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

Or

[Spad]

37 States jump on Google Street View bandwagon.

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?

[WarJolt]

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

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?

[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?

[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]

>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?

[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?

[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?

[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

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.

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.

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, ...

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.

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: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.