5 ms·

My reaction: meh. Any data you transmit over an unencrypted WiFi connection is available for anyone to gather so long as it's done passively. I can understand t

My reaction: meh. Any data you transmit over an unencrypted WiFi connection is available for anyone to gather so long as it's done passively. I can understand the concerns of a major data company like Google having access to this information but the solution is quite simple. Stop using unencrypted WiFi!

smokeyj 15y ago
I feel like this is a matter of trust and credibility more than anything.
chris_wot 15y ago
That's a bit like saying that because you forget to lock your front door anyone is allowed to walk into your house and read all your confidential documents.
- Klinky 15y ago
  It's more like yelling out your window "My house is unlocked, my house is unlocked" and getting upset that someone going down the street recorded you saying this.
  - DanBC 15y ago
    Possibly criminal offence in the UK. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4721723.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4721723.stm)
    - Klinky 15y ago
      I do believe that Google passively collected data, rather than actively hijacked wifi networks.
      - ktizo 15y ago
        I personally think that Google is aiming for non-geographical statelike entity status. And as such can self justify a hell of a lot to achieve this.
        Create 15y ago
        They tried to hide in CH, saying that the personal data they hold is of similar nature to banks'. They failed at their attempts, but there are a lot of "cloud" people still pushing at this angle, even as the UBS/CS events went the opposite direction.
- raldi 15y ago
  More like, you were reading your diary aloud with a megaphone, and then got upset because your neighbor overheard a bit.
  - chris_wot 15y ago
    Not really. More like you are writing your diary in your room and someone with binoculaurs hiding in the tree outside your window reads what you've written.
    - Locke1689 15y ago
      No it isn't. Your analogy implies targeting, but that's not at all what happens in this situation. Simply recording all data flowing through an area is like walking down a street with a tape recorder and recording someone yelling their password out of their window.
      - FuzzyDunlop 15y ago
        Your analogy implies the user being aware of what they're broadcasting (in the act of shouting).
        chris_wot 15y ago
        And hence, all analogies have limits :-)
        lurker14 15y ago
        Analogies to infinity don't.
        chris_wot 15y ago
        Nice math joke.
k-mcgrady 15y ago
This is not a shot at you but your comment sums up the 'privacy problem' in the tech industry right now. Normal users don't understand even basic things (like securing a wireless network, letting an app access their contacts etc.) and tech companies are taking advantage of it. Most normal users get people to set up their wireless networks. They really don't have a clue. Tech companies need to be aware of this when designing systems and drop the attitude that it's the users fault/they should know better.
- rickmb 15y ago
  This is not a shot at you but your comment sums up the 'privacy problem' in the tech industry right now. (Sorry, couldn't resist.) Whether or not normal users understand these things isn't relevant. The fact is that in countries with strong privacy protection (like most of Europe), collecting such data is illegal regardless. It's the act of collecting the data that is considered invasive. Compare this to the real world: we do a lot of things in public, but it would be really invasive if Google employees would start following us around, recording our public movements and conversations. We shouldn't have to live our lives in secret and "encrypt" everything we do in order to have some privacy. The bottom line: it's not the part of the tech industry that provides "insecure" services that is at fault, it's the part of the tech industry that feels it has the right to abuse the information "because it is there". We should stop accepting the widespread notion in the industry that crime is a valid business strategy until you get caught.
  - k-mcgrady 15y ago
    I agree with you completely (I don't think I made my point clearly). I don't think it would be fine to breach privacy if we educated users properly. What I was getting at is that many people in tech seem to think that is the problem. That people don't understand how their data is being used and what to do if they don't want to allow access to it, when the companies shouldn't be anywhere near the data in the first place. You sum it up well: >>"The bottom line: it's not the part of the tech industry that provides "insecure" services that is at fault, it's the part of the tech industry that feels it has the right to abuse the information "because it is there"."
loverobots 15y ago
Thief opens your door and my reaction will be: meh. Use better locks or at least lock it ;)
- RandallBrown 15y ago
  So you're saying it's legal that the thief stole stuff because their lock was insufficient? That makes ALL stealing legal...

smokeyj 15y ago

I feel like this is a matter of trust and credibility more than anything.

chris_wot 15y ago

That's a bit like saying that because you forget to lock your front door anyone is allowed to walk into your house and read all your confidential documents.

Klinky 15y ago
It's more like yelling out your window "My house is unlocked, my house is unlocked" and getting upset that someone going down the street recorded you saying this.
- DanBC 15y ago
  Possibly criminal offence in the UK. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4721723.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4721723.stm)
  - Klinky 15y ago
    I do believe that Google passively collected data, rather than actively hijacked wifi networks.
    - ktizo 15y ago
      I personally think that Google is aiming for non-geographical statelike entity status. And as such can self justify a hell of a lot to achieve this.
      - Create 15y ago
        They tried to hide in CH, saying that the personal data they hold is of similar nature to banks'. They failed at their attempts, but there are a lot of "cloud" people still pushing at this angle, even as the UBS/CS events went the opposite direction.
raldi 15y ago
More like, you were reading your diary aloud with a megaphone, and then got upset because your neighbor overheard a bit.
- chris_wot 15y ago
  Not really. More like you are writing your diary in your room and someone with binoculaurs hiding in the tree outside your window reads what you've written.
  - Locke1689 15y ago
    No it isn't. Your analogy implies targeting, but that's not at all what happens in this situation. Simply recording all data flowing through an area is like walking down a street with a tape recorder and recording someone yelling their password out of their window.
    - FuzzyDunlop 15y ago
      Your analogy implies the user being aware of what they're broadcasting (in the act of shouting).
      - chris_wot 15y ago
        And hence, all analogies have limits :-)
        lurker14 15y ago
        Analogies to infinity don't.
        chris_wot 15y ago
        Nice math joke.

k-mcgrady 15y ago

This is not a shot at you but your comment sums up the 'privacy problem' in the tech industry right now. Normal users don't understand even basic things (like securing a wireless network, letting an app access their contacts etc.) and tech companies are taking advantage of it. Most normal users get people to set up their wireless networks. They really don't have a clue. Tech companies need to be aware of this when designing systems and drop the attitude that it's the users fault/they should know better.

rickmb 15y ago
This is not a shot at you but your comment sums up the 'privacy problem' in the tech industry right now. (Sorry, couldn't resist.) Whether or not normal users understand these things isn't relevant. The fact is that in countries with strong privacy protection (like most of Europe), collecting such data is illegal regardless. It's the act of collecting the data that is considered invasive. Compare this to the real world: we do a lot of things in public, but it would be really invasive if Google employees would start following us around, recording our public movements and conversations. We shouldn't have to live our lives in secret and "encrypt" everything we do in order to have some privacy. The bottom line: it's not the part of the tech industry that provides "insecure" services that is at fault, it's the part of the tech industry that feels it has the right to abuse the information "because it is there". We should stop accepting the widespread notion in the industry that crime is a valid business strategy until you get caught.
- k-mcgrady 15y ago
  I agree with you completely (I don't think I made my point clearly). I don't think it would be fine to breach privacy if we educated users properly. What I was getting at is that many people in tech seem to think that is the problem. That people don't understand how their data is being used and what to do if they don't want to allow access to it, when the companies shouldn't be anywhere near the data in the first place. You sum it up well: >>"The bottom line: it's not the part of the tech industry that provides "insecure" services that is at fault, it's the part of the tech industry that feels it has the right to abuse the information "because it is there"."

loverobots 15y ago

Thief opens your door and my reaction will be: meh. Use better locks or at least lock it ;)

RandallBrown 15y ago
So you're saying it's legal that the thief stole stuff because their lock was insufficient? That makes ALL stealing legal...