A bit out of context perhaps?
"Think instead of a device that might interest a spook – “Donald's_Samsung_S3” or “Kellyanne's_Microwave_Oven”. If those names leak to the Internet, it makes surveillance significantly easier."
Uhm, any idea how many Kelly's and Donald's are connected to the Internet? If the name alone spreads then this will hardly have any impact. I mean, I don't automatically assume that the current president of the US appears to be using a Samsung phone.
I think it's not so much the name but the connectivity itself which creates a risk. You know, step into the train, turn on your PDA and let it search for points around you and you'll notice plenty of phones which you can try to connect to. That could be an obvious problem. But just because I now know a name doesn't imply that I can also pinpoint its location and such.
Then the article talks about analysing traffic. Seriously? If the situation is already dire enough that someone can eves drop on your data then I'm pretty convinced that the host name is the least of your worries.
And the reason why I wonder if they're not pulling this way out of context is because they also start talking about enterprise networks. It's also not uncommon for an enterprise network to provide deskless interaction. So basically you can log on anywhere you want and you'll then gain access to you data and desktop. Wouldn't that also lessen the importance of the hostname because there doesn't have to be a direct relationship between that and its user?
Speaking of hostnames in the enterprise... Most I've experienced were numbered clients. Just to keep administration easier: hr01, hr02, hr03. And sales01, sales02, sales03. So now that I leaked these hostnames onto the Internet you want me to believe that this network is in more danger than before?
Right....