Google Rebuffed By U.S. High Court On Privacy Lawsuit

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Let the flood of lawsuits begin.

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal by Google Inc., leaving the company to face lawsuits accusing it of violating a federal wiretapping law by secretly collecting personal data while developing its Street View maps. The justices today left intact a federal appeals court ruling that the U.S. Wiretap Act protects the privacy of information on unencrypted in-home Wi-Fi networks.
Click to expand...
 
This needed to happen. There absolutely has to be some limit as far as what these companies can do with personal information. Its disgusting the type of data mining that google is not only capable of, but they execute.
 
I actually disagree with this decision ... if it had applied to encrypted data I would agree ... I view using an unencrypted WiFi signal as the equivalent of standing on a street corner yelling stuff out for others to hear ... if you truly have an expectation of privacy then you should encrypt ... that ruling would also have forced people to stop blaming others for the problems caused by their unencrypted signals ;)
 
kbrickley said:
I actually disagree with this decision ... if it had applied to encrypted data I would agree ... I view using an unencrypted WiFi signal as the equivalent of standing on a street corner yelling stuff out for others to hear ... if you truly have an expectation of privacy then you should encrypt ... that ruling would also have forced people to stop blaming others for the problems caused by their unencrypted signals ;)
Click to expand...

A better regulation would be simply to not sell unencrypted wireless devices period.
 
Romale23 said:
A better regulation would be simply to not sell unencrypted wireless devices period.
Click to expand...

Agree ... all signals should default to encrypted and the selection of an unencrypted signal should provide a warning
 
kbrickley said:
I actually disagree with this decision ... if it had applied to encrypted data I would agree ... I view using an unencrypted WiFi signal as the equivalent of standing on a street corner yelling stuff out for others to hear ... if you truly have an expectation of privacy then you should encrypt ... that ruling would also have forced people to stop blaming others for the problems caused by their unencrypted signals ;)
Click to expand...

"Experts in the United States believe that sometimes, such use of an unsecured wireless network may be considered an "unauthorized access of a computer" which is prohibited under Federal law and even theft of communications. Legal causes of action which were cited include defrauding the Internet service provider and a breach of the Internet service agreement. "

Just because it is unencrypted does not legally authorize collecting data
 
VladDracule said:
"Experts in the United States believe that sometimes, such use of an unsecured wireless network may be considered an "unauthorized access of a computer" which is prohibited under Federal law and even theft of communications. Legal causes of action which were cited include defrauding the Internet service provider and a breach of the Internet service agreement. "

Just because it is unencrypted does not legally authorize collecting data
Click to expand...

As I said, I disagree ... If I come into your house and steal your signal (encrypted or otherwise) then shame on me ... if you broadcast your unencrypted signal to outside the boundary of your property where I can intercept it on my own then it should be shame on you ... I know the law disagrees but the law doesn't always make the best decisions ;)
 
kbrickley said:
As I said, I disagree ... If I come into your house and steal your signal (encrypted or otherwise) then shame on me ... if you broadcast your unencrypted signal to outside the boundary of your property where I can intercept it on my own then it should be shame on you ... I know the law disagrees but the law doesn't always make the best decisions ;)
Click to expand...

The law does make the best decision. Just because something is not encrypted does not mean you have a right to that information, legally or otherwise.
 
kbrickley said:
As I said, I disagree ... If I come into your house and steal your signal (encrypted or otherwise) then shame on me ... if you broadcast your unencrypted signal to outside the boundary of your property where I can intercept it on my own then it should be shame on you ... I know the law disagrees but the law doesn't always make the best decisions ;)
Click to expand...

well by that standard if your text message happens to cross over federal property they should be able to read it shame on you
 
Good, I like that boundaries to protect individuals are being set-up. I not a Google hater or anything, but they had to know they were crossing a line doing this collection.

And I also agree with Romale23, I think most people (this forum excepted) simply don't know how to secure their network or even that they have to. Default should be encrypted
 
I agree with this. If Google street view included all visual data from peering into your windows from the sidewalk, same thing. An unlocked door or gate does not give someone the right to access your property, either.
 
I also think there should be a differentiation between good practice and who is liable. Good practice is to encrypt your wifi. Legally, it doesn't matter as it is not your wifi. Same thing; locking your door is good practice. Legally, I can't walk in your house.
 
kbrickley said:
Agree ... all signals should default to encrypted and the selection of an unencrypted signal should provide a warning
Click to expand...

Anytime in the last.. ohh.. 5-8 years at least that I have connected to an unsecured Wifi , it has given me a warning.
 
TwistedAegis said:
I also think there should be a differentiation between good practice and who is liable. Good practice is to encrypt your wifi. Legally, it doesn't matter as it is not your wifi. Same thing; locking your door is good practice. Legally, I can't walk in your house.
Click to expand...

Sure, but Google didn't walk into anyone's house. The wifi signals are broadcasted. If anything the analogy here is people were walking up to Google's car and throwing personal information in through the window and then sued Google for it.

What Google did was entirely passive, they never crossed onto any private property, they only observed the state of the airspace over public roads.

I disagree with this ruling only because it's *INSANELY* fuzzy as to what it actually means. My apartment is constantly flooded with my neighbor's personal information, am I now open to a lawsuit? I'm being *forced* to receive these signals, I have no choice in the matter. I can only choose whether or not to record them, not whether or not I receive them.
 
kllrnohj said:
...snip

I disagree with this ruling only because it's *INSANELY* fuzzy as to what it actually means. My apartment is constantly flooded with my neighbor's personal information, am I now open to a lawsuit? I'm being *forced* to receive these signals, I have no choice in the matter. I can only choose whether or not to record them, not whether or not I receive them.
Click to expand...

That exactly is what this ruling is about. It's not that Google connected into open networks. It's about Google pro-actively collecting information such as email addresses, usernames, passwords, etc within those open networks.

What Google did is basically like passing by a unfenced front yard and picking up the garden gnome within reach. Yes it wasn't walled in and was within easy reach, but it still isn't yours to take.
 
Teenk9 said:
That exactly is what this ruling is about. It's not that Google connected into open networks. It's about Google pro-actively collecting information such as email addresses, usernames, passwords, etc within those open networks.
Click to expand...

Nope. Google didn't *proactively* do a damn thing. They *passively* listened to what people shouted at them.

What Google did is basically like passing by a unfenced front yard and picking up the garden gnome within reach. Yes it wasn't walled in and was within easy reach, but it still isn't yours to take.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Google just kept the garden gnomes people chucked into the car. They never reached out for anything.
 
I have my kids names up on a picture on the fridge, which is visible from a window on the sidewalk. Can that information be recorded, via picture and/or stored in a database? That isn't "shouting" it. I'm sure people would love to restrict the wifi to within their walls, but it isn't technically feasible.
 
Teenk9 said:
That exactly is what this ruling is about. It's not that Google connected into open networks. It's about Google pro-actively collecting information such as email addresses, usernames, passwords, etc within those open networks.

What Google did is basically like passing by a unfenced front yard and picking up the garden gnome within reach. Yes it wasn't walled in and was within easy reach, but it still isn't yours to take.
Click to expand...
Not really the best analogy, since the info was being broadcast in the clear into the public area. Which brings up a good question about wiretapping laws and how the info was obtained. I say, anything you broadcast essentially in the clear that can be picked up isn't really wire-tapping. It's like overhearing when the people are talking loudly and in public, or on their phones. Can you be held accountable for overhearing what other people talk about? Being electronic, I don't see the fundamental difference.
 
Sadly, lawsuits won't hurt them much. Google really needs to be broken up into smaller businesses that are legally forbidden to inter-communicate. That way AdSense can't share data with e-mail and can't share collected data with Android phones or their Trojan horse web browser. It's not like the company has done anything besides steal ideas from Apple and poorly mimic Microsoft. It grew out of misguided underdog love into the horrible monster it is today and it needs to go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top