Prev: Market Your Business to the World in Under 5 Minutes
Next: NEWS: Apple iPad users' e-mail addresses harvested by hackers
From: bod43 on 10 Jun 2010 15:21
On 10 June, 18:02, Bob <b...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 10/06/2010 16:57, Char Jackson wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:28:30 +0100, Bob<b...(a)invalid.invalid>  wrote:
>
> >> On 10/06/2010 06:14, Char Jackson wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 18:22:03 -0700, John Navas<jn...(a)navasgroup.com>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> "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,"
> >>>> said PI in a statement.
>
> >>> I'm not defending Google, but I have to wonder how much "unencrypted
> >>> content (payload data)" they were able to gather as they drove down
> >>> the various streets. It seems like the vehicle would be out of range
> >>> before it could gather much payload data.
>
> >> If they were trying to do wifi location as part of their mapping I doubt
> >> that they would be moving, I would expect them to be stationary to
> >> increase the accuracy of their triangulation when using GPS.
> >> Googles patent:-
> >> <http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=P...>
>
> > I've only seen the camera cars twice, once on my street and once again
> > in another residential part of my city. Both times they were moving
> > with the speed of traffic, about 25-30 MPH. If they were stopping
> > every time they saw an open network, they wouldn't get very far.
>
> I haven't seen them as yet as I was on holiday when they did my town.
> Given the accuracy of GPS and if they were moving all of the time I
> can't see that wifi location will be all that accurate. They seem to
> have taken pictures every 12 metres on the estate and according to my
> neighbour they stopped several times however he didn't say whether this
> was prior to turning into other roads or not. Several roads were missed
> although they effectively circumnavigated those areas by using other roads.

Well if they want to send over a bomb or missile then
it won't be accurate enough but for commercial purposes
such as "here are some nearby fish and chip shops"
it seems fine.

From: Bob on 10 Jun 2010 15:52
On 10/06/2010 20:21, bod43 wrote:
> On 10 June, 18:02, Bob<b...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 10/06/2010 16:57, Char Jackson wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:28:30 +0100, Bob<b...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>> On 10/06/2010 06:14, Char Jackson wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 18:22:03 -0700, John Navas<jn...(a)navasgroup.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> "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,"
>>>>>> said PI in a statement.
>>
>>>>> I'm not defending Google, but I have to wonder how much "unencrypted
>>>>> content (payload data)" they were able to gather as they drove down
>>>>> the various streets. It seems like the vehicle would be out of range
>>>>> before it could gather much payload data.
>>
>>>> If they were trying to do wifi location as part of their mapping I doubt
>>>> that they would be moving, I would expect them to be stationary to
>>>> increase the accuracy of their triangulation when using GPS.
>>>> Googles patent:-
>>>> <http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=P...>
>>
>>> I've only seen the camera cars twice, once on my street and once again
>>> in another residential part of my city. Both times they were moving
>>> with the speed of traffic, about 25-30 MPH. If they were stopping
>>> every time they saw an open network, they wouldn't get very far.
>>
>> I haven't seen them as yet as I was on holiday when they did my town.
>> Given the accuracy of GPS and if they were moving all of the time I
>> can't see that wifi location will be all that accurate. They seem to
>> have taken pictures every 12 metres on the estate and according to my
>> neighbour they stopped several times however he didn't say whether this
>> was prior to turning into other roads or not. Several roads were missed
>> although they effectively circumnavigated those areas by using other roads.
>
> Well if they want to send over a bomb or missile then
> it won't be accurate enough but for commercial purposes
> such as "here are some nearby fish and chip shops"
> it seems fine.
>
Where I live over 50% oh households turn off their routers when they are
not at home and at present I am staying at relatives, about 200 miles
north of where I live, and that figure has increased to about 80%. I
would also say that with people changing their ISP options and
consequently their SSID's, most people never change their ISP's unique
SSID's but everytime the router or ISP is changed the SSID changes,
that their has been a 40% change in the last 18 months and I doubt
Google are going to renew their database that frequently so I am not
convinced about using consumer wifi as a location device in the UK. It
would probably work with wifi hotspots which tend not to change and are
near to your "fish and chip shops" but I see no reason for them to be
recording wifi networks on housing estates which are a couple of miles
away from anything.
From: Malcolm Hoar on 10 Jun 2010 20:06
In article <gcf016thal9dvq3e3cl34eupjgtk8inoqj(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
>"This is equivalent to placing a hard tap and a
>digital recorder onto a phone wire without consent or authorisation,"
>said PI in a statement.

Or, depending on your point of view, equivalent to overhearing
some snips of a telephone conversation while walking past an open
window.

This doesn't appear to be a very objective or credible "study".

I'm not suggesting that Google's actions were entirely appropriate
but this kind of rhetoric isn't going to help people understand
what actually took place and why.

--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| malch(a)malch.com Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/ Shpx gur PQN. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Brad Allen on 10 Jun 2010 21:34
In article <gcf016thal9dvq3e3cl34eupjgtk8inoqj(a)4ax.com>,
John Navas <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
" Google is "almost certain" to face prosecution for collecting data
" from unsecured wi-fi networks, according to Privacy International
" (PI).

What garbage.

1) Publically received radio while driving down a public street.
2) They didn't crack the encryption.
3) The content wasn't important.
4) They had no intent to turn all of that completely public unimportant
content into a criminal use.

Those aren't "OR". They are "AND".

The people after Google are politicians (and those fooled by them),
not good citizens.
From: Brad Allen on 10 Jun 2010 21:42
>Where I live over 50% oh households turn off their routers when they are
>not at home and at present I am staying at relatives, about 200 miles
>north of where I live, and that figure has increased to about 80%. I
>would also say that with people changing their ISP options and
>consequently their SSID's, most people never change their ISP's unique
>SSID's but everytime the router or ISP is changed the SSID changes,
>that their has been a 40% change in the last 18 months and I doubt
>Google are going to renew their database that frequently so I am not
>convinced about using consumer wifi as a location device in the UK. It
>would probably work with wifi hotspots which tend not to change and are
>near to your "fish and chip shops" but I see no reason for them to be
>recording wifi networks on housing estates which are a couple of miles
>away from anything.

You'd have to think like a programmer to realize these things, but:

1. MAC addresses (Bob Metcalfe et al & Std Bodies) are used, not SSIDs.
2. When you are a user of the data, you also send the data back to the database
about what you find. So, you find out MAC address A and B are in
the known database, and MAC address C D E F G and H aren't around
that are in the database, and MAC address I J K L are around but
not in the database. You send an update to the database of what
you found. The database and you do probabilistic calculations to
figure out if MAC addresses A and B simultaneously moved or if
you're actually where the database has them marked. This has to
do with tracking the location the set of all MAC addresses across
time and place.
3. It's not just the wifi routers: it's the clients, too, so that doubles
the number of stations to store info about.

So, the 50% to 80% of households turning off their Wifi routers or
changing their SSIDs doesn't really stop the database from working.
Coupling it with real-world use (constant update, GPS backup data,
people who don't turn off their wifi, etc.), the database really is
very useful for what it does. I can see that in some pockets it isn't
as useful, but for the most part, it is very useful.

Google driving about is basically to seed the database faster than
GPS-enabled responders can, but with GPS response updating the
database, it's basically not necessary for the Google seed. It's just
a quick jump-start to the whole process.

Of course, if it's programmed wrong, then it doesn't have to work
right or well.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Market Your Business to the World in Under 5 Minutes
Next: NEWS: Apple iPad users' e-mail addresses harvested by hackers