4 ms·

Thanks for the tip. I have update the post to include this info.

sorenjan 6y ago
You could also add this video showing the optimization of a GPS track if you want some visualization. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z00ORu4bU-A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z00ORu4bU-A
ethanbond 6y ago
I think "accidentally" is potentially giving Google too much credit/benefit of the doubt as far as capture of packets. They hired a famous wardriver, Marius Milner, onto Street View (then later Niantic, maker of the privacy-intrusive Pokemon Go).
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  That's not particularly suspicious. They've used the SSID data as part of the ground-truth map to improve positional accuracy of geolocation in Maps; "Can SSID + signal strength be used reliably for triangulation of position" is exactly the kind of wonky doman-specific knowledge you might find in the wardriving community and not many others.
  - ethanbond 6y ago
    I would readily buy that if they didn't also, you know, sniff network contents and then attempt to obscure that fact. > The unredacted FCC report refers to a Google "design document" written by an engineer who crafted the Street View software to collect so-called payload data, which includes telephone numbers, URLs, passwords, e-mail, text messages, medical records, video and audio files sent over open Wi-Fi networks. https://www.wired.com/2012/05/google-wifi-fcc-investigation/ https://www.wired.com/2012/05/google-wifi-fcc-investigation/
    - shadowgovt 6y ago
      Reading the linked Wired article leaves me wanting to read the design doc for myself; I don't agree with (Wired's synopsis of) the FCC regulator's interpretation of the document they read. From the quoted bit of the FCC doc: """ In a discussion of 'Privacy Considerations,' the design document states, 'A typical concern might be that we are logging user traffic along with sufficient data to precisely triangulate their position at a given time, along with information about what they were doing.' That statement plainly refers to the collection of payload data because MAC addresses, SSIDs, signal-strength measurements. and other information used to map the location of wireless access points would reveal nothing about what end users 'were doing.'" """ I disagree with that assessment. If you're a Google engineer writing the privacy section of the design doc, you're encouraged to blue sky possible abuse scenarios, even unlikely ones. That quote, to me, reads not as admission that packet capture was part of the design, but that SSID, MAC address, and signal strength measurement alone could be enough to make ballpark guesses on what a user was doing (MAC addresses, for example, are issued to specific device vendors, so knowing my MAC address is chatting to my wifi, and no other information, could be used to make an educated guess as to whether I'm watching TV if you see heavy traffic between my wifi and a device advertising a MAC address that tends to show up in a Samsung smart TV product line). I think the FCC investigator lacked imagination here. ;) You'll note what the quote omits, which is any section of the design document that says something like "Full data packets will be captured and stored for future analysis." That's a glaring omission if full-packet data capture were part of the actual design, and the quote appears to be an FCC investigator attempting to read between the lines.
      - ethanbond 6y ago
        We would have a lot more clarity here if the following hadn't occurred: 1. Google sniffed the packets 2. Google stonewalled the investigation (receiving a $25k fine for doing so) 3. Google ignored the recommendation to have counsel review the design But those things did occur, so I believe it is a leap of faith to simply accept their word that 2 years of wardriving people's wifi traffic was "an accident."
        6y ago

You could also add this video showing the optimization of a GPS track if you want some visualization. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z00ORu4bU-A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z00ORu4bU-A

ethanbond 6y ago

I think "accidentally" is potentially giving Google too much credit/benefit of the doubt as far as capture of packets. They hired a famous wardriver, Marius Milner, onto Street View (then later Niantic, maker of the privacy-intrusive Pokemon Go).

shadowgovt 6y ago
That's not particularly suspicious. They've used the SSID data as part of the ground-truth map to improve positional accuracy of geolocation in Maps; "Can SSID + signal strength be used reliably for triangulation of position" is exactly the kind of wonky doman-specific knowledge you might find in the wardriving community and not many others.
- ethanbond 6y ago
  I would readily buy that if they didn't also, you know, sniff network contents and then attempt to obscure that fact. > The unredacted FCC report refers to a Google "design document" written by an engineer who crafted the Street View software to collect so-called payload data, which includes telephone numbers, URLs, passwords, e-mail, text messages, medical records, video and audio files sent over open Wi-Fi networks. https://www.wired.com/2012/05/google-wifi-fcc-investigation/ https://www.wired.com/2012/05/google-wifi-fcc-investigation/
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    Reading the linked Wired article leaves me wanting to read the design doc for myself; I don't agree with (Wired's synopsis of) the FCC regulator's interpretation of the document they read. From the quoted bit of the FCC doc: """ In a discussion of 'Privacy Considerations,' the design document states, 'A typical concern might be that we are logging user traffic along with sufficient data to precisely triangulate their position at a given time, along with information about what they were doing.' That statement plainly refers to the collection of payload data because MAC addresses, SSIDs, signal-strength measurements. and other information used to map the location of wireless access points would reveal nothing about what end users 'were doing.'" """ I disagree with that assessment. If you're a Google engineer writing the privacy section of the design doc, you're encouraged to blue sky possible abuse scenarios, even unlikely ones. That quote, to me, reads not as admission that packet capture was part of the design, but that SSID, MAC address, and signal strength measurement alone could be enough to make ballpark guesses on what a user was doing (MAC addresses, for example, are issued to specific device vendors, so knowing my MAC address is chatting to my wifi, and no other information, could be used to make an educated guess as to whether I'm watching TV if you see heavy traffic between my wifi and a device advertising a MAC address that tends to show up in a Samsung smart TV product line). I think the FCC investigator lacked imagination here. ;) You'll note what the quote omits, which is any section of the design document that says something like "Full data packets will be captured and stored for future analysis." That's a glaring omission if full-packet data capture were part of the actual design, and the quote appears to be an FCC investigator attempting to read between the lines.
    - ethanbond 6y ago
      We would have a lot more clarity here if the following hadn't occurred: 1. Google sniffed the packets 2. Google stonewalled the investigation (receiving a $25k fine for doing so) 3. Google ignored the recommendation to have counsel review the design But those things did occur, so I believe it is a leap of faith to simply accept their word that 2 years of wardriving people's wifi traffic was "an accident."
      - 6y ago