6 ms·

Google Admits Streetview Cars Collected "Entire Emails, URLs and Passwords"

24 points by privacyguru 16y ago

cryptoz 16y ago
FTA: > their investigations revealed that some incredibly private information was harvested in some cases. Well now, slow down. If someone transmits information into the public airspace in a public street, that data can no longer be referred to as private. If Google had been breaking WEP while they drove along they would be violating people's "reasonable expectations" of their privacy. But there's no reasonable expectation of privacy if you're broadcasting radio signals that contain your passwords. That's just dumb.
- misterm 16y ago
  Why were they collecting this information in the first place? I don't understand how they could just accidentally grab passwords.
  - mkr-hn 16y ago
    Because the data is there. If you're collecting it without filtering, you don't have a choice.
  - scrrr 16y ago
    I'm speculating, but I suppose value from this data can be anything from geographically locating ip-addresses to improve location based services to wireless-router manufacturer statistics.
  - Construct 16y ago
    They weren't specifically collecting this information. They were collecting packets that happened to come their way. Combine enough packets, and in some cases you'll find emails and URLs and password.
  - timcederman 16y ago
    It's because they reused some code to grab the MAC addresses, which was also grabbing packets (which it shouldn't have).
  - privacyguru 16y ago
    Story says "Google collected the data as a result of code integrated into the software used to identify and map WiFi signals. Google says the code was developed in 2006 by an engineer working on an experimental WiFi project that sampled all categories of publicly broadcast WiFi data. That coded ended up on the systems that power the data collection of the Street View cars."
- privacyguru 16y ago
  Cryptoz -- I agree, all public data once it is broadcasted. But as the article says "While the data was technically broadcasted to the public and anyone with the know-how and appropriate gear could collect the same information, it would be hard for anyone to collect such data on the massive scale that Google did." -- Google should have known better. Someone knew what data they were collecting. And yes, people should have secured their wireless routers.
  - randomtask 16y ago
    > it would be hard for anyone to collect such data on the massive scale that Google did So collecting that information is only unethical when done on a large scale?
    - privacyguru 16y ago
      Not saying that, just that it's more of an issue when a company like Google does it. People go "war driving" all the time and that isn't a big deal - but when a company like Google does, it's a bigger deal. And Google probably isn't a threat with the data, but people need to just secure their networks! Maybe it's a good lesson and better in the long run actually!
      - randomtask 16y ago
        > it's more of an issue when a company like Google does it I don't know if it's more of an issue, but articles like this one make it more visible certainly.
- cdavid 16y ago
  I cannot say for the legal implications, but surely, just because you don't hide something does not mean anyone can do anything from it, if only from an ethical point of view. There are many situations where you would not want everyone to know some of your actions, even though you do no actively hide them. Something as simple as what you are watching on TV, or which way your kids go to school, etc...
  - cryptoz 16y ago
    I disagree actually. The thing is, open WiFi is the same thing as taking a radio transmitter and transmitting your passwords to the world outside. It's not that people didn't go to the trouble of hiding it. It's that people are (essentially, figuratively) loudly shouting their secrets for the world to hear.
    - cdavid 16y ago
      I don't understand how you can compare wifi usage and radion transmitting. With radio transmitting, you are actually, purposely broadcasting information. With unencrypted WIFI, it is just a technical consequence of using internet, but there is absolutely no intent of giving this information away. If I were pushing this argument, it would mean it is ok to copy say a movie I am downloading from a pay-per-view website on the condition it is not encrypted. Which I think does not stand legally speaking, but IANAL.
      - cryptoz 16y ago
        > compare wifi usage and radion transmitting. (sic) Well technically speaking, they are the same thing. Your WiFi router and your computer's WiFi card are both radio transmitters. If someone doesn't understand that, there's going to be a problem. But it's definitely not Google's problem. As for your second point, taping video from the air on the VCR is fine. I'm sure it's fine digitally too.
        cdavid 16y ago
        I am well aware that technically those are the same. My point is that it does not matter because the intent is different.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- jtbigwoo 16y ago
  I disagree. Just because I leave my shades open doesn't give you the right to stand in the street and take pictures of my family through the window. After all, I'm allowing the broadcast images of myself through electromagnetic radiation (visible light.)
  - cynest 16y ago
    The problem with this analogy is that Google had no intent of invading privacy. If you leave your shades open and someone starts taking pictures of the inside of your house, they are breaking your reasonable expectation of privacy. If someone happens to glance at and see the insides of your house for a split second, they are not necessarily invading your reasonable expectation of privacy.
    - jtbigwoo 16y ago
      I agree with you on Google's intent, but intent is only half the issue here. They didn't just happen to get a peek. They deliberately searched for private information and recorded everything they saw. Perhaps I'm being naive or living in the past, but it seems reasonable to expect that I won't be spied on in my home even if I'm somewhat lax in my security protocols.
    - macrael 16y ago
      But what about when that person is taking pictures of everyone's houses and posting those pictures online? They may not have been intending to invade your privacy, just show a picture of all the houses in the neighborhood. There is a difference between the the million of little pieces of private information we leak every day and the collection and preservation of that data. Google is doing the right thing here and is going to delete this data and make sure they don't collect it again, but I think you are wrong to dismiss the collection of private data as unserious.
  - bradleyland 16y ago
    I'm not certain about this, but I'm pretty sure that in the US, you do have the right to take photos of people through the window, even when they're in their homes. Whatever is visible from the street (a public place) is fair game. Having said that, I know there were some recent cases where this was brought in to question. I just don't know what the outcome was. Also, different countries obviously have varying views on this topic.
Construct 16y ago
This quote is taken out of context. Google was not specifically collecting emails, URLs, and passwords. They were collecting packets. Collect enough packets, and you will wind up with emails, URLs, and passwords in the data. From the article, from Alan Eustace's (Senior VP Research & Engineering) quote: >It’s clear from those inspections that while most of the data is fragmentary, in some instances entire emails and URLs were captured, as well as passwords.
scrrr 16y ago
This makes Google a white-hat hacker that shows a security problem. I've just been to Spain and was able to connect to unencrypted wifi spots on almost every street-corner with my phone.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
code_duck 16y ago
So, these people should be using secure wireless. If I have a loudspeaker playing my phone call into the air, I wouldn't complain that someone else heard it. If I taped a giant banner with my email into the side of my house, someone might take a photo. If Google cracked my WEP key or something, that would be notable.
eli 16y ago
It's a pity that this is the digital privacy case that the media and politicians decided to run with. There are legitimate unanswered questions about what privacy means in an increasingly networked world... but what to do with personal information broadcasted in the clear and recorded by accident is not one of them.

24 points by privacyguru 16y ago

FTA: > their investigations revealed that some incredibly private information was harvested in some cases. Well now, slow down. If someone transmits information into the public airspace in a public street, that data can no longer be referred to as private. If Google had been breaking WEP while they drove along they would be violating people's "reasonable expectations" of their privacy. But there's no reasonable expectation of privacy if you're broadcasting radio signals that contain your passwords. That's just dumb.

misterm 16y ago
Why were they collecting this information in the first place? I don't understand how they could just accidentally grab passwords.
- mkr-hn 16y ago
  Because the data is there. If you're collecting it without filtering, you don't have a choice.
- scrrr 16y ago
  I'm speculating, but I suppose value from this data can be anything from geographically locating ip-addresses to improve location based services to wireless-router manufacturer statistics.
- Construct 16y ago
  They weren't specifically collecting this information. They were collecting packets that happened to come their way. Combine enough packets, and in some cases you'll find emails and URLs and password.
- timcederman 16y ago
  It's because they reused some code to grab the MAC addresses, which was also grabbing packets (which it shouldn't have).
- privacyguru 16y ago
  Story says "Google collected the data as a result of code integrated into the software used to identify and map WiFi signals. Google says the code was developed in 2006 by an engineer working on an experimental WiFi project that sampled all categories of publicly broadcast WiFi data. That coded ended up on the systems that power the data collection of the Street View cars."
privacyguru 16y ago
Cryptoz -- I agree, all public data once it is broadcasted. But as the article says "While the data was technically broadcasted to the public and anyone with the know-how and appropriate gear could collect the same information, it would be hard for anyone to collect such data on the massive scale that Google did." -- Google should have known better. Someone knew what data they were collecting. And yes, people should have secured their wireless routers.
- randomtask 16y ago
  > it would be hard for anyone to collect such data on the massive scale that Google did So collecting that information is only unethical when done on a large scale?
  - privacyguru 16y ago
    Not saying that, just that it's more of an issue when a company like Google does it. People go "war driving" all the time and that isn't a big deal - but when a company like Google does, it's a bigger deal. And Google probably isn't a threat with the data, but people need to just secure their networks! Maybe it's a good lesson and better in the long run actually!
    - randomtask 16y ago
      > it's more of an issue when a company like Google does it I don't know if it's more of an issue, but articles like this one make it more visible certainly.
cdavid 16y ago
I cannot say for the legal implications, but surely, just because you don't hide something does not mean anyone can do anything from it, if only from an ethical point of view. There are many situations where you would not want everyone to know some of your actions, even though you do no actively hide them. Something as simple as what you are watching on TV, or which way your kids go to school, etc...
- cryptoz 16y ago
  I disagree actually. The thing is, open WiFi is the same thing as taking a radio transmitter and transmitting your passwords to the world outside. It's not that people didn't go to the trouble of hiding it. It's that people are (essentially, figuratively) loudly shouting their secrets for the world to hear.
  - cdavid 16y ago
    I don't understand how you can compare wifi usage and radion transmitting. With radio transmitting, you are actually, purposely broadcasting information. With unencrypted WIFI, it is just a technical consequence of using internet, but there is absolutely no intent of giving this information away. If I were pushing this argument, it would mean it is ok to copy say a movie I am downloading from a pay-per-view website on the condition it is not encrypted. Which I think does not stand legally speaking, but IANAL.
    - cryptoz 16y ago
      > compare wifi usage and radion transmitting. (sic) Well technically speaking, they are the same thing. Your WiFi router and your computer's WiFi card are both radio transmitters. If someone doesn't understand that, there's going to be a problem. But it's definitely not Google's problem. As for your second point, taping video from the air on the VCR is fine. I'm sure it's fine digitally too.
      - cdavid 16y ago
        I am well aware that technically those are the same. My point is that it does not matter because the intent is different.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
jtbigwoo 16y ago
I disagree. Just because I leave my shades open doesn't give you the right to stand in the street and take pictures of my family through the window. After all, I'm allowing the broadcast images of myself through electromagnetic radiation (visible light.)
- cynest 16y ago
  The problem with this analogy is that Google had no intent of invading privacy. If you leave your shades open and someone starts taking pictures of the inside of your house, they are breaking your reasonable expectation of privacy. If someone happens to glance at and see the insides of your house for a split second, they are not necessarily invading your reasonable expectation of privacy.
  - jtbigwoo 16y ago
    I agree with you on Google's intent, but intent is only half the issue here. They didn't just happen to get a peek. They deliberately searched for private information and recorded everything they saw. Perhaps I'm being naive or living in the past, but it seems reasonable to expect that I won't be spied on in my home even if I'm somewhat lax in my security protocols.
  - macrael 16y ago
    But what about when that person is taking pictures of everyone's houses and posting those pictures online? They may not have been intending to invade your privacy, just show a picture of all the houses in the neighborhood. There is a difference between the the million of little pieces of private information we leak every day and the collection and preservation of that data. Google is doing the right thing here and is going to delete this data and make sure they don't collect it again, but I think you are wrong to dismiss the collection of private data as unserious.
- bradleyland 16y ago
  I'm not certain about this, but I'm pretty sure that in the US, you do have the right to take photos of people through the window, even when they're in their homes. Whatever is visible from the street (a public place) is fair game. Having said that, I know there were some recent cases where this was brought in to question. I just don't know what the outcome was. Also, different countries obviously have varying views on this topic.

Construct 16y ago

This quote is taken out of context. Google was not specifically collecting emails, URLs, and passwords. They were collecting packets. Collect enough packets, and you will wind up with emails, URLs, and passwords in the data. From the article, from Alan Eustace's (Senior VP Research & Engineering) quote: >It’s clear from those inspections that while most of the data is fragmentary, in some instances entire emails and URLs were captured, as well as passwords.

scrrr 16y ago

This makes Google a white-hat hacker that shows a security problem. I've just been to Spain and was able to connect to unencrypted wifi spots on almost every street-corner with my phone.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

code_duck 16y ago

So, these people should be using secure wireless. If I have a loudspeaker playing my phone call into the air, I wouldn't complain that someone else heard it. If I taped a giant banner with my email into the side of my house, someone might take a photo. If Google cracked my WEP key or something, that would be notable.

eli 16y ago

It's a pity that this is the digital privacy case that the media and politicians decided to run with. There are legitimate unanswered questions about what privacy means in an increasingly networked world... but what to do with personal information broadcasted in the clear and recorded by accident is not one of them.