do not put a radio beacon in your house. But don't pester companies for opting out of the passive database of radio signals you are voluntarily sending into the world. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
Furthermore, there is nothing intrinsically revealing about an SSID. If your SSID tells people information about you, the problem is the SSID and not the collection of that information. It is trivial to change your SSID to a pseudonymous one.
I know that a lot of people are not aware of the privacy consequences, but those people are not the ones making a point out of this. Once you educate yourself about the privacy consequences of using a Wi-Fi router, do not blame people for collecting information that you are actively and voluntarily broadcasting!
As you walk around, your phone broadcasts a list of wifi access points that you have connected to.
The existance of these databases mean that anyone who has unrestricted access to query the database, can probably figure out where anyone else who enters their vicinity, lives and works, completely passively.
Well, having your curtains open also broadcasts an image of your living room on EM spectrum for hundreds of meters for anyone with optics... Same for eavesdropping (laser mic). Easy to listen maybe but you will still get convicted in both cases.
The difference being that having a Wi-Fi router means actively powering a device that sends a signal beyond the perimeter and privacy of your home. A signal that, as evidenced by this app, can be passively [1] picked up and processed by any casual passer-by.
Having a Wi-Fi router with an SSID is the equivalent of installing a speaker on the top of your house and have it constantly spell a uniquish name to the neighborhood. It might be useful for you to have that, but you might want to think a bit about what it means for your privacy.
[1]: Not having to aim or target anything, not having to have exotic instruments, but being able to be picked up by anyone at all by just listening.
One could argue that the main purpose of the device (or the main reason users use the device) is not to broadcast identity, it is to let the user connect to the internet within the perimeter of their domicile.
Just like you can argue that the main purpose of windows is not so that people can look in, it's so that people can look out, and light comes in.
I agree partially with what you're saying, but there is a mismatch between user expectation and what the technology actually does. I don't think the fact that the user used it implies they consented to the technical side effects.
I can also passively collect plenty of WEP traffic being broadcasted over public property and decrypt it on my computer (but I don't).
Mozilla's not aiming to do anything remotely as invasive as that, but I still don't find "anything that can be picked up passively from public property is fair game" a very compelling ethical standard, especially for an organization like Mozilla.
Would you say the same thing if I set up an IMSI catcher at your home and geolocated the other radio beacons broadcasting from your home, or would that be creepy?
You might jump to say "stingrays are illegal so that's different" and in some ways, you'd be right. But it's also the case that the average user's expectations about how their wireless devices will be systematically located by third parties are better codified into law and policy in that case than in this one.
I don't understand your comparison. An SSID broadcast is meant to be public information. An IMSI catcher actively exploits weaknesses of implementations to MITM non-public connections. IMSI catchers do not catch public information at all, they break into meant-to-be-private connections.
the only thing most people most of the time mean when they set up wi-fi is that they want to be able to connect their ipads and chromebooks to the internet at home.
IMSI catchers intercept signals broadcasted from radios that commonly transit across public property. my point was that we routinely consider things other than protocol specs in determining whether and when signals should be collected.
> I know that a lot of people are not aware of the privacy consequences, but those people are not the ones making a point out of this.
Of course they are not making a point - they are not aware. How would you expect them to make a point?
What you saying is: if they don't know enough about the subject to decide if a point should be made, then we should ignore the right to give (or not) an informed consent (because you can decide for them if the SSID is "intrinsically revealing" or not).
How about we stop being so condescending, educate people to make an informed choice, and stop asking Google, Mozilla and anyone with a smartphone to think for them?
I totally agree, and that's not the issue at stake. The issue is: what should we do while people are not educated enough to make an informed decision?
Mozilla, Google (and some people in this thread) assume that it's right for them to decide if there are privacy concerns and advance with their initiatives. I don't. And they are, by marking this as opt-in, thinking for them.
Can you say more about your privacy concern here? I'm not seeing it.
As far as I know, the sole use of this database is to say, "if you can see this set of wifi networks, then you are probably at this GPS location." It's literally the same thing, except at a different electromagnetic frequency, as saying "if you can see houses with these addresses, you are probably at this GPS location." Kind of like a street map.
I definitely think that privacy concerns can emerge when you aggregate public data -- is there something I'm missing here?
So, is it fair to say that there's no privacy concern if the API only exposes a one-way lookup? I.e. "here are the access points I can see -- where am I?"
That also addresses the other concern raised below, that the database could be used to search for known-vulnerable routers.
> is it fair to say that there's no privacy concern if the API only exposes a one-way lookup?
It helps, but no. The data is still there to use. The API or Mozilla policy may change, or security may fail.
From what I can tell, there's no need to record either the devices gathering data or the devices looking up their location. Just don't store that data and everything is fine.
Oh, another example that affects even the one-way lookup is stalking -- if I've been over to Joe's house before, and then he goes into hiding, I can say, "hey, I see Joe's access point, where am I?"
That could be mitigated by requiring at least two access points for a query.
Your point is wrong from the beginning: I don't have to explain my privacy concerns, and neither do the others who don't know what an SSID is. "Privacy" should be the default and without need for justification, not the other way around.
How do you feel that privacy is being violated by scanning SSIDs and pinning those SSIDs to GPS coordinates? I believe JackC's point is that there isn't a privacy concern here. The consumer's router is blasting out the SSID for everyone to hear, just like if you were standing on your roof shouting, or had a poster on the outside of your house. There's nothing wrong with those things being recorded, what makes SSIDs different?
I understand the sentiment but really feel like it falls when looking at the actual situation. It's checking on things that are broadcast outside of your own property, and even offering a way to opt out. It's like transmitting radio waves from your property and asking that no one listens. You have a control over the distribution method or whether or not it even exists.
so everyone should have to choose between having their home router's info added to large, aggregated databases and reconfiguring/not operating a router?
i know plenty of people for whom that's not a choice they're likely to know about. perhaps mozilla/google shouldn't be able to dictate my SSID or its visibility just because they don't want to incur the cost/complexity of obtaining affirmative, informed consent.
Everyone who travels past your home can see if the lights are on in the evening. They can also see which lights are on in the front of the house.
So I'm going to give you three scenarios and I want you to tell me when exactly it becomes a privacy issue:
1) A single person travels past your house and happens to notice which lights are on.
2) Someone travels past your house and records, on a piece of paper, which lights are on.
3) A Google car travels past your house and records, electronically, which lights are on.
Same thing with WiFi SSIDs here. It is like you standing on the roof of your home and shouting your ATM pin using a bullhorn, then complaining when someone else hears or records the information.
You want people to stop "monitoring" your SSID? Stop freaking broadcasting it at all.
That solution is suboptimal. If you don't broadcast it, then properly provisioned clients have to probe for it. Which they do, on every channel. So you go from one device beaconing the SSID (your AP) to all client devices
advertising it, on every channel.
I think the difference we're talking about here between #1 and #3 is that #3 makes it much easier/cheaper to (for example) predict when you'll be out of town if they want to break into your house (router)...potentially even without ever traveling past it.
Just because this information is legal to collect, doesn't mean people think a nonprofit that claims to be committed to user privacy should be moving the center of gravity closer to your third scenario.
But maybe more importantly, we're not talking about "someone else" recording the information or just a few "people" "monitoring" an SSID. We're questioning the wisdom of an organization building software to systematically collect, store, and make an SSID far more readily available to far larger numbers of people.
Analogies are analogies because they're similar, not identical.
> You want people to stop "monitoring" your SSID? Stop freaking broadcasting it at all.
This is technocentrical BS, washing the hands to justify doing what you want.
1) Most people don't know that their SSIDs are being recorded (with position), so how do you expect them to make an informed decision? It's not like the information is readily available (I work in IT and I did not know about appending "no_map" to the SSID).
2) Everyone has a router, broadcasting the SSID. Do you really and honestly expect everyone to know how to disable it?
But SSIDs are not private. At all. Should what the outside of your house look like be private information? How would that work? What about when I appear in the background of a photo someone took on the street?
> Should what the outside of your house look like be private information?
Everyone knows that someone can record the outside of your house; not everyone knows that SSIDs with location can (and actually are!) registered. Do you notice the difference? You can't assume that WLAN specifics are as tacit as knowing that people can look at my house!
through no fault of mozilla's, most home routers are ridiculously, pathetically insecure. this is not a situation that would be improved by making it easier to geolocate routers from specific vendors. if vulnerable routers become easier to find, my communications passing through that router could quickly become a lot less private. would mozilla be responsible? no. but that doesn't mean mozilla sharing my probably-vulnerable router's location wouldn't play a role in compromising my privacy.
Using SSID naming conventions to do this is just dishonest: most of the people who will be scanned won't know what an SSID is. Even if they do, and do have the competence to change it, how many of them will know about this convention? More than this: how many "home network owners" know that their networks are being scanned and georeferenced? This opt-out scheme is ridiculous and plain "hand-washing" - they obviously don't expect people to use it.
> "Make this "opt-in"" is a statement, not a procedure. How, and why?
I don't really care about the procedure; Snailmail, if need be. Convenience is not a valid argument for breaking privacy.
> Would the cons outwheigh the pros?
The answer to this is dependent on one's stance. As you may imagine, from where I stand, they do (clearly). I can't see any "logistical inconvenience" justify breaking privacy by default.
the obvious option is to request consent instead of violating people's privacy and make a dragnet data collection effort like this opt-in instead of opt-out.
but that's clearly not the intention here, because how dare anyone question someone else's motives/objectives/priorities for collecting data about devices they don't own. in fact, we're supposed to think this is the "nice" version because a google-funded nonprofit is doing it instead of google doing it unlawfully with cars or through waze.
seeing mozilla move in this direction while talking about how much they respect everyone's privacy is a strategic stumble indeed.
Did you ever count APs during a short walk in a relatively low density neighbourhood? You have hundreds in under 100m.
Tell me, how do you plan to ask each and everyone of them? Ring on every doorbell?
-Sorry, is FritzBox!239?
-No, here is YouMakeTooMuchNoiseWTF
-Oh, I see, could you please pass a message to your neighbour? I'd very much appreciate if he could please fill in this form and send it back through paper mail to Mozilla…
that would be one respectful way to do it, and yes, challenging.
but the premise of your comment is that of course my device's SSID and related location should be collected in someone else's database because a google-funded nonprofit wrote an app for people to go wardriving with.
just because SSIDs can be legally observed and collected doesn't mean i have to be happy about it. I wasn't talking about this as a technical problem as much as an ethical/political one for an organization that claims to be committed to my privacy...except when it's not.
> seeing mozilla move in this direction while talking about how much they respect everyone's privacy is a strategic stumble indeed.
Yup. I'm as heartbroken as I can be with a company.
A "hand-washing" attitude towards privacy from Google, Facebook or a telco is expectable. But from Mozilla? This saddens me, way more than the support of DRM in the web.
agree completely--it's one thing to do this sort of thing (it's probably legal, etc.), but to do it while claiming to be fighting for user privacy is really galling to me.
An option during router setup when SSID is named? An organized promotion of this approach, e.g. list of routers that make it simple, list of services that honor it. A cool name other than "Do Not Track".
That would require an action on the router-side, not on the mapping one. I think it could be a good option, but this doesn't apply for this case.
Also, what if I agree to put my SSID into an open database but not in a locked one? Apple's and Google's location databases do not compare, for me, to Mozilla's one: I am more than glad to be in the latter, but not to be in the two formers.
I used to use it a lot a few months back "mapping" my town and I had noticed that it would go at full strength even when I was staying in the same place for hours. Would it be possible to gradually slow down the collections when it detects that the user isn't moving?
geo-fencing was extremely rarely used. I think we had single digit numbers of people who enabled the feature and understood what it meant.
We decided to cut out geofencing because it was confusing to most people and reducing the number of knobs and dials on a program is usually a good thing.
Yes, anonymous is the default mode. :) The nickname is optional and only used to record a leaderboard "points". The nickname is not tied to any reported Wi-Fi or location data.
Mozilla Stumbler does not need to access your photos; it just needs to read/write to your sdcard (to cache map tile graphics and export KML data). "Access your photots" is Google's unfortunate explanation of accessing the sdcard.
Cool stuff, always interesting to see a new entrant to the location services field, especially an open one.
One question though. Will ordinary users be able to directly query the database via the API? i.e. if you want to geolocate a set of Access points and you have their MAC addresses will this service provide a direct supported API for retrieving their location?
The documentation on the API page implies that this isn't really a supported application?
Specifically
"If you are developing a native application or library for a desktop operating system or Android, you can in principle use this service via its HTTPS API. Please refer to the development documentation for the details. On most other operating systems, you cannot access the required cell and WiFi network information required to call the service API. "
and
"At this stage the service is open to anyone, who wants to contribute back to the service and applications supporting the Mozilla mission. "
btw, the Mozilla location database is currently used to power geolocation on the well-publicized Firefox OS "$25 smartphone"! That device does not have GPS hardware so all geolocation requires rely on Mozilla's location service and GeoIP.
This would be an interesting addition. I realized that Google is showing off Ingress as a game, but most technical users know it's about data-mining for maps and other location based products. Mozilla is openly showing this off as something that is about gathering data.
We have leaderboards showing the top stumblers overall and for the last seven days. We have lots of gamification ideas inspired by Ingress or the Nintendo DS game "Treasure World", but nothing in the works yet.
The privacy policy[1] could be clarified for less technical readers, and even for others. I infer that collected data is anonymous because you write,
1) We receive publicly observable data about WiFi access points and cell towers around you, your estimated latitude and longitude, and the date -- Not associated with anything else, that may be anonymous data -- though you could guess my home network or home location by the most common/strongest wifi signals. If you track data by submitter, you also would have a good idea of their travels.
2) we may receive certain temporary data such as your IP address. This data is deleted after being used as follows ... -- You seem to be implying that you do receive non-anonymous data, and delete it after innocuous uses.
3) You can send us data anonymously or under a nickname -- Which implies anonymity is possible.
If what I infer is correct, why not restate it directly and unequivocally with something like the following:
Unless you choose otherwise, the data you send will be anonymous and not associated with you in any way. We will not record who you are or what phone sent the data. We do receive some non-anonymous data, but we delete it within X hours/days after using it as follows ...
And add more detail after that.
[1] https://location.services.mozilla.com/privacy
EDIT: Clarify a bit, and a correction to #1