[Closed] Google's "Streetview" legal problems - rogue programmer?

rogue-programmer my @rse.

Did this same programmer install hardware WiFi receivers on all the streetview cars + design/implement all the datastore capability back at google necessary to hold captured WiFi traffic.

Looks like they'll get done for it in Australia too, and rightly so.

The more I see of Google, the more disinclined I am to believe in cock-up rather than conspiracy.

They are systematically identifying wifi hotspots to support their location services. That's not the illegal data in question.

The illegality is in recording unencrypted payload data aka - content packets - it's like overhearing a phone conversation. It means that, in theory, they know what you were looking at when they drove by; that is technically a privacy infringement. But I fail to understand how they could exploit it.

I agree they should be fined, but I thinks it's a cockup, not some grand conspiracy.

(No, I don't work for Google!)

If you have an unsecured wireless network you're basically OKing it anyway.

>But I fail to understand how they could exploit it.

They pick up your IP/MAC address and and record the location it was identified. When you then use google search then they can tie the same IP/MAC address to the known location they've stored and provide you with very precise location targetted content.

" they can tie the same MAC address to the known location they've stored and provide you with very precise location targetted content"

That's good I think. I assume the MAC address is in the wifi frame header so pretty easy to pick out - it's like the number on your front door.

But that's not the "unencrypted payload data" being complained about is it?

My give a fuvk meter hasn't even twitched.

So Google, incidentally the largest, bestest, most used search engine in the whole worldly wisely webly, knows what people are looking at on the web?

Well shave my head and call me a baldy!

They pick up your IP/MAC address and and
record the location it was identified. When you
then use google search then they can tie the
same IP/MAC address to the known location

The whole point of having wifi hardware and antennas on the cars was to record the location of wifi networks so it can be used to triangulate position without gps.

This is legal and is public knowledge. Wifi triangulation is part of their Public API.

The dodgy/illegal bit is recording actual traffic on those networks. But to be honest anyone could do that.

If you don't have your wifi network secured then you can complain if someone exploits it.

I'm sure that a car travelling at around ten-twenty mph would pick up stacks of info in the ten-fifteen seconds it was passing my house.

Were you looking at P0RN that day?

[i]The independent audit of the Google system shows that the system used for the wi-fi collection intentionally separated out unencrypted content (payload data) of communications and systematically wrote this data to hard drives. This is equivalent to placing a hard tap and a digital recorder onto a phone wire without consent or authorisation[/i]

What a load of bobbins.

It is not in anyway the same as placing a phone tap. Wireless transmissions are by their very nature, completely public. Phone conversations are not. It's a trumped up charge and while I agree that Google did know what was going on, that they were using it for any level of illegal activity is bollocks.

If google are going to get screwed, then Apple were way ahead of them with their skynet thing.

Yyyyyyyawn who cares, get a life and do something interesting like watch some porno

We could get a life or we could spend our time posting worthless comments on a forum. It's our call. Luckily you're above that.

Wireless transmissions are by their very nature, completely public. Phone conversations are not.

It's a useful wake-up call to all the [s]idiots[/s] people out there with unsecured wireless networks.

We should thank Google for this.

So if I receive and store you unencrypted wireless conversation (say a vocal conversation in a pub, using my ears and my memory) I'd get done?

FFS.

No - a person's memory is not information stored in a retrievable system, at least for the purposes of the DPA.

[i]Do you think unencrypted (old-style) mobile phone conversations (a la Squidygate) are/were also fair game? [/i]

Yep, and so does the law. It is not illegal to intercept and record wireless transmissions in this country, be they voice or data. The illegal bit is then making that information available to a third party.

it would have been good to honeypot them.

streaming copyrighted content across an unsecured network so if they recorded it surely that would be a breach of copyright too?

Like someone said above I can't imagine they caught much whilst driving by at 15 or so mph.

Yep, and so does the law. It is not illegal to intercept and record wireless transmissions in this country, be they voice or data.

Presumably, if it were the kind of info the DPA would be interested in, then the DPA would still apply.

I think you still have to store it in accordance with DPA rulings even if you're not going to make it available to anyone and you do still have to justify why you're capturing it. It might well be this latter point that google are falling foul of, in this country at least but I think it's a vague area at best. Because they can't provide a good reason why they were capturing the payload, they're being viewed with suspicion.

I may have shot my own argument down here. 😉

Like someone said above I can't imagine they caught much whilst driving by at 15 or so mph.

A couple of seconds traffic is easily long enough to eavesdrop an entire email, insecure website login or some other juicy information. [u]If[/i] there was malicious intent then, given that the cars were driving all over the world doing this, they are casting the net pretty wide and would be bound to get [i]something[/i] of value.

To be honest though, I seriously doubt there was malicious intent behind this. And I can't really get that worked up about it. Anyone could do this just by driving down the street with a laptop in the car.

If you are broadcasting unencrypted information then you can hardly complain when someone receives it.

Not sure DPA would even apply, unless it was demonstrated that it contained personally identifiable information.

A minute or so is long enough to crack a WEP network too with deauth attacks. WPA2 Personal is probably also possible once the passively captured hashes are examined at your leisure with your full computing power, and the dictionary size available.

Not that I'm suggesting Google did this 🙂

Personally, I think the act of applying encryption should be enough legally to entitle you to privacy, kind of like a tall fence doesn't actually stop a determined voyeur, but gives fair warning you don't want to be 'admired'.

Not that I'm suggesting Google did this

They didn't. They only recorded [u]un[/u]encrypted payloads. They specifically didn't record the encrypted stuff.

Personally, I think the act of applying encryption should be enough legally to entitle you to privacy

Yep and conversely if you shout unencrypted information then folk shouldn't get into trouble for hearing it and writing it down.

It might well be this latter point that google are falling foul of, in this country at least but I think it's a vague area at best. Because they can't provide a good reason why they were capturing the payload, they're being viewed with suspicion.