I'm not saying this article should be disregarded, however if you're on holiday and you used TripIt's feed on public WiFi, the chance that you're house was broken into because of this is negligible.
I'm not saying this article should be disregarded, however if you're on holiday and you used TripIt's feed on public WiFi, the chance that you're house was broken into because of this is negligible.
What evidence would/could there be? Someone sophisticated enough to be wifi sniffing HTTP calls on open networks for details of when people are travelling is unlikely to then just do a straightforward smash and grab burglary. Even just the fact they're bothering with information gathering in the first place points to a criminal who's bit cleverer than your typical housebreaker.
I'm not saying you're wrong, just questioning whether there'd be enough data points to suggest one way or the other. It could be a 'common' method of scouting places to burgle among criminals who manage to not get caught.
Mmm, this may work...
http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/06/peek-inside-a-professiona...
Edit: what's with the downvotes? This is an easy and fairly reliable heuristic: if it shows up on the news, it's not worth worrying about, because newsworthy stuff is rare pretty much by definition.
Journalists do also report on emerging and widespread trends, however.
The results were that spotting houses in the more 'traditional' way was about 8 times more effective than through social media. Therefore there's a much bigger chance they spot it with traditional methods, i.e. twig against front door.
So you have a much bigger chance of avoiding a break-ins by asking you neighbors to check your front door once a day (if you trust them..), than you do by not using leaky apps.
Also, at an airport it's much more effective for a burglar to spot tickets and baggage lables, than it is to sit down and hope that somebody connects to their access point and opens a valuable insecure connection.