Help
Post your comments for Google Didn't Steal Wi-Fi -- Here's Why here
Google Didn't Steal Wi-fi -- Here's Why
#2
waldojim 
- Elite
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 15,083
- Joined: 29-October 08
- Location:Texas
Posted 22 April 2012 - 09:46 AM
Very good article!
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" -- Isaac Asimov
Spoiler
#3
Papaspud
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 345
- Joined: 20-March 09
- Location:Idaho, USA
Posted 22 April 2012 - 10:20 AM
"I think we can all agree that anyone who broadcasts unencrypted, un-password-protected data over public airwaves in a way that is readable by devices millions of people own has no reasonable expectation of privacy."
Bingo, people today take absolutely no responsibilities for their actions, we live in a bizzaro like universe where up is down, and everything goes sideways. And you can of course expect some lowlife politician to jump right on this, without having any clue as to what is going on. I can already see the lawyers gathering like flies on the sidelines trying to figure out how they can sue and make a buck off of this. It is crazy I tell you......
Bingo, people today take absolutely no responsibilities for their actions, we live in a bizzaro like universe where up is down, and everything goes sideways. And you can of course expect some lowlife politician to jump right on this, without having any clue as to what is going on. I can already see the lawyers gathering like flies on the sidelines trying to figure out how they can sue and make a buck off of this. It is crazy I tell you......
Just my opinion......YMMV......
#4
ssobol
- Member
-
- Group: New Member
- Posts: 11
- Joined: 14-June 11
Posted 22 April 2012 - 10:44 AM
Couldn't I claim that my password and wireless traffic content is copyright protected? Recording or using this information would be infringement. A movie or TV program broadcast by a TV station is available in my house or even in the street. If I rebroadcast the program or movie either for free or for hire I'm pretty sure that they could come after my for piracy. Why are my broadcasts (e.g. my wi-fi signal) not protected, but a tv station signal is?
#5
ivan1957
- Newbie
-
- Group: New Member
- Posts: 5
- Joined: 16-February 12
Posted 22 April 2012 - 10:54 AM
What Mike Elgan (arrogant jerk) fails to comprehend is that it is the intent of the broadcaster at issue here. A radio broadcaster or short-wave radio broadcaster, etc. has the intent of broadcasting into the public space and tailors their broadcast accordingly. A PC user or smart phone user just wants to use their device to surf the web or e-mail someone, etc. They have no intent of broadcasting personal information into the nethersphere. The fact that technology requires them to broadcast across the public space to do this should not subject them to having their data intercepted by a corporation trying to make a buck off their data.
#6
deepsand
- Expert
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2,558
- Joined: 28-August 06
Posted 22 April 2012 - 11:11 AM
ssobol, on 22 April 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:
Couldn't I claim that my password and wireless traffic content is copyright protected? Recording or using this information would be infringement. A movie or TV program broadcast by a TV station is available in my house or even in the street. If I rebroadcast the program or movie either for free or for hire I'm pretty sure that they could come after my for piracy. Why are my broadcasts (e.g. my wi-fi signal) not protected, but a tv station signal is?
Setting aside the fact that your "content" is ineligible for copyright protection, as it is not a fixed expression of an idea, since no one is "rebroadcasting" your content, there could not be infringement..
BTW, your recording a TV broadcast for later personal viewing is an issue long ago settled as being legitimate Fair Use.
While each is entitled to his own opinion, no one is entitled to his own facts.
#7
deepsand
- Expert
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2,558
- Joined: 28-August 06
Posted 22 April 2012 - 11:16 AM
ivan1957, on 22 April 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:
What Mike Elgan (arrogant jerk) fails to comprehend is that it is the intent of the broadcaster at issue here. A radio broadcaster or short-wave radio broadcaster, etc. has the intent of broadcasting into the public space and tailors their broadcast accordingly. A PC user or smart phone user just wants to use their device to surf the web or e-mail someone, etc. They have no intent of broadcasting personal information into the nethersphere. The fact that technology requires them to broadcast across the public space to do this should not subject them to having their data intercepted by a corporation trying to make a buck off their data.
To the contrary, that is precisely what they intend to do, so as avail themselves of a technology that they voluntarily choose to use.
Whether or not they understand all of the consequences is immaterial to the fact that they elected to do so.
While each is entitled to his own opinion, no one is entitled to his own facts.
#8
qwertytechj2yc
- Full Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 53
- Joined: 07-May 11
Posted 22 April 2012 - 11:20 AM
ivan1957, on 22 April 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:
What Mike Elgan (arrogant jerk) fails to comprehend is that it is the intent of the broadcaster at issue here. A radio broadcaster or short-wave radio broadcaster, etc. has the intent of broadcasting into the public space and tailors their broadcast accordingly. A PC user or smart phone user just wants to use their device to surf the web or e-mail someone, etc. They have no intent of broadcasting personal information into the nethersphere. The fact that technology requires them to broadcast across the public space to do this should not subject them to having their data intercepted by a corporation trying to make a buck off their data.
Google did not intend to pull the data. Mr. Elgan is not an arrogant jerk, he is pointing out the fact that maybe the people affected should be asking why they want to let people into their data freely when they have an easy way to stop that by securing their network. Just makes you look foolish.
#9
TomAndersonkmh8
- Member
-
- Group: New Member
- Posts: 18
- Joined: 01-August 11
Posted 22 April 2012 - 11:32 AM
I don't think you're allowed to take photos of people's private property with a telephoto lens. There is a reasonable assumption of privacy.
Most people don't have an wifi antenna on their cars. Maybe there is an assumption that your wireless signals will not be intercepted from cars outside your home. You could maybe possibly have a case aginst google.
Most people don't have an wifi antenna on their cars. Maybe there is an assumption that your wireless signals will not be intercepted from cars outside your home. You could maybe possibly have a case aginst google.
#10
pishaw
- Newbie
-
- Group: New Member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 22-April 12
Posted 22 April 2012 - 11:34 AM
ssobol, on 22 April 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:
Couldn't I claim that my password and wireless traffic content is copyright protected? Recording or using this information would be infringement. A movie or TV program broadcast by a TV station is available in my house or even in the street. If I rebroadcast the program or movie either for free or for hire I'm pretty sure that they could come after my for piracy. Why are my broadcasts (e.g. my wi-fi signal) not protected, but a tv station signal is?
You could (should) encrypt your wifi signal... Google did not access encrypted networks, just what people made available to anyone walking down the street. If you do not set up your wireless network to use encryption, you deserve to have your bank accounts cleaned out.
As for the TV movie broadcast, the content is protected, not the signal. You can watch the movie, record it for later viewing, whatever you want, as long as it's for personal use. If the TV people didn't want you to watch it, they could encrypt their signal, like HBO. It's not a good analogy.
It's for that reason the congress should stay out of it. Since it seems to be a requisite of congress that one is an idiot to be elected, most of them probably believe the internet works by magic, via unicorns, and is wholly owned by the United States. Are these the people you want setting restrictions on your internet use?
#11
TomAndersonkmh8
- Member
-
- Group: New Member
- Posts: 18
- Joined: 01-August 11
Posted 22 April 2012 - 11:35 AM
qwertytechj2yc, on 22 April 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:
ivan1957, on 22 April 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:
What Mike Elgan (arrogant jerk) fails to comprehend is that it is the intent of the broadcaster at issue here. A radio broadcaster or short-wave radio broadcaster, etc. has the intent of broadcasting into the public space and tailors their broadcast accordingly. A PC user or smart phone user just wants to use their device to surf the web or e-mail someone, etc. They have no intent of broadcasting personal information into the nethersphere. The fact that technology requires them to broadcast across the public space to do this should not subject them to having their data intercepted by a corporation trying to make a buck off their data.
Google did not intend to pull the data. Mr. Elgan is not an arrogant jerk, he is pointing out the fact that maybe the people affected should be asking why they want to let people into their data freely when they have an easy way to stop that by securing their network. Just makes you look foolish.
Google says they didn't intend to pull the data, but they put special equipment on their vehicles that did pull the data. Wireless receivers logging all the data are not necessary for mapping, so why did Google put this special equipment on all of their cars?
#12
garlic
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 38
- Joined: 10-May 07
Posted 22 April 2012 - 11:37 AM
The theory that the airwaves are free has been around for years. Remember when cellphones were analog and any scanner could listen in? Or HBO was broadcast unencrypted? People were prosecuted for listening in.
The basic premise should be that for privacy, you need to at least attempt to protect the data
The basic premise should be that for privacy, you need to at least attempt to protect the data
#13
LiveBrianD
- Elite
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 11,171
- Joined: 31-December 09
- Location:Right behind you... made you look! :D
Posted 22 April 2012 - 11:54 AM
What about people who don't know HOW to secure their wifi network? What about people who don't know that Google is doing this? Does that mean that it's OK?
Spoiler
"The Internet will be used for all kinds of spurious things, including fake quotes from smart people." -Albert EinsteinNeed a Windows ISO image?
#14
jerryfleming
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 18
- Joined: 26-February 10
Posted 22 April 2012 - 12:01 PM
ivan1957, on 22 April 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:
What Mike Elgan (arrogant jerk) fails to comprehend is that it is the intent of the broadcaster at issue here. A radio broadcaster or short-wave radio broadcaster, etc. has the intent of broadcasting into the public space and tailors their broadcast accordingly. A PC user or smart phone user just wants to use their device to surf the web or e-mail someone, etc. They have no intent of broadcasting personal information into the nethersphere. The fact that technology requires them to broadcast across the public space to do this should not subject them to having their data intercepted by a corporation trying to make a buck off their data.
Beg to disagree with you. If the individual was working through a secure (password) protected device, and someone harvested and hacked from there, would agree... If someone is dumb enough to NOT secure his/her Wifi network, shame on them... There is nothing wrong with being able to passively see what is there to be seen... Sort of like running a scanner - it is wide open to the world. My neighbor did not secure her wifi when she first got going... I saw it and advised her she needed to take some action before someone else did... She said we live rural, and if somebody else wants to use, she didn't object... (sigh) Guess what the result was... A year later, she was had... Her network is now - belatedly - secured...
#15
nonseq
- Expert
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 4,469
- Joined: 09-August 09
- Location:Phoenix, AZ
Posted 22 April 2012 - 12:01 PM
garlic, on 22 April 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:
The theory that the airwaves are free has been around for years. Remember when cellphones were analog and any scanner could listen in? Or HBO was broadcast unencrypted? People were prosecuted for listening in.
The basic premise should be that for privacy, you need to at least attempt to protect the data
The basic premise should be that for privacy, you need to at least attempt to protect the data
Actually in the US the airwaves have been regulated since 1912 (Radio Act of 1912). Use of the airwaves is not "free". The problem is that so many WiFI customers have no idea about the security ramifications of subscribing to and setting up their services. Google may have not broken the law but the fact that they were in the field with equipment specifically to capture WiFI data covertly is troubling.
#16
jerryfleming
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 18
- Joined: 26-February 10
Posted 22 April 2012 - 12:11 PM
LiveBrianD, on 22 April 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:
What about people who don't know HOW to secure their wifi network? What about people who don't know that Google is doing this? Does that mean that it's OK?
Why does it matter what Google or anybody else - corporate or private - is doing. I can sit here in my house or anywhere else public, and when my cell, tablet or laptop pops up and says networks are available, it's not like I'm actively snooping. People putting stuff out on the public airwaves should take steps to to ensure that they protect themselves BEFORE they put it out. Most people put up curtains in their living room BEFORE they start running around naked... If they didn't, they'd be the stars of their own porn show... Same with radio devices (WIFI)... Don't run naked...
#17
jerryfleming
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 18
- Joined: 26-February 10
Posted 22 April 2012 - 12:16 PM
nonseq, on 22 April 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:
garlic, on 22 April 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:
The theory that the airwaves are free has been around for years. Remember when cellphones were analog and any scanner could listen in? Or HBO was broadcast unencrypted? People were prosecuted for listening in.
The basic premise should be that for privacy, you need to at least attempt to protect the data
The basic premise should be that for privacy, you need to at least attempt to protect the data
Actually in the US the airwaves have been regulated since 1912 (Radio Act of 1912). Use of the airwaves is not "free". The problem is that so many WiFI customers have no idea about the security ramifications of subscribing to and setting up their services. Google may have not broken the law but the fact that they were in the field with equipment specifically to capture WiFI data covertly is troubling.
They weren't any more 'covert' than you when you wander around with your smartphone or tablet set to scan for open networks. Most of the wireless networking devices all come with instructions, and the advice to protect your network... The bigger concern should be that most people make it through 12 years of public school - and some make it through an additional four or more years - without the ability to READ and COMPREHEND directions and advice...
This post has been edited by jerryfleming: 22 April 2012 - 12:17 PM
#18
nonseq
- Expert
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 4,469
- Joined: 09-August 09
- Location:Phoenix, AZ
Posted 22 April 2012 - 12:24 PM
jerryfleming, on 22 April 2012 - 12:16 PM, said:
nonseq, on 22 April 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:
garlic, on 22 April 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:
The theory that the airwaves are free has been around for years. Remember when cellphones were analog and any scanner could listen in? Or HBO was broadcast unencrypted? People were prosecuted for listening in.
The basic premise should be that for privacy, you need to at least attempt to protect the data
The basic premise should be that for privacy, you need to at least attempt to protect the data
Actually in the US the airwaves have been regulated since 1912 (Radio Act of 1912). Use of the airwaves is not "free". The problem is that so many WiFI customers have no idea about the security ramifications of subscribing to and setting up their services. Google may have not broken the law but the fact that they were in the field with equipment specifically to capture WiFI data covertly is troubling.
They weren't any more 'covert' than you when you wander around with your smartphone or tablet set to scan for open networks. Most of the wireless networking devices all come with instructions, and the advice to protect your network... The bigger concern should be that most people make it through 12 years of public school - and some make it through an additional four or more years - without the ability to READ and COMPREHEND directions and advice...
Yeah, that may be true. However they got a whole lot more data than I do when my iPhone or iPad seek out WiFI networks. Others aren't troubled about this and that's fine. Reading and comprehending directions which seem to be, more often than not, designed to obfuscate is beyond many of the highly educated along with the very intelligent folks that I know. The quality of the writing of many of those directions is more troubling than the inability to read and understand them.
This post has been edited by nonseq: 22 April 2012 - 12:51 PM
#19
deepsand
- Expert
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2,558
- Joined: 28-August 06
Posted 22 April 2012 - 12:39 PM
TomAndersonkmh8, on 22 April 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:
I don't think you're allowed to take photos of people's private property with a telephoto lens. There is a reasonable assumption of privacy.
It is a long and well settled legal principle that one can have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public space. And, the RF spectrum is public space.
And, while the Wiretap Act of 1968 extended warrant requirements to include all interception of electronic communications, regardless of their origin or place of interception, it also contains an Accessible to the Public Exception which permits "any person" to intercept an electronic communication made through a system "that is configured so that . . . [the] communication is readily accessible to the general public."
TomAndersonkmh8, on 22 April 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:
Most people don't have an wifi antenna on their cars. Maybe there is an assumption that your wireless signals will not be intercepted from cars outside your home. You could maybe possibly have a case aginst google.
Per above, no, you do not "have a case against Google."
What one may or may not know and understand is immaterial to whether or not their expectations are reasonable.
While each is entitled to his own opinion, no one is entitled to his own facts.
#20
deepsand
- Expert
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2,558
- Joined: 28-August 06
Posted 22 April 2012 - 12:54 PM
LiveBrianD, on 22 April 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:
What about people who don't know HOW to secure their wifi network? What about people who don't know that Google is doing this? Does that mean that it's OK?
What about those who never learned how to properly drive. Or, never read the Owner's Manual for their car or the appropriate Rules of the Road?
Are they to get a free pass re. any problems that arise from their ignorance?
While each is entitled to his own opinion, no one is entitled to his own facts.
