Slashdot Mirror
Google Agrees To Biennial Privacy Reviews
Blacklaw writes "Google has publicly apologised for the mistakes it made during the launch of its Twitter-like social networking tool Buzz, and claims that it's learned its lesson — and will be undergoing independent privacy reviews to keep it on the straight and narrow."
Publicly apologized for violating users privacy? Learned its lesson? They are doing this again. They tried to get past the war driving and snooping by the same way, but at least governments intervened and some actually did something. I say bring it, fine them, take CEO's to jail, shut down Google.. whatever so that they learn. Good companies like Ubuntu and Microsoft would never do shit like this.
Google says they are not evil, so you know it has to be true.
Every corporation is absolutely good for their word.
Google would never do anything like collect data on everything you do on the internet... just because they have access to all of it and can make a mega-super-fortune off of it. Never!
Okay, so the FTC is mad about them violating privacy. So what do they have to do? Agree to an "independent" privacy review? And how picks this organization? Google? Why doesn't the FTC put our tax dollars to work and investigate Google themselves?
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
Google has totally been publicly whipped for Buzz and for collecting WiFi data....
And yet the Telecoms are collecting who-even-has-a-guess-how-much data on our data exchanges, tracking our position, hacking our phones to turn them into ease dropping devices, and whatever else. And we know AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, etc. are sharing this data freely without warrants with the government.
And our government keeps extending and extending and extending the extraordinary measures of the Patriot Act without providing any evidence that this is needed!
Big Content is pushing to reduce our privacy further, and insists upon technologies aimed at reducing file sharing, while enabling all sorts of fun Actors like Iran to use the same technologies to cut off their population from the rest of the Internet.
Now I am happy that Google is willing to take input on better privacy. And they NEED to be good about privacy, as more and more of our communications are open to them. But they are not alone. There are other companies that need to step up to the privacy needs of their customers.
There are firms that specialize in auditing tech businesses to make sure they're handling privacy correctly?
Learn something new every day.
So good news - The Goog will review every 2 years to see if your data is being leaked. Seems like less of a proactive approach to me and more of a "well we'll look at it when we can get to it" kind of approach.
> collecting WiFi data....
WiFi data that was broadcast in the clear, so by definition perfectly OK to receive.
I'm no google fan, I hate them, block their scripts, and refuse to use their services or let them collect data about me. But pretending they did something wrong when they didn't serves no purpose except to dilute the case when they really *have* done bad things.
Once more, with feeling: if you shout, don't be dismayed when someone hears. The very technical definition of 802.11 makes it permissible. If you want privacy, turn on encryption, which is provided on even the cheapest consumer access points.
Can this really be anything else? I mean of all the telcos and other companies that we know violate our privacy in egregious ways, they have to pick on Google? Seriously? Is this the best they can come up with?
uhh... what? Proof?
It'd be real easy with some basic RF equipment to tell whether your phone is turning on when not expected.
Google has totally been publicly whipped for Buzz and for collecting WiFi data....
As is richly deserved for flagrant and willful abuse of privacy. Now please explain to me why these same watchful agencies continue to look the other way and let Microsoft get away with murder in terms of continued market control of PC vendors and such destructive tactics as undermining the ISO standards process. How about fabricating evidence in court, what punishment was there for that?
At least Google is likely to learn and improve its behavior as a result of the punishment. Microsoft never would.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
By all means, let the FTC grow to accommodate the job of investigating Google biannually while private companies wither for lack of work, so that private working citizens can pay for it with their tax dollars because public corporations won't.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
WiFi data that was broadcast in the clear, so by definition perfectly OK to receive.
STFU shill.
Anyone want to buy some slightly used tin foil underwear?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
As is richly deserved for flagrant and willful abuse of privacy.
Having people you had already contacted via email being able to follow your Buzz is abuse of privacy? I don't see how. The entire situation was way way overblown.
WiFi data that was broadcast in the clear, so by definition perfectly OK to receive.
STFU shill.
Yes, how dare you remind people to use encryption? There are people who make a good living by capitalizing on poor security practices, you insensitive clod.
See, you posted anonymously, taking reasonable measures to ensure that your (very cerebral) comment can't be linked to you. This is -- in a very loose sense -- somewhat akin to encrypting your WiFi, something the victims of Google's data collection did not do.
If you don't want your brilliant comments hurting your karma (or be traceable to your account / real name / whatever), post anonymously; if you don't want your WiFi data being broadcast to all, encrypt it. Neither is a perfect solution, but both are easy first steps.
..turn them into ease dropping devices..
I hate when AT&T makes it easier to drop my iPhone.
I don't know about you but a Biennial Privacy Review sounds like it hurts!
Perhaps because of their operating location?
I'm an outsider, but the general population of the US is often perceived as apathetic to privacy concerns, and prioritise 'security' and national integrity above it.
Google's actions on the other hand affect their global brand, with many countries not wishing to be subdued into being the 'anti-privacy' corporate country they see the US as.
The difference here is that Google cares about its users... or at least maintains that it does. AT&T doesn't much give a damn and makes this pretty obvious. Of course these things probably have more to do with user apathy and fleeting internet buzz (can I still use that word?) than actual corporate attitudes.
See, you posted anonymously, taking reasonable measures to ensure that your (very cerebral) comment can't be linked to you. This is -- in a very loose sense -- somewhat akin to encrypting your WiFi, something the victims of Google's data collection did not do.
If you don't want your brilliant comments hurting your karma (or be traceable to your account / real name / whatever), post anonymously; if you don't want your WiFi data being broadcast to all, encrypt it. Neither is a perfect solution, but both are easy first steps.
But judge, clearly this woman wanted me to sniff her panties or she would've closed her bedroom window.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
When I was getting my ham license, the instructor related an anecdote of a married man arranging a tryst with someone other than his wife. He did this on a ham radio, using the local community's repeater to patch into the phone system (mobile calling has been around long before cell phones) -- and of course, everyone used that frequency. Needless to say, his wife, uh, found out.
Point is, if you're broadcasting sensitive information over the air, you need to encrypt it if you expect any privacy at all, period (unless it's remarkably short-range). This was true in WWII, it was true in the 80's, and it's true today. I'm not saying I agree with what Google did, but someone with a laptop, GPS and kismet could do exactly the same thing, just on a smaller scale.
"STFU" is an excellent counterargument to my points indeed. I may not be able to compete with your eloquence, but let me try again.
If we go down this path of making it illegal to receive signals broadcast in the clear, that fact WILL be used against normal people far more than against companies like google. The damage that such an ideology might do far outweighs the small benefits it would confer here.
Lots of idiots pointing fingers and screaming 'shill,' reminiscent of Donald Sutherland's cry at the end of Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
It's such an intellectually shoddy way to conduct an argument. Why not accuse him of being racist at the same time? After all, your point is mostly "JUST DON'T LISTEN TO HIM! DON'T LISTEN TO HIS EVIL WORDS!".
If you can smell the panties in her room from out on the street, she has no place to complain that you did. You on the other hand have a right to complain.
Less disgustingly, if she throws them at you while you are playing a show, you also in the clear to sniff them.
Conversely, if she puts even the slightest effort into keeping you from smelling them, you do not.
The only lesson they learned is that there is a maximum speed that the general population accepts when it comes to ever increasing privacy incursions.
When I was getting my ham license, the instructor related an anecdote of a married man arranging a tryst with someone other than his wife. He did this on a ham radio, using the local community's repeater to patch into the phone system (mobile calling has been around long before cell phones) -- and of course, everyone used that frequency. Needless to say, his wife, uh, found out.
Point is, if you're broadcasting sensitive information over the air, you need to encrypt it if you expect any privacy at all, period (unless it's remarkably short-range). This was true in WWII, it was true in the 80's, and it's true today. I'm not saying I agree with what Google did, but someone with a laptop, GPS and kismet could do exactly the same thing, just on a smaller scale.
But it IS remarkably short range, 802.11n is like 50m indoors maybe ? It's more akin to listening at the keyhole than tuning into a broadcast as in your example. I'm all for encryption, the more the better, but that doesn't change the fact that there has to be a reasonable expectation of privacy even when encryption fails or more likely the setup is insecure out of the box and the technical know-how isn't there to improve things. Like I said elsewhere in the comments I could give a pass to a kid having fun, closer to a classic "nosy neighbor" situation, but this is a multi national corporation scanning people for data to use for its own gain. It's going too far.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Google is lining the pockets of politicians. They have $1Bs to spend. They contributed as much as evil Microsoft to Obama: Microsoft Corp, $833617. Google Inc, $803436. Seriously, Google is doing bad things with private data and should have been punished. Just because they say do not harm... don't believe them.
They broke the law. Period. They cruised around, intercepting and recording wireless transmissions, and at least by German law, that was illegal. It didn't happen by accident. They justifiably got slapped for their actions. Once more, if you break the law, don't be dismayed by the consequences.
From INSIDE my house, my laptop sees at least 5 different wireless networks from the surrounding houses. If I were in a dense neighborhood or an apartment complex, I'd see far more networks than that. So, no, 50 meters indoors is not "remarkably short range"; it is remarkably long range for a "private" network. This is not an accident; the range is long intentionally.
The blame for the Google fiasco is misdirected at Google. Yes, Google should not have collected the data, as a matter of privacy ethics. However, the real guilty parties are the wireless device vendors and the ISPs who provide to their customers wireless access devices that are insecure by default.
Google has totally been publicly whipped for Buzz and for collecting WiFi data....
And does anybody think those two decisions were more than 2 years in the planning?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
It's not necessarily legal to listen to (and archive) radio transmissions which aren't intended for you, even if they are sent unencrypted. There's a big difference between a television station and a private wireless computer network or cordless phone.
Yes, but nobody on /. cares which laws in Germany were violated.
And how is one to define intended? Someone sets up a wireless network which is openly broadcasting to the general public and is surprised that someone used it. How am I to interpret if that open WiFi network is intended for me or not. I am truthfully a bit tired of people kicking and screaming ignorance because they don't understand what they have and how to use it properly. How many news broadcasts, newspaper articles, blogs, and general information on the web is available to all on WiFi and how to use it. Perhaps a different example lets take a baby seat which I buy at a local store and I don't read the directions (just like these owners of WiFi capable routers). If I get in an accident and my baby gets injured because I installed it incorrectly or worse the baby dies for the same reasons do you think I will just be allowed to walk away and claim innocence because I just didn't know how to install the seat correctly? Ultimately when you purchase ANYTHING as a consumer it should be your responsibility to ensure it is maintained and setup correctly. Especially those devices which are used for transmission. Any mildly intelligent person should be able to ask themselves the basic questions "Can any one else easily access what I'm transmitting." if their answer is "I don't know" then they should ASK SOMEONE. Hell even the local Best Buy guy/gal would/could tell them to encrypt their WiFi.
I don't see the WiFi issue above as an issue. Don't want your car stolen then take the key out of the ignition when you park it. Don't wan't the neighbors kid to surf porn on your internet connection or be able to read your emails then encrypt it.