- From: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 12:00:32 +0100
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Cc: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, public-privacy@w3.org
On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 16:42 -0700, David Singer wrote: > I think we have the inverse here. > > Skyhook and the like tell *me* where *I* am, based on the Mac addresses > that can be seen in the vicinity (as I say, I always assumed it was of > infrastructure base stations). > > I think this is miles away from it telling *me* where *you* are, based > on sightings of your phone/laptop/netbook etc.'s MAC address near > other points. At the moment, the database 'only' says (when you look > up my MAC address) "you're seeing an address I'd normally expect to > find in San Francisco", so if you see this in (say) Algiers, you might > notice. It's not far to stretch this to "you're seeing a MAC address > usually associated with <something that more closely identifies me>". Isn't Google returning the last reported location as determined the last time a script on your browser asked for its location via the W3C geolocation API. So if you are an avid user of geolocation-based services, I can track you (assuming your browser is relying on google's location service and not a locally connected GPS device). This seems like a privacy flaw in google's geolocation service, but not in the W3C geolocation API. p.s. the Firefox implementation of the W3C geolocation API fails to return a location if you are using a wired connection and not a wifi connection. This is true even if the wifi interface is active, i.e. you can view the nearby access points but aren't connected to any of them. Firefox 3.6.8 also fails to make use of locally connected GPS devices. -- Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett
Received on Tuesday, 5 October 2010 11:00:53 UTC