Court Declares Google Must Face Wiretap Charges For Wi-Fi Snooping 214
New submitter Maser_24 writes with news about continued action against Google for snooping on unsecured Wi-Fi networks when collecting data for Street View. From the article: "A federal appeals court this week ruled that Google could be held liable for civil damages for the company's 2011 scandal involving the company's collection of Wi-Fi data from unsecured hotspots using their Street View vehicles. To come to that conclusion, the court followed a rather unique logic path; according to the court, unsecured Wi-Fi hotspots are not 'radio communications' that are 'readily accessible' to the general public and therefore Google violated the Wiretap Act."
This despite being cleared of wrongdoing by the FCC.
Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also Why not have lawsuits against NSA and force them to pay the civil damages for spying on american people.
Re: (Score:2)
The Federal Government is only susceptible to a civil action against it if the Government creates a specific exception to sovereign immunity. You might bring a civil liberties claim (1983) but that's going to require proof that the agent or agents knew what they were doing was unconstitutional - the law must be well established - generally anything that requires an appeal to decide the state of the law is going to auto-fail there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also Why not have lawsuits against NSA and force them to pay the civil damages for spying on american people.
What the NSA was doing was approved via a Warrant by the FISA Courts
This wasn't a case of the NSA going off and doing something unsupervised, they requested and had permission from US Judges for what they were doing.
As such, they would probably be immune from damages
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, according to the FISA court, not all of the NSA's actions were authorized. The court then went on to state that the NSA was beyond their ability to control it since it was lying to them freely.
Re: (Score:2)
Some legal professors, who know more than I do, think the court was a little insane with their suggestion that the NSA was lying to them
http://www.volokh.com/2013/09/11/fisa-uncanny-valley-article-iii/ [volokh.com]
Re: (Score:2)
We know for a fact that they lied to congress and to the press, why not to the FISA court? In for a penny...
As for the link, the writing is thoughtful, but I must respectfully disagree. The very fact that the data was collected at all prior to authorization is a problem. That in itself is not at all standard procedure for anything of this nature. The police don't get to search your house without suspicion, photograph everything and put it in a sealed box promising to only open it if they later suspect you o
DMCA notice to the NSA (Score:2)
How about for copyright infringement? Even non-commercial copyright infringement is illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah how about trying "We were ordered to do it by the US government and we can't give you details because a) national security and b) gag order". Seems to work for the government, why can't it work for Google?
Because the government will be able to declare in court that they didn't do it, and Google won't have proof that they did?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah how about trying "We were ordered to do it by the US government and we can't give you details because a) national security and b) gag order". Seems to work for the government, why can't it work for Google?
Because the government will be able to declare in court that they didn't do it, and Google won't have proof that they did?
That's covered, because the gag order gags itself, so you can't show it to the court.
Re: (Score:2)
I have my doubts about that, especially for a federal court.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The court. That's all it takes.
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically, the Constitution only disallows the government (including the NSA) from broad wiretapping (illegal search). The private wiretapping laws are just laws...not the supreme law of the land. So being ordered to do it by the US government would make the breaking of the law even more blatant and damaging.
Re: (Score:2)
The fifth amendment applies equally to broad and directed wiretapping. Now that you have written something that clarifies what you were trying to say I don't disagree with your new characterization of the law, with the exception that there are no laws that are "just"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The 4th Amendment allows the government to wiretap as long as a warrant has been sought.
With restrictions, the US Government can wiretap. Further, see
Olmstead v. United States
http:/ [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah how about trying "We were ordered to do it by the US government and we can't give you details because a) national security and b) gag order". Seems to work for the government, why can't it work for Google?
Because they've had 2 years to make that argument, and making it now isn't credible?
Re: (Score:2)
How about just charge the NSA in general for illegal spying?
Re: (Score:2)
At this point I don't even care if Google did it on purpose (probably not, seems like a classic "testing code left in production version" mistake), this is like going after a guy who stole a bottle of Thunderbird instead of Bernie Madoff.
You Can't Do That! (Score:2)
You can't do that - that's the govern... no. You know what? I'm better than that. Somebody else can take the low hanging fruit.
Re: (Score:2)
Since this is the 3rd comment on the post and all three comments are basically that, I would say the low-hanging fruit is rapidly being devoured...
Re: (Score:2)
no no no.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Bad logic that is favorable to your agenda is still bad logic.
Twisting logic is what I get mad at the "other guy" for. Don't tolerate it.
Re:no no no.... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Bad logic that is favorable to your agenda is still bad logic.
Twisting logic is what I get mad at the "other guy" for. Don't tolerate it."
It isn't bad logic if you understand what this is about.
Privacy laws are generally based on "intent", and "reasonable expectation of privacy". Sometimes those things intersect, sometimes they are at odds.
The LOCATION of a wifi router is pretty much accepted as public information. Here is a router. It transmits. It sends out its MAC address.
The CONTENT of the data it sends, however, is a different matter.
For many years, a large percentage of the population -- possibly even the majority -- did not know or care enough about the details of WiFi communication to secure their routers. Because that was true of so many people, it can be argued that it was "reasonable" for them to expect that their communications were private.
If their communications were intended to be private (i.e., it wasn't intended to be an open access point with a name like "Come Get Me, I'm Free!", and there was a "reasonable expectation of privacy" (again reasonable being inferred from the simple fact that it was true of so many people), THEN Google was illegally intercepting private communications.
You and I might think that not bothering to learn enough about it to know you should secure your router is not reasonable. But that's not the way the law works. If an "average" person commonly does it, it's considered reasonable.
Terrible Ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You could try reading the opinion. The judges do explain their reasoning.
It goes something like this.
"Radio communication" is not defined in the Act's definitions section.
To define it the court uses predetermined rules of construction - the idea being to ensure people reading an act of Congress should be able to anticipate how it will be interpreted.
In this instance they use the ordinary meaning of the word "radio communication" at the time
Re: (Score:2)
Which, I presume, means a very poor understanding of radio. Would Morse Code have not been radio communication? Because it's digital (trinary), unencrypted, and not a commercial broadcast.
Re: (Score:2)
It has nothing to do with how radio works, they give no fucks, it has everything with what the user of the radio expects. Laws are by and large written to apply to people, not technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Courts don't, will never, and should never care about geeky details about how technology works. That's supremely unimportant. What's important is the intent of the humans involved, and the pre-established rules for resolving cases where intent is unclear.
The court ruled, quite reasonably IMO, that the congress meant specifically commercial-style public broadcasts, which home wifi isn't.
More importantly, just because you can do a thing doesn't mean you should do a thing. An unsecured wifi is not an invita
Re: (Score:2)
No, you're obsessing on the unimportant geeky details. Only a human can invite. Sometimes that's the intent of an open WiFi, sometimes not. You should determine the owner's intent before using it (which is usually obvious from circumstance).
Re: (Score:2)
No, you're obsessing on the unimportant geeky details. Only a human can invite. Sometimes that's the intent of an open WiFi, sometimes not. You should determine the owner's intent before using it (which is usually obvious from circumstance).
And remember that even if you join an unsecured WiFi network, your computer will _not_ automatically process any information that is intended for others joining the same network. If someone sends an email, for example, there will be network traffic, and your computer is technically capable of receiving it, but it will ignore because it isn't the intended recipient.
Re: (Score:2)
I use almost all public wifi i can find. If i see an open SSID in my phone, then it is okay to connect and use it. It's also fine for whoever owns the network to peek at the data i'm sending over it : ) If either party puts up encryption then that is where the privacy line was drawn.
I don't need a silly sign posted anywhere about free wifi. My phone/tablet/laptop will let me know when it's free.
Re: (Score:2)
Seconded. Google isn't the paragon of perfection that many believe them to be, but they are better than a majority of the industry players, but this is a bogus charge. If you want your data secure, then secure it. Insurance companies won't pay for stolen vehicle claims when the driver leaves the keys in the ignition with the doors unlocked, and Google shouldn't be smacked for receiving a signal that is broadcast to everyone in cleartext through the ether. This is really just an excuse for some tort lawy
Worse .... (Score:2)
legal definition of "readily available" not radio (Score:2)
I believe the difference they are pointing out is that FM / AM, police, fire, etc. are broadcasting out and are 'readily available', whereas with WiFi is broadcasting but is not readily available to the general public, most of the time it is encrypted and meant just for yourself. This ruling is saying people who want to sue Google, are allowed to, because they were not broadcasting for the same purpose as the other technologies mentioned above.
From the actual summary of the court ruling: [documentcloud.org]
Wiretap Act
The pan
Re: (Score:2)
There is precedent in the special restrictions placed on recording analog cell phone communication which were/are freely audible in the clear with a suitable tuner*. The solution of the powers that be was to classify recordings of cell phone traffic as equivalent to wiretaps. They are extending that analogy to intercepting wifi data, even that which is purposely broadcast for the purpose of network discovery and identification.
Curiously, the government now doesn't want this concept of "reasonable expectatio
Court defines TV, wifi as "not radio" (Score:2)
A brilliant bit of pilpul: the statute is supposed to be read using the "ordinary meaning" of terms like radio. As radio can be distinguished from television in ordinary usage, radio waves therefor do not include television waves, do not include wifi waves, etc. Therefor wifi is not radio, and doesn't have the radio exception, even though it uses radio frequency electromagnetic waves.
The counter-argument is that in common usage and in the language used in the statute, the term "radio" includes "radio wa
Re:Judges untrained in comms technology, that's ho (Score:5, Informative)
Another court case conflicts with the Google ruling. Back when they were in popular use, the police sometimes recorded wireless phone calls from 46/49 MHz cordless phones (without a warrant). The police used these recordings in court to convict a drug dealer and the drug dealer argued that the communications were private. The courts ruled that they were not. Here [uscourts.gov] is the court ruling from this case:
Re:Judges untrained in comms technology, that's ho (Score:4, Insightful)
Judge made the mistake of trying to interpret the motive of the person setting up the unencrypted hotspot instead of the intent of the people who designed the WiFi standard. He also doesn't understand how WiFi and networking work.
He decided that in general, someone setting up a hotspot doesn't intend for the traffic to be snooped, therefore it "isn't publically broadcast". The law should be based on the design of the technology, not the intent and misunderstanding, of the person who turns it on.
WiFi doesn't work if every computer listening in on the hotspot doesn't examine every packet, at least as far enough to see if it was intended for it or not. It doesn't take a special $600 adapter for someone to snoop, or packet capture, the network traffic. That may be the easiest way for an untrained person to do it, but it isn't the only way.
We need special judges, who are trained technologists, to rule on technology cases.
Readily Accessible (Score:2)
You mean "readily accessible" as in "I can understand it by hearing an audio facsimile" (as the Judge implied) or "readily accessible" as in anyone with a smart phone can access without even pressing a single button - you walk near the transmitter and magical pages of information come up on my phone at my whim. Would Morse Code be not "readily accessible" since few people today use Morse Code, because it's an unencrypted digital (trinary) transmission, but would have certainly been considered fair game back
Not radio communications? WTF?! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's exactly what this is... In no uncertain terms!
Fuck... Pot, meet Kettle...
WiFi is explicitly radio... and it's readily accessible without any intervention on the users behalf...
I regularly connect to unsecured hotspots without even meaning to...
Blah...
I can't even express how utterly exasperated I am with our government...and the people that keep them in office...
God damn...
Well, there's one thing our government is good at, learning from past mistakes... Those gladiatorial games were great inspiration for our current raft of "populace pacification techniques"... TV, sports, and (to a lesser extent) religion...
When will we wake up... When will the common man stand his ground and tell those in power to go fuck themselves? When?
Re: (Score:2)
When will we wake up... When will the common man stand his ground and tell those in power to go fuck themselves? When?
Historically, these things don't change with the common man. In 1775, about 17-18% of the American Colonists were secessionists, about 10% were loyalists, and the rest just went along with the status quo.
Re: (Score:2)
And the best part is, we are paying for this litigation!
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have any expectation of privacy when using an unencrypted WiFi connection. Specifically because someone could intercept it.
Because I understand I am broadcasting a radio signal in the clear, and know what that means.
Re: (Score:2)
What idiot thinks unsecured wifi is private? Same for baby monitors cordless phones etc. It's one thing if it's trivially encrypted.
Really now? (Score:5, Insightful)
"unsecured Wi-Fi hotspots are not 'radio communications' that are 'readily accessible' to the general public
Every single apartment complex I've lived in/visited would say otherwise.
Re:Really now? (Score:4, Interesting)
Every single apartment complex I've lived in/visited would say otherwise.
Yes, but you may recall that a few days ago Google said it was accelerating its VPN and encryption rollout to frustrate the NSA. The NSA made a phone call to the DOJ. They're one big happy family you know. So now Google will be punished in a roundabout fashion for daring to piss in the NSA's cheerios.
Re: (Score:2)
"unsecured Wi-Fi hotspots are not 'radio communications' that are 'readily accessible' to the general public
Every single apartment complex I've lived in/visited would say otherwise.
So do the unsecured WiFi routers/AP's themselves. In fact, they broadcast their invitations to "come use me" to the world. Did someone actually fail to point out this plain fact for the court?
Civil Damages? (Score:3)
Maybe I'm a little off on my law but civil damages are when people sue each other. So it makes sense if Google used the information in some way that hurt you then you have the right to sue Google for damages. In Canada, for a while when cellphone calls were not encrypted, it was perfectly legal to listen to the calls provided you did not use the information gleamed off that to benefit in any way. Google to the best of our knowledge deleted this information or no longer has it so what exactly would you be suing Google for? How did Google collecting this information harm you or how in the world are you ever going to prove that?
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, but this is a court of appeals decision. It has very little to do with whether or not Google's actions in this particular case could have harmed someone or that someone could prove that damages were done. The decision is about forging case law that will show that anybody that does this sort of thing can be held liable for damages. That doesn't mean the plaintiff doesn't have to prove his or her case, merely that it's completely valid to bring such a case before the court.
That is to say, this rulin
The bigger you are... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the more of a target you become..
unless you are a banker or Wall Street insider.
conspicuous (Score:2)
What the fuck? (Score:5, Insightful)
How in the hell are WiFi networks not "radio communications" which are "readily accessible"? What fucked up, distorted logic led to this?
I hope I don't have to explain how they are radio communications, if that's not obvious to anyone please go play with crayons in the corner.
As for readily accessible, when the vast majority of WiFi-equipped PCs and most mobile devices need nothing more than software which simply asks the wireless card to pass through what it sees, uh yes, it is readily accessible.
It's like arguing that since FRS radios typically default to channels 1 or 14 when turned on, channel 6 is not readily accessible. Sure you don't get it without asking, but its about as easy as it could possibly be.
Re: (Score:2)
How in the hell are WiFi networks not "radio communications" which are "readily accessible"? What fucked up, distorted logic led to this?
Common sense logic as used by non-geeks who are not fixated on literal interpretations. For example, you believe that PCs and mobile devices talking to each other constitutes "communications", while the non-geek would say that "communications" requires two living entities talking to each other. You say yourself that you need a WiFi equipped PC and some software - that's not "readily available".
Twisted logic (Score:2)
Common sense logic as used by non-geeks who are not fixated on literal interpretations.
Kind of hard to have a just law where you don't apply a reasonably literal interpretation.
while the non-geek would say that "communications" requires two living entities talking to each other
So by that logic if two people do anything other than talk to each other face to face then they are not communicating?
You say yourself that you need a WiFi equipped PC and some software - that's not "readily available".
What color is the sky on your planet where wifi equipped PCs and related software are not readily available? I have at least 100 wifi equipped devices (including PCs) within 50 meters of me as I type this. Heck I carry such a device with me pretty much everywhere I go.
Re: (Score:2)
Your honor, I didn't say anything. I was merely vibrating the air as is my custom.
Re: (Score:2)
So by that logic if two people do anything other than talk to each other face to face then they are not communicating?
That's again the geek talking, sounding like a bit of asperger, demanding that everything is either black or white. "Communication" is the imparting or exchanging of information by speaking, writing or using another medium - important is, it is communication between people. No word about it having to be talk, and face-to-face.
And now the bummer: If my neighbours have an unsecured WiFi network, I can easily use my Mac to connect to their network and leech off their broadband connection. I can _not_ easily
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But they didn't apply the law. Probably becasue they aren't versed with unlicensed radio spectrum laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Problem with the Court's argument, radar detectors in cars
The legality of radar detectors rests on the radio broadcast exception "if you broadcast it, someone else can listen to it".
If police agencies can argue that radar detectors are "illegal wiretapping" devices because they didn't intend for someone to receive their broadcasts, a lot of people are going to be charged with wiretapping.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It looks like the courts said "Radio means that it plays sound. Since data doesn't play sound, it isn't radio. Therefore the WiFi networks (traveling via radio communications) aren't actually radio at all." Nothing like a verdict that completely ignores the basic facts of the matter in exchange for a judge's twisted understanding.
Time to unlock my wifi (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I recall my intro-to-business-law-101 class from many years ago, the general goal of civil law is not to reward the victim or to punish the wrong-doer but to redress the damages done to the former by the latter. That is, you broke the law and harmed me in some way, so at the end of the law suit I should be back in the same position I would have been in had the law-breaking never occurred.
This means that, generally speaking you, have to demonstrate (based on a preponderance of the evidence) that not only
Re: (Score:2)
" that not only did someone break the law, but also that you were harmed by it in some way."
nope. The don't have to break the law.
Didn't Share with the NSA? (Score:2)
Is Google getting hit with this because they asked for an open, public hearing with another court so that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court could be publicly debated [slashdot.org]? Seems like the deck is stacked against them.
How an unencrypted, largely unregulated band transmissions cannot be considered 'radio communications' that are 'readily accessible' simply makes no sense. If I have a wireless network that is blasting out huge wattage, the FCC would get involved. So it is radio communications, which can
USA! USA! (Score:5, Insightful)
They should just claim... (Score:2)
"We were acting on orders from the NSA. But we can't share that information with you."
What civil damages? (Score:2)
What damages did someone transmitting their information in plaintext suffer when Google picked up what they were transmitting?
If they want to sue someone, sue the Wifi equipment manufacturers that used to make open networks the default setting.
Mixed feelings (Score:2)
I know Google has a lot of computational prowess when it comes to user data, so I say with some hesitation that this ruling makes no sense.
Isn't readily accessible? In five minutes, any member of the "public" can get a laptop, find an open hotspot and run Wireshark in promiscuous mode. Sounds "readily" to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Traditionally, if access require special tools it isn't considered readily available.
In this case it would mean not needing a password to access.
Court doesn't understand technology (Score:2)
news at 11
Pringels Can (Score:2)
Obviously the judge lacks a Pringels can. I can't imagine a signal that is not more accessible by the public.
Lesson learned (Score:2)
Don't become a huge company, and piss off the feds.
Re: (Score:2)
The government isn't just one guy you know.
Re: (Score:2)
gubbimt... simultaneously the smartest guys EVAR and the dumbest people in the room.
Incapable of doing anything correctly and still able to commit the biggest conspiracies ever known.
People dislike government... that's fine, but try to have some clarity in your thinking. If you think it through maybe you'll see it's not an all or nothing problem. Take the powers away that need to be taken away and give the ones that are needed to keep a decent society.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Government is Americans so your whole post it idiocy unless you feel that way about America as a whole."
No it isn't. Government is elected officials. We live in a Republic, not a Democracy.
Very obviously, we've been electing the wrong officials. The people elected have been too much politician, not enough actual leader.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only when it lets us [wikipedia.org], meaning, when hell freezes over.
Re: (Score:3)
wifi is radio. I could tune into them using a reciever in the 2.4 ghz range easily. I can even use a dsp to decode it via soft radio, and respond to the messages. anything that uses the radio spectrum is radio. Morse code is the same thing as wifi, just 1000x slower.
Re: (Score:2)
Until wireless cards are "readily accessible" open WiFi still requires some effort, and intention, to access.
Practically every cell phone and laptop are WiFi capable, as are quite a number of tablets, cameras, printers, and televisions. Heck, there's even exercise equipment with WiFi. Accessing open WiFi takes no more effort than tuning in a shortwave broadcast does.
Re: (Score:2)
The full force of legal protection was directed at privacy vs some 'damage' case that could be reduced if the network was just 'looked' at.
If only it was just one 'test' in 'one' country
False distinctions (Score:2)
- We believe that the intent was that someone who made an open radio transmission would know that it could be intercepted, so cannot expect privacy, since any radio set can pick it up. It's akin to shouting across the street. However, someone who is using a wi-fi connection would not necessarily be aware that they were exposing information.
And where the court erred is in thinking there is a difference between these two situations. An unsecured wifi base station IS making open radio transmissions. It is hardly a secret that wifi needs to be secured intentionally. EVERY wifi base station includes instructions on how to secure the base station transmissions. If the owner of the base station cannot be bothered to read those instructions then I cannot fathom how that is anyone else's fault. If you are making a radio transmission of any kind t
Re: (Score:2)
It has nothing to do with how radio works, they give no fucks, it has everything with what the user of the radio expects. Laws are by and large written to apply to people, not technology.
If most people expect a situation to be private and you listen in, then you're an asshat and the law will usually punish you for it regardless of how easy it was for you to listen. This has nothing to do with the technical details of the situation.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it has everything to do with it.
The technology is designed to be open and shared. If someone who buys the tool can't be bothered to learn it then it is their own damn fault.
You don't blame the pedestrian becasue the drive couldn't be bothered to learn how to break.
Re: (Score:2)
It has nothing to do with how radio works, they give no fucks, it has everything with what the user of the radio expects.
So if my buddies and I expect something stupid and irrational then the law should work in my favor? Strange notion you have there.
Laws are by and large written to apply to people, not technology.
We've been talking this entire time about how people are using this technology. That is a distinction without a difference. The court appears to have misunderstood how this technology works and are (potentially) punishing people based on an ignorant application of the law.
This has nothing to do with the technical details of the situation.
See there you are wrong. The court appears to have misunderstood how the technology works and misundersto
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if the Judge would have considered Morse Code a readily accessible transmission at the time of the law's writing. Because Morse is just a digital code (trinary, but digital) transmitted over radio waves. I wonder if Chinese radio transmissions in the US fall outside of "readily accessible," since most Americans don't have the expertise to decode Chinese?
Re: (Score:2)
Any idiot with a laptop or wifi-capable cellphone can easily connect to an unsecured WAP by clicking on it, or even automatically as many wireless adapters have been configured to do so.
True. But my laptop will not display or record any network traffic that isn't intended for it. Without any special software, I can make use of the network for my own purposes, but I cannot see what anyone else is doing on that unsecured network.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't like that this line of reasoning encourages people to demonstrably unsafe things on the theory that they can sue or prosecute people later, and that that might deter people from sniffing their traffic. Much better to just tell everyone to secure their communications. The alternative is much like saying the neighbors can go shout their secrets in the street and you are obligated not to listen. Yes, listening in on someone else's unsecured WiFi is harder than listening to a neighbor shout in the st