Court Declares Google Must Face Wiretap Charges For Wi-Fi Snooping 214
New submitter Maser_24 writes with news about continued action against Google for snooping on unsecured Wi-Fi networks when collecting data for Street View. From the article: "A federal appeals court this week ruled that Google could be held liable for civil damages for the company's 2011 scandal involving the company's collection of Wi-Fi data from unsecured hotspots using their Street View vehicles. To come to that conclusion, the court followed a rather unique logic path; according to the court, unsecured Wi-Fi hotspots are not 'radio communications' that are 'readily accessible' to the general public and therefore Google violated the Wiretap Act."
This despite being cleared of wrongdoing by the FCC.
Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
no no no.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Bad logic that is favorable to your agenda is still bad logic.
Twisting logic is what I get mad at the "other guy" for. Don't tolerate it.
Re:Good. (Score:3, Insightful)
Also Why not have lawsuits against NSA and force them to pay the civil damages for spying on american people.
Terrible Ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
Not radio communications? WTF?! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's exactly what this is... In no uncertain terms!
Fuck... Pot, meet Kettle...
WiFi is explicitly radio... and it's readily accessible without any intervention on the users behalf...
I regularly connect to unsecured hotspots without even meaning to...
Blah...
I can't even express how utterly exasperated I am with our government...and the people that keep them in office...
God damn...
Well, there's one thing our government is good at, learning from past mistakes... Those gladiatorial games were great inspiration for our current raft of "populace pacification techniques"... TV, sports, and (to a lesser extent) religion...
When will we wake up... When will the common man stand his ground and tell those in power to go fuck themselves? When?
Really now? (Score:5, Insightful)
"unsecured Wi-Fi hotspots are not 'radio communications' that are 'readily accessible' to the general public
Every single apartment complex I've lived in/visited would say otherwise.
What the fuck? (Score:5, Insightful)
How in the hell are WiFi networks not "radio communications" which are "readily accessible"? What fucked up, distorted logic led to this?
I hope I don't have to explain how they are radio communications, if that's not obvious to anyone please go play with crayons in the corner.
As for readily accessible, when the vast majority of WiFi-equipped PCs and most mobile devices need nothing more than software which simply asks the wireless card to pass through what it sees, uh yes, it is readily accessible.
It's like arguing that since FRS radios typically default to channels 1 or 14 when turned on, channel 6 is not readily accessible. Sure you don't get it without asking, but its about as easy as it could possibly be.
USA! USA! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:no no no.... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Bad logic that is favorable to your agenda is still bad logic.
Twisting logic is what I get mad at the "other guy" for. Don't tolerate it."
It isn't bad logic if you understand what this is about.
Privacy laws are generally based on "intent", and "reasonable expectation of privacy". Sometimes those things intersect, sometimes they are at odds.
The LOCATION of a wifi router is pretty much accepted as public information. Here is a router. It transmits. It sends out its MAC address.
The CONTENT of the data it sends, however, is a different matter.
For many years, a large percentage of the population -- possibly even the majority -- did not know or care enough about the details of WiFi communication to secure their routers. Because that was true of so many people, it can be argued that it was "reasonable" for them to expect that their communications were private.
If their communications were intended to be private (i.e., it wasn't intended to be an open access point with a name like "Come Get Me, I'm Free!", and there was a "reasonable expectation of privacy" (again reasonable being inferred from the simple fact that it was true of so many people), THEN Google was illegally intercepting private communications.
You and I might think that not bothering to learn enough about it to know you should secure your router is not reasonable. But that's not the way the law works. If an "average" person commonly does it, it's considered reasonable.
Re:Judges untrained in comms technology, that's ho (Score:4, Insightful)
Judge made the mistake of trying to interpret the motive of the person setting up the unencrypted hotspot instead of the intent of the people who designed the WiFi standard. He also doesn't understand how WiFi and networking work.
He decided that in general, someone setting up a hotspot doesn't intend for the traffic to be snooped, therefore it "isn't publically broadcast". The law should be based on the design of the technology, not the intent and misunderstanding, of the person who turns it on.
WiFi doesn't work if every computer listening in on the hotspot doesn't examine every packet, at least as far enough to see if it was intended for it or not. It doesn't take a special $600 adapter for someone to snoop, or packet capture, the network traffic. That may be the easiest way for an untrained person to do it, but it isn't the only way.
We need special judges, who are trained technologists, to rule on technology cases.