OT: Google cars caught snooping

If I don't put a password on my WiFi, I'm declaring public access. I actually do that in one place, where I'm happy to allow access if anybody needs it.

Few computer-related things are simple these days. That's another issue.

I think they were looking for wifi hot spots. I'm not yet sure why. There's nothing illegal about doing that, as far as I know. If I go to a hotel or a library or an airport or a cafe with my laptop, and find an open wifi, I'm going to use it. Wouldn't you?

John

I think this was the original article:

This article states: "Alan Eustace, senior vice president of engineering and research for Google, wrote in a blog post that the company uncovered the mistake while responding to a German data-protection agency's request for it to audit the Wi-Fi data, amid mounting concerns that Google's practices violated users' privacy. "

Google did not fess-up until the "German data-protection agency's request".

That's the problem with a smoking gun, the egg on your face.

hamilton

it

?

They did not just locate spots. They recorded communication they could get access to, like emails, browsing history, transferred files. It's all over the German news today.

That is illegal in many countries. As is, say, reading someones mail because you got access to it - say, it fell out of the mailbox. That sort of thing has been regulated for ages and they have known they are going illegal.

Dimiter

The mistake was said to be actually saving some data packets. The intent was claimed to be to locate wifi networks. Google is a huge non-monolithic organization that encourages, demands actually, that employees try original stuff. Of course enthusiasm will lead to the occasional mistake.

I'm not aware that any harm was done.

I know to encrypt things before I radiate them if I don't want them to be public. They drove past three of my places for sure - they are all on Street View - and they are welcome to any RF that I radiated.

Everybody is getting their panties in a bunch because google is big. Of course they're big: they are the world's free search engine. The chattering class loves to my-oh-my about non-events like this.

John

I don't have to tell you *anything*! If your door is unlocked, that's your problem/responsibility.

Bad analogy. Entering your house -- even via an unlocked door -- is trespassing.

The same doesn't apply to folks who (out of ignorance/incompetence)

*broadcast* "whatever". I.e., if you are carrying on a private and SENSITIVE conversation on your cell phone in a PUBLIC PLACE, there is nothing to prevent me from using that information because *you* made it *public*. You didn't take steps to protect it and, as such, let it "out". (I've clients who regularly visit diners, sandwich shops, etc. proximal to their competitors' places of business EXPECTING to overhear careless employees discussing things that they *shouldn't* discuss in public).

Go out in public and you can't complain if a photograph of you ends up on TV, etc. -- you've put your image out "in public" so its available for folks to use. (within reason)

The problem here isn't legal as much as ethical. It's playing on the carelessness/ignorance of others -- just like predatory loans, etc. ("nothing illegal", just "immoral")

Actually, here, a TV station or a newspaper has to get your permission before they can publish a recognizable picture of you, unless you are already a celebrity or a politician. I don't know if Street View is covered by that convention... apparently is isn't somehow.

It's generally legal to walk by someone's house and look into a window. It is illegal to step onto their property, or to use binoculars, to look into that window.

It's probably illegal to snoop WiFi packets, but I'm not sure.

John

But, apparently google *did* archive communications that they eavesdropped on.

"If it smells like a fish..."

I suspect this was very deliberate. Whether "sanctioned" by the "higher ups" or not... (c'mon, we all know google makes its living by reading email, analyzing your web searches, etc. -- and, google operates "behind the scenes" on many *private* ISP's... handling their email "for them")

If there is a problem here, it is because the laws in this country (US) don't consider this to be illegal. It's yet another example of "wink, wink" where the responsibility is on the individual to protect his own privacy *without* any recourse or responsibility on the part of businesses that might PROFIT from it.

IT sounds more like they sniffed packets to get the WiFi "hot spot" information and didn't actually know what other data came along with it. If you happened to be sending your credit card info to a non-encrypted web site exactly as they were passing by, doing their "street view" mapping, they

*might* have snagged it.

Mail has special protections. Your garbage, at the end of your driveway, is not protected in any way. You left it there to be read, not the mailman.

I hate that, almost as much as I do women farding while driving.

Good way to spread disinformation. ;-)

Assuming you're a "private person" (as opposed to a "public personality", the difference being your actions), this isn't true. Others cannot publish your likeness. If there is profit involved it gets even tighter (see: model contracts). News is another issue, of course.

Exactly right. I'd rather not deal with unethical companies.

I see a big difference in how MS and google operate. MS wanted to muscle everyone out of "their" market. My complain isn't with their monopoly as much as it is with the fact that they had such crappy products and tried to claim they invented everything.

Google, OTOH, is sneaky. They push the envelope in terms of what they can "legally" do in terms of snooping, etc. All under the guise of "helping *you*"!

And, their product is just ADVERTISING. Sheesh! Doesn't the world have *enough* advertising? Are these (quite rich!) folks only smart enough to figure out how to *sell* stuff? Can't they solve any real world problems??

"I wanna grow up to be a used car salesman..."

People don't value their privacy, then they won't mind losing it! :> Sort of like the diabetic who doesn't value his *feet* (or vision) eventually *losing* them. No skin off *my* back! :>

Look at things like Tempest. None of this is new. What is "new" is that it is now possible for Class I and Class II attacks whereas previously this was only practical in Class III attacks.

In some markets, I design high impedance "sniffers" into the design to detect "unexpected RF" and force the product into a "safe" state. Too easy for John Q Public to be a threat nowadays.

I have a friend who carries his passport in a shielded jacket as he doesn;'t want the RFID tag "polled" without his consent. :-/

Maybe we'll yet achieve the vision prophesied in The President's Analyst? :> (I wonder if it actually *will* be "TPC" that does it! Scary to see how close to true that might be!)

Here (US), whatever can be "perceived" without breaking and entering is fair game (I think). E.g., if you take a picture of me "in public", there is nothing I can do to prevent it. OTOH, if you plant a camera in my house and take photos of me there, that's not legal.

Police often rely on this technicality. I.e., if you have something that suggests your participation in an illegal activity IN PLAIN SIGHT, then that gives them "permission" to conduct a more invasive search.

So, for example, if you have a pot plant growing on your window sill, *expect* a visit. :>

I don't know if that is legal -- though, if I had to make a wager (even money), I would bet it *is* legal. Again, morality and legality are very different beasts, here.

Well, if you have your window open, and I am walking on the sidewalk in front of your house, and I hear your conversation with your wife, then, no, I am doing nothing illegal. Even if I take the walk up to your front door, and overhear your conversation, I am still not doing anything illegal. Even if I am using a directional mike, and I am on public property, it is still legal!

Charlie

I think this only applies to profit oriented activities. Even there, I think there are lots of accepted "exceptions" (how often do you see TV coverage with *lots* of faces in the background -- "recognizable" -- yet you *know* they didn't get formal releases from each of those people!).

I was at a public meeting and found *my* face on the evening news (I wasn't even aware there was a camera running!). I *know* no one asked me to sign a release! :>

I don't know about the binoculars! It's surely unethical. But illegal?

I have friends who live in cities in high-rises. Most of them have telescopes. None of them are astronomers! :>

It's probably illegal to *use* the information gleaned in certain ways. But, I'm not sure if the snooping itself is illegal!

E.g., even *using* someone else's wifi is really only "theft of service" :-/

it

?

Don, yes, I realize this may be legal in the US or elsewhere. Which does not make it any more acceptable. BTW, I doubt they would have needed to collect intelligence data inside the US in such a clumsy way. In Germany - where they were caught - this appears to be illegal (me not being an expert in German law either). The fact they behaved just like caught with a smoking gun suggests it is illegal. Then if the Germans get hold of the collected data it will become evident what and who they were after, so they will know who sent them etc.

It is a big blunder - now whether the public will be told what it is is another matter. I doubt it. They'll make a deal and brush it under the carpet (i.e. it will get out of the headlines and forgotten).

Dimiter

Here in Maryland, it is a felony to record someone's voice without their knowledge or permission. Certainly a law mainly intended to protect the bad politicians.

So if you have VOIP, google would be in the wrong if they recorded the data.

Tom

I think you'll find that this only applies to voice telephone service. I would doubt that it applies to any data service.

In many places, it is illegal to record a telephone conversation without "consent". In some places, that means consent of BOTH parties. In other places, just *one* party is required to consent (think about it... :> )

I've not heard of this extending to other "conversations"...

Here, both must consent. We just had a biker with a helmet cam recording a law enforcement stop and he put it on youtube. They are charging him with the felony because the cop did not consent.

At the least, the legal fees will hurt.

Tom

It also means that anyone within range of that "hot spot" could have captured the same information.

--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.