It still means it accessed location though; the scan for a printer to set it up on your wifi also collects the information about other APs visible, and that information is equivalent to location.

This is why a wifi scan requires location permission.

Scanning networks in range does actually reveal your location, if you know where those access points are. There's public databases and I wouldn't be surprised if printer companies have a more complete/accurate list. So while you're right that people are confusing the two I'm not sure it is meaningfully different in terms of potential outcome (i.e. can you determine my GPS coordinates).

The bluetooth/location permission setup in Android may be changing in the next major Android release if I recall. It's a poor setup IMO.

people are ridicously paranoid with the "gps permission", when usually just connecting a device to the internet is likely to allow it to obtain its location with more accuracy than gps for over 50% of homes.

To be fair Android could be way clearer about this. Instead of "App wants to access your location [allow] [deny]" which is clearly confusing even for highly technical HN readers, why doesn't it say "App wants to access WiFi. This may reveal your location. [allow] [deny]" or something like that?

I had no idea that it worked like this either; if an app asks for "GPS permission" then I assume it wants to know my actual physical location. For something like Tinder or sharing your location on WhatsApp this of course makes sense. For something like a printer app much less so, and I'd be suspicious as well. I don't think that's especially paranoid.

There's a difference between being paranoid and not willing to risk it. You don't actually know which it was asking for, being that the access controls aren't fine grained enough is the problem here.

It's the same permission because WiFi networks are basically landmarks. If you see the Eiffel tower, you know you're in Paris. Similarly, if you see network id X, you know you're near location Y.

One day, the camera permission will probably have the same problem. The time of day and position of the sun can give a coarse location, and perhaps future algorithms will be able to search Google Street View to find your exact location.

> perhaps future algorithms will be able to search Google Street View to find your exact location.

So actually intelligence organizations already do this. If they have a mundane picture of an adversary they will try to pinpoint where the picture was taken. Of course there's more clues that they have because they know things about the target, but I guess I'm saying it's not unreasonable to believe such a thing could exist today.

It's not an issue of the granularity (which I agree with), the problem is that giving the program access to the internet _at all_ (which does not require any permission) already gives the program more information about your geographical position than GPS, in most situations people care about.