Slashdot Mirror
Data Engineer In Google Case Is Identified
theodp writes "Meet Engineer Doe. A NY Times report has
identified Marius Milner as the software engineer at the center of the uproar over a Google project that used Wi-Fi sniffing Google Street View cars to collect e-mail and other personal data from potentially millions of unsuspecting people. Milner, creator of the wardriving software NetStumbler, referred questions to his lawyer. Google declined to comment. A patent search shows the USPTO awarded Google and Milner a patent in June 2011 for protecting Internet users from 'hackers and other ne'er-do-wells [who] may seek to tap into communications on a network.'"
Anyone remember Eric Schmidt's words:
;-)
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
Oh wow, looks like Google tried to protect the guy being identified in courts and now he is outed by NY Times. How big hypocrisy is that? Oh wow, turns out he is a wardriving software creator, hacker and the patent application Google and he was awarded was about protecting against the exact thing Google and he JUST DID, worldwide snooping and collection of private data. Just wow, Google. Just wow.
MariusMilner.com and every other associated domain is free. Hint hint. He probably has nothing to hide, so there's no problem if someone lists all the publicly available information, pictures, images, live movements etc there
Data Engineer In Google Case Is Identified
Fall Guy In Google Case Is Identified.
FTFY
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
He's a witch! Burn him!!! Burn him!!!
Seriously, though, it sounds like he is a fugitive on the run that got fingered.
If this guy is responsible for sneaking the phrase "hackers and other ne'er-do-wells" into an official legal document, I sort of like him already.
In general though I don't see much reason to single him out, when it seems fairly clear (from what evidence is available) that this was a Google project, not a "rogue employee" acting against management's wishes. There are cases where I'd support individual employees being held accountable, but I'm not sure this rises to that level; whether this turns out to be right or wrong, I think Google as a company should own the actions.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
NetStumbler for Windows and MiniStumbler for Windows CE downloads are at: NetStumbler.com
Downloads are free but PayPal donations are accepted.
DarkStarZumaBeachSurfinApocalypseWow
I guess it would be beyond expectation for someone to tell anyone complaining their data was "stolen" that they should have been pumping it into the local atmosphere for all to read without any encryption or other basic protection.
Yeah, holding people accountable for their own idiotic actions would make too much sense. Beside, we make far too much money out of idiots who bought cool stuff with no clue how it actually works - me especially, a lot of my tech support clients use Macs.
If you broadcast your data over airwaves, without encryption, you get what you deserve. Seriously this is only an issue at all if dimwits would just enable encryption. Instead of google doing this it very well could have been your creepy next door neighbor. Which one would you rather see your packets? Oh right, neither, so turn on encryption.
I'm not sure how this story is still even an issue. Geeks should already understand this, if you don't, you aren't a geek. Also, troll stories are troll-e.
Posting anonymous so this will not haunt me forever through the net (unless you are tracking me already har har).
Has anybody actually been hurt? Because, uh, I'm just asking. I'm all for privacy but I don't see anyone poring over my data in this case. So has anybody been hurt? Where is the victim?
Or are we talking about hurting the feelings of those poor electrons that used to mean something, however fleeting, before being vacuumed up by a hateful engineer?
And you know every atom whose state you have ever modified has certain inalienable rights..
I am pretty damned cynical about big corporations and those who presume to rule them, but there are plenty of white collar criminals in power in America and I have yet to see any at Google.
And for your info I think Sergey's and Larry's excellent space adventure shows me enough where those guys stand. I prefer to support Google and Man's Future In Space. The rest of the establishment, their cops and politicos and bastards who talk out the sides of their mouths, the warhawks and smack sellers, and all the self righteous fucks who turn a blind eye to killing, and the fucktards who find a moral pinnacle somewhere in there, they can all go off and fuck themselves until they die.
As for Milner? Well he is either completely innocent or a geek who has been hypnotized until robotic. Happens every day in America. There are one thousand other cases more worthy of prosecution.
Google long maintained that the engineer was solely responsible for this aspect of the project, which resulted in official investigations, some still unresolved, in more than a dozen countries. But a complete version of the F.C.C.’s report, released by Google on Saturday, has cast doubt on that explanation, saying that the engineer informed at least one superior and that seven engineers who worked on the code were all in a position to know what was going on.
The F.C.C. report also had Engineer Doe spelling out his intentions quite clearly in his initial proposal. Managers of the Street View project said they never read it.
Depicting his actions as the work of a rogue “requires putting a lot of dots together,” Mr. Milner said enigmatically Sunday before insisting again he had no comment. He said he was closely following the news reports on the issue.
If that's all to be believed, Milner reported on what he was doing, and sent it to his boss(es). They opted to "not read" the report. If at least six other engineers were in a position to know, then this sounds more like a "no, don't put this in writing or tell us what you're doing" situation than a rogue employee. If bosses aren't responsible for their employees, what are they there for?
www.clarke.ca
He said it was an add-on to study WiFi use around the world as part of his 20% project. I dont know if you have report or get approval for your 20% projects at Google or elsewhere. But after this is may be a good idea to have some supervision.
It would be like adding some metric measurement software to what we ship customers. Then have that send back these data. Our customers may be unsure then if their personal data in this software is being compromised.
Now a former state investigator involved in another inquiry into Street View has identified Engineer Doe. The former investigator said he was Marius Milner ... The former state investigator spoke on the condition that he not be identified because he was not authorized to speak. ... Although the F.C.C. declined to identify the engineer, a footnote in the full text of its report said Google told the agency the identity of Engineer Doe “only because it had disclosed his name to state investigators on December 17, 2010.” Google declined to comment.
That's clearly Google's fault. They shouldn't have told state investigators ANYTHING. I mean, they got reprimanded for "obstructing investigation" or somesuch anyways, what does one more bit held back matter?
If you broadcast information publicly and without sufficient encryption, the public can listen in and record it.
Apart from the question of who is right in the abstract, punishing Google or other people isn't going to deter anybody who actually wants to do you harm, since passive listening is pretty much impossible to detect. What we might restrict and punish is the use of such information, for example rebroadcasting it, using it in legal proceedings without a prior warrant, or reselling it.
The real question we should be asking is how people are punished that broadcast private information (e.g., hospitals that use unencrypted networks).
mod parent up
-- QED
May we burn her?
You don't want people listening in on your data? Don't transmit it on a "public" medium.
But google wasn't just incidentally listening to peoples data (like seeing the router name and signal strength). They were doing the equivalent of setting up a ladder on the sidewalk and taking multiple telephoto photos through each house's front windows on each block, in every town, in every state, then compiling and analyzing the data so they could better advertise to each household. If I'm in my kitchen doing dishes and someone looks at the kitchen windows while walking down the sidewalk that's one thing. But if a fellow sets up a ladder, climbs it, then whips out a camera with a telephoto lens, is that fellow just capturing light that I am broadcasting into the public medium? Sort of, but he's also making a substantial effort to see things that aren't intended to be public. To knowledgeable people the most that a wardriver would see is the router name and the signal strength. That's like the incidental glancing at the window, no big deal. That is public. Google was using advanced packet sniffing software to effectively get on the ladder and take telephoto pictures of what was going on inside. You try out the ladder/camera trick and see how long before the local police show up and toss you in the clink for being a peeping tom.
-- QED
When this thing first came out Google said they hadn't done anything wrong as this was publicly available data (open networks broadcasting these packets). Now they blame everything on the 'rogue engineer'. Was what Google did wrong, yes or no? Why is not his manager and, ultimately, VP, accountable for this?
--
Sundar Pichai is the utter asshole whose incompetence has resulted in the shutdown of Google's Atlanta engineering office.
If you/someone have at least one Android device on your wifi network and have the following option selected:
"Back up my data: Back up application data, Wi-Fi passwords and other settings to Google servers".
Then Google can decode the packets they captured.
If you check out the name of the person who made first post, along with the time stamp you'll see why it was written as inflammatory as possible.
I'm finally coming around to the opinion that /. is taking money for some story submissions such as this one.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
How is this the engineer's fault? And Google's, for that matter? And really, are we going to say it's the user's fault? How does a grandma know what a wifi network means when it's not encrypted?
What we really need is to punish those wifi vendors. Force them to put a label on their products from now on: "Beaware of the Google Car if you don't encrypt your network!" Nothing a big enough warning cannot do.
"The former state investigator spoke on the condition that he not be identified because he was not authorized to speak."
Just like Rupert, Google is claiming 'We had no idea what our minions were doing; our job is merely to be wealthy.' #YeahRight
Use this link.
NetStumbler can't even capture WiFi data in transit and never did when this took place. It sends out probe requests and responses, unless he was writing some in-house stuff not available to the public, which seems assinine given that Kismet has existed for years and does everything this purportedly does, and is free with full source code available.
I think someone is not being honest here.
It is in a public air space. The sender wished to share it with others. That makes it fair game to me. That which is private simply can not be communicated to another person. It's a narrow definition but in many ways the only real definition. A trusted wife or friend can betray. When you throw the dice of communication you pretty much have to accept the consequences.
From OFCOM: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/spectrum-enforcement/guidance
This page is specific guidance about VHF Scanners, but cites laws regarding "transmissions" in general:
"...it is illegal to listen to anything other than general reception transmissions unless you are either a licensed user of the frequencies in question or have been specifically authorised to do so... "
and
"The services that can be listened to under the definition of general reception are:
licensed broadcasting stations;
amateur and citizens' band radio transmissions; and
weather and navigation transmissions
"
If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
this is UK law, not US law but direct from OFCOM: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/spectrum-enforcement/guidance
"It is an offence if a person ... uses wireless telegraphy apparatus with intent to obtain information as to the contents, sender or addressee of any message whether sent by means of wireless telegraphy or not, of which neither the person using the apparatus nor a person on whose behalf he is acting is an intended recipient."
It doesn't matter if I'm broadcasting unencrypted data. If you are not the intended recipient then you are breaking the law by sniffing it.
If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.