37 States Join Investigation of Google Street View

bonch writes "Attorneys General from 37 states have joined the probe into Google's Street View data collection. The investigation seeks more information behind Google's software testing and data archiving practices after it was discovered that their Street View vans scanned private WLANs and recorded users' MAC addresses. Attorney general Richard Blumenthal said, 'Google's responses continue to generate more questions than they answer. Now the question is how it may have used — and secured — all this private information.'"

Comments

Blah

[dissy]

*sigh*

That was some really nice street view mapping, location discovery, and concept of 'out in the public' we had there once :/

Re:Blah

[ultranova]

That was some really nice street view mapping, location discovery, and concept of 'out in the public' we had there once :/

Yeah, we had such concepts once. That was before everything you did "out in the public" was recorded and followed you everywhere.

"You have no expectation of privacy in the public" was fine when "no privacy" meant that you could be observed, but stops being fine when "no privacy" means "everybody you ever interact with can view a record of everything you've ever done". I, for one, do not wish to live under the Lidless Eye.

Re:Blah

[Anonymous Coward]

*sigh*

That was some really nice street view mapping, location discovery, and concept of 'out in the public' we had there once :/

I'm sorry that your concepts do not mesh well with the established traditions and customs of the USA. People like you need to realize that you are not anyone's moral superior because you find something acceptable that other people do not.

It's very clear by reading the articles on Google that the majority of people, in the USA and it other countries, are not comfortable with what Google Street View does. Regardless of any practical use they might find from using it.

IMHO it's just as creepy, if not creepier than an adult photographing strangers' children at the park.

Re:Blah

[dissy]

Yeah, we had such concepts once. That was before everything you did "out in the public" was recorded and followed you everywhere.
*snip*
I, for one, do not wish to live under the Lidless Eye.

Oh I know. Believe me, if these past months of Google stories have taught me anything, it is that I am firmly in the minority here. In fact, I'm in the minority both on Slashdot, and in the general population as well.

My original post was more intended as a "Damn I must be old now" complaint, not at all a call for change.

I've purposely refrained from posting my opinion on the matter due to that fact.

With all that said, I for one would not presume to force or even ask anyone else to live 'under the lidless eye' as you put it, against your will.

Re:Blah

[Albatrosses]

Yeah, but the intention definitely matters. The adult photographer is clearly trying to get photographs of strange children, whereas Google is trying to build a useful service. I'd say Google's use is a lot less creepy than the strange guy.

Here's a car analogy: If you cut me off because you're rushing your pregnant wife to the hospital through dense traffic, I don't mind. But if you cut me off because you're talking on your cell phone and not paying attention, we have a problem.

Re:Blah

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, do not wish to live under the Lidless Eye.

At least Sauron could only look in one direction at a time.

Re:Blah

[bonch]

Just because Google gets investigated doesn't mean competitors won't be happy to pick up the slack. It's not like Google is all that exists and that nobody else could do it.

This is Google's fault for making bizarre mistakes with its scanning software. It deserves a little smackdown to remind it of how careful it needs to be.

Re:Blah

[shutdown -p now]

"You have no expectation of privacy in the public" was fine when "no privacy" meant that you could be observed, but stops being fine when "no privacy" means "everybody you ever interact with can view a record of everything you've ever done". I, for one, do not wish to live under the Lidless Eye.

And yet there's no way back - it's just another, darker side of "information wants to be free". You can try to legislate it, but technology today makes stalking people easy and even trivial, and anonymity (or rather sufficient degree thereof) is not hard to achieve on the Net for those in the know, and then gathered information can be spread far and wide.

The only positive thing in this is that everyone is affected. Consequently, this is going to be a cause of a major shake-up in our cultural values, with much less attention paid to skeletons in the closet - once we find out that, yes, everyone really has one. Which may well be a good thing in the end.

Re:Blah

[dbet]

I think it quite reasonable for the law to allow pictures, video, and access point pinging by anyone in a public place, and still disallow large databases of this type of information to be collected and stored. Sure, the exact wording of such a law would have to be carefully chosen. That's okay.

Re:Blah

[inKubus]

The politicians just view this as a way to peek into Google while at the same time appearing to be "for privacy" publically.

Dudes, if you don't want your SSID scanned, don't broadcast it. Everything else shooting out should have encryption. I thought it was kindof clever to use the mac address and then geolocate stuff with it. I wish Google would put some time and money into mesh networking and ipv6 multicast though.

Re:Blah

[Anonymous Coward]

very well said. Interestingly enough though I am surprised no one has given a EU angle. There are several EU countries which do not allow open WiFi connections and hold the owner responsible for activity on their WiFi if it is left unprotected. It was my understanding after reading into this Google WiFi thing that they only captured open connections.data and nothing more. It is not like they cracked WEP keys or anything.

Re:Blah

[Nyder]

That was some really nice street view mapping, location discovery, and concept of 'out in the public' we had there once :/

Yeah, we had such concepts once. That was before everything you did "out in the public" was recorded and followed you everywhere.

"You have no expectation of privacy in the public" was fine when "no privacy" meant that you could be observed, but stops being fine when "no privacy" means "everybody you ever interact with can view a record of everything you've ever done". I, for one, do not wish to live under the Lidless Eye.

In case you missed the memo, you already do.

Sure,

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, it's fishy. But I can't honestly say I would have done anything differently ('accidentially' or otherwise ;) ) in Google's position... They had the sudden great ability to improve all their geolocation technology and collect some juicy data from people. How couldn't they, ehm, accidentally pass that up?

Or

[Spad]

37 States jump on Google Street View bandwagon.

Re:Or

[Zebai]

37 states that see the possibility of extorting some type of payout.

Don't think anybody without some type of motive would care about this, Google on their own discovered an oversight, corrected it, and publicly disclosed their error without using the data and is willing to destroy it if they weren't likely to get sued for destruction of evidence.

Perhaps these states want the data to use themselves.

Re:Or

[jdgeorge]

Because Google's pockets are deeper than the ISPs (Time Warner among others) who are the ones actually at fault for allowing customers to believe that their unencrypted wireless internet connections are private and secure.

Plus the fact that it's easier/cheaper/more politically feasible to pursue one big, rich, out-of-state company than to pursue numerous smaller, poorer companies who employ a good number of citizens of your own state.

Private Info?

[breser]

Seriously, who thinks this info is private? We're talking about payload data from unsecured wifi. For that matter we're talking about payload fragments.

Obviously, Google shouldn't have collected this. Obviously, Google shouldn't disclose this information to anyone, including governments.

The data should be destroyed and everyone should move on.

Google didn't collect anything that someone with a wifi card and some easily obtained software couldn't obtain.

Simply put, if you're concerned about privacy secure your wifi because without some encryption you really don't have any privacy.

Re:Private Info?

[houghi]

I think this is private. I think that even if I do something in public, there is no reason that it should be legal to record it and use it to cross reference it.

In the past, you are in a public place and people see what you did and had to recollect it from memmory, likely to forget most.

In the present, you are in a public place and machines record and register what you do. Everybody and his little brother is able to see what you did for all of eternety. Also they are able to crossreference it with everthing else.

Just because it is legal to keep all this data, it does not mean it should be.

For me privacy is not about the place, privacy is about the person.

Re:Private Info?

[gnasher719]

Seriously, who thinks this info is private? We're talking about payload data from unsecured wifi. For that matter we're talking about payload fragments.

On a recent discussion about the data that the iPhone collects and sends to Apple, many people commented that Apple is worse than Google. Apple collects and sends the following data:

1. MAC address

That's it. Apple doesn't collect the SSID which could likely be used to identify you. And Apple most definitely doesn't even look at any payload. Why would Google have any need to look at payload data? They have no legitimate reason whatsoever. I cannot see any technical reason why looking at any payload data would help them with Streetview. And they discarded all encrypted traffic and kept unencrypted traffic, making it very, very clear that this was intentionally nosing into stuff that they have no right to nose into.

Re:Private Info?

[WarJolt]

Even when connected to secured wifi networks your MAC can be sniffed. MACs are not secure. Try using airodump sometime. ;-)

Re:Private Info?

[profplump]

First, Google only gets passive captures, so they have to take what they can get and then parse it. They *necessarily* have to look at whole packets to figure out what's going on. They could then, after examining the packets, throw them out and keep only the data they're using in location services, but they had to capture it all in the first place. It seems plausible to me that they just didn't think it was important, or though it was worth saving in case they came up with a new way to process it later to improve their location services.

Second, they didn't keep encrypted data because there's no useful data to keep. There only thing sent in the clear on encrypted network is the MAC address, so there's no possible post processing or extra parsing they could possibly do to extract more information. It also seems plausible that they intentionally decided to exclude encrypted networks from their index as a courtesy to respect the privacy of encrypted networks.

It's possible that they're doing something evil -- though I'm hard pressed to come up with anything useful you could do with a 3-second packet capture -- but I can come up with plenty of plausible explanations for why they didn't immediately destroy the data. And even if the have evil plans, why is this so outrageous? Doesn't Google get like 15x as much useful information from everyone using their search engine and other services? If Google is being evil, shouldn't we be worried about that information much more than these one-time, very short packet captures from broadcast, unencrypted networks?

Re:Private Info?

[silentcoder]

>For me privacy is not about the place, privacy is about the person.

Perhaps - but what google did isn't like hiding in a bush behind you recording your conversation with your girlfriend. It's more like you are standing on top of a chair shouting "I love you Jane Fonda will you marry me" and they record it.

Seriously - when you BROADCAST information, without making any attempt to limit who can receive it despite your broadcasting device being equipped with the means to do so you can't expect it to be private afterward.

Or to use an analogy I used in a previous story on this topic: If you shag your girl against the window without closing the blinds you can't blame the neighbours for staring - not even the pervy fat-guy across the road who videotapes it (and then posts on slashdot about privacy concerns).

I can even give you a car analogy. If I take pictures of the highway as you drive by - and thus get a picture of your car showing make, model and registration - how did I invade your privacy ? If I do it in your own front yard I still didn't invade your privacy - especially since, if you really cared, you could easily have draped a car-condom over it.

Information you broadcast without limiting who can receive/understand it - is not private information - your own actions have MADE it public information.

Re:Private Info?

[maxwell demon]

That's it. Apple doesn't collect the SSID which could likely be used to identify you.

And the MAC address cannot be used to identify you?

Re:Private Info?

[silentcoder]

I think there is a difference though. Apple collected information - without fully informing users they would be doing so. Information that otherwise would have been quite hard to obtain especially en-mass. (a dhcp server would know it - but you'd still need to know exactly when the phone connected).
Google collected information that was being publicly broadcast by people who CHOSE not to make it private. It's that simple, if you choose not to secure your wifi, you've chosen to make any information travelling over it public. That's what the word "broadcast" means.
Perhaps we should use a different word for using encryption to limit who can receive a broadcast - which makes the information private - narrowcast perhaps ?

Re:Private Info?

[Anonymusing]

Information you broadcast without limiting who can receive/understand it - is not private information - your own actions have MADE it public information. (emphasis added)

Therein lies the problem. The average consumer does not think of wireless networking as "broadcast" information. They still consider it private. This is partially a lack of understand of the technology, and partially because it does not occur to most people that anyone else might try to snoop.

If I don't want you petting my dog, I can put up a fence around my yard that keeps the dog in and strangers out. But there's no fence I can use to stop wireless signals from going past my physical property, or to keep you from petting my computer... digitally, I mean... hey, stop it.

Re:Private Info?

[Anonymous Coward]

> But there's no fence I can use to stop wireless signals from going past my physical property

Um, Physics 101? There is.

Re:Private Info?

[AlecC]

Particularly, Google has a reflexive "never destroy data" mentality, Part of what Google does, what it sees as part of its culture, is to store vast amounts of data, Allegedly, it took a real fight to allow there to be a delete function on Gmail: much of the company thought that, since they were storing it for free and with their indexing, there was no reason anybody should ever need to delete anything.

I think they have a real problem in their lack of understanding of people's desire for privacy, and people's desire sometimes to wipe the slate of past mistakes. There is nothing evil here, just the simple fact that people with differing concerns see the same world differently. It is exactly the same as the concerns about big government databases: people whose every working minute is spent worrying about terrorists and criminals really see the world differently from those to whom such threats are a peripheral nuisance.

Re:Private Info?

[Zironic]

What certain geeks like you seem to fail to understand is that normal people don't give a flying fuck about how it works on a technical level.

What a normal reasonable person expects from an open wi-fi is that their neighbors might borrow their internet. What they don't expect is that a random asswank will record all their data. While it's very easy to do it does require you to go out of your way to do it which means you're a dick.

In the same way when you sunbathe in your backyard or fuck your girlfriend in the window you probably don't mind if your neighbors see you, but you have every right to be pissed if someone decides to take photographs.

I for one don't want to live in a world where any information that leaves the 4 walls of my house is public.

Re:Private Info?

[AMindLost]

So you think your DNA isn't private? You leave it everywhere you go so it's in the public domain. Is it OK for a company to collect it, store it and profile it for its own purposes?

Re:Private Info?

[silentcoder]

>In the same way when you sunbathe in your backyard or fuck your girlfriend in the window you probably don't mind if your neighbors see you, but you have every right to be pissed if someone decides to take photographs.

If you can't be arsed to close the curtains - then you don't have the right to complain if I DO take photos.

Re:Private Info?

[DJRumpy]

From what I've read, it doesn't matter as it was not intended to be public. This relates to the same situation police officers faced attempting to record thermal data by reading the thermals off the side of a person house. They argued that since they were not entering into a private residence, but rather reading the data from the external walls, that there was no invasion of privacy. The supreme court threw the argument out, indicating that there was an expectation of privacy involved, and that it was not legal to collect such data without a warrant.

https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/privacy

(although the Supreme Court has held that more invasive technological means of obtaining information about the inside of your home, like thermal imaging technology to detect heat sources, is a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant).

Re:Private Info?

[DJRumpy]

Reasonable means...typical home owners are not going to understand the reasons to create a cage, have the means, or technical knowledge to do this, let alone work around issues like cell signals, radio, etc.

Re:Private Info?

[silentcoder]

>The average consumer does not think of wireless networking as "broadcast" information

The average consumer also doesn't think drunk driving is such a big deal - we still hold them accountable when they kill somebody.

Failing to recognize the potential consequences of your actions does not absolve you from being responsible for them.

Re:Private Info?

[drinkypoo]

Therein lies the problem. The average consumer does not think of wireless networking as "broadcast" information.

I'm sick and tired of hearing this bullshit excuse. If someone doesn't think that running someone down with their car will kill them because they watched too many episodes of Itchy and Scratchy, is that a potential defense for vehicular homicide? What about the Streisand effect? Would it be legitimate to prevent taking pictures of other people's property from the air if they didn't know that photons were reflecting off of it at all times and making it visible? Stop making excuses for the technological ineptitude of the masses of asses. They don't bother to educate themselves because there's no reason to do so. Well, I for one think that there is a reason to try to be up on the basic technologies of your age, and further, I think that you should be held liable for your own [mis]use of same. If you don't want to have to learn about how your AP works, run a fucking wire. Advanced technology requires advanced understanding. The legal standing has never been based on understanding but on one basic premise: the data traveling to the person and not the person traveling to the data. There is absolutely zero difference here, and the broadcaster should be liable for their broadcast, just as you would be liable for interference caused by plugging in an FM transmitter and using it to listen to your mp3s anywhere in your house. It doesn't matter that a person doesn't understand that radio waves aren't blocked by walls.

Re:Private Info?

[silentcoder]

Not even close to the same ballpark... hell it's not even the same damn sport.

If a policeman walking down the road sees you shooting a gun at your girlfriend through the window with the open blinds he will damn sure rush in and intervene. "Plain sight" is not covered by the 4th ammendment and broadcast data is much closer to "plain sight" than thermal imagery from INSIDE the house.
More-over there is no practical way to PREVENT thermal energy if you want to, but it's easy to prevent broadcasting unencrypted wifi. Every damn router on the market has an easy setup wizard that suggests encryption as the RECOMMENDED DEFAULT. That makes disabling it an act of choice. Usually made to avoid the hassle of passwords.
Well the price you pay for that convenience is the choice to make your data public.

Re:Private Info?

[Spad]

Public != Public Domain.

As long as their purposes are legal, then they're not doing anything wrong. They might be acting unethically, you might not *like* them doing it, but that's another issue entirely; this whole Google debacle is about legality.

Re:Private Info?

[Anonymous Coward]

But there's no fence I can use to stop wireless signals from going past my physical property, or to keep you from petting my computer... digitally, I mean... hey, stop it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage

Re:Private Info?

[HungryHobo]

I assume you think videocameras should be outlawed then?
someone can just walk down the street with one and record not just images but snippets of the conversations they pass, owners of video cameras should be prosecuted like the eavesdroppers they are!!!

Re:Private Info?

[HungryHobo]

yes there is. there's that little box you can tick and a password field you can fill in which makes everything you broadcast private. LIKE MAGIC!!!

Re:Private Info?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? You can see heat. You can't see WiFi.

"Plain sight" is not covered by the 4th ammendment and broadcast data is much closer to "plain sight" than thermal imagery

Re:Private Info?

[HungryHobo]

It is reasonable however to expect them to tick that little box when they first set up their router, you know the one, to secure it.
If that isn't enough their computer makes every effort to tell them "warning this connection is unsecured" etc etc etc

If you're too stupid to realise than things written in the margins of a library book are less private than things written in your diary or that "warning, this connection is not secured" means "warning, this connection is not secured" then you've passed bellow the "reasonable" threshold.

Re:Private Info?

[HungryHobo]

oh it can leave your 4 walls but you have to make at least a symbolic gesture that you wish it to be private.

Encrypt with WEP rather than broadcast it openly.
Seal it in an envelope rather than writing it on a postcard.
Speak it over a private telephone line rather than using a loudspeaker.

Go for a shit in the bathroom and you can expect privacy.
Go for a shit in the middle of the public street and you can expect none. Even if you're deranged or stupid and convinced that you're invisible.

pull the curtain closed in the changing room if you want privacy rather than screaming that passers-by are violating your privacy when you don't.

if people don't know unsecured actually means "unsecured" then they need to learn.it's simple. the world does not need to bend over backwards for them.

Re:Private Info?

[aGuyNamedJoe]

How about they patent it? Then they can charge you for using it!

Luckily it takes years for patents to be awarded...

Re:Private Info?

[ElectricTurtle]

I hate to agree with drinkypoo... ever... but I concur. Every time somebody drags out the 'but they didn't know what they were doing!' excuse it makes me want to deck somebody. If you have a car and wear the brakes down to nothing to the point where they don't work, you can't then say 'I didn't know that's how brakes worked!' and get out of jail free when you roll over somebody.

Stupidity is not a defense, ignorance is not an excuse. If you don't know how to operate something, don't operate it, because the liability is and should always be the operator's.

Re:Private Info?

[silentcoder]

>So you think your DNA isn't private? You leave it everywhere you go so it's in the public domain. Is it OK for a company to collect it, store it and profile it for its own purposes?

Considering the amount of DNA that /. readers have distributed into socks and keyboards, I think the readership is actively campaigning to make DNA automatically public domain.

Re:Private Info?

[Custard Horse]

What is required is some sort of easily implemented workaround to prevent these signals from disappearing into the ether.

I'm working on a project similar to this myself where I have used a simple cable, attached it to my router and used a web browser to shut off the wireless function. It's not elegant but it works.

Maybe other slashdotters have tried something similar?

P.S. If anything, the throughout has *increased* and appears to be *more* stable although I have no way to test this with the limited equipment to which I have access. It might just be a perceived improvement.

Re:Private Info?

[jordan_robot]

Really? You can see heat. You can't see WiFi.

What? You can't see heat & neither can I (in the context of this discussion of course). You need a device to translate that heat into the visible spectrum.

Re:Private Info?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I think that even if I do something in public, there is no reason that it should be legal to record it and use it to cross reference it."

Then you have much more serious things to worry about, such as shopping with your credit card. Public activity? check. Recorded and used for cross reference? Check.
Maybe you also think the street number on your house should not be photographed?

Re:Private Info?

[ultranova]

If a policeman walking down the road sees you shooting a gun at your girlfriend through the window with the open blinds he will damn sure rush in and intervene. "Plain sight" is not covered by the 4th ammendment and broadcast data is much closer to "plain sight" than thermal imagery from INSIDE the house.

Actually, no. The difference here is between a policeman walking down the road happens to see something and a policeman sets up equipment to spy on you. That is the difference, not the part of electromagnetic spectrum used. Well, that and the difference between immediate life-and-death emergency situation and an ongoing investigation.

More-over there is no practical way to PREVENT thermal energy if you want to,

Of course there is: just put thermal insulation in your walls. It'll also save you a lot of money in heating/cooling bills, and might help save the planet.

Re:Private Info?

[DJRumpy]

Being stupid, or failing to follow a warning does not excuse the actions of others taking advantage of that, and no amount of wrangling will change that fact. It doesn't matter if the user secured their WiFi or not. They have a reasonable expectation that their data will be private. Google had no right to collect that data unless it received prior release from the user to collect such data.

Reasonable expectation of privacy is extended to a persons home. If said person was strolling about naked in front of their window, in full view of their neighbors, then they have no reasonable expectation of privacy. If they did so in their bathroom with the blinds closed, and someone happened to peek through the blinds and take snapshots, then that would be a violation of privacy. The same rule applies here, which is why Google is facing so many legal challenges from so many states. There is clear precedence here from the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Nixes Warrantless Heat-Sensor Searches, Oregon Grow-Op Case Updates Fourth Amendment to Deal With New Technologies

Police must first obtain a search warrant before using a heat-sensing device to look inside a person's home, a narrowly divided Supreme Court ruled Monday. In an unusual Supreme Court alliance, conservative justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined with liberals David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer to form a 5-4 majority.

"This is an important victory for the Fourth Amendment because it says again the home is a protected area," University of Iowa law professor James Tomkovicz, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief for the American Civil Liberties Union, told the Los Angeles Times. "I think [the justices] were worried about what comes next, the technology that would allow the government to stay out but detect what is going on inside the home."

REF: http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/190/heatsensors.shtml

More information on Expectation of Privacy

"Privacy and search
The expectation of privacy is crucial to distinguishing a legitimate, reasonable police search and seizure from an unreasonable one.
In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) Justice Harlan issued a concurring opinion articulating the two-part test later adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court as the test for determining whether a police or government search is subject to the limitations of the Fourth Amendment: (1) governmental action must contravene an individual's actual, subjective expectation of privacy; (2) and that expectation of privacy must be reasonable, in the sense that society in general would recognize it as such.
To meet the first part of the test, the person from whom the information was obtained must demonstrate that they, in fact, had an actual, subjective expectation that the evidence obtained would not be available to the public. In other words, the person asserting that a search was conducted must show that they kept the evidence in a manner designed to ensure its privacy.
The first part of the test is related to the notion "in plain view". If a person did not undertake reasonable efforts to conceal something from a casual observer (as opposed to a snoop), then no subjective expectation of privacy is assumed.

Obviously, in the above example, heat signatures detected in infrared are not "in plain view", just as WiFi signals, encrypted or not, are not "in plain view". If technology happens to make it easier to go to the local store and buy equipement to detect such, it still doesn't change the basic premise of "in plain view".

You assume that the WiFi routers in question did in fact warn the users that the connection was unsecured, while many homes have routers that are years old. It is only recently that they started coming with better configuration software that prompts to setup a secure network, and even then the options can be

Re:Private Info?

[c0lo]

Therein lies the problem. The average consumer does not think of wireless networking as "broadcast" information. They still consider it private. This is partially a lack of understand of the technology, and partially because it does not occur to most people that anyone else might try to snoop.

I don't see how the lack of understanding would make the broadcasted information less public.
Does a blind person have an excuse on "I cannot see myself" if, getting naked in public places, would be considered offensive?
Could a deaf person ask anyone else "Don't hear what I'm saying, because I myself cannot hear"?

Re:Private Info?

[mpe]

If a policeman walking down the road sees you shooting a gun at your girlfriend through the window with the open blinds he will damn sure rush in and intervene. "Plain sight" is not covered by the 4th ammendment

But the police officer can't see through a blind or other than visible light.

and broadcast data is much closer to "plain sight" than thermal imagery from INSIDE the house.

If anything thermal imagery is rather closer to "plain sight" since it is possible to wear a machine which will turn what isn't usually visible light into visible light. However you can't easily do this with 2.4/5GHz signals.

Re:Private Info?

[GooberToo]

I think this is private. I think that even if I do something in public, there is no reason that it should be legal to record it and use it to cross reference it.

The law doesn't even work that way. Besides, your interpretation implies almost everything is private unless you say otherwise. That would mean, for example, simply taking a picture of a birthday party at a park is illegal unless you get waivers from everyone. That's simply not reasonable.

Re:Private Info?

[ElectricTurtle]

You're not putting these pieces together rationally... clearly he is a pit viper that has somehow learned to use a keyboard... or worse, a mad scientist has created a neural interface for pit vipers to post on Slashdot... and he taught it English! Who knows what a pit viper that can read and write English on the internet is capable of!

Re:Private Info?

[shawn(at)fsu]

Just because it's a private network doesn't mean the MAC address is private no more than the street address for private property is private.

Re:Private Info?

[ElectricTurtle]

And remember kids, almost anything that blocks visible light blocks IR too.

Re:Private Info?

[silentcoder]

>>If a policeman walking down the road sees you shooting a gun at your girlfriend through the window with the open blinds he will damn sure rush in and intervene. "Plain sight" is not covered by the 4th ammendment and broadcast data is much closer to "plain sight" than thermal imagery from INSIDE the house.

>Actually, no. The difference here is between a policeman walking down the road happens to see something and a policeman sets up equipment to spy on you. That is the difference, not the part of electromagnetic spectrum used. Well, that and the difference between immediate life-and-death emergency situation and an ongoing investigation.

Well I was showing you limits to your 4th amendment -either way the US constitution restricts the government, you've made it abundantly clear that it does not apparently restrict corporations. The point is there is a huge difference between seeing through a window and looking through a solid wall. The former was DESIGNED to be seen through, and provided with the means to prevent this feature when so desired. Leaving the blinds open is thus can be taken as a clear intent NOT to make whatever is visible private (as every exhibitionist in the world will tell you).

>>More-over there is no practical way to PREVENT thermal energy if you want to,

>Of course there is: just put thermal insulation in your walls. It'll also save you a lot of money in heating/cooling bills, and might help save the planet.

That can prevent it being easily visible through a wall, it doesn't prevent it being created. More-over - unless your house came with it you would need to spend extra money and time to obtain this protection. Practically every house comes with curtain rails already installed. By the same token - every router comes with the ability to encrypt connections already included.
You need not go to any additional expense nor to more than a brief 5 minutes of trouble to make the data private if you so wish, so it's reasonable to assume that not doing so is a clear indication of a desire to make it public.

Re:Private Info?

[countertrolling]

Ha. You just gave credence to the damn cops who don't want to be recorded beating up some poor schlub. To hell with that.

Re:Private Info?

[tist]

...geeks like you...

...asswank...

...you're a dick....

I for one don't want to live in a world where any information that leaves the 4 walls of my house is public.

What certain people do understand is the difference between a real argument and an ad-hominem one. While you are busy demonstrating your ignorance, the parent explained how it works and why it simply isn't private. What you "expect", out of your ignorance of the issues, really doesn't matter.

As far as your last comment, you can figure out what to do about that one yourself.

Re:Private Info?

[stroh]

I agree, anything being broadcasted unencrypted you can receive legally. They probably had their reasons for recording the data; whatever that may be. There is no law for them to disclose it or not to. It would be interesting to see a wifi map on that magnitude.

Here is something else to be afraid of from an old paper.

“A British hacker has shown how easy it is to clone US passport cards that use Radio Frequency ID chips by conducting a drive-by test on the streets of San Francisco. Chris Paget, director of research and development at Seattle-based IOActive, used a $250 Motorola RFID reader and an antenna mounted in a car's side window and drove for 20 minutes around San Francisco, with a colleague videoing the demonstration. Paget picked up the details of two US passport cards, which are fitted with RFID chips and can be used instead of traditional passports for travel to Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean Paget claimed that it would be relatively simple to make cloned passport cards from the information he had gathered.”
http://www.v3.co.uk/vnunet/news/2235666/hackers-clones-passports-drive

Re:Private Info?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the point entirely. You CAN see infrared. Infrared cameras are freely available at electronic stores. That doesn't mean it's legal for people to use them to snoop. WiFi, has nothing out which would make them 'visible' or 'in plain sight', meaning if anything, it is farther from 'plain sight' than Infrared.

What? You can't see heat & neither can I (in the context of this discussion of course). You need a device to translate that heat into the visible spectrum.

Re:Private Info?

[Muad'Dave]

I disagree that wifi data meets the definition of a broadcast; rather, it is a non-public communication transmitted without encryption. The only definitions of 'broadcast' I could find at the FCC website were related to specific broadcast services (AM, FM, TV, etc)

47CFR73 Sec. 73.14 AM broadcast definitions.
A broadcast station licensed for the dissemination of radio communications intended to be received by the public and operated on a channel in the AM broadcast band.

Also there are rules in the Amateur service (Part 97) that forbid broadcast transmissions intended for the public.

The crux of the biscuit is that broadcasts are, by definition, intended for public receipt. Wifi data is not intended for public receipt and the service under which Wifi equipment operates is not licensed as a broadcast service (it is unlicensed, in fact).

Remember back in the day when HBO, etc were transmitted in-the-clear over C band satellites? I could tune in and watch it with no trouble, but the law said even though it was transmitted in-the-clear you could not legally watch it unless you were a subscriber.

Did you know that the old-school pagers used in-the-clear transmissions? I could've easily transcribed every single pager transmission in the greater Richmond area (as well as ones intended for those with 'satellite' pagers that worked nationwide). It would not have been legal, however.

How about the old 49 MHz cordless phones/baby monitors, analog cell phones, etc? They were all in the clear, and special federal legislation was enacted to prevent eavesdropping - they forced scanner manufacturers to block the analog cell frequencies.

What google did by collecting anything other that the SSID was equivalent to transcribing private pager data and making it publicly available - that certainly would be illegal.

References:
Communications Act of 1934, as Amended (pdf)

http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs2-wire.htm

Re:Private Info?

[DJRumpy]

You realize you just won the States arguments against Google right?

What? You can't see heat & neither can I (in the context of this discussion of course). You need a device to translate that heat into the visible spectrum.

Re:Private Info?

[Muad'Dave]

PS - the Comm Act of '34 contains this definition:

"BROADCASTING.--The term ''broadcasting'' means the dissemination of radio
communications intended to be received by the public, directly or by the intermediary of relay
stations."

Re:Private Info?

[DJRumpy]

I just realized I forgot a key point above (see what happens when you are too verbose?) ;)

When someone uses equipment to convert something that isn't normally in plain view into plain view, it becomes 'snooping' and fails the first test used by the Supreme Court to determine 'expectation of privacy'.

Re:Private Info?

[Silentknyght]

In the same way when you sunbathe in your backyard or fuck your girlfriend in the window you probably don't mind if your neighbors see you, but you have every right to be pissed if someone decides to take photographs.

It's pretty much this in a nutshell. What so many other slashdotters appear to misunderstand is that privacy isn't a dichotomy of "have it" or "don't have it", but instead there are (or were) various shades of privacy. Except more and more, the various shades are being pushed more & more into a dichotomy, and the disappearance of those semi-private events is the source of much of the hate.

Like your example, it's one thing if your neighbors see you--what is that, perhaps 5-10 people, most of whom you know--and its' something else if it's up on Google Streetview and 5,000,000 to 10,000,000 people view it, most of whom are complete strangers.

Re:Private Info?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Well I was showing you limits to your 4th amendment -either way the US constitution restricts the government, you've made it abundantly clear that it does not apparently restrict corporations.

Depends on the extent to which it has been "incorporated" via the 14th Amendment. Which has to be decided by the Supremes. If this ever gets as far as the Supremes, they can declare what was done by Google an unconstitutional infringement of the 4th Amendment. Or not. Until then, no-one will know for sure....

Note that the entire Bill of Rights once only limited the Federal government, not the State governments. Then the States passed the Fourteenth Amendment, which extended the Bill of Rights (and every other Constitutional provision) to everyone in the USA, against anyone who'd care to try to infringe upon them.

Re:Private Info?

[Anonymusing]

Failing to recognize the potential consequences of your actions does not absolve you from being responsible for them.

Exactly so. I wasn't trying to suggest that consumers could not be accountable for this.

Re:Private Info?

[elrous0]

This isn't about privacy. This is about 37 states in desperate budget crises who will latch on to anything that might get them a cash settlement.

Re:Private Info?

[silentcoder]

>BROADCASTING

Yes a legal definition from 1934 is perfectly adequate to consider this scenario through. If anything I would say that the very definition you cite supports MY view more than yours. Because it's broadcast that MAKES it intended for the public. The law was written to control who is ALLOWED to broadcast on licensed spectrums. On an unlicensed spectrum EVERYBODY is allowed to broadcast, that doesn't mean what you do there ISN'T broadcasting.
The meaning of that word is well defined in engineering and it's EXACTLY what WIFI does. You cite examples of in-the-clear broadcasts that were not meant to be public - but you yourself indicate how special legislation had to be passed to make eavesdropping on such broadcasts illegal. The law assumes a broadcast to be MEANT for public reception except where it makes specific exceptions (like e.g. baby-monitors).

There is no such exception law for WIFI - it would make things like public hotspots a legal nightmare as you struggle to define what constitutes permission. Since WIFI is on an unlicensed spectrum it's incredibly hard to control who broadcasts there (and it isn't supposed to be) or who listens - basically it's clearly not practical to MAKE it an exception.

Instead the technology allows for the means to make broadcasts in this spectrum private if so desired - by encrypting them. Deliberate (and considering that nature of modern wifi's - generally intentional) failure to use the privacy feature must then default to the base legal position: that since it's a broadcast, it's INTENDED to be public.
Since a lot of such wifi broadcasts ARE intended to be public (again - public access hotspots spring to mind) this is the only REASONABLE position to take.

Re:Private Info?

[10101001 10101001]

Personally, I'm waiting for the day that IPv6 becomes common place*. By then, I can readily imagine someone like Google data mining the trash of the nation (imagine targeting ads when you actually know what people have bought and might buy again instead of merely what they might buy). Hell, I'm sort of surprised Google isn't doing it already given how much DSL/cable/fiber users already have nearly, if not entirely, static IPs. And just imagine the sort of money Google could make from governments, private investigators, etc.

One person cutting down a tree for firewood is fine. A thousand men can lead to deforestation. A machine that can effect the word of a million men can can cause an ecological nightmare. The same holds true with pollution. The same holds true with oil and global warming. Something evil can come out of something as innocuous as collecting garbage. Even though we probably shouldn't punish Google today, I don't think we should wait until there is reason to punish a company or person to change the law. I don't really know where the line of privacy should begin and end. However, I do know that charging all individuals with the task of having the foresight to do the right thing when in comes to privacy when most are not aware of where the pragmatically privacy lines are isn't the answer. Hell, very few of the most technical among us follow the "don't post it on the internet if it's supposed to remain private" in its strictest sense; or, are you one of those few people who keeps all your private data on non-internet-connected computers (any computer connected to the internet is part of the internet hence the information is effectively posted to those with the desire to find it so long as that computer has the capability to leak that information)?

*Yea, yea, who knows when that'll be...

Re:Private Info?

[Anonymusing]

Stop making excuses for the technological ineptitude of the masses of asses.

It's not an excuse. It's a fact: people don't understand this stuff. I agree with you about this. I don't think Google did anything wrong; instead of suing Google, the states should spend their money on educating people about how to secure their home networks. DUH!

Re:Private Info?

[Anonymusing]

I don't see how the lack of understanding would make the broadcasted information less public. Does a blind person have an excuse on "I cannot see myself" if, getting naked in public places, would be considered offensive? Could a deaf person ask anyone else "Don't hear what I'm saying, because I myself cannot hear"?

Well, those are different questions. Most blind people know that other people can see them, even though they themselves cannot see. And the blind person would not sue a sighted person for looking at them.

Most people don't understand that WiFi == broadcast. They don't. Even when their computer picks up signals from the neighbors, they think: that's interesting. They almost never think: my neighbors can see my signal! This is not an excuse, merely an observation. Ignorance of the truth is not protection from it.

Re:Private Info?

[silentcoder]

>Note that the entire Bill of Rights once only limited the Federal government, not the State governments. Then the States passed the Fourteenth Amendment, which extended the Bill of Rights (and every other Constitutional provision) to everyone in the USA, against anyone who'd care to try to infringe upon them.

Yet nobody seems to have a problem with employers censoring their employees speech ? There's your exception right there. Clearly the U.S. constitution is NOT held to apply to corporations.

Re:Private Info?

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree with both analogies. If you were standing on a chair shouting, it would be obvious to you that everyone can hear you, and they wouldn't need to be collecting data about you without your knowlwedge or permission. Likewise, if your car's in the driveway, you know everyone can see it. Most users won't know what their mac address even is, and they won't be expecting a big gun company like google to be sneakily collating information about you and your personal, indorr, equipment.

Re:Private Info?

[L0rdJedi]

Therein lies the problem. The average consumer does not think of wireless networking as "broadcast" information. They still consider it private. This is partially a lack of understand of the technology, and partially because it does not occur to most people that anyone else might try to snoop.

The hell they don't. I can't tell you the number of people that I have had to tell to "get your own" because they were trying to use their neighbors wireless access because they're to cheap to get their own Internet. This is exactly why I lock my down. They don't care that it's not their service. It's "free" and they want to use it.

I've even talked to people that don't want to bother locking it down because they think their Windows passwords will keep them secure. The guy was running XP with shares available to "Everyone". To bad I can't go back and show him that.

Re:Private Info?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that even if I do something in public, there is no reason that it should be legal to record it and use it to cross reference it.

So, because you have some grossly inflated sense of entitlement you think we should be arresting people that offend you? This is why society is fucked. People like you want to make laws for everything so that there is literally no amount of frivolity that can't land you in jail. Fuck that. We need fewer laws, not more. Murder, rape, fraud, etc. Everything else needs to be handled privately.

Re:Private Info?

[HungryHobo]

"When someone uses equipment to convert something that isn't normally in plain view into plain view"

spectacles would qualify here.
"special equipment" perhaps but then this requires no special equipment whatsoever, the cheapest netbook you can buy can connect to an open wireless network and listen.

Re:Private Info?

[HungryHobo]

If you happened to find an open WiFi hotspot in your neighborhood, you broke into it, and committed a crime, do you think the judge would show leniency on you because the WiFi hotspot was open? Of course not.

this is where you passed into utter absurdity.
if you happen to find an open wifi in a coffee shop, sitting on the steps of the library,in the park or in your neighbourhood you are not breaking in by connecting.
If you crack their wep key sure but connecting to an open wifi is no more breaking in than reading a postcard you find on the ground is tampering with the mail.

Re:Private Info?

[naasking]

How does anything you just said apply to recording MAC addresses?

Re:Private Info?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I take pictures of the highway as you drive by - and thus get a picture of your car showing make, model and registration - how did I invade your privacy ? If I do it in your own front yard I still didn't invade your privacy - especially since, if you really cared, you could easily have draped a car-condom over it.

The difference is that Google isn't getting your permission to broadcast your likeness (in the event that you are not a criminal or a participant in a public hearing). Have you ever noticed that on TV when they show "real" people driving around in public they blur the license plates and/or faces?

Google isn't blurring the address on your house, they aren't blurring the windows that peer into your house, they aren't blurring the license plates on the cars in the driveway of your house.

If this were TV I don't think Google would have a leg to stand on because I think with TV the stations must have your explicit consent to broadcast your image, unless you are a criminal.

Re:Private Info?

[L0rdJedi]

The ruling you cited has to do with illegal search and seizure i.e. protection from the government. Google is not the government and as long as they don't give it to the government, they've done nothing wrong. As someone else pointed out, this is no different then someone wardriving through a neighbor collecting the information. The information is already in public.

This would be like saying that the cop illegally searched your car or house when he could clearly see the dead body through the window. That's not illegal search and seizure, that's enforcing the law.

Re:Private Info?

[Anonymous Coward]

Expectation is the mother of all fuckups. I liken this more to the garbage at the curb scenario...it's not holly within the privacy of your home, although it once was; therefore, having made it freely available both outside your home, as well as likely off your property, you have given up the right, just as you do when you take your trash to the curb, no matter how personal or impersonal it is.

Re:Private Info?

[HungryHobo]

"5,000,000 to 10,000,000"

I think you overestimate how many people do nothing but trawl through streetview looking for tits.

Re:Private Info?

[Zironic]

"What certain people do understand is the difference between a real argument and an ad-hominem one."

That wouldn't be you. This is an ad-hominem argument
"You're a moron, thus I don't need to refute you"

This is an opinion
"People that invade others privacy are dicks and asswanks"

Now go back to your corner and stop using words you don't understand.

Re:Private Info?

[DJRumpy]

A laptop is infinitely more complex than a piece of glass. I wouldn't consider common eye glasses special equipment, and neither would a judge.

Re:Private Info?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this is private. I think that even if I do something in public, there is no reason that it should be legal to record it and use it to cross reference it.

In the past, you are in a public place and people see what you did and had to recollect it from memmory, likely to forget most.

Considering a career in law enforcement?

Re:Private Info?

[DJRumpy]

Two entirely different scenarios. A residential neighborhood is not the same as a Starbucks lobby. People have an expectation of privacy in their homes, where the same does not apply on a public WiFi hotspot.

Re:Private Info?

[HungryHobo]

correction: A precision milled, polished, treated, coated and mounted piece of glass.

it is however in no way special.
a regular video camera perhaps then?That's almost as complex as my netbook, in some ways more so and far more specialized.

I wouldn't consider a netbook special equipment and neither would a judge with an ounce of sense.

Re:Private Info?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Yet nobody seems to have a problem with employers censoring their employees speech ? There's your exception right there. Clearly the U.S. constitution is NOT held to apply to corporations.

Until and unless the Supremes rule on the particular matter in question, it is still open to debate. And even if they rule that a corporation can restrict an employees speech (as far as I know they have not so ruled), this is irrelevant to the question of whether this particular case (Google and Streetview) are a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Remember, if you think that your employer is violating your civil rights, you have to bring suit to stop it - the courts won't, of their own initiative, decide to stop it for you....

Re:Private Info?

[HungryHobo]

there can be a starbucks in a residential neighbourhood.
I can have an expectation of privacy as I walk down the street naked wearing my imaginary invisibility cloak but that doesn't make it real or take away anyone elses right to look at me or anything else on the public street or even take away their right to walk down the street with a camcorder recording me.

Delusions need to be corrected, not coddled and catered to.

Re:Private Info?

[DJRumpy]

Your ruling would only apply to vision impaired people? Do you see how ridiculous your argument is becoming in trying to avoid 'in plain sight'?

Re:Private Info?

[Elfich47]

With a wireless network I do not necessarily know which house the transmitter is in. somehow I am guessing that the investigators are going to be a little disappointed when they find out the payload data is tied to a latitude and longitude and not an address. It is hard to determine if someone's privacy has been violated when any given transmitter could be within 100 yards of the receiver's location. I realize with enough time and triangulation the approximate location of each transmitter could be determined. My understanding is that Google has not done this.

Re:Private Info?

[Idiomatick]

# To transmit a message or signal via radio waves or electronic means
# To transmit a message over a wide area

Seems to fit... The definition by the FCC will obviously be different than the average person's thoughts.

Re:Private Info?

[Schadrach]

...and if I set up a low-power FM transmitter in my home (under the FCC limit -- a lot of old "use your walkman/CD-man/iPod with your car stereo" kits use this technique), I have a reasonable expectation of privacy that noone passing by will ever, under any circumstances, tune their radio to the station I am transmitting on. Even if the particular frequency is a well known and published standard.

Right?

Re:Private Info?

[HungryHobo]

you keep ignoring the realities of "broadcasting to everyone".
It doesn't matter if people are deluded that they're doing something privatly when they're sending everything in the clear, in plain sight, where any bog standard, normal, cheap, unspecialised remarkable laptop can pick it up.
If I'm deluded that only I and my friend can hear each other when we use a walkie talkie it isn't the fault of anyone else with the same model if we're too foolish to read the warnings we're given that anyone else can pick up our conversation.

I'm not setting the bar high, I'm setting the bar as low as is remotely reasonable.

I can clap my hands and believe, believe real hard that I can broadcast things at my neighbours in the clear and still not be broadcasting it in the clear at them but that doesn't make it so.

correct their delusions, don't cater to them.

Re:Private Info?

[Anonymous Coward]

How the hell is this insightful? The "average consumer" doesn't think DUI is a big deal? BS. The neo-prohibition movement is as strong as ever. The next car you buy might be required to come with an ignition interlock!

Re:Private Info?

[DJRumpy]

You are not 'broadcasting to everyone'. These people set up these routers with the intent to broadcast only to their personal equipment (hence the expectation of privacy). The supreme court already ruled on this regarding infrared and ruled it wasn't 'in plain sight' and that Infrared from a persons home would fall under reasonable privacy, irregardless of whether it radiated outside of the home. The same would apply to WiFi (if not, how would you claim that Infrared and WiFi differ in regards to the Plain Sight test?).

Apparently 37 other states would also argue against your reasoning as well.

Re:Private Info?

[Rijnzael]

Morally? I agree you shouldn't be able to. Legally? Pretty sure you can collect a DNA sample from anything that has been discarded or anywhere that you're not illegally intruding.

Re:Private Info?

[HungryHobo]

With very few exceptions they've freely chosen to change from the recommended settings as on pretty much every router out there.
This isn't some situation where anyone has to bend over backwards to avoid something being made public.
this is where people either through laziness,foolishness or just to be nice to their neighbours have freely opted in. Have changed the setup to allow anyone.

"(if not, how would you claim that Infrared and WiFi differ in regards to the Plain Sight test?"

they didn't freely choose to set up machines specifically designed to transmit data over IR to everyone within 100 metres and freely choose the option from a dropdown.
Or do I need written permission from the station owner before I use my am radio now?
my neighbour might be using a low powered transmitter for his houses internal intercom system and through ignorance might believe it to be private.

Re:Private Info?

[Anonymous Coward]

What google did by collecting anything other that the SSID was equivalent to transcribing private pager data and making it publicly available - that certainly would be illegal.

Except for, y'know, the part where they DIDN'T MAKE IT PUBLIC, you clueless fuckstick!

Citing decades-old and poorly-designed communications regulations doesn't really help your argument; it helps even less given that every single device in this case is *capable* of encrypting its communications, and in many cases requires an explicit action by the end-user to *disable* the encryption. The 49 MHz baby monitors certainly didn't have equivalent capabilities, nor did the analog cell transmitters.

Re:Private Info?

[Xibby]

Even if you secure the WiFi access point the information Google is interested in is still available. They are looking for the MAC address of the WiFi base station and the signal strength, then correlating that data with GPS data. The data they are interested in is not private data.

Re:Private Info?

[brismith1966]

You're absolutely right on this. Government suing a big company = easy money. I'm surprised the feds aren't in in on it yet.

Re:Private Info?

[Albatrosses]

I can see WiFi. WiFi 'Cameras' are freely available at electronics stores. They connect to your computer, and even translate the blinking point sources into useful data for you automatically! And instead of expensive playback software, all you need is a web browser :)

It's all just EM, baby!

Re:Private Info?

[kasparov]

People need to realize that being in public is not private. There is no way to enforce that anything you do in public *isn't* recorded--regardless of what laws are passed. I think people need to realize this and modify their behavior appropriately. Having a mismatch between expected privacy and actual privacy causes people all kinds of problems. It would be much better to realize that when you are in public, you have no expectation of privacy.

Re:Private Info?

[jvillain]

If you want to improve your privacy there are couple of things you can do. The first is stop using wireless and plug in an ethernet cable. Lots of wireless modems allow you to modify the power of your wireless gate way as well. You don't need to have it turned up to 11 in every situation. Here is a hint. If Google is picking up your signal in a car out on the street you can probably turn it down. The bottom line is it is hard to call some thing public if you are blasting it across the city,

Even if unintentional your neighbours are always picking up your signals and at least some of your information is being logged. That is what you sign up for when you go wireless. To hope a law is going to protect you from anonymous users that are untraceable is completely unrealistic. And if you don't understand the technology maybe you shouldn't be using it. I don't blame consumers in this as they have been given the hard sell by hardware vendors and internet providers with out the risks being fully spelled out. The FCC in the US would be doing a service if they were to do a public knowledge campaign.

Re:Private Info?

[DJRumpy]

Doh..quoted the wrong text.

You realize you just won the States arguments against Google right?

Failing to recognize the potential consequences of your actions does not absolve you from being responsible for them.

Re:Private Info?

[DJRumpy]

And again, you assume that every router in every home offered the user an option to setup a secure network, when you know for a fact that only in recent years has the configuration software gotten better in that aspect. I still run into open home networks, even on new routers. Did they purposely ignore the warnings? No. Chances are they didn't read, or understand the warnings.

You are confusing intent with result. You are implying these people specifically set up their home routers to broadcast their wireless signal to the street when common sense dictates that's highly unlikely. It's more likely they don't understand that it is broadcasting out to the street and they have no idea what WEP or WPA is.

Re:Private Info?

[cgenman]

All Google probably sniffed was some g-mail conversations, some google voice, some chrome browsing sessions, a photograph or two uploaded to picasa, lots of YouTube videos, and maybe some facebook activity that they've already spidered.

I totally agree that they should throw out the data, and that harvesting over wi-fi should be considered an off-limits. But this is Google we're talking about. Anyone who thinks Google doesn't already have large chunks of this data from their network, their advertising serving network, or their huge web of affiliates sending them data, is very optimistic.

Re:Private Info?

[mcgrew]

What certain geeks like you seem to fail to understand is that normal people don't give a flying fuck about how it works on a technical level.

My great nephew asked my sister, "Grandma, how does a computer work?" She just shrugged and said "It's magic."

Re:Private Info?

[bonch]

It's interesting how many Slashdotters don't like unnecessary data collection or phoning home, except when it's Google. When it's Google, suddenly user data is fair game and not a big deal. I don't really understand the discrepancy there. I remember the massive uproar when you had to activate Windows XP (and re-activate when your hardware changed too much). Now, we have an enormous company with a powerful internet presence driving vans through neighborhoods around the world, scanning and archiving WiFi networks and MAC addresses, and Google supporters are okay with it.

There's some level of integrity Google is supposed to maintain. It doesn't matter if you think Google didn't collect data that an individual with a WiFi card and scanning software could obtain. Google is not an individual, and it didn't scan just one house. This is a massive scanning process of hundreds of thousands of WiFi networks around the world from countless households, all collected and archived by one internet advertising company. It's a completely different scale and level of organization.

Re:Private Info?

[tuttleturtle42]

I disagree that it requires going out of your way to record the private data. I'm pretty sure that I have accidentally recorded private data in exactly the same manner that google has - I have had some other use for kismet, was running kismet and was walking around. It automatically logged everything. I realize after accidentally having left kismet running that I had collected multiple gigabytes of data, and deleted it. In my case, I was using kismet to check if I had burned out my wireless card, in google's case they were using it for wifi mapping. The personal data was a side effect.

Re:Private Info?

[Anonymous Coward]

The ruling did not say you/police could not use infared cameras or did not say they should be banned and illegal. Only that infarded data was not evidence to get a search warrant. The police can still drive around with an infared detector and pinpoint houses that might have a lot of grow lights but they will have to have more evidence before they can get a search warrant.

Even with that being said, that case has absolutely nothing to do with a private company (Goolge) or person from doing the same thing and reporting it or logging it. If you are driving down a public street and can pick up an SSID and MAC, so be it, if you happen to do that and make a record of it, so be it. If you then also take a picture of the license plates and make note of the color and model of the cars, so be it, that stuff is out in the open actively being displayed by CHOICE by the owner. In the case of the SSID, negligence of the owner is not an excuse to assume expectation of privacy. You can get a wireless signal anywhere in your house, do you think the signal magically stopped by an outside wall but not an inside wall? Does you FM radio work and allow those signals to pass through? Has the owner ever used a cordless or cell phone in and out of the house? That "expectation" they had of a wireles ssignal for the computer is stupidity. If I had the expectation that I could walk around naked in my yard and no one could see me because I have a 4ft fence, can I avoid being arrested for indecency?

Re:Private Info?

[bonch]

By your logic, if somebody unknowingly (people don't knowingly make their WiFi networks accessible) undresses in front of an open curtain, I have the right to take pictures and post them on the internet because it's being publicly broadcast via rays of light to my retinas. Consumers don't understand WiFi technology completely and aren't aware that they're broadcasting anything.

The second part of the issue is that Google SAVED the data, not just scanned it. They claim this archiving was accidental, which is really odd.

Re:Private Info?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the crux though. Was that a matter of the law trying to make up for a lack of technological foresight or ability?

Also: what about the law now that people have the ability and CHOICE to encrypt and privatize their data? If you choose not to when you have every capability to do so, even if ignorant of the fact, that doesn't entitle you to special treatment.

Re:Private Info?

[eheldreth]

This is actually more akin to the FRS/GMRS radio systems as opposed to pagers or TV or broadcast radio. You can have an important conversation over them but you can't call it snooping if I drive by your house and my radio happens to pick it up you conversation. At this point wireless network tech is so common place that it doesn't even take intent to gather this information. Your smart phone likely has Wi-Fi built in and gathers mac, ssid, and encryption information automatically.

Re:Private Info?

[hypergreatthing]

Therein lies the problem. The average consumer does not think of wireless networking as "broadcast" information.

Therein lies the problem. The average consumer is an idiot. The word broadcast is defined as "to spread widely; disseminate:".

English. Learn it.

Re:Private Info?

[Muad'Dave]

So your cellphone conversations are 'broadcast'? If that's the technical definition, all radio transmissions are broadcasts, so why is there a distinction?

That may be the popular usage of the word broadcast, but that's not what we're discussing.

Re:Private Info?

[DamnStupidElf]

In the past, you are in a public place and people see what you did and had to recollect it from memmory, likely to forget most.

Yeah, tell that to Rodney King and Oscar Grant. The fact that police officers are not routinely sent to jail for shooting/beating unarmed suspects is pretty clear evidence that what happens in public *should* be recorded since the memories of victims and witnesses generally contradict the "memories" of the law enforcement officers involved.

Re:Private Info?

[DamnStupidElf]

If I don't want you petting my dog, I can put up a fence around my yard that keeps the dog in and strangers out. But there's no fence I can use to stop wireless signals from going past my physical property, or to keep you from petting my computer... digitally, I mean... hey, stop it.

Except, oh, things like ciphers that have been around a couple thousand years (and really, really, great and unbreakable free ones that have been around for ~20 years) and electronic access controls (passwords?) that have been around for 50. Ignorance is no excuse for making stupid laws.

Re:Private Info?

[dcw3]

If you have a car and wear the brakes down to nothing to the point where they don't work, you can't then say 'I didn't know that's how brakes worked!' and get out of jail free when you roll over somebody.

You get training, a license, and insurance for driving. There's no equivalent for the Internet. It's easy for those of us who are technically competent to assume that non-techies should just go learn this stuff. There's no expectation by the "masses of asses" that anything they do online will ever be as life threatening as driving a car, so there's no expectation that they need to take it as seriously.

If you don't know how to operate something, don't operate it, because the liability is and should always be the operator's.

We operate things every day that we don't understand the internal workings of. Should we stop using them?

I'm personally not sure which way I lean on the overall topic. But, I do find it interesting that there's such a diversity of opinion here on Slashdot.

Re:Private Info?

[HungryHobo]

there's no need to know what wep or wpa means, all they need to know is what "secured" and "unsecured" means.
it's not just the routers, their PC will be bugging them as well.

The terminally dense might not realise but those same people might also be too dim to work out that their walkie talkie conversations are not private(is their expectation of privacy any less valid). Since they apparently can't read they might also be unable to work out that postcards are readable by all and as such would have an expectation of privacy in that case as well.

"Chances are they didn't read, or understand the warnings."

Intent is meaningless once we pass the point where is is reasonable.

Not reading instructions you are given- unreasonable.
Not reading the other instructions you see on screen- unreasonable.
Changing things you don't understand away from the defaults- unreasonable.

people can have completely unreasonable expectations of privacy and be simply wrong.

Re:Private Info?

[cynyr]

http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&q=define:+broadcast
see #2, "Sow over a wide area" you have a omni directional signal that you let run a muck anywhere it wanted, and they are grumpy someone else saw it... same as running naked down the street yelling at everyone to look away.

Re:Private Info?

[silentcoder]

>By your logic, if somebody unknowingly (people don't knowingly make their WiFi networks accessible)

Again, as part of my job I've configured some 800+ routers of various brands over the past 2 years every single one of them has encrypted as the DEFAULT option in the setup wizard. You have to CHOOSE not to use it, people make their wifi open and accessible because they CHOOSE not to deal with passwords. Anybody who just accepts defaults all the way will be secure.

>undresses in front of an open curtain, I have the right to take pictures and post them on the internet because it's being publicly broadcast via rays of light to my retinas. Consumers don't understand WiFi technology completely and aren't aware that they're broadcasting anything.

Yes, and the law agrees. The entire paparazi industry is based on doing exactly that. People who make a fortune stalking celebs hoping to catch a nipple-slip and sell the pictures. The only reason they don't do it to everybody is because we're not interesting enough.
Hell there is clear case-law that voyeurism - while you can debate it's ethics all you want - is perfectly legal.

>The second part of the issue is that Google SAVED the data, not just scanned it. They claim this archiving was accidental, which is really odd.

So ? If I see somebody undress through a window and REMEMBER it then I'm saving the data ! Google didn't even publish the data - they did LESS than what paparazzi do every day and no state congressmen are holding an inquest against the tabloids !

Re:Private Info?

[Muad'Dave]

I must disagree. Radio is inherently a 'broadcast' medium in that nearly anyone can intercept a radio transmission. That does not, however, imply that all radio transmissions are broadcasts.

The laws that are on the books and common sense are on my side; transmissions intended for public receipt are broadcasts; all other radio transmissions are not _by law_ and by common sense.

The meaning of that word is well defined in engineering and it's EXACTLY what WIFI does.

Yes, broadcast is well-defined; transmissions intended to be received by any and all receivers is a broadcast, everything else is not. The medium does not define what is and is not a broadcast, the intent (and sometimes the law) does. Whether you're talking radio, ethernet, or any other means of communication, that's the definition.

WiFi does _not_ transmit data for receipt of all, there are explicit destination addresses on every data frame. The only tiny little part of wifi that could possibly be interpreted as broadcast is the SSID frame. That _is_ intended for all to hear, and is therefore a broadcast. Note that I never said google couldn't receive and record the SSID's.

...you yourself indicate how special legislation had to be passed to make eavesdropping on such broadcasts illegal.

Eavesdropping on those transmissions was always illegal. The legislation was to make breaking that law difficult by restricting the availability of receivers capable of receiving the transmission.

There is no such exception law for WIFI - it would make things like public hotspots a legal nightmare as you struggle to define what constitutes permission.

Explain, then, why people have been convicted of crimes related to using someone else's wifi.

Instead the technology allows for the means to make broadcasts in this spectrum private if so desired - by encrypting them.

They are legally private regardless of encryption. Encryption only makes illegal interception more difficult. To eliminate any gray areas, turning off SSID broadcast (yes, it's a broadcast) makes the most sense.

Deliberate (and considering that nature of modern wifi's - generally intentional) failure to use the privacy feature must then default to the base legal position: that since it's a broadcast, it's INTENDED to be public.
No, that is exactly 180 degrees from legal precedent. EVEN TRANSMITTED IN THE CLEAR, if a transmission is not intended for your receipt, regardless of how trivial that reception is, it is not a broadcast and can therefore get you in hot water for receiving it. If all wifi is broadcast and therefore intended for the public, you won't have any issue with me grabbing your WPA-encrypted banking information frames and decoding them, would you? The technical and legal aspects of what is and is not a broadcast are not always in line, and are sometimes out of phase.

Since a lot of such wifi broadcasts ARE intended to be public (again - public access hotspots spring to mind) this is the only REASONABLE position to take.The permission to use free wifi comes from either the de facto use of 'public' or 'freewifi' as the SSID or from the combination of the 'Free Wifi' sticker on the door and the SSID. Note that most free sites make you click thru an agreement which offers you access.

Re:Private Info?

[ElectricTurtle]

It is not necessary to understand the 'inner workings' of something to know how to operate it. It's been a long time since many manuals came with schematics. I don't need to understand Ohm's Law to use a computer, regardless of how many resistors are inside it. However, if you don't bother to read a manual for something (RTFM is a common acronym for a reason, and pride isn't an excuse), you get what's coming to you when the thing you think you're operating is doing something you wouldn't want if you knew better.

Ethically it's about intent. There is no way for an external actor to know if you intended something to be open or not. It is and should be assumed that open APs are open deliberately, because if you assumed open APs were all open accidentally and treated any access thereof as unauthorized use, then nobody could run open APs intended for anybody to use. And before you say nobody does that, in the first place, I do, in the second place, so do A TON of businesses, mostly coffee shops, but there are others. I know many public libraries and similar institutions do as well.

It is unreasonable to assume that something is open accidentally when so many others are open purposefully, and the only excuse offered is 'duh, I'm just too dumb and/or lazy to read the manual that would tell me exactly how I could run the hardware the way I want.' Fuck that.

Re:Private Info?

[inKubus]

And further, privacy is about a person being able to shape their personality and appear differently to different groups of people. This is such an important part of personal growth and this index everything maybe fails to take into account what I did when I was 20 is not what I do now. And what I do with my best friends I don't do with my Christian neighbors. This allows people to experience different social situations without having to fully commit. In this way we can make mistakes in private and apply your education to new situations. It's something most people do. When Eric Schmidt said what he said about privacy "If you don't want anyone to know about it, maybe you shouldn't be doing it" he totally killed my faith in Google. Until they fire him and start sucking the knob of liberty, truth and justice and enable ME and not just advertisers to live a more copious existence, *.google.* is permablocked as an EVIL company in my mind.

Re:Private Info?

[inKubus]

I could've easily transcribed every single pager transmission in the greater Richmond area

Googlebot: "Hmm, so Muad'Dave lives in Richmond... *filing*"

Re:Private Info?

[Anonymous Coward]

Being stupid, or failing to follow a warning does not excuse the actions of others taking advantage of that

It most certainly does, sir. Taking advantage of stupidity is exactly what intelligence is for. If you don't use your intelligence in this manner, you're missing the whole point of having it.

Re:Private Info?

[Anonymous Coward]

So let me get this straight, you have a radio, hooked up to a computer, we call this an AP or Access Point, that tries very hard (usually) to get you to secure it with basic encryption, that you have to purposely ignore to not be using. Add on top of this, its your AP that is giving out your information when it is asked for it, with your explicit permission (remember back there when you chose not to use encryption), but hey its not a broadcast! Problem solved. Un-fucking believable!

Re:Private Info?

[L0rdJedi]

Stop making excuses for the technological ineptitude of the masses of asses.

It's not an excuse. It's a fact: people don't understand this stuff. I agree with you about this. I don't think Google did anything wrong; instead of suing Google, the states should spend their money on educating people about how to secure their home networks. DUH!

Bullshit! This stuff gets easier and easier to do every day. It's not that they don't understand it, it's that they just don't care. The language of the setup screens can't get any easier to understand.

I've just about had it with people saying "Do your magic" when all I'm doing is setting up a shortcut on their desktop, not to mention turning on security for a WAP. If they had to do it themselves, they'd understand it just fine. But when they have "a computer guy" there, they decide to be stupid and just have "the computer guy" do it.

If someone can fix their toilet and redo their kitchen sink, they can secure their wireless. But since it's a computer, it must be a complex and difficult thing to do, right? Bullshit!

Re:Private Info?

[Douglas Goodall]

It is not that the information is that private, or that the users think they have privacy, but a fleet of commercial vehicles wardriving on every street in america paid for by the "do no harm" people is a little hard to take. If an individual travels around and collects information, then loses control of it, a few wi-fi access points are disadvantaged. If millions of users network parameters are distributed in machine readable form, that is something else again. I can just see someone selling a CD with all the open access points in america, then there will be a GPS that takes you to the nearest one.

Re:Private Info?

[BDF]

if you fuck your girlfriend in the window, you have absolutely NO right to be pissed if someone takes pictures. This victim mentality is absurd. If you care about the privacy of your wireless network, then either learn to secure it yourself, or pay someone to do so. Crying about your own ignorance or stupidity just makes you more pathetic. You CAN limit the power of your signal, and you CAN secure it if it matters to you.

Re:Private Info?

[silentcoder]

>What certain geeks like you seem to fail to understand is that normal people don't give a flying fuck about how it works on a technical level.

Well then - allow me to not give a flying fuck if they screw up.

>What a normal reasonable person expects from an open wi-fi is that their neighbors might borrow their internet. What they don't expect is that a random asswank will record all their data. While it's very easy to do it does require you to go out of your way to do it which means you're a dick.

Nobody here recorded all their data, nobody even logged on to their computers. Google record the SSID and the tiny bit of traffic needed to GET that much. My cellphone checks for wifi at all times, it's a standard function - it cannot even DO that without collecting 90% of the data google got here. Should 37 states investigate me for walking down the street with a smartphone ? Oh right - it even stores the location of every access point thus found !

>I for one don't want to live in a world where any information that leaves the 4 walls of my house is public.

Well sadly the world doesn't give a fuck what you want. That's the world you DO live in.

Here's an interesting one... by this logic - if radiowaves you broadcast for all to pick up are not public... well you must apply it to sound waves to. So the next time I want to blast metallica at 500DB at 3am - when the neighbours call the cops to complain. I'll say "I was playing the music for myself with a reasonable expectation of privacy and they had NO right to be listening so instead of hassling me go arrest them for spying on me"... yeah THAT will work...

Re:Private Info?

[Zironic]

"Well sadly the world doesn't give a fuck what you want. That's the world you DO live in."

No it's not. This is why Google is in trouble for collecting more data then they needed and why the police isn't allowed to scan your house with infrared.

"Here's an interesting one... by this logic - if radiowaves you broadcast for all to pick up are not public... well you must apply it to sound waves to. So the next time I want to blast metallica at 500DB at 3am - when the neighbours call the cops to complain. I'll say "I was playing the music for myself with a reasonable expectation of privacy and they had NO right to be listening so instead of hassling me go arrest them for spying on me"... yeah THAT will work..."

Are you drunk? That didn't even make sense.

 

Re:Private Info?

[Zironic]

Why should I have to? Our society has accepted codes of behavior, if I don't lock my door, you're still a thief if you break in and take my stuff even if it was trivial to do.

Re:Private Info?

[silentcoder]

>Are you drunk? That didn't even make sense.

I wish. The thing is though, if I was drunk - I'd be sober in the morning, you'd still be a credulous moron who genuinely seems to think the world works however you imagine it would suit you best.

Re:Private Info?

[Zironic]

Your problem is that you either failed 3rd grade reading comprehension or basic logic.

This is what I said
"Not everything that leaves your house should automatically be public"

This is what you read
"Everything that leaves your house should be private"

Obviously that position is moronic, and I feel bad for you that you thought it was a position that someone would actually take, what you should have done was read once again, slowly, and realize that wasn't what I said at all. So now what does that make you?

Re:Private Info?

[Muad'Dave]

Did I say Richmond VA? I meant Richmond CA, that's right, California....that's the ticket.

Re:Private Info?

[breser]

I fail to see how this is a problem. If you don't want to be running an open access point then don't. The scope of data collection shouldn't be relevant. It's worth pointing out that Google is by far not the only company collecting access point locations. It's also worth pointing out that while the companies are providing services that use this information, not a single one has published a list of which access points are where. They have no interest in doing so since doing so gives the data to their competitors. Building the software to do the location is a hell of a lot easier than collecting the data to actually do it. So it's a good bet they will never do something like this.

However, other people have already produced mapping data of wifi:
http://gwifi.net/
http://v4.jiwire.com/search-hotspot-locations.htm

There are open wifi points just about everywhere. More and more of them open and intended for public use. I just don't see how the world having access to where they are as some sort of huge issue.

This whole issue isn't about google mapping wifi spots anyway, it's about them saving payload data while mapping wifi. You'll note nobody is having a fit about skyhook, which was mapping the same information. Why? Because skyhook hasn't admitted to saving payload data.

Re:Private Info?

[Douglas Goodall]

You have a good point. Please consider my opinion softened substantially as a result of considering your thoughts. Thanks for sharing your viewpoint. Doug

Re:Private Info?

[blai]

I'm broadcasting my MAC address and SSID intentionally. No shit it's illegal for you to detect and store it!

oh.

Re:Private Info?

[Nyder]

Information you broadcast without limiting who can receive/understand it - is not private information - your own actions have MADE it public information. (emphasis added)

Therein lies the problem. The average consumer does not think of wireless networking as "broadcast" information. They still consider it private. This is partially a lack of understand of the technology, and partially because it does not occur to most people that anyone else might try to snoop.

Ya, not my fault they are stupid, is it? If they bothered to check on the subject they would see that wifi isn't that secure.

I'm really tired of this "the average consumer does not think" excuse. I don't give a fuck, time for them to do some research.

Re:Private Info?

[Nyder]

oh it can leave your 4 walls but you have to make at least a symbolic gesture that you wish it to be private.

Encrypt with WEP rather than broadcast it openly.
Seal it in an envelope rather than writing it on a postcard.
Speak it over a private telephone line rather than using a loudspeaker.

Go for a shit in the bathroom and you can expect privacy.
Go for a shit in the middle of the public street and you can expect none. Even if you're deranged or stupid and convinced that you're invisible.

pull the curtain closed in the changing room if you want privacy rather than screaming that passers-by are violating your privacy when you don't.

if people don't know unsecured actually means "unsecured" then they need to learn.it's simple. the world does not need to bend over backwards for them.

Is that sort of like those ladies who were low cut shirts and then get pissed because your enjoying the view?

Re:Private Info?

[brolin9]

It doesn't matter if the user secured their WiFi or not. They have a reasonable expectation that their data will be private.

If I stand in my front yard and shout into a megaphone, is it "reasonable" for me to believe that my words are private? Does it make a difference if I don't know what a megaphone is?

Obviously, in the above example, heat signatures detected in infrared are not "in plain view", just as WiFi signals, encrypted or not, are not "in plain view". If technology happens to make it easier to go to the local store and buy equipement to detect such, it still doesn't change the basic premise of "in plain view".

The difference is, nobody intentionally "broadcasts" their heat signature or has any choice in the matter. On the other hand, a wireless router's entire function is to broadcast a signal with the explicit intention that other devices out there will receive it. It's the entire nature of the product. Furthermore, all routers provide a variety of options for controlling connections as well as the nature of the broadcast. You can turn off the SSID advertising. You can enable MAC filters. You can turn on encryption. If a user is ignorant of the fact that a wireless router is a radio, well, maybe that should become a bit more informed before diving into new (to them) technology. What do they think makes it wireless in the first place? (And, yes, as politically incorrect as it may be, I firmly believe people should be responsible for their own actions.)

If a person did not undertake reasonable efforts to conceal something from a casual observer (as opposed to a snoop), then no subjective expectation of privacy is assumed.

If you operate a wifi router without employing any of its encryption/filtering options, then you "did not undertake reasonable efforts to conceal something from a casual observer". Anyone coming within range of your radio broadcast with pretty much any laptop/netbook made today can "casually" observe your broadcast.

If you happened to find an open WiFi hotspot in your neighborhood, you broke into it, and committed a crime, do you think the judge would show leniency on you because the WiFi hotspot was open?

First, if it's an open wifi, then you didn't break into it. If you got a connection to it, it's because they advertised the connection as available and accepted you. If you then used the connection to commit a crime, that crime is what will concern the judge, NOT the connection you used. Additionally, there are numerous people that intentionally leave their wifi open explicitly because they want to let their neighbors use it without needing to ask first. So, it would be completely reasonable to assume an open connection was just that. You know, OPEN.

This story would be different if Google had parked themselves in neighborhoods, capturing large streams of data and maybe going as far as breaking encryption, then I could completely understand and agree with the "outrage". But in this case, it seems all they did was capture openly broadcast packets in order to record the MAC address (i.e., the hardware address) to use as another data point for geolocation use. Apparently, the software they used by default kept all of the information gathered, which included the payload data (fragments of whatever traffic existed as the car drove by).

When they realized it, they could have simply deleted the data and likely nobody would have ever known the difference. This wasn't some nefarious plot that was discovered and revealed by someone outside of Google. This was Google outing themselves and leaving it up the individual governments to decide if they should destroy it, or what.

Google did nothing truly wrong. Most of this case is about massive numbers of people, some in government, sadly ignorant of technology they are using, running around screaming, "The sky is falling, the sky is falling!"

Devil's Advocate...

[Manip]

First off they're scanning public information. This is unencrypted, and broadcast across the airwaves for anyone with a WiFi device to pick up. Secondly they are using this for their location service. By recording the location of the hotspot with the identity they can roughly guess someone's location without the need for GPS. If people want privacy then they should turn off their WiFi or at the very least stop broadcasting the name of the network openly.

As far as Washington goes - just yet another example of idiots in power with no grasp of I.T. and without the wisdom to consult with someone who does.

Re:Devil's Advocate...

[Anonymous Coward]

The argument fallback to "you wouldn't support this if it were done by $company_X" is always classic. As a matter of fact, I would. I don't care who's capturing this data. It can be some basement nerd, Apple, Google, Microsoft, the RIAA, KKK, federal authorities, or the Illuminati as far as I'm concerned.

The rest of your argument seems to miss out on one important fact: It's public radio waves. Here, let me spell that out for you. PUBLIC. R.A.D.I.O.

Fuck, you can even capture and record my private encrypted communications over wifi. The propagated signals belong to everyone, not just me. I can't claim ownership over that. Just don't decrypt the packets. At that point, you actually are snooping.

Re:Devil's Advocate...

[silentcoder]

So by your logic if you place an ad in the new york times I shouldn't be allowed to keep (or perhaps even buy) a copy of the paper as it would invade your "privacy" for me to store information you have CHOSEN to make public ?!?!?!?

Not securing your wifi is CHOOSING to make it public. There is no other logical or reasonable way to look at it.

Re:Devil's Advocate...

[maxwell demon]

Not securing your wifi is CHOOSING to make it public.

No. Just because I forgot to lock my front door doesn't mean I invite everyone to come in.

The NYT ad example is besides the point, because you have to do explicit steps to get the ad into NYT, steps which you only do if you want to make that information public. If you don't do anything, your ad does not appear in the NYT (and if it happens to appear there anyway without your consent, AFAIK you do have the right to stop its distribution through the courts). Defaults matter!

Re:Devil's Advocate...

[Viol8]

Bad example. A better example would be to accuse someone of listening to what you're saying when you're shouting across the street.

Re:Devil's Advocate...

[silentcoder]

Every router I have seen in at least the last 5 years will suggest encryption as the default setting during the initial setup wizard. You generally have to manually CHOOSE not to secure it, most people who do so choose this to avoid the hassle of a password.

So I think the more common default is in fact to automatically secure wifi. Of course I speak from my own country and experience but I seriously doubt the same companies use such radically different firmware everywhere else.

You are BROADCASTING the information - you probably CHOSE "Use unsecured *WARNING THIS COULD REVEAL YOUR PRIVATE DATA*" - and now you complain because somebody reads it ?

The point is- nobody entered your house here, to use your own analogy. It's more like you left the curtains open and now you're complaining because they could see what color your couch is from the street. In terms of usefulness and level of intrusion of the information - what google took is marginally less important than the color of your couch.

Re:Devil's Advocate...

[Asclepius99]

You're door example makes absolutely no sense. If you forget to lock your door your house doesn't walk across the street into my house. If you set up a wireless router and don't set any type of encryption then you're broadcasting insecurely into the surrounding area, so don't complain if your information shows up into my house and I end up grabbing some information from you.

Low hanging lawsuit fruit?

[JustinRLynn]

The allegation that the data they scanned is false. Any unencrypted broadcast wifi data is public, which is all they stored. Not that they need me to help their defense, what with them having billion dollar style lawyering at their disposal.

Overblown?

[profplump]

Am I the only one who thinks this is overblown? For all the actually invasive data-mining that happens on a daily basis on the web and in real life, are we really concerned that Google captures a few seconds of broadcast, unencrypted network traffic? Is this a more important issue than the online and physical database breaches we see all time from other companies (and governments) -- many of those go entirely unnoticed, and even big stories from that category only get a day or two of news coverage, but people have been whining about this Google thing for weeks.

Even if you assume that Google really wanted to capture this data for some nefarious purpose, exactly what are people worried about? It's not at all clear to me that capturing a random 3 seconds of traffic from someone's open WiFi provides Google with any particularly useful or terribly private information. Ignoring the fact that anyone in the neighborhood could be doing continuous captures of the same AP, or that half of these WiFi networks are connected to broadcast-based uplinks (like cable modems), I just don't understand why this -- even if the intent is evil -- ranks high among the other privacy concerns in modern life.

Re:Overblown?

[mr_gorkajuice]

I just don't understand why this -- even if the intent is evil -- ranks high among the other privacy concerns in modern life.

I too am hard pressed to figure out exactly *how* this data should aid Google. That being said, if there are no plans what-so-ever to do anything with this data, why was it collected?
More importantly though, I find it scary that Google has earned so much trust that the supposedly reasonably educated crowd of slashdot is going "Oh, it's just Google. Those are the good guys, so can't be anything to see here".
Honestly, if this had been Microsoft or Apple, more creative readers than myself would already have come up with the first 20 potentially evil usecases, and demanded a public apology from either Steve.

Re:Overblown?

[Anonymous Coward]

> It's not at all clear to me that capturing a random 3 seconds of traffic from someone's
> open WiFi provides Google with any particularly useful or terribly private information.

So do you upload your traffic logs to Google on a nightly or a weekly basis? And what's the public URL where you also post them? I'd like to have a look.

After all, there's nothing you have to lose.

Re:Overblown?

[BasilBrush]

I too am hard pressed to figure out exactly *how* this data should aid Google. That being said, if there are no plans what-so-ever to do anything with this data, why was it collected?

1) Perhaps the location data is extracted from the recorded packets off-line. Collect the raw data in the cars, upload it at the end of the day, process it at a data centre.
2) Perhaps logging was done for development/debugging purposes. No one thought to turn it off. The program was never "shipped", it remains internal to Google, and as is Google's way, stayed semi-permanently in beta status.
3) Perhaps sometimes the data throws up errors in the software. A technician could well use the raw data logging to fix the error in the program or data.

Re:Overblown?

[profplump]

First, Google isn't getting traffic logs. They're getting a couple of seconds of network traffic which may or may not include any useful traffic. Even if you're actively browsing there's a good chance you didn't click on anything in those few seconds, or if you did, that they missed the 1 packet that had the URL in it. Conflating "traffic logs" with a few seconds of packet captures to make Google seem evil speaks more to your character than theirs.

Second, you and everyone else are welcome to circle my house 24/7 and log or otherwise record all of the broadcast, unencrypted data I emit. I'm not making any special exception for Google -- this information is already public by nature of being broadcast in plaintext.

Re:Overblown?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you still think it's overblown if it was Microsoft?

Re:Overblown?

[profplump]

Why was it collected? My first two guess would be:

A) The system is intended to collect AP MAC addresses and SSIDs. Doing this requires capturing broadcast packets. As it turns out, you only need some of the packets, but because the capture is passive you have to take what you get and parse it to find what you want. So if you stored the data as it came in it's actually *extra* work to remove the parts of the capture you didn't use, and no one wrote that part because it wasn't important.

B) They wanted to collect all available data in case the in-situ processing fails -- then they can just re-run the data set instead of re-driving the route. Variations on this include "we may encounter new packet types we weren't expecting and want to do post-processing on them" or "we may invent new ways to provide location services based on data that we capture but didn't know at the time was useful".

It's also possible that they're doing something evil that we can't think of, or that they're just keeping the data around in case they think of something evil to do with it later. I agree, it is possible. But I don't think I'm giving Google a pass here -- given the very limited amount of data they collected from each network I have trouble imagining what that evil thing might be, or why we should consider it more important than the data mining that goes on in other contexts, like when you actually use Google services.

Re:Overblown?

[profplump]

Yes.

I invite anyone and everyone to drive around my house 24/7 and capture whatever broadcast, unencrypted data I emit. (And that's not even what Google did -- they only grabbed a few seconds of data).

Frankly I'm not sure what part of my rant gave you the impression that the identity of the alleged perpetrator had any influence on my opinion of the behavior.

Re:Overblown?

[maxwell demon]

or why we should consider it more important than the data mining that goes on in other contexts, like when you actually use Google services.

Normally, when you use google services, you do it voluntarily. You explicitly go to Google to search, and you know that whatever you enter will be known by Google, and if there's something you don't want Google to know, you just don't enter it. The same is true for most other Google services: You are in control of the data you give to Google, because you know when you connect to Google (there are some exceptions, though, like Google analytics). This is different in that you don't ask Google to come and record your WLAN data. There's no practical way to evade.

Re:Overblown?

[Anonymusing]

Exactly. There are serious data breaches every week somewhere in the U.S. and yet suddenly it's Crucifixion Time when Google records a snippet of information that you were already sending out publicly. Just surfing the Internet or searching on Google will give them far more information about you than that little cache of WiFi packets.

And what about Skyhook? Is it okay when they catalog all the WiFi stations in the U.S.? You think they didn't record any info? Oh, but wait, our fancy schmartphones use it for better location accuracy, so it's all good... move along, nothing to sue here.

Re:Overblown?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no practical way to evade.

WEP, WPA, SSL

Re:Overblown?

[misexistentialist]

suddenly it's Crucifixion Time

Indeed. Headline should read: 37 States Committed To Always Doing Evil Form An Unholy Alliance Against Google, Which Responds Plaintively, "Forgive Them, They Know Not What They Do"

Re:Overblown?

[silentcoder]

>There's no practical way to evade.

Every router on the market has supported WPA for years, and generally it's the recommended default in the auto-setup wizard. On the contrary - you have to actively CHOOSE not to be secure before google could collect anything. The practical way to evade is the recommended default !

Re:Overblown?

[tuttleturtle42]

. That being said, if there are no plans what-so-ever to do anything with this data, why was it collected?

Kismet automatically logs everything.

Re:Overblown?

[cynyr]

actually google gets to see a large amount of my traffic, i've all but stopped bookmarking stuff, i simply google "hackaday jet powered VW" without the quotes and let google find it for me.

Re:Overblown?

[cynyr]

agreed, as long as you don't run void9 to disconnect my device to get handshakes, I don't care much.

Re:Overblown?

[Anonymous Coward]

I invite anyone and everyone to drive around my house 24/7 and capture whatever broadcast, unencrypted data I emit.

Awesome! I've been looking for a good place to test my TEMPEST setup. What's your address?

Politicians from 37 states

[gravos]

EXTRA! Politicians from 37 states find easy way to make it look like they are doing something useful while ignoring war in Iraq, war on drugs, out of control budgets, ...

Re:Politicians from 37 states

[Anonymous Coward]

At a minimum, that is most certainly the case. I suspect it's also an attempt to line some pockets with some googlebucks...

Re:Politicians from 37 states

[Anonymusing]

Wish I had mod points because yeah, that's it exactly.

Re:Politicians from 37 states

[HungryHobo]

I log ago gave up any hope that politicians give a damn about the greater good or actual harm to the public.

How many times have you heard politicians on the news shouting about gun control/gun regulations/drugs/etc
How many times have you heard politicians on the news shouting about stairwell safety and regulations on handrails?

now go away and look up the figures for all of the above.

if politicians cared even a little about "the greater good" or the real dangers out there rather than whatever is loud and sexy we'd all be a lot safer and more free.

Re:Politicians from 37 states

[chowdahhead]

It's true. With midterm elections looming, incumbents need to give the appearance that they are working hard for their constituents. They believe voters have poor long term memory. Blumenthal isn't very popular as an AG here in CT--he's quite fond of himself and is particularly aggressive toward issues with little impact on CT voters. He's under scrutiny right now for accepting campaign contributions from tobacco lobbyists again; he was one of the principle figures behind the landmark settlement. Oh, and he's running for a seat in the Senate too.

Re:Politicians from 37 states

[BoberFett]

Voters DO have poor long term memory. That's why politicians get away with this kind of thing.

Re:Politicians from 37 states

[bonch]

Because every other law ceases to exist if there is a war on drugs, a war in a foreign country, or a bad budget?

Slashdotters will defend everything Google does to the bitter end, it seems. Google's own CEO said that only people who have something to hide worry about privacy. If this wasn't Google, nobody would be defending this.

Re:Politicians from 37 states

[bonch]

That's not it whatsoever. That's a retarded argument that pretends all other functions of a government shut down to focus on one or two issues at a time.

If this was Microsoft, I don't think anybody would be defending them. It's only because it's Google. Never mind that Eric Schmidt says you're a criminal if you care about privacy.

State chooses the side of the general public?

[captainpanic]

Since when do governments or attorneys general side with the general public rather than with Big Business?

Doesn't Google have a little lobby organisation to prevent this kind of embarrassment? All other large companies would have been able to bribe a few people and lobby against a country-wide investigation. This is bad publicity for Google! How could that happen? Why aren't those attorneys general encouraged to stop writing letters and asking questions after their 1st letter?

Re:State chooses the side of the general public?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when do governments or attorneys general side with the general public rather than with Big Business?

Since they hope to get Google to turn over all that juicy data to them.

What private information?

[Anonymous Coward]

In what way is a publically broadcast radio signal "private information"? Every wifi device receives all broadcast signals, and must filter, process and learn MAC addresses and AP names.

If it's private it should be encrypted - I don't see any suggestion that google were cracking WEP or WPA keys. Stupid public.

Re:What private information?

[profplump]

I also don't see how, given only a few seconds of passive signal capture, Google or anyone else *could* crack WEP or WPA keys, either in situ or via post-processing (other than pure brute force).

Re:What private information?

[ledow]

Where you walk is public information too. Maybe I should write that down, then publish it on a major search engine for everyone to see, with times, dates, locations, what buildings you entered, who you were with, whether they have known allegiances to other people, etc.

Information that's publicly available is not secure, obviously, but that doesn't mean that you can just collate it and publish it at will. That's why data protection laws exist and why this is most likely what Google will fall foul of (they already did in Germany). Nobody cared that the information was "public" - everything that happens once you step outside your front door is "public". Hell, the brand of condom that I use, or the woman I was last seen in public with, or even what porno mags someone buys in a newsagent is "public" information. It doesn't mean that corporations (or even private individuals) can then publish that online, en masse, without good reason.

Unlike some places, the EU holds dear its data protection laws. The MAC could very well be classed as personal information, seeing as it uniquely identifies a device that I have in my possession and its location and various settings on the device. Just because the next door neighbours can sniff that doesn't mean you can just collate that information en masse. Especially when it's trivial to connect that information with, say, a list of addresses. Hell, phones have MAC's nowadays - how easy would it be to go hunting for Apple-branded MAC addresses (e.g. iPhones) and then raid the houses that show up on Google maps as having one inside?

Publicly collectable information does not imply publicly distributable.

Re:What private information?

[silentcoder]

The entire paparazzi industry says you are wrong.

The only difference is - you aren't interesting enough for anybody to do it. But if you are famous, be sure that exactly that can and will happen all the time.

Re:What private information?

[cynyr]

that is covered nicely by various stalking laws, problem solved. Also a MAC is not unique, the first half is the vendor ID, and the second half is just "unlikely to collide" also MACs can be spoofed, see nmap, or "ifconfig hw ether 52:54:0f:1a:3c:59 eth0". The other issue is figuring out who owns that device. granted if your SSID is "Jones Family WiFi" it gets a bit easier.

Hmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

As I see it, your MAC and SSID are never private. If PBS has ever taught me anything, it's that the data on public access points such as the one I just connected to were brought to me by neighbors such as you.

-Posted from next door.

Re:Hmm.

[Lars T.]

As I see it, your MAC and SSID are never private.

I agree - but that wasn't all they scanned and stored. Which, what the summary fails to mention but the article makes quite clear, is the actual issue: "the unwarranted collection of e-mails, passwords and other personal data of those who failed to protect their networks with passwords."

Sure, the data wasn't protected in any way, and it was broadcast in public - but why store it, if all you want is the MAC Address and the SSID. And why would you then claim that all you stored is exactly that and nothing more until it comes out that wasn't the case?

Re:Hmm.

[HungryHobo]

if you shout your username and password at your friend out on a public street while I'm walking past with a video camera is it my fault or yours?
should I then blank my recordings for the sake of your fuckup and that you only wanted your friend to hear?

Re:Hmm.

[Lars T.]

If you go around filming streets, but always do close-ups of people without their consent, and store the films despite no streets being on them - what the hell are you doing? Gee, if you weren't Google, one might suspect you harvest all kinds of private information that you have no business of having, probably to commit identity theft, or to have some nice picture of kids.

Where is the usual paranoia of the American people when it comes to Google?

Re:Hmm.

[HungryHobo]

"If you go around filming streets, but always do close-ups of people without their consent, and store the films despite no streets being on them"

Repeat but make sense.

If I then proceeded to release a free mapping service to everyone and made money from putting ads in then I'm fairly sure people would probably understand my motives.

Re:Hmm.

[Lars T.]

"If you go around filming streets, but always do close-ups of people without their consent, and store the films despite no streets being on them"

Repeat but make sense.

If I then proceeded to release a free mapping service to everyone and made money from putting ads in then I'm fairly sure people would probably understand my motives.

Sure "If you go around filming streets, but always do close-ups of people without their consent, and store the films despite no streets being on them". Still don't get it - maybe second grade will help.

Re:Hmm.

[HungryHobo]

no.
you're still not making any sense.
Try asking a native english speaker to re-write your statement for you.

Re:Hmm.

[cynyr]

"the unwarranted collection of e-mails, passwords and other personal data of those who failed to protect their networks with passwords."

Sure, the data wasn't protected in any way, and it was broadcast in public - but why store it, if all you want is the MAC Address and the SSID. And why would you then claim that all you stored is exactly that and nothing more until it comes out that wasn't the case?

because the proceessing of the data(SSID/macaddr is in each packet, and gps location and time) is done offline? or it's kept in case the "beta" software may crash if it encounters a packet type that it wasn't expecting, or.... provide me a good theroy of something they could have gotten, and what they could do with it. gmail uses SSL, VPNing to work will protect your work e-mail as will the use of encryption in outlook, setup by the IT guy[s] at work.

Re:Hmm.

[Lars T.]

"the unwarranted collection of e-mails, passwords and other personal data of those who failed to protect their networks with passwords."

Sure, the data wasn't protected in any way, and it was broadcast in public - but why store it, if all you want is the MAC Address and the SSID. And why would you then claim that all you stored is exactly that and nothing more until it comes out that wasn't the case?

because the proceessing of the data(SSID/macaddr is in each packet, and gps location and time) is done offline? or it's kept in case the "beta" software may crash if it encounters a packet type that it wasn't expecting, or.... provide me a good theroy of something they could have gotten, and what they could do with it. gmail uses SSL, VPNing to work will protect your work e-mail as will the use of encryption in outlook, setup by the IT guy[s] at work.

The first one I don't buy for a millisecond (more than it takes to process a wireless frame), you wait until a beacon frames comes in, and bamm you have all the information you need. There is no need to store anything else - unless that's what you are after. It's as simple as that. And that bit about "beta" software - those functions have been done over and over by others, is Google couldn't make such a trivial task work before the first Street View car left the yard, they are in the wrong business.

Listen, it's easy, you don't store stuff that takes up many times as much storage as what you say what you are looking for, unless you intend to use that for - whatever. And I want to know what that was, from Google.

what a waste of time and money

[PhrostyMcByte]

Someone needs to make an Android app that does the exact same thing these vans did, and publish all the captured data online, free and open. Maybe then the govt. could take their eyes off Google for long enough to realize the real problem here isn't Google -- it's the silly politicians who think recording SSIDs is malicious (the same politicians who'd start training a multi-million-man army for the coming "cyber war" apocalypse if they could), and the stupid networking (hardware or ISP) companies who don't default to secure settings, and don't educate their customers how to maintain their security.

Re:what a waste of time and money

[prash_n_rao]

done: http://code.google.com/p/wardrive-android/ and data available at http://wardrivedb.appspot.com/

Re:what a waste of time and money

[DMoylan]

i use g-mon

http://www.appbrain.com/app/de.carknue.gmon2

capture ssid, lat long. pretty neat and free.

Re:what a waste of time and money

[ElectricTurtle]

Don't mess with those johnnies-come-lately that those others have mentioned above, wigle.net is the oldest and largest open database of access points, and they too have an Android app as well as many other clients.

Over 22 MILLION access points and counting, biatch.

Re:what a waste of time and money

[Nimloth]

Am I the only one thinking the best way to "take the pressure off of Google" perhaps wasn't to make an android app and post the code on Google code?

Re:what a waste of time and money

[franoculator]

wigle.net

Maybe this is good news

[davmoo]

We should look at the positive side of this. Since the states have so little to do now that they can waste time and money on bullshit like this, that must mean that the economy is fixed, everyone has jobs, there is no poverty or hunger, and crime and violence is a thing of the past.

Re:Maybe this is good news

[cdrguru]

No, what it means is that the politicians are occupied on something harmless when they could instead be passing laws to protect children, search out terrorists and prevent street crime. That this would involve massive censorship, random searches of people for weapons and watching everything on hidden cameras everywhere in the US shouldn't bother you too much.

Personally, I would much, much rather have politicians looking at Google's data collection policies than trying to decide how the technology future of the world should look and what companies are "good" and which need to be taxed into bankruptcy. Or trying to actively prevent crime by ensuring everyone is reporting on anything they see that might be illegal. If you think this is too far fetched to happen in the US you haven't been paying attention.

So please, let's vote for gridlock and have the politicians spend their time on trivial matters. Please.

Re:Maybe this is good news

[bonch]

Yes, because governments are only capable of focusing on one single thing at a time, right? Why do people still use this retarded argument today? It has never made sense in any context it's used. It's likes saying if a policeman pulls you over for running a red light, they're obviously to busy to solve murders.

I can't help think you're only defending this because it's Google...

Re:Maybe this is good news

[bonch]

Yes, because any organization is only capable of handling a single issue at one time. Why do people still use this retarded argument? It never makes sense. Seriously, you believe an attorney general being involved in a probe of a gigantic corporation that's driving vans all over the world, scanning and archiving WiFi networks and MAC addresses, means that states don't care about crime and violence?

Defend Google if you have a legitimate point to make, but your argument is just plain stupid. It's like saying the feds don't care about pedophiles if they lock up crack dealers, or they don't care about terrorists if they lock up serial rapists. In this case, they're just investigating how and why Google collected and saved neighborhood WiFi network data. That's not such a crazy thing to do when you're dealing with a gigantic advertising company that has a substantial position of power on the internet and indexes everything for ad delivery purposes.

but if i....

[metalmaster]

secure my wifi i'll just get bitched at when little jimmy wants to use his new $wifi_gadget

Re:but if i....

[lxs]

Yeah don't secure your Wifi. I would hate to go back to paying for internet access.

Sincerely,
Your neighbor.

I can see a perfectly good use for this

[mrjb]

Anyone want to bet that they collected this info to try to set up a more accurate geolocation service than anyone else?

Re:Duh ...

[BenevolentP]

Most slashdot geeks say they're non-religious, though they still have the urge to believe in a greater entity that is "good" without any doubt. Currently it's google, and like most religious people, they will defend their deity even against their own beliefs and technical knowledge. Would you believe anyone would have modded this post flamebait if the story was about MS doing the same thing? Or any other company, for that matter?

How is collecting unsecured wifi data different...

[Viol8]

... to people listening to someone shouting across the street? Would the government charge these people for listening in to a "private" conversation of 2 people were shouting at each other loud enough to be heard?

I sometimes wonder if theres an IQ test politicians have to take and anyone who makes it into 3 digits can't become one.

Google is creepy, Congress is inept

[wazzzup]

So if a person had never bothered to put up any curtains and failed to install doors in their house and Google snapped a photo of the street in which you can see inside the house should Google be tried for invasion of privacy? Can such a person who leaves his or her house in that state have a reasonable expectation of privacy? Do people that can't be bothered to put up electronic versions of curtains and doors for their wireless networks have a reasonable expectation of privacy?

If you throw out incriminating evidence in the garbage, took it to the curb and investigators went through to get it and used it against you do you have any expectation that they shouldn't be able to use that evidence?

Seriously, if you make your life available to the public, whether it be failing to install curtains and doors in your home, putting sensitive documents in the trash and taking it out to the curb, posting your marital indiscretions on Facebook or allowing the public to connect to your publicly broadcasted and open network you have no reasonable expectation of privacy at those points.

At worst, Google can be accused of being creepy for picking through the "virtual" trash left at the curb and snapping photos of your doorless and curtainless home.

What is scary is that congresspersons involved with this investigation had no clue about securing consumer routers and are currently making decisions guiding the Department of Homeland Security . If there's anything alarming and scary to take away from this story that would be that, not Google.

Re:Google is creepy, Congress is inept

[Anonymous Coward]

What is scary is that congresspersons involved with this investigation had no clue about securing consumer routers and are currently making decisions guiding the Department of Homeland Security . If there's anything alarming and scary to take away from this story that would be that, not Google.

I wonder about topology and how all the systems are connected to other goverment systems? When Gary McKinnon hacked a university server, he could gain access eventually to the Pentagon, which seems rediculous to me but hey im only an IT Professional, not a goverment official. It only takes a weak link...or unsecured network (that may not be wi-fi) to grant access to strangers and once a system is conpromised you can't trust the data.

Re:Google is creepy, Congress is inept

[Anonymous Coward]

At worst, Google can be accused of being creepy for picking through the "virtual" trash left at the curb and snapping photos of your doorless and curtainless home.

The rest of us don't like creepy, because creepy translates to "vague potential for bad things". Google is inventing ways to be creepy faster than the rest of us can invent laws to rein that in. That's not a stable situation, and it can't end well for Google.

Information Storage

[helix2301]

Well I think the general problem with this is not that they collected it because anyone can collect this data with a wifi card and few pieces of software. The issue is Google stores all there information and never gets rid of it and if there was every a security breach that's a lot of information that can be dangerous in the wrong hands.

See Pamela Lee Jones vs the Dogging vid

[Anonymous Coward]

See Pamela Lee Jones vs the Dogging vid. She complained, judge said "that was a public place you were fucking in, tough shit, sister."

Re:See Pamela Lee Jones vs the Dogging vid

[Custard Horse]

"...tough shit, sister."

And if her brother can do that to her he must feel reeeeally strongly about the matter.

Last line in article

[oDDmON oUT]

"Google said it mistakenly picked up 600 gigabytes of data from unsecured networks over the last three years."

Six.Hundred.GIGS?!?

If all Google was logging was the SSID and MAC addresses from unsecured WAPs as flat ASCII, worldwide, I'd wager that data would amount to a small fraction of that amount.

Which begs the question, just what *did* they log? (It also makes me reeeeally glad I heavily secured my WAP years ago).

Re:Last line in article

[Spad]

I think we've been through this every time the story has come up; Google were passively scanning all available wireless networks and in doing so were capturing data that was being broadcast on unsecured networks. The real issue here isn't that they did that (you kind of have to if you're going to catalog wireless access points) but that they didn't have a process in place to automatically discard all the additional data once they'd established the SSID, MAC, Channel, Signal Strength, Location, etc that they wanted to record.

Wrong question -- Re:Private Info?

[beh]

The question isn't "who thinks this info is private?"... ..the question is "who thinks data shouldn't be private?"...

As is usually the case, the law only begins stepping in AFTER the baby has been poured out with the bath water...

Yes, the data is currently available, because people didn't lock the access points. But - outside of the IT geek/nerd community - how many people do you think have Internet connections and aren't aware how to properly secure their network?

And - even if they can secure them - there is still the question about their awareness of what their data can be used for, when they enter it somewhere. How much of what you enter is actually a legitimate concern of the company in question? And how much is just collected for marketing or other purposes the end user might react negatively to?

The US may be at the technical forefront in areas - but you're behind when it comes to the awareness of data security and particularly data privacy issues. What you consider to be the pesky/narrow-minded rules of European governments as to data security - might one day just save you from companies riding rough shot over what you want and think, because they have the necessary data to do so. Of course, if, say, you're into S&M stuff, it may be great that you get advertising tailored to you on sites that deal with it. But, would you want that data to 'leak' out, and all of a sudden co-workers start raising eyebrows, why you get so many porn related ads while looking at google maps?

What about the 17 year old that proudly blogged how he screwed a neighbours kid out of some stuff or other... It's bad enough for the youth to live it down that time. But would you want potential future employers 20 years later make a call on how trustworthy, how grown-up you are by what you posted back then, and might be indexed by some other service in the future?

Re:Wrong question -- Re:Private Info?

[HungryHobo]

"properly secure their network?"

There's the rub.
I don't expect people to "properly" secure their network.
I don't expect people to seal their letters inside a safe before posting.
But I do expect a letter rather than a postcard, symbolic security.

what I expect is symbolic security at the very least, you know, the kind which almost all routers use by default which you have to specifically disable(normally with warnings).

"What about the 17 year old that proudly blogged how he screwed a neighbours kid out of some stuff or other... It's bad enough for the youth to live it down that time. But would you want potential future employers 20 years later make a call on how trustworthy, how grown-up you are by what you posted back then, and might be indexed by some other service in the future?"

20 years ago nothing was different, he just had to go on the radio or TV and say it and thousands could record his statements.
In a small town he just had to say it and people would remember.

Re:Wrong question -- Re:Private Info?

[cynyr]

the setup disk that shipped with my last 3 routers(over the last 5 years), all recommended strongly that the encryption be turned on. If you can't be bother to read the directions to you complex device, too bad for you. Thats like claiming after driving your new car through the dealer window that "you didn't know the car was in gear"

Re:Wrong question -- Re:Private Info?

[beh]

Yes, but he would have been able to move away from the small town - if he really wouldn't have been able to live it down there...

Also, recording things stated on radio - two things on that: (a) I think people are more aware of how public radio/TV is compared to how public they think a comment on facebook might be. You don't 'exprect' hundreds of thousands to see that comment.

(b)if you recorded every little tidbit from radio for a decade - you still wouldn't have much of a search index to find something. (Unless, you'd already be quite the misanthrope to start with -- but then again, most of us normally don't make much of some misanthrope's utterings).

Nowadays with search engines, you wouldn't need to spend any amount of work into informing yourself on what's going on - you just google the name of a person and see what's coming off it. No matter, whether he'd felt it necessary to skip his town on the other side of a planet because of something he/she did as a youth...

Linksys

[Anonymous Coward]

This is your WiFi...

Scanning...

Linksys(unsecured)
Linksys(unsecured)
Linksys(unsecured)
Linksys(WEP)
Belkin(WEP)
DD-WRT(WPA2)
2Wire(unsecured)
846fork14(unsecured)

8 APs found. ...and this is your WiFi being managed by the same people who have their windows update set to 3AM, never install them, and are still worried about viruses and people getting into their items while running Windows XP SP1 and vista gold. Also, all of these access points have log in pair (Admin/password), (blank,blank), (blank, admin), (admin, blank). The only grace of that is you can play WiFi conductor for the betterment of everyone in an apartment complex when twenty people around you think it is a good idea to pile on channel 6.

Or just a map of open APs

[Anonymous Coward]

Or just a map of open APs. Which would be useful. OR would it be better for Google to go phoning every telephone asking if they have an open AP and what its details are..?

The only problem is making sure that Google delete the data once they've found the SSID/channel/etc of any open access points they found.

Welcome to my WLAN

[Anonymous Coward]

If I'm broadcasting unencrypted WiFi, it is because I want to broadcast or too stupid to know better. In either event it is a public disclosure using that fine spectrum delivered for this purpose by the kind folks at the FCC. Have at it!

Wifi Hotspot map

[Andypcguy]

I don't see what wrong with them recording this. It's like driving through a neighborhood in the next state over and scanning to see what radio stations they have. Maybe Google was going to include the location of free Wifi Hotspots on the map. This would be a nice feature. They would have to filter the private netowrks from free services and this would be difficult. Maybe that is why it never happened.

Re:Wifi Hotspot map

[Zironic]

The problem was that they recorded a lot more information then they needed. Google may not have been malicious in their intent but they still need to be stopped because if we don't draw the line here, what prevents an actually malicious company from driving around vacuuming up all your data?

Re:Wifi Hotspot map

[Moridin42]

Uh, Encryption? Its the same thing that kept an untold number of APs out of Google's data collection efforts.

So.. Learn it. Love it. Use it.

Re:How is collecting unsecured wifi data different

[silentcoder]

>I sometimes wonder if theres an IQ test politicians have to take and anyone who makes it into 3 digits can't become one.

Close, it's more like everybody who doesn't make it into 2 digits are destined to be one.

Re:How is collecting unsecured wifi data different

[selven]

I sometimes wonder if theres an IQ test politicians have to take and anyone who makes it into 3 digits can't become one.

George Bush has an IQ of 125.

Given that the average IQ is (by definition) 100, that should say something about the people who vote these politicians in.

can we...

[Charliemopps]

Can we get a list of their names, brand their foreheads with "I don't know nothin about no internets!" and then never let them vote on anything relating to technology ever again.

37 States...

[countertrolling]

Is that enough to get a constitutional amendment against Google? I'm sure we could dream up something...

Do the states have the authority?

[schwit1]

Has the FCC permitted the states to assist it in enforcing or expanding federal communications laws? Didn't congress give exclusive authority for communications to the FCC with a few exceptions for the military?

Re:Do the states have the authority?

[AHuxley]

http://www.irongeek.com/i.php?page=computerlaws/state-hacking-laws
Seems to depends on the state and local e lobby efforts.
Some would have tighter data retention and privacy laws, others would be watered down?
So scanning for and keeping data not intended for you could be seen differently based on each states reaction to hackers and their skilled lawyers in the past.

--- So what can they get from that info ?

[evo420]

So what can they get from that info ? 1. MAC Adress 2. Location 3. MAC vs Searches (they are google and have dns server) vs Location 4. On their DNS, they can match MAC addresses too... but they cant find your locations ? 4. look up mac addresses 5. find out what ip entered what sites and go after those persons ? what else ?

Re:--- So what can they get from that info ?

[barry99705]

Well if it was an open network, then they also have all the data that was flowing over the air at the time. If the user was logging into a non-ssl'd website, they have that password now, a lot of mail services don't encrypt the user/pass over the wire, so they could potentially have that as well. As most IT professionals know, most of the population uses the same password for almost everything. So now they may have a users name and password, and location/address. Using that information it's not too difficult to figure out other information about the person.

Re:--- So what can they get from that info ?

[evo420]

that means the bakery ads could show up on pages i access using google dns server . damn!

Not private at all

[Hylandr]

All this private information

If it's a Wifi access point, it's obviously not private. Imagine having a message stuck to the back of your car, and whine about it being private if someone notices?

- Dan.

Re:How is collecting unsecured wifi data different

[barry99705]

Well most of them were lawyers, so there's at least one test they need to pass.

Tempest in a teapot

[kenh]

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when you broadcast information from your home in an unsecured form.

If you secure the information you can be considered to have taken reasonable steps to ensure some level of privacy, but that doesn't mean you are guaranteed privacy - you are still broadcasting the information, albeit encrypted.

If you want to keep your MAC addresses (or any other information) private, don't broadcast them.

Now, if anyone finds evidence that Google is harvesting MAC addresses and combining them with MAC addresses harvested from, say, Google searches or web advertising tacking, then you start to head towards a problem, but you don't really get there (IMHO). These are all opt-in activities, you choose to go online, you choose to broadcast your information, it's not Google's fault if you fail to realize those two choices are related, and together could result in certain other decisions being made as a direct result of those two decisions (browse and broadcast).

I had to laugh at earlier attempts to portray this as a matter of "National Security" because members of Congress had unprotected WiFi links in their houses that could be picked up by anyone driving by, be it Google's camera cars, a war-driving teenager, or a neighbor walking down the street with a WiFi-enabled smartphone. The fault, in this case, lies squarely in the hands of the congress-critters that relied on technology they didn't understand and took few, if any, precautions to safeguard their communications.

Re:Tempest in a teapot

[AHuxley]

The problem is your average user might have been chatting on yahoo, viewing a web page or doing some other unique activity at that time.
They had formed a network with a service and someone outside that network kept their data long term and all over the state.
The 'expectation of privacy" kicks in when caught with the data.
Until then your free to enjoy your digital wifi device with one click.
Start saving other peoples networking efforts in bulk and things may get interesting.

Re:Tempest in a teapot

[TheSync]

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when you broadcast information from your home in an unsecured form.

It is a grey area, because the ECPA makes any "intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication" illegal, however a recent court case found:

In United States v. Ahrndt, No. 3:08-cr-00468-KI (D. Or. Jan. 28, 2010), Ahrndt argued that his neighbor violated the ECPA when she connected to his unsecured wireless network and accessed his iTunes library while a police officer observed. The court noted that under the ECPA, it is not unlawful for any person "to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public." Because Ahrndt's wireless network was broadcast in a 400 foot radius around his house, and because his iTunes program was configured to automatically share files with any computer that joined that network, the court held that the wireless network was "readily accessible to the general public," and rejected Ahrndt's ECPA claim. For similar reasons, the court also denied the defendant's Fourth Amendment claim, finding that he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his wirelessly broadcast iTunes files.

Neat idea, but...

[kenh]

That would be interesting - a database of constantly uploaded images with long/lat coordinates, so you could see what is going on anywhere... As long as someone there is running the app. Think of it as a crowd-sourced, constantly refreshed street-view... Of course, you'd have to turn it off when the police are nearby.

Umm, no, it's the opposite

[cheros]

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when you broadcast information from your home in an unsecured form.

Disagree. This still requires deliberate access of a resource you know not to be your own. That you leave the door open does not make walking in and helping yourself to anything in the house legal.

This is also the main argument why a WiFi enabled device should not automatically join an unprotected network. That it is often done does not make it legal, but in Google's case we're even talking about deliberately setting up for this..

Privacy for electromagnetic waves?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm confused as to why we should expect privacy for anything that we broadcast out to the world. The signals from your computer and router are the electromagnetic wave equivalent of a rather strong yell. It seems stupid to complain that people are eavesdropping when you're screaming it out for all to hear.

Quit saying "private!"

[Sloppy]

Now the question is how it may have used — and secured — all this private information.

People were fucking broadcasting plaintext! Call what Google did (continuing to store information other than what they were trolling for) undesirable if you like, but saying it's a privacy violation is absurd (at worst it was a privacy leak perpetrated by the "victims"), and anyone who is still broadcasting that plaintext can still be snooped by anyone else without the "victim" having any recourse or even knowledge that it happened. Google isn't your problem here.

Oh, and Google isn't continuously watching your network. They were out in front of your house for a few seconds. But someone else might be watching. If you've got a problem with that, do something about it. This isn't some kind of horrible panopticon problem that you can't do anything about except to withdraw into seclusion. If it were (like, say, camera proliferation) I would have a lot more sympathy. But this is something you can trivially fix by encrypting.

So quit tossing your love letters our onto the street and bitching when someone who isn't even camped out there, drives by and picks one up and reads it. You are hurting privacy advocacy when you get this ridiculous. The people bitching about this are just making strawmen for real Orwellians to either trivially knock over or play lip service to, and they are NOT helping to protect privacy.

I want MY Country back

[ka9dgx]

This fucking sucks. Instead of worrying about corporate fraud, or shutting down the derivatives bubble that is bigger than the real economy... we have 37 different state offices and a bunch of press focused on the recording of unencrypted WiFi packets and massive scare mongering.

I want my country back.

How Dare They!

[cgenman]

How dare they collect private information like MAC addresses! Those carefully shielded numbers are there for an important purpose: to be kept safe from prying eyes, hidden behind a shield of apparently unlocked wireless networks.

Asses.

WRT network content: If you decide that a regular house isn't good enough for you so you buy a fully glass house, then don't hang up any curtains, what the heck did you expect to happen? "Oh look, this big bad corporation took photographs of my completely glass house! They don't have any intent to do anything with it. We must sue them before they do that!" Why do you people think that your computer warns you every time you connect to an unsecured network that everyone can see all of your bits! The reason they could photograph you naked in public is because YOU WERE NAKED IN PUBLIC. Normally I have some sympathy for non-tech users getting things wrong, but this one is just long-running and stupid.

As a side note, it seems a little odd that people are freaking out that Google might have their e-mails, the websites they visited, etc. That's like complaining that General Petraeus might have improperly bought a slingshot at a fair. Google pretty much knows the gender of your next child. If they saw you remotely streaming Wrestlemania IV, Amazon probably already told them what you rated it and that you keep re-reading Twilight on your Kindle. While I'm uncomfortable with individual corporations having so much data about people, they've already got it. I'm just expecting the day that I get an e-mail from Google saying that they've automatically updated my calendar with the date I made over Google voice, they called the repairman about the noise in the car, and I have six months until an undiscovered cancer kills me. Sniffing my wireless network won't give them anything they're probably not already collecting from this Chrome browser. Of course, my wireless network isn't completely naked because I actually read the 20 point font easy setup card that came with the damned thing.

Re:How Dare They!

[bonch]

So why was Google collecting and archiving MAC addresses?

Re:How Dare They!

[dissy]

So why was Google collecting and archiving MAC addresses?

First you are a troll so this isn't directed at you (You won't read or understand it anyways, but a reply is what you get for replying to my post)

Google collects MAC addresses with the physical location of that MAC address, so that later when a device again sees that MAC address near by, you can use that data to ask Google where you are.

It's used in addition to, or as a replacement for, the government controlled GPS.

Re:How Dare They!

[LordSnooty]

it works, as well. Pinpointed my UK house down to the pixel. Travel down the road with a 3G laptop and the dot follows you.

Re:How Dare They!

[Anonymous Coward]

My fiancee's phone uses a combination of cellphone and wifi triangulation. For the longest time she didn't even realize it lacked GPS. It's a very effective 3rd way of determining location.

I wrote my AG, have you written to yours yet?

[ka9dgx]

Here's what I sent to Indiana's AG...

TO:
Office of the Indiana Attorney General
Indiana Government Center South
302 W. Washington St., 5th Floor
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: 317.232.6201
Fax: 317.232.7979

E-mail: Constituent@atg.in.gov

FROM: Mike Warot

Hi
    I'm Mike Warot, from Hammond. I'm a network administrator working in Chicago.

I've recently learned that 37 states are joining in an investigation of Google's collection of WiFi data, as typified in this story from the LA Times

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2010/07/google-street-view.html

The issue at hand seems to be quite simple. They were trying to make a list of open (unencrypted) WiFi access points as a supplement to GPS to help in navigation. Because the software used to collect this data (Kismet) defaults to collecting entire packets instead of just the names of the access points, there is now an uproar that "passwords were stolen" and other Bull Shit. It was a simple technical oversight, not an evil plot.

Please DO NOT WASTE MY TAX DOLLARS on this wild goose chase. I'm sure you have plenty of other more important work to do.

Thanks for your time and attention.
 

You're broadcasting your IP^H^HMAC address!!1!1

[roystgnr]

I always wondered who was ignorant or stupid enough to be sent into a panic by those banner ads which announced that your computer used a unique ID to communicate and some other people could see that ID. Now I know. Politicians.

MAC addresses

[psydeshow]

Hey, you know what else has a unique address that can be used to track you?

That bluetooth headset that you wear around town in order to convince people that you're in the loop.
Or the RFID tags in your car's tires.
Or the unique pattern of resonance given off by the fillings in your teeth.

You have no privacy in the postmodern world.

Law vs. what's right

[or-switch]

Two things: What Google did isn't illegal. Maybe it should be, maybe it shouldn't be, but part of this is, in a way, similar to the introduction of the MP3. Sure, you could copy a tape or CD from a friend, but now you could broadcast it to millions worldwide. Similarly, anyone can walk up with a laptop and grab your unencrypted data, but Google just showed that a corporation could do it on a large scale. Granted it was a mistake and what they got was useless. But the politicians have to consider what would have happened if a mapping company wanted more than that, and pressing Google for details on what happened will help them understand (because they're not tech people and don't understand) how this happened and how one would legislate going forward. If the authorities don't do this, and then it's found that Google or some other entity with similar capabilities did do it on a large scale WITH malicious intent then these posts would revert to, "Look at greedy MegaCorp, they can't be trusted with our data." They have to act, even if its stupid. The legislation that's obviously needed is to get the WiFi router manufacturers to make it A WHOLE lot easier to setup the encryption. I just visited my parents, who aren't idiots but are not that tech interested complaining about their wireless. I sniffed around and found that there were FOUR WiFi networks accessible from within their house called 'linksys' and their computers, and their neighbor's computers, and their neighbor's neighbor's computers were all switching between them randomly. You try calling a neighbor in their 60's and say, "Ok, type 192.168.1.1 in the browser bar, select WEP2, and here's a hex string for you." It's not simple, not by a longshot for the average consumer. Teach people to secure their own data and make it easy and you'll solve a lot of what EvilMegaGlobalCorp can do to you maliciously.

The government is only mad ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The government is only mad ... because it doesn't like competition.
It wants a monopoly on violating citizen's privacy.

Facepalm

[arose]

Now the question is how it may have used — and secured — all this private information.

Considering that they didn't plan to collect it, I think the answer is "exactly as they did", disclosure. Next time it will go into a bit-bucket because of all the hassle disclosure caused and if an employee had pulled a copy beforehand no-one would have any idea...

STOP WITH ANALOGIES!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wifi isn't like anything else.
It is Wifi.

We all need to accept that it is something new and not like anything else.

Until that point, we will not have good law around it.

Lets put it this way: the perception is for most people that their wireless network is private to them.

That is the way it is intended to be used.

The unfortunate part is that the implementation requires broadcasting signals anyone can see.

I think anyone with a proper set or morals would see and respect that.

Exciting

[MasaMuneCyrus]

Amidst all the pessimism surrounding this controversy, surely I'm not the only one excited about the potential benefits of what Google was doing?

Google was collecting information about wifi hotspots. Think about how this could benefit Google Maps, and your own life. Imagine searching for "coffee shop near indianapolis", and there are icons next to each of the names that show whether or not the coffee shop has free wifi. Or how about a "Search for wifi hotspots near this area button? This would be incredibly useful.

Read Lawrence Lessig's Code 2.0

[FoolishOwl]

There's a tendency, in US at least, of assuming that the Bill of Rights covers all possible contingencies. As Lessig laid out in Code 2.0, laws were designed with contemporary or foreseeable contingencies in mind. In the late 18th century, they wouldn't have anticipated a scenario in which one private organization was in a position to accumulate enormous amounts of publicly available data, index it thoroughly, and make it available to anyone anywhere instantly.

We're in a new situation, and need to have a rational and democratic discussion of what new principles and rules we should have.