News Google spycar harvests data

[rynnor]

Naughty Naughty!

BBC News - Google admits wi-fi data collection blunder

 

[Krazeh]

If people are stupid enough to not put any encryption on their wireless network then it serves them right.

 

[rynnor]

If people are stupid enough to not put any encryption on their wireless network then it serves them right.

Not exactly - packet sniffing on private networks is a criminal offence in the UK not to mention they have collected data beyond their remit breaking the Data Protection Act.

People not securing their networks is like leaving your front door open - its silly but if you step inside n mess with things its still a criminal offence.

 

[TdC]

ooh norteh!!

 

[Raven]

I like the way the BBC call it a blunder.

It was an accident guv, honest. We didn't mean to fit our vehicles with the equipment let alone use it!

 

[Tom]

People not securing their networks is like leaving your front door open - its silly but if you step inside n mess with things its still a criminal offence.

Only if you damage or attempt to steal those things.

 

[Moriath]

no if you step in its tresspass still an offence

 

[Shagrat]

well if it was me, I'm sure I'd have been arrested by now.

but as its Google, it's alright, it's only a mistake.


tosspots.

 

[Tom]

no if you step in its tresspass still an offence

Not a criminal offence.

 

[Raven]

Its still an offence, a civil offence.

 

[rynnor]

Before we go too far on the trespass example when it comes to computer networks the tough Computer Misuse Act makes un-authorised access to a system a criminal offence.

 

[Krazeh]

Before we go too far on the trespass example when it comes to computer networks the tough Computer Misuse Act makes un-authorised access to a system a criminal offence.

Yes but it has to be proven that the access was undertaken with the knowledge that you are attempting to secure unauthorised access to a computer system. If, as Google claim, it was an unfortunate accident and that they were unaware the system was picking up data from unsecured wireless networks then there's no intent and no way they can be prosecuted under the Computer Misuse Act.

 

[Scouse]

If people are stupid enough to not put any encryption on their wireless network then it serves them right.

It is the corporations responsibility to act in an ethical and responsible manner.

It's clear that Google hasn't, as it's deliberately not mentioned the wi-fi snooping to any of the governments that were asking about privacy implications.

Wi-Fi encryption is, I'd argue, a complex enough topic to reasonably not expect the average joe to have a handle on.

If, as Google claim, it was an unfortunate accident

Google are a clever company. It's far from an "unfortunate accident". They know about all of the implications of their snooping work and their lawyers will have been instructed to find out if Google's financial exposure was potentially more costly than the financial benefit Google has made from doing this in an underhand manner.

Google doesn't do "accidents" on this scale. It's pure naivety to think this way...

 

[Krazeh]

Google are a clever company. It's far from an "unfortunate accident". They know about all of the implications of their snooping work and their lawyers will have been instructed to find out if Google's financial exposure was potentially more costly than the financial benefit Google has made from doing this in an underhand manner.

Google doesn't do "accidents" on this scale. It's pure naivety to think this way...

Yes, because it's completely impossible that their explanation couldn't be the truth and it's obviously all a big cover up. I mean the fragmented bits of data they obtained while driving around must be worth millions to them... Just a shame that after coming up with this master plan to collect as much fragmented data as possible from unencrypted wifi networks they forgot to hide that data when the German Data Protection Authorities asked to audit the information they'd collected.

 

[JingleBells]

If you or I were asked to design a car to take pictures of it's surroundings as it drove around, it wouldn't have the added ability to capture WiFi packets - it's something entirely different to the task at hand. They've deliberately added this for whatever reason, then decided to neglect to tell the authorities

 

[Scouse]

Do you not think that not mentioning they're collecting Wi-Fi information from individuals during a discussion prompted by privacy concerns is, at the very least, negligent?


With all the kerfuffle with people complaining about the possible privacy implications of google systematically gathering photos of people's homes you don't think that even one of their employees went "it's a good thing they don't know about the Wi-Fi data collection - they'd really blow their tops at that..."?

Really Krazeh?

 

[Krazeh]

If you or I were asked to design a car to take pictures of it's surroundings as it drove around, it wouldn't have the added ability to capture WiFi packets - it's something entirely different to the task at hand. They've deliberately added this for whatever reason, then decided to neglect to tell the authorities

Do you not think that not mentioning they're collecting Wi-Fi information from individuals during a discussion prompted by privacy concerns is, at the very least, negligent?


With all the kerfuffle with people complaining about the possible privacy implications of google systematically gathering photos of people's homes you don't think that even one of their employees went "it's a good thing they don't know about the Wi-Fi data collection - they'd really blow their tops at that..."?

Really Krazeh?

Given that the privacy concerns related to the fact they were taking photos then no I don't think it's negligent for them not to have mentioned that they were collecting certain wifi details for use in their location based services. As Google themselves have said, this collection was unrelated to Streetview, only collected information that could be picked up by anyone with a WiFi-enabled device and is already done by a number of companies without issue.

 

[Scouse]

Given that the privacy concerns related to the fact they were taking photos then no I don't think it's negligent for them not to have mentioned that they were collecting certain wifi details for use in their location based services.

Furry muff. I think your stance is competely ridiculous, but hey ho

 

[Krazeh]

Furry muff. I think your stance is competely ridiculous, but hey ho

When the Data Protection Authorities contacted Google to discuss concerns about the photographs they were taking for their streetview service why would Google have considered responding to those concerns by discussing something that wasn't even asked about? Especially when the wifi information officially being collected arguably doesn't even fall within the remit of data protection and is something that other companies already collect without issue?

 

[Scouse]

It's called "openness", "honesty" etc. etc.

Do you not think that a company that is being open and honest and is being asked about privacy concerns related to their vehicles would pony up this information voluntarily?

If I fuck my mates girlfriend but neglect to tell him, I'm still acting in a dishonest way, IMHO

 

[Krazeh]

It's called "openness", "honesty" etc. etc.

Do you not think that a company that is being open and honest and is being asked about privacy concerns related to their vehicles would pony up this information voluntarily?

Not if they didn't hold the view that it was connected to the queries being raised by the Data Protection Authorities. If they get asked questions by the regulator they'll respond to those questions, they're not gonna start thinking about what else they could possibly add in that may or may not be of any relevance. If Google had, which we can only assume that they did, considered the legal issues surrounding collect wifi ssid and mac addresses, look at other companies doing exactly the same thing and conclude there was no legal issue why would they think about discussing that when the questions they were being asked by the Data Protection Authorities related directly to the photographs they were taking and not anything about wifi collection?

 

[Scouse]

Google said during a review it found it had "been mistakenly collecting samples of payload data from open networks".

Ok. Google has admitted it did wrong. That change your stance at all?

How about if I say that data protection comissioners from around the world have complained to google about it's lack of openness and for seemingly not caring about privacy concerns?

Germany's data protection comissioner (who had face to face meetings with Google over streetview) said

I am appalled… I call upon Google to delete previously unlawfully collected personal data on the wireless network immediately

Google's CEO's response was a rather Orwellian

internet users shouldn't worry about privacy unless they have something to hide

So. We have a CEO who, by words from his own mouth, obviously doesn't give a fuck about privacy. Well, not if it interferes with him making money he doesn't.


Seriously. Do you still honestly think there's no fire here?

 

[rynnor]

The thing that occurs to me is that they didnt just delete this data when they 'discovered' it.

Seeing as how weak the Data Protection watchdog is they may well be thinking of applying for permission to use this data (and may well get it).

Suddenly the Google streetview stuff makes sense as part of a method of creating valuable advertising data.

 

[Scouse]

The thing that occurs to me is that they didnt just delete this data when they 'discovered' it.

Yep. They plan to ask individual governments "how" they want Google to delete the data.

My idea would be: fucking hit delete, and destroy any copies? It's pretty fucking easy.

Asking governments "how" is saying "can we keep some, please, we like it and it's already a revenue source - we'll pay some more tax, honest!"

 

[Krazeh]

Ok. Google has admitted it did wrong. That change your stance at all?

Does it change my stance that people should take more care over the security of their network? Or that Google should have provided more information about their collection of wifi ssid details? No, not really.

That's not to say I don't think what Google has done isn't wrong, they shouldn't have stored anything other than the details they were aiming to collect, i.e. the ssid and mac address, but at the same time I'm a firm believer in people taking responsibility for themselves. If you can't be bothered securing your wifi then you shouldn't be able to complain later when it turns out that someone may have been able to access data you were sending about.

How about if I say that data protection comissioners from around the world have complained to google about it's lack of openness and for seemingly not caring about privacy concerns?

So what if they have? The issue they were complaining about to Google centred on the way it was photographing things for it's Streetview service. The collection of wifi information is a completely separate matter, the only reason it's only been mentioned in connection with Streetview is because Google chose to use the same cars to do both activities.

Let's not forget that Google, as far as I know, we're the first company to do anything like Streetview, both in terms of scale and what it was collecting. They weren't however the first company to decide to collect basic wifi details for use in location services. There are companies who've been doing that for a while and little noise has been made about it. Any dealings they had were going to be focused on the new controversial thing they were doing, not the thing that other companies have been doing for some time without a problem.

Seriously. Do you still honestly think there's no fire here?

Do I think that Google set out to deliberately collect fragmented data from wireless networks? No, I don't. If that was their aim then their method of doing it was flawed from the start, the very first thing you want to be doing if you want to collect meaningful data from a wireless network is not driving out of it's range as quickly as you drove into it. Nor does having your equipment rotate through wireless channels continually assist in maintaining good connections or obtaining complete useful data.

The thing that occurs to me is that they didnt just delete this data when they 'discovered' it.

Seeing as how weak the Data Protection watchdog is they may well be thinking of applying for permission to use this data (and may well get it).

Suddenly the Google streetview stuff makes sense as part of a method of creating valuable advertising data.

Yep. They plan to ask individual governments "how" they want Google to delete the data.

My idea would be: fucking hit delete, and destroy any copies? It's pretty fucking easy.

Asking governments "how" is saying "can we keep some, please, we like it and it's already a revenue source - we'll pay some more tax, honest!"

You'd be suprised how many companies want to check with Data Protection Authorities before destroying data, even when it seems blindingly obvious how you should go about doing it. Not to mention that getting an answer from the regulators about how it should be destroyed and then complying with that means that Google have something to fall back onto if at a later date someone wants to complain that they did something wrong in how they got rid of it.

However, even if you were correct and it's all a conspiracy so Google can use the information they collected what do you honestly thing they'd be able to do with it? How much useful information do you really think they could have collected in the short amount of time they were connected to these networks?

 

[ford prefect]

It seems a little odd to me that someone would write a piece of code like that, include it in the software for these cars and then it goes completely unnoticed for four years? Bit unlikely if you ask me.

 

[Ctuchik]

yeah seems dodgy to me, would have been plausible if it were only one car...

 

[milou]

Unsecured wireless points will be a new feature on Google maps. FreebieLeechView or something. /conspiracy

 

[DaGaffer]

Unsecured wireless points will be a new feature on Google maps. FreebieLeechView or something. /conspiracy

Far more likely that google will sell the list data to ISPs and security companies so they can do targeted advertising to those households with unsecured wifi offering "secure" routers, home network advice etc. Also, as even secure networks often have the ISPs name in the ID (e.g "BTHomeHub"), they can sell the data to ISPs for targeted switch DM offers. All of this info is effectively "public" for anyone with the resources to collect it. Its also rather less valuable than you might think because it changes so quickly.

Do I think Google were wrong to collect it? Yes, but then I don't particularly like the privacy aspects of Streetview, even though I know I'll be a hypocrite and use it for turn-based nav etc. I also think Google should be forced to have their internal security audited because a database of unsecured hotspots is a potential goldmine for a disgruntled employee to use or flog.

 

[TdC]

It's called "openness", "honesty" etc. etc.

companies are only really open and honest when some scary organization is holding a gun to their heads. and then...maybe.

So. We have a CEO who, by words from his own mouth, obviously doesn't give a fuck about privacy. Well, not if it interferes with him making money he doesn't.

indeed. tbh Google did not get to where it is today without metaphorically raping babies.

Yep. They plan to ask individual governments "how" they want Google to delete the data.

indeed, they're going to make deals. imo that's how criminal organizations be they governments or companies attempt to remain in existence when they're caught doing something norteh. also, they're going to pump the information they gathered for everything it's worth while they still have it. information = power = money = whatever. the mere fact that it's become public that they *might* have something that *may* be worth looking at is awesome for them.

yeah seems dodgy to me, would have been plausible if it were only one car...

the problem Google has is, besides that they were caught, that there is no plausible excuse really. there was code running, the output was stored in a manner that was clearly thought out, etc. this bodes ill for them if the large euro courts get their wheels grinding I guess.