Google Fined $189K For Street View Wi-Fi Data Collection

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Google was only fined $189,000 for unauthorized Wi-Fi data collection? What kind of fine is that? $189 million is petty cash for Google. Hell, I think Google made $189K in the time it took me to make this news post. :eek:

Google has long had its Street View cars collect mapping data by triangulating Wi-Fi hot spots. But the equipment was also capturing and storing real data: e-mails, passwords, and basically anything sent over an unsecured wireless access point.
Click to expand...
 
Patrick Pichette probably had that in change in the console of his car.
 
They were unsecured access points. Fining them anything is ridiculous. Like fining people for listening to police scanners, CB radios or air traffic controllers.

It's like fining someone for listening to people talking in a restaurant one table over. If you find out the guy is cheating on his wife and publish it in the newspaper, he's got no legitimate complaint because he told you. He told anyone who was listening.

Complaining that people don't expect it is like complaining about people with ears.

I also think people who complain about FLIR and T-Ray are idiots. Improve your wall construction. Don't expect technology to stand still so you can live like it was still the 20th century.
 
I hope you're kidding Zan. Just because someone's door is unlocked doesn't make it legal to enter their home. It's still trespassing. A wifi connection isn't broadcasting all of the information they collected, it requires the user to request it.
 
Zan Lynx said:
It's like fining someone for listening to people talking in a restaurant one table over. If you find out the guy is cheating on his wife and publish it in the newspaper, he's got no legitimate complaint because he told you. He told anyone who was listening.

Complaining that people don't expect it is like complaining about people with ears.
Click to expand...
Nonsense, this is not like hearing, which is an involuntary action. This "listening and recording" required action on their part, and is more akin to planting a bug in someone's house.

Just because my door isn't locked doesn't mean you can just waltz into my house without expecting a baseball bat to the side of your head as an intruder.

Google of all people should have known better than make a business decision like this, and a $189K fine is so rediculously small as to not be felt by Google and just sets the precedent that the greatest violator of privacy in our modern age, Google, has been informed that they can do whatever they want and can just correct anything that has enough of a public outcry with no more than a slap on the wrist.
 
Zan Lynx said:
It's like fining someone for listening to people talking in a restaurant one table over. If you find out the guy is cheating on his wife and publish it in the newspaper, he's got no legitimate complaint because he told you. He told anyone who was listening.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think this is a fair comparison. IMO, It's more like people snooping into the windows of your house at night, it takes some active process to get that information, it's not just spilling over into the public like sounds or smells.
 
Ducman69 said:
Nonsense, this is not like hearing, which is an involuntary action. This "listening and recording" required action on their part, and is more akin to planting a bug in someone's house.

Just because my door isn't locked doesn't mean you can just waltz into my house without expecting a baseball bat to the side of your head as an intruder.

Google of all people should have known better than make a business decision like this, and a $189K fine is so rediculously small as to not be felt by Google and just sets the precedent that the greatest violator of privacy in our modern age, Google, has been informed that they can do whatever they want and can just correct anything that has enough of a public outcry with no more than a slap on the wrist.
Click to expand...


No, this is the equivalent of someone walking by your house and overhearing someone inside the house yelling. You can't get a more direct comparison than that. All the google cars were doing is passively picking up wireless packets while driving by.

This bullshit about them stealing your email and passwords is just that, bullshit. Everything uses SSL, including email. If they were able to pick up and credentials, then the users should be complaining that the host is not authenticating correctly. No credentials should be passed without SSL anymore, period.

Also, if these idiots are using unsecured wifi, they deserve what they get, and google is the least of their worries. What do you think is going to happen when someone does some illegal shit parked outside their house with a laptop? So if their only issue is google passively picking up some of the packets, they should consider themselves lucky.
 
Biznatch said:
No, this is the equivalent of someone walking by your house and overhearing someone inside the house yelling. You can't get a more direct comparison than that. All the google cars were doing is passively picking up wireless packets while driving by.
Click to expand...
So they had absolutely no choice huh?

That is so weird, because somehow I drive by houses on a daily basis and don't connect to open WiFi access points that don't belong to me.

... magic....

Telling people with unsecured WiFi networks that they deserve to get invaded by a big corporation like google is like saying that anyone that doesn't lock their car door deserves to have their radio stolen.
 
Zan Lynx said:
They were unsecured access points. Fining them anything is ridiculous. Like fining people for listening to police scanners, CB radios or air traffic controllers.

It's like fining someone for listening to people talking in a restaurant one table over. If you find out the guy is cheating on his wife and publish it in the newspaper, he's got no legitimate complaint because he told you. He told anyone who was listening.

Complaining that people don't expect it is like complaining about people with ears.

I also think people who complain about FLIR and T-Ray are idiots. Improve your wall construction. Don't expect technology to stand still so you can live like it was still the 20th century.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I wouldn't say its akin to listening in to police scanners so much as recording and saving police scanners -- yet police scanners is generally considered public information. Radio stations/CB Radios are designed for communication with public. When using wi-fi, your intention is a site to site specific communication with the intention of no other people listening in even if its 'possible'.

Most cordless phones for example if you own the same-type of phone in the 90s, there would be like a 1 in 5 chance (if 5 channels on the early-early models that you could pick up the phone and get onto the same-channe and almost guaranteed if you picked up your cordless phone 25-times in a row). Listening in, while a huge invasion of privacy and incredibly creepy would not be so bad....as recording and keeping a record/recovering of every conversation made. Especially if someone where to be providing their personal and financial information say while ordering something over the phone like say for instances Pizza.

If a company did this and got fined, I wouldn't be surprised as a person recording another person's phone calls inc recording their personal and financial information seems like it almost 'should' be a crime though I don't know what you could possibly charge such a person for. It's not really theft in the traditional sense -- less you used those financial details to purchase goods fraudulently... It's not really. It's not covered under the same statue as opening another person's mail is illegal (though similar situation).
 
No worries, I'm sure ol' Larry and Sergey probably have this amount in their top dresser drawer toward the back, you know, fuck-off money for whatever.
 
Ducman69 said:
So they had absolutely no choice huh?

That is so weird, because somehow I drive by houses on a daily basis and don't connect to open WiFi access points that don't belong to me.

... magic....

Telling people with unsecured WiFi networks that they deserve to get invaded by a big corporation like google is like saying that anyone that doesn't lock their car door deserves to have their radio stolen.
Click to expand...



LOL invaded....

1- passive packet capture is not invading anything. With all of the information out now, only a complete idiot would have unsecured wifi. They are going to be in a world of hurt soon enough, and it won't be from a 'big corporation' passively sniffing SSIDs.

2- Who said anything about connecting to the APs? As far as I know, they were only capturing packets for to use SSIDS for geolocation. I have read nothing that says otherwise, except from ignorant people with no understanding of what actually can/did happen.

3- Realistically what data could they have stolen? Seriously use logic on this one. Even if they sat in front of the house sniffing packets for hours, they wouldn't get much more than browsing history. Funny, google has that already... There is pretty much no way they got passwords as everything is done over SSL now. If they did, the site the user is hitting has shit security. Same with emails. Most people are sending the email to the web server, which is done over SSL. The server then sends the cleartext email, but this is also encrypted over the 'wifi' portion. So again, tell me what data they could have stolen that everyone is so worried about?
 
Uncle Google loves to have your data and the price paid for delicious collection will be more than compensated for in sweet advertising profitsssssss. Fine on you crazy governments!
 
That was in the People's Republic of Congo, right? Google must really be worrying about the fines when it hits the EC "courts".
 
Wifi is public data if people don't want it public then don't broadcast it publicly. If people don't secure it, then it REALLY is public because they are welcoming people on their networks. It's not any different than the fact that they took a picture of your house.

I suppose it is kinda unethical that they are classifying all this just like the classify all of our online activity by using IP and cookie tracking but get away with it legally.

I don't see why they are being fined at all. Sadly if it was an individual it would probably be life in jail. Something about terrorism plotting or other BS charges they'd throw in for fun.
 
An excellent deal for Google...or any other company that wants to do it. You pay 189k for data that I am sure was worth WAYYYYY more than 189k in profit to you. Sounds like a sound trade. The only way to dissuade this kind of bullshit is to fine violators crushing amounts so that they are damn sure they don't do it again, be it on purpose or "accidentally."
 
It is absurd that Google is being fined for passively recording data that was broadcast.

The analogy I would use is recording video in a public place and capturing images and conversations of other people.

They didn't even use the data and volunteered the information that they had unintentionally recorded it.

They didn't try and break into any networks. They didn't disrupt any networks. They didn't gain unauthorized access to any networks. They passively recorded data that was broadcast.

If this was an individual who recorded such data, which I suspect a great many have, everyone would be claiming that the government has no right to go after those individuals. But since it's a big, evil corporation the government should fine them heavily for doing the exact same thing?

Laws need to be consistent and consistently enforced. This is an absolutely horrible precedent that we should be actively fighting against.
 
Red Squirrel said:
If people don't secure it, then it REALLY is public because they are welcoming people on their networks.
Click to expand...

I think in most cases people aren't welcoming it, they just don't realize what they are doing or don't care that much. Plus, if there are laws that say you can sue people who get on your unsecure network (ie "hacking") then maybe they do it on purpose, as bait.

Either way, many people need to get more educated on wifi setup/use and a law or two to protect the innocent should be put into place. In this case it doesn't look like any real harm was done so I'm just glad it got some attention. I somehow doubt any laws will be put into place until the politicians can figure a way to get rich from it.
 
flatrock said:
It is absurd that Google is being fined for passively recording data that was broadcast.

The analogy I would use is recording video in a public place and capturing images and conversations of other people.

They didn't even use the data and volunteered the information that they had unintentionally recorded it.

They didn't try and break into any networks. They didn't disrupt any networks. They didn't gain unauthorized access to any networks. They passively recorded data that was broadcast.

If this was an individual who recorded such data, which I suspect a great many have, everyone would be claiming that the government has no right to go after those individuals. But since it's a big, evil corporation the government should fine them heavily for doing the exact same thing?

Laws need to be consistent and consistently enforced. This is an absolutely horrible precedent that we should be actively fighting against.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much how I see it too, and I'm not really a big fan of Google, because of how they go overboard with the tracking and classifying of info, but something like this is 100% public information anyway.

An open wifi is equivalent to having your garage door wide open with a garage sale sign and everything is marked as free.
 
Red Squirrel said:
That's pretty much how I see it too, and I'm not really a big fan of Google, because of how they go overboard with the tracking and classifying of info, but something like this is 100% public information anyway.

An open wifi is equivalent to having your garage door wide open with a garage sale sign and everything is marked as free.
Click to expand...
The law says that it is not.

And no, open wifi is equivelent to not having a fence on your back lawn or not locking your front door. It is not an invitation nor legal to trespass without prior permission of the owner.

Decent people shouldn't have to be told this. This is the same bullshit excuse that hackers use to screw with businesses and websites. "Herp derp your security was crap and I told you it was crap and you didn't put a bigger deadbolt on the door so that means I'm allowed to spray paint your house and take pictures of you in the shower". :rolleyes:

Le' Douche.
 
flatrock said:
It is absurd that Google is being fined for passively recording data that was broadcast.

The analogy I would use is recording video in a public place and capturing images and conversations of other people.

They didn't even use the data and volunteered the information that they had unintentionally recorded it.

They didn't try and break into any networks. They didn't disrupt any networks. They didn't gain unauthorized access to any networks. They passively recorded data that was broadcast.

If this was an individual who recorded such data, which I suspect a great many have, everyone would be claiming that the government has no right to go after those individuals. But since it's a big, evil corporation the government should fine them heavily for doing the exact same thing?

Laws need to be consistent and consistently enforced. This is an absolutely horrible precedent that we should be actively fighting against.
Click to expand...

Agreed although in this case I think Google did deserve the fine they received for one reason: They didn't seem to check what they were recording before recording it.

From what I remember (been a while since I read about this) they were using an open source piece of software that ended up doing a bit more than they expected. If you download open source software wouldn't you thoroughly test it first and inspect all the data your getting to make sure it works correctly?

I firmly believe some Google engineer said, "oh I use this software all the time. It's great". So they used it without really looking hard at it and it ended up biting them. Kudos to Google for volunteering the fact they grab this data. Google honestly could said nothing and probably would never have been caught.
 
Ducman69 said:
The law says that it is not.

And no, open wifi is equivelent to not having a fence on your back lawn or not locking your front door. It is not an invitation nor legal to trespass without prior permission of the owner.

Decent people shouldn't have to be told this. This is the same bullshit excuse that hackers use to screw with businesses and websites. "Herp derp your security was crap and I told you it was crap and you didn't put a bigger deadbolt on the door so that means I'm allowed to spray paint your house and take pictures of you in the shower". :rolleyes:

Le' Douche.
Click to expand...

No, your analogy is completely wrong. Google did not connect to anything. If they did then yes, it would be similar to stepping in someones yard with no fence. But all they did was passively capture packets from the air, which also happened to be unencreypted (due to an id10t error). At least the packets between the client and the AP were unencrypted. That doesn't mean the data inside the packet was not encrypted between the client and the actual web service using SSL. So just because the AP doesn't have security, does not mean they were able to get emails/passwords.

So once again, the only example that is even close is overhearing someone talking out loud. There is nothing illegal about that, and this fine is coming from politicians who have absolutley no fucking clue about the internet or wifi protocols. The same lack of understanding appears to be spread accross some of the posters here as well...
 
Biznatch said:
But all they did was passively capture packets from the air, which also happened to be unencreypted (due to an id10t error).
Click to expand...
So it was so passive that it all happened by accident right? Weird how I never have such accidents. Do you?
 
Biznatch said:
No, your analogy is completely wrong. Google did not connect to anything. If they did then yes, it would be similar to stepping in someones yard with no fence.
Click to expand...

well..

According to Google, the data was unintendedly collected
Click to expand...

so maybe it's like they stumbled drunk into their lawn?
 
Ducman69 said:
The law says that it is not.

And no, open wifi is equivelent to not having a fence on your back lawn or not locking your front door. It is not an invitation nor legal to trespass without prior permission of the owner.

Decent people shouldn't have to be told this. This is the same bullshit excuse that hackers use to screw with businesses and websites. "Herp derp your security was crap and I told you it was crap and you didn't put a bigger deadbolt on the door so that means I'm allowed to spray paint your house and take pictures of you in the shower". :rolleyes:

Le' Douche.
Click to expand...

People and companies need to be held accountable for basic security, and not the people who accidentally stumble in. If you have a very large yard in a wooded area and have no fence or any markers indicating it's private property then if someone stumbled in, they arn't tresspassing, from a common sense point of view (don't really care what the law says, I'm going by common sense here). They don't even realize they're on private property. When I see open wifi I assume it's public access and it's either provided by a nearby business, ISP or individual who is inviting people to use it, because if they did not want anyone to connect, they would have secured it.
 
Ducman69 said:
So it was so passive that it all happened by accident right? Weird how I never have such accidents. Do you?
Click to expand...

Who said it was an accident? As far as I know, they were doing it for the purpose of gettings SSIDs for mapping.
 
Biznatch said:
Who said it was an accident? As far as I know, they were doing it for the purpose of gettings SSIDs for mapping.
Click to expand...
Of course it wasn't an accident. They didn't "inadvertently" hear a conversation, as one analogy said, they had to make a business decision to purposefully access and store information from people's private networks.

That was the point.
Biznatch said:
When I see open wifi I assume it's public access and it's either provided by a nearby business, ISP or individual who is inviting people to use it, because if they did not want anyone to connect, they would have secured it.
Click to expand...
This is an assinine attitude, and I hope laws are created that punish people like you who make an assumption that any door that doesn't have a lock on it is your hangout spot.

My grandma is 87 years old, and its a challenge enough for her to have gone to Best Buy to pick up and plugin a router. She shouldn't be expected to know how to properly secure her wireless, and while it IS her responsibility, that doesn't excuse a major corporation or even just random jerks taking advantage of her.

If a business wants you to use their wifi, they will have signs up. If no one EXPRESSELY gives you permission to use something, DON'T. Its that simple. If you see a bicycle propped on the side of the building, do you just assume its provided by some business somewhere for your use and ride off with it? Please....
 
in other news, google just made 200k serving up ads to people googling "google fined"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top