How's this for credibility, Re. googles spying and theft: Reuters; Huffington; MSNBC ???

[Panchoevo]

Here's Reuters:
Google says its cars grabbed emails, passwords | Reuters

Here's Huffington:
Google Admits Scooping Passwords, Emails In Street View Privacy Breach

Here's MSNBC:
Google says Street View cars got e-mail, passwords - Technology & science - Security - msnbc.com

 

[lunatic59]

... accidentally collected data from unsecured wireless networks ...

There are currently 7 unsecured wireless networks within range of my house. If I leave WiFi enabled when I walk my dog, i will connect to them as the signal becomes dominant. I must be a co-conspirator.

 

[Panchoevo]

In most of the western world, it is called an un-permissive taking, some call it larceny. A "thing" is not yours simply because it is able to be taken.

So, to follow this corruption, someone walking in through you open front door and taking your things, is no big deal. Really ?

Or, if you lose your wallet in the park, and someone finds it and takes your money, then, that's OK within your scope of legal and proper conduct. Fortunately, there are several civilizations that would disagree with you.

You might want to note that the "accidental" thing is google's story. They "accidentally", had multiple band wifi scanners on their vehicles, in order to take photos.

The question remains, why is Sprint associated with the likes of google, the "accidental" taker of private info, with "accidentally" installed scanners...to take photos? Is Sprint like google? Do Sprint and google share a common ethic ?

Oh, and last, but not least, google has decided to investigate itself. It has appointed its own investigation czar. Oh, that's credible. What a joke.

 

[Panchoevo]

I have recently learned that many forums are "google centric". That is the term that was used. I did not even know that this classification existed. I was under the impression that the forums were open, and were not serving an enterprise. Apparently, this is not always the case.

Someone tell me.

Is this a "google centric" forum--connected to google by an ethos, or sponsorship, or something that makes this forum a sort of google affiliate.

If it is, then someone let me know, and I will not continue with this topic on this forum.

 

[UncleMike]

There are currently 7 unsecured wireless networks within range of my house. If I leave WiFi enabled when I walk my dog, i will connect to them as the signal becomes dominant. I must be a co-conspirator.

The fact that you're connecting to these networks as their signals become dominant would indicate that you have purposely connected to each of them in the past, otherwise they would not be "known" networks.

That said, I think the uproar over this whole thing is a bunch of BS. If people are using unsecured Wifi, any expectation of privacy is unreasonable. If you change your SSID to something obscure, it may be reasonable to expect that people won't connect to it accidentally, but I'll bet at least one or two of those 7 unsecured networks in your area are still using the default SSID and admin password.

I realize that the relevant laws vary from one country to another, but the law has nothing to do with reasonable expectations.

 

[Panchoevo]

The fact that you're connecting to these networks as their signals become dominant would indicate that you have purposely connected to each of them in the past, otherwise they would not be "known" networks.

That said, I think the uproar over this whole thing is a bunch of BS. If people are using unsecured Wifi, any expectation of privacy is unreasonable. If you change your SSID to something obscure, it may be reasonable to expect that people won't connect to it accidentally, but I'll bet at least one or two of those 7 unsecured networks in your area are still using the default SSID and admin password.

I realize that the relevant laws vary from one country to another, but the law has nothing to do with reasonable expectations.

In most of the western world, it is called an un-permissive taking, some call it larceny. A "thing" is not yours simply because it is able to be taken.

The law has everything to do with reasonable expectations. Your definition of "reasonableness" is ego centric, as was the "reasonableness" of Jeffrey Dahmer, or Elijah Mohammed--it is self-serving. Without the law, "reasonableness" would be defined by the whims and fancy of each individual. That is the problem with google, and its devout congregation--your "reasonableness" standard is only yours, and you seek to impose it on whoever gets in your way. Fortunately, in this instance, the law seems to be getting in your way. The "uproar" which you consider to be "BS" is actually the concern of citizens over an invasion of their privacy by google. Should you have your way, then yours would be a classic pyrrhic victory--disastrous and self destructive--google would eventually crush you, also.

Again, Moderator, is this a "google centric" forum--connected to google by an ethos, or sponsorship, or money, something that makes this forum a sort of google affiliate. If it is, then let me know, and I will not continue with this topic on this forum.

 

[A.Nonymous]

In most of the western world, it is called an un-permissive taking, some call it larceny. A "thing" is not yours simply because it is able to be taken.

The law has everything to do with reasonable expectations. Your definition of "reasonableness" is ego centric, as was the "reasonableness" of Jeffrey Dahmer, or Elijah Mohammed--it is self-serving. Without the law, "reasonableness" would be defined by the whims and fancy of each individual. That is the problem with google, and its devout congregation--your "reasonableness" standard is only yours, and you seek to impose it on whoever gets in your way. Fortunately, in this instance, the law seems to be getting in your way. The "uproar" which you consider to be "BS" is actually the concern of citizens over an invasion of their privacy by google. Should you have your way, then yours would be a classic pyrrhic victory--disastrous and self destructive--google would eventually crush you, also.

Again, Moderator, is this a "google centric" forum--connected to google by an ethos, or sponsorship, or money, something that makes this forum a sort of google affiliate. If it is, then let me know, and I will not continue with this topic on this forum.

No, the law does completely cover reasonableness. For example, there was a televangelist (I think Pat Robertson, but I may be wrong) recently who had a libel suit he filed tossed out of court recently. Some cartoonist had drawn a cartoon of Pat Robertson having sex with his 80 something year old mother. Robertson sued for libel. The judge tossed it out in like 30 seconds ruling that no one in their right mind would reasonably believe that the cartoon was true. So yes, reasonableness is part of the law.

If someone comes into my house and takes my stuff, that's theft plain and simple. If I leave my stuff on my lawn by the curb and someone takes it, it may not be theft. People could reasonably construe that since it's near the curb that it's free for the taking.

Honestly, you're going to argue that you can broadcast your emails and passwords in clear text and have an expectation that no one is going to take them? Can I also leave $100 bills laying around my lawn and expect that no one is going to take them? It's my property.

Why does whether this forum is associate with Google or not make any difference?

 

[Joe Dirt]

When I lived in my apartment I had 4 open networks and one wep, the wep key was "password". I never paid for internet while living there

 

[GrenW]

You might want to note that the "accidental" thing is google's story. They "accidentally", had multiple band wifi scanners on their vehicles, in order to take photos.

Nope, they had wi-fi scanners on the cars to build up a location database of SSIDs. That's how a lot of location services work (including Phoneweaver, the one I use) and is a lot more accurate than using cell towers and uses a lot less power than GPS.

 

[UncleMike]

In most of the western world, it is called an un-permissive taking, some call it larceny. A "thing" is not yours simply because it is able to be taken.

The law has everything to do with reasonable expectations. Your definition of "reasonableness" is ego centric, as was the "reasonableness" of Jeffrey Dahmer, or Elijah Mohammed--it is self-serving. Without the law, "reasonableness" would be defined by the whims and fancy of each individual. That is the problem with google, and its devout congregation--your "reasonableness" standard is only yours, and you seek to impose it on whoever gets in your way. Fortunately, in this instance, the law seems to be getting in your way. The "uproar" which you consider to be "BS" is actually the concern of citizens over an invasion of their privacy by google. Should you have your way, then yours would be a classic pyrrhic victory--disastrous and self destructive--google would eventually crush you, also.

Again, Moderator, is this a "google centric" forum--connected to google by an ethos, or sponsorship, or money, something that makes this forum a sort of google affiliate. If it is, then let me know, and I will not continue with this topic on this forum.

Since you've asked this before, and haven't gotten an answer, I'll address this as best I can first: to the best of my knowledge this forum has no affiliation with Google, monetarily, ethically, or otherwise. However, it is a forum for the discussion of Android-based products, services and software, and is therefore naturally frequented by those who enthusiastic about Android and related products, services, etc. As a result, you will find a strong pro-Google sentiment here. In this sense, this forum is no different than forums for discussion of Apple products, Windows Phone products, or Blackberry products - you will find a strong sentiment in favor of the products being discussed.

With regard to reasonableness, it may very well be illegal in some/most places to capture radio broadcasts, but that doesn't make it reasonable to take no precautions when using radio broadcasts to transmit confidential data. It is illegal for someone to enter my house uninvited, or to do so and take my possessions, but it's unreasonable for me to leave my doors unlocked or wide open simply because of this.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I don't know about your analogy. If the police arrest me for stealing your stuff and I argue that your front door was wide open so I took your stuff, the jury probably isn't going to buy it. Even though your door is open, it's reasonable for you to expect me to not enter uninvited. However, if my argument is that your stuff was sitting by the curb so I took it, the jury may buy it. You left your stuff out in the open by the street and it's not all that reasonable to expect that no one is going to take it.

Google didn't hack into these people's routers. They simply drove by the house. Perhaps a better analogy is walking around naked in your front yard and being ticked that pics of you show up on the Internet. You can't have an expectation of privacy if you're nude in your front yard. You can't expect your data to be private if you're openly broadcasting it to the entire world.

 

[Hangdog42]

In most of the western world, it is called an un-permissive taking, some call it larceny. A "thing" is not yours simply because it is able to be taken.

When it comes to wireless, the short answer is no. If someone is broadcasting a wireless signal into a public place, the law isn't settled as to whether or not a person has the right to intercept that signal (although prior to wifi routers, it was largely assumed you had the right to listen to broadcasts in a public place). Connecting and using an access point without permission is almost certainly illegal, but simply listening, as Google was doing, may very well not be, particularly with unencrypted signals. Where Google got really stupid was in recording anything besides the SSID and location.

 

[Tangent]

In most of the western world, it is called an un-permissive taking, some call it larceny. A "thing" is not yours simply because it is able to be taken.

...

Google had the wifi scanners in the streetview cars so they could provide the service of displaying on Google maps where available public hotspots are. Part of triangulating those hotspots involves saving openly broadcast packets. Sometimes those packets can contain information such as urls, parts of images somebody's browser is downloading, and yes, passwords and email addresses might be in there as well.

Calling what they did "un-permissive taking" or larceny is like accusing somebody of stealing classified information because they overheard you discussing it in public.

A more thorough explanation: Errata Security: Technical details of the Street View WiFi payload controversy

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

You might want to note that the "accidental" thing is google's story. They "accidentally", had multiple band wifi scanners on their vehicles, in order to take photos.

The question remains, why is Sprint associated with the likes of google, the "accidental" taker of private info, with "accidentally" installed scanners...to take photos? Is Sprint like google? Do Sprint and google share a common ethic ?

Oh, and last, but not least, google has decided to investigate itself. It has appointed its own investigation czar. Oh, that's credible. What a joke.

Google clearly screwed up but the wireless info captured from un-secure networks has nothing to do with "the taking of pictures"

"We're acutely aware that we failed badly here," Eustace said in the blog post.
Google's cars collected the WiFi data in more than 30 countries between 2006 and mid-2010 so that Google could amass data on WiFi hotspots that could help provide location-based services -- a project unrelated to taking photos for Google Maps.

But Google apparently thought it was only collecting a limited type of WiFi data relating to the WiFi network's name and router numbers.
The collection of the additional, so-called payload data was a simple mistake resulting from a piece of computer code that was accidentally included from an experimental project, Google said

I'll wait for the probes to pass judgement.

 

[Mistiq]

The easiest analogy for me is to equate what Google did with somebody taking pictures in a neighborhood and then finding out that their neighbor left the doors and the curtains wide open while they walked around the house naked.

Yea, nobody meant to take nude pictures, but the nude people didn't take effort to stop strangers from peeking in.

 

[IOWA]

So wait wait wait, if I walk around naked in my house with my blinds open people can SEE me? HOW DARE THEY!

 

[takeshi]

The question remains, why is Sprint associated with the likes of google, the "accidental" taker of private info, with "accidentally" installed scanners...to take photos? Is Sprint like google? Do Sprint and google share a common ethic ?

So why are you singling out Sprint? You realize that they're not the only carrier offering Android devices, right?

 

[lunatic59]

So wait wait wait, if I walk around naked in my house with my blinds open people can SEE me? HOW DARE THEY!

PM me your address ... I want to make sure I stay off your block

 

[A.Nonymous]

The easiest analogy for me is to equate what Google did with somebody taking pictures in a neighborhood and then finding out that their neighbor left the doors and the curtains wide open while they walked around the house naked.

Yea, nobody meant to take nude pictures, but the nude people didn't take effort to stop strangers from peeking in.

Actually, a better analogy is walking around in your front yard naked. That's basically what Google did. They picked up data that was being freely and openly broadcast to the world. It's kind of like putting up a big sign advertising what your Social Security number is and getting ticked that people try to steal your identity.

 

[IOWA]

PM me your address ... I want to make sure I stay off your block

Done. No nakey IOWA for you!

 

[snapper.fishes]

Still, at the end of the day, they should have known better.

 

[Demache]

Google should twist this around and say "This is why it is very important to secure your wireless network! Who knows what someone could do with this information."



It was dumb of Google to record the information, but people thinking its a crime against humanity really need to put it in perspective. It would sort of be like the US government getting pissed at China because they intercepted their unencrypted classified broadcasts over shortwave radio. If you didn't secure your own transmissions, its your own damn fault that your information got leaked out.