Germany Finds Kismet, Custom Code In Google Car

theodp writes "While waiting for a hard disk of Wi-Fi data that Google says its Street View cars gathered by mistake, the Hamburg Information Commissioner's office performed tests on a Google Street View car in a controlled environment with simulated wireless networks and issued the following statement: 'For the Wi-Fi coverage in the Street View cars, both the free software Kismet, and a Google-specific program were used. The Google-specific program components are available only in machine-readable binary code, which makes it impossible to analyze the internal processing.' Interestingly, a 2008 academic paper — Drive-by Localization of Roadside WiFi Networks (PDF) — describes a similar setup, and its authors discuss how they 'modified Kismet, a popular wireless packet sniffer, to optionally capture all packets received on the raw virtual interface.' Computerworld reports that lawyers in a class-action suit have amended their complaint to link a Google patent app to Street View data sniffing."

Comments

So how can the computer do it then?

[Dunbal]

The Google-specific program components are available only in machine-readable binary code, which makes it impossible to analyze the internal processing.

      No. It makes it very difficult and tedious and impractical to analyze. It is not, however, impossible.

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[ArbitraryDescriptor]

So does this make them the 1st or the 10nd type of person?

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[0100010001010011]

As long as you know what machine it was written for. Maybe google has their own custom chip to do all this processing.

Joking aside, I've done assembly decoding. It's definitely not easy but it is possible.

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[Dunbal]

zero-one, please.... all you little endian people who count the wrong way around...

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, it's a shame Germany doesn't have one of these to hold the inevitable trials in. Then we could all sit back and see history repeat itself all over again.

For the naive among us, allow me to assure you this is nothing more than a smokescreen for the government to get the data and use it against its citizens. Furthermore, judging from my last trip to the old continent, the last thing Europeans need to be worried about is Google checking in on them, as their governments have that very much on lock.

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[Monkeedude1212]

That is so 1.

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[ArbitraryDescriptor]

I was pretty torn which way to go there, I settled on English decimal pronunciation (Second/2nd/10nd) because it made "tenth" all the more confusing:
Tenth/10th/1010th/12th/Ath (Twelfth... Eighth? What are you saying?)

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[Phizzle]

Umm, you must be new here... That was Binary, so nd :P

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to rain on your parade, but 01 is the little endian binary encoding of 2. Little endian means least significant byte (or in this case, bit) first, which is the 0.

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[amicusNYCL]

all you little endian people who count the wrong way around...

Do you write the current year as 0102?

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[Dunbal]

Yes, I know that. Hence the joke 01 (zero one), which is the big endian encoding of 2. However humor does not transmit well over the internet, apparently.

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[Anonymous Coward]

No... you're an idiot.

It's still the "10th" item whether it's binary or decimal... they just represent different quantities being in different number systems.

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[maxwell demon]

No, as 01011011111.

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[ElKry]

0201, more like it.

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess I just don't get it then. :-)

Maybe you were going for a joke in the vein of "I do all my calculations in base 10", but I fail to see how 01 can ever be considered to be big endian encoding of the number 2, unless you claim to read text right to left. (I guess it works in Arabic though.)

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[Anonymous Coward]

That notation is so hard to read. I was born in MCMLXXIX, and that's they way I like it.

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[Mr. Freeman]

We can debate semantics all day. "very tedious and impractical" is effectively the same things as impossible.

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[Lord Byron II]

Actually, from the summary, it seems the big question is whether the Google code is something unique or just a modified version of Kismet and if that's the case, a quick analysis of the binary should provide some insight.

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hence the joke 01 (zero one), which is the big endian encoding of 2

No.

Binary 10 is the BIG ENDIAN (bitwise) encoding of decimal 2.

2 = 1*(2^1) + 0*(2^0) = most significant + least significant

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[Anonymous Coward]

no.... 01 is the LITTLE endian encoding of two

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[dgatwood]

Huh? 01 in little or big endian encoding is the encoding for decimal 1, not 2. In either encoding, 2 is encoded as 10. We haven't had reverse-bit-order CPUs in decades. Endianness defines the order of bytes, not the order of bits within a byte.

In big endian notation, 1 can be encoded in a 16-bit value as 00000000 00000001, whereas in little endian notation, it would be encoded as 00000001 00000000. Big endian notation is the order that we naturally use for mathematics. Little endian only makes sense if you think that it is useful to be able to cast between pointers to integers of different length and get the right result if the value is small enough....

Maybe what's confusing you is that documentation uses different standards for numbering the bits; IIRC, IBM's documentation calls bit 0 the 2^0th bit, whereas Intel's documentation calls bit 0 (or maybe 1) the leftmost bit. (Or is it the other way around? I forget.) That's just a numbering convention for bitfield values, and has nothing to do with the way an actual multi-bit value is printed or stored.

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently there are 10 type of people in /. Those who can read binary and those who can't.

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[Michael Kristopeit]

The Google-specific program components are available only in machine-readable binary code, which makes it impossible to analyze the internal processing.

No. It makes it [...] impractical to analyze.

No. if the software is to be understood, analyzing it is the only practical thing to do. there are many debugging tools available to analyze and step through machine code... generally they are used by pirate groups to reverse engineer and remove DRM. functional methods and variables are reconstructed and visualized... it wouldn't take too long to get a general idea of what is going on, and zero in on the code that is run right after a new wireless connection is detected.

"impossible" is so wrong that i expect the person who said it to fall on their sword.

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you're just a fucking idiot.

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[Anonymous Coward]

To simplify the above post: endianness determines the byte-ordering, not the bit-ordering.

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[Anonymous Coward]

way to kill the joke, now go and encode 132 on your hands. it's 00100 00100 in binary.

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[Elektroschock]

For the naive among us, allow me to assure you this is nothing more than a smokescreen for the government to get the data and use it against its citizens. Furthermore, judging from my last trip to the old continent, the last thing Europeans need to be worried about is Google checking in on them, as their governments have that very much on lock.

The Germans prefer brute force solutions to such problems. A German minister for instance recently threatened Facebook to delete her profile!

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[Anonymous Coward]

learn2re

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[FuckingNickName]

As a mathematician, I find big endian to make no sense whatever.

Little endian is how bits in a byte work, brings uniformity, and allows me to do interesting conversions / extended arithmetic using that uniformity.

Big endian allows, in one particular way, byte order as stored in a computer to reflect "how some humans read". Big enders might as well argue for EBCDIC.

Were we only houhynhyms...

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[FuckingNickName]

Also BCD! The E and IC just slipped in there on the endians, I swear. Dunno what's wrong with me today.

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree we can debate semantics all day. You imply that they are not important - I strongly disagree with this implication. There is a very real difference between impractical and impossible.

One difference being, will hackers or script kiddies or the government do it anyway? (And yes, my shiny tinfoil hat is firmly on my head when I say [err, type] that.)

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[idontgno]

If "tedious and impractical" == "impossible", then I must do about a million impossible things a week at work.

If "tedious and impractical" == "effectively impossible" to you, I'd have to characterize you as a quitter. Especially if the "effectively impossible" thing is the only way to accomplish something worthwhile, like malware forensics or watchmaking.

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[maxwell demon]

So if you write the two of "2nd" in binary, it becomes "twoth" instead of "second"?

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[Anonymous Coward]

no it is not
one is impossible
one is possible with enough resources

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[maxwell demon]

That's so big-endian. Try XIXXLMCM. :-)

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[shutdown -p now]

Do you write the current year as 0102?

I prefer 0x0A14.

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[Anonymous Coward]

That notation is so hard to read. I was born in MCMLXXIX, and that's they way I like it.

Hmm... I thought That's The Way I Like It was released in MCMLXXV ;-)

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Variables? Variables don't exist. You can capture function arguments, but other than that, generically separating an important memory location ("variable") from another actually is next to impossible.

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[Matrix14]

No, no, he got it right. It's just that the bytes got switeched around when converted to and from network byte order. Duh.

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not even that.

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[russotto]

No. if the software is to be understood, analyzing it is the only practical thing to do. there are many debugging tools available to analyze and step through machine code... generally they are used by pirate groups to reverse engineer and remove DRM.

I'd be surprised if that was their major market, though I've used them for that purpose (For The Record, before the DMCA took effect). All the tools I used were intended for software development/debugging.

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[Michael Kristopeit]

Variables? Variables don't exist. You can capture function arguments, but other than that, generically separating an important memory location ("variable") from another actually is next to impossible.

this kind of hypocritical ignorance always confuses me. it's like i'm being baited.... but i'll bite

so just to be clear, you're saying that the memory blocks used to store information passed into functions can be captured and traced, but for magically unmentioned reasons, memory blocks used to store any other bounded data can not? where do you idiots come from?

here, i'll help you be a little less stupid... i'm sick of you retards saying i'm wrong. YOU ARE WRONG.

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[Michael Kristopeit]

agreed, but it would be odd to develop or debug software that you don't already have the original source for... so really they're intended to develop and debug compilers and platform layers.

would you mind explaining how these tools work a little more, because the trolls are out in full force and don't seem to understand what is possible with modern reverse engineering tools.

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[SQLGuru]

If you're going to be anal, at least know what the F you're talking about.

What does 15 have to do with it?

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[Anonymous Coward]

I had to lol at this, it really quite aptly demonstrates people's tendency to arrogantly assume what they are ignorant of.

A function argument is always capturable as an important value, because most function arguments are an important value. This is because of how modern languages generate machine code, so it's not a strict rule. Inlined functions, for instance, will not be capturable... because there is no generated function. (And the compiler has the ultimate jurisdiction on whether or not to inline anything.)

In fact, if this binary you are reverse engineering is linked to any system libraries, and you have the debug symbols for those libraries installed, you can easily gather parameter names to those functions. But this only applies to functions explicitly exported by that library. (In Windows, debug symbols associate parameter names to the exported function ordinal - this is why you can't see names without the symbols.)

In assembly (what IDA shows) you will be presented with a massive list of random registers and unnamed memory locations. There is no translation between these and a variable. You can expect a relation of 5000:1 of register/memoryloc per 'language variable.' (Most 'variables' won't even themselves translate 1:1, as these often represent structures containing heap-allocated memory pointers.)

And it's these very 'variables' that you cannot capture generically, independent of program. You must, you know, analyze it first with your own eyes, and use your own intuition and logic to perform association and identification.

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[Michael Kristopeit]

the variable names are obviously not recovered, but variables most certainly are... types and values and all. i'm not laughing at all at your ignorance... claiming tracing variables to be "impossible" is exactly the same as claiming reverse engineering ANYTHING is "impossible". if the executing system is able to manage the state of all of the variables used in an application, then so too can a hex editing debugger/tracer... to claim anything else is beyond ignorant. i do it every single day... i've already provided links to tools that do it. YOU ARE WRONG.

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't say anything about variable names. I mentioned function parameter names, and that's it.

Here's what you said:

functional methods and variables are reconstructed and visualized...

This is wrong because:
(1) Functions often have no direct translation to assembly. The compiler can generate anything it wants to. Native functional languages for example would perform terribly if their compilers performed faithful assembly layout (JMPs on every 4th instruction).

(2) A language variable, as I mentioned, has no translation either. Constructing a variable in a language can result in 100s of instructions. The variable is an abstraction, that has no meaning in assembly. Underlying values too large are split into multiple registers, and memory is scattered between stack and heap with zero relation. Add compiler optimization, and assembly begins to take on entirely new form.

You were far, far too optimistic in your assessment of common debugging utilities. They don't work as decompilers, because they can't; the code would be wholly unlike the original.

Do you not understand what "generically" means? I said (twice) that this guesswork cannot be done, without manual intervention. Separating the noise from the valued data is something only a human can do. And "rebuilding" is error-prone, because while languages can be compiled to machine code, machine code cannot accurately be reshaped into similar original presentation.

if the executing system is able to manage the state of all of the variables used in an application

Wait.... Uhm... WTF? A program on all major operating systems that I know of, manage their own memory. That could, in the future, be a possibility for managed languages... but not today.

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[Michael Kristopeit]

if the compiler is known, the level of human interaction to eliminate noise is almost nothing. everyday i'm doing the things that you're claiming are "impossible today"... so i'll just let you continue to live in a perpetual yesterday. of course the code doesn't look the same... but procedurally it's not much harder to understand than minified javascript.

how are you still saying i'm wrong because human interaction is involved? OF COURSE HUMAN INTERACTION IS INVOLVED. reverse engineering is not a trivial task... my point was that it is FAR from "impossible."

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[Michael Kristopeit]

OH NO!! we're in... THE FUTURE!@#$^&!#(^&

DIAF.

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[Thomas Shaddack]

Can they sidestep the issue and handle the code as a black box, and just examine its outputs?

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[Michael Kristopeit]

a link..... TO THE FUTURE!)#%&)(!&^#

DIAF.

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[Michael Kristopeit]

if the executing system is able to manage the state of all of the variables used in an application

Wait.... Uhm... WTF? A program on all major operating systems that I know of, manage their own memory. That could, in the future, be a possibility for managed languages... but not today.

i'm talking about relative to THE USER. of course executing software is just a bunch of electricity flipping bits... the meaningful state is only recognized by THE USER. to the user the state can be represented by an application of variables and methods, and current hex editing debug/tracers can reverse engineer to that state. keep saying that they can't... I AM USING ONE RIGHT NOW.

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[tsm_sf]

If you've done six impossible things this morning, why not round it off with breakfast at Milliways?

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[beguyld]

Thank you. I was dumbfounded at all the people here throwing around LE and BE and having no f'ing idea what the terms actually meant. You saved me from having to break it to them.

No, I'm not new here, but obviously I had underestimated the level of arrogant incompetence rampant here.... I thought that at least when it came to basic structure of bits and bytes that the ./ posters should at least have a clue.

What remained of my innocence has been fully shattered now..

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[bothwell]

It was a meta-joke, referencing the popular gag, "there are 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't'. The joke is, of course, that people understanding binary and people not understanding binary comprises only 2 sets, hence the little endian '2' meta-joke after it.

You should also now see how comprehensively destroyed any joke is by having somebody explain it. Now neither joke is funny and it's all your fault. I hope you're proud if yourself.

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well you've well and truly killed the joke!

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[AmiMoJo]

Little Endianess came about because mainframe designers wanted to extend their architecture to multiple bytes per word in a backwards compatible way. Intel copied the architecture for its 8088 CPU (in fact I think that the 4004 and 8008 might have been based on them too, at least at the instruction set level) and eventually also the 16 bit stuff.

IMHO x86 is the perfect example of an inferior product that came to dominate the market anyway. For 15+ years now CPUs have not executed x86 code directly but rather translated it to microcode which is more like those other, better architectures.

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[Anachragnome]

"Well you've well and truly killed the joke!"

Shhhhh.

Don't give them any ideas. They may not stop at jokes. They're all as crazy as shit-house rats. I couldn't even remember what the article was about by the time I got this far in the thread.

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's life like in the future?

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, 10 (in binary) == two (in English).

Just because two in binary looks like ten in decimal, it does not mean you say ten when reading 10 in binary. Therefore 10nd is correct for binary, since you can still read read it as second.

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[Shinobi]

Here in Sweden, the age of consent is 15

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[inKubus]

I asked my wife if she would do octal and she told me to \076 off, so maybe that's it in this case.

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[russotto]

agreed, but it would be odd to develop or debug software that you don't already have the original source for... so really they're intended to develop and debug compilers and platform layers.

I consider them general debugging tools, but then I've done a lot of debugging on platforms without source-level debugging. Basically there's two classes of development tools I've used for breaking DRM. One is a debugger, which allows the program to be run step-by-step with breakpoints and examination of the registers and code. The other is a disassembler, which produces an assembly-language version of the binary code. A hex editor often comes in handy to modify the code, and an assembler for writing patches.

Re:So how can the computer do it then?

[Michael Kristopeit]

the tools i was linking to take it a step further and decompile the assembly-language... they can detect the compiler used and reverse all operator calls and most common library calls.

from experience the procedural pseudo code produced is over 90% like the original code. sometimes loops are rolled out differently, or math groupings are changed... but it's very impressive. when the code is object oriented, there is very little that needs manual clean-up.

WTF

[BitZtream]

You can be sued for listening to signals bombarding you without your consent?

Heres an idea ... don't want people to hear your private conversations? STOP SHOUTING IT SO EVERYONE WITHIN 300m or more can hear you!

Whats next? They'll charge people with treason and throw them into the oven because someone over heard them standing in the middle of Berlin screaming state secrets?

Re:WTF

[Hatta]

You can be sued for listening to signals bombarding you without your consent?

Old news

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure got Godwin up in here

Re:WTF

[amicusNYCL]

Heres an idea ... don't want people to hear your private conversations? STOP SHOUTING IT SO EVERYONE WITHIN 300m or more can hear you!

Tell that to the cable, satellite TV, and cell phone industries.

Re:WTF

[Lunix Nutcase]

I know! What next? People whining because their government is installing cameras all over their towns? I mean if you don't want to be filmed everywhere you're going by a Big Brother government JUST STOP GOING IN PUBLIC!!

Re:WTF

[Elektroschock]

I think they are very nice and friendly and then they hunt Google spies down.

Re:WTF

[BitZtream]

True.

I really don't have a problem with it. I also understand that when I'm in public, I'm IN PUBLIC VIEW.

Its really not hard unless you're an idiot.

If you don't want people to know you're doing something, do it in the privacy of your own home. Don't get pissed off when someone sees you do something in a public place.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Try recording a concert without explicit permission.

Just because you are able to perceive something doesn't mean you are allowed to record it.

Re:WTF

[lytithwyn]

It sounds funny, but in WWII Japan, citizens could be arrested for accidentally seeing a military ship in the ocean just off the coast. People would literally close the blinds on passenger trains as they passed a beach to avoid this.

Re:WTF

[Dogtanian]

I mean if you don't want to be filmed everywhere you're going by a Big Brother government JUST STOP GOING IN PUBLIC!!

True. I really don't have a problem with it. I also understand that when I'm in public, I'm IN PUBLIC VIEW. Its really not hard unless you're an idiot. If you don't want people to know you're doing something, do it in the privacy of your own home. Don't get pissed off when someone sees you do something in a public place.

He said filmed, not seen. There's a difference... in fact, there's an absolutely *massive* difference that's really not hard to see "unless you're an idiot".

In fact, there's a difference between being seen by ordinary people in a public place- as has happened for thousands of years, and which set our expectations of what "in public" means- and what has happened within less than the past generation which means that you may be viewed and recorded remotely.

I find all these "anything you do in public is fair game" type arguments miss the point that modern technology fundamentally changes what "in public" means. Rather than being seen by (possibly) a few people in your immediate surroundings with limited memories, and without the expectation of your every move being tracked- unless this was being actively done by (e.g.) a policeman- you can now be passively and automatically viewed and tracked from a distance and anything you do recorded for an indefinite period of time.

Maybe this is the way it already is in some places- but we should be asking if this is the way it *should* be.

And "in public" hasn't ever been the free-for-all that you and others imply. In a free society- people can, and have in the past been able to, go where they liked, take photographs (for example) and so on... it was "in public"... right? Yet I'm willing to bet that it still wouldn't have been socially- and possibly not legally- acceptable to follow one particular person round constantly taking photographs and watching what they were doing (even without interfering) without good reason?

It's in public... if they don't like it, they should be in the privacy of their home- right? Oddly enough, no.

In short, the "in public you should have no expectation of privacy" is not as clear cut as some think. And the fact is that technology changes the game *without* the rules being changed. We haven't been in this situation before, we should be asking the questions and considering new social and legal issues brought up by this... not spouting pat answers based on a misrepresentation of previous social conventions that were never exactly like that anyway.

Re:WTF

[yyxx]

Well, many of the people whining about Google Streetview in Germany don't seem to be whining about the tens of thousands of government-owned and operated cameras being installed in Germany. You basically can't leave your house or travel anywhere without having much of the trip recorded.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody bombarded Google with signals. Google specifically equipped and sent all over the world thousands of cars to do sniffing. Vindicating them based on the fact that it was technically easy to do what they did is nonsense. Very few things are not technically easy for a company with the resources of Google and ripping out all of your private data is not one of those.

If I did what google did...

[morphotomy]

If I did what google did I could be charged with unauthorized access to a system. Why is there no criminal trial here?

Re:If I did what google did...

[Lunix Nutcase]

Because you're not a multinational corporation with $20+ billion in revenue and a whole division of lawyers?

Re:If I did what google did...

[Anonymous Coward]

If I did what google did I could be charged with unauthorized access to a system. Why is there no criminal trial here?

You can collect all the data google did passively meaning you don't have to connect or access the AP

Re:If I did what google did...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you did what google did, nobody would care. Really. Heck, you can walk around with a camera all you want and take snapshots of everything you feel like... licenseplates, folks dressing, whatever you like. If google does it, it's suddenly "uh, oh, google is taking pictures of things in public! uh oh, they're overhearing conversations... uh, oh, they're also capturing what's on the radio in public!---lets form a class and sue'em for a ton of money!''

Re:If I did what google did...

[ukyoCE]

Um, there IS a trial/inquest here. Why do you think Germany is looking at this information? And isn't the US House looking into it as well?

So as silly as it is, yes there is a trial. And yes, it is equally ridiculous when individuals are criminalized for doing the same thing.

Re:If I did what google did...

[Elektroschock]

Well, someone who was recorded illegally just has to file a criminal complaint. And against a German criminal investigation helps no revenue and a whole division of lawyers.

1. File Complaint
2. ???
3. Google done

That is the good old German state attorney divisions.

Re:If I did what google did...

[Anonymous Coward]

You cerainly could be charged with that, or _anything_ else for that matter. The charge of "unauthorized access to a system" is close enough that it would probably even make it past a grand jury. But chances are, having no legal staff, you'd try to cut a plea bargain, because you can't fight it. So the prosecutor would win -- regardless of the merits of the charge. (Although, technically, there'd not be a criminal trial per se, because you'd bargain before the trial.)

On the other hand, since Google DIDN'T FRAKKING ASSOCIATE, it's very doubtful that the prosecutor [i]should[/i] win that case (because it's not access), and somewhat doubtful that they [i]would[/i] win it if fought hard. Since Google has a competent legal team, the prosecutor would have to spend a boatload of money on that gamble. Guess what -- when they're up against someone who can defend themselves, they're a lot more careful about potentially bogus criminal charges.

Re:If I did what google did...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well in Germany there is a criminal probe (http://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/hamburg/googlestreetview112.html [german])

Re:If I did what google did...

[ModernGeek]

How do you know he isn't?

Re:If I did what google did...

[_Sprocket_]

Really? You expect to be arrested for running Kismet? What country do you live in?

Re:If I did what google did...

[Dogtanian]

If you did what google did, nobody would care.

You mean if you had a massive fleet of cars that recorded almost complete sets of photos every few metres in every single street in several countries, and you had (likely) numerous terabytes of many, many people's wireless transmissions....? Oh, sorry, you meant

Heck, you can walk around with a camera all you want and take snapshots of everything you feel like... licenseplates, folks dressing, whatever you like.

So that's not actually doing what Google did because Google did it in a much larger scale and that's what makes it an issue.

This is one of those stupid pedantic arguments, that fails (quite deliberately) to acknowledge- or possibly even to realise- not only is the *quantitative* difference significant in itself, but that it also makes a fundamental *qualitative* difference.

That is, if Google has a very large, consistent set of multimedia data accessible through a single interface (i.e. Street View and friends), it's *far* more significant in terms of its systematic effect- and possible effects on privacy- than millions of people each taking a few photos and data and uploading them to random websites.

Re:If I did what google did...

[AHuxley]

Because you're not a multinational corporation with $20+ billion in revenue and a whole division of lawyers to stonewall German law.

Re:If I did what google did...

[AHuxley]

"careful about potentially bogus criminal charges" in the USA, sure you can try that.
But even the US has some powerful and creative hacking laws to protect all of its networks from UFO hunters or skilled teens.
Most parts of the world faced what Google did in the 1970-80's and got updating their laws.
Thats what makes this so interesting. Google kept data from networks that are in no way connected to Google.
Google stonewalled around the world releasing some soothing PR statements.
If the US gov walks away from this, its cyber crime extradition laws will be weakened.
If the US gov confronts Google, the world gets a peek at discovery on a multinational and its thoughts about consumer privacy.

Re:If I did what google did...

[yyxx]

The question of whether passive reception of WLAN packets constitutes "unauthorized access" is legally not settled in the US. Actually, it really isn't legally settled in Germany either, but it is now being settled as part of this anti-Google hysteria.

From a practical point of you, nothing would happen to you because nobody would ever find out. People have been recording WLAN packets for years and nobody noticed or cared.

Re:If I did what google did...

[morphotomy]

And I can collect cordless phone conversations without having to connect to the handset or base unit. Information with a reasonable expectation of privacy has been accessed by an unauthorized party.

Re:Inaccurate

[Lunix Nutcase]

This is a posting by theodp. He found a simple RESTful web API to be too complicated. You actually thought he would be able to understand binary?

Tsk tsk

[stevegee58]

They're not being evil now, are they?

Re:Tsk tsk

[merreborn]

They're not being evil now, are they?

Collecting data isn't (necessarily) evil. Abusing it is.

For example, google's well known for finding web pages that were intended to be private, but never properly locked down -- phpmyadmin installations, router admin pages with no passwords, etc.

Finding those things isn't evil. Were google to, say, forcibly install software on every unsecured router their crawlers found, *that* would be evil.

Are they being evil? Maybe. But data collection itself isn't necessarily evil.

Re:Tsk tsk

[tftp]

Collecting data isn't (necessarily) evil. Abusing it is. [...] google's well known for finding web pages that were intended to be private, but never properly locked down ... Finding those things isn't evil

Yes, if Alice walks by Bob's house and notices that Bob failed to lock the door, noticing that isn't evil. However how would you classify a scenario when Alice immediately calls a local radio station and announces to the whole area that Bob's house is not locked? I don't know what is a formal definition of "evil" (it is a term with religious roots, as I understand) but in my book announcing someone's vulnerability is deeply amoral.

We could of course argue that Googlebots don't understand what they are fetching and indexing, and it's all an innocent mistake. However this StreetView data collection program suggests that Google is willing to ignore a lot of amoral stuff if it makes a buck for them. Sometimes they even cross the line of legality, as it appears so far.

Re:Tsk tsk

[f3rret]

They're not being evil now, are they?

Never assume malice where incompetence will suffice.

Is this how they can do wifi location detection?

[jeffmeden]

I know a little bit about IP geolocation, but when I got an iPod touch and fired it up for the first time on my home network I was *stunned* to see that it pinpointed my location to within one or two houses when using the Google Maps app despite having no GPS and no other identifiable information entered into the device. Maybe they are using this data to drive geolocation based on SSID instead of IP? Can anyone explain how else IP geolocation can be so accurate?

There are worse intercepts besides a few wifi pkts

[Anonymous Coward]

I still dont understand why the German government has is knickers in a twist over all of this. ISP's look at the traffic moving through them. Some even route a copy to be anylized by a cluster of pcs like with the NSA trunk intercept at AT&T in San Francisco. Whats a few packets (given that the car sampling the wifi is moving) really add up to? Wouldnt all the back to base monitoring, etc in various applications be a bit more of a concern?

Something I've had a hard time understading...

[Em Emalb]

Something I've had a hard time understanding through all this is WHY they thought it was a good idea to record SSIDs and other information while doing a street mapping.

I don't understand what they were hoping to gain from this information?

According to our research, 72.438% of people don't secure their wireless.

According to our research, (I'm assuming they got mac addresses too, right?) 83.4% of all wireless consumer routers in Germany are Linksys routers.

WTF does that have ANYTHING AT ALL to do with mapping streets?

Oh, and for the people getting all up in arms because "people are shouting this information freely and anyone can hear it"...that's patently FALSE. There's maybe 1% of the population that has the know-how or the desire to do that. It is NOT AT ALL event remotely the same as standing in the middle of the street yelling at someone where anyone can hear you. You have no choice but to over hear if you happen to be in the area. You do, however, have a choice in downloading packet-sniffing software and using it on someone's wireless network, unsecured or not.

Re:Something I've had a hard time understading...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignoring legality and what-not, I think a Google Maps overlay showing public Wi-Fi access and signal strength would be quite useful.

Re:Something I've had a hard time understading...

[0100010001010011]

Google location API. Doesn't matter if the network is secure or not.

"Hey I found AA:BB:CC:DD:EE at this location"

Person with iPod Touch or other device with wireless only sends to google: "Hey I see access points AA:BB:CC:DD:EE, AA:BB:CC:DD:FF and AA:BB:CC:DD:00" Google goes: "Yea, you're around here".

Go to google maps with a new version of Firefox or Chrome. Click on the button that just has a circle in it. It'll ask for permission to send your location and should show you where you are on the map.

Re:Something I've had a hard time understading...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I have no idea what use snippets of unencrypted data from unsecured networks would be. There just isn't much there that isn't either blatantly illegal and/or terrible PR that you can't learn just by having one of the world's larger Ad networks.

SSIDs, though, make a lot more sense. Wi-fi APs, while by no means completely static, provide an incredibly dense network of individually identifiable radio transmitter nodes. If your receiver knows its location(via GPS fix from a good GPS unit), and knows what APs are nearby(ideally with directional antennas), you can turn that into a database that devices with no GPS can use for rough location detection by means of any 802.11a/b/g/n card(or, as is frequently the case with cellphones, devices with ghastly GPS antennas and/or chipsets can use nearby APs to assist their GPS). Skyhook Wireless already has such a database(among other customers, Apple contracted with them to give their non-GPS iDevices some degree of location ability), I don't know if other outfits do as well. Since Google was already going to the expense of having GPS and camera equipped cars drive all over everywhere, it seems quite logical to throw a few wi-fi antennas on the cars and get an AP geolocation database for minimal additional cost.

Re:Something I've had a hard time understading...

[Hatta]

Collecting data on the location of open networks can allow google to pinpoint your location based on what SSIDs are around you. It also will allow you to plan a trip such that an open network is available along the way. Two valid and useful applications of this data.

Oh, and for the people getting all up in arms because "people are shouting this information freely and anyone can hear it"...that's patently FALSE. There's maybe 1% of the population that has the know-how or the desire to do that.

If you don't know how to operate your equipment properly, maybe you shouldn't be using it. If you do, don't be surprised when it doesn't behave as you expect.

What you describe would amount to a blanket prohibition on open networks, since there's no way to tell the difference between an intentionally open network and an unintentionally open network. Some people choose to run open networks and they need to be free to run them. Since it's so trivial to close your network, it only makes sense to assume that those who have not done so intend for it to be open.

Imagine if the rest of the internet worked this way. Currently, if you can connect to a webserver and get a response then it's reasonable to assume you have permission to use that web server. Similarly, if you can connect to an AP and get an IP, then it's reasonable to assume that you have permission to do so. If you had to assume that you were not allowed to use a service without specific permission, even if there are no access controls implemented, then the internet would simply not work.

Re:Something I've had a hard time understading...

[Em Emalb]

Thanks for the information. I didn't realize they were tying that into google maps. It does make sense from that approach.

Interesting that they ask you for your permission to send your location data to them....but I don't remember reading anything where they said they were going to harvest SSIDs and mac addresses during the initial street mapping.

(I'm not saying that's a bad thing, just not something that people were made aware of...to my knowledge. Not that the people who have unsecured wireless routers probably would have changed anything)

Re:Something I've had a hard time understading...

[Monkeedude1212]

Something I've had a hard time understanding through all this is WHY they thought it was a good idea to record SSIDs and other information while doing a street mapping.

Than you are a fool who doesn't know how these things work and why anyone would do anything.

WTF does that have ANYTHING AT ALL to do with mapping streets?

Essentially, providing street view (the car's original purpose) has nothing to do with mapping streets either. The maps were already there. They've been there for a while. Going around and taking a snapshot every 3 houses doesn't help the map be a map any better. I don't understand why you are having problems understanding that what they were doing has little to nothing to do with the map part of the map.

Street view helps those people who navigate by landmarks. Google Maps helps people who navigate by Compass. SSID recording helps people who navigate by GPS.

Essentially, recording the SSID's and MAC addresses allows them to build in a GPS system that works on the client side to determine where it is more accurately.

Oh, and for the people getting all up in arms because "people are shouting this information freely and anyone can hear it"...that's patently FALSE. There's maybe 1% of the population that has the know-how or the desire to do that

No, its not. There's maybe 99.9% of people who know to stand and shout. I'd say of people who set up home routers, 99% of them also know how to leave it unsecured. Thus, its the same thing. Not having the knowledge of how something works is not an excuse - it is not a defense nor should it be used for an attack. Try the "I didn't know how a gun worked" excuse in court. Ignorance is not bliss. If you bought a home router, you're expected to RTFFM and follow the steps. If you fail to secure your wireless, (because every router now-a-days includes instructions how), that is your own damn fault and it is like shouting in the streets.

I don't know if logging SSID's nearby, and find the mac address of unsecured ones counts as "Packet-sniffing" - because I can do that without any software than the default windows home setup.

Re:Something I've had a hard time understading...

[Em Emalb]

I have no idea what use snippets of unencrypted data from unsecured networks would be. There just isn't much there that isn't either blatantly illegal and/or terrible PR that you can't learn just by having one of the world's larger Ad networks.

I agree with you, I would imagine most of the data they picked up was of the syn/ack variety. But..with the technology that is available now, Open Source most of it even, you can get the SSIDs and mac addresses WITHOUT snooping any data at all.

I don't get the reasons for the software they used.

Also, for the record, this doesn't affect me personally, as when they mapped my street I didn't live there and I secure my wireless :-) But thanks for the response.

Re:Something I've had a hard time understading...

[Em Emalb]

Than you are a fool who doesn't know how these things work and why anyone would do anything.

It's THEN, not than. Be careful when calling someone a fool when your spelling is inaccurate.

Also, your analogy towards the end of your post is flawed and since you have the internet manners of a raving asshole, I won't bother to refute your asinine argument. Enjoy your weekend.

Re:Something I've had a hard time understading...

[ElectricTurtle]

Each person is responsible for they way that they use, configure, or fail to maintain equipment that is in there domain and control. Ignorance is no excuse.

If I take a backhoe and cut a water/sewer/phone/fiber line in my yard, the utility company is not going to say 'oh, that's ok, you just didn't know how to use the equipment...' Fuck no, they are going to hold me liable, and any court challenge will go their way.

In addition to liability for actions there is also liability for the failure to act. If I rent a car for a long period of time and fail to perform basic maintenance like oil changes to the point where the engine is damaged, guess who's on the hook?

Ignorance does not excuse liability. If I operate a machine that I don't know how to use, I don't get a free pass if things don't turn out the way I want.

Machines under somebody's domain and control can be considered their agents. If I set up an FTP server and it accepts ftp as the login and ftp as the password, then I would have a hard time prosecuting anybody for unauthorized access when it is common knowledge to many who use FTP that such a login is considered a publicly accessible FTP server.

I am not a lawyer, nor is the above legal advice.

Re:Something I've had a hard time understading...

[Anonymous Coward]

Something I've had a hard time understanding through all this is WHY they thought it was a good idea to record SSIDs and other information while doing a street mapping.

Its called making a map. You travel around, and note features and details. SSIDs are a mapable feature. Knowing that SSID xyz is visible from 123 anystreet and from 125 anystreet, but fades out by the time you reach 127 anystreet helps you to define a location.

I don't understand what they were hoping to gain from this information?

As some others have mentioned previously, by correlating physical locations with visible SSIDs they gain the ability to provide maps and directions to people using devices with WiFi instead of GPS.

According to our research, 72.438% of people don't secure their wireless.

According to our research, (I'm assuming they got mac addresses too, right?) 83.4% of all wireless consumer routers in Germany are Linksys routers.

WTF does that have ANYTHING AT ALL to do with mapping streets?

It has nothing to do with anything... its just a summary of statistical observations.

Oh, and for the people getting all up in arms because "people are shouting this information freely and anyone can hear it"...that's patently FALSE. There's maybe 1% of the population that has the know-how or the desire to do that. It is NOT AT ALL event remotely the same as standing in the middle of the street yelling at someone where anyone can hear you. You have no choice but to over hear if you happen to be in the area. You do, however, have a choice in downloading packet-sniffing software and using it on someone's wireless network, unsecured or not.

Not exactly. Your router is broadcasting this information clearly to anyone with the capacity to hear it. It is not being broadcast at a frequency that the human ear can detect without assistance, but every single wireless device within range can hear it. Turn on your laptop, go to the configuration for the wireless network connection. See the part where it lists the SSIDs of wireless networks in range? There you go...

The concept of "someone's wireless network" is a bit of a misnomer. There are just a bunch of devices having conversations at the same time. Its a lot like being in a big reception hall talking to your friend while there are other people having conversations around you. What differentiates your conversation from someone else's conversation is simply what you choose to focus your attention on. You can hear them, they can hear you, you just choose to ignore the conversations that don't involve you. That's how wireless devices work. They typically ignore conversations that don't involve them... but they can still hear them going on.

Re:Something I've had a hard time understading...

[Anonymous Coward]

Something I've had a hard time understanding through all this is WHY they thought it was a good idea to record SSIDs and other information while doing a street mapping.

Because Google is working on a technique to geo-locate based on what wireless APs are in view. By having a mapt of their locations and estimated signal strength, a mobile unit can roughly triangular its position. Quite possibly, it will eventually be used to have google ads based on your current location. For example, a Starbucks ad if appear to be inside of a Starbucks shop.

Re:Something I've had a hard time understading...

[Em Emalb]

If you don't know how to operate your equipment properly, maybe you shouldn't be using it. If you do, don't be surprised when it doesn't behave as you expect.

I personally DO know how to operate my equipment properly. I am not up in arms over this because it affects me personally, but because people who don't know any better.

As I said in an earlier post, my wifi is secured and hidden. Does that mean someone couldn't sniff the traffic coming from it and decrypt it? Of course not. Would it make it harder to do? Sure.

In your analogy, you're saying that if you connect to a web server and get a response, it's reasonable to assume you have permission to use that web server. Sure. But what if you do port scans and find an obscure port "reserved" for something other than http or https traffic and connect that way? Are you headed down a slippery slope there or is it just fine, even if the owner of the web server didn't intend for you to connect to that port?

(I'm just asking, I really don't have a horse in this race.)

Re:Something I've had a hard time understading...

[Em Emalb]

How is not securing your wireless indicative of not being able to "operate" machinery properly?

If I leave my front door open and you steal from me, that doesn't mean you're not a thief does it?

Re:Something I've had a hard time understading...

[ElectricTurtle]

If your wireless is open and you don't want it to be, you're not operating your equipment 'properly' (from your own perspective) and hoping that you can go after anybody who uses the open system by defending your own ignorance. Not a sound strategy. A deliberately open system is not distinguishable from an accidentally open system unless the network is called "PLEASE USE ME".

I dealt with this in a very long post here. Granted, this is based on a 'using a neighbor's wireless' scenario, but I think it still contains relevant points.

Re:Something I've had a hard time understading...

[mzs]

I had to comment, I clicked on redundant when I wanted to click on insightful. I am sorry, I wish we still had to click a moderate button at the very end for a page. This should remove the bad moderation.

Re:Something I've had a hard time understading...

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't want SSID... MAC address makes more sense.

With half the SSIDs being "linksys", it is like telling someone to meet them by the "starbucks"

Re:Something I've had a hard time understading...

[AHuxley]

And thats why a firm could request to map and not keep users data.
Then it is a great new tool for the digital age and everybody is happy.
You can use the new mapping tools, be tracked, have ads pushed onto your device or not.
Everything is a known known. vs having your data sucked up without your consent.

Re:Something I've had a hard time understading...

[tftp]

Neither here nor in your other reply that you linked you answer the question:

If I leave my front door open and you steal from me, that doesn't mean you're not a thief does it?

This is a good question because it is invalidating a mountain of other arguments, such as "properly securing" some equipment. Human law is just trying to describe existing norms of human behavior. Those norms say that entering other people's property without permission is usually wrong. It is equally wrong to peer into people's windows at night, even if those windows are not "properly secured" with heavy curtains. There can be many examples of such accepted norms. The bottom line is that even if something is technically feasible it doesn't mean that it is permissible to do.

Also in your other post you claim:

Guess what, if he drives his unlocked car onto my property, I get to open it up and look around (property owners do have the right to search vehicles on their property), I can even hang out inside if I feel like it, because my property rights override his when he willfully brings his stuff into my sphere of control.

I must presume that you never park your car at a parking facility that is not owned by you. I do, and if the owner of the parking facility decides to break into my car (even if I failed to lock it) I'm calling police and pressing charges. Why is it so when he claims his property rights? Because there is a contract between me and him; I pay him money (directly or indirectly) and in return my car will be allowed to stay there. Same applies to your guests, if they park on your property and go into your house you don't have the right to seize the car or abuse your guests. The car may be on your land, but the car itself is not your property, and you have no right to get inside. (But you may arrange for transportation of the entire car if you must; that's what towing companies do.) Your rant about "property rights" of an owner of a parking lot is just that, a rant that is not grounded in any physical reality. If you don't believe me, perform an experment: invite some guests (they won't lock their cars on your secured property) and then go and rummage in them. Then report what your guests had to say about that - if you still can type after what they do to you.

Re:Something I've had a hard time understading...

[Anonymous Coward]

When your front door comes to me into my area of control, which is what a wireless signal does, it's entirely different. I dealt with this in the post to which I linked, but the short summary is, if you don't want people using something, don't send it to them in a form they can immediately use.

Your parking garage scenario is completely different precisely because it is done, as you say, under contract. In fact warrantless searches of vehicles by property owners are legal and do happen. (That last link is very long, but in short a circuit court of appeals upheld that Weyerhauser could search vehicles on its property, that the 4th Amendment was not violated (as it can only be with private entities if done under the color of law), and that it was acceptable that employees permission where it was obtained (some refused) was done so under threat of immediate termination.)

Now I will grant that many states are considering making cars a sort of extraterritorial sovereign entity as a response to this, but even the gun owners' rights community itself is divided about whether sacrificing private property owners' rights is acceptable.

Your problem is you are confusing what is legal and what is polite. If I repeatedly trespass my friends off my property, I'm going to run out of friends really fast, even if it's my legal right to do that. People don't usually get into their friends' cars for the same reason. There is social expectation that it just isn't done, but legally, it is possible.

You too glossed over an important point, as I said earlier: a deliberately open system is not distinguishable from an accidentally open system.

My network is open right now. I am conscious of this, want it to be that way, and if somebody is using it, fine. How does a user from the outside know this? Because the equipment is configured to let anybody use it with no extra steps. Users from the outside have no way of knowing whether a network is intended to open or accidentally open, and it's not their responsibility to figure that out. They aren't running the network. Whoever owns, operates, and configures the equipment is responsible for that. The end.

Re:Something I've had a hard time understading...

[ElectricTurtle]

Oh bleh, AC box checked accidentally. That AC was me.

Wow brainy argument!

[Anonymous Coward]

Try intercepting someone's cell phone signals - with your dumb argument, you should be able to listen to them too and not get sued. Ditto with so many governmental wireless traffic. Hell, you cant even photograph someone on the street, esp. cops - see yesterdays posts, without their permission, and you are ok with one entity picking up every signal in every neighbourhood ???

Common man - use some brains before you just type some crap !

Re:Wow brainy argument!

[Hatta]

Try intercepting someone's cell phone signals - with your dumb argument, you should be able to listen to them too and not get sued.

You should, absolutely. Just as if you were overhearing a walkie talkie. If you don't want it heard by the public, don't broadcast it. If you need to broadcast it, encrypt it.

Re:Wow brainy argument!

[poetmatt]

it's one thing to intercept, it's another to decode.

Neither are impossible, and both are hard to prove unless someone admits it or is caught in the act.

As was noted, this is broadcasted unencrypted information they obtained. Anyone else could have. Going after google is just going after the easy target.

Re:Wow brainy argument!

[dunkelfalke]

And by the same logic, if you don't want to be mugged on the street you should stay at home.

Re:Wow brainy argument!

[Lunix Nutcase]

Authoritarian government around the world are nodding in agreement.

Re:Wow brainy argument!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more of a "if you don't want to have your money taken, stop running around town and throwing wads of cash at people".
In some cases, it's like you kicked down the door of your neighbor's house and blasted them with a leaf blower full of cash and then called the police when they started picking it up and putting it in their wallet.

Re:Wow brainy argument!

[Mr. Freeman]

You CAN photograph people, even cops. The cops abused their authority and made shit up to say that you can't. They were wrong.

Re:Wow brainy argument!

[Fractal Dice]

Why stop at walkie-talkies? Logically, there is some form of microphone/amplifier/signal-processing which can detect any word spoken, even if you are in a tinfoil vault in your basement.

If your door isn't secure against my axe, is it still wrong for me to go into your house?

Re:Wow brainy argument!

[Damek]

Everytime I understand what someone says in French, I'm both intercepting their signal and decoding it.

What's the difference between one language broadcast in sound waves, and another broadcast in radio waves?

I'm not sure how I feel about this one way or the other, but it doesn't seem clear cut to me.

Re:Wow brainy argument!

[Mike Buddha]

If your door isn't secure against my axe, is it still wrong for me to go into your house?

If you can't see the difference between invading someone's private home, and someone transmitting their personal data over the (by definition) public airwaves, there's no point in continuing this discussion.

Re:Wow brainy argument!

[jbezorg]

And by the same logic, if you don't want to be mugged on the street you should stay at home.

They are broadcasting this information either through ignorance or by their own will, they are making this information available to the public. So to bring the use of theft as a comparison back to relevancy, the question I have to ask you is this:

If someone is throwing money out of their window onto a public sidewalk, do you feel the public the right to take that money?

If someone did take the money, do you think it would be fair to charge them with theft?

Finally, have you ever found money in the street and kept it?

To me, it's the difference of finding a credit card on the street and finding cash on the street.

For a Credit Card. This has been authorized for use for specific individual(s) and to use this item, a person must intentionally misrepresent themselves knowing that if they were to present their real identity, they would be denied access. i.e. encrypted wireless communication.

For cash. Something that everyone is authorized to use. I see no problem. i.e. unencrypted wireless communication.

Re:Wow brainy argument!

[shutdown -p now]

No, by that same logic FSM kills a Nazi kitten every time you install NetBSD on an iPad.

Sorry, what were we talking about, again?

Re:Wow brainy argument!

[MindlessAutomata]

No they aren't. In fact, many of them RESTRICT encryption schemes that people can use.

Re:Wow brainy argument!

[Obfuscant]

Try intercepting someone's cell phone signals - with your dumb argument, you should be able to listen to them too and not get sued.

You can. I've done it for years. At least, while analog cell was still running. Never been sued. Even after ECPA.

Of course, I also never divulged the content of what I heard, so nobody knew I was doing it. I heard some good stuff, too.

Re:Wow brainy argument!

[westlake]

You should, absolutely. Just as if you were overhearing a walkie talkie. If you don't want it heard by the public, don't broadcast it. If you need to broadcast it, encrypt it.

John Smith sees only his wireless home network - not a broadcast.

His first attempt at networking --- anything.

Is it really so surprising that he doesn't tamper with the factory defaults?

But who should be accepting responsibility for these defaults if not the geeks who programmed them?

Re:Wow brainy argument!

[DigiShaman]

What's the difference between one language broadcast in sound waves, and another broadcast in radio waves?

One takes a lot more effort than the other. Our eyes and ears vs a man-made apparatus.

Re:Wow brainy argument!

[evilviper]

If you don't want it heard by the public, don't broadcast it. If you need to broadcast it, encrypt it.

We tried that, so decryption tech was outlawed, but people around here hate that law with a passion.

So, you're saying: "If you want privacy on the air-waves, you need to go to great lengths to use theoretically unbreakable encryption. Otherwise, accept that everyone can listen to every word."

Sufficiently draconian for your taste?

Re:Wow brainy argument!

[tool462]

My eyes and ears are also man-made. My creators were drunk though at the time.

Re:Wow brainy argument!

[AHuxley]

Google sucked up data in transit between two points ie not "broadcasting" and not within its own networks.
The wonderful thing about the law is your data is protected on any network, at any level of encryption and using any base station you like.
Be lol if you had to buy a MS v2.3.1 or better or Apple v2 or Cisco .. branded wifi device before you got legal redress.

Re:Wow brainy argument!

[Sabriel]

When something as simple as fillings in teeth (and various other items) can pick up radio signals, I'd say "a lot more effort" is - taking the big picture view - in fact not so. Another example: human retinas are very sensitive to UV, but the cornea blocks it; early cornea replacements were UV-transparent and allowed sight into the UV spectrum. One wrong mutation and you'd be born with UV vision (of course you'd also suffer early blindness, as UV damages the retina, but I digress).

Consider too that various animals exist which sense (even generate!) electric fields and use them to forage/hunt/navigate. As advances in genetic engineering continue, we will be able to add these features to our own genomes, and it's entirely possible that our (distant?) descendants will be able to communicate with radio frequencies as easily as we do with audio frequencies today.

In the end it's all spectrum.

Re:Wow brainy argument!

[Anonymous Coward]

You display a thorough lack of understanding of how electromagnetic radiation works. wifi is broadcast.

Re:Wow brainy argument!

[AHuxley]

Wifi as most users would expect creates a wireless network between their device and the base station, without a google ect keeping their packets in transit.
The base station may transmit details to anybody as to establish/keep a connection, but that is where passive broadcasting ends and a man in the middle effort begins.

Re:Wow brainy argument!

[Fractal Dice]

If you can't see that it is the same concept, then the conversation needs to continue. Property lines are an arbitrary invention of society restricting freedom of snooping - the same framework of norms and expectations we apply to geography can be applied to any terrain/medium, including airwaves.

Re:Wow brainy argument!

[f3rret]

Try intercepting someone's cell phone signals - with your dumb argument, you should be able to listen to them too and not get sued?

!

Yeah sure if GSM signals weren't encrypted you arguement would be sound. Now seeing as GSM is encrypted your argument kinda sucks.

Re:Wow brainy argument!

[yyxx]

Why stop at walkie-talkies? Logically, there is some form of microphone/amplifier/signal-processing which can detect any word spoken, even if you are in a tinfoil vault in your basement.

No, what you can do with listening gadgets from the outside is quite limited. A bit of white noise background will do the trick, as will thick walls. Furthermore, recording you and listening to you in that way may be legal and it probably should be legal; legal restrictions on that kind of recording simply are not effective. What should be illegal is using that recording to defame you, to invade your privacy, or to blackmail you. And that it already is.

If your door isn't secure against my axe, is it still wrong for me to go into your house?

Yes, because that's an active measure against your property. The dividing line is whether people actively enter your property, or take or alter your possessions.

Re:Wow brainy argument!

[yyxx]

Property lines are an arbitrary invention of society restricting freedom of snooping

Nothing of the sort. Property lines delimit your private property from other people's private property and the public. There is nothing "arbitrary" about it. It's what you paid for and what you own, no more and no less.

The general principle is that you can do on your property what you like, and I can do on my property what I like, and everybody can do on public property what they like, provided they don't interfere with each other's use of their own property.

the same framework of norms and expectations we apply to geography can be applied to any terrain/medium, including airwaves.

And it is. I am not permitted to step onto your property to listen to your private conversations. But out on the street, I can stand next to you and listen to everything you say; if you don't like it, you have to move, not me. And if you're having a shouting match with your wife in your home, I can certainly listen to it from the street. I can also write down everything I hear in my notebook. I can also use that information to decide that I don't want to have anything to do with you anymore or whether to cancel my business contract with you. I may or may not be allowed to publish that information.

And it should be the same for radio and recording: when I'm on my private property or on a public street, I should be able to receive and record anything I can receive. I should be able to use that information myself for anything I choose. I may or may not be allowed to publish that information.

Your kind of reasoning entails an unreasonable restriction on the right of others to use their private property or to use public spaces.

Re:Wow brainy argument!

[AmiMoJo]

The difference is when you overhear someone talking near you it is their decision to talk loudly and you cannot help but receive their broadcast. When you intercept someone's wifi signal and log every packet to HDD you have set up a system specifically to do that.

Yes, it is quite easy to tune your wireless phone to listen in on the neighbours' conversations but it is still a crime (at least it is in the UK). If they have really loud sex in the room next to yours then they must reasonably expect you to hear.

Re:Wow brainy argument!

[Lunix Nutcase]

No they aren't.

They're against being able to intercept all forms of communication such as cell phone calls? Since when?

Not really illegal, but wreaks of dishonesty

[DontLickJesus]

There isn't anything inherently illegal about what they did, unfortunately. Encrypt your networks folks. However, being a professional user of the Kismet application I would contend that using Kismet shows that all the data collection was far from "accidental".

Re:Not really illegal, but wreaks of dishonesty

[Anonymous Coward]

Reeks, as in smells, of dishonesty. Not wreaks, as in causes.

Re:Not really illegal, but wreaks of dishonesty

[DeadCatX2]

I dunno...maybe if it was aircrack or even wireshark, I would be worried, but I don't see the big deal about Kismet. After all, they were looking for SSIDs/MACs.

I still don't see the big deal about this. If someone photographed you standing in front of your living room window, would you scream "invasion of privacy!!!!!!111eleven" or would you just close the blinds?

Even better analogy...if someone aimed a camcorder out of their window and drove past while aiming it around and saw you for a couple of seconds through your window, would you scream "invasion of privacy"?

Re:Not really illegal, but wreaks of dishonesty

[DontLickJesus]

Well, the problem is that Kismet actually DOES log traffic by default, at least in my experience with the BackTrack suite.

Re:Not really illegal, but wreaks of dishonesty

[Anonymous Coward]

However, being a professional user of the Kismet application I would contend that using Kismet shows that all the data collection was far from "accidental".

I'm not sure how to parse your sentence. Doesn't Kismet capture all this date by default? I could easily see someone running Kismet for the ".networks" file and not even notice the ".dump" file. Kismet is a very good tool for what they are doing. Just because it does more than what they want doesn't make it a bad choice. They just should have edited the config file. Why waste resources logging data you don't want?

Re:Not really illegal, but wreaks of dishonesty

[Mr. Freeman]

What do you mean "unfortunately". It's almost as though you think that having a law against it will stop EVERYONE from intercepting your data. You DO realize that criminals will still analyze your data, right?

And no, using kismet does not show that the data collection was intentional. There are many uses for any network monitoring tool, even those tools that CAN capture lots and lots of data.

Re:Not really illegal, but wreaks of dishonesty

[ElectricTurtle]

I agree. Google looks really a lot worse in my eyes not because they picked up some packets, but because they lied about their intent to pick up some packets. It's very Clintonesque. I could care less if Billy C. got some action from an intern, but it was the lying about it that made it heinous.

If you're caught, just admit it. Looking bad in the eyes of some dumb luddites is not worse than looking like a sleazy liar to absolutely everybody.

Re:Not really illegal, but wreaks of dishonesty

[DontLickJesus]

Thank you this describes my opinion much more succinctly.

Re:Not really illegal, but wreaks of dishonesty

[Anonymous Coward]

What about copyright law?

Re:Not really illegal, but wreaks of dishonesty

[_Sprocket_]

The case of it being "accidental" could depend on their intentions. Was Google interested in the data they sniffed in itself or is it a byproduct of the network mapping they were doing. I used to run Kismet on my drives home every day from work just to see what SIDs I find along my route. By default, Kismet was dumping those packets to disk. Once in awhile, I'd go back and dump those files and clean up. I shuffled quite a bit of data that I never looked at and I wouldn't be surprised if Google wasn't the same.

Of course - I also occasionally looked to see what I was picking up. The most damning thing I found was someone's POP credentials. I'm sure if that individual knew how public they were being, they'd be quite upset about it. Probably start behaving like folks are behaving towards Google. Which is why I never took the effort to point out the issue to them.

Re:Not really illegal, but wreaks of dishonesty

[evilviper]

It's very Clintonesque. I could care less if Billy C. got some action from an intern, but it was the lying about it that made it heinous.

If you're caught, just admit it.

You know, if Clinton followed your advice, he never would have been elected in the first place. There was a scandal about him having an affair before he was elected. His lying was effective enough that most people didn't believe it, and voted for him.

As always, the only thing he did wrong was to get caught. Honestly, who keeps a soiled dress around? And yet, being a weirdo was the only thing that kept Monica from looking like a lying attention whore.

Re:Not really illegal, but wreaks of dishonesty

[ElectricTurtle]

If I were a woman who had been jizzed on by the Commander in Chief, I might have kept the dress too.

Re:Not really illegal, but wreaks of dishonesty

[AHuxley]

That the next step. To enter a local market and make profits local laws re copyright, handing over dissidents is expected.
Now the local privacy laws come into play.
Can a multinational just keep data, will they get a small fine, will a form of "State Secrets Privilege" be requested if discovery digs too deep?

Re:Not really illegal, but wreaks of dishonesty

[khchung]

There isn't anything inherently illegal about what they did, unfortunately.

WRONG. EU has it own, different from the US, privacy laws. It is precisely because what Google did is illegal in EU that the German authorities is involved.

Re:Not really illegal, but wreaks of dishonesty

[TapeCutter]

"Honestly, who keeps a soiled dress around?"

"He picked the only jewish girl in America who doesn't know how to get a stain out of a dress" - Robin Williams.

Re:Not really illegal, but wreaks of dishonesty

[TapeCutter]

"The case of it being "accidental" could depend on their intentions."

DBA #1 : "What fields do they want?"
DBA #2 : "You'll never know until the projects over, give them everything and let them work it out."

Re:Not really illegal, but wreaks of dishonesty

[lightversusdark]

Actually there could be inherent illegality, if I remember correctly.
No one seems to have mentioned this but:
KisMac (the OS X port) is no longer hosted in Germany as it is illegal under StGB Section 202c.
Specifically, the production and distribution of security software is illegal.
Surely the use of it cannot be a loophole in the law?

Re:There are worse intercepts besides a few wifi p

[Hatta]

Yeah seriously. Why does the German government have to be such a bunch of Naz... oh, I see.

Re:Is this how they can do wifi location detection

[RSCruiser]

They were using both SSID and MAC addresses collected from street view to enhance their location services.

Re:Inaccurate

[schon]

He found a simple RESTful web API to be too complicated. You actually thought he would be able to understand binary?

And it was a Google RESTful API, as this is a Google binary... so obviously Google would have created it to be so complicated, only Google staffers could understand it!

And the mention of the paper on wireless sniffing? What the fuck does that have to do with Google? Did they sponsor it? No. Did their employees write it? No. Did their employees participate in it? No. But he mentions it just because it re-inforces the conclusion he wants you to draw.

Glenn Beck would be so proud!

So.. when do we call out this idiot as an MS shill?

Re:Is this how they can do wifi location detection

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

To the best of my knowledge, Apple's wi-fi based geolocation is based on Skyhook's offering in the area.

It is quite plausible to assume that Google, since they were already going to the expense of running the cars, figured that they could grab their own geolocation dataset for virtually no additional cost. However, their massive corporate wardrive episode is hardly the first of its kind, as Skyhook's products demonstrate.

Re:There are worse intercepts besides a few wifi p

[robot256]

Wouldnt all the back to base monitoring, etc in various applications be a bit more of a concern?

Of course not! It's only a problem when someone other than the government is doing the monitoring, because then it's not in the name of "national security".

Re:Inaccurate

[amicusNYCL]

So.. when do we call out this idiot as an MS shill?

I'm pretty sure an MS shill isn't going to complain about a lack of source code.

Re:Is this how they can do wifi location detection

[JoeMerchant]

They were using both SSID and MAC addresses collected from street view to enhance their location services.

So, when I gave my old WiFi router to a friend on the other side of town, it messed with their accuracy a bit then? I think they've driven by my house about once in the past 4 years as far as I can tell from the StreetView photos.

Google Denies It, Looks for Scapegoat

[eldavojohn]

For what it's worth Google claims that patent is totally unrelated and they're also trying to find someone they can pin this on so their multinational company doesn't take any of the heat. Remember, it's just one engineer behind this and once we find Scapegoaty McSeverancePackage this can all be put behind us and you can rest assured that Google is back to Do No Evil status. Ha.

Re:Google Denies It, Looks for Scapegoat

[Anonymous Coward]

I volunteer for the job! For we are Legion.

Re:Inaccurate

[dave562]

I believe that the paper was mentioned in reference to Google's patent application.

Re:There are worse intercepts besides a few wifi p

[Lunix Nutcase]

Actually it's funny because the same people who would whine about the government doing nothing different than Google are flailing about because people are equally bothered by Google doing it.

Re:Is this how they can do wifi location detection

[Hurricane78]

A company named Skyhook Wireless is doing this. They are continuously driving trough whole continents with cars, mapping out wifi routers/stations/etc.
They are what gives the iPhones/iPods their navigation (they have to real GPS). They are behind Maps Booster which plugs right into the Symbian (Nokia & others) geolocation APIs. (I bought it for 3€, and while it is less exact than GPS here, it also works inside buildings. Plus it makes first-time GPS satellite locking much faster.)

I wonder how this is different from what Google does, though.

But I don’t have a problem with SSID logging anyway. I mean, people who rely on SSIDs for security, really are idiots anyway. It’s not worse than knowing an IP. I can’t see where privacy could be a concern here. And I’m extremely strict about my privacy rules.
I think it’s a good service. Hell, how could I not think that paying 3€ for someone to drive across every street on the continent is a good deal?

P.S.: No, I’m not affiliated. And I repeat: It’s not very exact here. I am lucky if I get 50m accuracy. While my A-GPS can get down to 3m. (Oh, and if anyone of you know a service that requires no further hardware, and can get down below 50 cm [ideally below 10cm], please contact me! :)

PR of C-politicians

[AffidavitDonda]

If you are a politician in the second or third row, the main thing you want is media attention. Nobody ever looks at those politicians who are responsible for such boring things as data security. So if a large company as Google is recording data of us poor, innocent citizens (...add: too stupid to activate encryption...) then that's their chance. Especially since people here in Germany are a bit touchy about their private data. Mainly those of us, of course, who for the first time in their life hear, that a wireless lan is in fact... wireless... Who knows, that noname guy responsible for this may make it into the higher ranks for the next elections? Would you miss such an opportunity?

Now we can find out once and for all ...

[tomhudson]

They're not being evil now, are they?

It depends - the government should disassemble the code and see if the evil bit is set.

Germany Finds Kismet, Custom Code In Google Car

[uofitorn]

And my car has four Goodyear tires and a couple gallons of Shell gasoline in it. So what?

Re:Germany Finds Kismet, Custom Code In Google Car

[AHuxley]

Data retention options vs just mapping.

Re:Germany Finds Kismet, Custom Code In Google Car

[uofitorn]

But we already knew about the data retention. Is the news that they used software to accomplish that? Shocking!

I better learn the turc language

[aepervius]

I have jsut been instantly shifted 2000+ km east and south in turkey. Methink this ip location things isn't maybe quite that ready for prime time.

Re:I better learn the turc language

[Anonymous Coward]

I have jsut been instantly shifted 2000+ km east and south in turkey. Methink this ip location things isn't maybe quite that ready for prime time.

Not for locating, but it might be a good form of transportation if you can control it. :)

Re:Is this how they can do wifi location detection

[Anonymous Coward]

It is, done by SSID, and not just your's. It uses 3 (or more) and then triangulates (assuming signal strength is inversely proportional to distance) by using an epic db on the google servers, with probable GPS locations of wifi access points - collected (I think) from street view cars, and possibly Android phones if you opt in??? There are free databases available on the net if you are trying to implement a similar system.

Kismet

[Itninja]

I guess it was just destiny for this to happen.

Re:Is this how they can do wifi location detection

[radish]

The original iPhone didn't have GPS, all the more recent models do have.

Re:There are worse intercepts besides a few wifi p

[Anonymous Coward]

I can vote in a new government every few years. I cannot vote out a giant corporation.

Re:Is this how they can do wifi location detection

[bpsbr_ernie]

Yup, sounds very similar... Is Skyhook next on the list to be bullied?

To pinpoint location, the Core Engine uses a massive reference network comprised of the known locations of over 100 million Wi-Fi access points and cellular towers. To develop this database, Skyhook has deployed drivers to survey every single street, highway, and alley in tens of thousands of cities and towns worldwide, scanning for Wi-Fi access points and cell towers plotting their precise geographic locations. Skyhook's extensive coverage area includes most major metro areas in North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia.

http://www.skyhookwireless.com/howitworks/coverage.php

Re:Is this how they can do wifi location detection

[ttldkns]

I'm not sure how google does it but the iPod uses skyhook wireless location services. If you read the blurb from their website they tell you about how they use clustering to self heal their location network in between readings, which don't need to happen very often.

I've moved house a few times and taken my routers with me and i've watched the iPod maps app switch between the old location and the new one for a few days depending on how many other networks it can see. After a few days, though, the system has "healed" itself and consistently finds the correct location.

Re:Is this how they can do wifi location detection

[dotgain]

Interesting. In New Zealand I haven't got it to work at all - not even in the cities. Pretty sure it failed me in Brisbane, Australia as well.

Re:Inaccurate

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that the paper was mentioned in reference to Google's patent application.

And again... why, except to intimate that Google is capturing and storing traffic?

Google's patent app doesn't make any mention of the paper or its authors, and doesn't mention decoding/storage of payload data. So why mention it, other than to try to smear Google?

Re:Is this how they can do wifi location detection

[nerdtalker]

There's a ton of misunderstanding here about what's going on. The quick answer is that yes, you degrade it if you're the only BSSID in the area (or the majority, eg bringing two BSSIDs into an area with only one).

First off, Google is trying to build out its own WiFi augmented location services so they don't rely on SkyHook's (currently larger and more robust) offering. Keep in mind, the iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch OSes are the major SkyHook clients, and recently Motorola announced they were ditching Google's smalller/less reliable location service for this very reason on their own Android devices.

Both implementations are dynamic and self-repairing. That means that if a client reports back that one BSSID isn't in the locale as two other BSSIDs it knows -are-, SkyHook/Google will immediately know that something has changed. If the majority of BSSIDs match a given location, but another has changed or appeared, it'll eventually be incorporated with time and if clients continue to report consensus. If a client comes in with GPS and WiFi is turned on, it's given priority and reports back to SkyHook the current visible BSSIDs for updating their database with the GPS data as well. Obviously, because the client has a GPS fix, it'll be given a higher weight and update that database pretty quickly.
The cool part here is that mobile devices are building out the location services data each time they use it - it's in fact evolving, healing, and getting better. Fire up Maps on any of the major platforms, and you're helping Google and SkyHook both.

I recently experimented with this myself. I moved from one location to another across town, and brought along my two wireless APs (one of them dual band N, so a total of 3 BSSIDs) and fired up location services in my new location. On the iPhone and Android clients, the initial quick fix showed me in the old location. Trying with locate me on google maps also showed me at the old location. Then cellular data came in and showed me roughly across town where I was. Then GPS got a fix, and put me very close to my real location indoors. This is how it's supposed to work. At this point, the device reports back the BSSIDs visible with the GPS fix to whatever service is in use.

I tested over the course of a few days and noticed that the iPhone client had updated the SkyHook database within a day and was now identifying - from WiFi - that I was in the right place. You can test that with an iPad (no 3G, just WiFi) or iPod Touch with location services. The Android client has taken about a week which is more surprising. You can immediately see where (based on WiFi) the google database puts you by going to maps.google.com and clicking the location button.

Both SkyHook and Google likely use a similar architecture - it's essentially two big companies wardriving and finally doing some math armed with signal strength and GPSes. Except now *everyone* is wardriving on their smartphones, and they don't really realize it.

I thought it was a bug?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is certainly interesting considering Google's initial excuse was that it was a "bug in the code" and not intentional.

Re:Is this how they can do wifi location detection

[BitZtream]

For your case, its WiFi location not IP. IP gets you to within a 'region' generally. Where region is an arbitrary sized area defined by how much effort was put into SWIPping your IP address range.

For most cable modem subscribers in a large city, the IP range will get you to within the range of the city.

In my case, it gets you to within range of two states as thats as far as TWC goes at this point with my current IP block.

IP based location is only as good as the admins and systems that manage the address space unless augmented by extra information and research.

Combining IP, SSID and MAC information allows them to quickly and relatively easily see if the IP and SSID/MAC combo are still relatively accurate. If you move across town and stay on the same service provider, they will probably still accept your information SSID/MAC as being at the same location.

If you switch providers or move a larger difference (say East coast to West coast) they can rather quickly realize your SSID/MAC's previous location is no longer right and throw it out until they can figure out the new location of your SSID/MAC, which for instance can be done on an iPhone when it senses that the cell tower your connected to when you connect to the same SSID/MAC is now in a location far enough away to not just be due to a tower being down or something like that.

Basically, there are lots of algorithms and ways to determine where you are based on various radio signals. WiFi helps make the cellular and IP location information more accurate.

Throw an android or iPhoneOS device connected to a cell tower, with GPS enabled and use Google Maps and you're providing them with really good information about where are particular IP or WiFi SSID/MAC combo are. If the SSID/MAC moves, it will certainly be off until someone comes along and picks up the signals while using Google Maps so they can update it.

I'm sure they use more than one device and some weighting in order to prevent spoofing of data from screwing up their location info, but its all just an educated guess really anyway.

Re:Is this how they can do wifi location detection

[Hurricane78]

Ah, OK. Thank you for clarifying that. :)

Its just location information

[nurb432]

So what difference does it really make?

Binary-only makes it imposible to analyze? Ha!

[noidentity]

The Google-specific program components are available only in machine-readable binary code, which makes it impossible to analyze the internal processing.

He went on to add, "and our binary-only DRM scheme is unbreakable, since we don't release the source code, mwahahaha!"

lawyers added another charge

[acs.judit]

"As part of the amended complaint, the plaintiffs' lawyers added another charge to the three original, alleging that Google violated Title 47 of the U.S. Code. They also asked that Google be forced to pay up to $100,000 to each person whose data it obtained."

So you basically get paid for using unsecured Wi-Fi.

The United States used to agree with you.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Supreme Court had already pretty much castrated every American's right to try to decode any radiation they are unwillingly pelted with before Congress bowdlerized the Communications Act of 1934 with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 but it's important to understand that the attitude embodied in the 1934 legislation led to the WW2 US military developing secure communications when other countries (which relied on prosecuting people who listened to stuff they supposedly shouldn't) all had their communications totally compromised.

Or, to put it another way, our freedom used to make us safer. Now that we aren't free to intercept any transmissions that physically impact our persons or property, suddenly the military hasn't got jack shit for communications security... unrelated? I think not... I think that terrorists can control our drone aircraft because the US Federal Government wanted to let Virginia ban radar detectors.

In the workplace, I always ask our business partners to try to crack our security (with proper notification to our own LAN/WAN boys and girls, of course). Unsurprisingly, our security is tighter than our competitors, who do not encourage people to test them.

Re:Is this how they can do wifi location detection

[AHuxley]

SkyHook took local laws into consideration if they mapped and did not store data?
If Google screams "they did it too"?.
Google would love the world to swallow the line that "*everyone* is wardriving" but "wardriving" vs data retention and stonewalling about data retention gets legally interesting.

Re:Is this how they can do wifi location detection

[AHuxley]

Keeping data from other peoples networks is not a question of been "bullied".

Re:Is this how they can do wifi location detection

[AHuxley]

Re "I wonder how this is different from what Google does, though." Mapping was legally ok, wifi mapping was legally ?.
Keeping data was not ok and Google knew that and talked about not keeping any data while doing its wifi collection.

Re:There are worse intercepts besides a few wifi p

[AHuxley]

The NSA trunk intercept at AT&T is now a retroactive legal intercept after a generation did not understand/read FISA/ The Church report ect.
The US gov did all in its power to make sure the NSA trunk intercept was never a concern in the US media.
The problem is Google is not the NSA or AT&T with someone using NSA clearance in every vehicle.
Google is just another multinational that played with wifi and now might have to explain the data retention issue.
Pulling State Secrets Privilege for Google would be another great moment in US legal history.

Re:Is this how they can do wifi location detection

[infinitelink]

Don't forget that cell phone locations are not only already tracked, but the cell phone companies are constantly working to make it ever more accurate: there is good reason for this, that is, if they know the location of a device, and the device can report the signal strength back to them, as well as be noted when it disappears in a general area, they can improve their services: it's cell phone inc. 101, and if you don't like it, don't use one. They do this because coverage is terribly difficult to provide and maintain, and expensive (and the towers), such that the more data they have, the more intelligently they can proceed. Most people just don't even have a clue to how marvelous that little device that surpasses even the wildest dreams for handhelds in the early Star Trek series actually is, or even more interesting, the infrastructure and technologies it takes to make it more than a just a connectionless disabled mobile computing device.

Re:Is this how they can do wifi location detection

[merreborn]

. I am lucky if I get 50m accuracy. While my A-GPS can get down to 3m. (Oh, and if anyone of you know a service that requires no further hardware, and can get down below 50 cm [ideally below 10cm], please contact me! :)

Building guided missiles on the cheap, eh?

iPod Touch experiences - and working offline usage

[Penguin]

(user from Denmark, Europe)

Furthermore, the iPod Touch receives information about nearby wifi networks for local storage (offline usage).

When I'm walking around the area with my iPod Touch (without any internet access) it is still able to tell me where I am.

It seems like the local information received is in the range of about 2 kilometers (about 1.25 miles).

This is a GPX track from a bus ride a few weeks ago heading north, logged with my iPod Touch:
http://maps.google.dk/?q=http://stock.ter.dk/bustur_touch_2.gpx

At the northest point of the track the iPod Touch couldn't find the local position anymore. The iPod wasn't online at any time.

Unfortunately it seems like it flushes the local database whenever it gets online. If I travel away from my home I can see my position until I reach about two kilometers away. If I go online at my destination (e.g. a friend's house) and travel home I can only see my position for a few kilometers away from my earlier destination and nothing from that point before I reach my own home again. It really would be cool if it was possible to store more information locally.

I'm pretty sure the iPod use Google's database as well as the Google Street View vans have been around Denmark pretty thoroughly last year. All the positions seem to be snapped to roads as well where the cars were positioned when driving around.

On another node; several public means of transportation in the metropolitan area of Denmark is now fitted with some kind of Internet access - usually free access with commercials injected in the web pages. This helps being online in trains or the most frequent buses (however not that one I was on when I logged the above track).

But as the wifi geolocation service is based on the idea that an access point is stationary the results for positioning when riding a bus or train could usually put you at that station where the train (carrying the access point) just happened to be when the Google vans were driving around. I hope the self healing mechanisms in Google's (and Skyhook's) databases could "invalidate" these access points.

Bad journalism

[MikeK7]

Correct me if I am mistaken, but not a single journalist seems to have picked up on why Google has been collecting the data. I thought that it was obvious, yet many of the above posters don't seem to get it either.

Re:Is this how they can do wifi location detection

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the way I understand that I understand Google does it is a little different, although the concept is similar. Using the same drive-by approach (ala 'Google Cars), they map out the radio network infrastructure for mobile operators (basically cell site and lat/ long/ alt). A typical cell phone locks on to a single tower at a time, but has a short list of a few others in the vicinity for handover, along with the relative signal strengths to each).

So you have a map with cell site locations, and then signal strengths to surrounding cells as well as which one it's locked on to (all of this can be grabbed from the cell phone itself). From there it's 'standard triangulation' (not really standard, but read up on TDOA, E-OTD, AOA for a idea of the implementation). Having an A-GPS unit in the phone is bonus, since you gain more accurate location and movement information. Pipe the information back to Google HQ, crunch the numbers, and bingo..

Posting anonymously since I work for a small telco NEP, designing everything from location systems to carrier scale packet DPI - legal intercept, customer analytics and billing. We were providing this stuff 9 years ago and it was impressive then, even more so now. Scary as hell for consumers though..your providers know more about you than you would imagine.

The funny thing is..

[cheros]

.. now they have mapped my SSID I'm moving. Expect anyone navigating using Google Maps to drive off a cliff shortly, mwhohahaha :-)

Actualy, come to think of it, wouldn't it be fun if we set up an effort swapping out SSIDs (or devices)? That could make an unholy mess of this whole navigating-by-SSID idea :-) :-)

Yes, I'm in evil mode today. Blame the cat.

not just brainy, but also right

[yyxx]

Try intercepting someone's cell phone signals - with your dumb argument, you should be able to listen to them too and not get sued.

Yes, you should be able to. Creating a law making this illegal is ineffective for protecting your privacy, since the law is impossible to enforce against the people you really have to worry about. And, in fact, it used to be legal to listen to cell phone conversations. Such laws are only really useful for selective enforcement when police, judges, or (indirectly) politicians would really like to charge them with something else but can't find a way to do it. The right place to protect privacy is in the use of such information; and it already is.

and you are ok with one entity picking up every signal in every neighbourhood ???

Yes, I'm perfectly OK with that. In the 1980's, this was still debatable since cryptography wasn't widely available. Today, you have effective cryptography available in every device. If you broadcast cleartext messages containing private data across your neighborhood, you only have yourself to blame.

The presumption should be that everything you broadcast is public and intended to be public, it should not be that people are too stupid to configure their WLANs. Of course, you may argue that people are too stupid and that they can't be expected to configure their WLANs without security. But, in the case of Germany (where all this nonsense is going on), courts have ruled that if you run a WLAN, the expectation is that you are smart enough to encrypt it; if you don't, you face legal liabilities.

don't be such an idiot

[yyxx]

The wonderful thing about the law is your data is protected on any network, at any level of encryption and using any base station you like.

You are totally naive if you think your data is protected because some data protection czar makes a name for himself going after an American company. Going after Google isn't going to protect your data one bit. The only reason Google is playing along with this charade is because they really are a legitimate business and the data really is of no value to them. The people you really have to worry about are people who use that data to defraud and blackmail you, and compared to the other crimes they are committing, whether they capture your packets or not is totally irrelevant.

Furthermore, you are effectively required by law in Germany to encrypt your WLAN anyway; if you don't, you're almost certainly breaking both data privacy and copyright law.

In fact, given that the data protection agency is now getting this data, I see no legal reason why they shouldn't search through it for violations of German privacy law, copyright law, and German content restrictions. They could charge thousands of people with crimes based on the data. Maybe that would drive the point home to the morons who think that what's been happening in Germany protects anything.

Re:don't be such an idiot

[AHuxley]

the law is your data is protected on any network - from been kept by a 3rd party.
A question might be asked about who did the code review and then signed off that it was ok.
"given that the data protection agency is now getting this data" after Google stonewalled.
Google was clear on "German privacy law" as noted
http://googlepolicyeurope.blogspot.com/2010/04/data-collected-by-google-cars.html
Is it, as the German DPA states, illegal to collect WiFi network information?
"We do not believe it is illegal--this is all publicly broadcast information which is accessible to anyone with a WiFi-enabled device. "
Fine if its just mapping, not so good if your collecting data packets too. As for a search through data, I am sure a BND like entity have that covered for internal and external data flows of interest (like the NSA).
But you do bring up a great point. Now that the German gov has the data, its open to discovery. A great reason why you dont want any company keeping data they just stumble over.
We will learn more as this flows out in the press.
Will the data "really be of no value to anyone" and it was all just a code/setting error?
Just another company paying a fine until lobbying clarifies the issue and long term projects can be marketed?
A "State Secrets Privilege" solution and it all just ends with a press release that the data was destroyed. That would be interesting.

Re:don't be such an idiot

[yyxx]

the law is your data is protected on any network - from been kept by a 3rd party

No, the law may make intercepting the data illegal, but that doesn't actually protect your data, for the reasons I gave.

Will the data "really be of no value to anyone" and it was all just a code/setting error?

If you use quotes, please quote correctly. I said "the data really is of no value to them." The data is of value to both crooks and governments. Actually, the data protection agency could probably prosecute thousands of people based on the data.

A "State Secrets Privilege" solution and it all just ends with a press release that the data was destroyed. That would be interesting.

I see, so I suppose the political witch hunt German politicians are cooking up against Google really is just for show? If you actually follow the news, you'll see that Google keeps trying to fend off governments getting at private data. It's not surprising that the German government is trying to ruin Google's reputation; they want companies to be subserviant to the German government and give them data whenever and for whatever purpose they request. And why not? After all, no German government has ever violated anybody's civil rights, right?

Re:don't be such an idiot

[AHuxley]

"German government has ever violated anybody's civil rights and thats why its lawyers demanded such strong data safeguards."
Hacking and the view to keep a firewall between public and private databases produced some reform on privacy laws.
The need to have clear network intrusion laws and prevent public/private database sharing.
German lawyers know how the East and West used data long term. That would point to network privacy laws protecting users from man in the data retention.
As for the 'witch hunt German politicians are cooking up" - Google has the data, the German gov did not use a fishing expedition or a sneak and peek ect.
They have to enforce German law, law that Google was expected to follow and gave every indication of understanding.
"Google keeps trying to fend off governments getting at private data" vs breathing space for their lawyers and PR people. Googles reputation and views on private data where hinted at in 2009 ..
The German government and EU direction in data access laws and storage are going to be very very bad, but how does that undo Googles data gathering issues?
A vital issue to take up, speak out about, but does not clarify what Google was doing around the world with other peoples data.

Re:don't be such an idiot

[yyxx]

The need to have clear network intrusion laws and prevent public/private database sharing.

Well, such laws exist in the US. That's why it takes a court order in the US to get at private data. It's also why so many people use Google in the US.

In Germany, some administrator can simply decide he wants Google's data and get it without a court order.

The problem here isn't Google, the problem is German laws and the German government.

Google has the data,

Yes, Google has the data: they have the addresses, E-mails, search histories, and documents of hundreds of millions of people. Gathering WLAN data doesn't give them anything they don't already get in a much better form.

What allows people to use services like Google is a certain degree of trust that Google will not just give up this data to the government for data mining purposes.

The German government has broken this trust because, apparently, in Germany, the executive branch can simply obtain data of millions of Germans, data it contends is private.

They have to enforce German law, law that Google was expected to follow and gave every indication of understanding.

It is far from clear that German law is what the data protection agency says it is. In particular, considering unencrypted WLAN data to be "private" is inconsistent other rules and regulations holding people responsible for using unencrypted WLAN data.

A vital issue to take up, speak out about, but does not clarify what Google was doing around the world with other peoples data.

What Google was doing with the WLAN packets is pretty clear to anybody working with networks, and Google collecting this data doesn't affect either your privacy or security in any way.

(There are things Google shouldn't be doing (e.g., using web bugs, third party cookies, etc.), but everybody uses those and has to use them in order to stay competitive. That's where we need some legislation.)

The German government and EU direction in data access laws and storage are going to be very very bad, but how does that undo Googles data gathering issues?

I don't see what "data gathering issues" there are supposed to be. Google stores people's data on their behalf and with their consent; that's an inevitable part of the services they offer. Any other company that offers the same services is going to retain the same data. They aren't "gathering" this data, they are getting it shipped to them voluntarily by the boatload. And they are going to get this data even if you don't subscribe to them directly. Microsoft, Yahoo, Telekom, and lots of other companies do as well. Unless you go back to using an Apple 2 and quit the Internet, that's inevitable.

The issue is that in Europe, this data isn't sufficiently protected from access by the government. That's the real data protection issue in Europe, and Google has no influence over it. In fact, the demonization of Google is a convenient political distraction by European governments, allowing them to pass horrendous privacy-invading data-sharing legislation because they have successfully neutralized one of the major forces that traditionally opposes them, the online service providers themselves.

Re:don't be such an idiot

[AHuxley]

Google stores people's data on their behalf and with their consent.
Sure when you sign up to use a google service or search.
When your sitting at a wifi hotspot connecting to an open network - you have formed a network without Google.
Google drives past and wants the open hotspot details - fine.
Wants the open hotspot details, saves your data as it is transmitted and keeps it- not fine.
There was a certain degree of trust that streets would be photographed and wifi spots mapped, without data collection.

Re:don't be such an idiot

[yyxx]

Yes, you did not give consent for Google to record your WLAN. Yes, one can make that illegal. Yes, it may be illegal in Germany. Why do you keep repeating that? We know all that.

Wants the open hotspot details, saves your data as it is transmitted and keeps it- not fine.

And why is it not fine? Do you think laws should just be made based on your gut feeling? Or the gut feeling of the German masses? Is that your understanding of democracy?

I think laws need to be justified based on their utility, their risks, precedent, analogy, and their effect on democracy. I have yet to see any justification for what Germany is doing.

scale argument is bogus

[yyxx]

So that's not actually doing what Google did because Google did it in a much larger scale and that's what makes it an issue.

No, it doesn't. Because there are millions of people doing exactly what you you say: walking around on a small scale, snapping pictures, and recording WLAN information. They transmit this information to numerous web sites for geolocation and sharing their photos. You may have done it yourself, even your grandmother may have done it. You can search for pictures from any location on Flickr, Picasa, and other places, coded by GPS. Coverage of those public photos isn't complete yet, but it will be in a few years.

Unless you're also going to outlaw photo sharing, private geolocation, image metadata, and WLAN-based triangulation (good luck), getting all worked up over Google Streetview is totally pointless. Even if you were to outlaw geolocated photos entirely, in about a decade, photos will be able to be geolocated simply by content.

So, the "much larger scale" argument is totally bogus.

Re:scale argument is bogus

[Dogtanian]

So, the "much larger scale" argument is totally bogus.

Only if upcoming technology and services make it possible to aggregate those photos and use them *together* in a systematic and consistent manner akin to Google Maps. Having "complete coverage" isn't in itself the same thing if they're not stored in consistent locations online and compatible formats accessible via a single interface.

That said, I think it's possible that technology will make that doable sooner rather than later, making the whole greater than the sum of the parts. If people aren't making a fuss about that now it's possibly because the implications aren't apparent yet.

But what Google are doing is creating a data set that already has those consistent and in-one-place characteristics... and from a present-day point of view that *does* make it different.

Re:scale argument is bogus

[yyxx]

Only if upcoming technology and services make it possible to aggregate those photos and use them *together* in a systematic and consistent manner akin to Google Maps.

Which part of "You can search for pictures from any location on Flickr, Picasa, and other places, coded by GPS." did you not grasp? There is nothing "upcoming" about it, the technology is already here. And technology like Microsoft Photosynth can take these haphazard collections and assemble them into panoramas and street views. It's just that geocoding cameras are only now appearing in the market, so the coverage isn't complete yet. Give it a couple of years and you won't be able to find a street or even backyard that isn't on Flickr and Picasa and thousands of other sites.

But what Google are doing is creating a data set that already has those consistent and in-one-place characteristics... and from a present-day point of view that *does* make it different.

Many companies have had that kind of dataset before; it's a standard part of city planning, architectural bureaus, stock photography, and map making. The only difference is that those they haven't shared it with you, whereas Google makes it available for free and actually removes you from pictures if you ask nicely. And if anybody from halfway around the globe really wants a picture of your location and really can't find it online, they can hire someone to take it. In a few years, they can also hire a telepresence robot and drive around. Well, they will be able to other than in nations governed by the Taliban, communists, or fascists.

That said, I think it's possible that technology will make that doable sooner rather than later, making the whole greater than the sum of the parts. If people aren't making a fuss about that now it's possibly because the implications aren't apparent yet.

Well, now that you are finally clued in about what is already happening, what are "the implications"? What the hell are you so afraid of? What are Google and Flickr going to do to you?

Re:scale argument is bogus

[Dogtanian]

Go back and read my original post. I was criticising the implication that small-scale data gathering is the same as Google's large-scale system, and that because the former wasn't a big deal, we should disregard the latter because it was the same.

Whether that's something to be "afraid of" (your words, not mine) is open to question.

Photosynth is an interesting piece of software, but it doesn't *in itself* gather all these things together. (The possibility- and indeed probability- is that it will be used in conjunction with other technologies to do that- however, I already acknowledged that when I said "I think it's possible that technology will make that doable sooner rather than later").

The only difference is that those they haven't shared it with you, whereas Google makes it available for free and actually removes you from pictures if you ask nicely.

The availability to every Tom, Dick and Harry *does* make a difference (whether that's good or bad).

And if anybody from halfway around the globe really wants a picture of your location and really can't find it online, they can hire someone to take it.

Except that that's expensive and inconvenient. Really, they could have done that 150 years ago. In such a case, you'd realistically have to know that a particular location was of interest beforehand.

In a few years, they can also hire a telepresence robot and drive around. Well, they will be able to other than in nations governed by the Taliban, communists, or fascists.

The taliban, communists or fascists? OH NOES!!!!!

Way to go with the kneejerk cliche "anyone who doesn't let me do what I want is a commie/fascist" (updated for the modern age with the Taliban, yay).

Re:scale argument is bogus

[yyxx]

Go back and read my original post. I was criticising the implication that small-scale data gathering is the same as Google's large-scale system, and that because the former wasn't a big deal, we should disregard the latter because it was the same.

We've already seen that that argument is bogus: small-scale data gathering is the same as Google's large-scale system because sharing this data on the web makes the distinction irrelevant. If a billion people upload geolocated snapshots to a thousand photo sharing sites, that's Streetview, and that's what's happening.

is that it will be used in conjunction with other technologies to do that- however, I already acknowledged that when I said "I think it's possible that technology will make that doable sooner rather than later").

No, not "sooner rather than later", it's now. And there is no new "technology" there, it's the sharing, crawling, and searching thousands of companies have been doing for years. The only thing that's new is that there are better algorithms for using that data and that cameras add geolocation. Logically, if you don't like the outcome, either you have to make one of the existing technologies illegal (sharing, crawling, searching), or one of the new ones (3D reconstruction, geolocation of images). So, stop dissembling, admit you're wrong, and say which of those technologies you see as the culprit and which of them you want to make illegal. Because if you can't commit to making any of them illegal, then you basically also allow Streetview-like services.

"And if anybody from halfway around the globe really wants a picture of your location and really can't find it online, they can hire someone to take it." Except that that's expensive and inconvenient. Really, they could have done that 150 years ago. In such a case, you'd realistically have to know that a particular location was of interest beforehand.

Except that it isn't expensive and inconvenient anymore. And people can scout locations using pictures taken from satellites and airplanes. Or are you going to make those illegal, too?

Way to go with the kneejerk cliche "anyone who doesn't let me do what I want is a commie/fascist" (updated for the modern age with the Taliban, yay).

Ignoring for the moment that your self-righteous indignation is over something I didn't actually say, let me respond to that. The positions you take aren't themselves totalitarian, but they are a hallmark of totalitarian regimes and conducive to totalitarianism. If you look at history, and in particular German history, totalitarianism doesn't usually arise out of malice, it arises out of fear and ignorance, and the hope that the government can fix all your problems for you.

Instead of accusing me of "kneejerk cliches", why don't you actually face German history and explain how these policies fit into German historical contexts? Over the past 100 years, who in Germany has actually been misusing private data? Which data has been misused and for what purposes? Under what circumstances and for what reasons did the German government restrict the taking and distribution of photographs? What were the justifications they gave? How do these modern German privacy principles and personality rights look in the context of, say, the photographic documentation of the Warsaw Ghetto?

Re:scale argument is bogus

[Dogtanian]

We've already seen that

No, you've already claimed that, and I disagreed.

that argument is bogus: small-scale data gathering is the same as Google's large-scale system because sharing this data on the web makes the distinction irrelevant. If a billion people upload geolocated snapshots to a thousand photo sharing sites, that's Streetview, and that's what's happening.

Show me a website that makes that data accessible in a consistent and easy-to-use manner that's comparable to Streetview as of today or

stop dissembling [and] admit you're wrong

Yes- I already pointed out that this was a possibility- if not probability- in the near future, so I can only assume your remaining disagreement is that as of now there exists a service that collates such data into a Streetview-like service. Please show me it.

So, stop dissembling, admit you're wrong, and say which of those technologies you see as the culprit and which of them you want to make illegal.

You implied that I had stated there was something to be "afraid of" when I'd said no such thing. Now you're trying to make out that I want to ban or "make illegal" something when I hadn't said anything to that effect either.

The positions you take aren't themselves totalitarian, but they are a hallmark of totalitarian regimes and conducive to totalitarianism.

And you're still putting words in my mouth or drawing unwarranted assumptions from what I said.

Bottom line; I said that I considered Google's large-scale, consistent data gathering to be different- in *effect*- to disparate, uncoordinated data gathering by random people. I didn't claim that was good or bad by itself- *you* put those words in my mouth.

I found your assertion that any nation restricting telepresence for whatever reason would be "taliban, communists, or fascists" reminiscent of the stereotype labelling by many Americans (*) that anything that smacked of government control was "OMG!!!!111 You're a commie!!!". Any self-righteous indignation was yours- personally I thought it came across as being quite silly.

You can argue both those points. Anything going beyond that is putting words in my mouth and ascribing positions to me that I haven't taken.

Re:scale argument is bogus

[yyxx]

Show me a website that makes that data accessible in a consistent and easy-to-use manner that's comparable to Streetview as of today or

Here you go:

http://www.flickr.com/map/

You type in you address and if the images are there, they'll pop up. There are two things that make it not quite like Streetview. (1) The coverage is not there yet because many people don't have GPS in their cameras yet, but that's not a technological restriction. (2) The images aren't integrated across views, but that is unrelated to the privacy concerns. You keep talking about. For the purposes of the privacy issues, this technology is equivalent to Streetview. Anything you could possibly be concerned about in Streetview you can be concerned about in Flickr map search.

Anything going beyond that is putting words in my mouth and ascribing positions to me that I haven't taken.

I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm trying to get you to take a clear position. Instead you hide behind vague innuendo with words like "issue". It's the same kind of FUD that governments use to push their anti-data-protection agendas.

Bottom line; I said that I considered Google's large-scale, consistent data gathering to be different- in *effect*- to disparate, uncoordinated data gathering by random people.

No, you did not just say that it was "different in effect", you said that it was "an issue" (your words, in bold). The term "issue" means more than just being "different in effect", you're implying that there is a problem that needs a solution.

So, what is the "issue"? Who is (negatively) affected by the "issue" and how? How do you want this "issue" addressed? Is it feasible to address it?

Re:scale argument is bogus

[Dogtanian]

You type in you address and if the images are there, they'll pop up. There are two things that make it not quite like Streetview. (1) The coverage is not there yet

Bingo. There doesn't exist a Google-sized set of consistently geolocated data yet. There probably will be soon, but that's a different kettle of fish.

I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm trying to get you to take a clear position. Instead you hide behind vague innuendo with words like "issue"

I used the word issue once. But since you make such an issu... *deal* of it, I'll point out that the "issue" in question was whether Google doing data gathering on a large scale is a problem and worthy of consideration already being discussed, and I was countering the implication that it wasn't an issue because it was the same as something already widely done that isn't considered a big deal.

I pointed out that the two were different. Is what Google are doing a problem? Others have argued so, e.g. privacy issues with street view, their gathering of wireless data (even if unintentional). One can debate this, but IMHO the "Google are doing on a larger scale what people already do without fuss and therefore it doesn't warrant discussion" argument is flawed.

Skyhook, not Streetview

[yyxx]

The location services on the iPod are provided by Apple (through an API), not Google. Apple has licensed them from Skyhook.

Frankly, I doubt Google even has their own SSID and MAC database. If they do, it's much easier and more up-to-date to acquire it from a software application running on people's phones than by driving around.

wardriving is so last century

[yyxx]

Your phone has at least four sources of location information: GPS, radio towers, WiFi neighborhood, and Bluetooth neighborhood. Any phone that has more than one of those enabled can contribute to a location database. Nobody needs to drive around anymore to collect this information anymore, a billion mobile phone users around the world collect this information free.

that's because it's not the same thing

[yyxx]

That's not "funny" at all. I don't mind Google getting my data; I do mind my government getting my data.

That's because Google is just a company. I can stop doing business with them. I can give them a pseudonym, false birthday, and false income information if I like. And if they screw up too badly, they are going to go out of business.

I can't do any of that with my government. I can't get away from them. And they force me to give up all the personal information they desire by law. They do know my true name, my true address, my true birthday, and tons more. And my government isn't going out of business no matter how they screw up; some politicians may change, but the institution and its laws remain.

Data recording and mining by the government is much more serious and dangerous than by any company.

wrong

[yyxx]

Google's browser location API is based on IP address, not MAC address. JavaScript doesn't even have access to your MAC address.

The HTML5 location and smartphone application location APIs are based on platform services. When you use location information on an iPhone, it comes from Skyhook, not Google.

(Google Maps on Android may or may not use network information directly; I don't know, but I suspect you probably don't either.)

Re:wrong

[0100010001010011]

No. You're wrong. It doesn't use just Javascript to determine your location. The applications have access to wireless services on each OS and sends those to google. You can even craft a string to send to google.

Look at how PreyProject uses it:
http://github.com/tomas/prey-modules/blob/master/geo/core/functions

Or run through a proxy server in another country and try geolocation as described above. It'll still find you no matter your external IP.

Re:wrong

[yyxx]

Would you please read what I actually wrote? The API in Google's browser is based on JavaScript and IP addresses. The geolocation API for iPhone apps is based on Skyhook. And HTML5's is based on whatever the platform provides. The fact that Google also may provide additional services doesn't change that.

The point is not that Google can provide this feature, the point is that plenty of other companies do too, and that you probably don't even know which service you're using.

Re:Is this how they can do wifi location detection

[jallen02]

Your gps device is capable of measurements nearly that precise. You just have to let it sit there a while. You let it collect data for a long time and then voila, find the center spot of all the GPS coordinates that got recorded (it will jump around) and you have an incredibly accurate measure.

Re:Is this how they can do wifi location detection

[binaryspiral]

It's all based on your AP's mac address. You can change your ssid and you ip will change (DHCP) but the one thing that will remain is the MAC address of your wifi access point.

As the googmobile drives through your hood it knows where it is by GPS. It's listening for wifi data to capture the mac and tag it with the gps. Then as it picks up more data, it's able to provide a more accurate location based on wifi traffic.

Quite ingeneious, labor intensive, and completely legal.

As people upgrade their gear or move - this data will get stale. I wonder if google plans on maintaining this?

Wardriving is not a crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Wardriving is not a crime.

Hey German politicians, good job wielding the apparatus of state during the epic near-fail of the European common currency over a couple of google employed cartographers just trying to make a map.
The next story on the horizon from Germany: Google is unwittingly scanning unsuspecting German Ip address blocks and downloading data from port 80 left open unwittingly by German citizens. This will be released during the next bust cycle of their capital economy.