Slashdot Mirror
Connecticut AG Opts For Street View Settlement, Without Seeing the Data
theodp writes "Verifying Google's data snare is crucial to assessing a penalty and assuring no repeat,' said Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal last December in response to Google's 'accidental' collection of payload data from WiFi networks. 'We will fight to compel Google to come clean-granting my office access to improperly collected materials and protecting confidentiality, as the company has done in Canada and elsewhere.' That was then. Luckily for Google, there's a new AG in town, and Blumenthal successor George Jepsen said Friday that his office will enter into settlement negotiations with the company without reviewing the pilfered data, which Google has steadfastly refused to share with it. 'This is a good result for the people of Connecticut,' Jepsen said in a statement. A separate Jepsen press release suggested some of the blame for the privacy offenses laid with Google's victims, who were advised to 'turn off your wireless network when you know you won't use it' to thwart those who 'may be watching your Internet activity without your knowledge."
So, why'd you believe a marketing slogan from an overgrown ad agency anyway?
'turn off your wireless network when you know you won't use it'
How about secure your wireless network and nobody except those you specifically allow will be able to use it?
A separate Jepsen press release suggested some of the blame for the privacy offenses laid with Google's victims, who were advised to 'turn off your wireless network when you know you won't use it' to thwart those who 'may be watching your Internet activity without your knowledge.
So from the actual link:
The consortium recommends:
Are you fucking kidding me? After all of this, the court case, the hearing, a formal consortium omits the single most important and critical suggestion... turn on WPA encryption and use a VPN or (at least) HTTPS if you're using a hotspot. You know ... the only things that will actually protect your data, rather than obfuscate it?
I mean, to their credit, the list isn't inherently bad. Hide or disable your identifier, don't use public hot-spots, be careful, etc. However, it leaves the user with a false sense of security. If a user followed every suggestion in that list, Google could just as easily sniff every byte of traffic. Talk about inept and ineffective.
Ok, Google has it...
They said they will destroy it, either they do or they don't, it doesn't matter because they will do what they choose. But why go handing a copy over to every state who asks for it?
Really, if you're concerned about privacy, you want this information in the LEAST number of hands possible.
Government should be protecting privacy. It seemed reasonable for a state to want to know exactly how the privacy of its citizens was infringed on. I could see the other side, that knowing what was in the records wouldn't improve anyone's privacy and could actually harm them if their state government representatives turned out not to have the most pristine of ethics.
That "turn off your wireless network when you know you won't use it" comment sent me clear over to Google's side. The last thing I want is someone who believes that's the appropriate response to be poking through people's personals.
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
The whole press release is about turning encryption on, with one tiny bullet buried in the article saying to turn it off when not using it.
That Then-AG Blumenthal was pandering to the masses as part of his campaign for the US Senate?
No, that couldn't be it - kinda like he had a really, really good reason for going after legally earned bonus/balloon payments for AIG employees - despite the fact he couldn't cite any law that justified his attempts. None. When grilled on one talk show on the justification, he had nothing, sputtering about a responsibility to see the Gov't money was well-spent (despite the fact that the bonus/balloon payments were offered by the Gov't to key AIG employees to stay with the firm and see it through recovery, helping to keep stability in the market).
Blumenthal is a political hack, plain and simple.
It's interesting that only now, after a year+ of saber-rattling by politicians does it occur to anyone in Gov't to suggest people should make efforts to protect their home computers/Internet connections.
Ken
Google listened to publicly broadcasted info and mined it for wireless network SSIDs. Some idiots were broadcasting passwords and other private info that got picked up. Google wasn't looking for that data, doesn't care about that data, and promised to destroy the data. It was barely a story to begin with, it's even less of a story now, and yet Slashdot keeps reposting flamebait from theodp about it almost every week. Why? No one cares except anti-google shills trying to create a controversy where there is none.
Could it happen to coincide with the political party that Google supports with lots and lots of $$$$?
One wonders...
...why would you want it handed over to the government?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
When, for the love of pizza, is encryption going to catch on?
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
When the government wants data from Google, Google can "steadfastly refuse". But when the government wants data from Average Joe, they just bust his door down with a SWAT team and confiscate everything.
How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
George Jepsen is a Democrat. (Disclaimer: I am not a Republican - I can't stand either major party).
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
The data that Google admitted to collecting is exactly what i would expect to get from sniffing unsecured wireless connections.
The government bodies just see this as a way to get a few extra bucks by screaming about how peoples privacy has been violated. None of the people whos data was snatched will ever see a penny.
The blame lies squarely with the NAT box manufacturers and the users. I have not and still do not see what Google did that was wrong.
If you transmit an unsecured signal you have no right to bitch and moan about someone sniffing the data. It is your own fault if you insist on using technology that you do not understand.
blah
Dear gods, no comment about encryption? Recommended that users "turn off your wireless network when you know you won't use it"... Give ya a hint, Google didn't do this to look for an open hotspot to check email or tweet. The issue is the data gathered from people who were actually using their connection at the time. If they grabbed the raw stream, any bets there are a few credit cards and banking passwords in there? Politicians need to go back to banging rocks together... leave the tech to us.
I'm not sure what the obsession with the data is. I mean, it was already being broadcast in the clear to anyone listening. Everything from those homes has to be considered compromised regardless of what Google did or didn't receive. Just because Google doesn't have it doesn't mean a black hat wasn't listening in on it. Google having it confirms it's compromised, but you knew that already just from it having been broadcast in the clear. If this bothers you, why was your network wireless, broadcast-to-the-world, radio-based network running unencrypted in the first place?
It's kind of like the root passwords. When I find one of my admins who knew them just stormed into HR, delivered an angry tirade about how my company's scum and he's quitting effective immediately, then left the building, I don't have my people start checking to see if he's going to abuse his access now that he's left. I change all the root passwords ASAP to make sure he can't abuse his access, because by the time I know whether he will or not it's too late.
If you're running an unencrypted wireless network, it's because you don't care about whether anyone sees the data flowing across it or not. If you do care, you need to be running it encrypted. There are no other options. Caring about keeping a wireless network's data private and running that network unencrypted are simply mutually exclusive options, just like keeping some information private and posting it on a public bulletin board at the supermarket are mutually exclusive options.
Alan Eustace, Senior VP of Google Engineering & Research, started off 2010 by touting Google's 'guiding Privacy Principles', but would later have to apologize for the company's Street View privacy breach, saying that the company was 'mortified' by the 'mistake'. Last week, Bloomberg reported that Google gave Eustance a $10 million equity award in 2010 for his efforts.
So there're some of the brightest minds in America working for us, we're on your streets, and accidently the open wifi networkz.
Yeah right.
I think the summary has mis-characterized the note. #5 of several, fairly good, security suggestions was to "Turn off your wireless network when you know you won’t use it. " This hardly seems to be saying that the victims are to blame.
I personally keep my wifi on all the time (with other protections), but there's no question it would be a whole lot safer unplugged.
I don't understand how the privacy commissioner of Canada (who has actually no powers at all, all she can do is recommended things) got to see the logs, while the AGs of several states (who actually do have a lot of legal power) can not.