Re: Apple changed their documentation at my request but it proves they don't care about privacy

Nuno Silva <[email protected]>
Newsgroups comp.lang.python,misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android,alt.internet.wireless,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <[email protected]>
(Snipping for brevity for inline replies, sorry that this removes the
context, but in this case it probably is preferrable, please refer to
the parent post for the full context:)

(And thanks for the post, Jon, it does indeed make things clearer to
understand at least for me.)

On 2026-09-06, Jon Ribbens wrote:

> The purpose of these databases of BSSID locations is to assist devices
> such as mobile phones in locating themselves. Maybe the device is
> indoors and cannot get a GPS signal, but also my understanding is that
> GPS can fix an accurate location much faster if it starts already
> knowing vaguely where on the planet it is.

There was already a mechanism to do this at least since "3G" using
mobile data connections, right?

> 2. Apple's API is trivial to abuse.
>    (My opinion: high priority.)

(I think this is one of the aspects that was made only implicit in most
of the thread, and it would have helped if it was made more explicit...)

[...]
> My opinion: the lack of restrictions on the Apple API is unacceptable,
> and if Apple are unwilling to do something about it then governments
> should pass laws (or enforce existing laws) to make them to do so.

I'm leaning towards existing laws being more than sufficient, in
developed countries.

> My opinion: it would be difficult for Apple to rapidly switch completely
> to using an API more similar to Google's API, since this would remove
> functionality from devices running old software. However they could
> certainly aim to do this eventually, and there are steps they could take
> immediately to improve the situation (e.g. rate limiting, and not
> providing so many additional answers when asked about an individual
> BSSID). I cannot see any obvious reason why they couldn't make
> significant improvements almost immediately.

Not to mention Apple is not necessarily known for allowing older systems
to remain in use, so it'd be curious if they chose precisely a situation
like this to behave differently.

-- 
Nuno Silva
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.