Slashdot Mirror
Google Didn't Delete All Street View Wi-Fi Data
nk497 writes "Google is in more trouble over the Street View Wi-Fi data slurping incident. Two years ago Google admitted it had collected snippets of personal data while sniffing for Wi-Fi connections. The UK's data watchdog, the ICO, didn't fine Google, but did demand it delete the collected data. Following the FCC's investigation, the ICO double-checked with Google that the data was deleted, receiving confirmation that it had. Except... it hadn't all been deleted, Google has now admitted. That breaches the deal between the ICO and Google, and the watchdog has said it's in talks with other regulators about what to do next."
Sometimes.
Two years ago Google admitted it had collected snippets of personal data while sniffing for Wi-Fi connections.
Yes, they admitted after being caught by the German authorities.
Google is being fined for collecting "public" data... in the UK. The same UK that has cameras everywhere and all sorts of invasive monitoring, line tapping, you-name-it big-brother we're-watching-you technlogy and laws in place?
I think this ICO organization needs to get their priorities straight.
This stuff was was broadcast in the clear over public airwaves. That means it has no expectation of privacy. If you want privacy, every WAP I've ever heard of provides encryption. Turn it on, and you DO have an expectation of privacy, so if Google was decrypting it, then they should be punished.
Must we design the whole world to protect the least competent people from themselves?
I'm really not sure why this is an issue. Sure, there are situations where people have an expectation of privacy. But if you are transmitting data through the air in a public space, isn't it fair game? If you don't want people to look at it, shouldn't you encrypt?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Is there any explanation for this other than pure incompetence on Google's part?
I generally think Google didn't do anything wrong in the first place. People shouldn't be complaining that publicly broadcast unencrypted data is recorded by a third party, and if Google had wanted to fight them on the legality of the issue i would have been behind them. However agreeing to delete the data in some kind of plea bargain and then not actually deleting it is a d*** move. (I'm not quite sure at this point if it's a dick move or just a dumb move, but it's definitely one of them.)
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
The street view vans were basically wardriving to create a map of wifi hotspots. There was also some testing code left in that would grab bits of raw traffic. Some of that raw traffic was unencrypted, and some of that unencrypted raw traffic happened to be browsing history and health records.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Lots of evidence here
http://www.googleopoly.net/Googles_Rap_Sheet.pdf
That's just it. You people are completely ignoring what actually happened. Google voluntarily alerted the authorities that they had gotten the data. The anti-Google PR machine caught wind of it and now you have this mess. The government is mad because Google refused to hand over the data. If you think it is about "protecting peoples' privacy" then you are a fool.
This makes no sense:
“In their letter to the ICO today, Google indicated that they wanted to delete the remaining data and asked for the ICO’s instructions on how to proceed. Our response, which has already been issued, makes clear that Google must supply the data to the ICO immediately, so that we can subject it to forensic analysis before deciding on the necessary course of action.
If the data is so sensitive and worrisome, why doesn't the ICO just insist that it be deleted as agreed upon? If it was ok to delete it earlier, why does it have to be handed over now?
I'd rather have my data in the hands of Google than in the hands of Google *and* some random regulatory body. Many companies have a hard time certifying data destruction with multiple redundant offsite backups and replication, and data stored in the cloud where they may not even know every place their cloud provider stores it.
Though really, why is there no outrage about the fact that plaintext email passwords (and credit card numbers or whatever other personal data they are worried about) are even able to be captured with a simple drive-by Wifi scanner? There is no reason why a Wifi router should default to an open unencrypted mode, and even if it does, there is no reason why personal data should be allowed to be sent in the clear. CPU powerh is cheap, SSL should be used to secure *all* sensitive data.
The fact that Google drove by and captured snippets of data is not the problem... they aren't going to steal your credit card number or hack into your bank account (and there is a good chance that they already host your email) - the problem is when an identify thief does the same thing.
Actually, they were caught, by the French, stashing private user data by mistake. And they were uncooperative during the investigations in the USA ( http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/14/fcc-google-wifi-investigation/ ). And now they even admit they didn't comply with the british regulators' order, still by mistake.
Fucking lie.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10364073
Yeah, because the FCC says they were "uncooperative" it must be true. After all, the FCC is part of the government. And the government never lies, right? Right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law