Slashdot Mirror


FTC Ends Probe of Google StreetView Privacy Breach

GovTechGuy writes "The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) wrote to Google on Wednesday to end its probe into a major privacy breach in which the company collected and stored private user information, such as passwords and entire e-mails, without even realizing it after the search giant promised to improve its privacy practices."

8 of 99 comments (clear)

  1. Whoops! by Mikkeles · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Gee, we got caught; better do it differently next time. (After all, there's no penalty).

    --
    Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    1. Re:Whoops! by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No penalty because there's no outcry. People give Google a pass because Google gives them free email, a free search engine, and a free browser. It doesn't seem to occur to Google's fans that their search and advertising platforms are as closed source and proprietary as Windows, and that all the free services only exist to get people's personal data indexed.

      I'm pro-privacy, but this is silly. It's no secret that you pay for Google services by allowing them to target advertising at you. That's their business model and not only do they not make any attempt whatsoever to hide it, they point it out every time they have an earnings call.

      I fail to see why those shouting their secrets from a street corner have an expectation of privacy. We are responsible for our own privacy, not Google and not the government.

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

  2. Re:I'm sure that... by Microlith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know, it couldn't have anything to do that nothing transmitted in the clear over unregulated frequencies is considered secret in any way, and therefore Google arguably did nothing wrong whatsoever.

    It had to be political gaming by CEOs to protect them from Federal legal action for violating... what law again?

  3. Re:Still being Sued by Canada by FooAtWFU · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If suing Google after they collected the passwords you transmitted unencrypted over wireless networks is *really* your idea of "privacy" . . . you're going to be in a big surprise when someone less friendly than Google does the same thing.

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  4. Re:I'm sure that... by LordLucless · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is how low Slashdot has sunk. Years ago, this site was very pro-privacy. We're now at the point where a company can archive your emails and passwords, claim it was an accident, and get off the hook by promising not to do it again next time--and that's "doing nothing wrong whatsoever" according to the posters here.

    No, we're just very pro personal responsibility. If you're broadcasting unencrypted data into the street, reading it shouldn't be a crime. If you don't know how to encrypt your wireless data - even with easily-cracked encryptions, that at least require some deliberate effort to crack - then you shouldn't it be broadcasting it into people's face. If Google were getting this data by cracking WEP, or performing MitM attacks, then I'm sure you'd see people up in arms.

    Complaining about this is like complaining that a vehicle equipped with an audio recorder picked up your shouted argument from the street. If you weren't screaming at the top of your damn lungs, nobody would have heard anything.

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  5. Re:Without realizing ? by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    without even realizing it

    Google sniffing out all this stuff by accident? ! **sneeze** bullshit !

    Would it be an accident, it'd even be scarier. It'd mean that the search giant don't know what they're doing.

    I don't think you've ever used a sniffer. Google drove around with a wireless sniffer that recorded traffic to a log file. The guys in the van would upload all their logs to a central location where they were parsed to build a database of access point SSIDs and MAC addresses for geolocation. The problem is a sniffer dump contains a lot of raw packet data, more than just the information they needed, because that's what a sniffer is supposed to do; capture all the traffic it finds.

    --

    Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

  6. Re:I'm sure that... by LordLucless · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Uh-huh, and just because someone publishes a publicly accessible webpage available over http doesn't mean you have any right to access it, right? You should be getting written permission to "hack into" their computer by accessing it via publicly-accessible protocols they have explicitly installed and made available?

    There are well-documented methods for establishing whether you want somebody to be able to use your connection. Not using them, and then complaining that someone uses it is like bitching that Google indexes your site, because you didn't setup robot.txt.

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  7. Re:I'm sure that... by slimjim8094 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They were using Kismet, which by default captures all unencrypted packets it hears. They forgot to change the default - which, incidentally, is something the WiFi owners are guilty of as well.

    It would be different if they changed the configuration in order to capture packets, instead of simply forgot.

    --
    I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.