On 10/09/13 19:05, Chris Peterson wrote:
> Our location service (and stumbler) also collects cell data, so we can
> geolocate with Wi-Fi AP and/or cell data.
Sure. But in the rural areas I am thinking about, cells cover many
square km. The wifi access point has a much smaller range, and therefore
On 9/11/13 9:59 AM, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
But at this point it seems clear to me, that there's likely no way to share any
meaningful subset or aggregated version of this data publicly at all.
No way to share the Wi-Fi data. Our stumblers are also collecting cell
tower data and I don't see
On 10.09.2013, at 20:23 , ianG wrote:
> On 11/09/13 03:27 AM, Daniel Veditz wrote:
>> "private" means we can't even /look/ at it, rather than merely can't
>> store it?
>
> The data regime might be simply put as this: you can't store a number
> suitable for tracking (or any derivative of it if t
On 10.09.2013, at 17:41 , Daniel Veditz wrote:
> That can't be right, so your database must be more complex. If you're
> storing more than originally implied that may have some impact on a
> security assessment.
We apparently haven't been clear about the scope of the proposal. It only deals
with
On 11.09.2013, at 02:06 , Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 10/09/13 19:05, Chris Peterson wrote:
>> Our location service (and stumbler) also collects cell data, so we can
>> geolocate with Wi-Fi AP and/or cell data.
>
> Sure. But in the rural areas I am thinking about, cells cover many
> square km. Th
