You’re likening the ability of apple/Google to see devices moving around in Ukraine to someone figuring out who you are because you have a DAB radio transmitting an SSID and a MAC address - that only people within a hundred or so metres can see.

Of course. Apple does not distinguish a DAB radio from a smartphone from an access point. It just blindly collects all SSIDs and MACs. Why do you think a soldier in Ukraine would get not only different treatment, but in fact more compromising treatment? That’s absurdly unrealistic. It costs Apple money to pay engineers to write tailored code and filters that then get deployed to all iOS devices at the risk of the exceptional logic doing the wrong thing. Of course iOS devices indiscriminantly send all data just the same.

The Ukraine soldier tracking was a scandalous embarrassment, so it stands to reason that adjustments have been made since then – and most likely by Ukraine not Apple. But if it were Apple, the change would obviously be to /not/ collect the compromising data of soldiers. A war fighter has a higher expectation for privacy than a DAB radio listener.

It’s not Apple who tracked the Ukrainian soldiers. The exploit was demonstrated by an end user who was simply making use of available data from Apple. IOW, some avg. Joe tinkering in their basement could do it. And they could do it with LESS information to start with. The person who demonstrated the tracking was much further than 100 meters. They were not even in Ukraine IIRC. They did not know where the soldiers were to begin with (IIRC). Unlike a Karcher scenario, where an adversary could very well have the victim’s starting location. It’s trivial track the victim from there in this case.

Again, I bring you back to the test laid out by the EDPB. For indirect identifiers like this to be considered personal data you have to consider the technical ability and the liklihood of someone converting that indirect identifier into something that actually identifies you as a natural person.

Do stalker victims have to prove the likelihood that their threat agent will attack? It’s already clear to me that the GDPR is mostly a failure. If judges and GDPR practitioners were to require proof that excessive data would likely lead to misuse as a precondition to corrective action against art.5-1© infringements, it would be yet another failure of the GDPR. The whole point to Art.5-1© (data minimisation) is to improve privacy generally without anticipation of particular threats. That’s the whole point of it. What you suggest is a purpose-defeating abuse of interpretation and discretion.

But in the real world, I don’t believe you do. You mention a stalker - a stalker isn’t going to find you by driving around using a WiFi scanner looking for a DAB radio.

If I ever have a stalker, I hope they are as unmotivated and undevoted as you suggest. But I have to say you have a strangely optimistic or flippant view of the psychology of a stalker.

But a DAB radio? Like others have said,

Others? You mean the person who thinks data is only collected by product registrations? Who thinks “smart” devices have no GDPR relevance? And who thinks MAC addresses are not unique and who also thinks a MAC address on a DAB radio can be changed by consumers apparently without breaking an anti-reverse engineering terms of use? Who also thinks Karcher would become GDPR compliant through a MAC changing mechanism if it were to exist. Who then tried to establish credibility by claiming to endorse the GDPR. Indeed… not a good source.

unless you registered it under your name then its MAC is not linked to you.

You cannot really know what Google and Apple do with their data collection as opaque as they are. But the data is there. They have enough to link people to MAC addresses on a large scale in an automated fashion. The data collection is proven by Douglas Leith’s research.

At the same time, we need not rely on assumptions. I could unwittingly place my Karcher within view of my front window while my neighbors who know exactly who I am. I might also be the sole person in hundreds of meters who has a Karcher that emits a unique MAC address. Any arbitrary owner of a Karcher radio would not necessarily even be aware of the reckless emissions. My neighbor would realistically have a great degree of certainty that the MAC address relates to me as they can see the signal strength increase ast they approach my dwelling and decrease as they walk away from it.

To make this more interesting, replace “neighbor” with “stalker” in the above paragraph. Then when I move to get away from the stalker, the DBs of Apple or Google could reveal¹ my new location. Or the stalker can war drive if they know I didn’t move far.

¹ Note that research showed that Ukranian troops were trackable using Apple’s map tool that all ordinary Apple consumers have access to.

Once again “personal data.” You haven’t told us how Karcher knows that the device belongs to you. Everything else is irrelevant.

Nonsense. Karcher doesn’t need to know /who/ the personal data belongs to in order to be accountable for designs that violate Art.25.

Local storage is subject to GDPR if: The organization maintains control … The data is personal

Did you log on the device using an email or any personal data? You have to consult a lawyer for that because I doubt you fall in that case.

wtf, stop making up quotes.

A MAC address is unique

Absolutely not, and it can be changed.

Citation needed. Karcher does not even allow users basic access to change the SSID. Please point to the page in the Karcher user guide showing how to change the MAC address on their appliance.

How does a single number relates to you? Is it linked to your purchase? If not, it’s not GDPR. You’re severely mistaken. Or you gave your first and last name when you bought the device, but I’m pretty sure it did not happen.

A purchase is orthoganol to the GDPR. Even if I dug the Karcher out of a dumpster, the MAC address can still be linked to me by aggregating other data. A purchase transaction is irrelevant.

You bought a piece-of-shit “smart device” and it’s sad, but it’s irrelevant to the GDPR.

“Smart devices” are most certainly not irrelevant to the GDPR. The Article 29 Working Party devoted a 30-page guideline (opinion 02/2013 tagged WP202) entirely to the relevancy of smart devices to the EU privacy law just prior to the GDPR, which is now viewed through the lens of the GDPR.

And I severely doubt OP gave his name to the Karcher company along the serial number of that speaker after he bought it.

It’s profoundly naive to assume that product registration is the only way to collect data. Data brokers and surveillance advertisers are smarter than that.

I like GDPR because it gives more power to the customers, but I don’t think his case is valid.

You could benefit from reading Art.5-1©. Data minimisation is obligatory.

You’re making lots of assumptions and leaps about Google.

Amid Apple and Google’s opacity, you’re making lots of assumptions and leaps about Google that a Google spokesperson would praise you for. It’s unwise not to assume surveillance advertisers are collecting all profitable data possible.

Like anyone else all they can do is map SSID to a general locality. They still dont know who you are based on that single piece of information.

You’ve apparently not read Douglas Leith’s research. It’s the MAC address that is sent along with other telemetry data.

The question is - is an SSID personal data.

No. It isnt.

We’re talking about MAC addresses that are linked to an individual natural person. Think of the SSID as the bait by which the uniquely identifying MAC address is discovered and collected.

Is a MAC? Potentially but only to a very specific and small number of entities.

Nonsense. A MAC address is unique and the box emitting it is owned by a particular person. In residential areas most such devices are owned by natural individuals.

And then as I said for it to be personal data the link between that device and you has to be realistically and reasonably likely to occur.

It’s automated. Apple collects the MAC addresses along with telemetry data. Apple also collects other data which can be aggregated. Data aggregation is profitable. It enables advertisers to know the most about their ad targets.

I look forward to reading the result of your court case against Karcher in 3 years time.

Woah, hold on. I never claimed the GDPR is actually enforced. The GDPR is widely disregarded. No, I do not have the confidence you seem to think I have in the GDPR being enforced. We can’t even get the most bluntly egregious indefensible GDPR violations enforced, much less any kind of nuanced scenario like this.

The GDPR is just a prop… a façade to make the population comfortable with engaging with digital commerce (and for this purpose the GDPR works wonders on people). The discussion is whether there is a violation, not whether there would be justice. We can probably agree that Karcher will never face justice or be compelled to actually respect Art.5 and Art.32.

An SSID doesn’t do that. It might allow someone in the general vicinity the ability to identify which house the SSID originates from but that still doesnt reveal the identity of the person inside.

Google and/or Apple already has that. They have maps. They know where people live.

And to be clear, it’s not the SSID but rather the MAC address that’s unique enough to make this possible. Although the SSID alone could do it in aggregate with other local SSIDs.

A natural person is “identified or identifiable” if they can be distinguished from others in a given context using means reasonably likely to be used and in a way that makes it possible to treat them differently.

Google often knows who bought the Karcher radio. GAFAM is interested enough in who is buying what that they go as far as buying data from local shops in order to find out who buys what offline.

Does the information relate to a natural person?

Of course, when the radio is owned by a natural person.

Is the natural person identifiable?

They are identifiable to the entity who the SSID & MAC is shared with.

Is it reasonably possible for someone to establish your identity and are they likely to bother trying.

The machinery of surveillance advertisers like Google and Apple is designed to require no effort. They put effort into the infra, but from there the infra automatically identifies and grows profile data for further sales (read: privacy exploits).

Karcher will be selling the fact that the device is WiFi enabled,

Irrelevant. A wi-fi client does not need to broadcast an SSID.

and they will argue that if a broadcast SSID does meet the criteria of personal data it is irrelevant

They will want to avoid talking about MAC addresses for sure.

because you willingly consented to it (or entered into a contract) by buying the product

So you believe the legal basis is “consent” or “contract”? I don’t see how either apply. There is no contract to speak of. The purchase literature is on the box which does not mention SSID broadcasting.

“Consent”-based legal basis requires being informed in the very least, according to the EDPB. And it cannot just be some fine print stashed somewhere. It requires explicit informed consent. They don’t have that. Consumers don’t even necessarily know this broadcast is occurring.

and you can easily withdraw your consent by not using the product anymore.

It must be unplugged. And the data subject must be informed in the first place. Which is the crux of the problem. It’s not art.5 (data minimisation) compliant, and data subjects are not being informed.

Is the SSID linked to your identity? Then it’s not GDPR.

Nonsense. “Personal data” is not just your identity. All data the relates to you is your personal data. That includes your home address. When your home address becomes aggregated with a unique MAC address, that MAC address also becomes personal data that relates to you.

And because the SSID does not include the string _optout_nomap, Google and Apple can use the SSID and MAC to track you and to keep tabs on where you relocate to so long as the Karcher radio moves with you.

Anyway, get a refund and stop complaining.

What EU country do you live in that you can get a refund on this basis (which according to you does not violate law)? Why do you think it would it be sensible to solve the problem for one person with respect to a manufactured product with likely tens or hundreds of thousands of consumers who are subject to the same abuse?

Sorry for the late reply. But for the record I must say Tails does not do what I want because Tails gives clearnet access. The UI discourages it, but the possibility is there to open a browser on clearnet.

You may be right about Whonix… I have yet to tinker with it.

What I am after may not exist. Tails without a clearnet browser would be close. It would be ideal if the platform were clearnet-free out of the box. Even better: clearnet incapable.

If I would uninstall the clearnet browser, that would be a deliberate act on my part to have a broken clearnet. It would be indefensible. The idea is to most faithfully play dumb when fighting public administrations who block tor.

I like where your head is at but this feels like an impossible stretch. If you have the technical knowledge to run Tails, you aren’t being blocked.

It’s perhaps more complex than you realise. There are several facets to this with a broad range of effects, which is not necessarily just a Tor-acceptance problem.

Tor-blocking sites do not have the decency to so much as state /why/ they have blocked you. They either send a generic “403 forbidden”, or they drop packets and it times out, or you get a broken CAPTCHA. In the latter two cases you can’t even be sure Tor is the issue. They do not treat visitors with dignity. So playing dumb when facing them is a good policy. E.g. “I could not pay my taxes on time because I get this screen:…” then go boomer on them and send a camera pic of a timed out connection. If they take some time to investigate and chase their tails a bit, that’s already a win to some extent, in some situations. We want to penalise them for not even having the decency of transparency.

It’d be like shutting off your water, locking the mechanical room, and suing your landlord

Hence why Qubes is not ideal. But if there is an OS that simply excludes clearnet, I might say (when pressed): “my friend gave me this laptop… said it was safer than Windows”¹. But the conversation never goes that far.

The baby step micro-goal is just to get a bit of due transparency and dignity. Not “403 Forbidden” but rather “We’re sorry, we detect you are using Tor and we do not have the competency to secure against Tor users”, or “we need to track you, thus cannot accept traffic from Tor or VPNs”.

¹ Note that this scenario is becoming increasingly realistic. A local group of volunteers offers gratis advice and support for digital self-defense. Some people walk away with Tails and only a superficial idea of what they have.

thanks for pointing that out. I’ll have take look at their most recent version then.

Tails worked on clearnet, last time I used it. It gave a choice between tor browser or a clearnet browser.

So the question is, does Russia really have a hard time getting spies in? Or is it more of a matter of saving money on the travel effort and letting a couple local kids be the fall guys? Because the recruitment itself has some risk. Netherlands probably needs some counter spies posing as kids looking to be recruited.

I’ve been using JSignPDF for this by running:

java -jar jsignpdf-1.6.1/JSignPdf.jar

The tool you link looks quite a bit more comprehensive and user friendly. I think w/JSignPDF it just does the task of signing. You still need to generate SSL certs. I’ve not tried docuseal but looks like it tries to be foolproof.