Slashdot Mirror
Google Relents, Will Hand Over European Wi-Fi Data
itwbennett writes "Having previously denied demands from Germany that the company turn over hard drives with data it secretly collected from open wireless networks over the past three years, Google has reversed course. A Google representative said that it will hand over the data to German, French, and Spanish authorities within a matter of days, according to the Financial Times, which first reported this latest development on Wednesday. 'We screwed up. Let's be very clear about that,' Google CEO Eric Schmidt told the newspaper."
They're opening up a whole warehouse full of cans of worms by handing the data over to a government with plenty of agendas instead of destroying it.
Ok, so which is the screwup, not giving the data, or the giving up of data?
...so now people's personal data is now in the hands of the relevant governments. I'm not sure this helps the situation.
Only works if you can unsee said information.
Really i don't see a problem with what google did, apparently it was only open networks etc, having an open wireless device in your house would be like not having curtains on your windows, if your not going to "stop" people from looking in, you've got nothing to complain about. If they were only taking samples, there shouldn't be much of an issue, because you where broadcasting the data to the public anyway...
Simple: by recording everything without verifying whether said data should be record. Capturing everything is easier than implementing filters, especially if storage space is not an issue.
People kept their networks open, Google gathered some probably useless information about them - presumably no more than 15 seconds worth in most cases (because it's a car driving by). Google has far more information on far more people from saved web searches/e-mails/etc. I'm tired of seeing these stories, I really don't care.
If European Governments are actually pursuing this, shame on them.
To all who advocate deleting the data, repeat after me:
The data is potentially evidence in upcoming court cases.
Repeat this until it finally occurs to you that destroying evidence when you know it will likely wind up in court is a very bad idea. . Judges usually don't like defendents who destroy incriminating evidence, especially after the authorities already knew of it's existence and has asked for it to be turned over.
If I sneaked into your home and copied your diary, then put the copy in a safe. Then when the police found this out and asked for me to give the keys to them, the correct response is NOT to burn everything in the safe to "protect your privacy".
Oliver.
Usually that would mean sending someone to have a look and see and perhaps sample the data. It's how they go about our IRS equivalent, social services, workplace safety, and about any situation where the Gov't needs to inspect something. TFA says originally Hamburg wanted about that - access to a hard drive and to a Street View car; note the singular. However, now they are talking about giving "the data", not about letting the authorities inspect it. Too fuzzy for my liking.
Funny, by the way, how Google wondered about the legality of having its data inspected by the data protection authority. "We screwed up" is the only adequate and honest thing for them to say after that. It's not without merit, because what other big company would?
Funny, by the way, how Google wondered about the legality of having its data inspected by the data protection authority.
Nothing "funny" about it; they probably have good lawyers, lawyers who advised them that handing over the data to the "data protection authority" without a court order may itself constitute a violation of German privacy laws.
Usually that would mean sending someone to have a look and see and perhaps sample the data.
Or it might mean that the "data protection authority" goes on a massive data mining quest to identify file sharers, pornographers, and anybody who runs an open WLAN, and then charges all of those people with breaking the law. They couldn't drive around collecting that data themselves, but they can obtain it from Google. Probably it doesn't mean that in this specific case, but it sets a bad precedent.
Think about it: if you were a government intent on violating people's privacy, what would be the best place to do it? That's right: the "data protection authority", armed with a legal right to request and inspect anybody's data without a court order, just to look for more "data protection violations".
``I trust Google more than German officials''
I wouldn't. Both Google and German government are made up of people. There will be good people and bad people in both organizations.
The major differences are that the the German government has a rather limited sphere of influence and you have some control over it through elections and other measures, like demonstrations, campaigns, founding your own party, etc. You vote along with a lot of citizens who are in the same boat as you are.
On the other hand, Google operates world-wide, and I doubt that you have a lot of control over their actions unless you work for them. Sure, you can buy shares and have a vote, but it will be your vote among that of a lot of people who don't know and/or don't care what happens in Germany.
Speaking for myself, I would rather keep my data away from both the government and large multinational companies. I am certainly no more comfortable with Google having it than with my (Dutch) government having it. And, as this case demonstrates, it doesn't necessarily matter who collects the data - you may be more comfortable with Google collecting it than with your government collecting it, but it looks like now both Google and the government are going to have it.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Yes, it is a nice illustration of the double standard that the government is applying. I would like to now see a class action against the government(s) to sue *them* for breach of privacy. Then they would have to either go to court and argue it wasn't a privacy breach (in doing so admitting that what Google did wasn't that bad) or go to court and admit they are even worse privacy breachers than Google (since Google did it accidentally, while they pursued it intentionally).
Now google drives a car down the streets and collects your publicly visible information (SSID) and you complain again that they should not be collecting private data?
Except that Google wasn't just recording SSID data, it was also collecting data that traveled through those access points. Doesn't anybody bother to find out basic facts before commenting anymore?
... and then they built the supercollider.
Still not as bad as the state of New Mexico, where you can be convicted and go to jail for driving "impaired" based solely on the officers "expert" opinion.
No breathalyzer.
No blood test.
You don't even have to fail the field sobriety test. All up to the police officers expert opinion. Some judges are convicting these cases when they should be tossed out.
The burden of proof is shifting to the defendant, not good in my opinion.