Skip to content

Senate GOP budget bill has little-noticed provision that could hurt your Wi-Fi

Technology
72 43 392
  • This would need like a Canadian or Mexican to help provide the internet from across the border, because if they pull the Iran style blackout there will be zero internet for the entire country.

    Meshenger app and mesh networks would still work, back to the BBS times we go

  • I call bs on the encryption part too. You just need to publicly post the key for your encryption and say you're not trying to hide what you're saying.

    I haven't seen any regulations saying where you need to publicly post the key.

    I say license up now and learn it how the shit works. Never know when some "pirate" stations may be needed.

    There's a difference between encryption and encoding, and that difference is intent.

    Encoding is the process of imparting a digital message onto the radio carrier. A simple example is Morse code; transmitted by keying a continuous wave on and off in pre-determined patterns of long and short pulses with long and short gaps between. Frequency shift keying and bodot code are the encoding scheme behind RTTY, etc. Hams are permitted to experiment with novel encoding schemes, and have invented a few, PSK31 comes to mind, a phase shift keying standard designed to use commonly available PC sound cards as a modem.

    Encryption is the process of obscuring the message for all but the intended recipient. There is one specific case the law calls out when this is permissible in Amateur radio service, and that's control signals of Amateur radio satellites. A novel encoding scheme, like making up your own alphabet instead of the standard Morse one, or ciphers of any kind that are intended to make the message secret, is illegal.

    It's not uncommon to hear encrypted communiques on the ham bands; I've picked them up myself. You want a fun rabbit hole to fall down, look up numbers stations. Some serious cold war james bond bullshit.

    I don't believe it is legal to send a PGP encrypted message over the air (on ham radio, go ahead and send it over Wi-Fi, you can encrypt the shit out of that) even if you've posted your private key on your website. What would even be the point of that? tilts head It might be legal to send a PGP signed message over ham radio; if I understand correctly that's basically a checksum that can guarantee the sender's possession of a private key.

  • The cell carriers don't need more bandwith. 5G is already quite fast with the existing allocations. The only times I've used 5G and thought it's too slow has been in rural areas where the issue is a lack of nearby cell towers, not a lack of bandwidth. The cell carriers already have loads of millimeter wave bandwidth available for use in densely packed, urban areas where the lower frequency bands are insufficient.

    It's WiFi that should be getting more bandwidth. Home internet connections keep getting faster. Multi gigabit speeds are now common in areas with fiber.

    and on top of that, 5G afaik is specifically made so that if you need more density, you can turn down the cell power and install more cell sites rather than take more spectrum

    it was designed for venues like sports stadiums so you could keep installing more and more cell towers inside stadiums etc to accommodate huge crowds

  • Next they are gonna take away amateur radio frequencies so it would be illegal to communicate outside of the internet.

    Then its very easy to do censorship, just turn off power to ISPs and its information blackout.

    For what it's worth, I think Cruz's proposal (all of it) was defeated 99-1.

  • I mean, does anyone actually communicate on the ham bands? HF is for contesting and contesting only, 2 meters is for "checking in and out" on ragchew nets, 70cm is 2m again except half the range, 220 is hipster 2 meter, and I've never been given a reason to even think about 33cm and above. You're more likely to find discussion about Icom vs Yaesu's incompatible 2 meter digital things than high UHF.

    Most actual communication is illegal on the ham bands one way or another so...I haven't renewed my license.

    Most actual communication is illegal on the ham bands one way or another

    Except in case of emergency, natural disaster, etc. Before we carried cell phones, I had ham handhelds that we would talk directly to each other on 70cm for the usual "Hi honey, I'm on my way home" or... in the days before cell phone lots existed at airports, I'd call her on the handheld to let her know I was approaching the passenger drop-off/pickup area at the airport after a flight so she could start going there from whatever makeshift staging area she was in.

    Anyway, when we would be out in the woods, we could reach each other roughly 1/2 mile like that from handheld to handheld, but if we ever had a serious problem we could switch to 2m and hit the local repeater which would get us more like 12 miles of range and coverage all the way into town where there was usually somebody who could make a 911 call if we needed it.

    So, yeah, we have cell phones today, and they work when they work, but I find that when the cell phones don't work (like during / after a hurricane) the ham bands generally are working - or at least are restored quicker, and nobody is going to press charges for emergency communications on the ham bands.

    If you want to use the ham band for instacart dispatch coordination, yeah, you're gonna get more than static about that.

  • I thought about getting a ham license so are you telling me there is really no need?

    If you intend to practice the hobby, get the license. I let mine lapse after 10 years because I don't practice anymore, but I generally still remember the basic rules and how to operate the gear, so if I ever had an emergency need I'd use what I had access to - but I haven't transmitted anything in years and years.

  • There's a difference between encryption and encoding, and that difference is intent.

    Encoding is the process of imparting a digital message onto the radio carrier. A simple example is Morse code; transmitted by keying a continuous wave on and off in pre-determined patterns of long and short pulses with long and short gaps between. Frequency shift keying and bodot code are the encoding scheme behind RTTY, etc. Hams are permitted to experiment with novel encoding schemes, and have invented a few, PSK31 comes to mind, a phase shift keying standard designed to use commonly available PC sound cards as a modem.

    Encryption is the process of obscuring the message for all but the intended recipient. There is one specific case the law calls out when this is permissible in Amateur radio service, and that's control signals of Amateur radio satellites. A novel encoding scheme, like making up your own alphabet instead of the standard Morse one, or ciphers of any kind that are intended to make the message secret, is illegal.

    It's not uncommon to hear encrypted communiques on the ham bands; I've picked them up myself. You want a fun rabbit hole to fall down, look up numbers stations. Some serious cold war james bond bullshit.

    I don't believe it is legal to send a PGP encrypted message over the air (on ham radio, go ahead and send it over Wi-Fi, you can encrypt the shit out of that) even if you've posted your private key on your website. What would even be the point of that? tilts head It might be legal to send a PGP signed message over ham radio; if I understand correctly that's basically a checksum that can guarantee the sender's possession of a private key.

    difference is intent.

    And intent is functionally impossible to prove, but endlessly arguable and a judge can make a finding based on their judgement - something very different from proof.

    send a PGP signed message over ham radio; if I understand correctly that’s basically a checksum that can guarantee the sender’s possession of a private key.

    Correct.

  • difference is intent.

    And intent is functionally impossible to prove, but endlessly arguable and a judge can make a finding based on their judgement - something very different from proof.

    send a PGP signed message over ham radio; if I understand correctly that’s basically a checksum that can guarantee the sender’s possession of a private key.

    Correct.

    Oh the legal system is pretty good at deciding intent, I mean what's the difference between manslaughter and murder?

    Thing is, it's not like there's radio police that are going to pull you over for encrypting. Other hams might turn you in if you're being annoying. If you send an encrypted email over Hamlink once, or say something like "Beefy Burrito this is Enchilada, the tamales are in the basket" on 33cm once, probably nobody's gonna notice.

    There's only ~3.7MHz worth of bandwith on the HF bands, another 4MHz on 6m. There's a lot of attention on the bands that propagate. If you want to secretly communicate with people, use Reddit, or the Fediverse.

    You know r/kitty? One of a trillion cat subreddits that had a gimmick that the only written word allowed was "kitty." All post titles and comments had to consist only of "Kitty." Arrange with the leaders of the other terrorist cells you're working for that if u/chudmuffin posts a picture of an orange cat, we attack at dawn, and if he posts a picture of a grey cat, lay low they're onto us.

    Encryption is legal and standard on the internet, where there's many orders of magnitude more traffic than on the ham bands. I can't send an encrypted email over Hamlink with a license, but I can host a Tor site without one.

  • Most actual communication is illegal on the ham bands one way or another

    Except in case of emergency, natural disaster, etc. Before we carried cell phones, I had ham handhelds that we would talk directly to each other on 70cm for the usual "Hi honey, I'm on my way home" or... in the days before cell phone lots existed at airports, I'd call her on the handheld to let her know I was approaching the passenger drop-off/pickup area at the airport after a flight so she could start going there from whatever makeshift staging area she was in.

    Anyway, when we would be out in the woods, we could reach each other roughly 1/2 mile like that from handheld to handheld, but if we ever had a serious problem we could switch to 2m and hit the local repeater which would get us more like 12 miles of range and coverage all the way into town where there was usually somebody who could make a 911 call if we needed it.

    So, yeah, we have cell phones today, and they work when they work, but I find that when the cell phones don't work (like during / after a hurricane) the ham bands generally are working - or at least are restored quicker, and nobody is going to press charges for emergency communications on the ham bands.

    If you want to use the ham band for instacart dispatch coordination, yeah, you're gonna get more than static about that.

    I lost power and water for several days following a hurricane. No internet and no cell signal.

    A dual band HT was our only way to learn what was happening across the city and in our neighborhood. It was a lifeline. I’ve got a bigger mobile unit set up now with a better antenna. Easy thing to keep on hand for the next zombie attack.

  • Oh the legal system is pretty good at deciding intent, I mean what's the difference between manslaughter and murder?

    Thing is, it's not like there's radio police that are going to pull you over for encrypting. Other hams might turn you in if you're being annoying. If you send an encrypted email over Hamlink once, or say something like "Beefy Burrito this is Enchilada, the tamales are in the basket" on 33cm once, probably nobody's gonna notice.

    There's only ~3.7MHz worth of bandwith on the HF bands, another 4MHz on 6m. There's a lot of attention on the bands that propagate. If you want to secretly communicate with people, use Reddit, or the Fediverse.

    You know r/kitty? One of a trillion cat subreddits that had a gimmick that the only written word allowed was "kitty." All post titles and comments had to consist only of "Kitty." Arrange with the leaders of the other terrorist cells you're working for that if u/chudmuffin posts a picture of an orange cat, we attack at dawn, and if he posts a picture of a grey cat, lay low they're onto us.

    Encryption is legal and standard on the internet, where there's many orders of magnitude more traffic than on the ham bands. I can't send an encrypted email over Hamlink with a license, but I can host a Tor site without one.

    Oh the legal system is pretty good at deciding intent

    I wouldn't say it's good at determining actual intent, just good at deciding what intent is going to be assigned by the system.

    If you send an encrypted email over Hamlink once, or say something like “Beefy Burrito this is Enchilada, the tamales are in the basket” on 33cm once, probably nobody’s gonna notice.

    I've always wondered how much steganography is in practice - if it's being practiced well, nobody knows. Setup a HAM station that snaps a photo at sunset and a couple of other random times per day. Transmit the photo in a standard, open digital mode, but hide your message in the noisy lower bits of the 3 color channels 0-255 R G and B, you can easily modify 6 bits per pixel without visually distorting the image, drop that to 1 bit per pixel and nobody who doesn't know your scheme could ever find it. To the local hams, it's three chirps a day, with a reliable pretty picture of the sunset and a couple of more varied times. As a utility channel, that's three opportunities per day to secretly communicate something to a listener that nobody can identify. If the picture is just 2MP, that's 250kBytes of bandwidth per image.

    If you want to secretly communicate with people, use Reddit, or the Fediverse.

    Absolutely, though the "listeners" there are more readily identified, even via Tor.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    I’m just glad we live in a country where politicians can also be experts in RF design/engineering and make policies based on their expertise.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    How would that work for the people already using 6 GHz routers?

  • Meshenger app and mesh networks would still work, back to the BBS times we go

    Who'd have thought WWIV was so prescient as to when it would become re-relevant.

    Time to dust off my SysOp skillset lol

  • For what it's worth, I think Cruz's proposal (all of it) was defeated 99-1.

    Yes, Rafael suffered a 99-1 loss. Guessing he's the 1, so a total loss.

  • You don't need one if there's an emergency, civil unrest would probably qualify as an emergency so non-licensed people can legally transmit.

    The FCC hasn't really punished anyone for not having a license other than those that are really bothersome/disruptive or are doing jamming. But like, if there's civil unrest, the laws probably don't matter anymore so you can just ignore the law.

    But if you don't have a license, you don't have a callsign, and thus others will refuse to talk to you during non-emergency peacetime.

    The FCC hasn’t really punished anyone for not having a license other than those that are really bothersome/disruptive or are doing jamming. But like, if there’s civil unrest, the laws probably don’t matter anymore so you can just ignore the law.

    Thanks for reminding me of this movie. 😄
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump_Up_the_Volume_(film)

  • Yes, Rafael suffered a 99-1 loss. Guessing he's the 1, so a total loss.

    What a way to advertise your impotence.

  • Oh the legal system is pretty good at deciding intent

    I wouldn't say it's good at determining actual intent, just good at deciding what intent is going to be assigned by the system.

    If you send an encrypted email over Hamlink once, or say something like “Beefy Burrito this is Enchilada, the tamales are in the basket” on 33cm once, probably nobody’s gonna notice.

    I've always wondered how much steganography is in practice - if it's being practiced well, nobody knows. Setup a HAM station that snaps a photo at sunset and a couple of other random times per day. Transmit the photo in a standard, open digital mode, but hide your message in the noisy lower bits of the 3 color channels 0-255 R G and B, you can easily modify 6 bits per pixel without visually distorting the image, drop that to 1 bit per pixel and nobody who doesn't know your scheme could ever find it. To the local hams, it's three chirps a day, with a reliable pretty picture of the sunset and a couple of more varied times. As a utility channel, that's three opportunities per day to secretly communicate something to a listener that nobody can identify. If the picture is just 2MP, that's 250kBytes of bandwidth per image.

    If you want to secretly communicate with people, use Reddit, or the Fediverse.

    Absolutely, though the "listeners" there are more readily identified, even via Tor.

    Well on some popular image board like one of the hundreds of cat subs on Reddit, how do you identify a "listener" who is looking for a particular user to upload a picture of an orange cat? Thousands of people will view that post perfectly innocently.

  • Well on some popular image board like one of the hundreds of cat subs on Reddit, how do you identify a "listener" who is looking for a particular user to upload a picture of an orange cat? Thousands of people will view that post perfectly innocently.

    The point is: IP addresses that download the content are traceable (and spoofable, but that leaves trails too...) Yeah, you might be one of thousands, but every day you log in you increase your odds of being spotted.

    Listening to longwave radio? Yeah, basically anybody anywhere on the planet with a receiver. Even local broadcasts it is nigh impossible to know who is listening where within the broadcast radius and the average person walks around with several radio receivers on them all the time now.

  • The point is: IP addresses that download the content are traceable (and spoofable, but that leaves trails too...) Yeah, you might be one of thousands, but every day you log in you increase your odds of being spotted.

    Listening to longwave radio? Yeah, basically anybody anywhere on the planet with a receiver. Even local broadcasts it is nigh impossible to know who is listening where within the broadcast radius and the average person walks around with several radio receivers on them all the time now.

    So...let's actually set up a pretend scenario here. Pretend. We are pretend red teaming here; any resemblance to actual terrorist plots living or dead is purely coincidental.

    Let's pretend our terrorist cell is going to spit up, travel to 10 places around the United States, and we're going to do a coordinated strike on 10 government buildings. Probably the smartest thing to do is just...do it at a planned time and not communicate after we split up. But for some convoluted Ocean's Umpteen reason we need to communicate and coordinate. I see 3 possible scenarios here:

    1. Leader just needs to say GO to the rest of the team, expecting no reply. So one, very brief, one-way communique.
    2. Leader needs to send several detailed instructions over a long period of time, expecting no reply. Repeated, large, one-way communiques.
    3. The team is going to gather some intelligence and report back, and based on all their observations the leader will say go. Full on two-way communication.

    In all three cases, the internet is the better tool for this.

    You are correct in that it is difficult or impossible to remotely detect radio receivers, no matter what the BBC tells you. There's no machinery making a log of who accesses what over analog radio. But the realities of radio equipment and propagation are going to eat into that advantage somewhat.

    If we're talking truly coast-to-coast, you're going to need HF. MF/longwave won't reach far enough, you need skywave propagation, and you get that on HF...mostly at night mostly during favorable sunspot activity.

    I bet you're imagining most of the team using one of those handheld commodity shortwave receivers that does AM/FM and shortwave, about the size of a pencil case with one of those telescoping whip antennas. That might do for 1 and 2, people hear hams on those sometimes.

    The bosses transmitter would need to be a reasonably serious bit of kit. At the very least something like an Icom 706 mobile HF rig plus power supply and at least a two element yagi for 20 or 40m. This is an antenna that's 30 to 60 feet wide. Hams do routinely make do with less, but when you're talking to someone with those crappy little antennas, probably inside a building, I'd want to focus my beam at least a bit. A wire in a tree ain't gonna do.

    Oh, and, let's say Boss is in Washington DC. It's possible he can make himself heard in Los Angeles but not Wichita, because the "optics" of the ionosphere doesn't bounce his signal down to the ground in the middle of the continent.

    One communique of "Baker this is Oven: Preheat complete, insert the bread. Repeat: Insert the bread." might not be noticed. Or some ham somewhere will hear it and go "What the hell, who's horsing around?" If you don't transmit again, you're probably not going to be direction found. But that big radio tower you've got is a weird thing to have.

    If you need to make routine transmissions, well now you're going to have to try some steganography crap. They did recently relax the baud restrictions on HF, but you're still talking about 2.8kHz of analog bandwidth that MIGHT get through. It's gonna look really weird if you're repeatedly sending digital pictures to...no one in particular on a regular basis. Now, to blend in, you'll need some genuine callsigns, because the FCC amateur radio license database is a matter of public record. You use a bogus callsign and you'll be found out. If you're transmitting a lot, people will find you, possibly out of curiosity.

    Especially if you're talking about everyone in the terrorist cell communicating, well now EVERYONE has to have an amateur radio license from the government, and fairly large, fairly conspicuous radio hardware. There have been spies caught with shortwave radio equipment, and said equipment was used as evidence against them. Entering the US with a smart phone and laptop is utterly normal, entering the US with a shortwave radio is weird.

    OR

    Get accounts on Reddit, and post cat memes. Compared to sitting around listening to static on an HF set, that looks way more normal these days. Yes, there probably is a log of what IP addresses sent and received what, but it's really easy to make two-way secret communications look like perfectly legitimate traffic. The equipment required doesn't draw as much attention. Keep the steganography subtle or a matter of "which picture I post" and not doctor them at all, well now it's 100% indistinguishable from people having casual fun. Some guy posts a picture of an orange cat, it gets 30,000 views 975 likes and 75 comments, and ten IRS buildings explode. Do you think the authorities make the connection to the cat meme in the first place?

  • How would that work for the people already using 6 GHz routers?

    Presumably given they’ve all been released in the past few years and are still getting updates the manufacturers would release an update disabling the functionality to comply with law. Same with end user devices removing the functionality via software update.

    You’d have a small percentage of holdouts who have auto updates off and also refuse to apply it manually and who also have non-updated computers or smartphone. They’d leave it up to whoever buys the spectrum to locate illegal use like this based on detected interference in their usage, report it to the FCC and they send you a nasty letter followed by debilitating fines and a legal order to seize your equipment if that fails.

    In practice people who go out of their way to avoid the updates that disable it will probably see no consequences but decreasing benefits as well and will eventually update or replace devices.

  • Netflix uses AI effects for first time to cut costs

    Technology technology
    54
    1
    202 Stimmen
    54 Beiträge
    445 Aufrufe
    G
    yo ho fiddle dee free
  • Microsoft finally bids farewell to PowerShell 2.0

    Technology technology
    6
    1
    69 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    52 Aufrufe
    B
    Batch scripts run on my locked-down work laptop. Powershell requires administrator privileges that I don't have. I don't make the rules, I just evade them
  • 63 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    23 Aufrufe
    J
    Very clever.
  • We need to stop pretending AI is intelligent

    Technology technology
    331
    1
    1k Stimmen
    331 Beiträge
    2k Aufrufe
    dsilverz@friendica.worldD
    @technocrit While I agree with the main point that "AI/LLMs has/have no agency", I must be the boring, ackchyually person who points out and remembers some nerdy things.tl;dr: indeed, AIs and LLMs aren't intelligent... we aren't so intelligent as we think we are, either, because we hold no "exclusivity" of intelligence among biosphere (corvids, dolphins, etc) and because there's no such thing as non-deterministic "intelligence". We're just biologically compelled to think that we can think and we're the only ones to think, and this is just anthropocentric and naive from us (yeah, me included).If you have the patience to read a long and quite verbose text, it's below. If you don't, well, no problems, just stick to my tl;dr above.-----First and foremost, everything is ruled by physics. Deep down, everything is just energy and matter (the former of which, to quote the famous Einstein equation e = mc, is energy as well), and this inexorably includes living beings.Bodies, flesh, brains, nerves and other biological parts, they're not so different from a computer case, CPUs/NPUs/TPUs, cables and other computer parts: to quote Sagan, it's all "made of star stuff", it's all a bunch of quarks and other elementary particles clumped together and forming subatomic particles forming atoms forming molecules forming everything we know, including our very selves...Everything is compelled to follow the same laws of physics, everything is subjected to the same cosmic principles, everything is subjected to the same fundamental forces, everything is subjected to the same entropy, everything decays and ends (and this comment is just a reminder, a cosmic-wide Memento mori).It's bleak, but this is the cosmic reality: cosmos is simply indifferent to all existence, and we're essentially no different than our fancy "tools", be it the wheel, the hammer, the steam engine, the Voyager twins or the modern dystopian electronic devices crafted to follow pieces of logical instructions, some of which were labelled by developers as "Markov Chains" and "Artificial Neural Networks".Then, there's also the human non-exclusivity among the biosphere: corvids (especially Corvus moneduloides, the New Caleidonian crow) are scientifically known for their intelligence, so are dolphins, chimpanzees and many other eukaryotas. Humans love to think we're exclusive in that regard, but we're not, we're just fooling ourselves!IMHO, every time we try to argue "there's no intelligence beyond humans", it's highly anthropocentric and quite biased/bigoted against the countless other species that currently exist on Earth (and possibly beyond this Pale Blue Dot as well). We humans often forgot how we are species ourselves (taxonomically classified as "Homo sapiens"). We tend to carry on our biological existences as if we were some kind of "deities" or "extraterrestrials" among a "primitive, wild life".Furthermore, I can point out the myriad of philosophical points, such as the philosophical point raised by the mere mention of "senses" ("Because it’s bodiless. It has no senses, ..." "my senses deceive me" is the starting point for Cartesian (René Descartes) doubt. While Descarte's conclusion, "Cogito ergo sum", is highly anthropocentric, it's often ignored or forgotten by those who hold anthropocentric views on intelligence, as people often ground the seemingly "exclusive" nature of human intelligence on the ability to "feel".Many other philosophical musings deserve to be mentioned as well: lack of free will (stemming from the very fact that we were unable to choose our own births), the nature of "evil" (both the Hobbesian line regarding "human evilness" and the Epicurean paradox regarding "metaphysical evilness"), the social compliance (I must point out to documentaries from Derren Brown on this subject), the inevitability of Death, among other deep topics.All deep principles and ideas converging, IMHO, into the same bleak reality, one where we (supposedly "soul-bearing beings") are no different from a "souless" machine, because we're both part of an emergent phenomena (Ordo ab chao, the (apparent) order out of chaos) that has been taking place for Æons (billions of years and beyond, since the dawn of time itself).Yeah, I know how unpopular this worldview can be and how downvoted this comment will probably get. Still I don't care: someone who gazed into the abyss must remember how the abyss always gazes us, even those of us who didn't dare to gaze into the abyss yet.I'm someone compelled by my very neurodivergent nature to remember how we humans are just another fleeting arrangement of interconnected subsystems known as "biological organism", one of which "managed" to throw stuff beyond the atmosphere (spacecrafts) while still unable to understand ourselves. We're biologically programmed, just like the other living beings, to "fear Death", even though our very cells are programmed to terminate on a regular basis (apoptosis) and we're are subjected to the inexorable chronological falling towards "cosmic chaos" (entropy, as defined, "as time passes, the degree of disorder increases irreversibly").
  • 518 Stimmen
    97 Beiträge
    401 Aufrufe
    I
    Fine, here is my pornhub account smh.
  • Musk's X sues New York state over social media hate speech law

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    13 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Tribo777: Promoções e Recompensas Que Valem a Pena

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    1 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    13 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 478 Stimmen
    81 Beiträge
    380 Aufrufe
    douglasg14b@lemmy.worldD
    Did I say that it did? No? Then why the rhetorical question for something that I never stated? Now that we're past that, I'm not sure if I think it's okay, but I at least recognize that it's normalized within society. And has been for like 70+ years now. The problem happens with how the data is used, and particularly abused. If you walk into my store, you expect that I am monitoring you. You expect that you are on camera and that your shopping patterns, like all foot traffic, are probably being analyzed and aggregated. What you buy is tracked, at least in aggregate, by default really, that's just volume tracking and prediction. Suffice to say that broad customer behavior analysis has been a thing for a couple generations now, at least. When you go to a website, why would you think that it is not keeping track of where you go and what you click on in the same manner? Now that I've stated that I do want to say that the real problems that we experience come in with how this data is misused out of what it's scope should be. And that we should have strong regulatory agencies forcing compliance of how this data is used and enforcing the right to privacy for people that want it removed.