These are basic networking concepts.
We didn't ask to have it explained. Knowing this is not about skills, though. A mathematician can have very high skills, yet know nothing
about networks. Even a skilled computer programmer may not know about
them, and be a world master on IBM big iron assembler programming (and
being paid handsomely - a tiny fact I happen to know) and not know
offhand what the BSSID is.
I don't even know how to explain to people who claim that the router never >> travels as their belief system is so absurd as to warn me that if they
don't understand that people take their routers with them when they move,
then that kind of person will never be able to understand, well, anything.
No, we don't travel with our routers.
My router belongs to the ISP and I have to return it when I move, then I will get a new one at my destination. You should be intelligent enough
to accept this. Maybe doesn't happen in your nook of the world, but you
must understand that you are posting to an international medium.
I had given up, but recently, I happened to look at Apple's documentation, >> and I realized Apple proved they had no intent of honoring the long-held
intention of a hidden broadcast, by simply changing their documentation.
<https://support.apple.com/en-ie/102515>
Ok, finally. The crux of the issue.
1. Apple are storing the location of "hidden" WiFi Access Points.
(My opinion: low priority.)
Only Apple?
I think that is what Maria is saying, and I have no information to the
contrary.
Allegedly: Apple are adhering to this exclusion, but are not also
excluding BSSIDs which are not broadcasting any SSID at all (i.e.
"hidden" networks). Other organisations (e.g. Google) do exclude such
"hidden" networks.
And if it is hidden they would not see if the SSID ends in _nomap.
But is there a consensus that hidden SSIDs should not be listed? In
writing? Maybe there is such a consensus now.
To me it's fairly intuitive that if someone has taken the unusual step
of explicitly marking their network as "hidden", then its location
should not be included in these databases - especially given the fact
that the "_nomap" SSID method doesn't work for "hidden" networks.
Related: What did Arlen (aka Maria) achieve? That Apple agreed to
remove all hidden and _nomap entries, or that they removed only his
entry?
My impression is that as a result of Maria's communications with them,
Apple updated their documentation to note that "hidden" networks are
still listed in their database, and removed Maria's own BSSID(s) from
the database.
AH! Understood.
And hiding SSIDs is a complete waste of time, which gains you nothing
in security or privacy. Donot do it.
Yep.
Carlos E.R. wrote:
These are basic networking concepts.
We didn't ask to have it explained. Knowing this is not about skills,
though. A mathematician can have very high skills, yet know nothing
about networks. Even a skilled computer programmer may not know about
them, and be a world master on IBM big iron assembler programming (and
being paid handsomely - a tiny fact I happen to know) and not know
offhand what the BSSID is.
Hi Carlos,
The facts are incontrovertible, where only Jon went to the trouble to reproduce them (AFAwK). Everyone else simply used their stone-age knowledge of networking (which we all knew decades ago) to apply to this thread.
Winston just did that, multiple times in this thread, as if stating his own stone-age knowledge of networking has anything to do whatsoever with the topic. Franklin Slootweg tried the same worthless trolling as Winston did.
Please note that there's nothing wrong with people's stone-age knowledge of networking, but their stone-age knowledge, while true, doesn't apply here.
If all they can do in response to the facts posted in this thread is repeat their stone-age thought processes, then they can't possibly add value.
Then you have the trolls like Keith Thompson claiming that running python
on Windows to prove what Apple & Android devices do by default with respect to Wi-Fi protocols has absolutely nothing to do with running python on windows to prove how Apple & Google devices differ from how they handle
Wi-Fi metadata.
WTF?
These people are all applying their stone-age knowledge of networking, but without taking into account the verified *new* information in this thread.
Not a single person who trolled this thread shows any understanding of it.
I don't even know how to explain to people who claim that the router never >>> travels as their belief system is so absurd as to warn me that if theyNo, we don't travel with our routers.
don't understand that people take their routers with them when they move, >>> then that kind of person will never be able to understand, well, anything. >>
My router belongs to the ISP and I have to return it when I move, then I
will get a new one at my destination. You should be intelligent enough
to accept this. Maybe doesn't happen in your nook of the world, but you
must understand that you are posting to an international medium.
WTF?
What kind of absurd arguments are you claiming Carlos?
I don't like broccoli, so nobody on the planet likes broccoli?
More to the point, I don't bring the paintings on my wall with me when I move, but that doesn't mean that nobody brings their paintings with them.
The fact you get your access point from the ISP, while true, is an absurd
way of your attempt to refute the facts proposed in this respected paper.
*Surveilling the Masses with Wi-Fi-Based Positioning Systems*
<https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.14975>
I do take my many access points with me, Carlos. Dozens of them.
And even if I didn't, it would still refute NOTHING in that research paper.
The fact that's your major rebuttal indicates you haven't read the paper. Read it. Please.
I had given up, but recently, I happened to look at Apple's documentation, >>> and I realized Apple proved they had no intent of honoring the long-held >>> intention of a hidden broadcast, by simply changing their documentation. >>> <https://support.apple.com/en-ie/102515>
Ok, finally. The crux of the issue.
It's not hidden.
It is, after all, in the SUBJECT line of this thread, Carlos.
Every person who tried it, found out every single statement to be true.
Carlos E.R. wrote:...
And hiding SSIDs is a complete waste of time, which gains you nothing
in security or privacy. DonN++t do it.
Yep.
There are two fundamental issues which are making this task more difficult:
1. The common trolls are *desperate* to infest this thread
(and yet, not a single one of the trolls can possibly add value),
2. And, people who are NOT trolls, like Carlos above, still do not
(yet) understand the topic because they're applying old knowledge.
On 2026-09-06, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-09-06 17:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
1. Apple are storing the location of "hidden" WiFi Access Points.
(My opinion: low priority.)
Only Apple?
I think that is what Maria is saying, and I have no information to the contrary.
Allegedly: Apple are adhering to this exclusion, but are not also
excluding BSSIDs which are not broadcasting any SSID at all (i.e.
"hidden" networks). Other organisations (e.g. Google) do exclude such
"hidden" networks.
And if it is hidden they would not see if the SSID ends in _nomap.
But is there a consensus that hidden SSIDs should not be listed? In
writing? Maybe there is such a consensus now.
To me it's fairly intuitive that if someone has taken the unusual step
of explicitly marking their network as "hidden", then its location
should not be included in these databases - especially given the fact
that the "_nomap" SSID method doesn't work for "hidden" networks.
Related: What did Arlen (aka Maria) achieve? That Apple agreed to
remove all hidden and _nomap entries, or that they removed only his
entry?
My impression is that as a result of Maria's communications with them,
Apple updated their documentation to note that "hidden" networks are
still listed in their database, and removed Maria's own BSSID(s) from
the database.
Then you have the trolls like Keith Thompson claiming that running python[...]
on Windows to prove what Apple & Android devices do by default with respect to Wi-Fi protocols has absolutely nothing to do with running python on windows to prove how Apple & Google devices differ from how they handle
Wi-Fi metadata.
WTF?
Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> writes:
[...]
Then you have the trolls like Keith Thompson claiming that running python[...]
on Windows to prove what Apple & Android devices do by default with respect >> to Wi-Fi protocols has absolutely nothing to do with running python on
windows to prove how Apple & Google devices differ from how they handle
Wi-Fi metadata.
WTF?
That is, of course, not at all what I wrote.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you actually understood my point, which is that you are writing multiple long
posts on comp.lang.python with no content about programming in
Python, and that that's inappropriate. Assuming that you're
intelligent enough to understand that, I can only conclude that
you are deliberately lying about me.
(On the other hand, if you actually believe what you wrote above,
that raises more serious concerns about your veracity.)
The fact that you would lie about something so easily verifiable
does not fill me with confidence that you're being truthful about
whatever issue you're talking about with respect to Apple and Wi-Fi.
It's obviously something that you consider very important, so you
might consider not behaving in a manner that will piss off reasonable
people and lead them to question your honesty.
I lack both the background and the interest to directly verify or
refute your claims. For all I know, everything you've been saying
might be perfectly accurate. But because of the reputation you've constructed for yourself here, I can't be sure of that.
I urge everyone participating in this thread to *at least* drop comp.lang.python from the "Newsgroups:" header line, even if Maria
adds it back. (I've left it in place for this followup, since I'm
discussing topicality in comp.lang.python.)
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-09-06, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-09-06 17:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
1. Apple are storing the location of "hidden" WiFi Access Points.
(My opinion: low priority.)
Only Apple?
I think that is what Maria is saying, and I have no information to the
contrary.
Allegedly: Apple are adhering to this exclusion, but are not also
excluding BSSIDs which are not broadcasting any SSID at all (i.e.
"hidden" networks). Other organisations (e.g. Google) do exclude such
"hidden" networks.
And if it is hidden they would not see if the SSID ends in _nomap.
But is there a consensus that hidden SSIDs should not be listed? In
writing? Maybe there is such a consensus now.
To me it's fairly intuitive that if someone has taken the unusual step
of explicitly marking their network as "hidden", then its location
should not be included in these databases - especially given the fact
that the "_nomap" SSID method doesn't work for "hidden" networks.
I guess the challenge here is how can they know not to add the MAC address
if the SSID with the "_nomap" request invisible.
Related: What did Arlen (aka Maria) achieve? That Apple agreed to
remove all hidden and _nomap entries, or that they removed only his
entry?
My impression is that as a result of Maria's communications with them,
Apple updated their documentation to note that "hidden" networks are
still listed in their database, and removed Maria's own BSSID(s) from
the database.
That's purely a correlation. It could be a coincidence. And is there any evidence that the documentation did change? We only have his say so.
Keith Thompson argues that your post is off topic in comp.lang.python, because you are not discussing python code. You simply posted a link
that contains a reference to a Python program and said you run it. You
are not discussing the code itself or making any question about it.
And he is right, IMNSHO.
More to the point, I don't bring the paintings on my wall with me when I
move, but that doesn't mean that nobody brings their paintings with them.
I did not say "nobody". That's you reading what is not in what I said.
The fact you get your access point from the ISP, while true, is an absurd
way of your attempt to refute the facts proposed in this respected paper.
I don't refute anything, except that you can only track a minority of
users worldwide.
The fact that's your major rebuttal indicates you haven't read the paper.
Read it. Please.
No.
Every person who tried it, found out every single statement to be true.
It is good Usenet manners to explain the subject in the body.
Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> writes:
[...]
Then you have the trolls like Keith Thompson claiming that running python[...]
on Windows to prove what Apple & Android devices do by default with respect >> to Wi-Fi protocols has absolutely nothing to do with running python on
windows to prove how Apple & Google devices differ from how they handle
Wi-Fi metadata.
WTF?
That is, of course, not at all what I wrote.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you actually understood my point, which is that you are writing multiple long
posts on comp.lang.python with no content about programming in
Python, and that that's inappropriate. Assuming that you're
intelligent enough to understand that, I can only conclude that
you are deliberately lying about me.
(On the other hand, if you actually believe what you wrote above,
that raises more serious concerns about your veracity.)
The fact that you would lie about something so easily verifiable
does not fill me with confidence that you're being truthful about
whatever issue you're talking about with respect to Apple and Wi-Fi.
It's obviously something that you consider very important, so you
might consider not behaving in a manner that will piss off reasonable
people and lead them to question your honesty.
I lack both the background and the interest to directly verify or
refute your claims. For all I know, everything you've been saying
might be perfectly accurate. But because of the reputation you've constructed for yourself here, I can't be sure of that.
I urge everyone participating in this thread to *at least* drop comp.lang.python from the "Newsgroups:" header line, even if Maria
adds it back. (I've left it in place for this followup, since I'm
discussing topicality in comp.lang.python.)
My impression is that as a result of Maria's communications with them,
Apple updated their documentation to note that "hidden" networks are
still listed in their database, and removed Maria's own BSSID(s) from
the database.
That's purely a correlation. It could be a coincidence. And is there any evidence that the documentation did change? We only have his say so.
I guess the challenge here is how can they know not to add the MAC address >> if the SSID with the "_nomap" request invisible.
The thing is, the single thing of hiding the SSID marks the intention
that this AP should not be mapped.
Maybe there is not a paper that says this, but google and Mozilla are
doing so. Apple was not doing it, and apparently they wrote now in their documentation that they not doing it. ie, they wrote that they will
record hidden sites.
The point we are saying is not what you claim it to be. It is not about Apple storing and publishing BSSIDs of hidden SSIDs. This is bad
behaviour by them. Ok. But our point is that you gain nothing by making
your AP hidden in the first place.
Or, worse, trackable information like your car's number plate?
I don't remember whether you addressed this ... how does someone
who hasn't visited your address (i.e they already know where you live)
discover what the BSSID of your router is?
What you mention there has been explained to him in the thread here
[Tutorial: Query the Apple database with Python for your access point BSSID] <10h1qmr$2alo$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
On 2026-09-07, Keith Thompson wrote:
Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> writes:
[...]
Then you have the trolls like Keith Thompson claiming that running python >>> on Windows to prove what Apple & Android devices do by default with respect >>> to Wi-Fi protocols has absolutely nothing to do with running python on[...]
windows to prove how Apple & Google devices differ from how they handle
Wi-Fi metadata.
WTF?
That is, of course, not at all what I wrote.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you actually
understood my point, which is that you are writing multiple long
posts on comp.lang.python with no content about programming in
Python, and that that's inappropriate. Assuming that you're
intelligent enough to understand that, I can only conclude that
you are deliberately lying about me.
(On the other hand, if you actually believe what you wrote above,
that raises more serious concerns about your veracity.)
The fact that you would lie about something so easily verifiable
does not fill me with confidence that you're being truthful about
whatever issue you're talking about with respect to Apple and Wi-Fi.
It's obviously something that you consider very important, so you
might consider not behaving in a manner that will piss off reasonable
people and lead them to question your honesty.
I lack both the background and the interest to directly verify or
refute your claims. For all I know, everything you've been saying
might be perfectly accurate. But because of the reputation you've
constructed for yourself here, I can't be sure of that.
I once thought like you did and still gave them the benefit of
doubt. (Check the "How does whatsapp work?" thread (subjects changed
halfway several times, rooted at [1]) on comp.mobile.android.) Then they attacked you and Frank in this fashion.
[1] <n1ua9ltc3losq5kj0lfkh8lim4t3bp4npf@4ax.com>
In the end, they destroyed any value their words could have had. In the
past few hours there was another post with nice words to somebody else,
but those words mean nothing, for all it takes is a small bit flip
somewhere and you're suddenly a "troll" to them.
I urge everyone participating in this thread to *at least* drop
comp.lang.python from the "Newsgroups:" header line, even if Maria
adds it back. (I've left it in place for this followup, since I'm
discussing topicality in comp.lang.python.)
Yeah, indeed. But which groups are you reading, of the remaining ones?
Chris wrote:
Or, worse, trackable information like your car's number plate?
Hi Chris,
I get it you are desperate to defend Apple to the death, no matter what... But that analogy of the car license plate in a Flock system is absurd.
For anyone to claim that, means they didn't read the paper.
*Surveilling the Masses with Wi-Fi-Based Positioning Systems*
<https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.14975>
Once you read that paper,
Nobody, in my decades on Usnent, has ever found a fact I've claimed to be a fact, ever to be wrong, and if, perchance, I make a typo or a forgetful
faux pas, everyone knows I admit to it immediately, as what matters is only the facts that remain in the Usenet record for generations to read later.
Carlos E.R. wrote:
Keith Thompson argues that your post is off topic in comp.lang.python,
because you are not discussing python code. You simply posted a link
that contains a reference to a Python program and said you run it. You
are not discussing the code itself or making any question about it.
And he is right, IMNSHO.
People can't understand what the issue is if they don't understand the breadcrumb trail from your router access point to my Win10 python runs.
They just can't.
Their stone-age knowledge of networking doesn't prepare them for it.
Keith didn't understand that you have to run the python code that was
pointed to in the very first post, Carlos, which Jon found easily.
Carlos E.R. wrote:
The point we are saying is not what you claim it to be. It is not about
Apple storing and publishing BSSIDs of hidden SSIDs. This is bad
behaviour by them. Ok. But our point is that you gain nothing by making
your AP hidden in the first place.
Hi Carlos,
I disagree.
The answer to *this* question, will tell you why what you said is wrong:
Q: Will Google's WPS database contain a BSSID:GPS pair for an access point
whose SSID broadcast is set to hidden (i.e., empty or null)?
A: Please answer "yes", or "no".
I know the answer to that question.
You clearly do not.
Once you know the answer to that question, you'll see why what you said,--
is dead wrong.
I could ask the same question of the Mozilla MLS, but it's now defunct,
but they document this (and we published that documentation elsewhere).
Only Apple ignores the clear privacy intent of setting a hidden SSID.
Nobody else.
Just Apple. (to our knowledge)
Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Or, worse, trackable information like your car's number plate?
Hi Chris,
I get it you are desperate to defend Apple to the death, no matter what... >> But that analogy of the car license plate in a Flock system is absurd.
It's notable to everyone here that you are consistently and obstinately not answering the core question. Why is the collection of public information
that does not relate to an individual a privacy risk?
The Flock issue is off topic here so the only thing I'll say is that this a consequence of lack of American's trust in government. That leaves the door open to commercial companies to collect data and sell it to government agencies with little to no oversight.
In the UK we have the ANPR system which does the same thing, but is run by and for the law enforcement agencies. It's use is controlled and regulated. There are no issues.
For anyone to claim that, means they didn't read the paper.
*Surveilling the Masses with Wi-Fi-Based Positioning Systems*
<https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.14975>
Once you read that paper,
I have and have understood it better than you.
R.Wieser wrote:
I don't remember whether you addressed this ... how does someone
who hasn't visited your address (i.e they already know where you live)
discover what the BSSID of your router is?
What you mention there has been explained to him in the thread here
[Tutorial: Query the Apple database with Python for your access point BSSID] >> <10h1qmr$2alo$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
First, let's address Andy's point because Andy didn't read the paper,
so Andy thinks it's about individuals, and not about the masses.
*Surveilling the Masses with Wi-Fi-Based Positioning Systems*
<https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.14975>
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
To me it's fairly intuitive that if someone has taken the unusual step
of explicitly marking their network as "hidden", then its location
should not be included in these databases - especially given the fact
that the "_nomap" SSID method doesn't work for "hidden" networks.
I guess the challenge here is how can they know not to add the MAC
address if the SSID with the "_nomap" request invisible.
Related: What did Arlen (aka Maria) achieve? That Apple agreed to
remove all hidden and _nomap entries, or that they removed only his
entry?
My impression is that as a result of Maria's communications with them,
Apple updated their documentation to note that "hidden" networks are
still listed in their database, and removed Maria's own BSSID(s) from
the database.
That's purely a correlation. It could be a coincidence. And is there
any evidence that the documentation did change? We only have his say so.
Ok, suppose I run the scripts, and have in my power the BSSIDs and SSIDs
of the entire world.
Carlos,
Ok, suppose I run the scripts, and have in my power the BSSIDs and SSIDs
of the entire world.
And thats another of Arlens problems : You can't just retrieve records from that database.
You could plug your own BSSID into the database and get a number of other, near BSSIDs which you than also query (rinse and repeat), hoping to spread
it like a water-ripple, any kind of "dead space" stops that ripple.
IOW, if there is any distance between the town you're in and the next town over you won't see that one in your results. And as good-old 'Murrica has a LOT of "dead space" (neighbours lliving miles apart) the chance that Arlens "the entire world" is nothing more than *very* wishfull thinking.
I had intended, in that other thread, to put that forward to Arlen. But seeing that he could not even grasp that the translation from a persons name to that persons (routers) BSSID was already wrought with problems I thought better of it.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
On 2026-09-07, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
To me it's fairly intuitive that if someone has taken the unusual step
of explicitly marking their network as "hidden", then its location
should not be included in these databases - especially given the fact
that the "_nomap" SSID method doesn't work for "hidden" networks.
I guess the challenge here is how can they know not to add the MAC
address if the SSID with the "_nomap" request invisible.
That's the core of the issue - I would guess that Android devices are
only uploading BSSIDs to the Google database when they see that Access
Point broadcast an SSID, and that SSID doesn't end with "_nomap".
iPhones on the other hand, I would guess are uploading BSSIDs to the
Apple database as soon as they see that Access Point broadcasting
anything, regardless of whether they have seen an SSID from it.
If it works the way I am suggesting, then it means that Google's
database would automatically exclude "hidden" networks, and Apple's
wouldn't - and not only that, Apple would have no way of immediately excluding them. They would need to issue updated iPhone software,
and then wait until almost all iPhones in the world that were still
in use were using the new software.
Related: What did Arlen (aka Maria) achieve? That Apple agreed to
remove all hidden and _nomap entries, or that they removed only his
entry?
My impression is that as a result of Maria's communications with them,
Apple updated their documentation to note that "hidden" networks are
still listed in their database, and removed Maria's own BSSID(s) from
the database.
That's purely a correlation. It could be a coincidence. And is there
any evidence that the documentation did change? We only have his say so.
We can't prove what prompted Apple to change their documentation, but
we certainly can prove that it did indeed change, using archive.org.
In December 2025 the page did not mention hidden networks, and today
it does.
https://web.archive.org/web/20251221213139/https://support.apple.com/en-ie/102515
https://support.apple.com/en-ie/102515
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-09-07, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
To me it's fairly intuitive that if someone has taken the unusual step >>>> of explicitly marking their network as "hidden", then its location
should not be included in these databases - especially given the fact
that the "_nomap" SSID method doesn't work for "hidden" networks.
I guess the challenge here is how can they know not to add the MAC
address if the SSID with the "_nomap" request invisible.
That's the core of the issue - I would guess that Android devices are
only uploading BSSIDs to the Google database when they see that Access
Point broadcast an SSID, and that SSID doesn't end with "_nomap".
iPhones on the other hand, I would guess are uploading BSSIDs to the
Apple database as soon as they see that Access Point broadcasting
anything, regardless of whether they have seen an SSID from it.
If it works the way I am suggesting, then it means that Google's
database would automatically exclude "hidden" networks, and Apple's
wouldn't - and not only that, Apple would have no way of immediately
excluding them. They would need to issue updated iPhone software,
and then wait until almost all iPhones in the world that were still
in use were using the new software.
Related: What did Arlen (aka Maria) achieve? That Apple agreed to
remove all hidden and _nomap entries, or that they removed only his
entry?
My impression is that as a result of Maria's communications with them, >>>> Apple updated their documentation to note that "hidden" networks are
still listed in their database, and removed Maria's own BSSID(s) from
the database.
That's purely a correlation. It could be a coincidence. And is there
any evidence that the documentation did change? We only have his say so.
We can't prove what prompted Apple to change their documentation, but
we certainly can prove that it did indeed change, using archive.org.
In December 2025 the page did not mention hidden networks, and today
it does.
https://web.archive.org/web/20251221213139/https://support.apple.com/en-ie/102515
https://support.apple.com/en-ie/102515
I agree. And I did the same. The fact that Arlen couldn't very easily evidence his assertion, despite my challenge above, speaks volumes.
I agree. And I did the same. The fact that Arlen couldn't very easilyWhy do you call him/her Arlen if his/her preferred name is Maria? Are
evidence his assertion, despite my challenge above, speaks volumes.
you from the 70s?
The Flock issue is off topic here so the only thing I'll say is that this a >> consequence of lack of American's trust in government. That leaves the door >> open to commercial companies to collect data and sell it to government
agencies with little to no oversight.
And the lack of data protection laws like the GDPR in Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation
Why do you call him/her Arlen if his/her preferred name is Maria? Are
you from the 70s?
I strongly dislike that he is using a woman's name, so I refuse to call
him by that.
But aggregators "can" track your posts across the Internet.
I post to many (many!) forums (web forums like XDA, Telegram, etc.)
Why do you call him/her Arlen if his/her preferred name is Maria?
Are you from the 70s?
Lane,
Why do you call him/her Arlen if his/her preferred name is Maria?
Arlen Holder is a so-called nym-shifter, who changes his nym
once-in-a-while - ostensibly so he cannot be tracked (by the people who scrape the newsgroups for information).
Although you jumped on the gender identity bandwagon, Arlens current name
has got zero to do with it. Current, as in the last number of years he has gone thru a number of them. Male as well as female ones.
Something you could have known if you would either have visited these newsgroups a bit longer or just had asked for it.
Are you from the 70s?
You know what a hypocrite is ? Thats someone who tells someone not to do {something}, while doing that {something} themselves. You know, the "do
as I say, not as I do" kind of person.
Carlos E.R. wrote:
I strongly dislike that he is using a woman's name, so I refuse to call
him by that.
Hi Carlos,
Since almost nobody on these technical newsgroups are females, IMHO, I
think I'll use Maria only for a few years and change it to, oh, Sally.
That would be another clear and obvious indication that I'm not hiding for even a moment FROM YOU, but from robot header aggregation tools, which is more and more of a problem even as I recognized the issue two decades ago.
And while I get why you associate nymshifting with the disgusting trolls,
you need to take an elementary course in Logic (or Occam's Razor at least).
A person has to rob a bank to be called a disgusting bank robber, right?
Just putting a mask on his face for privacy does not make him a criminal.
In fact, your disgusting habit of absurdly claiming everyone who uses a
fake name is a troll is starting to grate on me as it's disingenuous.
R.Wieser wrote:
Lane,
Why do you call him/her Arlen i
I've found that people who mangle transwomen by calling them male
pronouns are the manure of the earth. It's a repeating pattern that I've noticed.
On Tue, 8 Sep 2026 19:51:29 +0300, Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
But aggregators "can" track your posts across the Internet.
I post to many (many!) forums (web forums like XDA, Telegram, etc.)
"Ads You See Online Are Now Police Surveillance" <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq36YXrfyJE>
"This video explores how advertising data became a powerful
surveillance tool."
We're all doomed.
But aggregators "can" track your posts across the Internet.
I post to many (many!) forums (web forums like XDA, Telegram, etc.)
"Ads You See Online Are Now Police Surveillance" <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq36YXrfyJE>
"This video explores how advertising data became a powerful
surveillance tool."
We're all doomed.
IOW, if there is any distance between the town you're in and the next town >> over you won't see that one in your results. And as good-old 'Murrica has a >> LOT of "dead space" (neighbours lliving miles apart) the chance that Arlens >> "the entire world" is nothing more than *very* wishfull thinking.
Aha. Right.
How would I have asked for this information differently than I did,
Are you from the 70s?
You know what a hypocrite is ? Thats someone who tells someone not to
do {something}, while doing that {something} themselves. You know, the >> "do as I say, not as I do" kind of person.
I've found that people who mangle transwomen by calling them male pronouns are the manure of the earth. It's a repeating pattern that I've noticed.
The remainder of your post is irrelevant, as it doesn't consider his issue.
Chris wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:Why do you call him/her Arlen if his/her preferred name is Maria? Are
On 2026-09-07, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
To me it's fairly intuitive that if someone has taken the unusual step >>>>> of explicitly marking their network as "hidden", then its location
should not be included in these databases - especially given the fact >>>>> that the "_nomap" SSID method doesn't work for "hidden" networks.
I guess the challenge here is how can they know not to add the MAC
address if the SSID with the "_nomap" request invisible.
That's the core of the issue - I would guess that Android devices are
only uploading BSSIDs to the Google database when they see that Access
Point broadcast an SSID, and that SSID doesn't end with "_nomap".
iPhones on the other hand, I would guess are uploading BSSIDs to the
Apple database as soon as they see that Access Point broadcasting
anything, regardless of whether they have seen an SSID from it.
If it works the way I am suggesting, then it means that Google's
database would automatically exclude "hidden" networks, and Apple's
wouldn't - and not only that, Apple would have no way of immediately
excluding them. They would need to issue updated iPhone software,
and then wait until almost all iPhones in the world that were still
in use were using the new software.
We can't prove what prompted Apple to change their documentation, butRelated: What did Arlen (aka Maria) achieve? That Apple agreed to
remove all hidden and _nomap entries, or that they removed only his >>>>>> entry?
My impression is that as a result of Maria's communications with them, >>>>> Apple updated their documentation to note that "hidden" networks are >>>>> still listed in their database, and removed Maria's own BSSID(s) from >>>>> the database.
That's purely a correlation. It could be a coincidence. And is there
any evidence that the documentation did change? We only have his say so. >>>
we certainly can prove that it did indeed change, using archive.org.
In December 2025 the page did not mention hidden networks, and today
it does.
https://web.archive.org/web/20251221213139/https://support.apple.com/en-ie/102515
https://support.apple.com/en-ie/102515
I agree. And I did the same. The fact that Arlen couldn't very easily
evidence his assertion, despite my challenge above, speaks volumes.
you from the 70s?
On 2026-09-08 09:10, Chris wrote:
Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Or, worse, trackable information like your car's number plate?
Hi Chris,
I get it you are desperate to defend Apple to the death, no matter what... >>> But that analogy of the car license plate in a Flock system is absurd.
It's notable to everyone here that you are consistently and obstinately not >> answering the core question. Why is the collection of public information
that does not relate to an individual a privacy risk?
The Flock issue is off topic here so the only thing I'll say is that this a >> consequence of lack of American's trust in government. That leaves the door >> open to commercial companies to collect data and sell it to government
agencies with little to no oversight.
And the lack of data protection laws like the GDPR in Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
But aggregators "can" track your posts across the Internet.
I post to many (many!) forums (web forums like XDA, Telegram, etc.)
"Ads You See Online Are Now Police Surveillance"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq36YXrfyJE>
"This video explores how advertising data became a powerful
surveillance tool."
We're all doomed.
Hi Jeff,
I was wondering where you've been as you seem to have retired from the >Internet service business in recent years.
I see you on the electronics
repair ng sometimes, but rarely here nowadays.
I still remember you proved how the router transmit power claims are >completely bogus, much as Apple's claims of battery efficiency were.
You, of all people, have my true identity as we've conversed a few times
over the years in email and on Usenet about our shared WISP experiences, >e.g., surfnet, ridge, etheric, hilltop, xfinity, et al., and you and I both >personally know most of the local operators, e.g., mike, loren, dave.
When I moved to the Santa Cruz Mountains from flatland in San Jose, I was >shocked there was no wired services, so people only had satellite or WISP.
I ended up inviting the local WISP team to serve me, for free, and as a >result, they serve the whole mountain as I have a repeater on my rooftop.
For years, I provided them with good business by setting up all my
neighbors with 2.4GHz radios and eventually the 5GHz rocket dishes.
At some point they started doing the installations themselves, so I no
longer had to log into every neighbor's router to update the firmware.
I want to THANK YOU for teaching me a LOT of what I know about Wi-Fi >networking, particularly you're pretty clear on how they lie about
decibels, where we have control over our transmit strength if we like.
You also taught me a lot about changing the BSSID, or not, which was well >before Google became big so it's fundamental knowledge you imparted to me.
I very much APPRECIATE all the help you've provided over the decades.
You haven't posted much lately, so I'm happy to know you're still around!
I think we're almost the same age, where I'm an octogenarian, while you're >most likely still a young kid in your 70's, as I recall (but maybe not).
In summary, I love the sagacious sharpness of your sarcasm, which is, like >Paul's, well honed by decades of experience finding things out the hard
way.
I'm HAPPY you're still around, as you, & maybe Jon, & perhaps Lawrence, & >maybe even Andy, are the only ones seemingly capable of understanding this >topic, where if we follow the breadcrumb of the BSSID:GPS pair, the way
Apple does it is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the way everyone else does it.
Apple claims "we care about your privacy"... except when they don't.
On Tue, 8 Sep 2026 22:18:02 +0400, Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
Well, that's a problem. I'm getting old (78 currently), tired and
lazy. Debating the finer points of some technology eventually turns
into an endless time burn. Your endless discussion with "Carlos E.R."
is a good example. Carlos seems to baiting you with less than
brilliant one-line comments, which usually results literary effluvia
from you. All that does is waste everyone's time. Yours is wasted
because you write more than anyone is willing to read. My time is
wasted, but I just don't have the time to read the entire thread. I
suspect the typical Usenet reader thinks in a similar manner.
On 2026-09-10 04:46, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 8 Sep 2026 22:18:02 +0400, Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
...
Well, that's a problem. I'm getting old (78 currently), tired and
lazy. Debating the finer points of some technology eventually turns
into an endless time burn. Your endless discussion with "Carlos E.R."
is a good example. Carlos seems to baiting you with less than
brilliant one-line comments, which usually results literary effluvia
from you. All that does is waste everyone's time. Yours is wasted
because you write more than anyone is willing to read. My time is
wasted, but I just don't have the time to read the entire thread. I suspect the typical Usenet reader thinks in a similar manner.
Baiting! Interesting idea, but no, I have no such intention. Not
knowingly, at least.
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-09-10 04:46, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 8 Sep 2026 22:18:02 +0400, Maria Sophia
<mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
...
Well, that's a problem. I'm getting old (78 currently), tired and
lazy. Debating the finer points of some technology eventually turns
into an endless time burn. Your endless discussion with "Carlos E.R."
is a good example. Carlos seems to baiting you with less than
brilliant one-line comments, which usually results literary effluvia
from you. All that does is waste everyone's time. Yours is wasted
because you write more than anyone is willing to read. My time is
wasted, but I just don't have the time to read the entire thread. I
suspect the typical Usenet reader thinks in a similar manner.
Baiting! Interesting idea, but no, I have no such intention. Not
knowingly, at least.
Agreed. (You) Refusing to get engaged in his sprees of insults, misrepresentations, lies, etc., is in *no* way 'baiting'. Quite the
opposite. Any and all baiting is purely on 'Arlen''s side.
That said, (obviously) no ill feelings at all towards Jeff.
Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-09-10 04:46, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 8 Sep 2026 22:18:02 +0400, Maria Sophia
<mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
...
Well, that's a problem. I'm getting old (78 currently), tired and
lazy. Debating the finer points of some technology eventually turns
into an endless time burn. Your endless discussion with "Carlos E.R." >>>> is a good example. Carlos seems to baiting you with less than
brilliant one-line comments, which usually results literary effluvia
from you. All that does is waste everyone's time. Yours is wasted
because you write more than anyone is willing to read. My time is
wasted, but I just don't have the time to read the entire thread. I
suspect the typical Usenet reader thinks in a similar manner.
Baiting! Interesting idea, but no, I have no such intention. Not
knowingly, at least.
Agreed. (You) Refusing to get engaged in his sprees of insults,
misrepresentations, lies, etc., is in *no* way 'baiting'. Quite the
opposite. Any and all baiting is purely on 'Arlen''s side.
That said, (obviously) no ill feelings at all towards Jeff.
I concur. Although, the curt responses from Carlos are a symptom of being >vilified for days by Arlen.
I also tend to ignore one-line replies because they tend to contain
little or nothing of value.
Whether this was intentional trolling by Carlos, or frustration
dealing with Alren, is unknown.
All I saw was long and repetitive comments by Arlen
Jeff,
I also tend to ignore one-line replies because they tend to contain
little or nothing of value.
Whether this was intentional trolling by Carlos, or frustration
dealing with Alren, is unknown.
You already said it yourself :
All I saw was long and repetitive comments by Arlen
Arlen is well know for ignoring everything he doesn't want to hear, and keep reposting his own "truths" - even if they have been shown to be wrong.
And as you probably have noticed by now, everyone who does not agree with
him is either dumb, or a troll.
I moved to the hills in about 1974(?). There were enough lines and
phone numbers for everyone. Near the end of the 1970's, the BBS's
(bulleting board services) and garage ISP's arrived. Available phone
lines and numbers suddenly became scarce. In about 1994, the BBS and
garage ISP's moved into problem office buildings, which freed up quite
a few phone lines, which were immediately consumed by a student
population increase inspired by rapidly rising real estate costs. <https://www.biggestuscities.com/city/santa-cruz-california>
On 9/10/2026 10:46 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
I moved to the hills in about 1974(?). There were enough lines and
phone numbers for everyone. Near the end of the 1970's, the BBS's
(bulleting board services) and garage ISP's arrived. Available phone
lines and numbers suddenly became scarce. In about 1994, the BBS and
garage ISP's moved into problem office buildings, which freed up quite
a few phone lines, which were immediately consumed by a student
population increase inspired by rapidly rising real estate costs.
<https://www.biggestuscities.com/city/santa-cruz-california>
Dear Jeff,
Did you get a ...00 phone number for your landline?
Somehow, I managed
to get a home /landline/ number in Iceland that ends in 00, and you can
give me a call. As I don't live in Iceland anymore, this number is now >S.I.P. and I'll have to turn the "phone" on so give me some advance no-
tice before you attempt at calling me.
Alternatively, I can give you a call using my U.S. based S.I.P. number
and you'll merely have to tell me when is a good time to call you.
Best wishes, and happy phone numbers!--
On Fri, 25 Sep 2026 23:43:07 +0800, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote:
On 9/10/2026 10:46 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
I moved to the hills in about 1974(?). There were enough lines and
phone numbers for everyone. Near the end of the 1970's, the BBS's
(bulleting board services) and garage ISP's arrived. Available phone
lines and numbers suddenly became scarce. In about 1994, the BBS and
garage ISP's moved into problem office buildings, which freed up quite
a few phone lines, which were immediately consumed by a student
population increase inspired by rapidly rising real estate costs.
<https://www.biggestuscities.com/city/santa-cruz-california>
Dear Jeff,
Did you get a ...00 phone number for your landline?
No. I've had the same phone number since about 1974. It's in the
signature. However, it's no longer a "land line" using copper wires
from Ma Bell. It's been an Ooma VoIP number since Apr 2022. I use
Xfinity for internet connectivity. I've been retired since the end of
2020 and therefore do not need a reliable service. Best effort is sufficient.
Somehow, I managed
to get a home /landline/ number in Iceland that ends in 00, and you can
give me a call. As I don't live in Iceland anymore, this number is now
S.I.P. and I'll have to turn the "phone" on so give me some advance no-
tice before you attempt at calling me.
Ooma uses SIP (session initiation protocol). To make a SIP call, I
need to connect one of my SIP phones or adapters, and call direct.
However, I have ports 5060-5062 blocked because I got tired of having
my SIP phones probed and crashed.
Alternatively, I can give you a call using my U.S. based S.I.P. number
and you'll merely have to tell me when is a good time to call you.
At this time, I don't want to talk to anyone, especially if I need to reconstruct my SIP phone setup. I've been working on projects that
are going too slowly but which hopefully will end by November (or
December).
Best wishes, and happy phone numbers!
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 02:20:16 |
| Calls: | 1,194 |
| Files: | 1,353 |
| D/L today: |
2 files (1,590K bytes) |
| Messages: | 291,157 |
