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

So?

[spiffmastercow]

I thought the problem itself was that they were wardriving, not that they were stealing personal info. Kinda like people don't like teir pictures being on Street View...

Re:So?

[postbigbang]

Your ends-justifies-the-means concept holds no water.

My wifi access points are a matter of public knowledge. After all-- they're freaking radios. What's not public knowledge is anything after the location of it, and its authentication- if any.

The data that flows there is mine, and no one elses. The other MAC addresses associated with the AP are also my business, and no one else's. Differing jurisdictions have different views of the severity of the theft that their mindlessly-stupid shark-like gobbling did. I hope they suffer the higher of the common denominators of justice.

leave Google alone!

[FuckingNickName]

Although some people are suspicious of their explanation, Google is almost certainly telling the truth when it claims it was an accident.

No. You can say that there's reasonable doubt to the allegation that they were doing it intentionally, but you can't asser that they're "almost certainly telling the truth".

The technology for Wi-Fi scanning means it's easy to inadvertently capture too much information, and be unaware of it.

Yeah, the technology for biological viruses means it's easy to inadvertently give someone HIV, and be unaware of it. But if you have competent doctors/engineers they will have made you (as a corporate person) of the effects of certain actions with particular tools, and if you choose to ignore that advice then you're demonstrating fantastic negligence.

... It's really easy to protect your data: simply turn on WPA.

Irrelevant. How easy it is to stop someone committing a crime does not figure into whether they're guilty of some crime.

This completely stops Google (or anybody else) from spying on your private data.

False. It just makes one particular avenue harder. Serious weaknesses were found in WEP fairly quickly, and certain problems have been found in WPA+TKIP. Given time, I'm sure we'll find some problems in WPA2+AES - more likely in the implementation than AES itself.

Laws against this won't stop the bad guys (hackers). They will only unfairly punish good guys (like Google) whenever they make a mistake.

There's a model for Google defence articles which involves calling them "the good guys" then talking of anything which hinders them as "punishing the good guys". And they beg the question. Google are the good guys therefore what they do is good therefore hindering them is bad? No. Google are not the good guys because what they have done is not good. You're demonstrating the same fallacy which leads to positive discrimination: "well, these are the salt of the earth so if you apply to the law to them you're just ruining social progress".

[A]nybody who has experience in Wi-Fi mapping would believe Google.

Wow, gratuitous emotive informal fallacy alert.

Data packets help Google find more access-points and triangulate them,

Yes, among other things.

yet the payload of the packets do nothing useful for Google because they are only fragments.

Yes, what can possibly be done with fragments of data? I threw away my tatty Origin of Species yesterday because it was missing most of the pages. Not insightful at all like that.

Re:I honestly don't understand the fuss

[Sir_Lewk]

The obvious difference being I radiate infrared light incidentally. I don't chose to do so, I can't stop from doing so, and unless I have some scientific background, chances are I don't even know that I'm doing so.

It is very different from me making an active attempt to make a radio broadcast using specialized equipment. If you don't see the difference between these two scenerios, then thank god you arn't in politics or law.

Re:I honestly don't understand the fuss

[Sir_Lewk]

1. Occurring or likely to occur as an unpredictable or minor accompaniment: the snags incidental to a changeover in upper management. See Synonyms at accidental.
2. Of a minor, casual, or subordinate nature: incidental expenses.

In other words, unlike WiFi APs, human beings are not designed, built, and used as broadcasting equipment.

Despite Joe Sixpack not knowing much about radio communication, I'm pretty sure you'd be hard-pressed to find someone in the general public that doesn't have some basic and more or less correct idea of how wifi works. Everyone knows that the radio signals they use reach farther than their house, they just arn't familar enough with the concept yet to think of it in correct terms.