[PCWorld]

Post your comments for Google Hit With $25K Fine, But FCC Finds Street View Data Collection Not Illegal here

[PaulRiedstra]

Let me see, taking private information is legal as long as the information was not encrypted? Sounds wrong to me. Its eavesdropping at least and theft at worst.

[MichaelRousseau]

As wrong as Google is why are people not locking up their wi fi? If Google can collect sensitive info on you through your wi fi then any scammer can. Wake up call. Google should have been nailed harder for this one. At least a few mill IMO.

[KevinDonoghue]

PaulRiedstra, on 15 April 2012 - 07:23 AM, said:

Let me see, taking private information is legal as long as the information was not encrypted? Sounds wrong to me. Its eavesdropping at least and theft at worst.

If you are walking down the street, and in front of a house with no fences or barriers is a water fountain next to the sidewalk. You take a drink from that fountain, is it stealing? Is the mere presence of an open water fountain to a public environment implying that you are free to take a drink? If you want to protect your "sensitive" data on your home network, encrypt the WiFi signal and use a good router firewall; in a sense put a wall around your water fountain and hang a sign that says Private. The broadcast of an open WiFi should be defined in the legal sense as "open" and you should not be entitled to any privacy protections as it relates to what you and your device broadcast publicly beyond the boundaries of your home. And really, what is in that public broadcast, your routers name and MAC address? If someone were to go beyond that and snoop into your home computers or to other devices, then there would likely be a violation of sorts. If you lock your front door to keep bad guys out, why wouldn't you do the same for your network? Just my humble opinion.

[rak1948]

But, if the police do it, they need a warrant!!

[BruceRMiller]

Google wasn't even aware that they were collecting payload data. They we just interested in the correlating the wifi name with a GPS coordinate. Someone on the Streetview team grabbed a standard piece of ethernet sniffing code to quickly grab the first N bytes of the frame for later processing of the wifi name, not realizing or caring that some user data was present at the end of the captured frame.

[waldojim]

PaulRiedstra, on 15 April 2012 - 07:23 AM, said:

Let me see, taking private information is legal as long as the information was not encrypted? Sounds wrong to me. Its eavesdropping at least and theft at worst.

That depends on how you view things. If you are shouting your social security number at the top of your lungs, do you really have a complaint if someone hears it and writes it down? I sure don't think so. So if you broadcast your data for the world to hear, what is the difference?

[waldojim]

MichaelRousseau, on 15 April 2012 - 07:44 AM, said:

As wrong as Google is why are people not locking up their wi fi? If Google can collect sensitive info on you through your wi fi then any scammer can. Wake up call. Google should have been nailed harder for this one. At least a few mill IMO.

Wait, you listed nothing bur reasoning why Google shouldn't be fined, and then finished with Google should have been fined... What am I missing here?

[unbound]

KevinDonoghue, on 15 April 2012 - 08:07 AM, said:

PaulRiedstra, on 15 April 2012 - 07:23 AM, said:

Let me see, taking private information is legal as long as the information was not encrypted? Sounds wrong to me. Its eavesdropping at least and theft at worst.

If you are walking down the street, and in front of a house with no fences or barriers is a water fountain next to the sidewalk. You take a drink from that fountain, is it stealing? Is the mere presence of an open water fountain to a public environment implying that you are free to take a drink? If you want to protect your "sensitive" data on your home network, encrypt the WiFi signal and use a good router firewall; in a sense put a wall around your water fountain and hang a sign that says Private. The broadcast of an open WiFi should be defined in the legal sense as "open" and you should not be entitled to any privacy protections as it relates to what you and your device broadcast publicly beyond the boundaries of your home. And really, what is in that public broadcast, your routers name and MAC address? If someone were to go beyond that and snoop into your home computers or to other devices, then there would likely be a violation of sorts. If you lock your front door to keep bad guys out, why wouldn't you do the same for your network? Just my humble opinion.

All well and good, except for the issue that when you buy a house, the walls are already built and the locks to your door already provided. No one sells a house without locks, yet plenty of wifi are sold without being locked down by default. When you buy a house, the seller makes sure that you get at least one copy of the key, and the lock is very simple and straightforward to utilize. For the non-technical in the world (which drastically outnumber the tech savvy), getting to the device and locking is not nearly that simple.

I've read the arguments that state that you shouldn't compare unlocked wifi to an unlocked house...however, the arguments that somehow a persons wifi should be treated differently is specious at best. The wifi wasn't left sitting in the middle of the street. If you go to a residential neighborhood and find open wifis, it is because you searched; no different than walking down that same street and jiggling each door handle to see if you can find a house that is unlocked. Once you find a house that is unlocked, upon entered that house and doing anything in there is simply illegal. Wifi isn't any different...you jiggled the door handles looking for something that was open, then you went in and used something. It is still theft.

People need to stop rationalizing how doing bad things really isn't illegal after all.

[waldojim]

unbound, on 15 April 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

KevinDonoghue, on 15 April 2012 - 08:07 AM, said:

PaulRiedstra, on 15 April 2012 - 07:23 AM, said:

Let me see, taking private information is legal as long as the information was not encrypted? Sounds wrong to me. Its eavesdropping at least and theft at worst.

If you are walking down the street, and in front of a house with no fences or barriers is a water fountain next to the sidewalk. You take a drink from that fountain, is it stealing? Is the mere presence of an open water fountain to a public environment implying that you are free to take a drink? If you want to protect your "sensitive" data on your home network, encrypt the WiFi signal and use a good router firewall; in a sense put a wall around your water fountain and hang a sign that says Private. The broadcast of an open WiFi should be defined in the legal sense as "open" and you should not be entitled to any privacy protections as it relates to what you and your device broadcast publicly beyond the boundaries of your home. And really, what is in that public broadcast, your routers name and MAC address? If someone were to go beyond that and snoop into your home computers or to other devices, then there would likely be a violation of sorts. If you lock your front door to keep bad guys out, why wouldn't you do the same for your network? Just my humble opinion.

All well and good, except for the issue that when you buy a house, the walls are already built and the locks to your door already provided. No one sells a house without locks, yet plenty of wifi are sold without being locked down by default. When you buy a house, the seller makes sure that you get at least one copy of the key, and the lock is very simple and straightforward to utilize. For the non-technical in the world (which drastically outnumber the tech savvy), getting to the device and locking is not nearly that simple.

I've read the arguments that state that you shouldn't compare unlocked wifi to an unlocked house...however, the arguments that somehow a persons wifi should be treated differently is specious at best. The wifi wasn't left sitting in the middle of the street. If you go to a residential neighborhood and find open wifis, it is because you searched; no different than walking down that same street and jiggling each door handle to see if you can find a house that is unlocked. Once you find a house that is unlocked, upon entered that house and doing anything in there is simply illegal. Wifi isn't any different...you jiggled the door handles looking for something that was open, then you went in and used something. It is still theft.

People need to stop rationalizing how doing bad things really isn't illegal after all.

Except that you DON'T have to go down the street jiggling handles. You sit on your front porch and see what everyone is flashing you with. Once the signal leaves the intended area, or overlaps onto property that isn't yours, you should lose all rights.

[deepsand]

unbound, on 15 April 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

KevinDonoghue, on 15 April 2012 - 08:07 AM, said:

PaulRiedstra, on 15 April 2012 - 07:23 AM, said:

Let me see, taking private information is legal as long as the information was not encrypted? Sounds wrong to me. Its eavesdropping at least and theft at worst.

If you are walking down the street, and in front of a house with no fences or barriers is a water fountain next to the sidewalk. You take a drink from that fountain, is it stealing? Is the mere presence of an open water fountain to a public environment implying that you are free to take a drink? If you want to protect your "sensitive" data on your home network, encrypt the WiFi signal and use a good router firewall; in a sense put a wall around your water fountain and hang a sign that says Private. The broadcast of an open WiFi should be defined in the legal sense as "open" and you should not be entitled to any privacy protections as it relates to what you and your device broadcast publicly beyond the boundaries of your home. And really, what is in that public broadcast, your routers name and MAC address? If someone were to go beyond that and snoop into your home computers or to other devices, then there would likely be a violation of sorts. If you lock your front door to keep bad guys out, why wouldn't you do the same for your network? Just my humble opinion.

All well and good, except for the issue that when you buy a house, the walls are already built and the locks to your door already provided. No one sells a house without locks, yet plenty of wifi are sold without being locked down by default. When you buy a house, the seller makes sure that you get at least one copy of the key, and the lock is very simple and straightforward to utilize. For the non-technical in the world (which drastically outnumber the tech savvy), getting to the device and locking is not nearly that simple.

I've read the arguments that state that you shouldn't compare unlocked wifi to an unlocked house...however, the arguments that somehow a persons wifi should be treated differently is specious at best. The wifi wasn't left sitting in the middle of the street. If you go to a residential neighborhood and find open wifis, it is because you searched; no different than walking down that same street and jiggling each door handle to see if you can find a house that is unlocked. Once you find a house that is unlocked, upon entered that house and doing anything in there is simply illegal. Wifi isn't any different...you jiggled the door handles looking for something that was open, then you went in and used something. It is still theft.

People need to stop rationalizing how doing bad things really isn't illegal after all.

RF signals are in the public arena; and, it is a long and well established legal principle that there can be no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place. Therefore, the burden of securing the privacy of the content of such signals rests with the transmitting party.

[TheOldTopkick]

Everbody wants to find fault with Google and forget that there are people doing the same thing. Most of them have in mind things that will do you no good. Google does seem one of the worst although their intentions may not be bad. If you find great value in the information you put on the Internet encrypt or give it the best protection you can. Never send it in the clear. If it is that valuable then hand carry it and don't put it on the Internet.

Google can be controlled. A widespread boycott will work wonders. If everyone stopped using Google for just a day or two. Google, Facebook, Twitter and many others would be in a terrible mess. Each of you have far more power in your keyboard than you would dream possible. Use it, but use it wisely.

[MichaelRousseau]

waldojim, on 15 April 2012 - 09:17 AM, said:

MichaelRousseau, on 15 April 2012 - 07:44 AM, said:

As wrong as Google is why are people not locking up their wi fi? If Google can collect sensitive info on you through your wi fi then any scammer can. Wake up call. Google should have been nailed harder for this one. At least a few mill IMO.

Wait, you listed nothing bur reasoning why Google shouldn't be fined, and then finished with Google should have been fined... What am I missing here?

I actually was talking from a security point of view. I didn't list any reasons why Google shouldn't be fined. "As wrong as Google is why are people not locking up their wi fi?" << Google is wrong. Why are people not locking up their Wi Fi so Google and others are not accessing them. "If Google can collect sensitive info on you through your wi fi then any scammer can." <<< Self explanatory I am sure. "Google should have been nailed harder for this one." <<< This is a legit company that SHOULD know better then to do what they did.

[waldojim]

MichaelRousseau, on 19 April 2012 - 04:55 PM, said:

I actually was talking from a security point of view. I didn't list any reasons why Google shouldn't be fined. "As wrong as Google is why are people not locking up their wi fi?" << Google is wrong. Why are people not locking up their Wi Fi so Google and others are not accessing them. "If Google can collect sensitive info on you through your wi fi then any scammer can." <<< Self explanatory I am sure. "Google should have been nailed harder for this one." <<< This is a legit company that SHOULD know better then to do what they did.

Hit based on what reason? Because they know better? Your neighbor knows better than to snoop as well. That isn't going to stop them. There is no law against what Google did. Nor do I think they did anything wrong on a personal level. If you are going to broadcast your business for the world to hear on open airwaves, then you deserve whatever you get.

Google should not be punished for something that is well within their rights (IE: ACCEPTING SIGNALS ON UNENCRYPTED, UNLICENSED FREQUENCY BANDS). You have every right to do the same. As do I. Should I choose to exercise that right, then I expect you to either stop broadcasting, or encrypt your data, so that even though you are broadcasting, there is at least some attempt at keeping your conversation private.

[MichaelRousseau]

waldojim, on 19 April 2012 - 05:05 PM, said:

MichaelRousseau, on 19 April 2012 - 04:55 PM, said:

I actually was talking from a security point of view. I didn't list any reasons why Google shouldn't be fined. "As wrong as Google is why are people not locking up their wi fi?" << Google is wrong. Why are people not locking up their Wi Fi so Google and others are not accessing them. "If Google can collect sensitive info on you through your wi fi then any scammer can." <<< Self explanatory I am sure. "Google should have been nailed harder for this one." <<< This is a legit company that SHOULD know better then to do what they did.

Hit based on what reason? Because they know better? Your neighbor knows better than to snoop as well. That isn't going to stop them. There is no law against what Google did. Nor do I think they did anything wrong on a personal level. If you are going to broadcast your business for the world to hear on open airwaves, then you deserve whatever you get.

Google should not be punished for something that is well within their rights (IE: ACCEPTING SIGNALS ON UNENCRYPTED, UNLICENSED FREQUENCY BANDS). You have every right to do the same. As do I. Should I choose to exercise that right, then I expect you to either stop broadcasting, or encrypt your data, so that even though you are broadcasting, there is at least some attempt at keeping your conversation private.

This post has been edited by MichaelRousseau: 19 April 2012 - 08:30 PM

[deepsand]

MichaelRousseau, on 19 April 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

waldojim, on 19 April 2012 - 05:05 PM, said:

MichaelRousseau, on 19 April 2012 - 04:55 PM, said:

I actually was talking from a security point of view. I didn't list any reasons why Google shouldn't be fined. "As wrong as Google is why are people not locking up their wi fi?" << Google is wrong. Why are people not locking up their Wi Fi so Google and others are not accessing them. "If Google can collect sensitive info on you through your wi fi then any scammer can." <<< Self explanatory I am sure. "Google should have been nailed harder for this one." <<< This is a legit company that SHOULD know better then to do what they did.

Hit based on what reason? Because they know better? Your neighbor knows better than to snoop as well. That isn't going to stop them. There is no law against what Google did. Nor do I think they did anything wrong on a personal level. If you are going to broadcast your business for the world to hear on open airwaves, then you deserve whatever you get.

Google should not be punished for something that is well within their rights (IE: ACCEPTING SIGNALS ON UNENCRYPTED, UNLICENSED FREQUENCY BANDS). You have every right to do the same. As do I. Should I choose to exercise that right, then I expect you to either stop broadcasting, or encrypt your data, so that even though you are broadcasting, there is at least some attempt at keeping your conversation private.

Well they obviously got nailed for what they did so I won't even bother arguing with you about legality. I agree if you leave it open you deserve whatever happens hence my first comment about Why are people not locking up there wifi! You have to be right so badly that you'll put a spin on everything I say. Thats borderline trolling boy.

They got nailed for impeding the investigation, borderline troll boy.

This post has been edited by deepsand: 19 April 2012 - 08:30 PM

[softweyr]

PaulRiedstra, on 15 April 2012 - 07:23 AM, said:

Let me see, taking private information is legal as long as the information was not encrypted? Sounds wrong to me. Its eavesdropping at least and theft at worst.

It's neither eavesdropping nor theft if you broadcast in clear text over a radio frequency. That's the moral equivalent of accusing people of reading a private message you spray-painted on a freeway overpass.

[bernhard8]

if the police do it, they need a warrant!!

[deepsand]

bernhard8, on 20 April 2012 - 09:53 PM, said:

if the police do it, they need a warrant!!

Civil rights guaranteed under the US Constitution, including those of the Fourth Amendment, do not apply to non-governmental entities. For example, your civilian employer does have the right to restrict your speech in the work place.

Since Google is not a governmental agency, and was not here acting as an agent for one, it is not bound by either the Fourth Amendment or any enabling Statutory Law.

As for warrants now required under the Wiretap Act of 1968, data communications have less protection than do voice communications, in that interceptions for which a warrant was required, but not obtained, are not automatically excluded from being used as evidence.

This post has been edited by deepsand: 20 April 2012 - 10:15 PM

[softweyr]

bernhard8, on 20 April 2012 - 09:53 PM, said:

if the police do it, they need a warrant!!

Not if they can receive it outside your home. There is a case before Supreme Court right now deciding if you can be forced to reveal encryption keys in court, or if that is protected by the fifth amendment. Let's hope we have enough thinking simians on the court left to realize it is of course protected.