Slashdot Mirror
Google Declines To Turn Over Harvested Wi-Fi Data
An anonymous reader writes "Google declined to submit data collected as part of the 'Spy-Fi' flap, and Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is now promising further action: '"I certainly will be pressing for continued involvement at the federal level in coordination with the states," Blumenthal told Politico Monday, just days after promising to explore "additional enforcement actions" if Google does not share the data soon. Asked to describe what those federal efforts might include, the outgoing attorney general said, "There's a range of potential opportunities for oversight and scrutiny by a member of the US Congress – including letters, meetings, hearings, and potentially even legislation." For its part, Google has tried to defuse the issue by offering to delete the data. The company reaffirmed that position in a Friday statement, promising to work with Blumenthal in the coming weeks, but declined to comment further on Monday.'"
Google should have deleted the data before they even publicly announced that they had accidentally collected it. Would have made the matter a whole lot simpler and would have left less room for political grandstanding.
Yes, the government is certainly a safe place to store sensitive data, what is google thinking?
"letters, meetings, hearings" - If that doesn't scare the bejesus out of Google, I don't know what will.
Apparently Google has already given some or all of the sniffed data to authorities in Germany, Spain and France. I wonder why the US is causing so much more controversy?
Perhaps the US government is asking for more data (eg data from other countries) or has refused to meet conditions Google had set for the European governments, when handing over their shares of the data?
They want it as part of an investigation into the "accidental" collection of the data. This is standard procedure for a regulatory investigation - the data Google collected is evidence relevant to the investigation.
I'm not sure why you'd be interested in pretending that you don't get this... When's the last time you heard of an investigation in which the law enforcement and legal officials involved DID NOT want to see evidence relevant to their investigation?
Whether or not Atty General Blumenthal has jurisdiction and the right to request that data is something that may need to be decided in a court, but SOME investigative body is certainly going to want to review the data that was collected, since it is (perhaps) evidence of wrongdoing on Google's part, and entirely relevant to an investigation into whether or not Google broke laws in collecting and retaining that data.
The fact that his answer was so evasive is actually very telling. If they had a good reason to be looking at the data they'd have a warrant in hand.
“There’s a range of potential opportunities for oversight and scrutiny by a member of the U.S. Congress – including letters, meetings hearings, and potentially even legislation.”
Translation: we got nothing, so we're gonna try and invent some reason to get the data.
meep
Wouldn't the state just extradite and prosecute? What is different in the process for a corporation?
They would ignore it. Fun fact for you: Google was doing the same thing thousands of hobbiests are doing every day using the same tools. But it's different for Google since there's political hay to be made.
I mean come on...someone would have noticed the drives filling up, wondered why, etc. These people are supposedly geniuses, right?
You apparently have no idea how much harddrive space Google has.
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
I'm a little confused on how giving more people access to the data helps to ameliorate the supposed privacy invasion?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
"Whether or not Atty General Blumenthal has jurisdiction and the right to request that data is something that may need to be decided in a court, but SOME investigative body is certainly going to want to review the data that was collected, since it is (perhaps) evidence of wrongdoing on Google's part, and entirely relevant to an investigation into whether or not Google broke laws in collecting and retaining that data."
Evidence for what charge? What you are describing above is commonly known as a "fishing expedition". If Google has been accused of a crime then by all means go to court and get a search warrant to collect evidence, but demanding evidence so that you can go away and scour the books to see if you can find a crime is not how it's supposed to work.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
"There's all kinds of things that data could show, leading to any number of possible charges against (and eventual fines collected from) Google."
Sure, just like a cop without a search warrant could find lots of things in your home to hang you with. It's not about trusting either google or the government it's about the rule of law which says the authorities must have probable cause. In this case they don't have probable cause, they don't even have an allegation, which is why they don't have a search warrant.
"You're naivety is astounding!"
Voulenteering ANY information to an investigation that is spending a pile of taxpayer's money looking for a reason to hang you, is not just naive, it's stupid.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
1)You don't "accidentally" retain sniffed traffic logs of that size, across your entire international operations, for months if not years, "accidentally." See http://gizmodo.com/5671049/google-street-view-cars-collected-emails-and-passwords [gizmodo.com] I mean come on...someone would have noticed the drives filling up, wondered why, etc. These people are supposedly geniuses, right?
Eric: Hey Larry, this D drive is filling up pretty quick.
Larry: Huh?
Eric: I said the D drive is filling up pretty quick.
Larry: It's probably nothing, what are you doing?
Eric: Oh, nothing..I was just going to create a new logo for the anniversary of the invention of the potato peeler and I got this message.
Larry: What did it say?
Eric: I don't remember exactly, I just clicked ok, but it said something about disk-space, and wouldn't let me create my jpeg.
Larry: Well did you check the Control Panel?
Eric: Yeah, it's saying it's all full...
Larry: What? Seriously? I thought we put a 100Gb in there a few months ago? It shouldn't be full.
Eric: Well...it is. See? All blue!
Larry: Should we delete some of it?
Eric: I did, last week, and the week before...maybe it's a virus?
Larry: What are all these? Hmmm. They look important...probably Sergey's.
Eric:Shit...Sergey. Do you think...shall we tell him? Shall we tell Sergey?
Larry: Do you want to tell him? He's going to be super pissed when he finds out you filled the new hard-drive with porn or whatever you did..
Eric: I...Good point. I'll go down to best-buy and get one of those external disk things. What should I get? 200Gb or 300Gb?
Larry:I don't know? Just get the biggest one you can, and hurry! It's his turn to use the computer next!!
Sergey: Hey guys, what's up?
Eric & Larry (together): Nothing!
End Scene.
1) Yes you can accidentally retain sniffed traffic logs. Run Kismet for instance. I have once accidentally left it on, sniffing all encrypted and non-encrypted traffic in my neighborhood (~15 networks) for about 48 hours: ~10GB. Google did not sniff all traffic, it only sniffed (or sampled) a few packets from every hotspot (maybe 10-20kb). With standard disk sizes being 250GB it takes a really, really long time to fill up your disk with random samples.
2) People are pissed for what? Not securing their own wireless? Transmitting their passwords in clear text over an insecure medium? They only correlated what any WLAN tracker/sniffer can provide. If you own a wireless network you might know that your MAC addresses and SSID's get transferred and being able to correlate them against GPS locations has been done not just by Google. Even so, it's still legal in most places to receive radio transmissions (since it's physically impossible not to) and you can do whatever you want with them those transmitting those radio transmissions should know that there can be eavesdroppers anywhere.
3) It's not slightly creepy. I have done it as have probably many others here. Ever been at a location where you need internet? Maybe at your local coffee shop or at a hotel? You open your laptop and scan for networks hoping to find an unsecured one - you're now wardriving. Doing it for profit has been done before, there are companies that sell these databases successfully since at least the last '90's, not just Google.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com