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?
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.
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"
No. That would be "GWardriving(tm) Beta"
My blog
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.
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.
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.
Wifi Sniffing and wardriving are two overlapping but different concepts. Sniffing is passively capturing wireless LAN traffic, i.e. a very broad term. Wardriving is when a mobile receiver passively captures a specific subset of WLAN traffic, namely the beacon frames, for the purpose of finding and listing but not accessing wireless LANs. What Google supposedly wanted to do was wardriving. What Google actually did was Wifi sniffing.
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.
Whatyoutalkinbout, Willis?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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.
The point is, that even if it's not "locked down" and may even appear to be open, behaving this way in a residential area is tantamount to trespassing
Using someone's service to actually send and receive Internet traffic is a completely different situation from analyzing unencrypted data packets. As in significantly different legal standards apply. In this case, it is ridiculous to consider passively listening to unencrypted traffic to be "trespassing", any more than parking on the side of the street would be.
I. As it happens, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act states "It shall not be unlawful under this chapter...to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;" (18 USC 2511, 2(g))
The wisdom of capturing traffic from a system configured so that the communication is "readily accessible to the general public" aside, Congress certainly doesn't consider such things to be a legally prohibited privacy violation. Otherwise it could be illegal, for example, to listen to a CB ("citizens band") radio just because the conversation was not addressed to you.
Now as it happens, it is illegal to listen to phone calls on certain bands, and Congress has made such traffic not readily accessible by prohibiting the manufacture and distribution of amateur radios, etc. that can listen on those bands. As of yet, Congress has not prohibited the sale and distribution of wireless network adapters, however, nor prohibited such adapters from transmitting traffic "readily accessible to the general public".
II. Besides the ECPA, a much older law governs what you can actually do with the contents of wireless transmissions not intended for you. Specifically, you cannot disclose the contents to others, nor can you use them for your own private benefit (cf. 47 USC 605). So it would seem that Google can legally capture the traffic, but they can neither disclose it, nor use the contents even for their own proprietary benefit.
There is a specific exception to this provision for viewing unencrypted satellite transmission under certain conditions, but no visible exception for divulging or making private benefit of (unencrypted) wireless network transmissions.