Google Loses Appeal In Street View Snooping Case

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Google says it is "considering its next step" after losing an appeal in the Street View snooping lawsuit. I have an idea, how about making the next step apologizing (again) and moving on?

Attorneys suing Google for enabling its camera-carrying vehicles to collect emails and Internet passwords while photographing neighborhoods for the search giant's popular "Street View" maps look forward to resuming their case now that a federal appeals court has ruled in their favor.
Click to expand...
 
So our government can snoop, but Google can't?

What happened to equal rights?
 
Good.
They need teaching a strong lesson but it wont be given to them.
Different rules for those with leverage.
 
Fershlugg said:
What happened to 'do no evil'?
Click to expand...

Eric Schmidt coined that term and in a recent interview he said that it was "impossible" to do no evil as a corporate and that it was really dumb of him to even mention such a phrase.

I would have to agree with him. I have yet to encounter a corporation that could become profitable without doing some evil.
 
Godmachine said:
I would have to agree with him. I have yet to encounter a corporation that could become profitable without doing some evil.
Click to expand...

That imo is complete bull... Honest people and companies can make money by not being evil... well I suppose it depends on your definition of what "doing evil is".

I would not consider the act of accidentally collecting the data as "evil" (if it was that), the act of trying everything you can to not correct that mistake is what I would consider "evil" though. Especially given in other courts where google has been ordered but time after time failed to remove said data.
 
krogen said:
So our government can snoop, but Google can't?

What happened to equal rights?
Click to expand...

Well played.

Google should have equal access rights to screw people over, just like the government.

;)
 
"Even if it is commonplace for members of the general public to connect to a neighbor's unencrypted Wi-Fi network, members of the general public do not typically mistakenly intercept, store, and decode data transmitted by other devices on the network," they said.
Click to expand...

Is that really the right standard to use to determine if the data is public? And while Google did store the data I was under the impression that they didn't "decode" and look at it.

As for intercept and storing wireless data, a heck of a lot of people researching wireless security have captured wireless data using Wireshark. Companies that are providing geolocation references based on what wireless networks are in the area are intercepting, storing, and decoding some of the same data, they are perhaps (and perhaps not) being more selective in what they store.

Google voluntarily admitted that they were unintentionally capturing and storing this data at least to the extent that the person who wrote the software that collected it wasn't directed to collect that data.

I like the idea that the government is trying to protect our privacy, but I think this is likely to have too many unintended consequences and I think that people do need to accept some responsibility for keeping data private that they want to keep private.

I think this ruling is going to end up being a bad thing in the long run.
 
A corporate entity has a responsibility to look after the interests of it's shareholders, and there will always be someone complaining that any effort to make a profit or not bend over backwards to make every last person happy even when that is contradictory is evil.

I think the operational definition of evil is quickly becoming anyone else looking after their self interests.
 
Fershlugg said:
What happened to 'do no evil'?
Click to expand...

That was never something Google said. It's "don't be evil", which is crucially far less absolute than "do no evil"

And what happened to it is that the word "evil" basically lost all meaning. Now "evil" includes "anything I moderately don't like"
 
maboblivion said:
What if, the nsa asked google to collect wifi data. *puts on tin foiled hat*
Click to expand...

Is it so odd a notion? Listen to random noise and give all that noise specific locations.

I don't see how any how anyone can justify that snooping in an "unsecured" network is the operators fault and not the trespasser. Postal mailboxes don't have any form of locks on them, I encourage you to go mailbox to mailbox and read the mail that's in there :rolleyes: Phone lines were never encrypted, why is illegal to wiretap?

Email and Internet communication is not anything new, it is only an evolution of the previous forms of communication. Only those who wish to abuse those technologies will try to convince you they are different and thus have different rules.
 
flatrock said:
Is that really the right standard to use to determine if the data is public? And while Google did store the data I was under the impression that they didn't "decode" and look at it.

As for intercept and storing wireless data, a heck of a lot of people researching wireless security have captured wireless data using Wireshark. Companies that are providing geolocation references based on what wireless networks are in the area are intercepting, storing, and decoding some of the same data, they are perhaps (and perhaps not) being more selective in what they store.

Google voluntarily admitted that they were unintentionally capturing and storing this data at least to the extent that the person who wrote the software that collected it wasn't directed to collect that data.

I like the idea that the government is trying to protect our privacy, but I think this is likely to have too many unintended consequences and I think that people do need to accept some responsibility for keeping data private that they want to keep private.

I think this ruling is going to end up being a bad thing in the long run.
Click to expand...

Agree with this
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top