Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Brazil Orders Google To Hand Over Street View Data

Posted by samzenpus on from the take-it-back dept.

cold fjord writes "France 24 reports, 'Brazilian judges gave US Internet search giant Google until Saturday to turn over private data collected through its Street View program ... Failure to do so would mean a daily fine of $50,000, up to a maximum of $500,000. ... According to a complaint from the Brazilian Institute of Computer Policy and Rights (IBDI), the car-borne software also enables Street View to access private wi-fi networks and intercept personal data and electronic communications. IBDI pointed to similar occurrences in other parts of the world and demanded that Google reveal if it had engaged in such practices. It said Google had admitted collecting data while insisting they were not used "in its products and services. The US search engine stressed that it had now removed the data collection software from its vehicles."'"

26 of 130 comments (clear)

  1. Google's response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... Failure to do so would mean a daily fine of $50,000, up to a maximum of $500,000. ..

    Oh! We are sooooooo scared!

    1. Re:Google's response by vakuona · · Score: 2

      Which part of "up to a maximum of $500,000" did you not understand?

    2. Re:Google's response by master_kaos · · Score: 3, Informative

      "up to a maximum of $500,000"
      So just pay $500,000 up front and continue operating as normal.

    3. Re:Google's response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It is maximised to just 10 days. The cost of handing over the data as instructed would already be higher than that.

    4. Re:Google's response by houstonbofh · · Score: 2

      Actually, it was more like "No problem. As soon as we get those drives back from the NSA we will ship them right to you."

  2. Yet another government... by msauve · · Score: 4, Insightful

    which thinks it can regulate the laws of physics.

    If you don't want people receiving the wireless signals you broadcast, either don't broadcast them, or shield them so they don't escape. If you only care about the content, encrypt them.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:Yet another government... by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This isn't about whether people can receive signals, numbnuts - it's about what people can do with the signals they receive.

      I know the USA is the poster boy for entitlement, but shouting MAH FREEDOMZ! does not get you a free pass to do anything you want, unless perhaps you choose to exit the society which keeps you safe and warm.

    2. Re:Yet another government... by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      most privacy laws are in place to protect information you're going to have to give out anyhow, otherwise your phone company is going to sell all your data... because gee, why use a phone company for data you don't want them to sell.. geez.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:Yet another government... by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 3, Funny

      ad hominem is using a personal insult to support an argument.

      I'm describing the flaw in your argument AND calling you numbnuts. Think of it like a bonus free gift.

    4. Re:Yet another government... by BringsApples · · Score: 2

      Not sure if you're driving my point further or what. The problem with Google being able to sniff wireless, is due to the wireless being turned on, and no encryption being turned on. To me, this is a problem for common folks, because of the ability for large companies to drive around taking advantage of there being common folks. It's no different than bullying.

      Take Aaron Swartz's case into mind, and compare that to what Google did. Not much difference to me, except for the fact that Aaron did something that's very common to do, just used 'wget' to do it, whereas Google had to drive around the world.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    5. Re:Yet another government... by StripedCow · · Score: 2

      If you don't want people receiving the wireless signals you broadcast, either don't broadcast them, or shield them so they don't escape. If you only care about the content, encrypt them.

      So, when in public, we should all speak in a secret language if we don't want our conversations to be recorded and sold by big corporations?

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    6. Re:Yet another government... by msauve · · Score: 2

      Google was simply building a location database which associated WiFi MAC addresses with GPS coordinates. The easiest way to do that is simply pcap WiFi while recording GPS coordinates and timestamping both, for post-processing. It takes extra effort to only grab control traffic, ignoring the data. For their purposes, it doesn't matter if encryption is on or not. Although they would have gathered traffic for unencrypted networks, that's not what they were interested in.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    7. Re:Yet another government... by zippthorne · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And why should setting up a router be complicated? Why can't I just put my laptop next to a router, push a button on one or the other or both and have them securely paired via near-field or EHF wireless, photometer, ultrasound, or physical link?

      Most people aren't IT professionals, but do need some IT infrastructure to accomplish their own goals. The mass-produced products should take this into account and offer default options that are both easy and secure.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  3. Brazil aims low, film at 11 by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Funny

    $500,000? To one of the biggest companies on Earth? They spend more than that on coffee. Go big or go home, Brazil. :)

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Brazil aims low, film at 11 by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

      $500,000? To one of the biggest companies on Earth? They spend more than that on coffee. Go big or go home, Brazil. :)

      that's just how the preexisting law is written, dummy.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    2. Re:Brazil aims low, film at 11 by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In America it's against the Constitution to write a new law which disadvantages a corporation. In Brazil, it is not. Will America liberate Brazil and free it from this tyranny?!

    3. Re:Brazil aims low, film at 11 by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is a quite common idiotic attitude, that a fine should be somehow related to the size of

      This is a quite common misunderstanding of what the purpose of a fine is: To act as a deterrent. The EPA used to say $50,000 per infraction for dumping hazardous waste into the ocean. The disposal companies then filmed themselves doing it and turned themselves in because it was cheaper than litigation, so they just confessed, paid the fine, and pocketed the difference. This is still happening today... because the cost of properly disposing of that waste is higher than the cost of the fine.

      Now, you strawman'd the size of the company. But the size of the fine should be at least the cost of the damage done plus a punitive amount to act as a sufficient deterrent. What I'm saying here is that $500,000 is worth less that the money Google will make off using said personal data, and is thus ineffectual. The punitive amount on top of the calculated amount of profits they could make off the data should be high enough to deter Google from doing it in Brazil again... and thus wasting taxpayer dollars prosecuting them.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  4. Re:Is google even capturing WiFi data anymore? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I thought they abandoned that practice after the last debacle.

    I thought they wouldn't work with the NSA after they said they wouldn't.

    The WiFi data is far too useful to the NSA for Google to stop collecting it for the NSA.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  5. What a Relief by skywire · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If I were a Brazilian, I'd be soooo relieved to know that now the data would be in the hands not only of Google, but the state.

    --
    Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
  6. Re:Google could just by Hamsterdan · · Score: 2

    They could also fax it :)

    --
    I've got better things to do tonight than die.
  7. "Handing it over"? by fche · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The data did not come from Brazilian government. If they are accusing Google of spying on private data, then that private data to the government would be tantamount to spying on Brazilians on the .br government's behalf.

    If data is private to the people, delete it, don't give it to government.

  8. who cares? by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Really.. if you are broadcasting personal info to the world unencrypted, who cares if its Google or your neighbor collecting it? Its your own damned fault.

    Dont like it, either encrypt or prevent your signal from invading my space ( perhaps ill just sue you for that 2nd part.. )

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:who cares? by girlintraining · · Score: 2

      Really.. if you are broadcasting personal info to the world unencrypted,

      You do realize that broadcasting this information is how wifi works, right? This is like saying if you don't want companies to record your keystrokes, you shouldn't use a wireless keyboard, while conveniently ignoring the question why the hell are they doing it anyway?

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  9. Re:Private? by nurb432 · · Score: 2

    Do you have a TOS agreement page? If not, then your argument of 'only for people' is null and void.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  10. Re:Private? by gnasher719 · · Score: 2

    " to access private wi-fi networks" I seriously doubt it was hacking their networks. If you don't put a password on your wi-fi... it becomes a "public wi-fi network"...

    It's like leaving the door to your home open. The contents doesn't become public property. Anyone taking it is still a thief. Anyone entering against your will is still trespassing. Sure, it's stupid and no big surprise if things are gone (depending on your neighbourhood) but it's not public.

    Same with WiFi. Just because my neighbours use unencrypted WiFi, that doesn't mean I can listen to what goes on on their network. I'd probably be able to find software that allows me to do this, but my computer, out of the box, has no way for me to read for example unencrypted e-mails being sent through their unencrypted WiFi.

  11. The real lesson here by Solandri · · Score: 2

    Don't collect the data on your own. Have your users collect it for you, then secretly take it from their phones. That way if the government has a problem with it, you can just say, "We didn't collect any data, all these people did. They just agreed to share it with us by clicking on an OK button."