Big Google is watching

[rush_tech]

BBC News - Google admits wi-fi data collection blunder

[AngryTechnician]

Just think, if it was Facebook that had done this, first they would just be saying that people were choosing to make that data public, and then that their amazing privacy settings mean the data is only shared with their friends, and the applications their friends had authorised.

[mossj]

BBC News - Google admits wi-fi data collection blunder

 

Good maybe the people using unsecured networks will think twice now..

[Rydra]

Sigh, another case of stupid people winning a case for the sake of gaining publicity, money and generally whining.

 

If I leave my front door open, can I pursue prosecution to the person who sticks their head in the door and says "Hello?" on the grounds of trespassing?

[AngryTechnician]

No, but if that person has huge magnets in their pockets and accidentally picks up your car keys and walks off with them without realising, they are still to blame because they walked in with huge magnets in their pockets and should have known better. Especially if they then made a copy of the keys because they had all these keys lying around and thought they'd better make some copies in case they lose them. Edited May 17, 2010 by AngryTechnician

[danrhodes]

My views are that the numptys who didn't secure their network only have themselves to blame for Google snooping on them. When will people ever learn!

 

D

[Duane_Dibbley]

Bit of both. People should secure their networks if they dont want people listening in, and google should be more careful about what information they collect. Personally it worries me just how much data google do collect, and what can be done with it. I think it was a new york times journalist who managed to identify a particular person from 'anonymous' ip logged searches that google records. but then again, i'm paranoid

[danrhodes]

Bit of both. People should secure their networks if they dont want people listening in, and google should be more careful about what information they collect. Personally it worries me just how much data google do collect, and what can be done with it. I think it was a new york times journalist who managed to identify a particular person from 'anonymous' ip logged searches that google records. but then again, i'm paranoid

 

I'm paranoid too, I have my router wireless turned of, I then have a Hardware Smoothwall firewall, then on a dfferent subnet totally behind my firewall I have my machines and a seperate Wireless Router that is tied down to only allow access to known MAC addresses and also uses WPA security. Can never be too carefull ;-)

 

D

[AngryTechnician]

...seperate Wireless Router that is tied down to only allow access to known MAC addresses and also uses WPA security. Can never be too carefull ;-)

Wot, no WPA2-Radius? That's what I have on my home wireless...

[powdarrmonkey]

Wot, no WPA2-Radius? That's what I have on my home wireless...

 

Snap, along with IDS. Scan my network and die

[enjay]

This is a bit of both situation, I think. On the one hand, why were people using unsecured networks, etc, but on the other, why were Google's Street View cars equipped with anything to capture it?

[powdarrmonkey]

why were Google's Street View cars equipped with anything to capture it?

 

They are surveying AP locations for use with assisted GPS. At least, this is the official reason.

[danrhodes]

Wot, no WPA2-Radius? That's what I have on my home wireless...

 

No but I will do now you have given me the idea :-) Along with PowdarMonkeys IDS idea too me thinks!

[jamesb]

Sigh, another case of stupid people winning a case for the sake of gaining publicity, money and generally whining.

 

If I leave my front door open, can I pursue prosecution to the person who sticks their head in the door and says "Hello?" on the grounds of trespassing?

 

They've not left the front door open, just unlocked. Slightly different situation.

 

Google haven't even knocked on the door and checked, just barged in, had a look around, taken what information they can grab and left. So yes, in that situation trespassing charges would be justified.

[Guest TheLibrarian]

They've not left the front door open, just unlocked. Slightly different situation.

 

Google haven't even knocked on the door and checked, just barged in, had a look around, taken what information they can grab and left. So yes, in that situation trespassing charges would be justified.

 

I disagree completely.

 

Google haven't invaded, trespassed or anything else you wish to call it.

 

If you wish consider it in human terms I suggest that they have overheard part of a conversation and remembered it.

 

 

Just my £0.02.

[powdarrmonkey]

They've not left the front door open, just unlocked. Slightly different situation.

 

Google haven't even knocked on the door and checked, just barged in, had a look around, taken what information they can grab and left. So yes, in that situation trespassing charges would be justified.

 

Untrue. Wireless data travels far beyond the property boundaries so they haven't actually walked on your turf to start with.

 

If you want an analogy, it's like communicating with the house over the road with very large flashcards, and then complaining when a passing car reads what you've written.

[enjay]

If you wish consider it in human terms I suggest that they have overheard part of a conversation and remembered it.

 

Good analogy. This is slightly different though, in that it isn't a conversation they overheard in a public place such as on a bus, it is one they overheard through an open house window. Kind of like the expectation of privacy rules regarding photography...

[Guest TheLibrarian]

Good analogy. This is slightly different though, in that it isn't a conversation they overheard in a public place such as on a bus, it is one they overheard through an open house window. Kind of like the expectation of privacy rules regarding photography...

 

The rules on photography don't really apply (to this anaolgy) because you can choose where to point your eyes / camera but not your ears / wireless receiver.

 

I'm being a bit picky but I feel it's relevant.

[jamesb]

I disagree completely.

 

Google haven't invaded, trespassed or anything else you wish to call it.

 

If you wish consider it in human terms I suggest that they have overheard part of a conversation and remembered it.

 

 

Just my £0.02.

 

I'm going to make an attempt to compromise on a metaphor - google are peering through your windows, and it's your fault for not drawing your curtains as you should have no expectation of privacy. Not a metaphor I agree with 100%, as I feel that google's actions here are unethical and intrusive, as well as indefensible.

[powdarrmonkey]

Good analogy. This is slightly different though, in that it isn't a conversation they overheard in a public place such as on a bus, it is one they overheard through an open house window. Kind of like the expectation of privacy rules regarding photography...

 

Well not really... I don't expect there are many everyday users who reduce the output power of their transmitters to only fill the room they're in, so your analogy is like screaming your head off through the open window, such that it can be heard three doors down the road.

 

Or if you want to pursue the photography idea, it's like doing laps in a fixed radius of about twenty metres around your house, naked, and expecting people not to see you.

[enjay]

The rules on photography don't really apply (to this anaolgy) because you can choose where to point your eyes / camera but not your ears / wireless receiver.

 

I'm being a bit picky but I feel it's relevant.

 

Fair point.

[Guest TheLibrarian]

Regardless of metaphor / analogy, it is information that is was freely available to anyone looking / listening. I don't care overly much if Google get slapped or not for sampling the data, what I do care about is that we are trying to rely on legislation instead of education to solve this problem.

 

I'd be less concerned about Google having this information than next door neighbour's 15 year old kid having access to my information.

 

To be quite honest I'd rather trust Google with information about me than I would the U.K Government / Police etc. but that is a different discussion and my opinion alone.

 

I personally think that Google should have 'fessed up as soon as they found out, that would have respected them for that.

[witch]

What, if anything, does the law say?

Many years ago I was at college training to be a radio officer and we had a huge ham radio station in the student union - Said union was in the middle of a housing estate so you can imagine the interference our signal caused. The householders complained but were told that the onus was upon them to screen their TV/radio equipment from our signal, not the other way around. So if that is still the case, then the onus is upon the householder to prevent information 'getting out' rather than the person inadvertently collecting it being in trouble.

(In our case, we had to put the aerial around the loft as the irate householders kept lassooing it off the roof!)

Does anyone know?

[enjay]

What, if anything, does the law say?

 

Probably nothing - the law is not always well-known for keeping up with the digital age (e.g. iPods breaking copyright laws, etc).

 

I would have thought, like you, that the burden lies with the householder to ensure their data can't be captured, rather than with Google to ensure they don't capture it. As has been said already, the responsibility for locking our front door lies with us (and insurance companies typically won't pay out if they prove the door was unlocked) and I think the same applies here. Google weren't using any cracking tools to get through whatever security and didn't do anything with the data once they'd captured it, so I don't see they've done anything illegal (possibly stupid and irresponsible, but not illegal).

[jamesb]

Probably nothing - the law is not always well-known for keeping up with the digital age (e.g. iPods breaking copyright laws, etc).

 

I would have thought, like you, that the burden lies with the householder to ensure their data can't be captured, rather than with Google to ensure they don't capture it. As has been said already, the responsibility for locking our front door lies with us (and insurance companies typically won't pay out if they prove the door was unlocked) and I think the same applies here. Google weren't using any cracking tools to get through whatever security and didn't do anything with the data once they'd captured it, so I don't see they've done anything illegal (possibly stupid and irresponsible, but not illegal).

 

They did however store the data.

 

I find the claim that they were doing it 'accidentally' a little odd as well. An accident would be something I'd believe if, say, it had been happening for a week. Maybe as much as a month. An accident does not continue for several years until a government intervenes and points out what's been going on. Where did they think all of this mysterious data was coming from?

 

The biggest problem is that google's history on respecting privacy and individual rights is not at its best. The whole Buzz incident nicely highlighted that. It seems that as far as google are concerned any expectation or request for privacy is both opt-in, and suspicious.

 

Edit: As for the law, interpretation comes into play a lot. Technically it is unauthorised access, but the defense has been used in the past that failure to implement basic security can be counted as implicit permission to access a system. Obviously, where an attempt has been made to implement security there is no debate, no matter how basic that security may be (anyone whose data was captured when they had set their SSID not to broadcast is not giving implicit permission to access their wifi, regardless of encryption).

Edited May 17, 2010 by jamesb