Google Audits Street View Data Systems 229
schliz writes "Google's plans to upgrade to high-definition Street View in Australia are on hold until it completes a rigorous internal audit of the processes, it announced today. The company is currently being investigated by international regulators about possible privacy breaches when it became known that its Street View vehicles were capturing not only publicly available SSIDs and MAC addresses, but also samples of payload data transmitted over these networks."
this is gonna be interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm really looking forward to the comments. When BP lets the oil spill continue day after day, the /. crowd goes asking why we let them handle it at all, after all they're the ones responsible for the mess.
Now Google has a mess, and is doing an internal audit. I'm curious if we will apply the same reasoning, or a different standard. And what justifications we'll see for it.
Re:this is gonna be interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Simple.
We trust Google more than we do BP.
Personally, I think for a good reason too.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't trust EITHER of them.
I just trust the government(s) less (almost 100 million of its owncitizens killed in the last century). For example, I don't want the German or EU government demanding copies of Google's hard drives and peering through our private data. Who knows what they use it for? During WW2 data was used to imprison millions of Americans who had done nothing wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Government regulatory agencies sound good in theory, but in reality they are often mere puppets of the corporations that bribe them, so they don't work.
I'd rather see Google's corporate license revoked. Let them operate as a proprietorship whose owner(s) have full liability for his company's actions, and then I can sue the bastard in court for theft of my data. Or even better - boycott the company and drive them into bankruptcy (as happened to Circuit City).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd rather see Google's corporate license revoked. Let them operate as a proprietorship whose owner(s) have full liability for his company's actions
You are seriously arguing that a single person should be responsible for the actions of twenty thousand other people?
REALLY?
Re:this is gonna be interesting (Score:5, Informative)
Compared to Google, BP is the mom and pop grocery on the corner.
In what world do you live in? BP is a $246 billion dollar global energy company. In comparison, Google is a dinky little $24 billion dollar company. Not to mention how BP has 4.5 times as many employees. One can go on and on about how your characterization is plainly wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
Also to add, BP is consistently ranked as either the 4th or 5th largest company in the world. Google doesn't even rank in the top 100 (most recent rankings put them in the 150s).
Re:this is gonna be interesting (Score:4, Informative)
As of this writing, BP's market cap is $129.89B, while google's is $149.69B. Even before the current mess, BP's stock was about 50% higher, which would have given it a market cap of about $195B; more than google, but still in the same league.
Links (will probably have different values by the time you view):
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=bp [yahoo.com]
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=goog [yahoo.com]
I think the comparison is unfair for other reasons, as I mentioned [slashdot.org], but relative company size is not one of them.
Re:this is gonna be interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Market cap is not synonymous with the size of a company. BP has 10x the yearly revenue and 4.5x as many employees as Google. It is the far larger company.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:this is gonna be interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
>>>t's my opinion that this is yet another example of why government oversight of privacy standards is not only a good idea, it's a necessity.
It's my opinion that this is yet another example of why government oversight of privacy standards is a BAD idea. Last time the US "overlooked" data they used it to imprison several million innocent Americans during WW2. Then they used it to do radioactivity experiments on blacks without their knowledge. Then they used the data to round-up Americans and thr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Google seem to think that their bottom line is more important than users rights to privacy.
Bullshit. It was Google was *voluntarily* told the world what they had done, and were erasing the data. If they were as you described, the managers would have kept silent and just kept collecting.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure if BP could put the oil pouring out of the well "on hold" while they did their "internal audit" no one would care.
Seriously, you can't see the difference between something that is outside the control of the company (BP haven't stopped the oil spilling even though they want to) and something that is (google has stopped collecting said data, for now anyway)?
But as I've said before BP is doing all the can to fix the problem, they are drilling a relief well. But people don't want to be told "the
I wasn't aware Google was causing (Score:2)
Tens of billions of dollars in environmental damages that were going to have to be cleaned up by the taxpayers.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm really looking forward to the comments. When BP lets the oil spill continue day after day, the /. crowd goes asking why we let them handle it at all, after all they're the ones responsible for the mess.
Now Google has a mess, and is doing an internal audit. I'm curious if we will apply the same reasoning, or a different standard. And what justifications we'll see for it.
I'm honestly shocked that you would be comparing Google's little accident to BP's massive catastrophe that could potentially have long-standing affect on the entire planet.
Re:this is gonna be interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm really looking forward to the comments. When BP lets the oil spill continue day after day, the /. crowd goes asking why we let them handle it at all, after all they're the ones responsible for the mess.
The whole BP thing is simply a giant WTF.
I have a genuinely hard time wrapping my head around the fact that they're drilling in water this deep with absolutely no ability to deal with problems like this. They aren't just scrambling to deploy a fix, they're scrambling to come up with a fix.
It doesn't seem like BP should be willing to do something that risky without a disaster plan.
It doesn't seem like the Government should give them the go-ahead to do something that risky without a disaster plan.
It doesn't seem like stockholders should allow them to do something that risky without a disaster plan.
And yet, here we are.
Now Google has a mess, and is doing an internal audit. I'm curious if we will apply the same reasoning, or a different standard. And what justifications we'll see for it.
Google's mess isn't going to kill any wildlife or pollute any waterways. It's very unlikely to result in anybody losing their livelihood. They're also conducting the audit before going ahead, rather than after something has gone horribly wrong (at least with the HD thing in Australia).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
BP's oil spill has far greater scope and urgency:
* The oil spill is a regional environmental catastrophe. It has scope well outside of BP or even the oil industry as a whole -- it's impacting marshlands, seafood industry, tourism, and other industries. So far, this privacy issue seems to only be present within google.
* The oil spill is an emergency. We normally give companies a chance to "make it right". In the case of the oil spill, any unnecessary delay means definite short-term damage/impact to the e
Re:this is gonna be interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Google's data mining is annoying at best, BP's oil spill is an environmental disaster that will harm millions of people (not to mention wildlife) in ways we can't even begin to calculate yet. Applying the same standard is stupid, because it implies the scale of the problem is in anyway similar. Furthermore, while it is fairly understandable to make mistakes in software systems that will at worst collect data about unencrypted wifi traffic, it is not understandable to make mistakes in a critical safety device that lives and the economic and environmental prosperity of an entire coastline depend on.
Google is in the wrong, and so is BP. But to pretend that the seriousness of the way they are wrong is in the same ballpark is ridiculous, and therefore the expect the same reaction is ridiculous. If you do an employee background check, and one of your employees was fined for littering, the other convicted of theft, manslaughter, criminal negligence, bribing public officials, and destruction of property, you would react in different ways. Thats the difference in severity we are talking about.
THIS is the highest rated comment?? (Score:2)
I can see how some angry kid would equate these two incidents, but I'm shocked that something this idiotic would get voted the top comment of 110!!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>Google's data gathering isn't destroying the Earth.
Neither will an oil spill destroy the Earth. In fact about the only thing that would destroy the earth is the sun going supersized, or a black hole skimming by & tearing the planet apart. The earth is hard to destroy..... even when an asteroid hit the planet, the earth continued merrily on and life recovered. Nothing mankind could do would destroy the earth.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Google's data gathering isn't destroying the Earth.
Neither will an oil spill destroy the Earth. In fact about the only thing that would destroy the earth is the sun going supersized, or a black hole skimming by & tearing the planet apart. The earth is hard to destroy..... even when an asteroid hit the planet, the earth continued merrily on and life recovered. Nothing mankind could do would destroy the earth.
Fine it can't destroy Earth, but it can destroy a large part of it's ecosystems.
Re:this is gonna be interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Large? The Gulf is actually quite small compared to the Earth. For example the animals living along Maine's coast have no clue there's an oil spill happening. Also let's not forget that prior to 1800, it was common for the Earth to "belch" oil all over the place, creating giant pools of oil both on land and in the ocean. On his journey to Philadelphia as first president, Washington had to detour around several tarpits (oil) to get there.
That was the natural state of the world, until man came along and cleaned it up. It helps if you study history instead of hyperbole.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The Gulf is actually quite small compared to the Earth
That's like saying you're town is quite small compared to the rest of the Earth. No harm in nuking it. The subjectivity of the word large is not important in the scheme of this conversation. This oil leak is not a natural occurrence. History does not change this fact.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
On his journey to Philadelphia as first president, Washington had to detour around several tarpits (oil) to get there.
Hey! Quit picking on New Jersey!
Re: (Score:2)
I am amazed by the alarmism. 210,000 gallons per day isnt unprecedented. It will take 50 days to equal the amount spilled by Exxon's Valdez (over 10 million gallons) and while that had an environmental impact, it didn't destroy a large part of the earths ecosystem. In fact its effects were more or less localized and didnt destroy anything. Some animal populations in the area took a big hit, but we are not aware of even a single extinc
Privacy breeches? Sign me up! (Score:5, Funny)
I'm also interested in privacy galoshes, privacy longjohns and privacy jodhpurs
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about the galoshes, but since the rest keep my junk covered, they'd definitely qualify for the "privacy" label. :)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm also interested in privacy galoshes, privacy longjohns and privacy jodhpurs
Another member of the tinfoil trouser brigade?
"Publicly Available" (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not endorsing Google's collection, but aren't people who openly broadcast their data be at least *a little* at fault here?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, people should definitely secure their communications.
That said, just because someone leaves their door open, doesn't mean Google should waltz right in.
Re:"Publicly Available" (Score:4, Insightful)
Google didn't just "waltz right in."
They collected it by accident, and when they realized they had it, they publicly stated that they had the information, and were purging it.
They didn't need to say anything, because nobody knew they had it until they announced it. But in the spirit of openness, they stated what had happened, how it had happened, and their proposed remedy for the situation.
The fact that various regulators are getting pissy about it isn't their fault.
Re:"Publicly Available" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Publicly Available" (Score:4, Insightful)
So you know their claim that they reused some software from another google project without noticing it recorded more than what they actually cared about is false?
And you know that the programmer who did so either didn't realize at all or didn't just think "who cares if it wastes resources grabbing that stuff it's minuscule and we can just not use it" and just used it without mentioning it to anyone?
Are you omniscient? Or do you just spend your life spying on google?
But why? (Score:3, Interesting)
I've yet to see anyone accusing Google of lying about this explain why they would want to get this data?
It's hard for me to think of anything more useless than tiny random snippets of unidentifiable wifi traffic from German roads. What do the conspiracy theorists think Google is using it for? What would be a possible business plan to monetize it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Publicly Available" (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
"Realized they had it"?? They're like the kid who only "realizes" his hand is in the cookie jar after his mother catches him.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Publicly Available" (Score:5, Insightful)
and if someone publishes a web page you shouldn't be able to just waltz right in and view whatever's on it!
If someone watches you walk around naked while you're in the bathroom that's a violation of your privacy.
If someone watches you walk around naked in the middle of the street then they have done nothing to violate your privacy.
people shouldn't be required to secure their communications *effectively* but some kind of symbolic security should be required to expect any kind of privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ignorance is no excuse, "Sorry officer, i didn't know that driving under the influence of alcohol was a crime here, it's not in Uzbekistan"... Same thing here, "I didn't know leaving my AP unencrypted would let everyone see my LOLCATS!".
From everything I have heard about this incident, they only collected from open APs, they did not in fact break any encryption. So as far as i'm concerned the data was "public" with all intentions of it being that way, like painting your name, SS, and DoB on your garage doo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the little lock symbol you see when connecting to a secure wireless is a clue as is it's conspicuous lack.
In your world cheap walkie talkies would be illegal because someone might be using a pair and be too stupid to understand that anyone else with a similar walkie talkie could be listening in.
with the old phones you had no real options.
the devices couldn't be used otherwise.
Wireless routers with the exception of stunningly ancient ones have a handy little dropdown menue where you can select an open or sec
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
in other words whatever you think is wrong is wrong and no consistent or solid justification is needed.
If you don't like it then it's wrong and should be punished!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On a related note how do you know I actually intended to share anything on an FTP server I set up?
it's quite easy to share folders you didn't intend to share so by that logic browsing any open FTP directory is immoral until you contact the owner, double check with them that they only shared what they intended to share.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The vast majority of people I know who run open wireless networks are fully aware they're open- coffee shop owners, or techies who think it will give them an excuse when they're caught torrenting stuff.
detailed logs?
since when were google pulling the logs off the routers?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is all about open public WiFi hotspots because that's what you create when you set your wireless network to "open".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
where did anyone say they have no right to view a public profile?
firing someone for a trivial offhand joke on a public facebook page on the other hand is a different matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So to protect yourself from your own potential stupidity cameras and video recorders would be effectively illegal in public for anyone who can't afford a legal team.
Great.
Re: (Score:2)
brb. Reading the letters in your mailbox. It wasn't locked or anything, and it's right out there for the public to access, so it's cool.
Re: (Score:2)
Walk through the door? More like you were standing inside your house and yelling, "My name is ___ and my password is ____ and I'm visiting the following sites: (insert list)." The neighbors are not to blame if they can hear your loud mouth, and neither are any passersby.
Re: (Score:2)
If I freely offer to give you directions to the gas station down the street, and then record the make, model, license plate and VIN number of your car without your knowledge would you have an issue with that? That information is available, right? But most would consider it an invasion of privacy.
the only person I know who I'm sure would consider your example a "violation of privacy" is also a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic.
the the make, model, license plate and VIN number of your car which you are driving on the public street is not private information.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I do care a little about linking my online anon pseudonyms to my actual identity since I take (minor) measures to avoid strong links.
But I have no problem posting that info online.
hell if selling a car online it would be a given that that info would go up.
because it is not private information.
you seem to love the uncertainty line *YOU HAVE NOOOOOOO IDEA WHAT EVIL PLANS THEY WERE HATCHING!!!!111!!!!* but can you actually think of any serious malicious uses because I can't really see google having an inter
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also you keep going on and on and on and on and on.... and on and on about this "double standard".
Here's the big secret: There's more than one person on slashdot.
My opinions can differ from the twits complaining about their tweets and facebook profiles being datamined.
You know how I avoid those problems?
I don't use twitter,facebook or open my wifi network.
it's amazingly easy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
it doesn't yet the simplest and easiest way I can think of to capture that useful data with a simple laptop would be to set some program like cain listening in promiscuous mode and later match the SSID/timestamps with where I was at the time to build a map of network hotspots.
Such an approach would also probably log the whole packets even if I'm not interested in them in the slightest.
cutting out the contents of the packets out would likely be more complex and would require some dev work.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, people should definitely secure their communications.
That said, just because someone leaves their door open, doesn't mean Google should waltz right in.
Nobody waltzed right in... Google drove by on the street and collected what it could see from the road.
If you leave your front door open and stand in the hallway naked, you can't complain too much about Google snapping a picture of you.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, people should definitely secure their communications.
That said, just because someone leaves their door open, doesn't mean Google should waltz right in.
On the opposite side though, they are broadcasting that information to the public in clear form.
To use another analogy:
What if the noisy neighbor got into shouting matches with another tenant in their apartment and you, unfortunately, became aware of some very personal details? Are you to blame for having those very personal details burned into your memory? Are you to blame for having ears and not being deaf?
If you actually did sneak into their house and listened while they had a private conversation, then
Re:"Publicly Available" (Score:4, Insightful)
Look at it another way. If there was a company - call it "Gaggle" - that drove up and down the streets and roads of the world making sound recordings to present a "Street Sounds" feature to their new mapping program. Would there be such a fuss if they recorded the voices of two people shouting across the street at each other? Its about the same thing.
Re:"Publicly Available" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
operating a radio transmitter should mean you know this. If not you should consult with people that know this stuff, much like you do with a mechanic, or plumber. Ignorance isn't an excuse, to use an analogy i used earlier on this topic;
"Sorry officer, i didn't know that driving under the influence of alcohol was a crime here, it's not in Uzbekistan"
you still get your nights accommodations for free.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The people shouting *know* that other people can hear them.
And people communicating on a CB know that other people can hear them.
And people communicating with an unencrypted wireless device should know that other people can hear them.
The fact that they're ignorant doesn't really make it my fault that I overheard their conversation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You also don't have a choice when it comes to overhearing someone's conversation.
Nor do you have a choice when it comes to overhearing someone's wifi traffic. Normally, when you're intentionally trying to talk to someone else, that's considered noise. It's other traffic cluttering up the spectrum, getting in the way of what you're trying to do. It's always there. If you're listening to wifi traffic, you'll hear it.
It's a little different if you go through the effort of sniffing traffic from someone's open WiFi.
No it isn't.
There's no effort involved, they're simply capturing packets of traffic, not h4x0r1ng teh interwebs.
If I'm conducting an interview with someone in a public pla
Re: (Score:2)
Nor do you have a choice when it comes to overhearing someone's wifi traffic. Normally, when you're intentionally trying to talk to someone else, that's considered noise. It's other traffic cluttering up the spectrum, getting in the way of what you're trying to do. It's always there. If you're listening to wifi traffic, you'll hear it.
Exactly, if you're listening and deliberately capturing the traffic. Your NIC is not in promiscuous mode by default, your OS is not logging the packets the card receives to a file somewhere.
There's no effort involved, they're simply capturing packets of traffic, not h4x0r1ng teh interwebs.
I'm sorry, what percentage of the general public do you think casually sniffs their neighbor's WiFi traffic, or would even know the basic principals involved in the process if you stopped them on the street and asked them? No, it's not "h3x0r1ng teh interwebs" but it's not taking out the trash either.
As far as people not knowing it is possible... Why is their ignorance Google's problem?
Because it r
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you buy radio equipment you should also *know* that other people can pick up the signals as well. If you don't want other people listening in on your data, simply "whisper" by using encryption.
Ignorance is no excuse. RTFM when you purchase your radio transmitter (read: WAP/Wireless Router). Don't just bitch that you had no idea what security was and everyone listening is wrong for doing so.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Precisely. That is why it is the perfect analogy. Just as a person shouting from a window has no reasonable expectation that passersby will somehow "shut their ears", neither does a person broadcasting unencrypted information have a reasonable expectation that the public will not receive that. This is not just a legal technicality; it is practical reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just as I should have a reasonable expectation that it will not be recorded and that such a recording would be published without my consent by a passersby when I talk to a friend on the open street, I should have a reasonable expectation that no large corporation is peeking over my fence into my garden or sniffing my WLAN traffic in order to publish/sell/give away that data.
Re: (Score:2)
If "Gaggle" used highly sensitive microphones and could record a normal conversation inside your house or in your backyard from the street, would that be a breach of privacy? Should be expected that you need the proverbial "Cone of Silence" because someone might be walking/driving down the street with a sensitive microphone?
Re: (Score:2)
The best analogy would be if the Street View cars had microphones to record... I dunno, traffic noise level, and they accidentally recorded you and your wife having a shouting match out in your yard. All recorded from public property (the street), and all quite legal.
If it's not legal, then all those TV shows, filmmakers, and news gatherers who like wander around with a camcorder are in trouble.
breeches (Score:2)
Google should wear pants that hides more than its show. Because when your show is public, there's no privacy.
IMHO (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
there is a big backlash and a call for government investigations and regulations. Internal audits are just a classic tactic to try and squelch that knee-jerk reaction.
Didnt they CAUSE that backlash when they chose to disclose the issue in the first place? Are you saying they decided, "Lets cause a massive public PR disaster, and then lets attempt to appease the masses with a phony internal audit"?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Publicly available payload data. (Score:2, Interesting)
"not only publicly available SSIDs and MAC addresses, but also samples of **publicly available** payload data transmitted over these networks"
There, fixed it for ya. At least half of the responsibility lies with those owning unsecured networks. If you don't want your data public, learn to secure it. Google is still at fault for breaking a public promise, mind you. However, the news stories seem to miss the crucial piece of information: _anybody_ can listen to these packets (and chances are many people do).
Re: (Score:2)
Stumble This! (Score:5, Informative)
This entire wireless thing is total BS. From what I have read, they were using kismet for their wireless collection program. and if they were channel hopping like any good war-driver I assure you they were not around long enough to get anything useful. (DNS,netbios,MDNS packets etc) All of it was open to begin with and all ready up for grabs. most people know what they are buying now when they get an AP that is not setup properly (Big warning stickers printed on box for setup).
HD? (Score:2)
With the promise of HD street view, what's the legal ramifications of Google taking a picture that allows someone to see into your house through a window? What about license plates? Could someone write an application that "walks" down the streets and OCRs all the visible license plates?
Are we expected that if we want privacy we have to keep our blinds/shades closed at all times?