5 ms·

Court Says Privacy Case Can Proceed vs. Google

33 points by 001sky 13y ago

001sky 13y ago
The court made clear that federal privacy law applies to residential Wi-Fi networks,” he said. “Users should be protected when a company tries to capture private data that travels between their laptops and their printer in their home.” The ruling, written by Judge Jay Bybee, took sharp issue with Google’s contention that data transmitted over a Wi-Fi network was not protected by federal wiretapping laws because it was an electronic “radio communication.” “In common parlance, watching a television show does not entail ‘radio communication,’ ” Judge Bybee wrote. “Nor does sending an e-mail or viewing a bank statement while connected to a Wi-Fi network.”
- kdragon 13y ago
  But.. but.. it is radio communication! Using radio waves! If scientific facts not define what is legally considered 'radio communication', by what arbitrary rules is this defined? So when a google engineering team stores unwanted, unencrypted radio communication by accident (and is entirely open about it) the courts seem so eager to throw the book? But when the U.S Government coerces telecom companies to aid in massive unconstitutional wiretapping on a global scale, congress is willing to step in and grant retroactive legal immunity to all parties? Am I taking crazy pills??
  - 001sky 13y ago
    If scientific facts not define what is legally considered 'radio communication', by what arbitrary rules is this defined? Not to point out the obvious, but laws are written using legal definintions. And those are made by the legislature and the Judiciary. The NSA (and I'm not here to defend them) at least has a prima-facie need to see certain types of protected speech under limited (court ordered, direct national threat) circumstances. Google is a merely a business, with no public policy need to creep around the neighborhood. That being said, this decisino is merely putting the issue to a trial/jury. Nobody has said google is guilty. But they are not so innocent, or so in the right, with repsect to how the law is apparently written/interpreted, than they can dismiss the claims of impropriety as "baseless, without merit" &tc. ...The unanimous, 35-page decision by a three-judge panel found little merit in Google’s legal maneuverings, stating at one critical point that the company was basically inventing meanings in an effort to declare its actions legal
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    Not that I'm fond of the decision at issue, but statutory construction is not and has never been dictated by "scientific facts", and you don't want it to be. Scientific understanding is ever in motion, and never entirely matches the common understanding of How Things Work. Your head may explode, by the way, when you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nix_v._Hedden http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nix_v._Hedden
o0-0o 13y ago
Good. They need to be stopped dead in their tracks.
- hahainternet 13y ago
  They were, 3 years ago, when they outed this issue themselves and submitted their code to a third party for review.
magicalist 13y ago
discussed earlier today as well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6362221 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6362221 As I said there, what's worrying here is that the decision hinges on "readily accessible to the general public". While this was just a refusal to dismiss and there may be more to come, the problem is that this is just a small step away from being able to criminalize any access of an open wifi hotspot. No slope required, slippery or otherwise. All you need is a DA that feels justified in prosecuting someone but without an obvious tool to do so, and here one is. Better to criminalize what you do with that access, but that wouldn't fall under the Wiretap Act as written, so wouldn't come up from this motion to dismiss.
- 001sky 13y ago
  what's worrying here is that the decision hinges on "readily accessible to the general public" This is a bizzare comment. The reporting here articulates the court's thinking in slightly more detail than the earlier piece: the court didn't think much of Google’s argument that unencrypted data sent over a Wi-Fi network is “readily accessible to the general public” because both the hardware and software needed to intercept and decode the data are widely available. People can easily buy technology to log every keystroke on someone’s computer, the court noted, but that did not make those keystrokes “readily accessible to the general public.” Using technology to snoop on people behind closed doors in their own homes, is using technology to pierce the veil of "what is readily available to the general public". Basically, if you have to use a fancy gizmo to make it accessible, even if the gizmo is available to the public, it does not make all information retreivable with that gizmo public by default. Which seems like fairly common sense. [NB: That doesn't make google guilty of anything. It just means that their arguments to date have missed the mark in getting the suit thrown out without further hearing]
  - magicalist 13y ago
    > This is a bizzare comment. The reporting here articulates the court's thinking in slightly more detail than the earlier piece I was not basing my statements on the nytimes piece, I was basing them on the opinion itself, which is embedded in the wired story: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/09/10/11-17483.pdf http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/09/10/11... Much of the opinion does focus on if wifi should be considered "radio communication" The problem is that in accessing any open wireless access point you are "piercing the veil" whether you intend to or not. That's how IEEE 802 networks work: you get all the packets, you just drop the ones not meant for you. I would argue that switching the hardware you're already using in every computer that talks to a LAN or WLAN to promiscuous mode is not at all analogous to installing a keylogger. But even if you don't switch modes, it still will only take an ambitious DA to argue that whether you intended to or not, you were capturing all packets when you connected to that business's wifi hotspot, which is another broken law to add to your list of charges.
Mindless2112 13y ago
You know, of all the things to be worried about regarding Google and privacy, capturing publicly-broadcast wireless-network packets is not really high on my list.
javajosh 13y ago
The real story: There's a chance that each and every one of us might get $10k from Google! Don't bury the lead.
- jrockway 13y ago
  I believe that it's the lawyers that get $10k, and we get a gift certificate for a free ice cream cone. At least that's how every other class action lawsuit I've seen has gone.
  - x0x0 13y ago
    nonono the lawyers get $10k for each of us we get an expiring in one year coupon for a free ice cream cone with purchase of $20
    - jrockway 13y ago
      Yes. That's why they automatically put you in the class if you don't reply to that postcard they sent to your address three moves ago.

33 points by 001sky 13y ago

The court made clear that federal privacy law applies to residential Wi-Fi networks,” he said. “Users should be protected when a company tries to capture private data that travels between their laptops and their printer in their home.” The ruling, written by Judge Jay Bybee, took sharp issue with Google’s contention that data transmitted over a Wi-Fi network was not protected by federal wiretapping laws because it was an electronic “radio communication.” “In common parlance, watching a television show does not entail ‘radio communication,’ ” Judge Bybee wrote. “Nor does sending an e-mail or viewing a bank statement while connected to a Wi-Fi network.”

kdragon 13y ago
But.. but.. it is radio communication! Using radio waves! If scientific facts not define what is legally considered 'radio communication', by what arbitrary rules is this defined? So when a google engineering team stores unwanted, unencrypted radio communication by accident (and is entirely open about it) the courts seem so eager to throw the book? But when the U.S Government coerces telecom companies to aid in massive unconstitutional wiretapping on a global scale, congress is willing to step in and grant retroactive legal immunity to all parties? Am I taking crazy pills??
- 001sky 13y ago
  If scientific facts not define what is legally considered 'radio communication', by what arbitrary rules is this defined? Not to point out the obvious, but laws are written using legal definintions. And those are made by the legislature and the Judiciary. The NSA (and I'm not here to defend them) at least has a prima-facie need to see certain types of protected speech under limited (court ordered, direct national threat) circumstances. Google is a merely a business, with no public policy need to creep around the neighborhood. That being said, this decisino is merely putting the issue to a trial/jury. Nobody has said google is guilty. But they are not so innocent, or so in the right, with repsect to how the law is apparently written/interpreted, than they can dismiss the claims of impropriety as "baseless, without merit" &tc. ...The unanimous, 35-page decision by a three-judge panel found little merit in Google’s legal maneuverings, stating at one critical point that the company was basically inventing meanings in an effort to declare its actions legal
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- nknighthb 13y ago
  Not that I'm fond of the decision at issue, but statutory construction is not and has never been dictated by "scientific facts", and you don't want it to be. Scientific understanding is ever in motion, and never entirely matches the common understanding of How Things Work. Your head may explode, by the way, when you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nix_v._Hedden http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nix_v._Hedden

o0-0o 13y ago

Good. They need to be stopped dead in their tracks.

hahainternet 13y ago
They were, 3 years ago, when they outed this issue themselves and submitted their code to a third party for review.

magicalist 13y ago

discussed earlier today as well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6362221 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6362221 As I said there, what's worrying here is that the decision hinges on "readily accessible to the general public". While this was just a refusal to dismiss and there may be more to come, the problem is that this is just a small step away from being able to criminalize any access of an open wifi hotspot. No slope required, slippery or otherwise. All you need is a DA that feels justified in prosecuting someone but without an obvious tool to do so, and here one is. Better to criminalize what you do with that access, but that wouldn't fall under the Wiretap Act as written, so wouldn't come up from this motion to dismiss.

001sky 13y ago
what's worrying here is that the decision hinges on "readily accessible to the general public" This is a bizzare comment. The reporting here articulates the court's thinking in slightly more detail than the earlier piece: the court didn't think much of Google’s argument that unencrypted data sent over a Wi-Fi network is “readily accessible to the general public” because both the hardware and software needed to intercept and decode the data are widely available. People can easily buy technology to log every keystroke on someone’s computer, the court noted, but that did not make those keystrokes “readily accessible to the general public.” Using technology to snoop on people behind closed doors in their own homes, is using technology to pierce the veil of "what is readily available to the general public". Basically, if you have to use a fancy gizmo to make it accessible, even if the gizmo is available to the public, it does not make all information retreivable with that gizmo public by default. Which seems like fairly common sense. [NB: That doesn't make google guilty of anything. It just means that their arguments to date have missed the mark in getting the suit thrown out without further hearing]
- magicalist 13y ago
  > This is a bizzare comment. The reporting here articulates the court's thinking in slightly more detail than the earlier piece I was not basing my statements on the nytimes piece, I was basing them on the opinion itself, which is embedded in the wired story: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/09/10/11-17483.pdf http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/09/10/11... Much of the opinion does focus on if wifi should be considered "radio communication" The problem is that in accessing any open wireless access point you are "piercing the veil" whether you intend to or not. That's how IEEE 802 networks work: you get all the packets, you just drop the ones not meant for you. I would argue that switching the hardware you're already using in every computer that talks to a LAN or WLAN to promiscuous mode is not at all analogous to installing a keylogger. But even if you don't switch modes, it still will only take an ambitious DA to argue that whether you intended to or not, you were capturing all packets when you connected to that business's wifi hotspot, which is another broken law to add to your list of charges.

Mindless2112 13y ago

You know, of all the things to be worried about regarding Google and privacy, capturing publicly-broadcast wireless-network packets is not really high on my list.

javajosh 13y ago

The real story: There's a chance that each and every one of us might get $10k from Google! Don't bury the lead.

jrockway 13y ago
I believe that it's the lawyers that get $10k, and we get a gift certificate for a free ice cream cone. At least that's how every other class action lawsuit I've seen has gone.
- x0x0 13y ago
  nonono the lawyers get $10k for each of us we get an expiring in one year coupon for a free ice cream cone with purchase of $20
  - jrockway 13y ago
    Yes. That's why they automatically put you in the class if you don't reply to that postcard they sent to your address three moves ago.