5 ms·

Ooh, massive privacy violation on one side, and on the other side Google is getting in trouble for grabbing data weev-style without having to hack into a networ

by mpyne 13y ago

Ooh, massive privacy violation on one side, and on the other side Google is getting in trouble for grabbing data weev-style without having to hack into a network. The discussion here should be fun one way or the other.

vezzy-fnord 13y ago
All the more interesting when you consider that Google's mass of data is an invaluable resource to the authorities.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Indeed, should be interesting how we decide to balance laws that have to essentially apply to both individuals and global megacorps. Certainly it would be weird if a computer activity that were legal if done by a person suddenly becomes illegal if done by a company that brings on one more new hire, make one more dollar of revenue, etc. But at the same time we do have those kind of different requirements elsewhere in law for "real life" things since the scale is way different, so it's not as if there would be no precedent.
- eli 13y ago
  I doubt a collection of incidental packets from random unsecured access points recorded years ago would be terribly useful to them. I personally don't think sniffing packets on an open WiFi network should necessarily break wiretapping laws. Or at least not the same laws. Bugging someone's phone just feels like a more serious crime to me than packet sniffing an unprotected network.
wil421 13y ago
More like a massive new interactive map with dot for my home router instead of a Waze comment for the NSA spooks to look at. I append _nomap to my SSID name in hopes that they wont collect the data they are scanning when they drive by. The word collect has different meanings these days so they may be storing the info but not look at it...
- cromwellian 13y ago
  If you are using WPA2, the only thing they're going to be collecting is a long/lat -> SSID map. This is very useful for assisting in geo-location, so I don't know why you'd want to turn it off. If you have SSID broadcasting enabled, it's public, and it helps other people detect your network, including those outside your home, easily. I don't see how knowing your SSID/location is any worse than geo-IP, either way, your location can be identified a good majority of the time. The real purpose of this system is to enable location API on the client without waiting for satellites. It's only going to get worse with BlueTooth LE beacons, which will soon be showing up everywhere and pinning your location down to the nearest meter indoors.
eli 13y ago
Notably, all indications are that Google collected the data (which, remember, was being broadcasted unencrypted into the air) by accident.
- gohrt 13y ago
  The court documents disagree with this assessment.
  - eli 13y ago
    Would you mind citing specifically where the court says the collection of data packets was intentional? I'd prefer not to read the whole document, and as a casual observer of the case that comes as a surprise. Why would Google intentionally save random stray packets of unencrypted wifi networks? What purpose would that serve?
    - chestnut-tree 13y ago
      Google didn't collect the data "by accident". A Google engineer wrote code to specifically capture wi-fi data. However, this was not sanctioned by higher management and Google argued that the engineer acted independently and that they had never intended to capture the wi-fi data. This BBC report has a good summary: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23002166 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23002166 To my mind, this whole episode suggests Google has a rather lax attitude to privacy despite their official statements.
      - eli 13y ago
        Fair enough, I probably used the wrong words there. My point was that it's not like Google had some project to build better advertising profiles of you by driving to your home and sniffing your traffic. Assuming they didn't actually do anything with the collected data and had no intentions to do anything with it, the fact that it was collected doesn't seem like that big a deal to me. I'm not sure it's fair to expect privacy for your unencrypted data that's being broadcast on any unencrypted network. To me, that feels like reading someone else's postcard. It's not a cool thing to do, but is it really like wiretapping? I agree that their response to this news does not inspire, but I wonder if that was an attempt to minimize what had the potential to be really bad PR.

by mpyne 13y ago

vezzy-fnord 13y ago

All the more interesting when you consider that Google's mass of data is an invaluable resource to the authorities.

mpyne 13y ago
Indeed, should be interesting how we decide to balance laws that have to essentially apply to both individuals and global megacorps. Certainly it would be weird if a computer activity that were legal if done by a person suddenly becomes illegal if done by a company that brings on one more new hire, make one more dollar of revenue, etc. But at the same time we do have those kind of different requirements elsewhere in law for "real life" things since the scale is way different, so it's not as if there would be no precedent.
eli 13y ago
I doubt a collection of incidental packets from random unsecured access points recorded years ago would be terribly useful to them. I personally don't think sniffing packets on an open WiFi network should necessarily break wiretapping laws. Or at least not the same laws. Bugging someone's phone just feels like a more serious crime to me than packet sniffing an unprotected network.

wil421 13y ago

More like a massive new interactive map with dot for my home router instead of a Waze comment for the NSA spooks to look at. I append _nomap to my SSID name in hopes that they wont collect the data they are scanning when they drive by. The word collect has different meanings these days so they may be storing the info but not look at it...

cromwellian 13y ago
If you are using WPA2, the only thing they're going to be collecting is a long/lat -> SSID map. This is very useful for assisting in geo-location, so I don't know why you'd want to turn it off. If you have SSID broadcasting enabled, it's public, and it helps other people detect your network, including those outside your home, easily. I don't see how knowing your SSID/location is any worse than geo-IP, either way, your location can be identified a good majority of the time. The real purpose of this system is to enable location API on the client without waiting for satellites. It's only going to get worse with BlueTooth LE beacons, which will soon be showing up everywhere and pinning your location down to the nearest meter indoors.

eli 13y ago

Notably, all indications are that Google collected the data (which, remember, was being broadcasted unencrypted into the air) by accident.

gohrt 13y ago
The court documents disagree with this assessment.
- eli 13y ago
  Would you mind citing specifically where the court says the collection of data packets was intentional? I'd prefer not to read the whole document, and as a casual observer of the case that comes as a surprise. Why would Google intentionally save random stray packets of unencrypted wifi networks? What purpose would that serve?
  - chestnut-tree 13y ago
    Google didn't collect the data "by accident". A Google engineer wrote code to specifically capture wi-fi data. However, this was not sanctioned by higher management and Google argued that the engineer acted independently and that they had never intended to capture the wi-fi data. This BBC report has a good summary: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23002166 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23002166 To my mind, this whole episode suggests Google has a rather lax attitude to privacy despite their official statements.
    - eli 13y ago
      Fair enough, I probably used the wrong words there. My point was that it's not like Google had some project to build better advertising profiles of you by driving to your home and sniffing your traffic. Assuming they didn't actually do anything with the collected data and had no intentions to do anything with it, the fact that it was collected doesn't seem like that big a deal to me. I'm not sure it's fair to expect privacy for your unencrypted data that's being broadcast on any unencrypted network. To me, that feels like reading someone else's postcard. It's not a cool thing to do, but is it really like wiretapping? I agree that their response to this news does not inspire, but I wonder if that was an attempt to minimize what had the potential to be really bad PR.