Google Found Guilty of Australian Privacy Breach

schliz writes "The Australian Privacy Commissioner has found Google guilty of breaching the country's Privacy Act when it collected unsecured WiFi payload data with its Street View vehicles. While the Commissioner could not penalize the company, Google agreed to publish an apology on its Australian blog, and work more closely with her during the next three years. Globally, Google is said to have collected some 600 GB of data transmitted over public WiFi networks. In May, the company put its high-definition Australian Street View plans on hold to audit its processes."

Comments

Mind Block

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

I really don't understand the issue: If you willingly radiate an unsecured Wi-Fi signal (or any type of signal), how can you claim a breach of "privacy"? *NOTHING* was "private"!

Re:Mind Block

[Animaether]

In your black-and-white world, I'm sure that things work that way.

In your world, you shouldn't complain about people taking pictures through your windows. You willingly radiate electromagnetic radiation - in the form of photons - so anything that can be seen through your windows is not private at all. Should have closed your curtains.

In your world, you shouldn't complain about people using parabolic microphones to listen to your conversations with another person in your household. You willingly make the surfaces vibrate, so anything that an outsider manages to pick up is not private at all. Should have use 2-foot thick reinforced concrete and lined the inside with sound absorbing padding.

In your world, you shouldn't complain if somebody goes through your trash and digs up everything from bills to medicine prescriptions. You willingly discarded it so callously, so it is not private at all. You should have incinerated it.

In your world, you shouldn't complain if private security companies band together and employ facial recognition among other to track your movements wherever their services have coverage, selling this data to yet other companies. After all, you willingly set foot outside. You should have gotten a teleworking job and gotten your groceries home-delivered.

Fortunately, in the real world, things aren't so black and white. Things are many shades of gray and probably all the colors of the rainbow, too. In the real world, we do define some rules, laws, that curtail these sorts of activities one way or another - generally in the interest of people's privacy.. even where in your world there would be none.
It is in that real world that Australia has seen fit to set privacy laws (Privacy Act) under which Google's activities are a no-no.

Whether or not those people should have known better, and should have secured their WiFi, or whether the people whose data has been collected even care that it occurred.. is a moot issue for the conclusion reached by the Australian privacy commissioner.

Re:Mind Block

[wisnoskij]

Well it all depends on what senses you are using.
for example Google could get some x-ray/heat vision gizmo that allowed then to track peoples actions in their homes or a sound amplifier to listen into someones home.
While wireless receivers are a lot easier to buy, that does not mean they are fundamentally different.
Not that I did not share your opinion as a gut instinct.

Re:Mind Block

[Darkness404]

All your examples though require extra materials and a lot of time. I don't know of a single wi-fi router, even the ancient ones that don't support at least -some- form of encryption. Yes, it might be terribly weak and can be compromised by a cracker in a matter of seconds, but then the Google "problem" would be moot.

If I'm outside with a megaphone screaming a conversation from a driveway, can you really say that the conversation was private? Yet that is essentially what having an unencrypted wi-fi system is.

Your situations -might- make sense if it wasn't so easy to set up encryption! Soundproofing my house requires a large setback both in time, money and design. Not going near my windows requires a decline in what you can do with a house. What exactly is the drawback of encryption? There isn't any.

Re:Mind Block

[dhavleak]

I really don't understand the issue: If you willingly radiate an unsecured Wi-Fi signal (or any type of signal), how can you claim a breach of "privacy"? *NOTHING* was "private"!

I can't believe the number of times this inane justification is being used!

If you use your computer on a wired LAN, anyone in the same collision domain can intercept everything you're sending and use a packet analyzer to reconstruct your traffic. Is it a privacy violation for them to do so -- yes! They need your express approval to do so.

Even if you use your laptop on public encrypted WiFi, anyone connected to the same WiFi hotspot can intercept everything you're sending and use a packet analyzer to reconstruct your traffic. Is it a privacy violation for them to do so -- yes! They need your express approval to do so.

Both these cases, people are actually authorized to use the network you're on -- but they still are not allowed to snoop your data -- just because the protocol/technology makes it possbile does not mean that you intended to grant them that access, or did not have an expectation of privacy.

In the case being discussed, Google did not even have permission to access the network -- forget snooping packets, storing them, etc. You should be going "holy fuck dude!!!" instead of defending them!! Even if the StreetView car were to happen upon some unencrypted WiFi hotspot, and even if that hotspot was meant for public access, and even if they had some way of knowing that -- they can only connect to that hotspot and use it to send/receive their own data. Anything beyond that is a violation of privacy -- and a huge fucking violation of trust!

Re:Mind Block

[Zironic]

It's about reasonable expectation of privacy, not what's technically possible. Did you know that in many parts of the world people leave their door unlocked yet still expect people to not walk in uninvited? While many Americans seem to have a very free for all wild west attitude to these sort of issues many other parts of the civilized world expect others to behave civilly.

Re:Private?

[Charliemopps]

It's the equivalent of google putting a tape recorder in a public park in order to record bird songs and then some people happen to walk by talking about how they like to take it up the butt. Governments see google as an easy target. Simple as that. You are NOT safe on the internet. Suck it up. Your politicians, as usual, are lying to you.

Re:Private?

[Tharsman]

It's the equivalent of google putting a tape recorder in a public park in order to record bird songs and then some people happen to walk by talking about how they like to take it up the butt.

No, it's the equivalent of them driving with a huge audio amplifying system and recording private conversations just because you didnt bother to sound-proof your house. Any audio professional knows it's extremely easy to sound-proof your house, you saying you don't do this in yours? Then don't whine if some one records what you say in your house, you can't claim it's private if you don't use the technical tools available to you to protect it.

Also, please do ignore the fact they didn't just connect to unsecured networks: they capture all data from these networks they could and saved it. Didnt they tell everyone they were just taking photos?

Re:Let me get this straight..

[houghi]

It's not ok for google to inadvertadly capture minute packets of useless information, but it's ok for the government to direct ISPs to intercept data illegally.

Why is it that people keep thinking that this is something between Google and some Government? This about your privacy. That means BOTH can be wrong.

Re:Private?

[icebike]

Also, please do ignore the fact they didn't just connect to unsecured networks: they capture all data from these networks they could and saved it. Didnt they tell everyone they were just taking photos?

They did not connect to the networks.

They did not capture all the data from these networks that they could.

They drove by, captured a few microseconds of beacon data and random unencrypted packets. All they really wanted was the beacon data, to locate the wifi hotspot, but someone got sloppy in the packet filtration.

There was no Connection to these networks. There was no expectation of privacy. Don't try to make more of it than it was.

Re:Private?

[icebike]

They didn't walk in and look around.

The physical equivalent would by you keeping all you stuff out on the lawn and then blaming passers by because they saw your stuff.

You put unencrypted radio transmitters in your house you lose all expectations of privacy. Nobody has to come in and look around when you are shouting it from the windows.

Stop trying to make Google evil over this thing.

It takes less than two minutes to secure your network, and in the absence of you doing that, YES, I am allowed to listen to your traffic.

Re:Private?

[KDR_11k]

The law does not agree. Few people know about securing WLANs so it's not reasonable to assume every unprotected WLAN was set up with the intent of inviting you in.

Re:Wait for Google's appeal, if any.

[icebike]

Google has publicly stated that they did not connect. Its in their blog post months ago. Its the same thing they told governments around the world.

Are you now claiming access to some other admission? If so lets see it. If not, just admit you made it up and we can be friends.

They drove by at about 25 MPH. You really can't connect to a router that fast when the average router has a range of about a hundred feet thru walls.