I have an issue, when e.g. Argos is using my phone's wifi antenna (even when I'm not connected to their network) to track where do I walk within their stores.

I do accept the fact that any cell signal provider can also track my movements since I am using their antennas.

I do perfectly understand that the STATE (law, justice, etc.) can also track my movements, and does so, using due process (I hope). But a private corporate, to be seeing where do I walk, what do I use, for me it is a problem.

In the same spirit Google was slapped by openly tracking every WiFi signal their cars intercepted. What if I don't want MY home wifi, or MY phone's wifi be a tool for THEM to make billions? Why do I need to be a product for their greed?

OK, would you have a problem with Argos using CCTV to track you via ML that identifies different individuals and records their path through the store? What about CCTV that is displayed on a monitor and a minimum wage drone views, and records people's paths through the store manually? The outcome is the same in all three cases - Argos has data about how individuals are using their property, and can use that data for whatever purpose, probably making the stores more efficient and increasing profits. You can always wear several different masks and keep changing your clothes as you walk around a shop if you're worried bout being tracked, or maybe just don't shop there?

The "don't go there" answers only hold true if there are actual alternatives.

It's a shit argument, and collusion to monitor and track customers is pretty much universal.

My point is that private companies are perfectly within their rights to track you on their own property, whether by computer or manually, and if you have a problem with it your only recourse is to avoid those companies. I have zero problem with a supermarket using my presence to improve the layout of their store, and to be honest, zero problem with Google tracking my phone's presence there to produce those useful 'when is this location busy' bar charts on their search results - it's helpful to me, and others, and free!

I believe Google only got in trouble for sniffing the IP traffic content inadvertantly. The probe/broadcast traffic (aka your phone saying “hello I am IDENTIFIER!”) is not unlawful to capture though.

Good question. Many people really don't like the incredible amount of cultural and political influence that these large multinational corporations are obtaining through data collection and analytics. This is just another example of corporate influence extending further into aspects of society that were formerly handled by the government.

In theory, yes, but I would question how many users realise that using the service consents to being tracked across the city.

Since someone already explained, would you mind explaining why the part about data in the article didn't strike you as bad in the first place?

Probably because there i know that my data have been already sold.

McDonald will sell my data when i use they WiFi. My network provider will sell my data, my phone provider. Fitness company also will sell me.

Facebook consider me as a product for 5-6 years already.

I think in modern society it is a normal thing

First: you speak for yourself. I for example share nothing on my fake name Facebook account. I use it to tell relatives to call me/send me a Signal message. Even with an Facebook account, they can only share what you give them. Nobody forces you to use McDonalds WiFi. Use your data plan. Your ISP must have some kind of stricter regulations even outside of Europe (where I am) then some ad sponsored access point.

There are huge differences and data minimization is a thing.

Your approach however is terrible. It makes it look like everything is lost and there is nothing to protect anymore. This is not only wrong, it sends out a horrible message to others.

> ... if you want want you can just not to use this kiosks, right?

When they start enabling the cameras, thereby likely capturing passers-by too, things could get tricky.