Slashdot Mirror
Google Describes Wi-Fi Sniffing In Pending Patent
theodp writes "After mistakenly saying that it did not collect Wi-Fi payload data, Google had to reverse itself, saying, 'it's now clear that we have been mistakenly collecting samples of payload data from open (i.e. non-password-protected) Wi-Fi networks.' OK, mistakes happen. But, as Seinfeld might ask, then what's the deal with the pending Google patent that describes capturing wireless data packets by operating a device — which 'may be placed in a vehicle' — in a 'sniffer' or 'monitor' mode and analyzing them on a server? Guess belated kudos are owed to the savvy Slashdot commenter who speculated back in January that the patent-pending technology might be useful inside a Google Street View vehicle. Google faces inquiries into its Wi-Fi packet sniffing practices by German and US authorities."
A patent?
Isn't that exactly the same thing which wardrivers have been doing since WiFi existed?
...invented by Google(tm)*
* Patent pending. All rights reserved.
It seems there's one bit of Google that really wants to sniff packets and another side, probably PR, that doesn't want the bad press. At the end of the day they're now just another multinational corporation with potential markets rather than individual customers.
It's now termed as Wardriving
I am totally unconcerned with Google or anyone else collecting this kind of data. If you don't want anyone to know about your access point then stop broadcasting for hundreds of feet over public property. If you don't want me to decrypt your satellite feeds to get free TV then stop broadcasting it into my receiver on my property.
It's now "Wardriving -Beta"
operating a device — which 'may be placed in a vehicle' — in a 'sniffer' or 'monitor' mode and analyzing them on a server?
As scary as the poster tries to make this sound, this is how you listen for public access points. This post is a scare-mongering dupe.
Yellow journalism is getting to be awfully common here on Slashdot. For instance this troll of a story which just so happens to be from the same author:
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/05/21/1427245
Hm, my netbook + car charger + linux + aircrack-ng does just that.
My archos media player can do likewise.
How can you patent this crap?
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
This is really bad PR for Google, but seriously, people should just get over it already. What's the big fuss anyways!? Unencrypted, unsecured WiFi and you bitch when someone sniffs it? This is no different than talking out loud on a commuter train and then kicking up a fuss that someone was listening. Idiots should feel lucky that it was Google doing the sniffing, and pray that someone with less benign intentions wasn't. Now if Google were actually doing something, like mining very specific data out of the sampled packets, then we a bit more of a problem (but still something that the WiFi owners should have prevented through encryption), but so far I don't seem to see anyone suggesting that this was done.
The patent is for capturing the metadata and analyzing it. Guess what the Google van was supposed to do? That's right: capture the metadata, and analyze it. Nobody's disputing that, nobody ever has disputed that.
The accidental part is that it turns out they were capturing more than metadata. The patent doesn't talk about doing that, there's no evidence Google ever intended to do that, and it's difficult to determine what they could possibly gain from it anyway.
So, here, let's improve the headline.
"Google Has Pending Patent For Exactly The Process They Tried To Implement, But Slightly Screwed Up"
SHOCKING!
Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
The patent, titled "Wireless network-based location approximation", describes packet analysis for determining location, which nobody denies was being done intentionally by Google, and says nothing of using payload data. This was what sparked the current wave of privacy inquiries anyway, as well as the incorrect comment that they weren't capturing payload data.
I think the original "by mistake" explanation they gave is a load of cr%p. How is it even possible to "collect WiFi information by mistake"? You have to install appropriate hardware and software, run it and then place the results to some sort of a database. Basic though it may be, someone had to do this, do this on all Google street view vehicles and keep it running. We are talking an effort of multiple people. There is absolutely nothing about it that's a mistake.
Now that they've been caught - they are resorting to bold faced lies.
Didn't have much trust in Google until now, but this has gone beyond anything acceptable.
But, as Seinfeld might ask, then what's the deal with the pending Google patent that describes capturing wireless data packets
The deal is that the patent describes capturing and analysing wireless data packets to extract the IP adress alongside GPS coordinates in order to enhance Google's IP geolocation accuracy. The "mistake" that they owned up to is actually dumping and storing all packets, not just the external IP address. Those are two different things.
There is no reading comprehension in the world, apparently. This patent is about what Google claims it was trying to do -- recording SSID and MAC information for location purposes. It has nothing to do with the "mistaken" data packets (sent unencrypted over the air). How the submitter connected the two, I don't know. I suspect lack of coffee and excess Google hate.
Put identity in the browser.
i realize that it may not be their intent to patent wardriving, but wouldn't that be covered by this?
hello mister egg, meet mister face.
Google is redefining the word Evil as we speak. Someone like Kevin Mitnick would be serving time if they were caught doing this.
He's scaremongering, like he does 99% of the time.
The other 1% he just gets it totally wrong.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Whatyoutalkinbout, Willis?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
It became elgooG?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Prior artists
Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
excess Google hate
Will it be OK for us to hate Google once they've proven absolutely and undeniably that they are are evil? Or is it OK to start sometime before then? IMHO, a "Surgeon General's warning" ought to placed on everything Google does.
They were sniffing OPEN, unencrypted networks. I don't think anyone should go to jail or even be sued for that. If you don't want people accessing your traffic, encrypt it. I mean, I could see the argument that if you used *any* kind of encryption, even WEP (which we all know is easily broken), then you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and if someone cracks the encryption, then they should be legally liable. But really, if you don't take any measures at all to protect your wireless network, then you have no expectation of privacy.
It's fair game for all the world, as far as I'm concerned. I don't see anything evil about that. That's like hooking your telephone speakerphone output up to a big-ass stereo, turning the volume way up, opening your windows, then complaining when passersby on the street hear your conversation.
Hate Google. I don't care. Just make sure your hate doesn't lower your reading comprehension score to zero and you start sounding like Twitter. mkay?
Put identity in the browser.
and use Google's data to prosecute the owners of these networks since it's illegal to leave your WiFi unsecured in Germany. STATE POWER!!!!
I don't think Jerry would actually pose that question...
Or face multi-billion dollar lawsuits and jailtime, thief!!
As I pointed out this morning here - http://theamericandictator.com/content.php/133-Google-has-created-a-virtual-GPS-on-YOUR-laptop-desktop-computer-cellphone.-Really! Google isn't collecting wifi info without a reason. It is collecting the data because it is using it create an unbeatable virtual GPS on every wifi equipped device - laptop - netbook - desktop - cellphone - etc. etc. And THAT data, delivered to google realtime, is also made available through an open API, to everyone. The social implications of having your physical location monitored, reatlime, all the time, is chilling.
if you are going to be evil, you will have to buy a license from Google.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
For one, if its an unsecured network. Then.......its unsecured. Der! Anybody and everybody can sniff whatever they want from whoever they want. Big Deal. Second, if someone is sniffing my packets then I would rather have google do it than someone else who probably has more malicious reasons than custom adds on my next browser search. There are organizations out there collecting massive amount of information from secured networks and everybody doesn't care as much. Why? Because we know who google is and can find them. So lets charge them with a load of crap because we are frustrated that these "professional" tech people cant find the real threat. HEY EVERYBODY LOOK WHAT GOOGLE IS DOING!! Nevermind that I cant stop my company from being hacked.
If you don't want me to decrypt your satellite feeds to get free TV then stop broadcasting it into my receiver on my property.
This argument becomes tiresome.
It was settled - legally - in the earliest days of radio, on the perfectly intelligible grounds that leeches undermined the funding of subscription services which might not otherwise be viable.
You were never entitled to freely tap into the water, power, sewer, and phone lines which might cross your property.
The carrier wave of the satellite broadcast falls on your property as freely as a sunbeam, a snowflake or a hailstone.
But to extract the content - capture and decrypt the signal - you have to mount a dish.
Install - and modify - a receiver.
To any other eyes than your own, it's a tap.
WiGLE
Here is a good technical description from a packet level:
http://erratasec.blogspot.com/2010/05/technical-details-of-street-view-wifi.html
I don't see how scaremongering and being wrong is mutually exclusive.
signature is pants
Nah don't worry, Google is your friend, your lover, your new red bicycle.
Trust us. We are not evil.
Those who eschew Apple just b/c they are on top, or b/c of some perceived wrong doing, Google knows when, where, and what your search, whom you talk to, where you travel, and in some cases what you buy.
I'm not a sysop or a sysadmin or sys-anything, but I am reasonably competent in administering my own computer. I can read a manual, interpret a manual, and search Google - and I'm used to doing it because most times saying one has a Mac to tech support is a conversation killer. However, after setting up 4 different wireless routers, my verdict is that 3/4 setups were probably beyond the capability of the average computer user. One setup was beyond the capability of my ISP's tech support - it was their router and they had me exchange the whole thing, only to have the problem recur. I have twice been advised by ISP tech support to leave all the defaults and to leave the router unencrypted. Trying to figure out how to get an encrypted network was a journey through Documentation That Really Sucks(TM) and Interfaces That Really Suck(TM). The only one that worked without me wanting the last 2 hours of my life back was Apple's own, so last time I moved I said ixnay on the wireless offer, got a cable modem and plugged an Apple Airport Express into it.
When did Google "deny" this before "reversing themselves"? They were asked to turn over data by the Germans (who have an irrational fear of having pictures of their houses taken). They looked at it first, realized there was more there than they had been intending to collect and to their credit, rather than try to delete or hide it, they announced it and issued a mea culpa.
Anyways, there's apparently no new news for this story included in the summary, so why are reposting and reshashing old stuff? This is such a non-story . . .