3 ms·

With radio transmitting, you are actually, purposely broadcasting information. With unencrypted WIFI, it is just a technical consequence of using internet, but

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 ?
- AgentConundrum 16y ago
  In a coffee shop, you still have the option of not using the connection at all if it is unencrypted, and your OS should notify you that its unsafe (I know WinXP does this, though I don't have much experience with linux or osx). So, while you don't have the option of using a wired signal, you're still not forced to use an insecure connection. As for the example, I think in the interest of making it more realistic, I lost a lot of the impact. Regardless, you sort of made my point for me. We're talking about the expectation of privacy, and the moment you start broadcasting your private information - whether shouting in public or sending out an unencrypted data signal - it can no longer be considered private. As for your example, it depends entirely on the letter/package. Opening someone elses mail is a felony/indictable offence, so there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. AFAIK, while connecting to someone elses private connection might be illegal (war driving, etc.), I don't think that's what Google was doing. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to be that Google was just sniffing data in the air rather than making an actual connection to the network. What Google seems to have done is more like reading a postcard. The data was clearly visible, you just needed to know how to read it. I don't think anyone could rationally say that postcards are a secure form of communication.
  - cdavid 16y ago
    How do you define actual connection to the network in case of WiFi ? Why connecting vs "sniffing" would make a difference as far as privacy goes ? I don't understand why you make a difference between opening a letter and sniffing wifi network communication on an "ethical" POV. I think it is reasonable to expect the same kind of privacy independently of the technical means for the communication channels between well intentioned people. Of course, you need encryption because people are not well intentioned, but not using it does not justify the wrong behavior.

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 ?

AgentConundrum 16y ago
In a coffee shop, you still have the option of not using the connection at all if it is unencrypted, and your OS should notify you that its unsafe (I know WinXP does this, though I don't have much experience with linux or osx). So, while you don't have the option of using a wired signal, you're still not forced to use an insecure connection. As for the example, I think in the interest of making it more realistic, I lost a lot of the impact. Regardless, you sort of made my point for me. We're talking about the expectation of privacy, and the moment you start broadcasting your private information - whether shouting in public or sending out an unencrypted data signal - it can no longer be considered private. As for your example, it depends entirely on the letter/package. Opening someone elses mail is a felony/indictable offence, so there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. AFAIK, while connecting to someone elses private connection might be illegal (war driving, etc.), I don't think that's what Google was doing. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to be that Google was just sniffing data in the air rather than making an actual connection to the network. What Google seems to have done is more like reading a postcard. The data was clearly visible, you just needed to know how to read it. I don't think anyone could rationally say that postcards are a secure form of communication.
- cdavid 16y ago
  How do you define actual connection to the network in case of WiFi ? Why connecting vs "sniffing" would make a difference as far as privacy goes ? I don't understand why you make a difference between opening a letter and sniffing wifi network communication on an "ethical" POV. I think it is reasonable to expect the same kind of privacy independently of the technical means for the communication channels between well intentioned people. Of course, you need encryption because people are not well intentioned, but not using it does not justify the wrong behavior.