Google's Punishment? Lecture Those They Snooped On 252
theodp writes "When Aaron Swartz tapped into MIT's network and scooped up data from one non-profit company, the U.S. Attorney threatened him with 35 years in prison and a $1 million fine. So what kind of jail time did 38 Attorneys General threaten Google with for using its Street View cars to scoop up passwords, e-mail and other personal information by tapping into the networks of their states' unsuspecting citizens? None. In agreeing to settle the case, the NY Times reports, Google is required to police its own employees on privacy issues, lecture the public on how to fend off privacy violations like the one Google perpetrated, and forfeit about 20% of one day's net income. Given the chance, one imagines that Aaron Swartz would have happily jumped at a comparable deal."
The fine being $7 million. At least EPIC isn't as cynical and thinks the outcome was positive.
Seriously now... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm going to submit this submission for the best example of 'comparing apples to oranges'.
I'll assume the submitter knew nothing about the Google situation in this case, or should I think it's just a bad troll?
When you broadcast your personal info unencrypted (Score:5, Insightful)
you shouldn't have any expectations of privacy.
Re:Seriously now... (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously...
- This was a settlement, not what the attorney generals asked for. In Germany, regulators didn't even find anything to press charges with.
- Also, just a little triviality here, but Google didn't actually violate any laws right?
- The accusation against Google here is one employee was not supervised properly, not deliberate privacy invasion. Or do we want people to throw the book at this one employee? People here believe in what Aaron Swartz was doing, but it was still willful violation of the law. Pretty darn different.
One person got screwed by the law. Therefore we should throw the book at everyone!
oh no (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems fair to me ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Google's "punishment" seems to me to be about right for the seriousness of the "crime". Swartz's was not. In fact, the penalty Swartz was threatened with was the actual result of "lobbying fees and campaign contributions" (by the MAFIAA and its ilk).
Re:Seriously now... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'll assume the submitter knew nothing about the Google situation in this case, or should I think it's just a bad troll?
You, sir, are the troll. I am not.
Assuming you're the one who wrote the submission, yes actually you are.
You're comparing sniffing passwords from open, unsecured access points (which is arguably not even 'naughty' to start with) to a directed break-in of a computer system you were told, and signed an agreement, to not enter into. But since "Down with the Evil Corporation, Up with the Lone Renegade!" stories get a lot of page hits, they went ahead and pushed it to the front page.
no tapping (Score:5, Insightful)
Sigh. Google didn't "tap into the networks". They simply recorded packets being broadcast from open wifi points, for the purpose of logging the SIDs. A side-effect of recording the packets was that if they happened to contain fragments of plaint-text communication, they could in theory have logged passwords etc. This was the fault of the developer who had been tasked with writing software to log SIDs. When Google realised that more than that had been logged, they themselves reported it to the authorities.
Bad analogy time: a national birdwatching society has a project to record birdsong in the urban streets of the country. They also end up recording the "private" arguments of couples who are shouting at each other indoors, but with the window on the street side of the house left open.
Re:When you broadcast your personal info unencrypt (Score:2, Insightful)
you shouldn't have any expectations of privacy.
How many unencrypted telephones are there in the world?
Re:Seriously now... (Score:5, Insightful)
. I have no sympathy for him killing himself.
Come on, you can still have sympathy for people even if they were stupid. Man, I know some drunk homeless guys on the street, who I have sympathy for, even though it's entirely their fault where they are.
When someone is in a bad situation, it's ok to have sympathy for them, even if it's their own fault.
Re:Seriously now... (Score:5, Insightful)
You have no idea about depression and suicide. So you look like an ignorant asshole
These situations aren't the same, but I do have Sympathy for Aaron.
Sadly, asswipe like you are still around who have no clue what depression is like, or what goes on leading up to suicide. Hint: It's not what you think.
Not that it keeps you from spouting your crap.
Re:Seriously now... (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh look, a pseudonymous pro-corporate internet bully telling a dead person to "man up" and "face his accusers with honor." What valiance!
Re:Seriously now... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm going to submit this submission for the best example of 'comparing apples to oranges'.
I'll assume the submitter knew nothing about the Google situation in this case, or should I think it's just a bad troll?
Google was collecting random, unencrypted, broadcast data as they plotted wi-fi access point coordinates for building a geolocation database. There was no intent to collect passwords or any other sensitive information, and intent is a huge component of criminality. So yes, this submission is a pretty massive troll. Google was eavesdropping at a party and possibly writing down more than they should have been, and Swartz was tapping phone lines during private conversations and recording all the audio with intent to distribute. Not even remotely close, unless one is blinded by troll-dom. But alas, this is slashdot, so every article must include a "sigh, if only Aaron were alive to see this..."
Anon because you trolls are a bunch of touchy little motherfuckers.
Tired of This Case (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:When you broadcast your personal info unencrypt (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is a couple of further examples. HSBC almost certainly laundered terrorist money. They were fined 1.9 billion dollars. That is like 1% of market cap. OTOH, a few years ago the leaders of Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development were put in jail for a long time and had to forfeit most of their money, the prosecutor saying money is the lifeblood of terrorist organization. By this logic HSBC is responsible of countless murders of US citizens, yet they get off pretty much scott free.
Allegiance to a dominant group is also beneficial. Eric Rudolph committed a terrorist act by bombing the olympics and other premeditated and unprovoked murders. He was a fugitive for five years. He was arrested, did not turn himself in. One might think he would be charged as a terrorist, but because he was a major element in the Christian Movement, he was merely give consecutive life sentence,which allows him to spew his hate of persons who do not agree with him. OTOH, on of the beltway snipers who were not so politically motivated and were not kept hidden and supported by the Christian terrorist movement, were put to death.
Powerful friends, and good lawyers, will tend to minimize the consequences of your actions.
Re:Seriously now... (Score:4, Insightful)
I have nothing against pseudonymity --- just against hypocrisy, like talking about "manning up," "facing accusers," and "honor," while spitting on the deceased (who almost certainly did far more honorable service to humanity in his short life than "Archangel Michael" ever will) over the internet.
Re:Seriously now... (Score:2, Insightful)
Apparently everything is a mental illness these days. I have one, you have one, my dog has one, and noone has to be responsible for their actions.
Re:Seriously now... (Score:3, Insightful)
not really. If you are running an unsecured node it's comparable to walking around naked in front of your open bay window. People might happen to see you naked as they walk by, but really it's your own fault.
Re:Seriously now... (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe for you. For most people who use the internet, this analogy doesn't hold up at all. It is more like they're walking around naked behind solid opaque walls, but unbeknownst to them, someone outside their house has the ability to magically make the walls invisible to himself and other similarly skilled magicians, but the naked person inside the house would still see the walls as solid.
And before you start saying stuff like "idiots shouldn't use the internet if they don't understand it" -- look around you and ask yourself whether you have anything more than a vague understanding of how the various services you use work, and by that I mean a complete technical picture covering exactly how those services are provided and the potential ways a nefarious individual could harm you by taking advantage of your lack of knowledge. Things, like water, electricity, sewer, mail, garbage collection, etc. etc. Are there ways to violate your privacy via the sewer system? Your health via the water system? I could imagine ways, but really, I wouldn't know because I have merely a general understanding of these things totally lacking in specific details. Doesn't make me stupid. Just makes me a human who can't know everything about everything.