Google Didn't Delete All Street View Wi-Fi Data 150
nk497 writes "Google is in more trouble over the Street View Wi-Fi data slurping incident. Two years ago Google admitted it had collected snippets of personal data while sniffing for Wi-Fi connections. The UK's data watchdog, the ICO, didn't fine Google, but did demand it delete the collected data. Following the FCC's investigation, the ICO double-checked with Google that the data was deleted, receiving confirmation that it had. Except... it hadn't all been deleted, Google has now admitted. That breaches the deal between the ICO and Google, and the watchdog has said it's in talks with other regulators about what to do next."
Don't be evil (Score:2, Insightful)
Sometimes.
Re:Wait... the UK? (Score:0, Insightful)
Yeah but the government can disappear you if they see something on those cameras they don't like. Google is making a glorified map.
Questions... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm really not sure why this is an issue. Sure, there are situations where people have an expectation of privacy. But if you are transmitting data through the air in a public space, isn't it fair game? If you don't want people to look at it, shouldn't you encrypt?
This is just dumb (Score:5, Insightful)
I generally think Google didn't do anything wrong in the first place. People shouldn't be complaining that publicly broadcast unencrypted data is recorded by a third party, and if Google had wanted to fight them on the legality of the issue i would have been behind them. However agreeing to delete the data in some kind of plea bargain and then not actually deleting it is a d*** move. (I'm not quite sure at this point if it's a dick move or just a dumb move, but it's definitely one of them.)
Re:This is just dumb (Score:3, Insightful)
Most people don't even realize that wireless transmissions are being recorded and associated with an address. This came as news to me. I disagree that people shouldn't be complaining.
Handed over to the ICO? (Score:5, Insightful)
This makes no sense:
“In their letter to the ICO today, Google indicated that they wanted to delete the remaining data and asked for the ICO’s instructions on how to proceed. Our response, which has already been issued, makes clear that Google must supply the data to the ICO immediately, so that we can subject it to forensic analysis before deciding on the necessary course of action.
If the data is so sensitive and worrisome, why doesn't the ICO just insist that it be deleted as agreed upon? If it was ok to delete it earlier, why does it have to be handed over now?
I'd rather have my data in the hands of Google than in the hands of Google *and* some random regulatory body. Many companies have a hard time certifying data destruction with multiple redundant offsite backups and replication, and data stored in the cloud where they may not even know every place their cloud provider stores it.
Though really, why is there no outrage about the fact that plaintext email passwords (and credit card numbers or whatever other personal data they are worried about) are even able to be captured with a simple drive-by Wifi scanner? There is no reason why a Wifi router should default to an open unencrypted mode, and even if it does, there is no reason why personal data should be allowed to be sent in the clear. CPU powerh is cheap, SSL should be used to secure *all* sensitive data.
The fact that Google drove by and captured snippets of data is not the problem... they aren't going to steal your credit card number or hack into your bank account (and there is a good chance that they already host your email) - the problem is when an identify thief does the same thing.
Re:Admitted after being caught (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the joke of the thing.
"Shit, we collected a lot of data that we probably shouldn't have... we better disclose that."
Headline: Google Secretly Stealing WiFi Information on Millions of People
"Well, regulators are going to want to look this over now so we better not destroy it."
Headline: Google Kept Stolen WiFi Data
"Ok, ze Germans said we're alright and to delete the data"
Headline: US Authorities Investigating Google For Destruction of Evidence in WiFi Snooping Controversy
"Shit, someone screwed up and deleted some, but not all of the data. We better disclose."
Headline: Google Faces New Street View Data Controversy
Yeah, they shoulda just kept their mouths shut. If someone spilled the beans afterwards, the response would have been, "Yeah we collected stuff by accident, it was never used anywhere, and we destroyed it." Case closed.
Re:Admitted after being caught (Score:4, Insightful)
1974 version: Yeah, Nixon shoulda just burned those tapes.
Re:Admitted after being caught (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd say there's a minor difference between someone in the highest political office in the land destroying evidence of an intentional B&E felony committed against your political rivals, and deleting useless wifi data you realize you collected accidentally.
But, you know, spin it however you like.