Google Relents, Will Hand Over European Wi-Fi Data 214
itwbennett writes "Having previously denied demands from Germany that the company turn over hard drives with data it secretly collected from open wireless networks over the past three years, Google has reversed course. A Google representative said that it will hand over the data to German, French, and Spanish authorities within a matter of days, according to the Financial Times, which first reported this latest development on Wednesday. 'We screwed up. Let's be very clear about that,' Google CEO Eric Schmidt told the newspaper."
Great (Score:4, Insightful)
They're opening up a whole warehouse full of cans of worms by handing the data over to a government with plenty of agendas instead of destroying it.
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
True. But they opened the first can of worms by collecting it in the first place.
Re:Great (Score:5, Interesting)
They opened the can of worms by announcing that they had collected it. If they stayed silent, and shredded the data quietly, they'd probably wouldn't be in this mess and no one would have known they ever did it. Google instead has been trying to make this situation 'right' by being transparent about it, and no one gives a crap about it. The governments certainly are going to grab that data, use it as evidence to prosecute Google, and keep it around for ~other reasons~ for years upon years.
Re:Great (Score:5, Informative)
They opened the can of worms by announcing that they had collected it. If they stayed silent, and shredded the data quietly, they'd probably wouldn't be in this mess and no one would have known they ever did it. Google instead has been trying to make this situation 'right' by being transparent about it, and no one gives a crap about it. The governments certainly are going to grab that data, use it as evidence to prosecute Google, and keep it around for ~other reasons~ for years upon years.
eh.. you do know that they only announced this after governments in Europe requested to audit their data collection in general? The ball was already rolling on this, and they were smart in rolling with it. But this was not something Google just announced out of the blue on their own without outside pressure.
And Google has a patent pending on the method they used to collect this data.. Accident my ass.
Re: (Score:2)
They used code from a different project. Just because they have patented the technique (which is stupid in itself because of how novel it is) doesn't mean it's in anyway related to the data collection they've been doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Great (Score:4, Insightful)
This is not useful information even for Google. Their software was constantly switching frequencies so we're talking about less than a seconds worth of packets for any given network.
What are they gonna do with that?
"Well, Ted, based off this TCP_ACK I'm seeing here, I think we can safely conclude that this Fred Morgan of 123 Anystreet is gay. Wouldn't you agree?"
"Sure is Bob, that's the queerest TCP_ACK I've ever seen."
They don't want this crap. They can't monetize that. They *want* to delete it. They want to have never captured it in the first place, but sadly that ship has sailed. If they delete it, they'll be charged with destroying evidence or whatever the equivalent crime is in the various European jurisdictions in question. One dumb careless mistake has grown a life of it's own.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I swear, I hate when people like you try to be so clever...."so inadvertant that they even applied for a patent on it". Try not to get involved in the discussion if you haven't an understanding of what you are talking about, because you sound like you are just trolling. Google's patent is all about identifying devices and their location. That can be based off of some very simple data which is broadcast by the access point and does NOT require looking at full TCP/IP communications of connected users.
On my ip
Re: (Score:2)
They patented a wardriving mechanism, not the act of capturing *and storing* sniffed packet streams.
Christ, get a grip, and while you're at it, learn to read.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not a gold mine to anyone. We're talking about 600 gigabytes of packets over 6 years. Not nearly as much as they could have collected had this been done intentionally. This is a trivial amount of data that could easily go unnoticed by Google. This would fit entirely on one hard drive with plenty of room to spare.
Now ask yourself, if the Street View car drives by your house and at that exact moment you're using the internet, how likely is it to be something unencrypted and sensitive? Emails take a
Re: (Score:2)
i'd take knowledge over happiness/satisfaction any day.
Clearly knowledge satisfies you on some level otherwise you wouldn't be saying this. I generally agree with you, but I am also occasionally envious of those who are blissfully ignorant. I myself have actively chosen not to be like them, chosen knowledge over happiness in some regards - I have forsaken religion and the restricted worldview that it engenders - but put it this way: knowledge and happiness/satisfaction are not mutually exclusive unless you actively choose to focus on things that make you unhapp
Re: (Score:2)
The "sensitive" Data is only a small fraction of what happened to be transmitted while the Google car drove by. There would be hardly any value to it at all.
And they had been doing it that way for about three years, without anyone at Google themselves ever noticing what was being recorded. The chances of anyone else finding out are rather slim indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
My call is they went public with the info because they knew a leak was inevitable, and thought they could save face by being open. They didn't quite count on governments taking an interest so forcefully.
And why should they? Historically, collecting pictures and wireless transmissions in public has been legal. And it's also something plenty of other companies have done.
If Google hadn't announced they'd collected it, they'd never destroy it.
Google has data retention policies and they probably comply with th
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And why should they? Historically, collecting pictures and wireless transmissions in public has been legal.
Not in Germany. Google is large enough to be able to get legal advice for other countries before running a massive data collection operation there.
Re: (Score:2)
What about 50% of the people in this thread seem to be missing is that there are two issues here. The first is the fact that they were collecting data to identify the location of public broadcast WiFi. That's the valuable data, and there's no legal issue with them collecting and keeping that data. The other issue is that their software, while collecting that data, also sniffed some packets being transmitted on unsecured connections. This is the "illegal" data, and it's practically useless to them. I can't i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure the whole "being forced to hand it over to the government" thing is being blown out of all proportion, too. More likely Google realised their mistake (or had it pointed out to them), offered to destroy the data to which the government informed them the standard procedure is that they have to hand the data over to ensure it is properly dealt with, then Google go off, check the legal position, come back and agree. But of course, such a reasonable state of affairs wouldn't sell clicks on news sites or
Re:Great (Score:4, Insightful)
Not in Germany.
Yes, even in Germany taking street photographs and collecting packet radio data was legal in the past.
Whether recording unencrypted WLAN packets is or is not legal today has been a legally gray area. It depends on whether one considers such data "private" or not. That question is now being settled in a wave of anti-Google and anti-American hysteria.
What purpose is being served by this is unclear. If you run an unprotected WLAN in Germany, you are probably running afoul of both data protection and copyright laws already.
Google is large enough to be able to get legal advice for other countries before running a massive data collection operation there.
They did. The data they actually intended to collect conforms with German law. They spent months talking to German data protection czars about that.
They simply screwed up and unintentionally collected additional data, and for that they are being crucified.
The whole uproar has nothing to do with privacy or data protection, it's simple hysteria and political and corporate opportunism. Actual German data protection is atrocious.
Re: (Score:2)
HA! Right. If Google hadn't announced they'd collected it, they'd never destroy it. Remember, their entire business model is information. I think you trust in them a little too much if you think they'd just randomly destroy any information that might possibly have value.
I assume you have heard about making copies of harddisks? I think we can trust Google to have this insight too - the data are not going to be destroyed, of course, only the originals - possibly, after a backup has been made.
That, or they knew governments would, and planned so that they could still end up looking like the good guys, because hey, the big mean government is taking the data, and who knows what THOSE GUYS are going to do with it.
Well, I don't. I think people in America are a lot more paranoid about government than most. To me it doesn't seem like an incredibly big deal, to be honest. After all, what can they actually do with the data? I have regularly the opportunity to sift through largish datasets, being in ch
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
They could have announced it after they destroyed it.
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Few months ago on slashdot someone published a list of every wifi hotspot on their train line. Where was the uproar then? Cops want to reserve the right no to be photographed in public, and people complain (rightfully so) that what they do in public should be recordable with no recourse. Now google drives a car down the streets and collects your publicly visible information (SSID) and you complain again that they should not be collecting private data?
How come every ideal on slashdot is applied so haphazardly? Make a choice people. Should something that anyone can see from your street be private, or public?
As a side note, how many people complaining about Google's collection of wireless information actually bothered to uncheck that little box that says "Broadcast SSID"?
RTFA (Score:4, Informative)
Now google drives a car down the streets and collects your publicly visible information (SSID) and you complain again that they should not be collecting private data?
Except that Google wasn't just recording SSID data, it was also collecting data that traveled through those access points. Doesn't anybody bother to find out basic facts before commenting anymore?
Re:RTFA (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly is data which is transmitted to the public airwaves by you any different than an SSID which is transmitted into the public airwaves by a router?
Do you need an education in computing/network technology? The SSID is broadcasted with the intent of clients being able to find and connect to the access point. The data that is transferred over that access point is not intended to be broadcast as a means of finding an access point.
If you transmit information unencrypted in an extremely widely known modulation scheme, where exactly is the expectation of privacy in doing so?
There isn't any in most countries, but how doers that make it exactly the same as an SSID?/p
Re: (Score:2)
You could equally put up a billboard in you front yard saying:
"Hey Neighbour"
"You owe me $10. Everyone else you shouldn't read this. This is a private message"
And when the google street car snaps a picture on the way past from a public street recordin
Re: (Score:2)
Why does the purpose of the transmission even matter?
I was responding to the question "how is it any different" with a comment about how it is different. The question of privacy is a different matter.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, so if I play a message in Morse code across a loudspeaker, then I should expect absolute privacy in the conversation, as it should be appropriately illegal for anyone whom I haven't explicitly permitted to listen to pay attention to listen to it, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How come every ideal on slashdot is applied so haphazardly?
Because YOU are not ME and we are both slashdot.
Or in other words slashdot is tens of thousands of individuals all with their own ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that doesn't make much difference though does it. Scanning on 11 different channels and driving at an average of 30 Mph what you going to get? Absolutely nothing interesting at all and if it is encrypted all you're going to get is junk.
Do you get pissed at people listening to your "private" conversation while walking by Mr double standards? No, didn't think so. I hope you come to realise how ridiculous you sound.
Re: (Score:2)
janus project [engadget.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Google collected much more than the SSID, it also collected transmitted data (see also the comment titled 'RTFA').
Ok let's roll with this. You walk down the street and overhear a conversation between two people sitting on the bench. They did this in public with no attempt to obfuscate what they were saying. Do they have a right to privacy?
Again we're back to the users. Those who demand a right to privacy have all the tools right their in their little plastic box. Sure WEP is weak, and if google were to try and circumvent WEP I'm sure they'd be guilty of crimes in many jurisdictions but this so far is not the case (o
Re: (Score:2)
This is the whole reason WEP and WPA exists in the first place. Now if google were actually circumventing WEP then that is an entirely ball game. Probably not even a ball game anymore. That in many jurisdictions would constitute a crime. But not
Re: (Score:2)
If you talk over a CB radio you don't expect a private conversation too do you?
That's what common sense would dictate, but that didn't stop the cellular phone industry back in the analog-only days. They jammed through several [wikipedia.org] pathentic [fcc.gov] laws [fcc.gov] to 'prevent' eavesdropping of in-the-clear cellular phone conversations instead of doing any sort of obfuscation or encryption. A simple frequency inversion technique or noxious filterable carrier tone would've prevented casual eavesdropping at the cost of pennies per ph
Re: (Score:2)
Police officers OFF DUTY are a very different story, on the other hand. They're private individuals just like everyone else, and they deserve their privacy.
Expand on this. Where do they deserve privacy? Certainly not walking down the street. Applying that same principle here there's the option of putting a Faraday cage around your house, or using the encryption tools provided for exactly this form of privacy.
I'm not quite sure how laws in America work, but the definition of what is public and private in Australia is based on a reasonable expectation. A person sitting by himself actively avoiding everyone is expecting privacy even when sitting in a public r
Re: (Score:2)
I think he meant the same level of privacy afforded any other civilian when off duty vs his level of privacy when on duty.
You know, using the word 'civilian' when describing people who are not police officers rubs me the wrong way. They're not military, so why do they call us civilians? They're civilians, too. I see that some dictionaries include the police (and firefighters?) as non-civilians, but I think that distinction feeds into the militaristic mindset of some police forces. Frankly, it worries me whe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True. But they opened the first can of worms by collecting it in the first place.
Am I missing something? They collected samples of data bring brodcast from open wireless access points.
Are you going to bitch next if Google happens to capture the text on a billboard while mapping I-5? It's information being broadcast in *public*.
Re: (Score:2)
Agree, and that's all the more reason they shouldn't have collected it in the first place. I don't trust Google or the government. The government probably sees this as a bonanza - they know they wouldn't be allowed to collect the data themselves, so it's a bonus that a company did it illegally to cop the rap.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, evidence in criminal court need
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly would the government want with WiFi data?
It's probably the final stage in their plan to destroy democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO I do not think Google did anything "wrong". People, specifically home internet users are stupid and willingly provide open networks to anyone who drives by and connects, a lot of them have file sharing turned on to share stuff between computers which makes the problem worse for the end user because anyone can get their crap...(Little bit off topic)
But this is hardly Google's fault. Instead, lets blame Linksys, D-link and any other router manufacturer who's WIFI default is no encryption instead of makin
here we go again... (Score:2)
Oh no, that evil government is at it again, hurting the butterflies made from love and light that are corporations....
"What has been created by this half century of massive corporate propaganda is what's called "anti-politics". So that anything that goes wrong, you blame the government. Well okay, there's plenty to blame the government about, but the government is the one institution that people can change... the one institution that you can affect without institutional change. That's exactly why all the an
Re: (Score:2)
sounds you don't like something in that post but aren't able to address it. try again.
when I post something that doesn't speculate at ALL, my tinfoil hat is leaking, but when you say that because the recording industry fucks over people, those governments s
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I trust Google more than the Government because Google can be held accountable, the Government cannot.
If Google accidentally let this information slip into the world it will seriously harm their business. And so far Google has done a good job at keeping the information they have locked away. According to my count it's 1 incident where they were actively hacked.
Now for Governments, they regularly leak highly sensitive information by carelessness of their employees. And that's not even counting targ
Meta Screwup? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, so which is the screwup, not giving the data, or the giving up of data?
Re:Meta Screwup? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The big screwup is getting caught at collecting it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Google admitted to collecting this data without an inquiry from any European countries. Sorry, I didn't read the article, but I recall when this issue was first brought to light.
Re: (Score:2)
The big screwup is announcing they collected the data before destroying it, allowing governments to get their paws on it. And we all know the governments will never destroy it. Collecting the data was bad, but insignificant compared to this.
Yeah, it sickens me to think maybe they snooped half an AC comment I was downloading from /. on the day they drove past and that that's now out there, in a massive, massive sea of similarly "important" information just waiting for those evil governments to pay someone a small fortune to trawl through the data and... well, not trace it back to me, because there'd be absolutely nothing personally identifying, but to at least read it and... erm... someone help me see the evil here?
Re: (Score:2)
Play for time while the slaves furiously make copies.
How high is the loon quotient today, is it a full moon or something? Seriously, this has been going on for a while now, how long do you think it takes, or how many slaves are required to back up 600GB of data? I've copied more than that over my crappy home equipment in a few hours. Far more likely they were delaying while their legal team verified the actual legal position on handing over this data.
Google screwed up... (Score:4, Insightful)
...so now people's personal data is now in the hands of the relevant governments. I'm not sure this helps the situation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I approach the whole thing with a big "meh."
The common Slashdot mindsets of "teh Gubament shouldn't have that data!!" and "if they didn't want anyone to see it, folks should've encrypted it!!" are not mutually exclusive.
Fact is, if the government(s) really wanted to sniff cleartext data broadcast via Wifi, they'd be doing it. In fact, I'd be very surprised if they haven't been sniffing things [wikipedia.org] for a long time.
So if someone else happens to gather up some cleartext data by accident, and the government(s) dema
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, but I really do think that Google's data collection was in error, and they're far less likely to use it for blatant evil than the governments would.
Also, glad to see someone else like Coil.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't imagine either of them want to use the data for evil. If Google wanted to* they'd have been a lot more clever about how they collected and hid it from audit scrutiny, and if the government wanted to, as GP said, they'd do it themselves and I doubt, if they were doing so, that they'd bring the issue to everyone's attention by dragging Google over hot coals about it, because I'm betting a fair few people who didn't know about securing their WiFi before will now be looking into it.
*And really, how coul
Re: (Score:2)
Destroy? (Score:2)
Sometimes retaining information is worse than losing it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Only works if you can unsee said information.
Re: (Score:2)
at the end of the day... (Score:4, Insightful)
Really i don't see a problem with what google did, apparently it was only open networks etc, having an open wireless device in your house would be like not having curtains on your windows, if your not going to "stop" people from looking in, you've got nothing to complain about. If they were only taking samples, there shouldn't be much of an issue, because you where broadcasting the data to the public anyway...
Re: (Score:2)
If someone leaves the door of his house open you could say it's pretty damn stupid but it doesn't mean walking in and going through someone's stuff is the normal thing to do. Wardriving is something people did (and do?) for the fun of it, it's not major corporations doing it on a massive scale to collect data on people, it's illegal too btw in some countries.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't walking into someone's house through an open door, it's taking photos from the street, and I have no idea why people thing it's different to Street View - as GP said if there's no curtains on your windows people will be able to see in.
Re: (Score:2)
As a European commenter said in the last story on this issue (exactly how many do we need?), they have these weird ideas about privacy over there. Apparently it's not enough that something was visible or broadcast in public. Under the rules Google didn't have the right to collect this stuff.
Stupid, restrictive, fascist even, but there ya go.
Re: (Score:2)
> This isn't walking into someone's house through
> an open door, it's taking photos from the street
Not even that: it's hearing from the street that there were people talking from the house at that particular moment (not necessarily even hearing what they were saying).
If you don't want them to hear that you are talking and what you are saying, hide your SSID and encrypt your communications. Done.
The only illegal problem I could see is the large scale of the information gathering. Personally, as an owne
Re:at the end of the day... (Score:4, Insightful)
Wardriving is something people did (and do?) for the fun of it, it's not major corporations doing it on a massive scale to collect data on people,
But other corporations have done this as well.
it's illegal too btw in some countries.
It shouldn't be. If you broadcast unencrypted packet, people shouldn't be thrown in jail for receiving them.
Re: (Score:2)
His Analogy works, yours don't.
Having an open wifi is more like shagging your girlfriend against the window with the curtains open... you can't complain about privacy if the neighbours watch you do her when you do it in plain sight.
If exhibitionism is NOT your thing... encrypt your damn wifi.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, in this analogy, google is the fat slashdotter across the road who doesn't just ENJOY the show, but videotapes it.
Re: (Score:2)
This is NOT insightful - and smacks of the "you've got nothing to worry about if you've done nothing wrong" mentality. Mostly Joe Public doesn't understand what the difference is between open/closed WIFI... certainly the guy at the shop he bought it from didn't explain it to him... he bought a device that allowed him to surf the net on from his couch. He plugged it in, followed the illustrated guide to set it up and it worked. end of story.
He did not knowingly provide unlimited access to his home networ
Not copies (Score:2)
They are handing over the actual hard drives that contain the data apparently. This means that it can (and should) be destroyed by the government now but I suspect that they will research the collected data first to see if Google violated laws by doing this. After this they should officially destroy evidence like this for as far as I know but they probably wont, who knows?
Anyway, people shouldn't be whining at the government at this point but at google for collecting it in the first place. What the f where
Re: (Score:2)
RTFA. They wanted to find open access points for people to use when walking around with mobile phones and accidentally captured data as well as AP information.
Re: (Score:2)
RTFA. They wanted to find open access points for people to use when walking around with mobile phones
Not quite - you should RTFA too. They want it for geolocation. And they couldn't care less if the AP is open or not - they just record enough info to uniquely identify it and map it's signal strength. They are certainly not planning to advertise the location of these open APs which would be somewhat alarming.
Why is this still in the news? (Score:4, Insightful)
People kept their networks open, Google gathered some probably useless information about them - presumably no more than 15 seconds worth in most cases (because it's a car driving by). Google has far more information on far more people from saved web searches/e-mails/etc. I'm tired of seeing these stories, I really don't care.
If European Governments are actually pursuing this, shame on them.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Google has stated that their equipment changed channels 5 times a second. So there is no more than 0.2s of data on any one network. Good luck doing anything with that...
The data is potentially court evidence (Score:4, Interesting)
To all who advocate deleting the data, repeat after me:
The data is potentially evidence in upcoming court cases.
Repeat this until it finally occurs to you that destroying evidence when you know it will likely wind up in court is a very bad idea. . Judges usually don't like defendents who destroy incriminating evidence, especially after the authorities already knew of it's existence and has asked for it to be turned over.
If I sneaked into your home and copied your diary, then put the copy in a safe. Then when the police found this out and asked for me to give the keys to them, the correct response is NOT to burn everything in the safe to "protect your privacy".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The data is potentially evidence in upcoming court cases.
Yes, well, whether this is okay or not depends entirely on the court case, doesn't it? I think more than a few /.'ers are concerned that it may indeed be used for court cases, but not necessarily just cases against Google....
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Repeat after me: What the government wants, and what is right, are not synonymous. I would much rather a random thief have my diary, and then destroy it, than for the government to ever lay their filthy paws on it.
"It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own con
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically, the purpose of the law, as I understand it, is to prevent oppressive regimes from recruiting companies to collect information about the citizenry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No it isn't. Google is not allowed to sniff out this data (at least, in my country) and is not an investigative authority. Therefore this data is certainly not allowed in court. What if this wasn't Google but China Telecom?
"Sir, we convict you based on data a foreign company claims to have sniffed from your open wifi connection. Yes we know that we cannot verify its authenticity, and we cannot tell if it has been tampered with, but will convict you nevertheless."
let's be clear WHY they stalled (Score:2)
Google has been reluctant to hand over this data because it's not clear that governments should have access to this kind of data. If this really represents private data, as the governments contend, the government has no right to access it either, since the contents of the packets are not necessary for determining what Google did.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, it is a nice illustration of the double standard that the government is applying. I would like to now see a class action against the government(s) to sue *them* for breach of privacy. Then they would have to either go to court and argue it wasn't a privacy breach (in doing so admitting that what Google did wasn't that bad) or go to court and admit they are even worse privacy breachers than Google (since Google did it accidentally, while they pursued it intentionally).
Gemermans (Score:2)
3. Profit!
I don't feel any better when our government... (Score:2)
... has a *COPY* of this data.
But well, that's the modern world, or something.
'secretly collected'? (Score:2)
Saying that google 'secretly collected' wirelessly transmitted data that people were broadcasting is like saying I 'secretly' hear people when they stand in front of me and talk.
Getting worse (Score:4, Interesting)
Still not as bad as the state of New Mexico, where you can be convicted and go to jail for driving "impaired" based solely on the officers "expert" opinion.
No breathalyzer.
No blood test.
You don't even have to fail the field sobriety test. All up to the police officers expert opinion. Some judges are convicting these cases when they should be tossed out.
The burden of proof is shifting to the defendant, not good in my opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Usually that would mean sending someone to have a look and see and perhaps sample the data. It's how they go about our IRS equivalent, social services, workplace safety, and about any situation where the Gov't needs to inspect something. TFA says originally Hamburg wanted about that - access to a hard drive and to a Street View car; note the singular. However, now they are talking about giving "the data", not about letting the authorities inspect it. Too fuzzy for my liking.
Funny, by the way, how Google wo
Re:Whatever for? (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, by the way, how Google wondered about the legality of having its data inspected by the data protection authority.
Nothing "funny" about it; they probably have good lawyers, lawyers who advised them that handing over the data to the "data protection authority" without a court order may itself constitute a violation of German privacy laws.
Usually that would mean sending someone to have a look and see and perhaps sample the data.
Or it might mean that the "data protection authority" goes on a massive data mining quest to identify file sharers, pornographers, and anybody who runs an open WLAN, and then charges all of those people with breaking the law. They couldn't drive around collecting that data themselves, but they can obtain it from Google. Probably it doesn't mean that in this specific case, but it sets a bad precedent.
Think about it: if you were a government intent on violating people's privacy, what would be the best place to do it? That's right: the "data protection authority", armed with a legal right to request and inspect anybody's data without a court order, just to look for more "data protection violations".
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's actually the real question: what are they going to do with it? Look for file sharers? Look for pornography? Under German law, a lot of communications are illegal, and there are probably hundreds of thousands of felonies recorded in that data.
Even more worrisome is the procedure by which the government obtains this. Google hasn't been ordered by a court to hand over this data, it is simply being requested by a government bureaucrat. Penalties for not complying with his demands can be steep,
Re: (Score:2)
"certainly what most people would do" is fine if your a hacker, university student, geek or nerd but Google is a multinational with information technology aware legal teams and claims to have hired competent people.
Test wifi collection one day vs local laws, keep emails safe the next competent people.
"Signing off on t
Re: (Score:2)
It's not an issue of whose hands the data is in now - Google shouldn't have had it in the first place, although maybe it WAS ok, depends on if they used the data. Also, the fact that they didn't do anything to filter it or destroy it after a certain period, or inform local authorities it would be collecting the data, are all probably at issue here.
Re:Not good (Score:5, Interesting)
``I trust Google more than German officials''
I wouldn't. Both Google and German government are made up of people. There will be good people and bad people in both organizations.
The major differences are that the the German government has a rather limited sphere of influence and you have some control over it through elections and other measures, like demonstrations, campaigns, founding your own party, etc. You vote along with a lot of citizens who are in the same boat as you are.
On the other hand, Google operates world-wide, and I doubt that you have a lot of control over their actions unless you work for them. Sure, you can buy shares and have a vote, but it will be your vote among that of a lot of people who don't know and/or don't care what happens in Germany.
Speaking for myself, I would rather keep my data away from both the government and large multinational companies. I am certainly no more comfortable with Google having it than with my (Dutch) government having it. And, as this case demonstrates, it doesn't necessarily matter who collects the data - you may be more comfortable with Google collecting it than with your government collecting it, but it looks like now both Google and the government are going to have it.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't. Both Google and German government are made up of people.
But, in the German government, one of those people is HITLER!
Re: (Score:2)
I am certainly no more comfortable with Google having it than with my (Dutch) government having it.
Google could potentially use the data to (gasp) serve you targeted advertisements (ie: they're gonna try to annoy you with ads either way, but at least then it will be an annoyance that's relevant to you, instead of tampon ads for a guy, or ads for a Boston restaurant shown to a person in Seattle). The government, on the other hand, can charge you with crimes, fine you, throw you in jail, etc. I think anyone who is not more comfortable with the former than they are with the latter has their sense of perspec
Re: (Score:2)
I'm trusting the German government more than Google (speaking as a German citizen).
Re: (Score:2)
Likely a configuration issue, keeping raw data around for debug info then forgetting to turn it off before deploying it. Google has been wanting to capture network SSIDs and GPS coordinates [war drivers have been doing this for years], likely for cell/laptop location data, but accidentally grabbed all raw packets instead.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Simple: by recording everything without verifying whether said data should be record. Capturing everything is easier than implementing filters, especially if storage space is not an issue.
Re: (Score:2)
They were asked by German data protection officials what data they collected with their streetview cars.
First they said they didn't collect anything besides MAC addresses and SSID. Then they found the payload data.
Yes, they could have kept quiet... and thus lied to government officials.
What do you think would have happend if that came to light?