[paulojreis]

> 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).

[DCKing]

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?

[paulojreis]

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.

[DCKing]

It's still someone's own choice to install a Wi-Fi router and powering it on. The fact that many of them don't exactly understand that it might be privacy issue (if and only if they put identifying information in the SSID) does not mean that Mozilla and Google are thinking for them. The assumption that the router owner does not mean the SSID to be public is also not warranted.

If the SSID was mandated to be identical to someone's name (or any other identifying information), I'd say the problem you describe was real. But since it the information broadcast is mostly pseudonymous, I think it's quite a small thing you are arguing. If people are including personal information in their SSID, by all means tell them!