Slashdot Mirror
Google Says It Mistakenly Collected Wi-Fi Data While Mapping
Even if Google says there's nothing to worry about, newviewmedia.com writes, the company "said it would stop collecting Wi-Fi network data from its StreetView cars, after an internal investigation it conducted found it was accidentally collecting data about websites people were visiting over the hotspots.
From the WSJ article: 'It's now clear that we have been mistakenly collecting samples of payload data from open [i.e. non-password-protected] Wi-Fi networks, even though we never used that data in any Google products.'"
they're not called `open networks` for nothing. Tighten up, or shut up. Oh, and postmen read your postcards too.
How in the heck do you "accidentally" gather information over a wireless network? If all you want is a collection of AP's that's one thing, but any storage of packet data no matter how temporary cannot be considered an accident. It has to be planned out and executed. An accident is stubbing my toe on the nightstand, this is an invasion of privacy.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
They're probably worried about some legal complications ... or even German WiFi police ;-)
New portmanteau : Google + Oops! = Goops!
Me: "Why are there drawings all over the wall?!?"
Her: "It was an accident! I didn't mean to do it!"
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Now that Google has all that StreetView WiFi data, maybe they can put together a free WiFi geo-location service alternative to Skyhook:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyhook_Wireless
With regards to privacy, Skyhook has already let the cat out of the bag.
Yeah you do. When you say "Hey, let's see what open wi-fi stuff is out there", and tune into those signals, you pick up on some spare traffic...and if you're saving every packet you come across for later processing (like 'what open wi-fi router was this'), then yeah, it's going to get saved like the rest.
Then they looked at the data they'd saved, said "Oh hey we didn't mean to get that stuff". Kind of like if you're logging all data that someone sends when they're connected to your open Telnet port, and you realize later that it saves their username/password along with the rest--it wasn't a conscious decision, you might not have thought about it at all, you might never plan to even look at the logs except in some specific cases, and while a workaround might take some time...you kind of drop a brick when your legal team realizes you have it.
What evidence do you have that Google was, other than Google's own statement?
If Google made no statement, would you assume they were not capturing payload, like you assume Skyhook isn't?
Double standard, dude.
Edith Keeler Must Die
McDonald's tells everyone: "... we're sorry we made you obese..."
Steve Jobs said: "We didn't mean to only give the artist $.01 and keep $.70 for us on iTunes."
Haliburton mentioned: "Oil spills? We had no idea this could happen."
To trust a company with anything is just stupid. Lock up your doors (or WAPs) people and expect the worst from anyone, you won't be disappointed.
If the government subpoenas Google to see the nature of the data they 'accidentally' collected, can they hunt through the data for evidence of illegal activities by the individual users and then go after them? This seems like it would be a great way for The Man to have access to private data by circumventing unreasonable search protections. After all, they just happened to notice this data while checking to see what data Google had been stea, er, storing.
I wonder if they were using "off the shelf" open source tools to collect this information.
By default Kismet will log the pcap file, gps log, alerts, and network log in XML and plaintext.
http://www.kismetwireless.net/documentation.shtml
It is entirely possible that they were using off the shelf open source tools and this log type was simply not turned off in the configuration file.
Remember that you are unique, just like everybody else.
As far as I can tell, Google posted this message without being forced to by any government. Most companies would keep this kind of thing quiet, or lie about it, especially if privacy advocates got wind of it. Google, within a few days of finding out about the issue, posts an APOLOGY for doing something that MIGHT have possibly damaged a few people, IF the information they collected had been leaked.
Unless we have reason to believe otherwise, Google screwed up, and as soon as they were aware of the mistake, took steps to rectify it and then went public about the mistake. If we get evidence that Google is lying about this, that's another story, but has there been any such evidence yet? I'm all for raking corporations over the coals when they make mistakes and don't own up, but how often do you see a giant corporation blurting out "mea culpa" like this?
Also:
As much as I like Google I hope they get the book thrown at them over this. To claim that they have accidently been collecting this data for three years is just silly.
It's not remotely silly. A week ago I discovered a DB table at my (multinational media conglomerate) company that had been silently logging data for -- wait for it -- three years. It wasn't any personal info, or data we needed, but everyone had forgotten about it. The idea of Google making a similar mistake is not "silly" at all.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
I respectfully disagree. If they're telling the truth (and I have no reason to believe that they're not), then they didn't even realize they were collecting this information. They did not use it for monetary gain.
If anything, this gives me more respect for Google, since they did not have to reveal this information (they could have indefinitely stonewalled...there's no external evidence that they kept this data). They're willing to admit when they do something wrong. That scores points in my book. Kudos to Google.
So let me get this straight:
... and you think they should be PUNISHED for this? If anything, all companies should act this way.
- A company accidentally collects data that careless users broadcast to anyone who is listening.
- The data is largely worthless anyway due to the circumstances. (car was in range for almost no time, users would have had to be transmitting at exactly the right time)
- The company doesn't realize they actually have this data, and doesn't do anything with it.
- Once they actually find out they have this data, instead of trying to hide it or make excuses, they voluntarily come forth and detail exactly what happened and exactly how they're going to get rid of the data, including allowing third-parties to inspect their code.
Since they made up an excuse before they were caught they're in the clear on this one.
No, they didn't, so no, they aren't. This behaviour was revealed when German authorities asked to audit the data the company's Street View cars gathered.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
- A company accidentally collects data that careless users broadcast to anyone who is listening.
Two people have a quiet, private conversation in an empty street. They have a reasonable expectation of privacy. A car with a sensitive microphone drives by and records several seconds of the conversation, without participants' knowledge.
- The data is largely worthless anyway due to the circumstances.
Google wouldn't deploy a system for collecting worthless data on thousands of StreetView cars over three years. It's not like a lowly code monkey made a build with a few extra #defines, threw it over the wall and forgot about it. The car has to have WiFi, the operators have to be trained to use the system, and the collected data has to be taken out of the car and stored somewhere on company's servers. This can't happen accidentally.
- The company doesn't realize they actually have this data, and doesn't do anything with it.
That assumes that thousands of Google coders, workers and managers are idiots. Far more likely is that Google, being in data mining business, were perfectly aware of every aspect of this collection. It costs money to run StreetView cars, so they packed the cars with everything they could think of, and collected everything that they could.
- Once they actually find out they have this data, instead of trying to hide it or make excuses, they voluntarily come forth
The "voluntarily" part was forced - see the TFA:
Google was silent about it for three years, but once they were asked a direct question they decided not to lie. When a lawyer asks a question he already knows the answer, so lying in these circumstances would be much more dangerous.
Those are valid questions if anyone knows the data is there.
If, as Google claims, they just reused some code they had lying around, and it stored more data than they were aware of or wanted to use, I can see how no one would have noticed. Their system worked, and an extra 600GB of disk space will hardly raise any alarms at a Google data center.
That we'll never, ever, EVER do it again until the next time.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.