Slashdot Mirror


Google Street View Logs Wi-Fi Networks, MAC Addresses

An anonymous reader points to this story at The Register that says "Google is collecting more than just images when they drive around for the Street View service. 'Google's roving Street View spycam may blur your face, but it's got your number. The Street View service is under fire in Germany for scanning private WLAN networks, and recording users' unique MAC (Media Access Control) addresses, as the car trundles along.' There's a choice quote at the end: 'Google CEO Eric Schmidt recently said Internet users shouldn't worry about privacy unless they have something to hide.'"

50 of 559 comments (clear)

  1. Tell Your Wireless ... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... that it has just been 'Googled'.

    This doesn't look good on the surface ... and reeks of Google's Buzz privacy blunders all over again.

    Why can't Google (and everyone else for that matter) just stick to the personal data people are foolish enough to hand over to the web? This type of action puts them on the edge of WiFi hackers who are "just seeing if it could be done" ... except for that they're doing it for tens of thousands of personal and business WiFi networks.

    1. Re:Tell Your Wireless ... by grantek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Basically Schmidt's quote can be better worded as saying "internet users shouldn't worry about privacy unless they're broadcasting something they have to hide".

    2. Re:Tell Your Wireless ... by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Informative

      Or in other words, "if you have something to hide, hide it". Privacy through obscurity is not an option on an indexed resource like t'internet.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    3. Re:Tell Your Wireless ... by poetmatt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      okay, so how is this different than any other wardriver or just anyone using wifi and how is it any more "enforceable"? Your computer keeps track of MAC addresses. There are apps that can be put on your phone to track mac addresses and open/close status while driving along with gps, and it's public information.

    4. Re:Tell Your Wireless ... by tagno25 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Broadcasting? By making a search within Google?

      Sorry but for example I rather keep the sex I have between me and my girlfriend our own private thing and not let everyone see it, or have videos of it. If I want to keep that to myself, according to Schmidt I shouldn't be having sex at all.

      No, you shouldn't be recording the sex and placing the videos in a public location.

    5. Re:Tell Your Wireless ... by Goaway · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, Schmidt's quote can be better worded as saying "If you have something to hide, you shouldn't show it to the internet, because police can and will request that information from any provider, including Google".

      But that doesn't sound at all as threatening, so let's just pretend he said something else!

    6. Re:Tell Your Wireless ... by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Funny

      But my hard drive was full. I had no where else to save my sex tape other than Youtube ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    7. Re:Tell Your Wireless ... by clsours · · Score: 4, Funny

      Does anyone have the actual citation? Cause that would be kinda nice. http://xkcd.com/285/

      --
      Seagoon: Shut up Eccles!

      Eccles: Shut up Eccles!
    8. Re:Tell Your Wireless ... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wardriving is not 'theft of bandwidth'. That's piggybacking.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    9. Re:Tell Your Wireless ... by xtracto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or worse yet... it is like me driving around and logging (e.g. writing in a paper) the numbers of the houses...

      And then some guy getting mad at me because I identified that the number of his house is in X street!! "OMG you are profiling me!"

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    10. Re:Tell Your Wireless ... by Dishevel · · Score: 3, Informative

      Of course you are right. Though we do know that through the context of the conversation he was having he meant what the GP posted.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    11. Re:Tell Your Wireless ... by FlyingBishop · · Score: 4, Informative

      http://www.pcworld.com/article/184446/googles_schmidt_roasted_for_privacy_comments.html

      If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place, but if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines including Google do retain this information for some time, and it's important, for example that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities.

      Basically he's saying it's not as big a deal as everyone's making it out to be if they publish it on the Internet, because the US government is legally empowered to confiscate all of it without much due process.

    12. Re:Tell Your Wireless ... by Goaway · · Score: 5, Informative

      "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place, but if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines including Google do retain this information for some time, and it's important, for example that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities."

      That is the actual quote. I am pretending nothing.

    13. Re:Tell Your Wireless ... by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Informative

      Except, you know, the quote given in the summary and article isn't what he said. What he actually said was "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." To me, that's quite a bit different from the quoted "internet users shouldn't worry about privacy unless they have something to hide." At worst, I would take his actual quote to mean that trying to hide illegal and/or amoral acts is impossible in the internet age, at least if such acts are done on the internet.

    14. Re:Tell Your Wireless ... by Requiem18th · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, it's more like, if there is a crack in the wall you have agreed to Google selling tapes of you having sex, if you didn't wan't to be recorded you shouldn't be broadcasting it!

      I also got your girlfriend's moaning as my ringtone thanks to Google Street Laser Microphone, thankfully I didn't have to listen to weeks of mundane stuff to get that ringtone because I got a graph of your sad, appalling sexual life thanks to Google Street Thermo-cam.

      I jest but the idea is that you can't claim I agreed to broadcast information I didn't knew I was broadcasting, and that's exactly what Google apologetics want to claim.

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    15. Re:Tell Your Wireless ... by IICV · · Score: 4, Informative

      You are also misquoting him by omission. There is a comma at the end of the sentence - not a period. The whole quote is as follows:

      If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place, but if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines including Google do retain this information for some time, and it's important, for example that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act

      I think his quote is entirely appropriate and not scary at all. If you are doing something and you don't want anyone to know about it, you should consider whether or not you ought to be doing it in the first place. That's almost Kant's categorical imperative; instead of "would I be okay if everyone else did this", it's "would I be okay if everyone knew I did this". Not quite as strong a basis for a moral system, but still something to consider.

      If you decide that yes, you ought to be doing this but it should also be a secret, don't put it on the Internet. Nothing on the Internet is a secret. That's all he's saying.

    16. Re:Tell Your Wireless ... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sorry but recording all MAC addresses? Google's "Do no evil" just went out the door. There is no reason for Google to record the MAC addresses of devices.

      Actually, they do have a reason - it's called "WiFi geolocation", and can be used in conjunction with cell towers to pinpoint one's position much more precisely than towers alone can do. It's used in such capacity in Android, for example.

      I've also heard that iPad (at least the non-3G variety) also uses WiFi geolocation.

      In any case, I don't see the problem. On Slashdot, it has been said countless times in the past (e.g. with respect to websites being crawled when they don't want it to happen) that "if you put it in public, it's public". Well, guess what, that's precisely what a wireless access point does, if you tell it to broadcast its ESSID! It's not even something of the "unlocked door" variety, it's literally actively transmitting this information for everyone to hear. Noting it down is absolutely not a privacy threat - not anymore than the broadcast itself is in the first place!

  2. Ignorance abounds by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wow. That's pretty shitty reporting, even for The Register. Yes, Google records SSIDs and (I guess) MAC addresses of wifi APs. That way they can estimate your position for Google Maps on a mobile device, even if you have no GPS on that device. This has been public knowledge for at least a year now.

    In regards to Streetview itself and recording SSIDs and such, there is simply no privacy concerns. When you are in public, people can see you. When you broadcast signals, people can receive them. If you don't want to be seen, don't go out in public. If you don't want people to see the SSID of your AP, don't broadcast it.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Ignorance abounds by petes_PoV · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you don't want people to see the SSID of your AP, don't broadcast it.

      Broadcasting an SSID is a strictly local affair - maybe within a range of 50 metres, tops. Having Google store the SSID and its location makes it a global issue. It makes it practical for the sort of government department we'd ALL prefer to keep away to hold and analyse this data.

      However, the biggest problem I have with this sort of collection of data is that I was not asked if I minded having information regarding equipment I own collected by a third party, who then hold it and may pass it on to others without my permission, or even my knowledge.

      --
      politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    2. Re:Ignorance abounds by Tim+C · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you don't want to be seen, don't go out in public.

      And yet many countries have laws against following someone around, noting down their movements.

      If you don't want people to see the SSID of your AP, don't broadcast it.

      I don't care if people see my SSID. I may care that a company (which makes its money from selling targeted advertising) has recorded it and stored it in a database along with location details, photographs, etc. That is fundamentally different from my neighbours and casual passers-by being able to see a SSID of "home" as they pass my house.

    3. Re:Ignorance abounds by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      they can estimate your position for Google Maps on a mobile device, even if you have no GPS on that device. This has been public knowledge for at least a year now.

      2+ years. It's a great application, with no more privacy implications than if you were to call someone with local knowledge and describe the landmarks that you could see near you.

      Nobody, least of all Google, cares who owns "BT Home Connect 9923123" or "Pr0n4Free4EvarLan", they just care that there's a SSID in that area with that name.

      Cue objections from Tin Foil Hatters who don't want The Man to be able to describe the outside of their parent's basement, lest their very souuuuls be stolen and sold to, god, I don't know, the Saucer People.

      Fill me in, Hatters. To what Evil use could this information be put? Try to use reasons that might actually be valid on Planet Earth, if you please.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  3. WLAN location triangulation by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Informative

    Google Maps provides WLAN-based location triangulation, on both phones and wi-fi capable computers. To do that, they look up the MAC addresses of visible wi-fi hotspots in a location database. Google is not the only company that does this via wardriving, and they at last have the sense to keep it secure enough that nobody can just look up your MAC address and get your geographic location. Unlike certain other wi-fi positioning systems.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  4. The Reciprocal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If I don't have anything to hide, then what logical reason do you have to spy on me?

    Of course this applies to private companies just as much as government.

  5. And... by MrZilla · · Score: 4, Interesting

    'Google CEO Eric Schmidt recently said internet users shouldn't worry about privacy unless they have something to hide.'

    And what if I DO have something to hide? Will you then remove me from all of your databases and registers?

    --
    mov ax, 4c00h
    int 21h
    1. Re:And... by JustOK · · Score: 3, Funny

      what are you trying to hide?

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    2. Re:And... by MonoSynth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And what if I have nothing to hide for the current government but don't get the assurance that today's laws are tomorrow's laws?

      With enough information in the hands of governments, it's very easy to change a law, criminalize something that was perfectly legal and find and eliminate most of the 'criminals' under those new laws.

      I know I'm kind of invoking Godwin's law here, but in 1939 it was perfectly legal to be Jewish here in the Netherlands. In the 1930s the Dutch government made an almost perfect register of the whole population, so in 1940 it was very easy for the Nazis to eliminate almost all the Dutch Jews.

    3. Re:And... by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Those people who say "if you have nothing to hide" have something to hide -- their ignorance or contempt for your intelligence. There are a lot of things that are not illegal you don't want known; adultery is legal in Illinois. Even in states where it may not be illegal, you still wouldn't want your girlfriend to know she's not the only one. You may be a closeted gay working for a right wing congresscritter, or a closeted conservative working for a left wing congresscritter. You might not want people to know that you watch Mickey Mouse cartoons. The list goes on.

      Either Schmidt is stupid (and I don't buy that) or he thinks you are.

    4. Re:And... by tolgyesi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here in Hungary the German minority was deported in 1946 based on a previous census where they answered honestly about mothertongue because it was a neutral information at the time the census was made.

  6. Schmid by MancunianMaskMan · · Score: 5, Informative

    Schmidt recently said internet users shouldn't worry about privacy unless they have something to hide.'"

    No, actually, he said that if you have $SOMETHING to hide then doing stuff concerned with $SOMETHING on t'internet is not a smart idea.

  7. I just don't see the issue by AdmiralXyz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I know I'm supposed to be outraged about Street View. I'm trying, I really am. But the outrage just isn't there.

    It's (generally) not illegal to take one picture of a storefront from your car. It's not illegal to take two, or three. Nor is it illegal to put those pictures on the internet. Google is just taking this process and deploying it on a larger scale than anyone previously had the resources for. I think it's the same with wireless networks. YOU have chosen to blast your MAC address into the ether for anyone within a certain radius to record, so why should you be surprised when someone does?

    Google is just acting as an army of men with clipboards, no single one of whom is doing anything wrong, and for me it doesn't follow that there's something wrong when they do it en masse, provided they stick to public roads and take the privacy precautions (blurring faces, etc.) they have been.

    --
    Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
    1. Re:I just don't see the issue by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is that it is so large, well organized, and that they have the capability to process the information in large quantities. A single person who happens to see some minute public detail of your life is probably going to forget it within an hour, but Google is collecting vast amounts of data for analysis. The situation changes when an "army of men with clipboards" is roaming around, then bringing their data back and combining it all. The odds are stacked against an individual who might want to keep certain details of their life private when an organization as large as Google is trying to pry their lives open.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:I just don't see the issue by Xest · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The biggest concern I have with street view is:

      a) Burglars no longer need to visit an area to scout it to check for targets. The common argument from the pro-street view group against this is that well anyone could come down and take a picture for the same effect- that's true, but here's the difference, using my house an example. I live on a cul-de-sac, to get to my house and take pictures without someone noticing a guy with a camera would take some doing, everyone on our street knows everyone else, if someone came down, and turned around, someone would see them. If there was a subsequent burglary, then there would be witnesses who could point the police in the right direction in terms of a number plate, or a description of a person, or person(s) looking dodgy. With street view this is gone, people can now scout our street without ever knowing, they can perform a burglary without anyone have ever seen anyone suspicious looking coming down the street to scout it. They can spend as much time as they want examining the images on street view for best ways to rob the houses, or steal a car or similar. As much as the pro-street view grouping likes to suggest that because the images are taken from public places, it doesn't decrease security or make things any easier for criminals, they are wrong, it does. Which takes me to the second point:

      b) The street view camera is quite high up, when browsing around on street view in the UK down by my girlfriends grand mothers house, I followed along a road, and was amazed to see how many walls I could see over that I'd never seen before. One image showed right over a wall you can't normally see over into a person's french windows that aren't normally visible showing a nice big 50"+ flat screen TV and a bunch of games consoles and games in full view, that no one passing by in the street would have otherwise ever known was there. The camera was most certainly too high on the street view vehicles and nullifies somewhat the argument that the images were taken from places where people could normally take pictures- could is perhaps true, but would? No, no one was going to walk around on stilts, or sat on someone elses shoulders or similar to take pictures in what would otherwise be random places. Again, if they were criminals, and if they did this it would raise further suspicion. People would remember seeing the culprits around.

      I understand the theory that street view doesn't cause any issues in theory because they are just taking images from public places, but it's a theory that simply doesn't map to reality. Anyone scouting an area physically will be seen, there will be witnesses, if they take pictures of people's houses there will be a lot of suspicion from residents, if they hang around getting a good look into people's houses, there will be suspicion. Nothing lets criminals plan out a highly profitable crime spree and even map their best exit routes without ever having to be seen quite like street view does.

      In the UK, I think what fucked me off most recently about it is that street view drove past the SAS HQ on a public road and photographed that too, yet a couple of MPs complained saying it put the SAS HQ's security at risk. Google accepted this and removed the images- I mean, wtf? So it's only a security risk for one of the most heavily defended army bases in the UK full of the best trained troops in the world, but it's not a security risk for say some unarmed old pensioner whose house has been filmed as a prime burglary target? Even if the approach was consistent it would be something, yet even that's not the case.

      All this is not to say I'm totally against it, I think it's a cool piece of technology and I think a dataset of the world in images that large could prove vital to building new image recognition technologies and so forth (i.e. improving Google Goggles), I think my real concern is that it's not something that was well planned out, there wasn't enough public consultation, it does raise issues, and those issues have not been discussed and see

    3. Re:I just don't see the issue by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except that it is not a crime to be "likely" to attack someone, and there are a lot of people who move to a new town to escape someone they believe is "likely" to attack them (think witness protection program). Do you really think a person who is certain harm may come to them, but who has no legal basis for pressing assault or harassment charges, should just sit around waiting until a crime is actually committed? Yes, believe it or not, these case do exist, they are not so uncommon, and when someone moves to a new town to escape danger they perceived in their old town, they should not have to stay indoors for the rest of their lives just because Google is sending a surveillance vans around the country.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    4. Re:I just don't see the issue by canajin56 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Your neighborhood sounds horrifying if 24/7 you have people with binocs recording the plates of everybody who visits. There was an equally crazy "gated" community near where I lived. I walked down it, to see what it was like, see if it was worth the city park they bought and bulldozed to build it. Some guy with a notepad ran up to me "This is private property and just standing here will put you in jail, I know you're not visiting, there are no children allowed" and I said "Oh I'm just casing the place, what's your house number and when do you work?" he bolted, probably called 911 80 times. Scary scary 12 year old, was I. I know better now, of course. He doesn't work, that's why he can sit on his porch on constant guard against schoolchildren taking a shortcut down his private through street that leads to the duck ponds...if your strata doesn't want visitors, build a damn barbwire fence and put an armed guard on your gate like the rest do. Meanwhile, a still shot from Google doesn't help you case, because you can't tell when anybody works, it doesn't let you plan shit. And odds are, it doesn't show you much or anything of what they have inside. If it does, a casual walk down the street would show you that, no need for any "suspicious peering" as you call it. And far from being the most risky part of a burglary, taking a quick look around just isn't that hard. In a gated community, ya, anybody who doesn't belong must have hopped a fence to get in, and that's suspicious...but if not...well...I've lived on a cul-de-sac...have you, really? There are always cars turning in, realizing its the wrong turn, looping around, and leaving. Do you really write them all down just in case? And do you make quick sketches or photograph people who walk in on foot? I dunno, is the UK really that far gone into big brother? Do you really corner and grill people out walking their dogs? How dare they take a loop around your street, it's not theirs! GET OUT FOREIGNER!

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
  8. Ignorance abounds indeed by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The privacy concern is that Google is building a massive database of SSIDs -- this is not the same as your neighbors being able to see your SSID, this is a corporation with global reach.

    This is the same sort of problem that we complain about when a company collects little bits of information that you leak in public, and builds a dossier on you. Yes, the information is technically public, but the fact that it is being assembled en masse is the problem. It is impossible to hide ever detail of your life from view, but when such a large database is built up, it reveals a lot about a person, potentially including things they did not want revealed.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:Ignorance abounds indeed by ahankinson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe I'm just ignorant, but how would they map the SSID to you? All they know is that in this area, someone somewhere has a router with a SSID of "X." (And, if you're anything like my neighbours, half of those are named "linksys.")

    2. Re:Ignorance abounds indeed by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Informative

      The privacy concern is that privacy concerners are fucking idiots like you.

      ITS IN PUBLIC. ANYTHING IN PUBLIC IS, wait for it, PUBLIC!!!!!!!!!

      It doesn't matter if you collect just one little bit of public information or you collect every single piece of public information. It's public. You have no right to expect privacy IN PUBLIC.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
  9. Origin of Privacy by redelm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh dear, I wish he hadn't said that. I hope he does too. Even quoted a bit out of context (it was possibly a flip tagline), when you direct activities at the biggest datalogger around and have capabilities that most people regard as extremely penetrating, you just do not say anything that might scare people. Bad for business.

    Many people do not understand why privacy is a right. As he says "Why worry if you have nothing to hide?" It is not from nothing: One word answer: PREJUDICE. Privacy is basically a right of self defense against prejudice (and malice too, for that matter). We all have good reason to be concerned about the impression we make upon others since they can often make arbitrary decisions that affect our interests.

    Of course others have a right to relevant information, but we have a right to control how much beyond we choose to present, and to whom. We do have a right to be treated as individuals. Not products of some correlation -- statistics is _descriptive_, not prescriptive.

  10. Re:Privacy by Goaway · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is also not at all the argument he was making. But it's much more fun to just believe everything we hear on the internet rather than look up what he actually said!

  11. I use LINUX by mgkimsal2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    so I guess only people unsavvy enough to use MACs will have their addresses recorded! Whew!

  12. I don't by JustOK · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't have a mac address. I use PCs.

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  13. Schmidt is a Jackass! by SerpentMage · · Score: 4, Informative

    He is hypocritical...

    Check out the following article:

    http://news.cnet.com/Google-balances-privacy,-reach/2100-1032_3-5787483.html?tag=nl

    Reaction from Google? CNET is barred one year from google.

    http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Google-Angry-at-CNET-66164

    --

    "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
    "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
  14. Really? by Mathinker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What they are doing is not even questionable, it is completely legal.

    Do you know much about German law?

    Because in the USA it IS questionable and in some cities it is ILLEGAL.

    How do people use public wireless, then? They have to enter all the information manually, as opposed to scanning and just picking out the right SSID?

    Could you post some of the case law / legal statutes involved? Thanks!

  15. Very true here, but consider the place by RulerOf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What they are doing is not even questionable, it is completely legal.

    That's true here in the US. Existence of companies like Skyhook and the iPod Touch's location feature make that evident. The question is if it's legal in Germany.

    Not that it shouldn't be, particularly when an AP is metaphorically screaming,

    Hello there, anyone who can hear me!
    My name is Linksys!
    You can tell me apart from other folks with the same name because I'm XX:YY:ZZ:AA:BB:CC!
    If you like, I can give you an IPv4 address!
    No, no, I haven't been told to exclude anyone who doesn't know my favorite word or phrase!
    Please talk to me! I love you!

    Here in the States, logging that you heard such a declaration rightly isn't against the law. Further, based on my very crude analogy, I also don't think that "unauthorized" connection/use of an unprotected/unconfigured AP should be a criminal offense either. Perhaps if someone learns that their pipe is being used against their knowledge, they could (and should) take civil action to force that person to pay for what he's been freeloading on, but I digress.

    For someone who actually breaks in to an encrypted AP (and yes, WEP counts), consider that WEP might be like a retarded-midget bouncer who'll believe you if you lie to him, whereas WPA could be, "My name is Linksys ... Sorry about this, but unless you speak Italian and ol' Tony tells you what my favorite word or phrase is, I can't give you an IPv4 addres!" Any situation where network encryption is either bypassed or broken without the network owner's knowledge and permission is nefarious outright, regardless of intention, and that should most definitely be a criminal offense. Although if ol' Tony finds out before the cops do, you're probably even worse off.

    --
    Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
    1. Re:Very true here, but consider the place by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 3, Informative

      I would so mod you up if I could. In addition to companies like Skyhook, private hobbyist groups like Wigle have been doing this for years. Wigle is up to 20 million logged and geolocated APs. And if you download their client and play with the request constraints enough, you could retrieve every one of those entries with a little patience.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    2. Re:Very true here, but consider the place by Sancho · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's true that this seems legal in the US. However there are lots of things which are legal because they seem harmless in the small scale, but which become privacy concerns on the large scale. The current laws don't deal with situations like this.

      An example is police tailing. Police are allowed to follow someone without practically any oversight. This is self-limiting because it takes manpower, which is a highly limited resource. However courts have stated that surreptitiously monitoring someone's car with a GPS is equivalent to police tailing. This is something which requires considerably less manpower. Tailing with GPS is no longer self-limiting. If this were done on a large-scale, lots of people would consider it an invasion of privacy.

      An entity listening to broadcasts in the 2.4Ghz range in a small area is probably not a problem. An entity with the ability to listen to these broadcasts across the entire US? That's something worth rethinking. Maybe it's a problem, and maybe it's not. I really don't know. But due to the scale, it's a slightly different situation.

  16. Re:Dear Google by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wardriving is evil now? This is news to me...

    It's not exactly like they are going to jump on your network and listen to all of your traffic. They're just recording your MAC address and your SID (which you chose to make publicly available) which you are blasting out into the world on the electromagnetic spectrum. Really this is no different than them driving past your house and recording what color you painted it.

    --
    "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
  17. Ma Bell (the original) by gnieboer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In another ominous development, the phone company is planning to release a compiled document containing every name, address, and phone number of all their wired clients. The books will be published by region but be available globally. They'll be called by the disturbing name "White Pages".

    They also will provide a charge-per-call service wherein on a request from not only government agencies but also private citizens, they will mining their data stores nationally in search of a particular individuals detailed info. While there is no clear consensus on this point, it appears this service will either be called 'Information' or mysteriously... just '411'.

    They claim there will be an 'opt-out' option, but it will not be enabled by default, and there will be an extra charge for it's use.

    Just some perspective to apply, not really meant as humor. This issue is about as dangerous as the phone book IMHO. You've got (or should have) an option in your router to hide your SSID. If you aren't using it, then you are BROADCASTING it. If someone tracking this information centrally really concerns you, change your SSID randomly every 30 days, and the MAC of your router. If your router doesn't support changing it's MAC, get a better one.
    If it REALLY concerns you, don't use WiFi! There are much more nefarious things that can be done against WiFi than just logging an SSID/MAC that might actually be worth worrying about (again, IMHO).

  18. Easy fix by netsavior · · Score: 3, Funny

    My friends and I all have a wifi router swap program. We each have 2 routers (WRT54G) and we keep one active until google wardrives them then we mail them off to the next person in the list. And he mails you one that google tagged as being elsewhere in the country.

    if you are in front of my house, google will tell you that you are in Southern California (1500 miles away)

    (no this post is not actually true)

  19. "The Dark Side of Numbers" by MRe_nl · · Score: 3, Interesting

    'In the Netherlands, the effort at establishing a comprehensive
    population registration system for administrative and statistical
    purposes was completed even before the Nazi-occupation (Methorst,
    1936; Thomas, 1937). In 1938 H. W. Methorst, who was then the
    director-general of the Dutch Central Bureau of Statistics and
    formerly also head of the Dutch office of population registration,
    reported on the rapid progress being made in the Netherlands in
    implementing a new comprehensive system of population registration
    that would follow each person "from cradle to grave" and open "wide
    perspectives for simplification of municipal administration and at the
    same time social research" (1938: 713-714)... ... These registration systems and the related identity cards played
    an important role in the apprehension of Dutch Jews and Gypsies prior
    to their eventual deportation to the death camps. Dutch Jews had the
    highest death rate (73 percent) of Jews residing in any occupied
    western European country--far higher than the death rate among the
    Jewish population of Belgium (40 percent) and France (25 percent), for
    example."
    source:
    "The Dark Side of Numbers: The Role of Population Data Systems in
    Human Rights Abuses." Social Research, Summer, 2001, by William
    Seltzer, Margo Anderson, hosted by findarticles.com:
    http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m2267/2_68/77187772/p4/article.jhtml?term=

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"