Slashdot Mirror
Google's Punishment? Lecture Those They Snooped On
theodp writes "When Aaron Swartz tapped into MIT's network and scooped up data from one non-profit company, the U.S. Attorney threatened him with 35 years in prison and a $1 million fine. So what kind of jail time did 38 Attorneys General threaten Google with for using its Street View cars to scoop up passwords, e-mail and other personal information by tapping into the networks of their states' unsuspecting citizens? None. In agreeing to settle the case, the NY Times reports, Google is required to police its own employees on privacy issues, lecture the public on how to fend off privacy violations like the one Google perpetrated, and forfeit about 20% of one day's net income. Given the chance, one imagines that Aaron Swartz would have happily jumped at a comparable deal."
The fine being $7 million. At least EPIC isn't as cynical and thinks the outcome was positive.
I'm going to submit this submission for the best example of 'comparing apples to oranges'.
I'll assume the submitter knew nothing about the Google situation in this case, or should I think it's just a bad troll?
Chaos, panic, disorder...my work here is done.
Lesson learned:
Lobbying fees and campaign contributions, also known as bribes, allow you to get away with things.
Google knows the kind of porn those AG's search for.
you shouldn't have any expectations of privacy.
Worst submition, ever!
One set for the powerful and favorable corporations, another set for the serfs like us.
People should take responsibility for their actions. Companies are considered persons, so they need to take responsibility for their actions as well. So far the posters here deny that principle.
Where the comparison is breaking down: It was apparently one guy in the Aaron Swartz household, and one guy in the Google company, who thought it was a good idea to get data that they shouldn't have (although in the Google case, many people ended up collection data that they shouldn't have). If you have a company with 10,000 employees, and one employee costs you 20% of a days profit, that multiplied by 10,000 would be 5000 days profit, which is a lot. (But then again, it _was_ more than one employee collecting data because one guy wrote the code).
Oh god! This is a terrible post. It's like comparing apples and oranges. These are two totally different cases... Slashdot, you are quickly becoming the worst tech news site on the Internet :(
Fines are intended to punish so the total isn't as significant as the amount relative to the means of the fined.
Google's "punishment" seems to me to be about right for the seriousness of the "crime". Swartz's was not. In fact, the penalty Swartz was threatened with was the actual result of "lobbying fees and campaign contributions" (by the MAFIAA and its ilk).
the AG offered a deal for zero (0) prison time, MIT refused to accept it.
How many people computer rooms did Google break into? none.
How many people system did they hook an unauthorized computer to? none.
How many systems did they put unauthorized software on? None.
These two case aren't remotely the same.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Sigh. Google didn't "tap into the networks". They simply recorded packets being broadcast from open wifi points, for the purpose of logging the SIDs. A side-effect of recording the packets was that if they happened to contain fragments of plaint-text communication, they could in theory have logged passwords etc. This was the fault of the developer who had been tasked with writing software to log SIDs. When Google realised that more than that had been logged, they themselves reported it to the authorities.
Bad analogy time: a national birdwatching society has a project to record birdsong in the urban streets of the country. They also end up recording the "private" arguments of couples who are shouting at each other indoors, but with the window on the street side of the house left open.
The Aaron Swartz Story is quickly becoming some new kind of Godwin's Law.
Yes, it was a horrible tragedy that everyone involved probably wishes they could do over again. No, it has nothing to do with this case.
...with prison?
They could have gone after the individual employees with threats of criminal prosecution (no, the "corporate veil" would not protect them) but that would not have gotten them any money.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
you shouldn't have any expectations of privacy.
How many unencrypted telephones are there in the world?
...I have my blinds up doesn't make it legal for you to stand in the street and watch my family dress ot bathe. What google did is little different. Even if the comparison to Swartz is apples and oranges, it is valid in that corporations face little retribution for shady or outright criminal actions. You rob a bank you may serve life. A bank robs millions of people and grts government bail out dollars. Welcome to the brave new world.
Silence is a state of mime.
Google did nothing illegal, nor even mildly wrong. Distasteful you may argue but you are responsible for the packets you send over the radio, it's your own damn responsibility to use encryption if you don't want people looking at your data. You leave the curtains open people can see into your house.
There's nothing at all to do with Google streetview and the stupid Aaron Swartz, he repeatedly defeated physical security systems to download data he did not have permission to access. Why are you people so hell bent on defending such activity?
I'm not happy for what happened to him, but it's his own damn fault, FULL STOP.
The mass populace doesn't consider a corporation to be capable of hacking. This is what the populace thinks of when they hear the word "hacker".
As you can see, it's all individuals. No corporations.
What happened was that after Swartz committed suicide, they US got worried that maybe Google might do the same thing so they backed off. ;-).
Yeah, that's the ticket fer sure
The real problem is that corporations have "no bodies to kick, no souls to damn" as someone eloquently said quite a long time ago.
you shouldn't have any expectations of privacy.
How many unencrypted telephones are there in the world?
I'm not sure an unencrypted telephone can be said to distribute audio to a dispersed audience, or be a mass communication medium. There is a massive difference between a wireless system which broadcasts data for anyone in the area to pick up and a telephone which attempts to connect two people directly with no listeners-in on the side. A mobile phone does not broadcast to allow anyone who can pick up the signal to connect, a wireless router does.
Clearly, collecting data that people broadcast openly into the street as if they were yelling at the top of their lungs in the middle of a crowded arena is actually exactly taking the steps required to visit a website, find a loophole, exploit and download data.
I'm not saying Swartz deserved 35 years in jail (and he wouldn't have gotten that anyway), but to pretend willfully stealing data is the same as overhearing it and recording that ... well that just make you look fucking stupid.
Google's mistake is that they were honest about it what they did by accident. It isn't even actually illegal to do it intentionally contrary to popular belief in most places, regardless of what this court case makes you think. The should have just kept their mouths shut. People who understand the technology don't care about what people did. The only people that care are the ones that heard Google say 'yea, we shouldn't have done that' and then they look for reasons to tear Google apart.
Swartz on the other hand took direct action to steal data for the express purpose of stealing the data. It wasn't an accident, it was intentional. That changes the punishment in and of itself from both a moral and a legal perspective. Swartz sounds (if you think you know the truth about the Swartz case, you're just ignorant) like he probably wasn't doing anything actually wrong either from a moral perspective, but from a legal one there is no question that he violated the most basic federal computer crimes law. Unauthorized access to any computer system is illegal, period, no ifs ands or buts about it. The only exception to that is if the 'access' wasn't your choice and was forced on you, such as say the perfect example ... wifi signals broadcast at you. It is not legal to steal someones data and then say 'look, I stole some of your data, fix it!'
Slashdotters may think this is the moral high ground, but it isn't. What if he'd stolen say ... a confidential database of aids patients in the area ... and then someone stole it from him or he lost his laptop ... and now that aids patient database becomes public ... Would you still be so fucking stupid as to think it was OK for him to steal data he never had any rights too in any way? What if you were in that database? What if your child, who got aids through some shitty accident like the utrarare blood transfusion instances (rare now days anyway) and suddenly he can't go to school anymore because everyone is afraid of the little kid with HIV so your kid gets isolated from everyone and can't go to school ... would it still be OK for Swartz to have stolen the data?
Swartz was unstable and depressed, stop pretending that he was an angel that was trying to protect us from the evil bad code and data leaks.
Google accidently stored and didn't immediately throw packets that BY DEFINITION THEY CAN NOT IGNORE and you act like its the same thing as intentional data theft.
Let me give you a hint, your wifi adapter ... right now ... is listening in on EVERY FREAKING SSID ON YOUR CHANNEL AND PROBABLY THE ONES NEXT TO IT AS WELL. If you have a wifi card the difference between you and Google is that Google wrote down what you threw out.
Google is not evil and Swartz wasn't your fucking hero, grow up.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
From the New York Times article, "The applause was not universal, however. Consumer Watchdog, another privacy monitor and frequent Google critic, said that “asking Google to educate consumers about privacy is like asking the fox to teach the chickens how to ensure the security of their coop.”"
Their name /is/ "Google".
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
you shouldn't have any expectations of privacy.
How many unencrypted telephones are there in the world?
Probably a few hundred million.
Now tell me in this text-riddled online world of ours, how many are still being used.
No one actually talks on those things we call "smartphones" anymore.
I live in a completely FUCKED UP world.
Google grabbed (small bites of) data out of the air that had been broadcast on unencrypted channels, in the process of collecting potentially useful information about networks broadcasting their SSIDs. When confronted by authorities Google investigated the allegations, found them to be true, and cooperated in isolating and destroying the data collected.
Aaron Schwartz entered onto MIT's property, hiding a laptop under a box, for the express purpose of downloading specific documents which he knew to be offered under a restricted license. When MIT added security measures to stop Mr. Schwartz, he updated his program to adapt to and circumvent the new methods and continued his (admittedly illegal) downloading. When approached by uniformed police, Mr. Schwarz ran in an attempt to avoid arrest.
Google was offered a penalty a several millions dollars (20% of own days income) and to commit its employee time to . . . what is essentially community service. Google accepted. Google was probably threatened with steeper penalties, but we won't ever know that, because Google did not try to use the press as a weapon against investigators.
Mr. Schwarz was offered a light sentence of a few months in prison, but refused because he didn't want to be branded a Felon. He was threatened with up to 35 years in prison and a fine of $1 Million dollars. Mr. Schwarz wanted to bring public pressure to bear to force the government not to hold him accountable for his actions, so he made public every offer and threat made by the prosecutors.
Let us compare this to a third group - the civil rights marchers of the 1960s in Selma. There, a group of citizens gathered on the public way and attempted to commit a completely legal act -- walking to their state capital together. The police ordered the crowd to disperse, and then began beating them with clubs, releasing attack dogs on them, and attacking them with water cannons. Many were hospitalized. John Lewis, the march organizer, was beaten with a club - receiving an injury to the head that caused his skull to fracture, then placed in jail and charged with a nuisance offense. This day has been named "bloody Sunday" because of the breadth and severity of the injuries inflicted by the police on law abiding citizens.
See the differences?
you shouldn't have any expectations of privacy...
I am so sick of hearing how evil Google was for recording information that other people forcefully put out into public airwaves. I know there are going to be plenty of bad analogies, so let me attempt to preempt them with a good analogy. If you go through the effort of acquiring a bullhorn to communicate with other members in your household and then proceed to pollute public airwaves with your personal information using this bullhorn, you have absolutely zero expectations of privacy. It really is as simple as that. If you don't like this, then you have many options: takes 30 seconds to set up a damn password, use https connections when possible, or use a wired connection! Once you put something out there, you can't take it back, so exercise some damn personal responsibility if you hold any expectations of privacy.
Nor would it have been likely to produce criminal convictions, since recording unencrypted broadcasts that may happen to contain, e.g., passwords is not a crime.
Here is a couple of further examples. HSBC almost certainly laundered terrorist money. They were fined 1.9 billion dollars. That is like 1% of market cap. OTOH, a few years ago the leaders of Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development were put in jail for a long time and had to forfeit most of their money, the prosecutor saying money is the lifeblood of terrorist organization. By this logic HSBC is responsible of countless murders of US citizens, yet they get off pretty much scott free.
Allegiance to a dominant group is also beneficial. Eric Rudolph committed a terrorist act by bombing the olympics and other premeditated and unprovoked murders. He was a fugitive for five years. He was arrested, did not turn himself in. One might think he would be charged as a terrorist, but because he was a major element in the Christian Movement, he was merely give consecutive life sentence,which allows him to spew his hate of persons who do not agree with him. OTOH, on of the beltway snipers who were not so politically motivated and were not kept hidden and supported by the Christian terrorist movement, were put to death.
Powerful friends, and good lawyers, will tend to minimize the consequences of your actions.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
GSM does use a form of encryption, although not a strong one. Which is one of the reasons I don't like to discuss sensitive topics on the phone.
Those phones are generally on a point-to-point medium. Thats not the same as shouting private info to your SO through a megaphone, and then getting upset when the neighbors hear it.
Because it takes an active effort to get that data
You apparently have no idea how promiscuous sniffing works. You set your wireless device to receive, fire up your sniffer, and anyone in range will be recorded-- kind of like if you turned on a tape recorder in the park, and someone happens to be hollering private details in the vicinity.
The situation that is playing out was anticipated by many: The politically powerful have their proprietary information protected, because they can make government do it for them. Everyone else has no privacy.
Individual end-users don't have the ability to protect themselves. Most have no idea of encryption, much less what data is accessible to someone scanning Wifi frequencies (most people couldn't even tell you what a "frequency" is!). Even if they had the knowledge, they have limited time and resources. That doesn't make them fair game or mean they surrender their privacy rights.
Google exploited a loophole in Wifi; Schwartz exploited a loophole in a server. Both took proprietary data. What's the difference? The law, made by the politically powerful, says that the data Schwartz took was valuable and protected, while my personal data is not. I wonder what would happen if I went to Google offices and homes and collected unencrypted data; would I be arrested? Fined 20% of 1 day's net income?
(It's hard to believe that Google didn't know what they would end up with by collecting unencrypted Wifi data -- they certainly know about frequencies, encryption, and wifi. They could have saved a lot of storage if they just took SSIDs and ignored the rest. Plus they are experts; they are responsible for knowing what they are doing.)
If that ladder is on your property then it's not allowed. If the ladder is elsewhere then it's fine.
If your door is open then anyone can look in to see provided they don't step on your property.
When you have windows on your house, you shouldn't have any expectations of privacy. Someone can put a ladder up to your bedroom window and look in.
When I do something I don't want people to see, I don't do it in front of a window in a way that can be seen from the street. It should be pretty common sense that if you can see into your windows from a public area, someone might look, even accidentally. Or do you stand naked at your giant window, yelling "Bullshit!" to every person who walks by on the public sidewalk? Even if you don't have windows, if you yell loud enough that you can be heard from the street, you shouldn't be surprised if someone hears you.
Because it takes an active effort to get that data. And not just get it - keep it.
It took little effort to read your irrelevant straw-man argument, and no effort to remember it. What is going to take active effort is forgetting your post.
to live with you?
And the crime in Googles case is arguably worse: They were in it for the money.
Really, because GSM has bad encryption? I'm sure no one is close to you and listening to your signal.
Regardless of the encryption used, the telco has the key and just forwards the police unencrypted audio.
The point is if a private citizen or smaller company had done what data did, which is to collect this 'public' information, and in some form potentially put it to use, which we have no evidence google did not do, the feds might have worked harder at finding a punishment.
You've never run wireshark on an open network that was not your own? I assure you thousands of comp sci students do this all the time with no consequences. :D
While I agree, the submitter is off his rocker, if this was Microsoft instead of Google, most of you would be crying foul.
One time I was setting up a microphone to record someone giving a speech. The long (and broken) microphone cable acted like an antenna, picking up wireless signals, so I was recording local radio traffic instead of the speech I was trying to record. Note there was no radio receiver hooked up - just a long cord plugged into a recorder. You can even hear wireless transmissions sometimes by just having a coiled cord connected to headphones. The cord serves as antenna and the coiling of the cord tunes it to a particular frequency.
If you've ever recorded static, you've recorded someone's wireless transmission. That's why in 1934 it was explicitly made legal to receive anything broadcast - because we've all done it on accident. If it were illegal to receive what someone is transmitting, it would be illegal to connect a long cord to headphones, because that will pick up "static", which is someone's transmission (your neighbor's wifi sounds like an intermittent buzzing). So it was perfectly legal for Google to receive wifi simply because it's unavoidable. Using an answering machine according to the instructions can record your neighbor's wifi as buzzing - the telephone wiring is the antenna.
Note that the long established law does NOT allow you to DECRYPT an encrypted transmission once you receive it. That would be "circumventing technical measures" under DMCA etc. In 2001, an attempt was made to make it illegal to DISCLOSE the content of certain transmissions. Last I heard, that was being challenged at the Supreme Court.
It is almost an anthithesis to the word "justice". Consequences (punishment) depend only on two things: 1) who you are 2) whose fingers did you stomp on. Actual damages does not matter much (if at all).
If you're a big bank, corporation or some awfully rich individual with political connections, you propably get away with anything (be it drug money laundering, like HSBC, scamming an awful lot of people like in fraudclosure fiasco or stealing private e-mails and passwords en masse, like Google). If you're an ordinary folk and you anger some police mob, you're toast, whenever you did something illegal or not.
If you harm ordinary people, it will propably be ignored (try calling police when some burglar robs your house). If you stand in the way of some big fat corporation interests, your "justice" department will smash you immediately. Just ask Dotcom. Or even better - compare Google's fine for collecting Wifi data ($7m) with Google's fine for stomping on big pharma interests and displaying canadian pharmacies commercials in the US ($500m).
Now try to explain me that this is NOT a rigged system.
So Aaron Swartz did not get fairly treated by the justice system. THIS DOES NOT IMPLY THAT EVERYONE ELSE SHOULD GET THE SAME TREATMENT. The justice system is what needs to change.
Practically every cordless phone in existence.
He covertly installed equipment and then, with intent, massively violated the terms of use.
It's not rigged in that you scenario doesn't really happen.
"r stealing private e-mails and passwords en masse, like Google"
asking for something from someone, and then they give it to you isn't stealing.
Dotcom committed crimes.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
only if that long cord were poorly insulated would you pick it up. if on the other hand the cord were properly shielded from EM interference then it would be fine.
but personally I think that anything being broadcast over a radio transmitter in the clear is fair game to receive, and shouldn't even count as "sniffing".
Next you're going to say I'm committing a crime by overhearing the conversation of the people sitting at the next table in a restaurant.
I am going to get naked and stand in my yard until someone looks at me. Then I am going to sue them for invading my privacy. Profit!
you shouldn't have any expectations of privacy.
How many unencrypted telephones are there in the world?
When I was in middle school, we were taught that "if you don't want something published in the paper, don't say it on the phone". That telephones do not allow for absolute privacy is something every child knows, at least in the US.
Give a man a fish ... or teach him how to fish.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
If my neighbor and I buy similar analog baby monitors and it takes a week for one of us to switch to a non-default frequency, are we now both criminals?
who unsecure their wireless: 1. Lazy People, and 2. Crooks trying to snoop people who log on.
guys... Aaron Swartz was a genius and all that, but you to to realize something: he willfully stole a ****load of private data for the purpose of distribution, from MIT! There's really no way around it, the guy committed a major crime. Obviously he should have been punished for that, and was. The punishment was majorly extreme and way out of whack, though.. it would have been better to hit him with, say, a $1million fine and a year in prison to give him some time to think about it.
Google, on the other hand, was basically collecting data that was broadcast to the public and some of it happened to be "possibly, maybe, sort of" raw text and things like that. And, they admitted to it. And, they're paying a relatively small fine for it given the size of Google. Don't get me wrong, Google could turn bad any second now and I don't like how much data they have over there, it's a little scary, but... in this case they were acting like model corporate citizens.
Consider a proper cable with a headphone style plug, like you see on microphones from Radio Shack. They won't pick up MUCH if they are less than 10 feet long.
If the recording table is 30' from the lectern, so you use a 50' cord, it can certainly pick up radio transmissions. (For that reason, professionals normally use different a type of cabling, "balanced cable", on long runs.)
If the Radio Shack style microphone is used with an adapter that converts it to use with a professional style system, that can pick up interference because the polarity on the pro system isn't standardized.
If the cable has some wear and tear on it, so the outer braid is separated from the connector, it can pick up radio interference. In fact, loose shielding braid can act as a "cat's whisker" radio receiver
If the speaking hall happens to be located right next to a high power AM transmitter, such as the style used for AM radio broadcast, with the mic turned off, you can pick up their signal even with good cables. That's a 50,000 watt transmitter next to a mic amp designed to pick up a 0.000005 volt signal.
So there are at least four different ways that microphone cable can pick up someone else's transmission, all accidentally.
When Aaron Swartz tapped into MIT's network and scooped up data from one non-profit company, the U.S. Attorney threatened him with 35 years in prison and a $1 million fine. So what kind of jail time did 38 Attorneys General threaten Google with for using its Street View cars to scoop up passwords, e-mail and other personal information by tapping into the networks of their states' unsuspecting citizens? None.
Not withstanding the fact that you can't actually put a noncorporeal being in jail, the various AG offices threatened Google with significantly way more than $1 million in fines - and in fact were ready to get court orders to force Google to turn over all of their data.
Because it takes an active effort to get that data
You apparently have no idea how promiscuous sniffing works. You set your wireless device to receive, fire up your sniffer, and anyone in range will be recorded-- kind of like if you turned on a tape recorder in the park, and someone happens to be hollering private details in the vicinity.
You apparently have no idea what "active effort" means.
"fire up your sniffer"?
As in "actively snoop for data not meant for you"?
What was that you mentioned about ME "hav[ing] no idea"?
www.yandex.com
Humans only treat others justly when forced to do so.
Sometimes a few people act out of a sense of duty or fairness or compassion, but they represent the exceptions, not the rule.
In today's world, great wealth is a better means of pushing people around than stabbing them, but the net effect is the same.
Us poor people can only muster up any amount of force by banding together in large politically-active groups. Whatever justice we receive is as as result of such actions in the past, or out of fear of such actions in the future. In any circumstance where that is not happening and is not likely to happen, justice will not be served.
That is how humans work. That has never changed in all of recorded history, and there is currently no indication that it ever will change. What WILL change is the level of visibility of injustice, and the level of communication between members of the impacted groups (these change as tech continues to improve). THAT, and only that, will ensure more justice for the masses.
Just watch. You'll see.
Google didn't "steal" anything. You left your proverbial dick out of your pants - Google pointed and laughed at you and now you're embarrassed. That's totally different than breaking into a network.
One time I was setting up a microphone to record someone giving a speech. The long (and broken) microphone cable acted like an antenna, picking up wireless signals, so I was recording local radio traffic instead of the speech I was trying to record. Note there was no radio receiver hooked up - just a long cord plugged into a recorder. You can even hear wireless transmissions sometimes by just having a coiled cord connected to headphones. The cord serves as antenna and the coiling of the cord tunes it to a particular frequency.
If you've ever recorded static, you've recorded someone's wireless transmission. That's why in 1934 it was explicitly made legal to receive anything broadcast - because we've all done it on accident. If it were illegal to receive what someone is transmitting, it would be illegal to connect a long cord to headphones, because that will pick up "static", which is someone's transmission (your neighbor's wifi sounds like an intermittent buzzing). So it was perfectly legal for Google to receive wifi simply because it's unavoidable. Using an answering machine according to the instructions can record your neighbor's wifi as buzzing - the telephone wiring is the antenna.
Note that the long established law does NOT allow you to DECRYPT an encrypted transmission once you receive it. That would be "circumventing technical measures" under DMCA etc. In 2001, an attempt was made to make it illegal to DISCLOSE the content of certain transmissions. Last I heard, that was being challenged at the Supreme Court.
One time I was setting up a microphone to record someone giving a speech. The long (and broken) microphone cable acted like an antenna, picking up wireless signals, so I was recording local radio traffic instead of the speech I was trying to record. Note there was no radio receiver hooked up - just a long cord plugged into a recorder. You can even hear wireless transmissions sometimes by just having a coiled cord connected to headphones. The cord serves as antenna and the coiling of the cord tunes it to a particular frequency.
If you've ever recorded static, you've recorded someone's wireless transmission. That's why in 1934 it was explicitly made legal to receive anything broadcast - because we've all done it on accident. If it were illegal to receive what someone is transmitting, it would be illegal to connect a long cord to headphones, because that will pick up "static", which is someone's transmission (your neighbor's wifi sounds like an intermittent buzzing). So it was perfectly legal for Google to receive wifi simply because it's unavoidable. Using an answering machine according to the instructions can record your neighbor's wifi as buzzing - the telephone wiring is the antenna.
Note that the long established law does NOT allow you to DECRYPT an encrypted transmission once you receive it. That would be "circumventing technical measures" under DMCA etc. In 2001, an attempt was made to make it illegal to DISCLOSE the content of certain transmissions. Last I heard, that was being challenged at the Supreme Court.
Of course if you're a US telephone company, the communications act of 1934 doesn't apply because you OWN the FCC.
You also have no evidence that they DID use that information, which means you have no grounds to charge them with anything. Christ, you don't say, "Well Bob, we don't have any evidence that you didn't rape your wife." and then go on saying it seems like Bob raped his wife.
...and you are also quite wrong.
Google *did* put this data to use. If you have an Android phone, *you're* probably using it every time you go indoors and you have GPS turned on. Your phone can use the presence of nearby access points (based on MAC and SSID) to determine it's location pretty well in the absence of a GPS lock.
Furthermore, collecting this data for any purpose, including the purpose Google put it to, because _it was all broadcast in the clear_ is *entirely and 100% legal*.
Dotcom committed crimes.
So did the New Zealand Government Communications Security Bureau.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Sniffers are passive. They recieve data that goes by them, much as my tape recorder in the park captures broadcast (public) noise. If the sniffer is capturing data, that data was never private (assuming of course you are not using other active methods, like deauths or arp poisoning or rogue APs).
Only complete morons are unaware that Google is an arm of the NSA, and creates hardware and software platforms specifically to serve the intelligence communities of the West. Official government IT projects have a universal, and well-deserved reputation for producing terrible outcomes. The trick for governments is to NEVER create their own internal IT teams, but to fund pseudo-civilian companies that will live or die in the commercial world. Free market Darwinism will create success in a way no internal project could ever hope to emulate.
There are now many many shadow Googles, each holding unthinkable amounts of information gathered by intelligence agencies. They use Google hardware and software designs, but are built and supported by staff directly employed by the intelligence agencies themselves.
Google 'street-view' is no kind of ordinary commercial activity - you would need an IQ in the lows tens to believe such nonsense. The data 'slurping' that Google carried out was done for multiple intelligence reasons.
- a simple feasibility study
- to 'groom' citizens to expect and except such abusive behaviour
- to 'groom' citizens to accept companies like Google are above the law, when Google suffers no real punishment for the abuse
- to 'sell' the feasibility of collecting such information in the future via 'drones'
- to further the common meme of 1950s America. Namely that ordinary citizens have "no place to hide".
Google shills will soon hit this response with their usual 'tin foil hat' play that works so well with the betas. They will suggest Google was doing nothing more than 'public photography', and we are all in favour of those rights, yes. Actually, Google's sniffing and hacking were NOTHING like taking a photo in a public place, and actually broke 'malicious use of a computer network' laws in many parts of the USA.
What has rolling down your street and taking photos every so many yards got to do with sniffing and hacking wireless networks? Are any of you so moronic that you would accept ANY explanation from Google about how a photography project magically included wireless hacking tools of EXTREME sophistication. Then again, most of you can watch the controlled demolition of building WTC7, and then allow yourselves to be told by the people who LIED (and lied and faked evidence and lied some more) about WMDs in Iraq that WTC7 collapsed in free fall to a pile of rubble because of 'fires'.
So Google lies and then laughs in your face. Google knows you don't even have the moral integrity to see Google for what it truly is. Is it any wonder the people that run Google disrespect you so badly?
"You have the ring, and I see your Schwartz is as big as mine."
"You see Lonestar, evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb."
None that have a built-in megaphone. More to the point, if anybody were stupid enough to use such a phone without some sort of cipher in place, they'd be laughed at for expecting privacy. That's the point - if a phone isn't encrypted, it's still point-to-point. Wifi is a broadcast mechanism, and the only way to secure it is encryption. Note I didn't say "effective" encryption, and Google wasn't cracking WEP.
The intent of a phone user is to keep his conversation private. The intent of a WiFi network is to broadcast traffic to all that can hear it, unless it's encrypted, in which case the intent is still to broadcast it to everybody that can hear it, but limit the understanding of it to those that have the key.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
he point is if a private citizen or smaller company had done what data did, which is to collect this 'public' information, and in some form potentially put it to use, which we have no evidence google did not do, the feds might have worked harder at finding a punishment.
Oh, bullshit.
Had this been a smaller company or a private citizen no one would have done anything at all. The only reason it got any press and any attention was because it was Google; because Google is big, and because Google's competitors have been running sly smear campaigns and because lots of people are afraid of what Google could do if it chose to be evil.
Google passively recorded unencrypted broadcast signals. That should be legal and Google should not have received any punishment.
Swartz physically broke into a private network and was threatened with a maximum of 6 months in jail, a reasonable position for the prosecutor to take.
Of course if you're a US telephone company, the communications act of 1934 doesn't apply because you OWN the FCC.
They also own the wires and by default you're generally allowed to do whatever you want with your own property.
If you've ever recorded static, you've recorded someone's wireless transmission.
No. That is not true. Static is the Cosmic Microwave Background and is present everywhere on this planet (and theoretically the entire universe). The CMB is the leftover from the Big Bang.
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/5264/is-x-noise-on-tv-due-to-big-bangs-background-radiation
I wanted to link to NASA but for some reason, it is not resolving for me currently. Very weird. http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/cobe_background.html
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Your links claim that maybe 1% of the static could be from the Big Bang. 99% is your neighbor's wifi, a radio station in Mexico, the other neighbors cordless phone, someone's cell phone conversation, etc.