Google WiFi+VPN Confirmed

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by CmdrTaco on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @01:52AM from the only-a-matter-of-time dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Google is actually (confirmed!) rolling out their wifi network, first in the San Francisco bay area (see the FAQ for details.) They are also including a Secure Access program for use in conjunction with this. So far, as per usual, it's in beta, and only for the San Fran bay area. Soon the entire US, perhaps??"

16 of 320 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Just makes sense by peterjhill2002 · 2005-09-20 02:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

It could end up being a hugely smart move.... I am sure that 90% of you have already figured out the business model... They will know exactly where you are (or close enough for hand grenades and horse shoes and... ads)...

Watch out clear channel... Why pay thousands to put your ad on an ugly billboard when you can put your ad less than two feet from a potential customers face... local.adwords.google.com.... (fake url) customers already use gmail and google at the hotspot, even without having some annoying gonna be hacked forced page to surf for free web machine, they can just set all the google sites that people already visit to places right around the corner...

If podcasts are going to replace radio, google wifi will replace ?
(a question for all those who recently took the sat)
1. Re:Just makes sense by CommieLib · 2005-09-20 03:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Amen! What bugs me about commercials is not that I'm being pitched to, but that it's a waste of both of our time! There's no point in showing me an ad for Massengil.
  
  Show me an ad for Arturo Fuente, a book by Berkely linguistics professor John McWhorter, or a program about the 80's British comedy Yes, Prime Minister, and I'm very likely to bite. At the very least, I will be actively interested in the ad. This level of granularity should make it possible.
  
  I'm a YIMBY for this (Yes, In My BackYard). I have no problem, repeat, no problem having ads targeted to my interests given that I will be presented with ads regardless.
  
  The flipside of this is privacy, I suppose. That may be the relevancy-killer.
  
  --
  If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
Money? by jpsowin · 2005-09-20 02:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

but there's no money to be made in doing this in towns (large and small) and rural areas.

Do you think there is money to made at all when they are not charging?
1. Re:Money? by interiot · 2005-09-20 02:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Do you think a publicly-trade company is doing something that will lose money over the long term?
  Just because they aren't charging money directly doesn't mean they don't still need to earn money per eyeball. Whatever method they have to make money, it's still going to be dependent on the population density and economic prosperity of the area.
  (they're not going to stick hotspots under the ocean, or in space, for instance)
2. Re:Money? by neoform · 2005-09-20 02:31 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  considering their Privacy Policy states that they'll keep records of what sites you visit along with some other info, yes, yes i do think there is money to be made off this.
  
  --
  MABASPLOOM!
3. Re:Money? by Irish_Samurai · 2005-09-20 02:51 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I'm no networking, web server superstar, but isn't it possible for Google to take this information and create advertising vehicles targeted not only at local demographics, but on time based demographic information as well?
  
  The little factoid "80% of web users in Seattle view news websites between the hours of 8 - 10. Of these people 30% goto site A, 40% goto site B, 15% goto site C" would be pretty handy for marketers.
  
  Not only that, but it opens up AdWords and AdSense to having a new layer for bidding - timeframe. AdWords can already be targeted to geographic locations, add the time factor in and you have created a reason for people to start bidding even more money for advertising. It would be extremely costly to "own" a keyword for all timeframes, but a cost some business would be more than willing to pay.
  
  I'm also not too sure on this point, but can't google sell this traffic information to large marketing firms also? If you strip out all identifiers, you have kept up your side of the privacy agreement, correct?
4. Re:Money? by Chazmyrr · 2005-09-20 03:03 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  No. The real problem with big big big public companies is that senior executives give themselves huge stock options, sacrifice long term profitability for short term gain, exercise their options, diversify their portfolio, and take a position elsewhere before they have to answer for their actions.
5. Re:Money? by Shaper_pmp · 2005-09-20 03:06 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Since it sounds like the data is only encrypted between your client and their proxy server, I'd say they'll be making a lot of money from traffic analysis and user-behaviour tracking.
  
  Knowing Google they'll be able to (=they probably will) track every URL every person enters, and tie this to your Google cookie/GMail account, etc.
  
  I'm hardly one of the tinfoil-hat brigade, but this is basically the Google Dialup util idea repackaged for broadband:
  
  Google Dialup: "Slight speed increase in exchange for us looking over your shoulder the whole time you're on-line, tracking your behaviour and spotting patterns."
  
  Google WiFi Access: "Slight security increase in exchange for us looking over your shoulder the whole time you're on-line, tracking your behaviour and spotting patterns."
  
  I'm no trendy Google-basher, but it's really starting to rankle how every major initiative from Google seems to have these little hooks attached - even Google Talk (while based on Jabber) apparently doesn't support the server-to-server protocol, so you need to specifically have a GMail account and connect to Google's servers to talk to anyone using it. IE, all your chatting is forced to go through their servers... wonder why?
  
  And now this - they're supplying free VPN for an entire city (to begin with), spending (conservatively) thousands or millions on hardware, and we're supposed to believe they're getting nothing in return?
  
  Bullshit - if they aren't invading privacy and tracking user-behaviour I'll eat my hat. And if you don't think they are, then what are they getting out of it?
  
  --
  Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
6. Re:Money? by timeOday · 2005-09-20 06:05 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  But wait, any ISP you're using now can already track your every move online right now. I don't believe there's any law to stop them. The only difference is, you're paying them $60/mo to do it.
Re:XP and 2K only... by generic-man · 2005-09-20 02:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

With the exception of the Gmail Notifier, every piece of end-user software that Google's ever released has been for Windows only.

Some people here believe that Google has a duty to release for other OSes (especially Linux, which is so oft-used there) but that's not where the end users are. Perhaps when the software comes out of beta it'll be ported.

--
For more information, click here.
Why would I cheer. by Irvu · 2005-09-20 02:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

Google is rapidly expanding to the point where they seem poised to be the Ma Bell, AT&T, Microsoft, or Verizon of the online world. No criticism of their work and all but I like a little competition in my world.
Re:All your Internet are belong to us by John+Hasler · 2005-09-20 02:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

> Do no evil? Commendable philosophy, but do I want
> to be put in a position where I only have your
> word to rely on to ensure that you do no evil to
> me?

You are in that position every time you turn your back toward anyone.

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
It's becoming the AOL of the future... by Gopal.V · 2005-09-20 02:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

One window for all your needs. You need an ISP, email service, search, shopping... use Google.

I see this distinct trend ever since their IPO. They are trying to build a network of their own. It's almost frightening how blind most of my friends are towards this. For example, by using Jabber google becomes the community pet, but they keep a closed community by preventing S2S communication. AOL was massively successful this way building their network on top of telephone lines. Google is doing it on top of the current internet -- google web accelerator and things like this. It is like DRM, sooner or later everyone else will be using it and you'll have a tough choice to make.

Yahoo ! is no better, but at least people don't blindly trust Y! to do the right thing. I think I still have a couple of mags from 1992 when Bill Gates was the man who could do nothing wrong.

--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
Re:All your Internet are belong to us by friedmud · 2005-09-20 03:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm not really Sure what the big deal is... anytime you connect through an ISP they can watch what you do. As far as I'm concerned I trust Google quite a bit more than the un-encrypted coffee slop down the street... but hey... to each his own.

Friedmud
ARE YOU SURE??? by ferrellcat · 2005-09-20 03:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

The language is Google's website is vague at best.

From their privacy policy...

http://wifi.google.com/privacy-policy.html

The Google Privacy Policy describes how we treat personal information when you use Google's services, including information provided when you use the Google WiFi or Google Secure Access client. In addition, the following describes our practices that are specific to the Google Secure Access client:
Notice how they differentiate "Google WiFi" and "Google Secure Access client." Of course, there is no other mention of Google WiFi on the website yet. Technically, this language could be taken to mean that these are two seperate entities, or just one entity.
There are huge differences by brunes69 · 2005-09-20 03:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

It is called lock in and choice.

If I want to use AOL I have no choice but to use their proprietary PPP software. Google's ISP is standards-based VPN, I can use any number of software packages to connect to it.

If I want to use the MSN Messenger network I have (at least from MS's point of view) no choice but to use MSN messenger. Google's IM network is standards based Jabber, I can use any client and they even promote this.

If I want to use MSN TV I have to use Windows Media Player. Google Video uses standard open codecs and I can even download the source code for it.

AOL and MS want to try to lock you in to use only their services. Google wants to *convince* you to use their services by making them the best. This is a huge difference.