FCC Wants To Fine Google $25K For WiFi Investigation

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.'"

Comments

Also known as

[bobwrit]

"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.

Re:Also known as

[Nidi62]

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.

Re:Also known as

[Trepidity]

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.

Re:Also known as

[Anonymous Coward]

You can delay the proceedings by not providing information in a timely manner.

Re:Also known as

[Anarchduke]

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.

Re:Also known as

[divide overflow]

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.

Re:Also known as

[divide overflow]

"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.

Re:Also known as

[JoeMerchant]

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?

Re:Also known as

[DerekLyons]

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.

Re:Also known as

[divide overflow]

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."

Re:Also known as

[sribe]

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 ;-)

Re:Also known as

[cgenman]

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.

Re:Also known as

[Vrekais]

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).

Re:Also known as

[LandDolphin]

Well, you do need a few holes in the head for breathing and eating and such.

Re:Also known as

[million_monkeys]

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.

Re:Also known as

[detritus.]

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."

Re:Also known as

[symbolset]

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.

Re:Also known as

[mysidia]

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.

Re:Also known as

[divide overflow]

Well, you do need a few holes in the head for breathing and eating and such.

And who would know better than LandDolphin?

Re:Also known as

[mysidia]

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?

Re:Also known as

[mysidia]

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.

Re:Also known as

[blackraven14250]

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.

Re:Also known as

[icebike]

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.

Re:Also known as

[Gonoff]

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.

Re:Also known as

[Anonymus]

But then what's the point of being rich if it doesn't mean that you're above the law?

Re:Also known as

[FunkDup]

Not to mention some other holes in that appendage. I've found my mouth to be rather useful, for example.

Re:Also known as

[Gideon Wells]

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.

Re:Also known as

[shentino]

Depends on whether you are more afraid of telepathy or hypnosis.

Re:Also known as

[Xtifr]

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!"

Google's excuse is a bit weak...

[dryriver]

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?)

Re:Google's excuse is a bit weak...

[Anonymous Coward]

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"

Re:Google's excuse is a bit weak...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.)

Re:Google's excuse is a bit weak...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Google's excuse is a bit weak...

[cgenman]

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.

Re:Google's excuse is a bit weak...

[slimjim8094]

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.

Re:Google's excuse is a bit weak...

[LordLucless]

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.

Will probably pay the fine

[gstrickler]

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

Makes sense... maybe

[WiiVault]

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.

[BitterOak]

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.

Re:Authority/_nomap

[TemplePilot]

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.

Citizens United did *not* say corps are people

[perpenso]

... 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.

The REAL story...

[rahvin112]

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.