Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Tells Congress It Disclosed Wi-Fi Sniffing

Posted by timothy on from the thought-you-were-listening dept.

theodp writes "While conceding 'it is clear there should have been greater transparency about the collection of this [Wi-Fi] data,' Google asserted 'we have provided public descriptions of our location-based services' in its written response to Congress (PDF) about whether the public had been adequately informed of its data collection efforts. To prove its point, Google's how-many-times-do-we-have-to-tell-you answer included a link to a blog entry on My Location on the desktop, an odd choice considering that Google is still less-than-clear about exactly what's being captured by the service ('When My Location is active, Toolbar will automatically send local network information (including, but not limited to, visible WiFi access points)'). Congress might also want to evaluate the transparency of this cute Google video, which assured the public of Street View's privacy safeguards, but gave no hint of the controversial Wi-Fi collection."

3 of 123 comments (clear)

  1. Yet Another Google WiFi Collection Patent Filing by theodp · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    There's another, as-yet unpublished Google patent filing that discusses the use of a 'mobile device data collection module' to 'collect data on a set of mobile devices which are using [a] wireless base station', including GPS location information, time information, and 'application specific data, such as, map requests, etc.' The listed 'inventors' include a Google Latitude Product Manager.

  2. Monetizing data by cdrguru · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Look, either Google gets to do its thing or it will take the search engine away and THEN where will we be? Huh?

    So Google figures out that it doesn't need to pay Skyhook for WiFi information anymore if it has its own database - and building its own database is fairly simple from the Google Street View vans. This saves them money, allows them to do better advertising and charge advertisers more. What possibly would there be to complain about, anyway?

    It's not that you were actually using this information for something, now was it? So what do you care if someone else makes money off it? Or at least saves money. Besides, it isn't like Skyhook didn't do exactly the same thing to build their database - or didn't you think of that?

    One of the rules of the Internet seems to be that whoever is the most daring and audacious gets the prize. If you can figure out how to make money off something - no matter how incredibly invasive or annoying it might be - then the first one to do it wins. You mean you didn't think it was worth taking pictures through people's windows all over the world? Well, see - Google did it and won, you lost. The idea that you might not want everyone all over the planet to have access to a photo of your front door and whatever you have in your windows isn't really relevant to the discussion. You gave your permission when you didn't shoot the tires out on the van as a trespasser. And today, there are no neighborhoods that would decide to "take action" - nobody knows their neighbors well enough to join them in doing anything.

  3. W3C=Google Here? by theodp · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Since the W3C spec editor is a Google employee (see below), calling "witchcraft" on the W3C is essentially the same as calling "witchcraft" on Google, no? :-)

    Geolocation API Specification
    W3C Working Draft 07 July 2009
    This Version:
    http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-geolocation-API-20090707/
    Latest Published Version:
    http://www.w3.org/TR/geolocation-API/
    Latest Editor's Draft:
    http://dev.w3.org/geo/api/spec-source.html
    Previous version:
    http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-geolocation-API-20081222/
    Editor:
    Andrei Popescu, Google, Inc