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

[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 ...

[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: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.