NEWS: Google accused of criminal intent over StreetView data
in [Wireless Internet]
|
Prev: Market Your Business to the World in Under 5 Minutes
Next: NEWS: Apple iPad users' e-mail addresses harvested by hackers
From: John Navas on 9 Jun 2010 21:22 Google is "almost certain" to face prosecution for collecting data from unsecured wi-fi networks, according to Privacy International (PI). The search giant has been under scrutiny for collecting wi-fi data as part of its StreetView project. Google has released an independent audit of the rogue code, which it has claimed was included in the StreetView software by mistake. But PI is convinced the audit proves "criminal intent". "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. This would put Google at odds with the interception laws of the 30 countries that the system was used in, it added. MORE: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10278068.stm>
From: Char Jackson on 10 Jun 2010 01:14 On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 18:22:03 -0700, John Navas <jncl1(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.
From: Bob on 10 Jun 2010 06:28 On 10/06/2010 06:14, Char Jackson wrote: > On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 18:22:03 -0700, John Navas<jncl1(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=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220100020776%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20100020776&RS=DN/20100020776>
From: Char Jackson on 10 Jun 2010 11:57 On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:28:30 +0100, Bob <bob(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >On 10/06/2010 06:14, Char Jackson wrote: >> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 18:22:03 -0700, John Navas<jncl1(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=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220100020776%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20100020776&RS=DN/20100020776> 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.
From: Bob on 10 Jun 2010 13:02
On 10/06/2010 16:57, Char Jackson wrote: > On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:28:30 +0100, Bob<bob(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> On 10/06/2010 06:14, Char Jackson wrote: >>> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 18:22:03 -0700, John Navas<jncl1(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=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220100020776%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20100020776&RS=DN/20100020776> > > 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. |