[PCWorld]

Post your comments for Google Says Snooping on Wi-Fi Networks Isn't Illegal here

[nonseq]

It may not be "illegal" but it is evil.

[Mystified]

IMHO it is the user's responsibility to control her own public exposure when using technologies like WiFi or radio or the like. If you use a two way radio, you should know that anyone in range with the proper equipment can listen in. If you want privacy, you should invest in equipment that scrambles / unscrambles your communications. The same is true for WiFi. If you want privacy, acquire equipment that allows scrambling (encryption), and use it.

[ZipFolder]

How do i know my network is encrypted?

[butcanyoufixit]

Using that logic it would be legal to enter someone's house as long as the door is unlocked.

Mystified, on 18 April 2012 - 05:53 AM, said:

IMHO it is the user's responsibility to control her own public exposure when using technologies like WiFi or radio or the like. If you use a two way radio, you should know that anyone in range with the proper equipment can listen in. If you want privacy, you should invest in equipment that scrambles / unscrambles your communications. The same is true for WiFi. If you want privacy, acquire equipment that allows scrambling (encryption), and use it.

[waldojim]

nonseq, on 17 April 2012 - 02:58 PM, said:

It may not be "illegal" but it is evil.

Not hardly.

[waldojim]

Your misuse of logic is flawed.

butcanyoufixit, on 18 April 2012 - 11:16 AM, said:

Using that logic it would be legal to enter someone's house as long as the door is unlocked.

Mystified, on 18 April 2012 - 05:53 AM, said:

IMHO it is the user's responsibility to control her own public exposure when using technologies like WiFi or radio or the like. If you use a two way radio, you should know that anyone in range with the proper equipment can listen in. If you want privacy, you should invest in equipment that scrambles / unscrambles your communications. The same is true for WiFi. If you want privacy, acquire equipment that allows scrambling (encryption), and use it.

[nonseq]

waldojim, on 18 April 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:

nonseq, on 17 April 2012 - 02:58 PM, said:

It may not be "illegal" but it is evil.

Not hardly.

I guess on this we must disagree, my friend.

[waldojim]

nonseq, on 18 April 2012 - 11:22 AM, said:

waldojim, on 18 April 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:

nonseq, on 17 April 2012 - 02:58 PM, said:

It may not be "illegal" but it is evil.

Not hardly.

I guess on this we must disagree, my friend.

I think we just have different views on evil. Is it the right thing to do? No. But would you consider it evil to listen to your neighbors screaming at each other for the world to hear?

[nonseq]

waldojim, on 18 April 2012 - 11:29 AM, said:

nonseq, on 18 April 2012 - 11:22 AM, said:

waldojim, on 18 April 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:

nonseq, on 17 April 2012 - 02:58 PM, said:

It may not be "illegal" but it is evil.

Not hardly.

I guess on this we must disagree, my friend.

I think we just have different views on evil. Is it the right thing to do? No. But would you consider it evil to listen to your neighbors screaming at each other for the world to hear?

I would say that recording the fight and monetizing it without permission is evil- especially considering the potential secondary damage caused by publication of the fight.

This post has been edited by nonseq: 18 April 2012 - 11:50 AM

[RickDobbelmannqbtt]

nonseq, on 18 April 2012 - 11:48 AM, said:

waldojim, on 18 April 2012 - 11:29 AM, said:

nonseq, on 18 April 2012 - 11:22 AM, said:

waldojim, on 18 April 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:

nonseq, on 17 April 2012 - 02:58 PM, said:

It may not be "illegal" but it is evil.

Not hardly.

I guess on this we must disagree, my friend.

I think we just have different views on evil. Is it the right thing to do? No. But would you consider it evil to listen to your neighbors screaming at each other for the world to hear?

I would say that recording the fight and monetizing it without permission is evil- especially considering the potential secondary damage caused by publication of the fight.

It is their own stupid fault for having a fight the public can hear.

Unsecured wi fi is just a 2.4ghz, 5.8ghz etc radio broadcast for anyone with in listening distance can pick up with the right equipment.

People are responsible for their own actions. If someone does not want to or has no clue how to secure their wifi how is that anyone elses problem but their own?

Ignorance is not an excuse.

[TheOldTopkick]

I think they mean that it is illegal if they get caught at it. Perhaps their legal counsel must have spent at least one full day in law school.

[mjd420nova]

As I understand, Google was running their mapping mobile unit around and in the process, collected all the identifiers of the WIFI "broadcasters" they passed while taking videos of streets. What they did with that info is another thing. In a sense, if you have a WIFI router and it is broadcasting your network identifier or the default that it was shipped with, it is like putting a sign on your lawn. Corelating the collected network info with an address may be another matter. Broadcasting your SSID is not neccesary except during theinitial setup and setup of some WIFI devices, so it can see the unit and be designated to that network, then the SSID can be turned off and Google would not SEE your router. It's just as simple to set up security, BUT how many do so?? Is that my fault, your fault or their fault. Do they deserve to get their network hijacked if they don't take a few simple steps to protect themselves and their networks?? The world is filled with individuals who will take any advantage they can. Does this mean that I can't take my laptop and walk down my street and collect all of my neighbors network names and whether they are protected?? What I do with that info is another matter altogether.

This post has been edited by mjd420nova: 18 April 2012 - 02:24 PM

[waldojim]

nonseq, on 18 April 2012 - 11:48 AM, said:

waldojim, on 18 April 2012 - 11:29 AM, said:

nonseq, on 18 April 2012 - 11:22 AM, said:

waldojim, on 18 April 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:

nonseq, on 17 April 2012 - 02:58 PM, said:

It may not be "illegal" but it is evil.

Not hardly.

I guess on this we must disagree, my friend.

I think we just have different views on evil. Is it the right thing to do? No. But would you consider it evil to listen to your neighbors screaming at each other for the world to hear?

I would say that recording the fight and monetizing it without permission is evil- especially considering the potential secondary damage caused by publication of the fight.

But they didnt use the information. They admitted it was gathered by mistake, and asked for appropriate deletion guidelines.

[nonseq]

waldojim, on 18 April 2012 - 02:30 PM, said:

But they didnt use the information. They admitted it was gathered by mistake, and asked for appropriate deletion guidelines.

While I am skeptical, I will bow to your superior knowledge of the situation. It just seemed to me that Google was not living up to its "Don't be evil" motto.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_evil

This post has been edited by nonseq: 18 April 2012 - 02:47 PM

[waldojim]

nonseq, on 18 April 2012 - 02:46 PM, said:

waldojim, on 18 April 2012 - 02:30 PM, said:

But they didnt use the information. They admitted it was gathered by mistake, and asked for appropriate deletion guidelines.

While I am skeptical, I will bow to your superior knowledge of the situation. It just seemed to me that Google was not living up to its "Don't be evil" motto.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_evil

This is what I remember when this debacle first started. The question then was only, how many lawsuits will ensue becuase google decided to admit fault? Then the question, why admit fault? If they didn't admit it, and just erased the data, who would ever know different? As such, why bother going public with that?

Honestly, I think they did this to test the waters, and see what they could get away with. Set a precidence even.

[mduvall]

Although what Google did may not have been 'technically' illegal, is there any doubt that it was unethical? Otherwise why not be open and up front about what they were doing from the very beginning. What ever happened to their credo "Don't Be Evil"? Have they simply abandoned it because there's lots of potential revenue streams to exploit? They seem to be sliding down a slippery slope in recent years when it comes to ethics. They have become the new Micro$oft!

[ZipFolder]

Snooping is going to end up illegal if you take or use the information . . . i would say snooping on my friend's inbox of text is a perfect prank to pull.

[Tinman1957]

First GoOgle said their software "accidentally" harvested all this data. But most people know that software can't do something that it wasn't designed to do. They wrote the software to specifically capture all of this data. This tidbit of info came out when the feds started their investigating and GoOgle finally admitted it.
Whether it was legal or illegal is beside the fact that it was an immoral thing to do.
GoOgle has been caught in lie after lie. They are a company that makes it a point to snoop on people and use the data for their marketing company, and no telling what else.
With GoOgle's history of privacy invading practices, software as well as their services, I can't understand why anyone would want anything to do with them, unless they're just "sheeple".....

[linuxrants7xpg]

Tinman1957, on 19 April 2012 - 04:15 PM, said:

First GoOgle said their software "accidentally" harvested all this data. But most people know that software can't do something that it wasn't designed to do. They wrote the software to specifically capture all of this data. This tidbit of info came out when the feds started their investigating and GoOgle finally admitted it.
Whether it was legal or illegal is beside the fact that it was an immoral thing to do.
GoOgle has been caught in lie after lie. They are a company that makes it a point to snoop on people and use the data for their marketing company, and no telling what else.
With GoOgle's history of privacy invading practices, software as well as their services, I can't understand why anyone would want anything to do with them, unless they're just "sheeple".....

Go read the actual report from Stroz Friedberg. It may shed some light on the situation for you. Of particular relevance is the fact that Google's software (gstumbler/gslite) works cooperatively with another application called Kismet, which is not written by Google. Google doing something immoral/evil is all dependent on whether you believe that Google did what it did accidentally. From what I know of Kismet that's a definite possibility.