I assumed it was a wink to the Nov 1972 Playboy model[1] whose centerfold face became a de facto baseline test image for DSP algorithms without consent.
I've wondered if they can also find you by what wifi or Bluetooth devices are around. Odds are one or more humans nearby has their GPS on. Your device can snitch on what's around or those other devices snitch on you.
Of course they can. Locations can be trilaterated using wifi and bluetooth.
Back when my OG iPod Touch was minty and new (2008, IIRC), it was in many ways a stripped-down iPhone.
One of the features that was stripped out was GPS: It didn't have that at all. It also lacked Bluetooth.
But it did have a Maps app, and it also had location services. This used visible wifi access points and a database back home on the mothership to determine location.
It was pretty neat at that time to take this responsive, color-screened pocket computer with me on a walk, connect it to a then-ubiquitous open SSID, and have it figure out my location and provide a map (with aerial photos!) of where I was. It wasn't ever dead-nuts, but it was consistently spooky-good.
It's pretty old tech at this point, and devices still use it today.
(Related tech: Those plastic table tents that you take with you at McDonald's after ordering at the kiosk? They're BLE beacons. Sensors in the ceiling track them so that the person bringing the tray with food on it knows about where you're sitting before they even walk out of the kitchen. And modern pocket supercomputers use the locations of these and other beacons, as well, to help trilaterate their position. Urban environments are replete with very chatty things that don't move around very much.)
Google recorded wifi names and locations as a "bycatch" when taking streetview pictures from 2007 upto 2010. They still collect such data on Android devices if the user consents or ignores the option to say "no" … :-0
Certain devices (especially tablets) don't have GPS or various sensors integrated and still can tell you your approximate location, if WiFi is enabled.
I've thought that too... especially Bluetooth. I know it's possible with
Wi-Fi signal strength.
Is it a coincidence most smartphone manufacturers were suddenly all on board with removing the 3.5mm jack and forced Bluetooth?
A mesh network of sorts like Amazon is doing with Ring.
I even sometimes forget to save my battery and turn Bluetooth off when I'm not using my earbuds. It's probably a false sense of security having it disabled because I'm sure it's doing something in the background anyways. I can't say for sure though.
Kind of like years ago with Google getting caught with the whole location data thing.
I'm sure the average Joe doesn't care if Bluetooth is enabled 24/7.
I try and not be on the tin foil bandwagon, but every once and a while I come across things that make you go hmmm...
I doubt BT is the right way to locate a device, it's far better for being located (FindMy-style).
Wi-Fi is better for positioning since BSSIDs are (mostly) static and APs don't move around.
On top of that, BLE usually uses random addresses - so it won't be of much help knowing that you were around CC:B9:AF:E8:AE at 10:05 AM - since that address is likely random.
No. There's no conspiracy relating location services to the removal of the headphone jack: The latter is just a dumb design decision from a famous fruit company that ultimately wants their products to be completely featureless rounded rectangles.
This kind of trilateration relies on beacons that don't move around (much). (And phones move. That's kind of their whole point.)
Fortunately for location data, there's a ton of Bluetooth beacons that are in reasonably fixed locations: Google used to give them away for businesses to use, but things like smart TVs, speakers, and game consoles are all pretty chatty about broadcasting their presence over Bluetooth to anyone in earshot. (And it's easy enough to observe with any app that displays nearby Bluetooth beacons. I see over a dozen right now where I sit in my suburban home.)
I don't think he ever got the first half of the advance...cherry-picking from the TFA:
> They offered a $5000 advance with the first half paid out when they approve of the first third of the book and the second half when they accept the final manuscript for publication.
> I continued to get further behind on delivering my revised draft of the first 1/3.
> Around this time, there was a possibility of me changing jobs. Oh, and my wedding was coming up. That was the final nail in the coffin.
> There were too many things going on and I didn't enjoy working on the book anymore, so what is the point? I made up my mind to ask to freeze the project.
> accuracy is a mix of both granularity and divergence
I respectfully disagree.
In context, "granularity" is nothing more than a resolution constraint on reported timestamps. Its inclusion adjacent to the specified "divergence from UTC" is a function of market manipulation surveillance objectives as discussed in preamble item (2), and really doesn't have anything to do with accuracy proper.
Yeah, exactly. I've been watching adsb activity over my house for years, and in the past few weeks, for the first time, I have activity (helicopter and jet) in my area that it not visible.
It's unnerving, and unbecoming of an egalitarian society.
> So, note for me: If I want NTP redundancy and I'm using NIST's servers, pick one NTP server from each of NTP's three sites.
System robustness hazard that won't tolerate just querying time.nist.gov at 4-sec or greater intervals?
From the cow's mouth[1]:
>> The global address time.nist.gov is resolved to all of the server addresses below in a round-robin sequence to equalize the load across all of the servers.
> I am astonished that NIST does not have multiple clocks over multiple distributed sites with robust ability to detect and bypass individual failures.
They may not operate redundant clocks at a single site, but ITS redundancy posture[1] doesn't look bad at all:
>> Servers at the Boulder and WWV/Ft. Collins campuses are independent and unaffected.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna
reply