4 ms·
Technical details of the Google Street View WiFi controversy [May 2010]
- chii 16y ago"If you don't encrypt your traffic, then by implication, you don't care if people eavesdrop on it."
- bobf 16y agoIsn't that like saying "if you don't lock your mailbox, then by implication you don't care if people read your mail"? Or, "if you don't lock your telephone junction box, then by implication you don't care if people tap your phone"? Although I don't agree with your quoted statement, I don't think Google's capturing of data should be considered criminal, either.
- 124816 16y agoMore like "If you shout loudly in your apartment, expect others to hear you."
- chowmeined 16y agoThe difference is wifi broadcasts that information.
- bobf 16y agoOf course. I agree that it shouldn't be illegal to access it; however, simply being trivially accessible doesn't necessarily mean people don't care.
- bobf 16y agoThere are several comments below the article which noted that Google had turned over data to external French auditors, who reported finding passwords, emails, and other sensitive information in the WiFi data captured by Google. Personally, I would be more worried by external auditors having access to the data than Google.
- loewenskind 16y agoGoogle having it is the same thing as external auditors having it. They've said as much on several occasions (e.g. "If you don't have anything to hide...").
- bobf 16y agoWrong. Google has a vested interest in protecting the information (whether or not they internally exploit it for contextual advertising is another issue). External auditors have more incentive to leak the information to increase public outrage at Google.
- loewenskind 16y agoGoogle's vested interests are irrelevant. The government can take any or all of their information any time they want to.
- extension 16y agoSurely Google knew they were saving the packet payloads, even if they didn't have any intended use for them. That is not the kind of detail a programmer can simply overlook. Calling it an "accident" is certainly disingenuous. The only accident was not realizing that people would care so much.
- DjDarkman 16y agoConsider it a favor from Google to point out how insecure wifis are if you don't use any encryption.
- loewenskind 16y agoConsider it a favor when criminals break into your improperly secured house and steal all your stuff.
- DjDarkman 16y agoExcept that Google did not steal, they only warned people and shown that it's possible.
- loewenskind 16y agoIf someone got a key logger and logged your bank account name and code would that be considered stealing or "warning you what's possible"?
- DjDarkman 16y agoIt depends on what he would use it for.
- Locke1689 16y agoInteresting. I agreed with you until I realized something -- wifi is essentially broadcast radio waves. Unless the information is encrypted, there is not only no intent to hide it, but it is being actively transferred at you. I think a better analogy for sniffing unencrypted wireless traffic may be your neighbor yelling all his personal information across the street to someone in plain view. How is that supposed to be a private conversation?
- DjDarkman 16y agoAn interesting thought: should we blame Google or should we blame the unencrypted wifi hot spots? The fact that it's so easy to sniff unencrypted wifis should be more worrying. I mean Google turned over the raw data, I may do the same and intentionally sniff even more data, steal everybody's password and not admit it. Like the author said, you can punish Google, but that won't make those hotspots more secure. And you never know when will a real evil guy come to the neighborhood.
- DjDarkman 16y agoLooks like some trolls decided to go on a downvote spree.