FCC Wants To Fine Google $25K For WiFi Investigation

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Wants To Fine Google $25K For WiFi Investigation

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday April 15, 2012 @06:32AM from the dragging-your-feet dept.

An anonymous reader writes "It's good and bad news for Google. The FCC has ruled that Google did nothing wrong when it accidentally collected WiFi data with its Street View cars: '[The FCC] concluded that there was no precedent for the commissions' enforcement of the law in connection with WiFi networks. The FCC also noted that, according to the available evidence, Google only collected data from unencrypted WiFi networks, not encrypted ones, and that it never accessed or used the data.' However, they want to fine the company $25,000 because it 'deliberately impeded and delayed the investigation.'"

98 of 145 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Also known as by bobwrit · 2012-04-15 06:35 · Score: 4, Informative

"Hey, our budget could very well get cut soon. Let's fine people for things!" That's what I suspect the FCC's reasoning is. They just wont admit it.

--
-- (this is a sig) My Computer Programming Forumhttp://www.programers.co.nr/
1. Re:Also known as by Nidi62 · 2012-04-15 06:37 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Well, you know, seeing as how impeding an official investigation is actually something you can be charged and convicted of in a criminal investigation, it seems only fair that it should be a finable offense in an investigation such as this.
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
2. Re:Also known as by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-15 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  how can you impede something that you are innocent of ?
  Isn't that the equivalent of saying - "I did not do it" and continuing to protest such ?
3. Re:Also known as by Trepidity · 2012-04-15 06:43 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Given that the FCC's budget is somewhere around $350 million, levying fines of $0.025 million doesn't seem like a plausible funding strategy. That's just noise to both the FCC and Google's budgets. Imo it's more likely that it's just a symbolic fine.
  
  --
  10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
4. Re:Also known as by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-15 06:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You can delay the proceedings by not providing information in a timely manner.
5. Re:Also known as by Anarchduke · 2012-04-15 06:50 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Actually, I think this is a violation of Google's 5th amendment right to avoid self-incrimination. I know that we've never applied the 5th amendment to corporations before, but if you think about the Citizen's United ruling, the Supreme Court has already said that corporations are people and enjoy 1st amendment rights. Why couldn't they enjoy 5th amendment rights as well?
  In fact, I would enjoy seeing a corporation take a case like this to the Supreme Court and say, "I am legally a person and so the blah blah blah law shouldn't apply to me because it is a violation of my Nth amendment rights as a person.
  
  --
  who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
6. Re:Also known as by divide+overflow · 2012-04-15 06:54 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  how can you impede something that you are innocent of ?
  Isn't that the equivalent of saying - "I did not do it" and continuing to protest such ?
  No, because the delay was separate from their declaration of innocence. They impeded the government's investigation by not providing the court subpoenaed information relevant to the investigation in a timely manner. When investigations go on longer than necessary it increases the workload for the investigators and their assistants and results in increased the costs to the taxpayer.
7. Re:Also known as by divide+overflow · 2012-04-15 07:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  "Hey, our budget could very well get cut soon. Let's fine people for things!" That's what I suspect the FCC's reasoning is. They just wont admit it.
  That makes no sense. $25k is nothing to either Google OR the FCC and wouldn't impress any legislator responsible for approving FCC budgets. The fines probably go into some general government pool that wouldn't affect their resources.
  
  What makes more sense is the FCC did this to give other corporations the message that they need to come clean about what they've done and not drag their feet providing subpoenaed information.
8. Re:Also known as by JoeMerchant · 2012-04-15 07:05 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Jeez, when I want to get to work a little faster, I'm risking a fine that's equivalent to several hours of pay, and I only get paid 2000 hours a year... Google gives federal investigators a hard time and they only propose to fine them about 3 seconds of gross profit?
9. Re:Also known as by DerekLyons · 2012-04-15 07:07 · Score: 2
  
  Given that all fines and fees collected bu the US Government go into a common fund (subsequently spent by Congress), and not by the agency collecting them... As the person above said, with regards to their budget, I doubt this is a motive.
  But, as with the budget, don't let facts stand in your way.
10. Re:Also known as by divide+overflow · 2012-04-15 07:11 · Score: 2
  
  In fact, I would enjoy seeing a corporation take a case like this to the Supreme Court and say, "I am legally a person and so the blah blah blah law shouldn't apply to me because it is a violation of my Nth amendment rights as a person.
  Great...another opportunity for the Supreme Court to FURTHER expand on the insanity of the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad decision. Like my mom says: "We need that like a hole in the head."
11. Re:Also known as by sribe · 2012-04-15 07:19 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Well, yes, but. What did google do to "impede" the investigation??? What I recall is that google resisted handing over other people's information to a federal agency that was claiming that collecting that information was a privacy breach--in other words, google was trying to mitigate the damage, if any, done to people, based on the theory that if it really was a privacy breach to collect the information, it would be more of a privacy breach to disseminate it. I seem to recall google offering to answer lots of questions about the type of info, but only resisting turning it over en masse.
  Let's face it: "hey collecting that data was a huge privacy breach, now hand it over to us" is really not a reasonable stance ;-)
12. Re:Also known as by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-15 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  They should use an operating system with a better scheduler. When one investigation is blocked, they work on one that isn't.
13. Re:Also known as by cgenman · 2012-04-15 07:23 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It seems like the sort of fine that would get on the record that Google was being uncooperative. In the future, the FCC can use this to convince judges of larger fines or stronger enforcement provisions to convince Google to live up to its data release requirements.
  
  --
  The ______ Agenda
14. Re:Also known as by Vrekais · 2012-04-15 07:27 · Score: 2
  
  How has Chrome been a failure? I'm genuinely interested not trying to troll. I thought it did what it was meant to, collect even more usable data on search criteria by user and deploy new web technologies as fast as possible. I know it's probably telling Google everything they need to know about me to sell me anything but I still use it for some reason.
  I still think the lack of a 64 bit version of flash when I got my first 64 bit computer was what made me swap from Firefox. Chrome's built in flash support was ever so slightly more stable than vanilla flash in 32 or 64 bit Firefox. Since haven't had reason to swap back, Google Sync has kept me firmly in Chrome ( I think Firefox has something similar now but haven't looked).
15. Re:Also known as by LandDolphin · 2012-04-15 07:34 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Well, you do need a few holes in the head for breathing and eating and such.
  
  --
  Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
16. Re:Also known as by million_monkeys · 2012-04-15 07:37 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  In fact, I would enjoy seeing a corporation take a case like this to the Supreme Court and say, "I am legally a person and so the blah blah blah law shouldn't apply to me because it is a violation of my Nth amendment rights as a person.
  Great...another opportunity for the Supreme Court to FURTHER expand on the insanity of the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad decision. Like my mom says: "We need that like a hole in the head."
  Without context, I don't know how to interpret that quote. Does your mom suffer from intercranial bleeding? Because in that case, a hole in the head might save her life.
17. Re:Also known as by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-15 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  Spot on. That's a "respect my authority" fine, suggested by some midlevel bureaucrat who was offended by Google's ridiculous failure to instantly comply with their every whim (aka impeding investigation) . Let it be known to all, we 're not going to tolerate that kinds uppittyness from the rabble! Fine them, just because we can.
18. Re:Also known as by detritus. · 2012-04-15 07:38 · Score: 2
  
  The FCC can fine people and corporations for using obscene language over the air, which technically violates the First Amendment.
  I think it may boil down to, "All your airwaves are belong to us."
19. Re:Also known as by symbolset · 2012-04-15 07:52 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's 25 grand. It sends a message that they're petty and insecure. Google should fight it up to $25K worth of government lawyers time to be equally petty.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
20. Re:Also known as by mysidia · 2012-04-15 07:55 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  When investigations go on longer than necessary it increases the workload for the investigators and their assistants and results in increased the costs to the taxpayer.
  It seems they requested information that took Google a few months to produce. Google did not provide emails that the FCC requested or identify the engineer who authorized the data collection
  It doesn't seem that apparent that Google was attempting to delay the investigation. If the FCC requests a company produce all e-mails that meet a certain criteria, that can be a huge burden for IT that may inherently take many man hours, and they have to be certain that what is produced is complete, before sending anything -- or be at risk of being accused of attempting to conceal or failing to comply with the order to produce.
  As for reporting on 'which engineer authorized the data collection'; that may be a rather complicated matter as well -- the various entities involved need to complete their finger pointing and internal investigations and review of internal records to figure out who actually did what.
  That would be even more complicated if no engineer specifically authorized the data collection, but hey...
  A 2 or 3 month delay begins to sound quite plausible, and not unreasonable. It could very well be innocent ineptitude, poor management, or inefficiency in doing the work to satisfy unusual requests, to draw matters out further, it's not necessary to conclude malice.
  Without specific evidence of intentional delay, there's no basis for a fine.
21. Re:Also known as by divide+overflow · 2012-04-15 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  Without context, I don't know how to interpret that quote. Does your mom suffer from intercranial bleeding? Because in that case, a hole in the head might save her life.
  So many talented doctors here on Slashdot.... <grin>
22. Re:Also known as by divide+overflow · 2012-04-15 08:01 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Well, you do need a few holes in the head for breathing and eating and such.
  And who would know better than LandDolphin?
23. Re:Also known as by mysidia · 2012-04-15 08:04 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, I think this is a violation of Google's 5th amendment right to avoid self-incrimination.
  They aren't asking Google to testify in court, so no, it's not self-incrimination, it's production of records. Also, Google is being charged with violations of regulations, which is more of a "civil" matter. The managers aren't at risk of going to jail over this; this isn't like a wire fraud allegation.
  If you keep a personal diary, and in it you describe your crimes; the contents of your diary can be used against you in court.
  Unlike with Google, if you're suspected of a crime, police will get a warrant, go into your house and seize it.
  Whereas, if you are a big company accused of violationg a regulation -- a court will order you to produce all relevant evidence. You're on your honor to not hide anything. You as a corporation have an opportunity to shred documents; and the worst case is if you're caught you pay a fine.
  I've yet to see a company ever be "sent to jail" for violating a criminal act. Does that mean for the next 10 years, all the employees including managers at 9am have to show up at prison in orange, to sit in a cell for 8 hours every work day, do their work under close surveillance, and the state gets all the company's profits?
24. Re:Also known as by blackraven14250 · 2012-04-15 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  Chrome has been collecting an ever-growing market share, any user data along with that market share, and is generally the best browser available to the average person in terms of speed, reliability and security. How is that a failure?
25. Re:Also known as by mysidia · 2012-04-15 08:23 · Score: 2
  
  Jeez, when I want to get to work a little faster, I'm risking a fine that's equivalent to several hours of pay, and I only get paid 2000 hours a year... Google gives federal investigators a hard time and they only propose to fine them about
  I think you're missing that there is no connection between fine amounts and your rate of pay. Fines are a shot across the bow; "shape up, or else".
  You too as an individual can give federal investigators a hard time and only get a $25,000 fine, if you're lucky enough to not get a prison sentence.
  Now if you happen to earn $40,000 a year, yes, that fine is a significant burden. On the other hand, if you happen to earn $300,000 a year, much less of a burden.
  This is an inherent injustice with using fines as a deterrant; they are unfairly caustic to those who can't afford the fine, and they are unfairly lenient to those who can.
  The government really has no business attaching dollar amounts to violations. Instead what they should do is force the offender to take all reasonable actions (even fiscally irresponsible ones) that ameloriate for their wrongdoing.
  For example, I would support Google being required, as punishment for failure to comply with the investigation, to get the list of wireless APs they gathered too much data from, and send at least 2 employees to personally apologize to each and every AP owner they gathered data from, offer them a minimum of $50 cash compensation for their error, and they must visit every AP location for at least 10 minutes, within 30 days, and mail a check to the building owner if they cannot make personally make contact with anyone there after 2 attempts.
26. Re:Also known as by TemplePilot · 2012-04-15 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  All Ur airwaves only belong to U in the USA... In Canada all Ur airwaves R belong to Canada!
  
  --
  This strange comment at the bottom of the message is illogical.
27. Re:Also known as by dufachi · 2012-04-15 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  oh yeah cause 2nd place in the browser market is such a horrible failure.
  
  --
  -Kinsey
28. Re:Also known as by mysidia · 2012-04-15 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  That's 1/10th the cost of a software engineer for one year, going by the usual rule that half the cost of an employee is salary.
  Doubtlessly the 1/2 figure is an overestimate of convenience for employee cost, or gross generalization, probably used to justify paying an unfairly low salary.
  Most of the additional employee costs are imposed by the government, and around 10%, but SS taxes are capped at a certain salary level. Others are fixed costs that are not proportionally related to salary.
  For example... company buys a laptop for each employee every 3 years, to get work done. Is that really an employee cost though; or is it just recorded as one for accounting purposes?
  There are fixed costs that depend on the number of employees, but they're really incidental.
  For Project X to be done on time, the cost of getting the project done is salary+taxes for N employees, f(N) laptops, and g(N) desks.
  Employee SS taxes and insurance, vary with salary, other costs are fixed besides salary and insurance benefits; there are only some gross distinctions, such as managers might get a more expensive workspace, more powerful computer, more monitors than the engineers, etc.
  Unless the company is granting employees some kind of extra variable benefit that depends on salary based on internal policy, 1/2 should be a vast overestimate.
29. Re:Also known as by blackraven14250 · 2012-04-15 09:05 · Score: 2
  
  Safari is junk on Windows, Opera is outside of the reach of the average person, and Firefox has become a bloated, buggy piece of shit since their idea to rapid-fire their releases. Chrome, OTOH, is faster than all 3 for any remotely dynamic webpage (and the same speed as Opera on static pages), is more secure than all 3 (Google's data mining is not a security concern, and can be turned off anyway), and doesn't crash like Firefox.
30. Re:Also known as by Xtifr · 2012-04-15 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  Or it will encourage Google to be more cooperative next time, so there won't need to be a fine.
  Once, when I was about ten, my mom gave me a light smack on the behind for staying out till midnight without letting her know where I was or what I was doing. Clearly, by your logic, she was just setting me up for arbitrary unjustified beatings later.
31. Re:Also known as by icebike · 2012-04-15 09:12 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You can delay the proceedings by not providing information in a timely manner.
  The FCC can also get a subpoena instead of asking Google to voluntarily throw an employee under the bus.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
32. Re:Also known as by shentino · 2012-04-15 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  Kudos to Google for dragging their feet.
  All the feds ever wanted was to use the wifi "hack" as an excuse for a data grab without the inconvenience of a search warrant.
33. Re:Also known as by Gonoff · 2012-04-15 10:10 · Score: 2
  
  You cannot be guilty (or innocent) of an investigation. You might be innocent of the charge but that is not the question. Did they impede an official investigation?
  What would happen if someone saw the police taking pictures and measuring stuff (an investiagtion) and went over and delibarately got in their way because they are an idiot?
  They would be liable to be arrested even though they had nothing to do with what was being investigated. They were impeding an official investigation.
  Why should Google be exempt? I like Google and usetheir stuff. I don't think $25k is a big deal to them anyway.
  
  --
  I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
34. Re:Also known as by gmhowell · 2012-04-15 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  Kudos to Google for dragging their feet.
  All the feds ever wanted was to use the wifi "hack" as an excuse for a data grab without the inconvenience of a search warrant.
  Maybe you can help me: is the tinfoil hat more effective with the shiny side in or out?
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
35. Re:Also known as by Anonymus · 2012-04-15 10:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  But then what's the point of being rich if it doesn't mean that you're above the law?
36. Re:Also known as by FunkDup · 2012-04-15 10:37 · Score: 2
  
  Not to mention some other holes in that appendage. I've found my mouth to be rather useful, for example.
  
  --
  Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds -- Albert Einstein
37. Re:Also known as by Gideon+Wells · 2012-04-15 10:41 · Score: 2
  
  This is a relative slap on the wrist. This is more of a "You made us have to put in extra work on this issue by you playing PR games. Here is how much that time you cost us." than a true fine.
  
  --
  by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
38. Re:Also known as by shentino · 2012-04-15 10:45 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Depends on whether you are more afraid of telepathy or hypnosis.
39. Re:Also known as by Rogerborg · 2012-04-15 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  Just so you know, Google won't put as much time into deciding which denomination of bills to toss in the general direction of The Man as you just put into analysing it.
  
  --
  If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
40. Re:Also known as by Warhawke · 2012-04-15 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  It's a little more than that. You can impede the investigation into something you are innocent of by denying access to evidence that would either prove that you are innocent (or guilty.) In this case, the FCC is saying that Google wouldn't turn over e-mail evidence or the name of the engineer who authorized the data collection process. If Pops thinks Timmy broke the neighbor's window, Timmy is going to get in trouble when he doesn't let Dad into his closet to see if the baseball's still there. Pretty much the same thing here.
41. Re:Also known as by mrmeval · 2012-04-15 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  If they're legally a person can we legally execute them when convicted of murder? The whole corporation since when a person dies all the cells that contributed die except where organs are harvested. What a bonanza for the organ donation business.
  
  --
  I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
42. Re:Also known as by Xtifr · 2012-04-15 12:01 · Score: 2
  
  Well, to be honest, it wasn't the spanking itself that was so memorable; it was the fact that she felt she had to dress up in a skin-tight black leather catsuit with high heels to administer it. Similar to the way that OP felt he had to dress up this relatively trivial fine with dirty robes, a tinfoil hat, and a sandwich board proclaiming "REPENT NOW! The End Is Near!"
43. Re:Also known as by zippthorne · 2012-04-15 12:21 · Score: 1
  
  Employee SS taxes and insurance, vary with salary, other costs are fixed besides salary
  and insurance benefits; there are only some gross distinctions, such as managers might get a more expensive workspace, more powerful computer, more monitors than the engineers, etc.
  It is hard to imagine the logic behind giving the best software development tools to the people who, if they're doing their jobs right, don't actually do any software development.
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
44. Re:Also known as by Pf0tzenpfritz · 2012-04-15 13:55 · Score: 1
  
  How can you accidentally collect WiFi data?
  
  --
  Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
45. Re:Also known as by elashish14 · 2012-04-15 14:19 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps, but it's probably not worth defending if it's only to save $25k
  
  --
  I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
46. Re:Also known as by dave420 · 2012-04-15 15:24 · Score: 1
  
  It's none of those things. You really don't know what you're talking about.
47. Re:Also known as by sribe · 2012-04-15 17:01 · Score: 1
  
  Oh great, now I'm getting modded up after I remember that it was the German authorities, not the FCC, who were simultaneously describing the data as private and demanding that it all be handed over. The issue with the FCC may be entirely different.
48. Re:Also known as by pedrop357 · 2012-04-15 19:35 · Score: 1
  
  If corporations didn't have rights, does that mean the government would be free to send the police in and search their premises at will? How about seize all their belongings and the contents of their bank accounts whenever they felt like it? Could corporations be subjected to trial without jury or representation in a kangaroo court?
  Corporations having rights means that the people who comprise that corporation don't lose their rights because of how they choose to associate.
49. Re:Also known as by DarwinSurvivor · 2012-04-15 21:47 · Score: 1
  
  Whoops, left tcpdump running!
50. Re:Also known as by Doc+Ruby · 2012-04-15 23:28 · Score: 1
  
  Of course the employee's computer is an employee cost. No employee, no computer.
  Other costs include the square footage rented for the extra employee, extra phone, Internet and other telecom costs ,extra taxes the employer pays based on payroll but not for the individual, the employer's share of insurance premiums, the increased likelihood of paying unemployment with the larger staff, the time the rest of the staff spends dealing with that new employee (n * n-1), and even more the bean counters can find.
  In fact in some places some of those costs sum even higher than +50%. Midtown Manhattan rent and support services are very expensive, even compared to $200K salaries.
  It's not really linear. Yes SS taxes cap at around $110K. And people making $400K a year don't typically cost an extra $200K to employ (other than perhaps bonuses, but those scale with profit - not even revenue). +50% is a good overestimate of convenience that's not really that far off.
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
51. Re:Also known as by Mathinker · 2012-04-16 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  > Let me tell you what would happen after this or just before really.
  No, I think, rather, considering the "enormous" fine that the FCC thinks this deserves, that any judge overreacting like that would end up being referred to a psychiatrist, who might very well prescribe for him --- guess what? --- the same stuff you appear to have forgotten to take this morning.
  Yes, you have a point that the interaction between government, the court system, and big business is somewhat dysfunctional. You, however, veer off into peculiar realms of fantasy when trying to understand (1) the reality of this particular case, and (2) the reality of the US political scene.
52. Re:Also known as by mcgrew · 2012-04-16 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  Only if they're in one of the 34 states that execute people. And most corporate deaths are negligent homicide, which I don't think is a capitaol offense in any state.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
53. Re:Also known as by Burning1 · 2012-04-16 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  An individual doesn't have the right to refuse a court ordered sopena either.
54. Re:Also known as by nobaloney · 2012-04-16 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  "Hey, our budget could very well get cut soon. Let's fine people for things!" That's what I suspect the FCC's reasoning is. They just wont admit it.
  Really? $25,000? do you have any idea how little $25,000 is in the realm of government budgets? It's less than if you drop a penny down the sewer grate.
  Whatever the reason is, it's certainly not because of (perceived or real) budget cutting.
55. Re:Also known as by mcgrew · 2012-04-16 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  To be fair, when you're rushing to work because you're not disciplined enough to leave on time, you're endangering the lives of everyone on the highway. That's a little more important than how fast the FCC gets its requested data.
  You're not just risking a fine, you're risking your life, and everyone else's. Slow the fuck down, boy.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
56. Re:Also known as by JoeMerchant · 2012-04-16 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  To be fair, I haven't had a "risking my life and everyone else's" ticket in decades, and just two B.S. revenue collection speed fines in the last 15 years... no collisions for longer, no collisions with injury ever. Actually, most of those "risking my life" roadside lectures from way back didn't involve a ticket or a fine, I guess the paperwork is hell.
  The concern for Google dragging their feet is not about FCC being bored while waiting for the requested data, the concern is whether or not they are trying to fabricate something during the delay, effectively lying about what they've done to millions upon millions of Americans.
  Not exactly the same life and death arena we all commute to work in, but, in my opinion, worthy of a fine that costs more than the P.R. spin control meeting.
57. Re:Also known as by mysidia · 2012-04-16 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  Other costs include the square footage rented for the extra employee, extra phone, Internet and other telecom costs
  It is extremely unlikely that your business rents extra footage in order to add an employee. Often businesses own a building with a fixed square footage that does not change. At most they'll buy a new desk and chair, when the total number of employees increases. The requirement to use additional workspace is not necessarily related to having more employees. The business may require more space because there is now more work to do.
  Of course the employee's computer is an employee cost. No employee, no computer.
  No. It's facilities. If you fire the employee, you now have a $600 computer which is no longer being used. Should you hire a new employee to replace them, you have the previous employee's $600 computer for the new hire to use, there is no "extra employee cost" -- although you have reduced your number of unused computers by 1 then.
  The original cost of the unit is just as unrelated to the employee as the air conditioning for the office space.
  You pay the employee $5 an hour for 4 hours a day part time work, you need a $600 computer for them to use. You pay the employee $100 an hour for 4 hours a day part time work, they still need to have use of one $600 computer.
58. Re:Also known as by Doc+Ruby · 2012-04-16 12:56 · Score: 1
  
  Most businesses do not own their offices. Most businesses grow (and sometimes shrink), and aren't in the property management business, so renting is better for them. The size of the office over time indeed is proportional to the number of employees.
  If you have a $600 computer which isn't being used, it's a waste. If you give it to another new hire later, that's a $600 asset. Meanwhile these $600 assets have to be discarded every 2-3 years, and replaced.
  You're also wrong about the air conditioning. Each employee heats the office with their nearly 100F body and so requires more AC. It's a trivial amount more, but it's more.
  You don't pay $5 an hour to people who use $600 computers.
  Look, this might all seem true to you in the abstract, but it's obvious you either don't own or do the accounting for a business, or you do but you're really bad at it. Having done the accounting and owned and managed many businesses, I can tell you that what I'm running down here is reality.
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
59. Re:Also known as by mrmeval · 2012-04-16 13:29 · Score: 1
  
  Lets let the jury decide what degree. I think we should get that voted on right away.
  
  --
  I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
60. Re:Also known as by mysidia · 2012-04-16 13:42 · Score: 1
  
  You don't pay $5 an hour to people who use $600 computers.
  So uh... if I as say a storage engineer manage a $200k storage array, does that mean I cost $1m ? Obviously if there were no storage admins, there would be no SAN.
  You're right. You pay $5 an hour to people who use $10,000 computers that are good for at least 12 years, and the computers they use are called "Point of Sale Terminals or Cash registers". It's only the $50/hour people using the general purpose $600 computers that are mostly worthless after 4 years, and discarded after 7 years.
  By this logic, the salary could be negatively correlated with employee costs, since higher paid managers do not sit at the point of sale, or touch highly specialized work equipment, that the tradesmen have to use, by your argument, their costs are lower.
  In some businesses, a $30/hour employee, may require the use of $300,000+ electronic test equipment that is assigned to them, to perform tasks they are assigned, while their $150/hour manager is only required or even able to work with relatively inexpensive equipment.
  It makes no sense to attribute such equipment costs to employees who use the equipment as part of the company's benefit. The cost there is associated with getting the task done; the employee, the person, is a separate cost from all the parts and equipment you needed to purchase for the job to get done. If you were in a different business, you would not even need the Employee to have use of a computer or such specialized equipment -- the cost is not incurred to employ someone, but is inherent in having the job done, no matter if an employee or contractor does the job.
  You're also wrong about the air conditioning. Each employee heats the office with their nearly 100F body and so requires more AC. It's a trivial amount more, but it's more.
  I'm talking about the cost of the air conditioner and its upkeep/repair, and you are talking about Utility costs.
  In typical 90 degree weather, the portion of thermal energy released by the staff is a rounding error, VS the rate of heat leaking in through walls and windows, and the set point for building temperature are often dictated by the needs of customers who are coming into the office in order to buy services from the business.
61. Re:Also known as by gomiam · 2012-04-22 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  Having a siamese mother (intercranial, not intracraneal, meaning there are at least two craniums involved) is an interesting case, hole or no hole.
GOP FTW! by Tommy+Bologna · 2012-04-15 06:42 · Score: 1

How are they ever going to scrape together $25k? Damn these regulators!
1. Re:GOP FTW! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-15 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  it is the precedent of the thing, not the amount. If you are simply charged with a crime, then have to foot the bill for the investigation even when found not guilty. Sounds like an awesome way to extort or intimidate someone, especially smaller companies that might not be able to foot a lengthy investigation bill.
2. Re:GOP FTW! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-15 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  It's kind of the bureacracy-and-corp version of being arrested on charges of "resisting arrest".
fine? by Mindscrew · 2012-04-15 06:46 · Score: 1

According to this google lost less than 41sec of revenue with this fine...
Google's excuse is a bit weak... by dryriver · 2012-04-15 06:48 · Score: 5, Interesting

When queried by multiple governments (incl. France) why Google's Streetview Cars seem to drive around cities collecting all sorts of private data on people's personal/home Wifi setups (like username:password), Google's apparent explanation/excuse was that the collection of Wifi data was "completely accidental", and a "the result of a mistake made by one engineer". The story then gets all weird, because Google refused to hand over requested internal emails to aid the investigation, and also refused to give up the name of the "one engineer" who supposedly "OK'd the Wifi sniffing". The real story seems to be that Google once again "went way too far" in trying to collect "useful data", then made up a seriously silly excuse about some engineer making a "mistake", and personal Wifi data being collected as a result. (How on earth does a "mistake" enable a StreetView Car to suddenly collect detailed Wifi hotspot data? Wouldn't the car need to be purposely equipped with software and antennas capable of this, and also explicitly configured to do so?)

--
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
1. Re:Google's excuse is a bit weak... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-15 07:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It's actually a quite understandable mistake: "Gee, sending these cars around is expensive. We just want MAC info for geolocation, but what if we screw something up? If we have to revisit an area I'll get yelled at...best to just log everything and filter it out later"
2. Re:Google's excuse is a bit weak... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-15 07:02 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  How on earth does a "mistake" enable a StreetView Car to suddenly collect detailed Wifi hotspot data? Wouldn't the car need to be purposely equipped with software and antennas capable of this, and also explicitly configured to do so?
  The car was already equipped with software and antennas, apparently for building a database of open Wifi hotspots. This was not the problem. It was the accidental collection of payload, in particular, unencrypted payload, which was the mistake (and the problem.)
3. Re:Google's excuse is a bit weak... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-15 07:17 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  They did equip the cars with software and antennas to collect hotspot data. It was supposed to only collect basic data such as mac addresses and ssids (helpful for statistics and assisted geolocating), but it was mistakenly configured to also collect traffic from sniffing in promiscuous mode. I believe that it being an accident is perfectably reasonable.
  And I personally believe it shouldn't be wrong to do. Sure, it was data they couldn't use, but it /was/ broadcasted on public air waves.
  Also, no one would have even known if Google themselves hadn't said they accidentally collected the data. They could have just purged that data, but instead they did the Right Thing and reported the accident. Now they're paying the consequences of disclosure, instead of being a good normal company and saying nothing.
  Just remember, if you frak up, cover it up instead of admitting your mistakes.
4. Re:Google's excuse is a bit weak... by cgenman · 2012-04-15 07:34 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Wifi sniffing is what you have to do to get Mac Addresses and SSID's for Geolocation, as well as any sort of WiFi related work these days (Thanks, Dumb Bastards who turn off SSID broadcast!). At core, that's all Google was collecting, a basic WiFi sniff. I have to do it all the time if I want to figure out what jerk is invisibly camping the section of spectrum I'm using. And in classic Google fashion, they probably figured they could sort through and filter out the data they needed back at Google Central, rather than doing it in-car.
  Honestly, the most shocking thing is the public's ignorance of the technology they use every day.
  
  --
  The ______ Agenda
5. Re:Google's excuse is a bit weak... by slimjim8094 · 2012-04-15 07:43 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Even better than that, traffic logging is on by default in Kismet, the software they were using. It's more like they forgot to switch the option off.
  
  --
  I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
6. Re:Google's excuse is a bit weak... by galaxia26 · 2012-04-15 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  One would also think that collecting this sort of data using a reliable GPS driven system like the StreetView cars would make Google's Geolocation Database respond with rough location estimates faster than their cell phone operating system's GPS can acquire and triangulate an accurate location. When I'd first seen this article it seemed as if having the streetview cars collect the wifi data was to make Androids Geolocation services much faster and more accurate.
7. Re:Google's excuse is a bit weak... by SnowZero · 2012-04-15 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  Keep in mind what else was on the disk:
  (1) High-resolution panoramic photos, taken every 10 feet or so.
  (2) Truncated Wifi packets collected along the same path.
  Given the size of #1, which can fill up hard disks every drive, it's pretty easy to miss a few MB from #2.
  When you operate fleets of 10s of thousands of machines, 1T of data is like a 100KB file on your personal computer. Would you go investigate every time your disk usage is 0.01% higher than expected?
8. Re:Google's excuse is a bit weak... by cynyr · 2012-04-15 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sorry but if you stand in your front yelling into your cell phone, and I'm driving by and hear a bit of your yelling, is that eavesdropping?
  same goes for leaving your wifi open and broadcasting with enough strength to be visible on the public road!
  I fail to see why wardriving should be any more illegal than driving down the road with my windows open.
  
  --
  All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
9. Re:Google's excuse is a bit weak... by Maxmin · 2012-04-15 11:41 · Score: 1
  
  I've been wondering how Google Maps knows my home location when I'm on a wifi-only device, like a tablet.
  I don't log in to Google on the device, and I've never given it my home address. My ISP has very coarse netblock allocations.
  So I suspected the Street View cars might have something to do with it... but my question isn't answered here. And, aren't MAC addresses link layer-only?
  
  --
  O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
10. Re:Google's excuse is a bit weak... by LordLucless · 2012-04-15 18:08 · Score: 2
  
  You mean Google got in trouble for taking stuff from inside my house because they had to pick my deliberately locked front door?
  
  Listen ahole ... I turned off SSID broadcasting in addition to using WPA
  Then no, they didn't take anything inside your house, because you used WPA. They only collected unencrypted traffic.
  
  for exactly the same reason I lock both the non-deadbolt lock and the deadbolt lock on my front door.
  Poor analogy. Turning off SSID broadcasting is analogous to prying the little numbers off your letterbox. It's not a security measure.
  
  --
  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
11. Re:Google's excuse is a bit weak... by drinkypoo · 2012-04-15 23:37 · Score: 1
  
  Heavens to Betsy! You mean Google got in trouble for taking stuff from inside my house because they had to pick my deliberately locked front door?
  Listen ahole ... I turned off SSID broadcasting
  and yet, you are still broadcasting (your word, not mine) everything Google needs to know, and then some.
  
  Google's use of sniffing to bypass my explicit security action
  There was no such use. Google's use of a radio receiver and a logger to receive the information you were broadcasting should not be illegal. Using that information to connect to your network or sharing that information with someone for the purpose of their logging into your network should be, and is. But since they didn't do that, they didn't do anything wrong, and you're just whining about people picking up broadcasts you made on an unlicensed device.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
12. Re:Google's excuse is a bit weak... by Solandri · 2012-04-16 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  The funny thing is Apple basically did the same thing, except they secretly used their customers' iPhones without the owner's consent nor permission to collect MAC address/SSID/GPS coordinates to build a geolocation map.
  
  Google made the mistake of doing The Right Thing - building the map completely on the company's dime, and publicly announcing what exactly they were doing. Then when they found they had collected wifi payload data as well, they reported themselves to the public .
  
  Basically what's happening is the company who is being a responsible citizen and admitting to their mistakes is being punished. While the company which did the same stuff in secret and refuses to admit to it gets off scott free.
Will probably pay the fine by gstrickler · 2012-04-15 06:48 · Score: 2

It's likely to be less costly than an appeal, and they can finally put it behind them.

--
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
Makes sense... maybe by WiiVault · 2012-04-15 07:10 · Score: 2

Assuming Google did engage in this supposed act then I think the fine is legitimate, and quite small. At the same time if this is just a way for somebody to cover their ass at the FCC for launching a dead-end investigation then it is totally bogus. Hard to know for sure with the info we have.
This is just a face saving move by the FCC. by BitterOak · 2012-04-15 07:18 · Score: 2

Obviously Google is not going to fight a $25,000 fine. That's just pocket change to them. This is just the FCC trying to save face, so they can come away from this saying they did accomplish something, when in fact, they accomplished nothing but wasting time and energy.

--
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Re:Authority/_nomap by TemplePilot · 2012-04-15 08:31 · Score: 2

I believe in questioning authority up until a certain point, and that point is reached when I am the authority. I say fine them for every incident 25K is a big fat nothing if it stands alone up against a corporate infrastructure with billions in the bank. I also disagree with the "_nomap" angle we shouldn't have to be forced to append _nomap to our SSID's. Instead Google should make it opt in... those who wish to be mapped can append _MapMe to their SSID if they so choose, it would only be fair.

--
This strange comment at the bottom of the message is illogical.
impossible burden by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-15 09:09 · Score: 1

Google will have a hard time paying this exorbitant fine.
Re:B S by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-15 09:27 · Score: 1

only if exactly one engineer invoked his 5th ammendment rights. If more than one does, they don't.
Good for google. by shentino · 2012-04-15 09:35 · Score: 1

Good for google
All the feds wanted was to use the wifi incident as an excuse to get the data in question for themselves.
Re:B S by ae1294 · 2012-04-15 09:39 · Score: 1

It doesn't work like that...
Re:Oh, Slashdot by cynyr · 2012-04-15 10:39 · Score: 1

what power abuse? the owners of these wifi points were shouting into the street without using code words, whats wrong with listening while driving by?

--
All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
Citizens United did *not* say corps are people by perpenso · 2012-04-15 10:43 · Score: 2

... if you think about the Citizen's United ruling, the Supreme Court has already said that corporations are people and enjoy 1st amendment rights ...
The Citizens United ruling did not say that corporations are people. That was how an opponent of the decision characterized the ruling. In other words it was highly successful political spin.

IIRC what the Supreme Court actually said was that people, whether as individuals or as part of a group (activist organization, trade union, corporation, etc) have first amendment rights. They also said that a corporation that owns newspapers and TV stations does not enjoy any extra privileges compared to other corporations, basically that media corporations are not special.
Translation by ProfanityHead · 2012-04-15 11:01 · Score: 1

they want to fine the company $25,000 because it 'deliberately impeded and delayed the investigation.
Translation:
Google has so much cash we can fine them for anything and they will pay it.
Re:Oh, Slashdot by gbjbaanb · 2012-04-15 11:07 · Score: 1

erm... even the summary says there's nothing wrong with that.
Strengthen FCC by Oxford_Comma_Lover · 2012-04-15 12:21 · Score: 1

Could also be part of a push to strengthen the FCC, by pointing out to Congress that they need larger sanctions. I.e. they could be doing this to prep for congressional testimony for the next time there's a Communications Act amendment.

--
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Old data by now by Trogre · 2012-04-15 13:49 · Score: 1

Given how often people in my area seem to change their WiFi setups, I can't imagine that old information being particularly useful.
Now call me naive, but aren't Google still collecting WiFi details with every Android phone?
Someone recently told me that Android phones with GPS enabled will scan and report SSIDs and signal strengths of local WiFi networks so that non-GPS Android devices can be located through triangulation.

--
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Turnabout is fair play? by grimsnaggle · 2012-04-15 15:04 · Score: 1

I wish I could fine the government for impeding and delaying all sorts of things that annoy me. DMV line moving too slowly? Bam! Fine those sloth-like paper pushers.
The REAL story... by rahvin112 · 2012-04-15 17:36 · Score: 2

I know no one read the story or the other articles with more details but here's the facts:
The FCC found that Google's actions weren't illegal, nor were they intentional.
The FCC found that after Google became aware of the problem they took extensive measures to not only notify about the breach, but to protect the information.
The FCC found that as a result Google did nothing illegal and there was no case to be brought to the courts.
The FCC obtained NO court order or subpoena's for the information they asked Google for.
Google refused to provide information which they didn't feel was relevant to the investigation. This information included the names of the employees involved and what would have essentially amounted to the entire email server for Google.
As this was NOT a subpoena they were under NO obligation to voluntarily supply information.
The FCC is creating a charge of impeding the investigation when they found NO evidence of illegal behavior. This is no different than being charged for resisting arrest and that being the ONLY charge.
This is one of the biggest problems we have with government right now. The FCC is FAR beyond their authority here. Not only that, they can't charge someone for impeding the investigation for refusing to comply with a voluntary request. Had they needed the information they could have gone to court and got a subpoena, that they didn't is prima facia evidence that they didn't think they could get the subpoena in the first place. We're at a place where people are being fined for exercising their rights and thats WRONG.
I support sensible regulation and I don't think the FCC has enough regulatory power in some areas but this is the type of stuff that makes me want to see the government's powers gutted. Maybe that's what we need at this point, gut the system and start over. At a minimum at this point I'd like to see investigative powers greatly restricted, and most importantly of all, that certain charges (resisting arrest, impeding the investigation, etc) aren't valid if there is no other charge.
take action by leonvictor · 2012-04-15 18:18 · Score: 1

FCC should taken hard action against to Google.

--
Custom Toolbar Development
Horsesh!t by 1800maxim · 2012-04-16 02:45 · Score: 1

Google doens't "forget" to do anything. They're not high school CS students.
Re:Authority/_nomap by tjhart85 · 2012-04-16 11:23 · Score: 1

How do you figure? You're already broadcasting it into a public space, I would make the argument that you've already opted into people using the data however they want. If you then choose to opt out even though you've given your information out to the world, then they've given you a way to do so.

As long as the person doesn't attempt to hack into your computer network (which brakes another set of laws), they should be able to use the SSID data however they want. Afterall, you can hide the SSID (which does next to nothing from a security standpoint, but would prevent this).