Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Privacy Wireless Networking Your Rights Online

Google Tells Congress It Disclosed Wi-Fi Sniffing 123

Posted by timothy from the thought-you-were-listening dept.
theodp writes "While conceding 'it is clear there should have been greater transparency about the collection of this [Wi-Fi] data,' Google asserted 'we have provided public descriptions of our location-based services' in its written response to Congress (PDF) about whether the public had been adequately informed of its data collection efforts. To prove its point, Google's how-many-times-do-we-have-to-tell-you answer included a link to a blog entry on My Location on the desktop, an odd choice considering that Google is still less-than-clear about exactly what's being captured by the service ('When My Location is active, Toolbar will automatically send local network information (including, but not limited to, visible WiFi access points)'). Congress might also want to evaluate the transparency of this cute Google video, which assured the public of Street View's privacy safeguards, but gave no hint of the controversial Wi-Fi collection."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Tells Congress It Disclosed Wi-Fi Sniffing More

Google Tells Congress It Disclosed Wi-Fi Sniffing

Comments Filter:

  • And? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Dragoniz3r ( 992309 )
    A major corporation fibs to the government about their shady acts? Say it isn't so! We all knew this was going to be how it went down from the time the Wi-fi sniffing was first announced. There's no surprise here. There really isn't much more to say about it. We've covered the shadiness of the whole thing at length in other stories, and it's really barely news at all that Google is trying to snow Congress about it...

    • Re:And^2 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by poptones ( 653660 ) on Saturday June 12, 2010 @07:40PM (#32553598) Journal

      This is not "shady." I operate an open wifi hub myself and I live in town. One neighbor is almost always connected via his iphone. What neighbor? I haven't a clue - that's the whole point of providing anonymous and free bandwidth to my community. I hope that person is using it to save money on their phone bill cuz, as a homeowner, the better off my neighbor is the better off I am.

      People are not idiots. When it is called "wifi" and "wireless" and you can network comupters without wires, anyone who understands technology of the last century knows it's using radio. They may choose to remain ignorant to the details, but it's simple common sense that when I am using "radio" others can hear shit I say unless I do something about it. The government and the media powerhouses have done their part in making the public scared enough of this technology that most now attempt to lock them down using wep, again demonstrating that most have a basic understanding of the technology.

      Making shit public and then bitching about someone for using the information YOU CHOSE TO MAKE PUBLIC is a synthetic dismissal of responsibility (or...ummmm.. just a lie). The only thing Google is guilty of here is having enough money and resources to gather this data on a larger scale than I and my neighbor are capable of.

      • Fine, their "allegedly shady" acts. My point still stands. Nobody expected them to walk up to Congress and say "yeah, we totally grabbed all this wifi data that people didn't know we were taking." I'm not even making any statements about the morality or legality of Google's actions. I'm just saying, the content of TFS is in no way surprising.

        FWIW, I metamodded you up, so don't take this in any way personally.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by yyxx ( 1812612 )

          Fine, their "allegedly shady" acts.

          Google recorded unencrypted WiFi packets and took pictures on public streets. There is nothing "shady" about that, allegedly or otherwise. They shouldn't have to ask permission to do that, nor should they have to answer to anybody for it.

          I'm not even making any statements about the morality or legality of Google's actions.

          Well, but I am: what they did was certainly moral, and it was probably legal in the US.

          Google does plenty of things that are of concern from a privacy

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        People are not idiots.

        You sure about that?

      • The difference is that we trust Google. They promised us not to be evil. They control the flow of our information. We have a certain expectation that they will not use our personal information for some nefarious purpose. And when they do they should (in my opinion) be held accountable for it.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by macshit ( 157376 )

          The difference is that we trust Google. They promised us not to be evil. They control the flow of our information. We have a certain expectation that they will not use our personal information for some nefarious purpose. And when they do they should (in my opinion) be held accountable for it.

          Er, but this was neither evil nor was it "using personal information for some nefarious purpose."

          Regardless of whether they actually did anything wrong, of course, it's clear that enough people didn't like it that the most sensible course of action for them is to stop doing it (and be more careful in the future), if for no other reason than good PR.

          [Indeed, the reaction -- whiny histrionics and political grandstanding -- is arguably more evil, as many of those people are actually abusing the system for pe

        • Oh, come on. Grow up, alright?

          Hey, I happen to LIKE Google. I pretty much trust them, too. Or, at least, I find them to be more trustworthy than any of the competition. But, where does Google make their money? That's right - ADVERTISING. How does that work again? Lemme think real hard - first, Google tracks my web browsing, and my searches, and they analyze all the data they can get on me. Then, based on their "profile" of me, they try to sell me things that are simply irre-fucking-sistable. They se

      • There are legitimate reasons to lock down your wifi, of course. It isn't just media hype and government fear mongering. Personally, I run TWO wifis. One is completely unsecured, and available to anyone who happens by. The other is secured, and only responds to select MAC addresses. Thus, like yourself, I do a little bit of that "share the wealth" thing, but, I also ensure that only a pretty sophisticated haxor is going to grab my packets. The average script kiddie isn't going to get my stuff!

    • A major corporation fibs to the government about their shady acts?

      There is nothing "shady" about what Google did, nor have they "fibbed" about it. In fact, Google shouldn't even be asked about this.

      What is shady is the way governments have been using this for political gain.

      Particularly shady has been the behavior of the German government, who not only has been lying through their teeth about what happened, but also is using Google as an excuse to undermine basic data protection principles.

      But, hey, it's n

    • A major corporation fibs to the government about their shady acts?

      I'm sorry, I miss it.

      What is shady about collecting publicly available Wi-Fi signals? Anyone with an antenna can do it. Did you know there is a way you can prevent this? My own fucking GRANDMA knows how.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AHuxley ( 892839 )
        re "Did you know there is a way you can prevent this?"
        By not recording and keeping the data as in moves on networks that are not yours?
        • The public airwaves are just as much mine as they are yours. The fact that ancient computer trespass laws and bumbling politicians can't keep up with modern technology shouldn't be surprising.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AHuxley ( 892839 )
            ancient computer trespass laws keep you safe from spam, CC fraud, identity theft, spoofing and many other interesting ideas.
            Most where based on the ideas of letter and voice privacy or a result of hacking attempts.
            The public airwaves are open to all to form networks on, but not for wholesale harvesting of data in transit by any .com with a van.
            Why should "modern technology" be a fog of war like cover for simple data interception and mining?
            • Except they don't, really. What they do is allow law enforcement to pursue and prosecute a handful of people who send spam or steal credit cards or identities.

              The law certainly doesn't prevent it, and it doesn't protect me from threats that I prevent with cryptography and common sense. I suppose someone should look out for the naive and technically unskilled, but I would prefer if official protections were legitimately useful (enforcing strong passwords, secure operating systems, encrypted data transmis
  • just incompetent.

    • Re:They're not evil... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by MichaelSmith ( 789609 ) on Saturday June 12, 2010 @07:04PM (#32553448) Homepage Journal

      Their mode of operation has been to collect all the raw data they could and pass it to the smart guys in the back room to develop applications.

      The problem is that this time they did it driving (and cycling) down peoples streets and occasionally in their driveways. From their perspective its a simple misunderstanding and I expect a truce will be agreed on.

  • 1st Amendment (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by catmistake ( 814204 )
    Google is sort of a news provider now. Why don't they just hide Street View behind the 1st Amendment?
    • Great idea. Then let's see them defend their news search from lawsuits claiming they are re-publishing copyrighted material without permission.

  • There's another, as-yet unpublished Google patent filing [google.com] that discusses the use of a 'mobile device data collection module' to 'collect data on a set of mobile devices which are using [a] wireless base station', including GPS location information, time information, and 'application specific data, such as, map requests, etc.' The listed 'inventors' include a Google Latitude Product Manager.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Zebedeu ( 739988 )

      There's another, as-yet unpublished Google patent filing [google.com] that discusses the use of a 'mobile device data collection module' to 'collect data on a set of mobile devices which are using [a] wireless base station', including GPS location information, time information, and 'application specific data, such as, map requests, etc.'

      Well, the fact that they have the patent, does not mean they intended to use it.

      They may have just figured that it would make the patent more complete if they included the part about "application specific data", so that someone else couldn't come after and patent the same thing with that addition.

      The listed 'inventors' include a Google Latitude Product Manager.

      You mean a location service-related patent is coming from the guys working with location services at Google?

      Yeah, that's strange...

  • The details are clear (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    The article says Google has been "less than clear", but that just for people who don't understand the technology. Exactly what data Google collects, and how they use it, is obvious for anybody who understands the technology. A good explanation of that technology is here:
    http://erratasec.blogspot.com/2010/05/technical-details-of-street-view-wifi.html [blogspot.com]

    This is just another example of people being scared of "witchcraft". In this case, so many people (even Slashdot readers) don't understand WiFi technology, so th

    • Re:The details are clear (Score:5, Informative)

      by LordLimecat ( 1103839 ) on Saturday June 12, 2010 @07:22PM (#32553536)
      Its better than that, I followed the very first link provided by the poster, then clicked on the link from the third paragraph....

      To obtain your location, Google Maps takes advantage of the W3C Geolocation API [w3.org]

      That article explains EXACTLY what it does and what information is gathered. And it appears (though I might be wrong) that WiFi data is used to discern location, but not always necessarily passed to a site using My Location. It also looks like the Geolocation spec ISNT authored by google, but by the W3C. But of course its not quite as fun to call "witchcraft" on the W3C, now is it?

      You know, I keep holding out hope that people on slashdot will tend to read the articles they post before posting it, but maybe Im just being naieve.

    • The article says Google has been "less than clear", but that just for people who don't understand the technology. Exactly what data Google collects, and how they use it, is obvious for anybody who understands the technology. A good explanation of that technology is here: http://erratasec.blogspot.com/2010/05/technical-details-of-street-view-wifi.html [blogspot.com]

      This is just another example of people being scared of "witchcraft". In this case, so many people (even Slashdot readers) don't understand WiFi technology, so the witchhunt is more persistent.

      The real issue here is not that the data is easy to collect, or that collecting it is part of how the technology works. This is really a matter of data retention.

      Clearly they retain this data long enough to later perform analysis on it. To say "it's public information that you are broadcasting" misses the point and wastes time affirming a fact that is not in question (which is in fact is a clear sign that the point has been missed).

      It's the difference between me someone down a public street and happ

      • I don't accept your premise that retaining publicly available data (i.e. you walked into X store) is somehow worse than the initial acquisition of that data.

        To say "it's public information that you are broadcasting" misses the point and wastes time affirming a fact that is not in question (which is in fact is a clear sign that the point has been missed).

        The fact that it is public is the entire point, it misses nothing. If you do not wish it to be known, do not share it with the world - that goes for online or offline activities. Why do you think celebrities drive around in inconspicuous cars with blacked out windows and avoid the paparazzi when they don't wish their whereabouts to be known?

        • The fact that celebrities must make an active effort to conceal themselves in order to be left alone is part of my point. What's changing is that you no longer need to be a celebrity to have problems like this. What made this change? It used to be that conducting surveillance on someone was difficult (i.e. required effort) and expensive, so only the more high-profile people would be targeted. Now with modern database technology as employed by corporations like Google, it's economically feasible to condu

  • Google's how-many-times-do-we-have-to-tell-you answer...

    Most savvy corporations know the phrase "Do not taunt Happy Fun Congress!".

  • "Google Tells Congress It Disclosed Wi-Fi Sniffing" (original)

    versus/vs.

    "Google Tells Congress Its Disclosed Wi-Fi Sniffing" (read it as this)

    • I'm sorry you have a problem with grammar.

      This:

      "Google Tells Congress Its Disclosed Wi-Fi Sniffing" (read it as this)

      Is grammatically incorrect, and if taken literally has no sensible meaning. You seem to be trying to use "its" in place of "it has", which is completely wrong. "Its" is the possessive form of "it". What you want is "it's", which means "it is" or "it has". Still, in doing so you've changed the meaning of the sentence, so it is still incorrect.

      This:

      "Google Tells Congress It Disclosed Wi-Fi Sniffing" (original)

      Is grammatically correct - "that" is implied before "it". Adding "that" would make the sentence slightly easier

  • One question, though... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Todd Knarr ( 15451 ) on Saturday June 12, 2010 @08:01PM (#32553698) Homepage

    I have one question, though: exactly how much privacy do people expect, given that what Google collected was what those people were broadcasting in the clear to the world at large? It's the equivalent of Google listening to what people are saying sitting at the corner coffee shop. Face it, when you're talking in public with strangers standing right next to you listening, you don't expect what you say to go unheard. So, why do you expect what you're broadcasting with the moral equivalent of a bullhorn to remain private? You want it private? Either don't broadcast it at all or at least encrypt it before broadcasting it.

    Oh, you say the average person doesn't know better? Sorry, they should know better, and if they don't they should know better than to try without getting expert help. No excuses. This isn't rocket science. We've had personal computers for over 30 years. We carry sophisticated ones in our pockets and use them to make phone calls. It's well past high time the average person was expected to have a basic understanding of what they're so casually carrying around and using every day, and past time we stopped making excuses for the ones who just can't be bothered. You shouldn't need to know the details of how encryption works in 802.11*, but you should at least know as much as "I need encryption turned on, and if I don't know where and how to turn it on I need to either RTFM or ask someone who does know for help.".

    More important than asking why Google collected this information is asking why people were so negligently reckless as to broadcast anything sensitive in the clear in the first place.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by maxume ( 22995 )

      The more refined question is whether it is worth distinguishing between incidental interception of such signals while doing other activities and the intentional systematic sampling of such information.

      Personally, I'm not that worried about it (WPA makes it fairly easy to at least advertise that you desire privacy), but I see why people have some concerns.

      • I don't even bother asking that question. I assume that if I'm broadcasting it, someone will be listening to it and that someone will be who I least want listening in. That may or may not be the case, but by the time I know for sure it'll be too late so I'd better assume the worst from the start. I can see why people have concerns, but it simply boggles me that those people are, quite bluntly, blabbing their deepest darkest secrets in front of an audience of hundreds and are then suprised when hundreds of p

    • Google listening to your coffee shop conversation is just the beginning. Soon she'll start going through your wallet when you're not around. You still won't get upset though because -you know- it's just Google. And it's not like you were hiding anything anyway. By the time you realize she was reading your email the whole time you were together you'll be too old to find another search engine.

      • Nope. I know Google would like to riffle through my e-mail. That's why, while I have a Google Mail account, I don't use it for sensitive things like banking that I don't want going into Google's database. When I'm deciding what e-mail address to give people, I ask myself what's going to be going across it and choose one with an appropriate level of protection.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mickwd ( 196449 )

      those people were broadcasting in the clear to the world at large

      Nobody thinks their wifi is broadcasting to the world at large. They realise they are broadcasting to neighbours and people nearby, but that's about the extent of it. It's the fact that a multi-billion-dollar company is recording that data and taking it away for analysis that some people have a problem with.

      It's like standing outside the front door of your house. You expect your neighbours to be able to see you, and this isn't a problem. But i

      • What restriction is there on who can park on the street in front of your house? None. Anybody can do it. So while yes there's a physical radius, you have no idea who's within that radius and you know it. That one of those somebodies is from Google and they've got a tape recorder running is one of those things that everybody ought to be expecting. After all, first rule: if it's embarrassing or sensitive or otherwise might be a problem if someone found it out, and you're saying it in the middle of a crowd of

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mickwd ( 196449 )

          What restriction is there on who can park on the street in front of your house? None. Anybody can do it. So while yes there's a physical radius, you have no idea who's within that radius and you know it. That one of those somebodies is from Google and they've got a tape recorder running is one of those things that everybody ought to be expecting.

          Expecting? Really? And you really don't think anybody could conceivably be concerned about this?

      • Every person I see who is promoting hysteria about this seems to read enormous evil intent beyond what we actually have evidence for.

        recording that data and taking it away for analysis

        Notice the prejudice in your *assumption* that Google took away the data for "analysis" when in fact (as far as actual data goes) they accidentally collected it, didn't know existed, when they discovered it they made full disclosure about it, and deleted / will delete it as soon as they can legally do so (they wanted to straight away, but authorities actually *stopped* them!)

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by DMiax ( 915735 )
      They were not broadcasting, they were sending to a specific device with a specific address. They just happened not to encrypt it. It is fairly reasonable that they expected any other party to drop the packets.

      • Sorry, but 802.11a/b/g/n uses radio. Radio is a broadcast medium. Once the signal's in the air, any receiver can pull it in and listen to it. That you intend it to only be for a specific recipient doesn't change the fact that the signal's broadcast to everyone who's listening and you don't know who's listening. If you don't want your transmission to be broadcast, don't use a broadcast medium.

  • Curse you Google for being successful... (Score:3, Informative)

    by ritzer ( 934174 ) on Saturday June 12, 2010 @08:15PM (#32553752) Journal
    Finally, Google managed what we tried to get going with http://www.nodedb.com/index.php [nodedb.com] ... ten years later.

  • One thing that is both interesting and sad about this whole episode is how it is reported in the mainstream press.

    Even the New York Times reported that they were getting people bank account numbers.

    And try reading some of the user comments for those articles. People are convinced that the Google vans are stealing their thoughts.

    Unfortunately, I think it is time for Google to spend less time giving away technology and more time on P.R. and advertising.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Shados ( 741919 )

      Its a university Google needs to invest in if people think sniffing broadcasted unencrypted networks is a big deal (especially since even then a lot of things will be encrypted anyhow.

  • get over it already (Score:2, Insightful)

    by yyxx ( 1812612 )

    I'm tired of Google being painted as the bad guys here. All they did was receive unencrypted, public broadcasts. That should not be illegal. In fact, it probably is not illegal in the US.

    If you don't want people to listen to your WiFi packets, encrypt them. Don't abuse the court system or the police to cover up for your own incompetence.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Public broadcasts would be streaming to a web page for all to see?
      This was people sitting in city, suburbia, connected to a webpage, email, yahoo and having their packets collected without their understanding or approval.
      They still have the legal protection of networking laws in some parts of the world, no encryption needed, expensive hardware ect.
      Just like a telco site, military server or any encrypted networking.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by yyxx ( 1812612 )

        Public broadcasts would be streaming to a web page for all to see?

        Which part of "public" and "broadcast" do you not understand?

        This was people sitting in city, suburbia, connected to a webpage, email, yahoo and having their packets collected without their understanding or approval.

        Yes, it was.

        Just like a telco site, military server or any encrypted networking.

        No, not "just like" at all. Those kinds of servers and networking don't broadcast; you need to actually intrude into them using active measures: tapp

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AHuxley ( 892839 )
          What exactly do you think those laws accomplish?
          Your caught with data thats not yours in bulk form.
          In theory, that adds to the list of changes when caught.
          It also brings voice recording and postal privacy laws into the digital age.
          You did not have permission from the gov or any of the parties to collect and save it.
          If you want legal reform like some parts of the EU for open wifi, great, go for it.

  • WiGLE (Score:5, Informative)

    by Rijnzael ( 1294596 ) on Saturday June 12, 2010 @08:52PM (#32553874)
    I really hope no one tells Congress about WiGLE [wigle.net].

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by adolf ( 21054 )

      Mmmm, WiGLE. I try to gather at least 100 new nodes a day for that beast, in the hope that some one, some day, will make use of all that data.

  • WTF! (Score:2, Informative)

    by NetNed ( 955141 )
    It's a broadcast signal for crying out loud!! What really is the big deal? It's broadcast for the whole world to see! If a person drives down my street and has their laptop looking for WiFi they will see mine and 20+ others on my street, most secured. So what is the big deal? Sounds like the congress has found a thin opportunity to stick it's nose in to google's business and is taking full advantage of doing so, even if they are over stepping their boundaries and trying to obtain info that they did little l

    • Re:WTF! (Score:4, Informative)

      by Rijnzael ( 1294596 ) on Sunday June 13, 2010 @01:10AM (#32555048)
      Don't really know why someone modded you flamebait; you're completely right. It's like investigating someone for overhearing a conversation in public and remembering what the parties to the conversation said later on.

  • Congress might also want to evaluate the transparency of this cute Google video, which assured the public of Street View's privacy safeguards, but gave no hint of the controversial WiFi collection.

    That wouldn't be very reassuring.

  • need a big sign (Score:2, Interesting)

    by oddTodd123 ( 1806894 )
    If they had a big sign on their street view vans that said "All your data are belong to us", that would be good enough for everyone currently complaining? I doubt it. So why would it be good enough if they post something anywhere on their websites that says the same thing? It's not like people are agreeing to some terms-of-service with Google when they buy their house!

  • Let's do a thought experiment. What if, instead of Google, it were RIAA doing this?

    So, consider what if RIAA has been sending out trucks all around US, silently capture any and all wifi data they can receive, and recording them linked with GPS location, for the past 3 years. You have no idea what RIAA intend to do with all these data.

    Would you still consider this ok?

    Alternately, would you be worried if RIAA suddenly comes up with boatloads of money and bought out Google? Now they have all the data Google

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Enokcc ( 1500439 )

      "Try replacing RIAA with any of your favorite organization, such as Microsoft, Apple, SCO, etc. Will your opinion change?"

      It is often characteristic to my favorite company that I share their ambition, and trust their intentions based on my previous experience and my best judgement. Thus, it does matter to me which company carries out an action, and my opinion would certainly change.

  • Why does /. Keep posting these bad summaries? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Cyberllama ( 113628 ) on Saturday June 12, 2010 @11:22PM (#32554590)

    So Theodp continues his one-man crusade against Google, and Slashdot inexplicably continues to aid him by posting his troll article summaries. This is at least his 3rd one on this particular Google issue alone and there haven't even new developments.

    Let's review:

    WHEN YOU USE GOOGLE LOCATION SERVICES, THEY KNOW WHERE YOU ARE. Shocking!:
    http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/06/01/1217220 [slashdot.org]

    This one's summary is so ridiculously inaccurate and biased I can't do it justice by summarizing it myself:
    http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/05/29/0818219 [slashdot.org]

    The germans wanted to do something, but failed. Lets argue about Google some more:
    http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/06/04/1839230 [slashdot.org]

    Here's some other Google posts he's made that are only slightly less ridiculous:

    Google is hacking your box:
    http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/06/11/0143255 [slashdot.org]

    Google Lied about Apps being a successful product:
    http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/09/07/1218227/Google-Apps-Not-the-DC-Success-Many-Believe?from=rss [slashdot.org]

    Google is racist:
    http://search.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/11/26/0311249 [slashdot.org]

    Ok, man, we get it. You think Google is evil and you wear a tinfoil hat to keep them from packet sniffing your brain because they can *totally* do that. Whatever. The rest of us are sick of hearing about it. Most of us here understand the issue better than you apparently do and we aren't nearly as concerned.

    It's clear you have a bone to pick, especially with the whole wifi thing which I'm not sure you really understand -- but FFS, why is Slashdot still posting these things? I swear this is the 4th time you've rehashed the whole wifi thing with a slightly different spin and managed to get it posted yet again. Each time you avoid facts in favor of frantic hand-waving and put words in Google's mouth like "how-many-times-do-we-have-to-tell-you" and "After mistakenly saying that it did not collect Wi-Fi payload data". Please, for the love of god. Just stop.

    • HushGoogleIsListening
    • StopGooglinMyAss
    • GoogleSniffsToiletSeatsToo
  • You have to wonder what the problem is? I think public register of all macid's would be useful.
  • There can be other possibilities. For example, some devices may not support encrypted Wi-Fi. Or I have a friend visiting and I would not want to share the password with him and decide to temporarily disable encryption. Or maybe I am sure my neighbors are far enough away from me. Or maybe I am technically incapable of getting encryption to work properly. Not enabling encryption does not mean I want you to sniff my data, even small pieces of it. Making something possible to be accessed by public is not the s

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rdebath ( 884132 )

      I'm pretty sure you're mis-reading the privacy levels here.

      The way I read this is that your 30 foot wall is like WEP, it's a positive indication of the expectation of privacy. In both cases breaking the privacy is a definite indication of trespassing and is likely to be grounds for prosecution. But neither stops a determined invader.

      A normal white picket fence is much lower security or privacy; it's something that someone who's even a little bit fit can just jump over but in general they don't, because

  • Google vs Cheney-Bush (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tengu1sd ( 797240 ) on Sunday June 13, 2010 @01:10AM (#32555046)

    People are getting upset that someone recorded wireless transmissions? Come on, it's radio, once you broadcast it's there for the whole world to pick up. Encryption can slow down someone reading your traffic, but that's only a speed bump. There is no expectation of privacy on a radio broadcast, if you think your wi-fi network is secure, you're only showing the world that you don't understand the technology.

    Compare this to the Bush/Cheney Regime [wikipedia.org] program to record network and phone traffic. Where's the outrage and investigation of King George? The current king has quietly continued this program. I have more trust in Google than I do the the United States government.

    One more time, if you broadcast it, it's available for anyone to intercept.

    • I have more trust in Google than I do the the United States government.

      And this right here is the problem. When a for profit corporation engenders more trust than our supposedly representative government. Anyone else see a problem with this?

      • When a for profit corporation engenders more trust than our supposedly representative government. Anyone else see a problem with this?

        Actually, I trust all corporations far more than any government.

        Know why? Corporations motives are well known and very basic: they want as much money as they can possibly get. This makes them extremely predictable. Give me a news article of some nefarious new act by some corporation and I can pretty accurately predict what they are going to do and why they will do it.

        The government, however, is multi-faced and schizophrenic. Sometimes it just wants to protect you and keep you safe and take care of you,

  • 1 - Restate 'we did notify' that they were going to capture data available to any passing car
    2 - Admit perhaps it wasn't the best notification process out there
    3 - Apologize for #2 "we will do better next time"
    4 - Move on and keep the 'google trucks' moving

  • How are we going to enforce net Neutrality?

    When the telecoms control the lines and have repeated that no filtering is going on (a blatant lie).

    I think having a company that roams about checking network speeds and ensuring that all types of data receive fair treatment is going to be necessary if we ever hope to enforce network neutrality on the telecos.

    It would be nice if the government could do it, but Google releasing a report would be just as good.

    There are many other benefits to having an accurat

Slashdot Top Deals

Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce

Close