3 ms·

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

by 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.
  - AgentConundrum 16y ago
    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. I'm sorry, but that's blatantly incorrect. Using unencrypted wireless isn't a consequence of using the internet, considering you also have the options of either using a wired signal or setting up even basic encryption for wireless ones. The fact that you didn't intend to broadcast this information is irrelevant. Consider this contrived scenario: a pair of criminals are in a house with the windows open, and they're discussing the details of a recent crime. Unbeknownst to them, there are a pair of cops walking by who overhear all the details. By your logic, these cops couldn't arrest these criminals because the criminals "didn't intend" to give this information away. I definitely think that there need to be better defaults for people who don't know what they're getting into when they get a wireless router, or at least a warning on the box, but if they broadcast their data unencrypted, the fault is their own if someone intercepts it.
    - jpablo 16y ago
      IANAL, but as far as I know intend is relevant in law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_in_English_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_in_English_law
      - AgentConundrum 16y ago
        That's not applicable here. This definition of intent refers to the criminals intent, not the victims. I was talking about the data owners intent to broadcast, not Googles intent to collect.
    - cdavid 16y ago
      First, you don't always have the options of using a wired signal (think web access in a coffee shop). As for your example, it is indeed contrived: the criminals are doing something illegal at that moment, so most usual expectations as far as privacy goes become moot, especially w.r.t. law enforcement people. I don't see how that's relevant at all: the key points is that you are doing something that is legal, may be looked at by anyone who has the skill to do so, but you do not indent this thing to be known. By your argument, anything that is not hidden can be looked at by anyone ? If you have a letter, or some private packages that you loose by accident, are you ok with anyone looking at it because you did not encrypt it or protect it well enough ?

by cdavid 16y ago

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.
- AgentConundrum 16y ago
  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. I'm sorry, but that's blatantly incorrect. Using unencrypted wireless isn't a consequence of using the internet, considering you also have the options of either using a wired signal or setting up even basic encryption for wireless ones. The fact that you didn't intend to broadcast this information is irrelevant. Consider this contrived scenario: a pair of criminals are in a house with the windows open, and they're discussing the details of a recent crime. Unbeknownst to them, there are a pair of cops walking by who overhear all the details. By your logic, these cops couldn't arrest these criminals because the criminals "didn't intend" to give this information away. I definitely think that there need to be better defaults for people who don't know what they're getting into when they get a wireless router, or at least a warning on the box, but if they broadcast their data unencrypted, the fault is their own if someone intercepts it.
  - jpablo 16y ago
    IANAL, but as far as I know intend is relevant in law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_in_English_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_in_English_law
    - AgentConundrum 16y ago
      That's not applicable here. This definition of intent refers to the criminals intent, not the victims. I was talking about the data owners intent to broadcast, not Googles intent to collect.
  - cdavid 16y ago
    First, you don't always have the options of using a wired signal (think web access in a coffee shop). As for your example, it is indeed contrived: the criminals are doing something illegal at that moment, so most usual expectations as far as privacy goes become moot, especially w.r.t. law enforcement people. I don't see how that's relevant at all: the key points is that you are doing something that is legal, may be looked at by anyone who has the skill to do so, but you do not indent this thing to be known. By your argument, anything that is not hidden can be looked at by anyone ? If you have a letter, or some private packages that you loose by accident, are you ok with anyone looking at it because you did not encrypt it or protect it well enough ?