Are wi-fi hotspots/repeaters a good way to mitigate privacy issues from routers?
Routers from what I understand have a few way to monitor people around, like radio-based sonar, logging and informing of every device that connects to it, etc.
If wanting to ensure some more #privacy, would it be a good option to keep the router as far as possible from the common areas of the house, so what I can "see" is blurry at best, while using repeaters like old phones on vanilla AOSP and SBC devices?
That's not my area so maybe I'm going way off in my assumptions, but I'd think that these repeaters wouldn't bridge sonar functions, they wouldn't report on devices connected through them, their systems wouldn't be a black box unlike the router itself, data packets sent from devices with VPN would remain encrypted while they go through the repeaters and router's route, and with ethernet cables could allow for an specially long distance.
So... Would it be an interesting option?
6 Comments
unitedwithme@lemmy.today · 9 pts · 3d
A repeater is NOT going to add privacy. You're still linked back to the main gateway which controls all settings.
If you're absolutely stuck with ISP equipment, immediately change away from built-in DNS like Comcast's 75.75.75.75, ignore Google DNS cuz it's just as bad. Quad9 is the noisy trustworthy IMO. 9.9.9.9 and 149.112.112.112 for secondary. I would also change default login info and default WiFi passwords if you haven't already. Disable WPS connectivity, update firmware, etc. This helps harden and secure.
If you're able to run your own equipment, that'll take you running the ISP device in "bridge mode" which hands off traffic to your gateway/wireless router. You can then look to bump security settings through forums or parts online, but will vary greatly with your own budget and technical prowess..
We need more info:
adespoton@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 3d
I think you may have your terminology confused.
A router routes packets between network endpoints— usually based on MAC ID. They can do passive routing (just broadcast any incoming packets out to all network ports) or active (keep a record of which MAC is assigned to which port, and only send packets to the ID that matches).
ISPs often supply an “all in one” device that is a modem (connects out to the ISP equipment), a router, a firewall, and a WiFi access point. The WiFi it uses these days is often MiMo style where it does mesh networking with a bunch of satellite devices you plug in around your house.
Used in this mode, your ISP and their MiMo provider know exactly which devices are connected to your network (because it’s really their network) and where they’re located in your home.
But those “all in one” devices are required to be switchable into “bridged mode” where all they are is a modem and a pass-through network router. In that mode, all they can do is pass network packets. If you set things up in this way, you then have to provide your own firewall to connect to the device, your own routers and switches to connect to your firewall, and your own WiFi APs to connect to that.
CameronDev@programming.dev · 2 pts · 3d
Realistically, your router isnt tracking your movement in your house. It may be possible, but there just isnt any value to doing that.
https://cameroncros.github.io/wifi-condom.html
That's a little out of date, but might be useful if you want a WiFi router to protect yourself in a hotel. Pointless at home though.
AxisExperience9@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 3d
I think Xfinity routers began doing that actually. Here's directly from their website: https://www.xfinity.com/hub/smart-home/wifi-motion
If there wasn't any value in it I don't see why it's getting implemented at all, but it is and it exists.
I hate to use the slippery slope argument but I'm tired of forcing myself to believe that these private companies are moral have any reason to protect us. They don't. It feels like everything is about power and control, from flock and axon to this router tracking shit. if it doesn't make sense, it's because it's not supposed to, and the feature being implemented has ulterior motives
Edit: and yes I know they say they don't track your movements but these companies lie all the time. I'm not just going to take that at face value. It's time to start treating these companies like the biggest liars on earth (because they kind of are) until they've earned our trust back
CameronDev@programming.dev · 1 pts · 3d
Detecting motion is relatively easy, but actual positioning would require knowledge of where the WiFi router is placed within the home, and where the other static WiFi devices are. So position detection is realistically about as much as they could do without calibration.
The xfinity one is more about smart home stuff, and is opt-in (and it's a fair point to distrust that).
The reason I don't think they are tracking motion/position within your home is that there just isnt any useful way to turn that into a targeted ad, and therefore has no viable revenue path. At best, they could count how many times you go to the bathroom, maybe target a metamucil ad, but its so niche (and likely extremely noisy data) that its just not useful.
They know when your at home already, as your phone will connect to your network, and your network traffic (VPN/encrypted or not) will spike. They don't need WiFi positioning to determine that.
I'm not saying people should just trust things are okay, its more that there are much higher priorities to tackle. WiFi positioning is way down the list of realistic concerns.
AxisExperience9@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 3d
No you're right and you make great points. I don't actually want to believe that these are just evil companies looking for any and all ways to profit off of us. It can just come off that way for sure. But I liked your breakdown and understanding of things