3 ms·

The collection of data was a result of Google storing the whole packet which was broadcast unencrypted for anyone to see. To me this is similar to not installi

by lotu 15y ago

The collection of data was a result of Google storing the whole packet which was broadcast unencrypted for anyone to see. To me this is similar to not installing curtains in your house and then getting upset about people taking naked pictures of you. If privacy is important to then you have to take the first steps to protect it. It is unreasonable to put the burden of protecting your privacy entirely on everyone but you. If you don't bother to do something simple like encrypt your wifi I have to assume that means you don't care if it public. (I personally leave my wifi unencrypted for this exact reason.) As for cost and required knowledge installing curtains is probably trickier and more expensive then having the Geek Squad setup encrypted wifi.

DanBC 15y ago
People are stupid, but exploiting that stupidity is still evil. (I'm lousy at analogy, but here's an attempt: People dis-enrobing with no curtains are stupid, but it's the pervs who post pictures to the Internet; polite people glance and walk on.) Even Google disagrees with you. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/may/15/google-admits-storing-private-data http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/may/15/google-admi...) > "As soon as we became aware of this problem, we grounded our Street View cars and segregated the data on our network, which we then disconnected to make it inaccessible. We want to delete this data as soon as possible, and are currently reaching out to regulators in the relevant countries about how to quickly dispose of it." Accessing a person's unencrypted wifi without their permission is, in England, a criminal offence and that's been tested by the courts. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4721723.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4721723.stm) Having said all that, this German case says that people shouldn't be stupid and they are responsible for the security of their networks: (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10116606 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10116606)

by lotu 15y ago

DanBC 15y ago

People are stupid, but exploiting that stupidity is still evil. (I'm lousy at analogy, but here's an attempt: People dis-enrobing with no curtains are stupid, but it's the pervs who post pictures to the Internet; polite people glance and walk on.) Even Google disagrees with you. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/may/15/google-admits-storing-private-data http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/may/15/google-admi...) > "As soon as we became aware of this problem, we grounded our Street View cars and segregated the data on our network, which we then disconnected to make it inaccessible. We want to delete this data as soon as possible, and are currently reaching out to regulators in the relevant countries about how to quickly dispose of it." Accessing a person's unencrypted wifi without their permission is, in England, a criminal offence and that's been tested by the courts. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4721723.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4721723.stm) Having said all that, this German case says that people shouldn't be stupid and they are responsible for the security of their networks: (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10116606 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10116606)