Suing google over privacy
Apparently, those google map cars driving around taking pictures for streetview were also poking around in unsecured wireless networks. As such, some residents in Nashville are suing.
Here’s an idea: secure your wireless network.
July 15th, 2011 at 10:12 am
Shouldn’t make a difference – legally speaking.
If I leave my front door open to let in fresh air and sunlight, that doesn’t give anyone the right to walk into my house and raid the ‘fridge.
July 15th, 2011 at 10:39 am
I was actually home when the google car mapped my neighborhood. Since I live on a dead end, I knew the car would be back, so I sat on my front porch and took his picture when he was outbound. For a while my street view had my photo, until they switched it out for the inbound version. I guess I don’t have curb appeal.
July 15th, 2011 at 10:39 am
First off it’s bloody stupid to leave your access point unsecured. If some perv uses your open access point to surf porn you’re the one the police will be sending the swat team in for a visit in the middle of the night. Personally I’d prefer to avoid that dance.
On the other hand, Google accessing and storing personal data on your private network is illegal, period. And the Court has found against them in San Francisco already in the process of a lawsuit.
Mycroft has a great analogy in my opinion.
July 15th, 2011 at 10:41 am
Hmm. Should have said Child Porn. I believe there are cases out there where this has happened with SWAT visiting.
July 15th, 2011 at 10:45 am
Unfortunately, your wireless network extends beyond your home. It’s out there for everyone to see and use, if you choose not to encrypt. When you put your trash out on the curb, it’s mine for the taking.
July 15th, 2011 at 10:57 am
Jim gets it right, Google only collected what was openly transmitted.
The physics of the situation are no different from the pictures they took, they used a specialized electromagnetic receiver to record variance of a specific frequency, nothing more.
It just happens that there was some private unencrypted information contained in that snapshot.
The part of all this that is bothering me is, Google in good faith offered to delete everything that wasn’t just a MAC address, but several governments said they had to turn the data over instead.
July 15th, 2011 at 10:57 am
My understanding is that if you come through my network, irrespective of where you physically are, you have broken the law. Doesn’t matter how far the radio reach of the device, the act of using it without approval is the violation of the law.
July 15th, 2011 at 11:08 am
I believe The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is the relevant law. Though there are others that may have bearing as well.
July 15th, 2011 at 11:16 am
@Nylarthotep: Having a law does not prevent the intrusion or the leak of private data, it only allows punishment of those who intrude.
If you want privacy, encrypt. There is no other solution.
July 15th, 2011 at 11:20 am
@John Hardin: We Are discussing a lawsuit so the law apparently is relevant. It may not prevent anything, but Google was caught doing something in violation of the law and those who were violated are seeking recourse for their actions.
Ars Technica has an article on the topic describing the courts findings in San Fran.
July 15th, 2011 at 11:26 am
Luckily, Google can now drive by your house and use thermal imaging to take videos of you boinking your spouse. If you don’t like that, then simply put up thermal blocking insulation.
You don’t know how to do that? Funny, there are some people who don’t understand how to set up their routers to be secure and yet people complain that it’s their fault.
Not everyone is computer savvy. They get the little box from the nice cable man and that’s all they know.
I personally don’t think what Google did was illegal, just immoral. They’re concept of “Evil” is anything that makes Google less profitable.
July 15th, 2011 at 12:52 pm
@Robb: well, since the law says it is your fault if someone uses your unsecured router to do something illegal, the ‘nice cable guy(s)’ in my area secure every one they set up unless you sign a waiver form. and have for what, 5 years now? If someone waives off someone providing basic security for free (actually included in the setup fee) then yes, it is their fault.
July 15th, 2011 at 1:37 pm
“5.Jim Brack Says:
July 15th, 2011 at 10:45 am
Unfortunately, your wireless network extends beyond your home. It’s out there for everyone to see and use, if you choose not to encrypt. When you put your trash out on the curb, it’s mine for the taking.”
Uh huh. And if you’re dumb enough to have credit cards or cash just lying around in your wallet and you forget to protect it. Well I have a right to take it. Not.
You are morally wrong on this one Jim. You are an anarchist and a looter. IMHO.
July 15th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
Pol, if someone pickpockets me because, hey I didn’t secure my wallet, then it’s my fault when they use my identity to commit fraud?
I’m glad YOUR cable guys are nice like that. Here, they come in, plug in the router, check to make sure they can hit Google, and then leave. How is Granny supposed to know she’s supposed to lock it down?
You act as is securing a network is instinct that we’re born with. As a computer developer, I can attest that the vast majority of the populace gets confused by the difference between ‘right’ and ‘left’ click, much less explaining to them how to set up a secure network.
July 15th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
There was a similar ruckus over unsecured wireless over a Kim Du Toit’s a while back. I still maintain there is no good analogy here and that trying to make one fit like the open front door above doesn’t help.
One point I made back then that nobody could answer was “what if you WANT to run open wireless because you’re nice like that?” If using someone else’s open wireless is teh ebil, as so many seem to think, how is joe random guy walking past supposed to know? Find a sign? Track down the source, knock on the door and ask? Fill out a form in triplicate and say pretty please? Uh huh.
When planes first started flying someone sued because they thought their property rights extended to space. Maybe they do, but that doesn’t WORK, so planes fly without paying you for the privilege. A paradigm will eventually solidify around radio waves.
July 15th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
@Robb: I know, I do home / home office / small business setups and maintenance for a living. When comcast started doing it for free I was a little put out. That cost me a billable hour in setup and training x about 20 jobs a month.
Even so, if you go buy a new router and follow the setup instructions (insert cd, follow prompts) it sets up security for you with 3 or 4 mouse clicks and a short password. It’s automatic. You have to willfully skip that part of setup. Thats been for at least 3 years.
So, no, granny don’t get a pass from me, here in Nashville, anyway.
That being said, did Google commit a crime? I think so based on the computer fraud and abuse act, as Nylarthotep said.
However, If you are naked in your yard and someone takes a pic of you, you can’t scream ‘Privacy!’ If you are concerned about your privacy take the 10 minutes to figure out how to stay private. If you can’t figure it out yourself, get someone who can… a relative, a friend, or at last resort a professional.
Regards,
Pol
July 15th, 2011 at 4:39 pm
Nyarlathotep: Note that that judge only refused an outright dismissal; that’s not saying “it’s wiretapping” or “Google broke the law”, but “I can’t tell at a glance that they absolutely did not“.
Given that the Wiretapping Act requires intent to intercept a communication, I’d think they’re not guilty. Because everything I know about it suggests their intent was to get identifying things (MAC, SSID, etc.) that are not communications in the relevant sense, and the other data was just caught in the data dump incidentally.
Thus no intent to intercept, thus no crime.
aczarnowski: It’s polite (but by no means required) to name a public AP with a name that makes its open nature clear.
I figure anyone doing it intentionally will do that, or use their business name, for businesses that offer “free wi-fi”. Random ones in residential neighborhoods with default names… that’s not a good assumption, in those cases.
This whole “Google ‘spying'” thing has been reported horribly since day one – there’s no “there” there.
Tempest. Teapot.
July 15th, 2011 at 5:40 pm
It’s hardly settled law that using an unsecured wireless connection is a crime.
July 15th, 2011 at 8:45 pm
@Nylarthotep: My point was more that expecting the law to protect your privacy is for the most part an illusion. Sure, you can sue them for damages, and the potential for being sued and found guilty may deter some violators, but your private matters have still leaked.
@aczarnowski: If you want to run a free public wifi, change the SSID to clearly indicate that it’s public.
July 16th, 2011 at 1:13 am
“Funny, there are some people who don’t understand how to set up their routers to be secure and yet people complain that it’s their fault.”
Most people aren’t locksmiths yet most people seem to have locked doors.
And no, this isn’t the same as your wallet. This is the same as loose money laying in the street. The asset in question isn’t on your property, in your physical possession, and not vaguely protected. If Google had cracked someone’s encryption or trespassed to access the signal, that would be one thing. But if you let signal leave your property unsecured it is your fault, the same as if you argue loudly with your wife in the backyard where the neighbors can hear.
July 16th, 2011 at 6:46 am
Shouldn’t make a difference – legally speaking.
If I leave my front door open to let in fresh air and sunlight, that doesn’t give anyone the right to walk into my house and raid the ‘fridge.
That analogy doesn’t quite fly, as Google didn’t steal anything physical (leaving #13 “Jeffersonian” looking like a complete ass for putting more effort into his insults than actually thinking about the matter.)
The better analogy would be: Imagine that you leave your front door or living room window open and some guy on the street stands there and sees what he can see inside, and maybe even takes photos. Who’s in the wrong?
Now, same scenario but with some tweaks. The guy on the street has a kid with him, and you’re standing buck naked inside that door, and they just happen to glance over — ew, some things cannot be unseen 😛 Now who’s responsible?
I’ll bet that most of you were thinking that the guy in the street is in the wrong in scenario #1, but not for scenario #2. And yet, physically the exact same thing happens in either case, the only variation being whether the peeking was deliberate.
So no, physical theft of property is the wrong analogy to use; recording of information left exposed to the public space, via and open door (light) or open WiFi (radio), is.
I say skip the debate and just secure your damned wifi in case this guy moves in next door.
July 17th, 2011 at 12:28 am
Wow.. anarchists and looters? Thank god we’re not talking about something serious like listening in to people talking on CB or amateur radio. After all, there’s a expectation of privacy when you make radio transmissions for all the world to hear.