Slashdot Mirror
Google Releases FCC Report On Street View Probe
An anonymous reader writes with news that Google has released the full report of the FCC investigation into the incident in which its Street View cars collected personal data while mapping Wi-Fi networks. They are putting responsibility for the data gathering on a 'rogue engineer' who wrote the code for it without direction from management.
"Those working on Street View told the FCC they had no knowledge that the payload data was being collected. Managers of the Street View program said they did not read the October 2006 document [written by the engineer that detailed his work]. A different engineer remembered receiving the document but did not recall any reference to the collection of payload data. An engineer who worked closely with the engineer in question on the project in 2007, reviewing all of the codes line by line for bugs, says he did not notice that the software was designed to capture payload data. A senior manager said he preapproved the document before it was written."
Obama ate a dog.
was anyone assigned to validate requirements against functionality? compliance? export control? 3rd party software integration copyright and license? was any due diligence done other than to review for technical bugs?
The company that holds some million people email and web search and history deploys stuff controlled by on 1 one 1 engineer. But hey, it was only a few tera of data...
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
As much as I like google, I would be the first one to complain if I thought they were doing something wrong. But let's think about this:
1. If they were capturing unencrypted packets from non-secured WiFi networks.... that would be creepy, but probably not illegal. Anyone who sets up an unencrypted network should expect that other people might use it to just listen in. Google would just be picking up information they were already broadcasting in the clear.
2. If they were capturing encrypted packets then... they have useless data.
And the car was moving, which means that in case 1, they may have a dozen packets each from millions of different routers. They weren't parking somewhere to capture all of someone'S data, but got lots of random garbage instead. I am sure all they were interested in was the BSSID in order to tag it to a location.
Now, if they were trying to crack encrypted WLAN packets, then legal or not, there is something very suspicious going on - especially if they kept it secret.
Actually, this sounds like most managers I know.
Managers of the Street View program said they did not read the October 2006 document [written by the engineer that detailed his work].
"You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
They are putting responsibility for the data gathering on a 'rogue engineer' who wrote the code for it without direction from management.
An engineer who worked closely with the engineer in question on the project in 2007, reviewing all of the codes line by line for bugs, says he did not notice that the software was designed to capture payload data. A senior manager said he preapproved the document before it was written."
Isn't interesting in Corporate America, when things go great, it's management's brilliance? And when things go bad, it's a rogue employee?
I'd really like to know management's justification for their obscenely high compensation, for one thing.
Here's another thing while I'm ranting:That's one of the big differences between managing and leading.
Leader: it's MY fault and I'll take care of it.
Manager: it's someone elses fault. You go take care of it.
If I had a nickel for every time I've inserted code (especially the "I've got the data in my hand, why don't I save it somewhere" kind) "without direction from management" that I ABSOLUTELY KNEW was useful and/or going to be asked for as soon as they thought of it anyways; well, let's just say I could have retired early. Call me a "rogue".
The developer documented his work and sent the documentation out to others on the team (including the managers). It's the managers' jobs to make sure the developers understand the requirements correctly. In fact, the developer was working on the project in order to capture the data and study it to see if it would of use to Google.
What are the managers doing if they aren't managing the engineers? We might have to stay late writing code, but are they staying late reading documents and getting up to speed on what everyone is doing? Isn't that their job? I'm still in school so please correct me if I'm wrong.
My understanding is that Google has a very flat org structure that encourages developer autonomy. There aren't a lot of managers peeking over developer's shoulders. Doesn't that encourage innovation like this?
This is nothing but whitewash bullshit.
Wasn't the previous ruse that it was some unknown feature of the equipment purchased?
I want names, charges laid, penalty imposed.
Fuck Google.
That most software engineers are not really engineers. If you were working on the design for a bridge, and gave this kind of 'dog ate my homework' answer at the inquest into its collapse, you'd lose your license and never work again.
Sounds a lot like the Jérôme Kerviel fiasco... "Oh no, we had no idea what the person was doing. He may well have talked about it at length during meetings - our jobs are very complicated and we couldn't possible know what all 4 of the people we manage are doing. That would entail us taking an interest in our jobs when there are clearly far more important things to do like playing golf!".
I don't understand why this was legal. Had the non-encrypted wireless transmissions they captured been voice wouldn't that have been covered under current wiretapping laws? If so, why is this different? Not trying to troll, just wondering why non-encrypted wireless data communications transmitted over the air are assumed free game.
Also, what if they were capturing encrypted communications over an open wifi signal (ie, someone browsing an HTTPS site.) Wouldn't they have still captured that data? Does it make a difference now that they are capturing encrypted packets?
Instead of sacrificing a scapegoat Google should man up and tell the FCC to fuck off. Those who broadcast their personal data in every direction have no claim of privacy.
IANOL, but most 'wiretapping' laws don't apply, at all, to wireless communications. It's even in the name. From a common-sense perspective it's utterly insane to criminalize the act of recording or interpreting radio waves received in a public space.
JOIN THE GNAA!! parties). At THE you are a 5creaming
man that nobody sure gets around
"Wir haben es nicht gewusst!" (orig.: after 1945)
So no one else knew about it? Not the people who wrote the software to parse the data? Not the guy who had to estimate how many terabytes of disk would be required? No one?
And for those who say "people were broadcasting their information" guess what, that still doesn't make circulating a fleet of vehicle to monitor everything OK. Google's "collect everything that isn't nailed down, apologize later" attitude was just plain wrong.
Moderators please note that this post has been pre-approved +5 insightful before it was written
Recycle PCs and build a wireless community network www.hillsborough.org.nz
I think we were all made to think how right measure of rogueness is what makes good Google engineer.
Or we just didn't read full specification of what 20%, free initiative time, is allowed to be spent on?
Like: You are allowed/obliged to spend 20% of time on projects of your choosing as long as it does not result in federal lawsuit?
IANAL, but something like that...
http://opencm3.net, http://www.nongnu.org/gm2/
Whenever a Japanese company gets into dark waters, they just force some lowly employee to voluntarily resign.
If a yakuza clan orders a hit, and the police find out, they let them nick the hitman and deny all involvement.
Let me get this straight ... the engineer in question fully documented what he (or she) was doing, and provided that documentation to management. Then there was a code review by another engineer. How, exactly, does this make him a rouge ???
If the signal had been voice, it would have been absolutely legal to listen in, including even if they are police, paramedics, fire brigades, aircraft, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanner_%28radio%29
It is absolutely illegal to intercept wireless communications, and not insane at all. But you have to realize that most of the laws were written when encryption was not technically feasible. When HBO first came out, it was broadcast clear over the air, but you had to rent a box to receive the station. Once black-market receivers started popping up, they lobbied and made it a crime to use one of these boxes.
Vicarious liability.