Congressman Steps Up Pressure On Google, Facebook

crimeandpunishment and other readers noted the US government's increasing pressure on Facebook and Google. On Friday the head of the House Judiciary Committee, John Conyers, sent the two companies a letter asking them to cooperate with any government inquiries. It's not clear exactly what purpose the letter served, other than to make Google's and Facebook's lawyers squirm a bit more than they already were, with Germany and courts and the FTC looking hard in their direction; Conyers did not say his committee will be holding hearings. The FTC just asked Google to hold onto the Wi-Fi data that it says it accidentally collected while snapping Street View photos. And in response to the growing outcry since its F8 conference last month, Facebook offered some simplified privacy controls — though opinions vary on how much the new controls simplify things for users.

Comments

Accidentally or Tactically Aquired data

[Loupis]

How do you accidently collect wi-fi data through Street View photos?

Re:Accidentally or Tactically Aquired data

[nacturation]

How do you accidently collect wi-fi data through Street View photos?

That was a poorly written summary. You can read through the many Slashdot stories which covered Google's logging of wifi data if you need more info.

Re:Accidentally or Tactically Aquired data

[spleen_blender]

The cameras are hooked up to a computer. The computer has wifi. The cars have GPS. All of the logs for each of these are synchronized since they are all on the same computer. So if your wifi logging happens to be detailed enough you could definitely "accidentally" collect that data just by having the wifi on with a default of connecting to any open network.

Does anyone know what these computers in the Street View cars were running OS wise? Hardware wise?

Re:Accidentally or Tactically Aquired data

[Loupis]

Google Chrome?

Re:Accidentally or Tactically Aquired data

[phantomcircuit]

So if your wifi logging happens to be detailed enough you could definitely "accidentally" collect that data just by having the wifi on with a default of connecting to any open network.

They did not connect to anybodies network. They simply sniffed over the air broadcasts. They did not actively do anything.

Re:Accidentally or Tactically Aquired data

[PopeRatzo]

They simply sniffed over the air broadcasts. They did not actively do anything.

"Sniffing" sounds active to me. Storing the data is definitely active.

Re:Accidentally or Tactically Aquired data

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the did actively commit a crime...wardriving is illegal in many states!

Re:Accidentally or Tactically Aquired data

[Anonymous Coward]

If I take a voice recorder with me as I walk down the street and use it to dictate the things I need to pick up at the store, I will also record what other people who walk by say. I will also record 1/2 of what some people say on there cell phones. (because they talk loud) This is against the law some places.

I am guessing they just recorded full unencrypted packet expecting to grep out the SSID's later...

Re:Accidentally or Tactically Aquired data

[phantomcircuit]

No it's not.

Re:Accidentally or Tactically Aquired data

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly you don't know what "Sniffing" means.

Could you also explain how storing data is "active".

Re:Accidentally or Tactically Aquired data

[beakerMeep]

Or, you could have just answered his question in a sentence or two. From what I have read, Google was collecting publicly broadcast SSIDs on purpose to help with geo-location and their Maps service. However they (claim) the code they used to gather this data was accidentally cut an paste from a research project that demonstrated how much more than just SSIDs could be captured.

So while they were hoping for grabbing just this:

getSSID();

they got

getSSID();
getAllSnifableTraffic();

This is an oversimplification-guesstimate, but I think makes the claim more understandable. Are they telling the truth? Hard to say. Certainly we've all seen cut and paste errors in code like that. But you'd also think if someone was using code from a project designed to actually sniff traffic they would know to be careful what they cut and paste. So while it seems a bit fishy, it's absolutely plausible the whole thing was just an accident.

Re:Accidentally or Tactically Aquired data

[nacturation]

Or, you could have just answered his question in a sentence or two.

To do so would have been encouraging intellectual laziness. I expect the average Slashdotter to make a modicum of effort to educate themselves rather than posting a stupid question. In the time it took to ask the question and wait for an answer, the OP could have learned a fair bit and then come back with an interesting question instead of a stupid one.

Re:Accidentally or Tactically Aquired data

[PopeRatzo]

Could you also explain how storing data is "active".

If it costs money, it's active.

Are you saying storage is free?

Re:Accidentally or Tactically Aquired data

[melstav]

Nope. Sorry. You fail.

It's active if someone actually had to act with intent.

If all they had to do is start a service that by default sent its output to syslog, that's definitely passive.

Besides, disk is cheap.

Re:Accidentally or Tactically Aquired data

[beakerMeep]

That's awfully presumptuous. Maybe he had read other articles and did not fully understand them, maybe he didn't have the time. Maybe it's just good to have the answer right below the summary which, as you noticed, lacks the proper background for someone new to the story.

Really though, maybe if we spent a little less time telling each other to RTFM and a little more sharing info, we could save a lot of nonsense back and fourth like this.

I know you're trying to teach him to fish, but I'd like to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they will want to teach themselves to fish. They aren't going to go look something up because you called their question stupid.

Maybe it's about time we broke the stereotype of tech-people being unapproachable and snobbish in their unwillingness to tolerate those that know less than they do, no?

Maybe you could have given him the answer and suggest he look more deeply into it on his own next time?

Re:Accidentally or Tactically Aquired data

[Anonymous Coward]

Not everyone reads every article /. article and pages of crap that gets modded insightful.

Very often both the article and the summary suck and the interesting bits only trickle out via a few interesting comments. However finding those few interesting bits is often a time consuming activity because of all the off topic clutter that gets modded up. I would consider it "intellectual laziness" if it weren't so noisy here on /.

Your intellectual snobbery for example. Off topic and not worth the mod points. Yes you have a point but its not relevant to the discussion. I got more out of reading the stupid question than I did reading it plus your posts. Yes the stupid question may be noise, but you've managed to add more noise than the question would have by itself had you kept your high and mighty mouth shut.

Moderators need to stop wasting points on off topic noise. Regardless of how "insightful" or "informative" it is still off topic and encourages the so called laziness nacturation is bitching about.

And for fuck sake don't mod this insightful!!!!!! Telling nacturation to STFU is off topic, regardless of how warranted it is.

Re:Accidentally or Tactically Aquired data

[Ihmhi]

It's better for someone to discover the answer on their own than have it handed to them IMO.

However, with simple requests for information, I don't think that rule generally should apply. Asking a complex question would be a good time to have someone seek out the answer, simply for the possible insights they may gain on the journey to that answer. A simple request for information ("What's the capital of Kansas?") is not going to provide any significant insights.

Of course, that being the case, the great-great-etc.-parent could have JFGI.

Re:Accidentally or Tactically Aquired data

[nacturation]

I know you're trying to teach him to fish, but I'd like to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they will want to teach themselves to fish. They aren't going to go look something up because you called their question stupid.

Maybe it's about time we broke the stereotype of tech-people being unapproachable and snobbish in their unwillingness to tolerate those that know less than they do, no?

My response to the OP wasn't unapproachable or snobbish -- I would classify it as a "polite but terse RTFA", if you will. If the OP took my advice and looked for more info, he could have replied to my post saying "I looked it up and here is what I found" and maybe also made some other interesting commentary that added value to the discussion.

You asked why I didn't simply supply the answer, and that's where I explained that I thought the question was stupid. The way I see it, we have two choices here:

1. Encourage people to post questions easily answered with a few minutes of research.
2. Encourage people to research their questions first, then post a question if there was something they didn't understand.

The first choice ends up turning Slashdot into a helpdesk for dummies, where stupid questions are encouraged because people know that someone's going to supply the answer to them. The second choice leads to people understanding that they're going to get called out if they ask a 'Let Me Google That For You' question.

However, let's say that I did answer the OP's question. If we reward simple questions, here's how it might look:

Q: "How do you accidently collect wi-fi data through Street View photos?"
A: "You don't. Google also collects SSID information at the same time it snaps Street View photos."
Q: "What is SSID?"
A: "It stands for Service Set ID, a part of wifi."
Q: "What does this have to do with Street View?"
A: "They do this to improve location based services."
Q: "What are location based services?"
A: "They are services which make use of location data to provide additional information."

And so on. Had the OP done some of this research up-front, they might have run across this blog post which explains, in detail, the what and why of everything. Then, they might have asked a different question, such as:

Q: "I understand that the MAC address is being collected as it's guaranteed to be unique to each device, but what value is there in collecting the SSID names along with it since most of them will have the same default name?"

This would have spawned a far richer discussion, with others commenting on the uniqueness of MAC addresses, the possible applications of SSID names, and so on. And hopefully the discussion won't get mired down in people replying with "What is a MAC address?" or "What is the default name?" etc.

FTC?

[Montezumaa]

Why does the FTC want Google to hold on to that data?

Re:FTC?

[davester666]

Data mine it for information on terrorists. Duh.

Re:FTC?

[Montezumaa]

Oh, snap. I better destroy all my equipment before the Federal Government catches on to my mission to the weaknesses in security in and around Washington DC and New York city...namely Bill Clinton's bedrooms.

Re:FTC?

[Peach Rings]

Uh so the evidence isn't destroyed obviously. Presumably because the FTC is investigating.

Re:FTC?

[lennier1]

I doubt there's much going on in there anymore. She definitely should have had him neutered by now.

"It's not clear what purpose the letter served..."

[John Hasler]

There is an election this fall.

Government

[XanC]

So in government-land, the way to fix the problem of data accidentally collected is to order that said data be KEPT, instead of immediately deleted??

Re:Government

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no data. We were never at war with Eurasia. Pick up that can citizen.

Re:Government

[nacturation]

For some reason, the United States is the only country on Earth where accidents don't happen – it's always somebody's fault, and you can sue that somebody for neglect.

Re:Government

[khchung]

So in government-land, the way to fix the problem of data accidentally collected is to order that said data be KEPT, instead of immediately deleted??

If you caught a corporate spy trying to leave your company premise with a USB drive containing "accidentally collected" company data, do you also immediately wipe out the USB drive? No, you would have KEPT the drive to use as evidence and for further investigation to proof exactly what had happened and how the data got there.

That is just plain common sense.

The Google fanboys in /. are really amazing, you guys(*) would even advocate destroying evidence when Google broke the law!

(* - there are many other posts saying the data should be immediately deleted, even before any investigation is made)

Re:Government

[XanC]

In your corporate espionage scenario, that's my own data the spy has got. If I'm looking at my own data, no foul.

This is random Web access data from the general public. The result of government obtaining it is that the government will paw through it. This is a whole new level of scary from a privacy perspective.

If the goal is to preserve the privacy of the people whose data this is, then this makes no sense.

Re:Government

[XanC]

(apologies for the double reply)

Let's consider this scenario: I'm diagnosing some problem with my wireless network, setting my radio to promiscuous mode and recording the results. I happen to record a few minutes' worth of traffic from the access point of you, my next door neighbor. Which of the following would you prefer:

a) To protect your privacy, I immediately delete the data.

b) To protect your privacy, I "turn myself in", sending a copy of what I recorded to the FBI, CIA, John Conyers, and anybody else who feels it's his job to "safeguard privacy".

You're arguing for b), which is the wrong answer.

Re:Government

[John Hasler]

> In your corporate espionage scenario, that's my own data the spy has got. If
> I'm looking at my own data, no foul. This is random Web access data from
> the general public.

Which, to the government, is their own data.

Come on. Don't you believe in government of the people?

Re:Government

[nurb432]

Kept and then mined. Screw your privacy.

Re:Government

[Kohath]

For some reason, the United States is the only country on Earth where accidents don't happen – it's always somebody's fault, and you can sue that somebody for neglect.

Only when "somebody" has money. When "somebody" is poor, or when "somebody" is the government and can't be sued, then it's really the fault of society and it can only be resolved by raising taxes on somebody else with money.

Re:Government

[jibjibjib]

You really think the government will bother to look through this data? It simply wouldn't be worth it. It's little segments of logs mostly less than a minute long from unencrypted wireless networks. The chance of there being anything useful in it is so low that it wouldn't be worth the effort. And then there's the inconvenience of not being able to admit they used it, since such use would be illegal and much more outrageous than what Google's already done. Besides, if the government wants random bits of logs of random people's internet use, they can get those from ISPs already.

Re:Government

[XanC]

So what's the point of the order to keep it, then? If this data is so unimportant and un-sensitive, then who cares anyway?

Re:Government

[DerekLyons]

To answer the grandparent:

So in government-land, the way to fix the problem of data accidentally collected is to order that said data be KEPT, instead of immediately deleted??

It's called preserving evidence.
 
To answer the parent:

For some reason, the United States is the only country on Earth where accidents don't happen - it's always somebody's fault, and you can sue that somebody for neglect.

If the United States was a place where a deliberate and intentional decision to perform an action could be called an 'accident', you'd have a point. But the United States (indeed the whole world) isn't such a place. Somebody at Google decided to write the function into the code and the database schema to collect and store that data - there is no possible way for it to have occurred accidentally. (Now, it may have been stupidity rather than malice that lead to that decision - but that doesn't change the fact that it was deliberately done.)

Re:Government

[tagno25]

It was a accident, because ALL the data was being scanned then a filter was applied to see what to keep. The filter just happened to not be tight enough.

Re:Government

[tagno25]

I choose A with a modification.

Immediately delete the data, then turn yourself in.

Re:Government

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, which was the case here...

One group of guys does some fiddling with wifi years before street view, making a library that can be combined with GPS to triangulate where an access point is located, in addition to other fancy network debugging tools. For some reason, the project i canned and the libraries never get deployed anywhere, but sits around with a lot of silly debugging turned on. One of the debugging things that is turned on is dumping a packet to disk from time to time.

Years later another group starts working on this street view thing, and they hear about that library some folks created years back. They find the functions they need and link them in - never noticing the baggage they got with them.

Re:Government

[martin-boundary]

Lolwut? You mixed up the poor and the rich.

When "somebody" is rich, or when "somebody" is the government and can't be sued, then it's really the fault of society and it can only be resolved by raising taxes on the poor.

Re:Government

[shentino]

Sounds like a loophole to get around the 4th amendment.

Re:Government

[khchung]

Let's consider this scenario: I'm diagnosing some problem with my wireless network, setting my radio to promiscuous mode and recording the results. I happen to record a few minutes' worth of traffic from the access point of you, my next door neighbor.

See if your analogy still make sense if you add the following:

1. You have been recording for the past 3 years' data from my access point, instead of a few minutes, and you have been processing those data for the whole time instead of just letting them sit there. Kind of hard to say you are not aware of those data are there for the whole time, huh?

2. For the sake of argument, there are relevant laws in your country that exactly prohibits such recording. (you may consider, as example, covertly recording telephone conversations in countries that requires consent from both parties)

3. Turning yourself in means sending what you recorded to the relevant authorities, != every 3 letter agencies you can imagine.

Still unconvinced? Consider another analogy:

A peeking tom living nearby has been secretly taking pictures of your daughter for the past 3 years. And (for the sake of argument) there are local laws that forbids exactly this kind of tracking/following/photo-taking activity. Now you find this out, but you have no idea what kind of pictures have been taken, you confronted the peeping tom and he promised to delete all the pictures.

Do you prefer to:

a) To protect your daughter's privacy, let the peeping tom delete all the pictures, trust him that he will actually do it.

b) To protect your daughter's privacy, call the police, knowing that they will need to take the pictures as evidence to prosecute the peeping tom?

You are arguing for (a), that may be the right answer for you, but don't judge others arguing for (b) as "wrong".

Re:Government

[khchung]

So what's the point of the order to keep it, then? If this data is so unimportant and un-sensitive, then who cares anyway?

How about as evidence to proof Google violated the law in court?

Isn't that the whole analogy with corp spy about, and the purpose as evidence part was explicitly spelled out in the post as well.

Really, this is quite a unique experience for me! To see, first hand, where otherwise technically competent people suddenly unable to understand simple things (i.e. illegally collected data is evidence) when it contradicts with their beliefs (Government==bad, and Google can do no wrong).

Re:Government

[nacturation]

Somebody at Google decided to write the function into the code and the database schema to collect and store that data - there is no possible way for it to have occurred accidentally.

You must have first-hand knowledge of this in order to make such a claim.

Re:Government

[iamnobody2]

Hasn't google already conceded said data exists and was accidently collected? If they've already publically admitted it exists, keeping it around only worsens and extends any possible privacy violations.

Re:Government

[DerekLyons]

If the filter wasn't tight enough, it was because someone decided not to tighten the filter.

You cannot 'accidentally' write code, run code, collect data, and put it into a database. Period.

Re:Government

[DerekLyons]

Yeah, in the same way I have first hand knowledge that breathing is vital to my continued existence.

Seriously, what fucking drugs are you smoking that you can honestly believe that code wrote itself, and then ran on a computer, all without human intervention?

Re:Government

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you prefer to:

a) To protect your daughter's privacy, let the peeping tom delete all the pictures, trust him that he will actually do it.

b) To protect your daughter's privacy, call the police, knowing that they will need to take the pictures as evidence to prosecute the peeping tom?

You are arguing for (a), that may be the right answer for you, but don't judge others arguing for (b) as "wrong".

To be fair, Google has opted to delete the data under the supervision of an independent 3rd party:
"On Friday, May 14, the Irish Data Protection Authority asked us to delete the payload data we collected in error in Ireland," said Alan Eustace, senior vice president of engineering and research at Google. "We can confirm that all data identified as being from Ireland was deleted over the weekend in the presence of an independent third party."

Source: http://www.technewsworld.com/story/70010.html

Re:Government

[Anonymous Coward]

Big problem with this logic, the peeping tom could just as easily make duplicates of the photos.And having the police confiscate them means nothing because of it and the police have no way of knowing if he did.
And there is a big difference between someone actually owning up to their mistakes and one who hides it.

You are forgetting, that google actually admitted what they did and took full responsibility. Not much need for evidence when you have a full and signed confession in public.
They are agreeing to delete the information, at that point the ONLY thing that law enforcement should be doing involving that data is overseeing the people responsible for its removal to make sure it is done.

Law enforcement has no LEGAL need for this information. And if they wanted to make sure the information they collected was truly accidental, they would be looking at the equipment and not the data to begin with.
The ONLY uses the government has for this information is not legal in nature.

Re:Government

[khchung]

Hasn't google already conceded said data exists and was accidently collected? If they've already publically admitted it exists, keeping it around only worsens and extends any possible privacy violations.

Wow. Just, wow.

Has it ever occurred to you that when someone (even Google) broke the law, it may come one day when it will go before a court, and the judge would possibly like to see the evidence from the prosecution before giving a guilty verdict? And the judge would possibly also like to see the extent of the violation when he consider the penalty for the guilty party?

Is it that hard a concept to understand? The data is EVIDENCE in this case, you don't go about destroying evidence in the normal course of things.

The proper response for Google is NOT to delete the data, but to immediately freeze those data by putting them in a safe and forbids all employee access to it, until the time comes when the authorities either press charge, or drop the charges. If the charges are dropped, THEN Google should go ahead to delete the data.

Re:Government

[khchung]

Big problem with this logic, the peeping tom could just as easily make duplicates of the photos.And having the police confiscate them means nothing because of it and the police have no way of knowing if he did.

So on the point of privacy, does it matter either way if the peeping tom have hidden a copy somewhere? How can any 3rd party be sure the copy destroyed is the only copy?

However, for the prosecution POV, how do you propose the DA to present the case to the judge if they don't even have a copy of the pictures? "Your honor, we are sure the peeping tom has broken the law, but for the subject's privacy, we decide to delete all the evidence immediately. However, we did get a confession out from the suspect, so that was just as good!" Good luck in finding a judge who will buy that.

And there is a big difference between someone actually owning up to their mistakes and one who hides it.

Owning up my a$$. Google was caught by German authorities while going through the audit process to show they didn't broken Germany laws. If not for that audit, we would probably be still in the dark about this, and Google would still be happily collecting and analyzing those data.

Law enforcement has no LEGAL need for this information. And if they wanted to make sure the information they collected was truly accidental, they would be looking at the equipment and not the data to begin with.
The ONLY uses the government has for this information is not legal in nature.

You must be an expert in EU privacy laws to reach this stunning conclusion when all the authorities involved are still only at the investigation phase trying to find out exactly the extent of law violation (if any) Google has committed, and what the next step should be.

Your simplistic view of how court system works notwithstanding, the normal course the things is to PRESERVE the evidence of such cases while investigation is going on.

Re:Government

[Kohath]

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/top10-percent-income-earners

Re:Government

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the conclusion most people jumped to is that the government wants the data kept so later they can force google to hand it over to them, probably for some malicious purpose, like going through people's private information. I think they are assuming the government has no plans to penalize google. I certainly would be surprised if they end up in court over this.

Re:Government

[nacturation]

Seriously, what fucking drugs are you smoking that you can honestly believe that code wrote itself, and then ran on a computer, all without human intervention?

Here's a scenario:

Someone at Google gets a change request for the Street View vehicles to start collecting SSID names as they roam. It's a simple project, so they hand it off to a summer intern who goes to SourceForge or GitHub or whatever and starts looking for SSID libraries because, after all, he doesn't want to reinvent the wheel. He finds a great SSID library and incorporates it into the project, runs his unit tests to verify that it works according to spec, and they deploy it into the field.

Later on, while doing detailed analysis of the data collected, a Google engineer discovers that the open source library has an undocumented bug that the intern (being inexperienced) didn't catch. While it should only be capturing the SSID information, it actually captures additional traffic from the same wireless device that was sent at the same time as the SSID info. The engineer notifies his manager and they work to correct the bug and redeploy the code to all Street View vehicles.

Now according to you, that scenario would constitute a deliberate and intentional choice to capture additional traffic. I'm saying you're full of shit as I see nothing deliberate and intentional about it. Unless you have information to the contrary, I suggest you do not attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence (or inexperience).

Re:Government

[Nyder]

Consider another analogy:

A peeking tom living nearby has been secretly taking pictures of your daughter for the past 3 years. And (for the sake of argument) there are local laws that forbids exactly this kind of tracking/following/photo-taking activity. Now you find this out, but you have no idea what kind of pictures have been taken, you confronted the peeping tom and he promised to delete all the pictures.

Do you prefer to:

a) To protect your daughter's privacy, let the peeping tom delete all the pictures, trust him that he will actually do it.

b) To protect your daughter's privacy, call the police, knowing that they will need to take the pictures as evidence to prosecute the peeping tom?

You are arguing for (a), that may be the right answer for you, but don't judge others arguing for (b) as "wrong".

(c) Grab peeping tom by the scruff of his neck, drag him into his house, and go through his crap looking for the pictures. Take what you need as evidence against him, destroy what you need to. Break his fingers, etc.

2 wrongs don't make a right? Nope, but peeping tom will probably think twice about peeping again. or at least, getting caught at it.

Re:Government

[iamnobody2]

Call me a cook, but I think letting the govt have sensitive data I wouldn't even want google to have just seems ridiculous. I know I'm supposed to trust the govt to protect and serve, but I don't. I don't trust google either, but they're certainly less corrupt then the govt. in my world view.

Re:Government

[Anonymous Coward]

In what world does an intern's code make it to production without review?

Re:Government

[nacturation]

In what world does an intern's code make it to production without review?

I realize that most people here live in an ideal world, however based on my experiences I must conclude that I live in an alternate world. Note that in this case, "production" means a laptop in some cheap little rigged-up car that is driving around the streets rather than a public-facing web service that millions may rely upon.

Re:Government

[DerekLyons]

runs his unit tests to verify that it works according to spec, and they deploy it into the field.

Unless his spec included 'capturing and storing packets to a database previously provided', then his unit tests will fail.
 
Your contrived scenario is utterly and completely full of shit.
 

I suggest you do not attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence (or inexperience).

If the situation can adequately be explained by incompetence (or inexperience), you'd have a point. But it cannot be so explained - unless you'd have me believe a bug existed that could not only capture the data, but also define a database field to store it in? Or in short, you're full of shit.

Re:Government

[nacturation]

Your contrived scenario is utterly and completely full of shit.

Here's the actual scenario:

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/wifi-data-collection-update.html

It follows pretty closely with the scenario I put forth. You assert that there was deliberate and intentional storage of data, something which is contrary to the explanation that Google has put forth. Google claims it was a mistake, and their actions following this discovery do not indicate otherwise.

If the situation can adequately be explained by incompetence (or inexperience), you'd have a point. But it cannot be so explained - unless you'd have me believe a bug existed that could not only capture the data, but also define a database field to store it in?

Oh, now you have knowledge of the storage mechanism they used on the laptop and the schema that was used? Do you know a database was used on the laptop and not, say, one big text file? But hey, maybe a they do use a database on the Street View laptops. Here's one possible table definition:

create table data (
    id int not null auto_increment primary key,
    ssid_info text not null
);

You said before you do not possess first hand knowledge so, unless that has changed in the meantime, your attempts to justify an illogical line of reasoning with an ever-increasing amount of bluster on your part indicates that you are unwilling to admit the possibility that you were incorrect.

It's no matter to me. I'm done with this thread.

Re:"It's not clear what purpose the letter served.

[cheatch]

campaigns fundraiser?

Re:Jews for Nerds!

[Anonymous Coward]

lollerskates. Next time, post to the Wikipedia article.

epic trolling is within your grasp.

Re:Tooties Roll Pop!

[Loupis]

Well i thought i was funny.

Google just needs to ask him "how much?"

[Attila Dimedici]

Obviously, Brin, Page and Zuckerberg obviously haven't been giving as much to Conyers re-election campaign as he would like.

Re:Google just needs to ask him "how much?"

[binarylarry]

No joke, it's just a corrupt Detroit politician shaking down big corporations for money.

The guy's wife got put in jail for doing the same thing when she was on the Detroit city council: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_Conyers

Re:Google just needs to ask him "how much?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is not as smart as RIAA.
Buying off politicians is cheap, and getting new laws made can be as little as 1 million.
RIAA total contribution 40-50 million - chump change really.

Now if Google decided to up things, say, by getting a law made, say 'Entrepreneurs Safe Harbor' bill made that basically says big global leader IT business is good for America - and whingers get nothing'
that is what they should be up to.

And buying up congress-critters to crush blowups when they happen. I'm not sure how much BP gave, but I bet it will be up in the future.

There is something deeper going on

[Omnifarious]

I have a random suspicion about this...

Microsoft has been looking to use the big lobbyist network they acquired when they decided that the antitrust trial happened because they hadn't bought off the government and their competitors had (because, you know, they couldn't have done anything wrong!). They've been angling on Google for a long time.

I think they haven't gotten any action because while congresspeople like lobbyists and money, they can't actually act in a way that shows it obviously is the driving force. They have to sort of look like they're actually carrying out the political will of the people, more or less.

The Facebook debacle and Google's mistakes with Wi-Fi harvesting are garnering enough negative public attention that congresspeople can now actually take action against those companies without looking too obviously like they're in Microsoft's pocket.

I do think Facebook has definitely done something wrong, and I'm really curious as to the whole decision process that led to Google doing what they did with Wi-Fi data. But I don't think, on an ordinary day, that congresspeople would generally care at all. I think the reason they're putting on the appearance caring is money and lobbyists from Microsoft.

I'm sorry to be so cynical, but I think congress is hopelessly and nearly irreparably corrupt.

Re:There is something deeper going on

[Vekseid]

Microsoft's investment in Facebook aside, both Google and Facebook have lobbying teams. Few companies have the power to buy -all- of Congress.

Re:There is something deeper going on

[Anonymous Coward]

Though I have no love of MS, I think this has far more to do with a possibly very tough election year coming up. I completely agree with the rest of your post, however.

Re:There is something deeper going on

[phantomfive]

I'm sorry to be so cynical, but I think congress is hopelessly and nearly irreparably corrupt.

In my opinion it's getting better, because of public scrutiny. Really the only way it can get better is if people are paying attention, and it's so much easier to pay attention with all our modern information devices.

An example of how it is getting better is military spending. True, big companies still have influence with how the money is spent, but now they at least try to make it look like there is a legitimate process. 50 years ago they didn't even do that, the 'favors' were right there in the open.

If you go back even farther, you have things like Tammany Hall and Boss Tweed, or the administration of Warren G. Harding. Ugly times. If the US survived through that, it can survive through pretty much anything.

Re:There is something deeper going on

[pankajmay]

I actually think this is Google and Facebook's own doing rather than a sneaky third party.
Both Messrs Page/Brin and Zuckerberg have made statements in recent memory that can only be called tactless. Statements like "the age of privacy is over" or "people should not expect privacy" etc...etc...

When you run one of the world's largest social network and search engine, I am surprised that these gentlemen bandy about making such statements in such a callous manner. They certainly may be geniuses in their respective fields, but making such statements was a public relations disaster. It may be so that what they said was completely true, but when speaking to a group you always need to adhere to diplomacy.

It is like the oil companies saying - "Yeah, we are in this for oil/money/our investors interest only. People/Environment be damned." -- That is usually the unspoken part and it is hara-kiri to be an executive of the company and actually put this so candidly. In fact you are acting against your company's interest.

So, I think both Google and Facebook executives alarmed people greatly. Because they are in the business of our privacy. This combined with their latest faux-pas, Google's WiFi data collection, and Facebook's privacy control. Both of these situations could have been mitigated if their Public Relations had acted quickly, reassured people. However, in both cases, the companies inordinately delayed their response, in fact at first not even owning up to their mistake but blaming it on inadvertent situations and naysayers.

The only way out of this is for them to quickly own up their mistakes (even if they think none was made). Sincerely apologize (or at least make such public gestures, regardless of their personal feelings) and calm some frayed nerves. Trust me -- if tomorrow both Facebook and Google - ran ad campaigns saying "We're sorry. There is nothing more important to us than our user's privacy and we will defend it to death" -- They will be America's sweethearts back again.

Personally, both their PR firms need to be fired.

Re:There is something deeper going on

[Anonymous Coward]

Few companies have the power to buy -all- of Congress.

Seems that the RIAA/MPAA have that power though...

Re:There is something deeper going on

[DerekLyons]

Lordy - I'm going to go buy tin foil stock, as that has to be the most convoluted way to justify Slashdot's "blame Microsoft, Google is innocent no matter what" mindset I have ever seen.

Re:There is something deeper going on

[Omnifarious]

Well, I think you're correct, but I don't think that makes my post wrong. But you are right that the respective firm's PR gaffes might well be enough without any third-party political prodding.

Re:There is something deeper going on

[Daengbo]

I think Twitter just came out of hiding.

Re:There is something deeper going on

[Anonymous Coward]

Few companies have the power to buy -all- of Congress.

Actually you don't have to buy all of Congress only 51%.

Simple solution.

[Anonymous Coward]

All communications should be opt-in; make opt-out communications a felony.

Re:Simple solution.

[toastar]

All communications should be opt-in; make opt-out communications a felony.

+1 I concur

Re:Simple solution.

[mysidia]

Hi.. I didn't opt in to your communication. I was reading slashdot minding my own business, reading other people's comments, then you chimed in.

You know what that means? You would have committed a felony. Have fun, jailbird. :)

No unreasonable search and seizure

[rolfwind]

should go beyond people granting their permission. Especially with people who hold your data. As far as I see, ISPs and webmail and other such entities hold as many of people's secrets as a lawyer/doctor and should be almost treated as such. Not quite perhaps, but close to it.

I don't see blind fishing expeditions of thousands of people at a time isn't unreasonable search.

Re:No unreasonable search and seizure

[Culture20]

ISPs and webmail and other such entities hold as many of people's secrets as a lawyer/doctor and should be almost treated as such.

What's the ISP/webmail/social-network equivalent of disbarment or removal of license to practice for divulging client information? Make social networks follow something like HIPAA. Soon.

A new privacy issue I saw today:

[Culture20]

After typing my password wrong a couple hours ago, I noticed the new facebook "wrong email/password pair" page does the GUI login interface: it changed my email address into my Full name and profile picture. So now random Joe can find out someone's profile picture without even having a Facebook account. Also, it ties your email address to your real name, even if you don't make your email address visible. All random Joe needs is an email address. It's not like spammers don't have millions of email addresses, and botnets to do the intentionally failed logins.

It's not as bad as some of the other crap, but this is an example of where they don't think their "ease of use" through.

Re:A new privacy issue I saw today:

[MichaelSmith]

Have you tried with a clean browser? Maybe it only does this if you have a facebook cookie for a previous login.

Re:A new privacy issue I saw today:

[demonlapin]

Whoa. Mod parent up now.

Re:A new privacy issue I saw today:

[Culture20]

Heh, I just tried with konqueror and got this page:

You are using an incompatible web browser.
Sorry, we're not cool enough to support your browser. Please keep it real with one of the following browsers:
Mozilla Firefox
Safari
Microsoft Internet Explorer

WTF? Did they hire someone from 1996 to code their homepage? "Sorry, Netscape not supported."

Re:A new privacy issue I saw today:

[demonlapin]

Good call, please ignore my reply to parent. Clean browsers do not do this.

Re:A new privacy issue I saw today:

[Culture20]

Thanks for checking. It didn't like my other browsers.

Re:A new privacy issue I saw today:

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to see Facebook offer some serious authentication options. Not just emailing if someone gains access with a new machine, which provides zero real protection, other than notifying the account owner that they are fscked.

1: Contract with Vasco or RSA and have a rebranded ID token. PayPal does this. eBay does this. Blizzard does this. Even AOL used to offer this for users.

2: Offer an app, not just for the iPhone, but for Android, Java (for the low end phones), Windows Mobile, Symbian, BlackberryOS, and all major platforms as a secondary platform.

Second, have the ability to authorize devices so they can stay logged in without needing two factor. When the FB app installs on a device (phone, PDA, tablet), it should generate a unique 256-bit nonce [1], pass it to FB's auth servers. Then, subsequent logins after the device is allowed, access can be done automatically. This way, if the device is lost or stolen, its authorization can be removed quickly.

Yes, this may be considered overkill for some, but in all honesty, usernames and passwords are not real security these days when push comes to shove. Additional authentication is needed, because even though FB may not be thought of to contain sensitive data, someone can cause someone a lot of damage by sending stuff out as that user.

[1]: Take a SHA-256 of the timestamp to the millisecond with a 256 bit random number appended onto it. This ensure that even if the RNG is faulty, nobody will have the exact same nonce, and it also protects against someone guessing nonces by looking at the time installed.

Re:A new privacy issue I saw today:

[mysidia]

1: Contract with Vasco or RSA and have a rebranded ID token. PayPal does this. eBay does this. Blizzard does this. Even AOL used to offer this for users.

PayPal uses a Verisign ID, it's essentially a rebranded "Verisign Identity Protection" token.

And Facebook should use something like that, so the tokens are not specific to their site.

I sure as hell don't want to have to carry around 30 security tokens to be able to login to 30 different websites.

Null

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not clear exactly what purpose the letter served

Ever since I started paying attention, maybe eight years ago or so, I've yet to see a single one of these sternly-worded letters serve any discernible purpose at all. I'd say "handwriting skill improvement", but I think they're all typed by staff or interns.

Conyers is a crook

[Kohath]

Watch out Google and Facebook. One of the most crooked congressmen of modern times wants your "cooperation". He can't use his government staff as personal valets anymore since he got caught. And his wife was recently sentenced to 3 years in prison for taking bribes.

If he asks you for a private meeting, you'll want to either bring a checkbook or a tape recorder.

Re:Conyers is a crook

[Anonymous Coward]

BAH! You're just attacking him cuz he's black... that's how the campaign will play it... and it could very easily work..

Wireless Tapping?

[Skorpfox]

Retaining Wi-Fi packet sniffing records falls under the wiretapping laws, both Federal and State, and without court orders for each person they got the packets from that's going to be hard to justify the retention of those captures, even more so to look at their content.

Re:Wireless Tapping?

[cdrguru]

While it might be nice, I assure you that nobody sniffing, recording or accessing your encrypted (and cracked) wireless access point will ever be charged with "wiretapping". There does not appear to be any right to privacy on wireless computer communications at this point.

Wi-Fi data

[jimmyfrank]

Bleh, who friggen cares. It's not like collecting that data is difficult for anyone to do.

Google's 2009 Oh-So-Cute Street View Privacy Video

[theodp]

Street View: Behind the Scenes. The Google Privacy Channel's cutesy explanation of Street View's privacy safeguards. Looks like Wi-Fi sniffing was left on the cutting room floor. :-)

Re:"It's not clear what purpose the letter served.

[zippthorne]

Close. It's part of the campaign itself: If you're an incumbent, it helps to appear to have done something during your term. But your constituents won't remember anything you did before march of the election year, if you're lucky. So, a cheap way to get cameral-cred is to be part of some kind of investigatory commission.

Like when the US congress thought it would be a good use of their time to interview every f'king baseball player to see if they'd ever used f'king steroids. Steroids. In sports. Considered important enough for f'king Congress to have weeks of hearings. Brilliant.

Anyway, stuff like this gets their name in the news for free which is even better than spending your hard-grifted campaign cash on advertising.

Re:"It's not clear what purpose the letter served.

[XanC]

I wish they had spent more time on the steroid issue. It's a far less damaging way for them to spend their time than normal.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:"It's not clear what purpose the letter served.

[Cornwallis]

More likely to steer attention away from his wife who was a Detroit City Council member and is due for some jail time over (SURPRISE!) bribery charges.

Facebook

[Andy Smith]

I'm sick of Facebook's attitude to privacy. Their settings page is designed to be confusing and time-consuming.

As far as I'm aware I have everything set to "friends only" and no apps or third-parties are allowed to see my data. Yet just this evening I went to a photo hosting site that I'd never been to before, and it prompted me to post a comment -- with me logged in using my Facebook account and my profile photo.

It's maddening.

Re:Facebook

[PinkyGigglebrain]

And yet you still have an account there.

I got fed up with FB months ago, "deactivated" the account to see if I missed it.

Haven't yet so I'll be deleting it Monday.(yes, I know about the petition).

Perhaps you should consider similar steps?

Re:Facebook

[MtViewGuy]

The thing that REALLY scares Mark Zuckerberg is the possibility he could be subpoenaed to testify before Congress over Facebook's privacy policies, and if he lies to Congress over this matter, Zuckerberg could face real jail time for contempt of Congress.

Re:Facebook

[moosesocks]

And yet you still have an account there.

I don't like my power company. They advocate the use of fossil fuels, and engage in unethical business practices.

However, I'm sure as hell not going to turn my power off.

Same thing with Facebook. I can simultaneously disapprove of their company, and still continue to use their service. It's become an essential tool for certain demographics (of which I happen to be a member). I'm not about to cut myself off from my peers over some privacy issues.

Re:Facebook

[PinkyGigglebrain]

You are free to do what you wish.

However I would say you are comparing primates to mushrooms, the two are not even on the same evolutionary branch.

To each their own. I hope you will still feel the same way when you have no privacy left.

Well, Mr. Conyers

[fustakrakich]

Are we getting a little boost from BP if you can throw up a small smoke screen to draw some fire?

Here's to having you voted out... One can hope

The real problem with Facebook privacy controls

[ZipK]

The problem with Facebook's privacy controls is only peripherally related to their complexity. The real problem is Facebook's habit of changing privacy configuration and automatically opting their 400 millions users into sharing information that was previously private. It's Facebook's monetization of their users' personal information (via constantly shifting opt-out changes to privacy settings) that is the root problem.

Re:The real problem with Facebook privacy controls

[Anonymous Coward]

There was a bit on Wired which suggests you are mistaken. The problem with Facebook's privacy settings isn't so much that they want to make a few extra bucks; it's that they are attempting to deliberately eliminate what we call privacy.

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/05/facebook-firestorm-good-thing/

facebook will never value my privacy profits

[jsepeta]

mark zuckerberg is a jerk. he will never value my privacy more than his company's ability to rake in money. so fuck facebook, i'm off.

Let me know...

[Anonymous Coward]

...when his boot is on their neck. Because that is what'll take.

Simple solution to facebook.

[Anonymous Coward]

Blank all your facebook details and remove yourself from public searches.
Don't ever friend anyone from work. And if anyone from work asks why, just tell them you want to keep your private life separate from your work life.

WiFi data for geolocation?

[kiwix]

Maybe they collect WiFi data on purpose for their geolocation service?

Don't forget C-61

[Anonymous Coward]

While I think this is an increadible move it needs to be enacted in conjunction with net neutrality and consumer rights.
 
  Congress man "applaud" but that doesn't stop them from cramming a bunch of DRM software down our throats. Bill C-61 will make it illegal to sell used appliances such as vacuums, car, stove, fridge, etc.
 
  You will need to maintain a job or your appliances will all cease functioning.

John Conyers is old, tired, confused,

[Dr_Ken]

He can't even stay awake during committee hearings. He should retire. He doesn't know shit abo

He who lives by the sword...

[alexo]

(c) Grab peeping tom by the scruff of his neck, drag him into his house, and go through his crap looking for the pictures. Take what you need as evidence against him, destroy what you need to. Break his fingers, etc.

An interesting approach. What if:
(a) Said peeping tom is bigger/stronger/more violent/better trained/better armed/better connected/all-of-the-above than you are?
(b) You don't find any evidence but instead get sued both criminally (assault) and civilly, financially ruining you and your family?