Why Google's Wi-Fi Payload Collection Was Inadvertent

Reader Lauren Weinstein found a blog post that gives a good, fairly technical explanation of why Google's collection of Wi-Fi payload data was incidental, and why it's easy to collect Wi-Fi payload data accidentally in the course of mapping Wi-Fi access points. "Although some people are suspicious of their explanation, Google is almost certainly telling the truth when it claims it was an accident. The technology for Wi-Fi scanning means it's easy to inadvertently capture too much information, and be unaware of it. ... It's really easy to protect your data: simply turn on WPA. This completely stops Google (or anybody else) from spying on your private data. ... Laws against this won't stop the bad guys (hackers). They will only unfairly punish good guys (like Google) whenever they make a mistake. ... [A]nybody who has experience in Wi-Fi mapping would believe Google. Data packets help Google find more access-points and triangulate them, yet the payload of the packets do nothing useful for Google because they are only fragments."

Comments

Well duh

[Pharmboy]

Of course it was accidental, after all, their corporate slogan is "Do no evil". Obviously they wouldn't do anything that would be evil.

Re:Well duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats just externally. Internally their slogan is "Do what you want until it threatens to make our image worse than the competition".

Admittedly with their main competition being Microsoft they could screw up seriously badly and still be a thousand times 'holier' than
Microsoft & Steve Beelzeballmer. The only other competition they have is Apple and they have no chance of competing in terms of
loyalty/fanboyism. Google has a fan club, Apple has a following.

Its not that Google are any better than anyone else, they just haven't been caught screwing up as badly as most others.

Re:Well duh

[Z00L00K]

Just see it this way - it's sometimes easier to log every information available when collecting the data and then filter out the interesting parts later. Especially when it's in the prototype state. And suddenly a prototype goes into production just because it works good enough.

Inadvertent Or Not ...

[WrongSizeGlass]

Inadvertent or not Google broke laws in some countries. Accidentally breaking the law doesn't eliminate responsibility or culpability - even if people shouldn't have left their WiFi unsecured.

If I accidentally run over someone with my car because I wasn't paying attention to what I was doing, it doesn't absolve me of the liability - even if that old lady had it coming, er, was jaywalking.

Re:Inadvertent Or Not ...

[D Ninja]

You are correct, but that assumes the law makes sense in the first place. While Google may have broken a law, it's better to ask about (and get changed) laws that should not exist (or only exist to make politicians feel as if they are accomplishing something).

Re:Inadvertent Or Not ...

[slimjim8094]

They may have broken the letter of the law, but almost positively not the spirit. In any case, the law is seriously flawed if it prevents Google's activity. And here's why:

People were going to great lengths to literally broadcast the information into the car. How the hell can Google be held responsible for hearing it? If you put 50kW of The Office into my house from a hundred miles away, how is it illegal for me to watch it? And I know it's not illegal for me to record it.

You don't *need* any analogies for this situation - IT'S A BROADCAST. They're all radio waves. Everybody understands FM, AM, TV broadcasts and would think it absolutely ridiculous for a broadcaster to get all up in arms about somebody receiving it. That's what WiFi is, but with somewhat less power, so it comes up less often.

Can everybody PLEASE stop using analogies? They only serve to cloud the issue, and everybody already understands radio. It's a matter of making it clear to everybody that WiFi is radio.

No privacy laws is somehow better??

[Migala77]

Laws won't stop the bad guys, but if you have laws you can at least punish them if you catch them. Claiming Google are the good guys (based on what? their motto?) and saying therefore there should not be laws is just ridiculous.

Re:No privacy laws is somehow better??

[RCL]

Well, while you are allowed to see other people on the street (naked or not), making photos of them without asking for their permission may be objectionable.

A little too easy

[JorDan Clock]

So what TFA is saying is that the issue isn't simply Google snooping on networks and collecting data? And that there may have been a legitimate reason for this whole situation? And that it's blown out of proportion? STOP RUINING MY REASONS TO BE ANGRY AT GOOGLE!

inadvertent to collect, but not to keep

[fermion]

It may be inadvertent to collect, but keeping it requires a conscious and deliberate effort to allocate resources. For instance, no one can fault me for listening to the conversations around me. The people are talking in a public place and therefore have no expectation of privacy. However, if I start taking notes or recording their conversation, then I have made a deliberate attempt invade what many would consider, at least, a semiprivate situation. If I go further and use sophisticated equipment to record their conversations and acts from a distance, then I am move myself even further from the 'inadvertent sniffing' to the 'actively spying.

My concern with what Google, and many other firms, are doing is that they are dedicated huge amounts of resources to collected huge amount of data on people. As profit making entities, these firms must at some point monetize this data to get a return on investment. Therefore, if google is keeping data other than basic acces point information, then they must be planning to do something with it.

Re:I honestly don't understand the fuss

[FuckingNickName]

There's a very sensitive infrared camera and microphone outside your house right now, and we're disturbed by your interactions with your plushie. In the spirit of blind justice, I'm going to upload to /b/ and let the People decide.

If you broadcast your movements via radio (and air movements), why on earth would you expect anyone to consider it private?

A thick Faraday cage. If you need it, use it.

Re:So?

[LordLimecat]

Any geek worth their salt also never makes mistakes. Myself, I think I made a mistake once many years ago, and for my negligence i was rightfully whipped for it. Now of course I never make them; my work is always perfect.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing most people forget to ask, but was asked in this article, is something you conveniently forgot to mention. Here it is:

What possible use could google have for this data? What would be their motive here?

As the article says, there's almost no personal data in the emails. Even if there is, there's so little of it that what useful purpose could it serve? You'd have a hard time correlating it to any one person, or even finding out what it is. There's going to be so little data here, and it'll be so fragmented, that turning it into anything useful would be impossible.

On the other hand, why would google risk collecting this data when they knew what was going to happen if it got out? The risk vs. reward here just doesn't make sense. They're going to risk their reputation on... what? Collecting a few fragments of unencrypted wifi traffic that probably contains so little information and could very well be generated by a bot running on your machine.

I'm not going to believe google did this on purpose until someone can give me a motive that doesn't sound like something from a UFO convention.