Exception, (3) where the consent of the user of that service has been obtained.Would seem pretty clear that running an unsecured WiFi connection is consent. Just look at all the businesses that provide unsecured WiFi for customer use. You can't buy a router now without it warning you of the dangers of running an unsecured connection.
We will consider the legality of Google’s WiFi collection practices. Google’s actions raise troubling and profound questions about privacy and whether laws need to be clarified or changed.Which is it, is the recording of unsecured wireless illegal or is it like someone walking around the street with a tape recorder while people talk loudly on their phones? I think this press release was poorly thought out.
I urge consumers to consider encrypting their wireless computer networks. An unencrypted network is an invitation to snooping, like broadcasting all communications on loudspeakers. Anyone with the right software and equipment can listen in.
"Yeah. That's exactly right. Screw people with minimal-to-no computer knowledge who have their flashy new wireless routers installed by cable company employees who want to get out of there as fast as humanly possible and just nod their heads when instructed to make the network "easy" to log into. They totally deserve what they get, as they've certainly gone on forums and had the concept and dangers of secured vs. unsecured wireless networks and the proper ways to log into their routers to change the settings without fucking everything up and having to surf through a humanless, dial-operated customer service menu. Fuck 'em all."My sympathy for the computer illiterate ran out when our world became so inundated with computers that you literally couldn't function in society without them. As soon as something becomes critical to your day-to-day life, I'd say its time to learn how to use it. Especially when you're using the technology to transmit sensitive data like online banking information.
"Do you know how to maintain your car, what door locks are safe against picking, how to check for subsidence, termites and faulty electrical wiring in a house, basic self-defense, CPR, and, hey, protect against viruses or recognise man-in-the-middle attacks? If not all of the above, you are at risk of something serious that would make some people go 'duh'."Many of these aren't a good comparison to the discussed situation. We're not talking about expecting people to have any advanced knowledge in network security, we're talking about expecting people to know the basics. Just like we expect people to know how to operate a car without endangering themselves or others, use a lock to secure their homes, and maintain a home well enough to keep it livable.
I put the key in, turn it until it clicks and make sure the door is locked by jiggling the doorknob or whatever. Tell me, in an equally simple sentence, how to secure a wireless network.Type "secure my wireless router" in google?
I disagree. Sound can be experienced by the senses and evident. Wireless data floating through the ether is not. That's the big difference: extant evidence that something is going on. If people had the ability to detect, via their senses, their wireless router shooting out personal info, they would certainly take pains to stop it immediately. As things stand right now, they cannot.They're receiving web pages from the ether, that are being displayed on their screens. I'd argue that this certainly constitutes as the ability to that something is going on.
Yeah. That's exactly right. Screw people with minimal-to-no computer knowledge who have their flashy new wireless routers installed by cable company employees who want to get out of there as fast as humanly possible and just nod their heads when instructed to make the network "easy" to log into.Those people didn't get "screwed" by google, they got screwed by their ISPs. The problem isn't google who at most got a few snippets of wifi data while driving by, saved it to a drive, and forgot about it. The problem is their neighbors who now have access to absolutely everything they do online, if they happen to turn on a sniffer out of boredom.
If it is secret from the parties doing the wiretapping? Do the wiretapping laws require intent?The thing is I doubt that people who wrote wiretapping laws would have ever expected people to tap by accident.
Wireless networks are quickly becoming the only form of Internet available.That's A) not even remotely true and B) doesn't mean that unencrypted wireless is actually more common. All cellular connections are encrypted, as far as I know.
Eric Schmidt has taken to the business pages today to blame Google's heavily criticised Street View Wi-Fi data harvesting operation on the actions of one rogue software coder.So they way they're telling the story, anyway, is that they fully intended to map and database all the WiFi networks, but the packet capture was the work of a rogue element within the organization.
The male Googler in question is now subject to disciplinary proceedings, he told the FT.
...
Google says it is conducting an internal review of its privacy policies as a result of the controversy, but will not restrict its engineers' freedom despite the "clear violation" of its rules by the unnamed rogue coder.
This device complies with FCC Rules Part 15. Operation is subject to the following two conditions:posted by vsync at 4:57 PM on June 9, 2010 [1 favorite]
- This device may not cause harmful interference.
- This device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation.
If Google wants to know what Americans are doing online, they have a lot more direct ways of doing it than by driving around with a WiFi sniffer.Yeah.. With Google ads and Anylitics on so many sites, if google wants to track you, they'll track you.
I find the claim that they "inadvertently" collected this data ludicrous. Did they "inadvertently" install 802.11 transceiver equipment in every vehicle, "accidentally" develop the software to sniff packets, and "coincidentally" design and implement a database system to store the captured data along with geocding information?Are you retarded? Did you read the other posts? They were looking for MAC addresses so they could figure out where people were based on the wifi signals around them. It works really well in cities where there is a lot of WiFi coverage.
Who the fuck do they think they're fooling with that?
At each one of these steps access may be trivially denied, simply by not replying (in computer language) "sure, go ahead, and by the way here's the information to do so". This would be a lot of work for people to do so they delegate it to computer systems to do so automatically.You're missing the point that you don't need to connect to the network to sniff the traffic. You just have to listen. You don't need to broadcast anything at all. But you can't listen to unencrypted networks.
1. There is a vast, well-coordinated conspiracy within Google to illegally sniff home wifi networks and co-opt personal data for financial gain. Obviously this would be shot down by Google's own legal team, unless they too are in on the conspiracy. (It's unclear how this data would be monetized).It's especially pointless when you consider the fact that Google has much easier, and legal, ways to get far more detailed information on almost everyone. Was this just to pick up on what the 1% of users who never use Google and have Adblock turned on so that they can't be tracked with analytics/adsense?
« Older Everybody's heard about the "secret" lau... | Largely overshadowed by the Re... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
And more importantly no one knew they had this data. It was only when they double checked did they discover it.
And how could it possibly compare to the bush Illegal wiretapping in terms of size and scope?
posted by delmoi at 7:30 AM on June 9, 2010 [20 favorites]