 | | What a waste Are we really wasting money on pursuing this? When using an unsecured network you assume responsibility of what data you send and receive. This is just ridiculous. | |
|
 |  Bri
@12.168.71.x | Re: What a waste Agreed! Not to mention how in the heck are you going to argue for damages against them? What the media is conveniently forgetting to report is that the data captures only lasted for fractions of a second. The chances of intercepting an unencrypted password for that fraction of a second are insanely small. I'm guessing one or two people in the entire US. | |
|
| |  ctceoPremium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
 ·magicjack.com
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: What a waste The chance is still there. Also, the more people see it in the news the more likely they are to want to try to find local hotspots and tell friends about it and show them how to do it. It's called networking, ironically.
It's no secret that people have been doing this for the last decade, and it's not going to suddenly vanish from the radar. In fact, with the current fractal monetary system the chances of people giving into the temptation for free WiFi is greater now than ever before and will only grow as "caps" are introduced.
Now, browsing for wireless networks is not illegal and that in and of itself requires the capture of a beacon or several beacon intervals to determine if you are connecting to the wireless network you want to, let alone ones you aren't really supposed to.
As for the chances of intercepting a pw. I did a test here at my apartment complex and in a 60 second timeframe with only 6 active hotspots and 1 unsecured my chances to crack or poison those networks was fairly high compared to your assumption. I'm not advocating that people start trying, cause they already are, I'm simply pointing out the thruth in it's increasing simplicity.
With government level snooping technology they can simply paralell the dataflow and get the pw and other encrypted passwords contained within in milliseconds after an extremely miniscule capture.
--
»were.boldlygoingnowhere.org if we don't change out ways! | |
|
| | | |
| | | | May be a waste, but I hope Google gets busted to what ever the max may be!
Google has gotten WAY to big for their own britches and I never really have liked them anyway! 
Every program and/or thing they do phones home and snoops on your privacy, which I know is a fairly common practice, but still can't stand them.
--
The Firefox alternative.
»www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/ | |
|
| | |  japPremium
join:2003-08-10
038xx | Re: What a waste said by cork1958:I hope Google gets busted to what ever the max may be!
Google has gotten WAY to big for their own britches and I never really have liked them anyway! Irrationally vindictive much?  | |
|
| | | |  BHNtechXpertBHN StaffPremium,VIP
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL
kudos:82 | Re: What a waste said by jap:said by cork1958:I hope Google gets busted to what ever the max may be!
Google has gotten WAY to big for their own britches and I never really have liked them anyway! Irrationally vindictive much? Not all.. His statement was correct.
--
"I can’t give you a surefire formula for success, but I can give you a formula for failure: try to please everybody all the time."
~ Herbert Bayard Swope | |
|
|  CPMBroadband, DSL, cable
join:2001-08-24
Brooklyn, NY | Well some people ages 65 to 80. Don't know the techie things. All they know is they can connect their computer wireless.
So, they don't assume responsibility. | |
|
| | | | Re: What a waste Completely wrong. Just because somebody is not "techie" doesn't mean they have a pass to be completely stupid. I don't care how young or old, ignorance of something is not an excuse. That would be like saying since I didn't know that glass of milk was there I don't have to assume responsibility for spilling it. | |
|
| |  TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
 ·CenturyLink
| My parent are in their 80's and I worried about the PC they have. I went over because my Dad was complaining about how his 8 year old machine was working. No updates, the antivirus was not up to date even if it worked, I am not even sure any of the XP service packs where installed. What saved him was the DSL connection and the NAT firewall he was behind and the fact the computer was shut down most of the time. Fortunately the computer must have known I was coming to fix it and committed suicide. Thankfully I have them talked into going Apple and a couple of iPads, or at least one Macbook. I'll set up the wifi system with all of the security a D-link DIR-655 wifi router affords.
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption | |
|
| BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH | Absolutely true. Google did absolutely NOTHING wrong. Even if they had purposely collected as much data as possible, they still didn't do anything wrong by passively collecting data that someone ELSE was sending through the air. | |
|
| | BHNtechXpertBHN StaffPremium,VIP
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL
kudos:82 | Re: What a waste said by BiggA:Absolutely true. Google did absolutely NOTHING wrong. Even if they had purposely collected as much data as possible, they still didn't do anything wrong by passively collecting data that someone ELSE was sending through the air.
Fail...
--
"I can’t give you a surefire formula for success, but I can give you a formula for failure: try to please everybody all the time."
~ Herbert Bayard Swope | |
|
| | |  r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
 ·row44
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: What a waste said by BHNtechXpert:said by BiggA:Absolutely true. Google did absolutely NOTHING wrong. Even if they had purposely collected as much data as possible, they still didn't do anything wrong by passively collecting data that someone ELSE was sending through the air.
Fail... LOL, your fail has failed.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. | |
|
|  NickDPremium
join:2000-11-17
Princeton Junction, NJ
 ·Comcast
| If LightSquared takes off, Google's wi-fi positioning system would be the alternative to GPS. Anyone who has a smartphone and uses Google Maps on it should not be allowed to complain about the wi-fi snooping since they're directly benefiting from it.
It's nice for my iPhone to augment the 24 GPS satellite signals with the thousands of wi-fi signals to determine my location. Plus, the wi-fi location works indoors where GPS doesn't. I would hate to see this database deleted. If someone calls 911, hangs up, and there's no GPS signal indoors they can't be helped. But if their phone supports wi-fi location then 911 would know where they are to 50 feet when they call. | |
|
| |
| |
| | BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH | Re: What a waste I'm not surprised. That is absolutely insane. When a wireless AP broadcasts into public air, well, it broadcasts into public air. | |
|
| | | ctceoPremium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN Reviews:
·magicjack.com
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: What a waste This is beginning to remind me of how it's illegal to install, own and operate a solar panel on your own property in my county. The only exception is if you feed a specified % back into your local grid. Assuming of course you have acquired and paid for the proper license and regulated installing company first.
--
»were.boldlygoingnowhere.org if we don't change out ways! | |
|
| | | |  DaMaGeINCThe Lan ManPremium
join:2002-06-08
Greenville, SC
kudos:2 | Re: What a waste Are you kidding me? | |
|
| | | | | |
|
| r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX | Re: Stupid Well you do not have to be smart or understand reality to be a judge.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. | |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | This Could Set a Precedent For years many have claimed seeing no wrong in using open access points without permission. As the argument goes, there's no violation unless the owner secures it and you then "hack" into it.
The "it's OK crowd" seemed to hang on to the fact that nothing of value was being denied of the AP's owner. Now that metered billing is upon us that argument no longer works but I'm sure there are still those that still see no harm and believe it's OK.
I've always maintained that it isn't OK for the same reason that it's still trespassing to walk into a house with an unlocked door. It's also still theft if you take a bike or mower just because it is stored in the open rather than in a shed or garage.
If Google is found responsible for collecting random data packets, accidental or otherwise, I think is sets a precedent for using open APs without permission.
I think it's also interesting that Google did not collect data from unsecured APs as if they too believe there's a marked difference between an open AP and a secured AP. | |
|
|  tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
·Comcast
| Re: This Could Set a Precedent That's what this is about, attempting to create case law on data collection. I don't think there is any way to make case law on the USAGE of open networks in this case as google was not using or intending to use the networks for communication, merely to record the stationary SSID's to use as landmarks for navigation purposes. | |
|
| | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: This Could Set a Precedent Does usage imply that I send packets through the network? Is it usage if I sit in my car on a public street next to a government agency (CIA, NSA, FBI, DOD, SS, etc.) and listen to the packets on an open access point?
Isn't Google in fact "using" these access points for future GPS services? If not, why are they collecting the information? Do we not "use" the satellite GPS system because we passively listen for its signals? | |
|
| | | tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: This Could Set a Precedent No I total agree they just listened, which cost the owner nothing and used none of his resources.
I think if you ping a WLAN/AP you get closer to legal "Unauthorized Use" (a single ping is fairly harmless, but a ping of death or just a regularly repeated ping would be intrusive) and attempting ANY throughput would definately be UU. | |
|
| | |  joakoPremium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
kudos:5
·Comcast
| Isn't that how WiFi-as-GPS works? The device passively listens to the WiFi broadcasts in the area and either tries to compute the location based on this against a database of known wifi AP, or the information is transmitted to a server that does the same.
Or do you believe if you open your laptop and click "refresh networks" you are actually using each network that shows up on the list.
--
PRescott7-2097 | |
|
| | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
1 edit | Re: This Could Set a Precedent I don't know the answer to those questions. The debate centers on law that's 25 years old, predating WiFi technologies. The crux of the issue is whether or not an "open" access point is unencrypted and therefore not governed by the WireTap Act. Can we assume anyone who fails to "protect" their wireless network are by implication granting us permission to use it?
Regardless of that decision, we must consider the data Google collected. Per this article, at first they claimed random packets but then admitted to collecting e-mail addresses and user accounts.
»www.computerworld.com/s/article/···omyId=79
There used to be a tool called NetStumbler. When combined with an external GPS, you could drive around with your laptop and build a cross-reference of GPS coordinates and AP MAC addresses and SSIDs (encrypted or not). I don't believe NetStumbler recorded random packets, much less e-mail addresses, user accounts and passwords.
Regardless of how the WireTap Act is applied, at best Google's behavior is reckless. How can they claim it was an accident when the sniffer software would have to be deliberately programmed to collect very specific data? Are we to believe that Google contracted with someone or allowed an employee to write sniffing software without any code and/or functionality review? At the very least Google is negligent of practicing sound change management. Usually this violates various generally accepted best practices for public corporations. While it may not be covered under SOX, which primarly deals with financial systems, such poor change control from a business whose products are directly tied to software if not software itself, represent a tremendous liability for shareholders and should be disclosed. In this case if Google is fined by the FCC, earnings are reduced which either lowers the dividend payout or shareholder equity.
We don't need a class action lawsuit but I think Google needs to be slapped around a bit. I also think we need to clarify the law so that we can all understand the boundaries. Personally, someone who fails to secure their access point is not giving me permission to use their signals. Out of respect for their privacy, I shouldn't take any deliberate steps to listen to or use the signals. Granted, many devices "auto connect" to open access points but I think we can all understand the difference between accidental and deliberate intent. In my opinion, Google did not need to collect even random packets let alone the very specific information that they collected. | |
|
| r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX | This uneducated judge is dangerous.
He has no idea what he is talking about when it comes to wiretapping laws or wifi.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. | |
|
| joakoPremium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Look at what's happening in the involved protocols.
You place a request to the AP to connect, you place a request for an IP address, you place a DNS request and finally you start an HTTP session.
Any or all of these requests could be denied. Cite ignorance all you want but an out of the box Linksys is CONFIGURED to GRANT access to all those who request it. The key is request, granted.
Cite ignorance all you want, but these people have configured their access points to allow access to all who request it.
Its not like someone opening your door. It's as if you had a door, someone knocks and you ask "who is it?" the person responds with their name (MAC address) and you say "come in."
--
PRescott7-2097 | |
|
| | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: This Could Set a Precedent Do we also believe that turning the knob on the outside water faucet is a "request"? How about plugging an extension cord into an external socket? Is that a request or does the request come from the electrical device's switch? Remember, usage meters and caps have eliminated the flimsy argument about usage not having value.
I'm certainly not without fault but I am still amazed by the effort we expend justification our behavior. Using a neighbor's AP is wrong. It's wrong even if you ask them and they agree -- unless they are paying for HSI whose contract permits this type of access. We all know it and all the mother-may-I-how-the-protocol-works techno misdirection doesn't make it right. Maybe the law doesn't make it a crime but we all know it's wrong.
While I'm not suggesting anyone here is a criminal, how different are these types of justifications than those who would justify a rape because a woman is dressed or acts in a provocative manner? How about justifying car theft because keys were left in the ignition or breaking into a car because an iPod was left on the seat?
There's no free lunch folks. Deep down there really isn't that much gray in the world and the reason why we have ridiculously complicated laws is because rather than take responsibility for our actions, we spend most of our effort figuring out how far outside the bases we can operate before the umpire notices.
As to Google's issue, I think it's great if they want to catalog and use WiFi access points for GPS. This enables devices without satellite GPS capability and provides backup for devices with satellite GPS capabilities. I even think it's OK if both open and closed APs are used in a passive manner. However, Google admitted that they were collecting e-mail addresses, user accounts and passwords. That's just wrong and difficult to believe, as they claim, it was an accident. | |
|
| | | joakoPremium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: This Could Set a Precedent No, you would have to enter someone's property to use their water or electricity. But water and electricity are things that are legally REQUIRED for a building to be livable. If you didn't have them the structure would be condemned and it would be illegal for anyone to live there. WiFi isn't required. What if illiterate people went out and bought signs that read "Free electricity, plug in here." That is what people are doing when they buy WiFi devices and plug them in without reading or understanding.
It is DANGEROUS that people are buying and using devices that they don't understand how they work much less can't even read the manual to set it up properly.
Further, as a user, how are you supposed to know if an access point is public or not? The only way is for users to take responsibility for their actions. How can you say an unencrypted access point that hands out DHCP leases and allows a connection to the internet is not open?
I am sure many of the people who setup open access points didn't intend to, but they should take responsibility for their actions.
--
PRescott7-2097 | |
|
| | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: This Could Set a Precedent WTH does whether or not something is required to make a building LIVABLE have any bearing on this issue?
I don't think my point was about whether or not it was technically open. I said it was wrong to use it unless you have permission. Even then, it may be wrong to use it if the customer is paying for consumer broadband since the TOS doesn't allow it. As "sophisticated" users (i.e. DSL Reports readers), we know that and to exploit it makes us guilty. Perhaps we aren't technically liable because we can lie and the ISP cannot prove it (and today shows us all how high the burden of proof mountain is...) but we know it's wrong.
All of this business about the AP operator not understanding it is a smoke screen. Come on, admit it or should we all believe that those who operate a car understand how it works? How about all those VCRs that flashed 12:00 at your grandparents house? Are we to ban the millions of users who don't know how computers work from the benefit of the Internet?
Regarding taking responsibility, I couldn't agree more but that applies to both sides. Instead of being part of the problem, leveraging an open access point, exploiting a user who didn't have the latest virus protection, sending an e-mail deceiving someone into entering their SSN, credit card, birth date, mother's maiden name, e-mail address and who knows what else, why aren't we part of the solution? Why don't we agree that these things are wrong and be part of the solution instead of yammering on about if someone is an idiot and doesn't protect themselves, they deserve it? I think I went down that road in my last post regarding various crimes and that victims don't deserve it and the perpetrator isn't suddenly legal because the victim didn't understand how risky their behavior is.
I don't care how many people here feel it's OK to connect to an unprotected access point and use it. Even if the law doesn't make it illegal, it's wrong and we all know it. Anyone who uses it and claims that if the owner didn't want it used, they would have protected it is nonsense.
If we all apply common sense to this, we can all understand how this is trespassing and although technically passive receipt of RF signals is allowed by law, the law was conceived before these technologies and it needs to be clarified. Of course it shouldn't need to be clarified but as I said before, we all spend time figuring out what we can get away with rather than what's right. If we did what's right, none of this would be an issue. | |
|
| | | | | joakoPremium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: This Could Set a Precedent Because it's a luxury. It's not something that's required, and many people can and do live without it. Would you feel sympathetic for someone who bought a yacht and sailed to the Caribbean during hurricane season and got stranded without understanding the consequences? Obviously that's an exaggeration and we hope no reasonable person would do that. People who leave an open access point either intentionally or by ignorance open themselves to viruses, breach of privacy, lawsuits and other people using their internet connection. We shouldn't legislate stupidity: an open access point without a password is an open access point. It can be configured many different ways, it can have a captive portal with terms & conditions, etc but people choose not to use these facilities.
--
PRescott7-2097 | |
|
| | | | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: This Could Set a Precedent So we are arguing that because they didn't properly configure it, they deserve it? I believe we're also arguing that they really, really deserve it because it's not one of life's necessities.
Are we really comparing a yacht to a $49 access point for a service which some believe generates jobs, offers opportunities in a digital age and should be subsidized like the telephone? (I disagree with subsidy but government should seek to create a fiercely competitive environment for these services that accomplishes the same goal.)
In closing, I offer that we aren't legislating stupid. We're hanging a sign that says refills 75 cents because if we don't, being the greedy bastards that we all are, we'll think they are free. | |
|
| | | their Google Maps app just updated on my phone and now even locates your location buy using local Wifi SSIDs that Google collected from Street View. | |
|
|
 jjoshuaPremium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:3 | The judge blew it The judge said that a wifi router is not a radio.
A wifi router IS a radio.
The wiretapping law exemption applies. | |
|
| Reviews:
·Hargray Cable
| Re: The judge blew it said by jjoshua:The judge said that a wifi router is not a radio.
A wifi router IS a radio.
The wiretapping law exemption applies.
I agree. | |
|
 firephotoFacts hurtPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA | Judge needs to look outside his legal books If he knew just a little about RF and digital transmissions via over the air RF even in the most basic of forms there would be a completely different ruling. Or even if he was able to understand software on a level greater than angry birds or wet farts HD. . .
For anyone to be a few clicks away from installing and using software that can make human readable any unencrypted digital transmission and is compatible with 99% of all 802.11 hardware isn't exactly uncommon software or whatever term he used to justify his position. And if there was expert testimony those people should really reconsider their expert title.
--
Say no to JAMS! | |
|
| | | Re: Judge needs to look outside his legal books This isn't walking through someone's front door or stealing something from an unlocked car.
This is someone trying to sue you for catching a glimpse of them as you walk by their house, banging their wife in their living room while their curtains are wide open. | |
|
| | | | Re: Judge needs to look outside his legal books I think Google should use your analogy, it's perfect! | |
|
| | Criminality is a matter of who is doing it When the government does snooping, it's called Homeland Security. When a private organization does it, it's a crime. Funny that dual standard we have in justice.. | |
|
tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| it's not what the judge mentioned, but... Google has admitted collecting/recording/locating the SSID and MAC Address which is "actual transmitted data" but which is similar to Google street view pictures showing the address numbers on your house.
This is certainly legal, so the only basis for a case would be to
1}decide if the additional open broadcasted data was really collected by accident, and if so once the error was discovered
2}did google properly and promptly cease that collection and then properly and promptly destroy/delete that data.
and/or
3}did google have a legal obligation to notify those who were effected that such events happened.
Counts 2 and 3 are dependant on finding that 1 was intentional AND criminal (I don't believe they can PROVE either, let alone both) | |
|
| r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX Reviews:
·row44
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: it's not what the judge mentioned, but... said by tshirt: Google has admitted collecting/recording/locating the SSID and MAC Address which is "actual transmitted data" but which is similar to Google street view pictures showing the address numbers on your house.
This is certainly legal, so the only basis for a case would be to
1}decide if the additional open broadcasted data was really collected by accident, and if so once the error was discovered
2}did google properly and promptly cease that collection and then properly and promptly destroy/delete that data.
and/or
3}did google have a legal obligation to notify those who were effected that such events happened.
Counts 2 and 3 are dependant on finding that 1 was intentional AND criminal (I don't believe they can PROVE either, let alone both)
If if they collected the data on purpose it is not illegal. So neither of your points apply.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. | |
|
| | tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: it's not what the judge mentioned, but... said by r81984:said by tshirt: Google has admitted collecting/recording/locating the SSID and MAC Address which is "actual transmitted data" but which is similar to Google street view pictures showing the address numbers on your house.
This is certainly legal, so the only basis for a case would be to
1}decide if the additional open broadcasted data was really collected by accident, and if so once the error was discovered
2}did google properly and promptly cease that collection and then properly and promptly destroy/delete that data.
and/or
3}did google have a legal obligation to notify those who were effected that such events happened.
Counts 2 and 3 are dependant on finding that 1 was intentional AND criminal (I don't believe they can PROVE either, let alone both)
If they collected the data on purpose it is not illegal. So neither of your points apply. which is why I said
said by tshirt: Counts 2 and 3 are dependant on finding that 1 was intentional AND criminal (I don't believe they can PROVE either, let alone both)
Just a theory, maybe I meant something totally different  | |
|
| | Really?? Let's get real, if you are dumb enough to plug in a WiFi router and not enable the encryption then you have no expectation of privacy. If you use a FRS radio or CB you are broadcasting in the clear for anyone in range to hear. Same thing applies here they were broadcasting their data someone driving by picked it up. | |
|
 MurdocPremium
join:2009-02-08
Manitowoc, WI | If police can do it....... Police like to prosecute people videotaping there misconduct under "illegal wiretapping" so whynot go after google while we got the chance. That one guy from google showed up at the bilderberg meeting. So google is evil. | |
|
| | | Re: If police can do it....... Just wanted to understand your statement. Police can prosecute you if you videotape them doing their job inappropriately or otherwise? I'm not being a wise-ass or anything just astounded and shocked that this is a real possibility. I know here in Calif. witnesses videotaped an unarmed man being shot in the back while on the ground instead of being Tasered. The videos were instrumental in convicting the officer of manslaughter (BTW less than a year of served time which included incarceration during his trial and he is out) | |
|
| | MurdocPremium
join:2009-02-08
Manitowoc, WI Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: If police can do it....... said by Twaddle :Just wanted to understand your statement. Police can prosecute you if you videotape them doing their job inappropriately or otherwise? I'm not being a wise-ass or anything just astounded and shocked that this is a real possibility. I know here in Calif. witnesses videotaped an unarmed man being shot in the back while on the ground instead of being Tasered. The videos were instrumental in convicting the officer of manslaughter (BTW less than a year of served time which included incarceration during his trial and he is out)
In some states they have been successful in doing it. Cameras are the new guns. We are in trouble if it spreads. | |
|
| | japPremium
join:2003-08-10
038xx
1 edit | said by Twaddle :Police can prosecute you if you videotape them doing their job inappropriately or otherwise After hearing this one last year
»abcnews.go.com/US/TheLaw/videota···11179076
I spent half a day reading about legal challenges against citizen recordings. Most (all?) were of police departments fighting to keep specific recordings out of specific cases in which they were the defendant. Several rulings in favor of police raised my eyebrow. One in Oregon looked especially questionable with press coverage consistent in their criticism. I don't recall finding a statute that specifically prohibited recording.
You refer to the BART train killing, yes? That had too many eyeball witnesses, was too obviously race motivated and occurred in too racial volatile an environment for BART police to adopt an anti-recording defense. The entire Bay Area population would have gone ape-shit mad(der) at such a posture. And rightly so. Now, if it was Houston or Birmingham ....
Hard to guess the future on this one. Authorities are evermore keen to monitor our movements so not allowing citizens to return the favor may taste bad even to those who enjoy a little fascism sauce in the meatloaf. | |
|
| | | | Yes actually. ANYONE can use you for video tapping them or even taking a still picture of them without their written consent. Why? Because they own their own image. You can't just take a picture of someone or a video. | |
|
| | | MurdocPremium
join:2009-02-08
Manitowoc, WI Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: If police can do it....... said by hottboiinnc:Yes actually. ANYONE can use you for video tapping them or even taking a still picture of them without their written consent. Why? Because they own their own image. You can't just take a picture of someone or a video.
If you are in your front yard or in public you shouldnt have an expectation of privacy. | |
|
r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX | I dont get it, What's illegal???? Google collecting and recording 2.4ghz transmissions from public locations is not illegal.
If they did it accidently or on purpose it does not matter.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. | |
|
| amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America Reviews:
·KCH Cable
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: I dont get it, What's illegal???? That may be the cornerstone of the argument... whether or not your broadcast, from private property, is suddenly "public" just because it goes far enough into the street to be collected...
Otherwise, yes, some of what this judge is saying is misunderstood. Anyone who knows anything about computers could do what Google did in 5 minutes, and be driving around getting the same data...
Difference is, one person vs. a company doing this everywhere and to everyone.
Personally, I do find it disturbing that Google cares enough to gather this data. Just because something can be done, does that mean it should?
Other wi-fi maps have existed, but they've generally been more open about what data they collect/publish. Having to force Google into admitting that they weren't totally honest is, in and of itself, also a little wrong. Wrong enough to have a court case? Maybe. Maybe not. All I know is that this should prove interesting, especially with a judge who is so loosely tossing around such terms like "rare" and believing that his own wireless router doesn't have enough range to be "seen" on the street... | |
|
| | |
| | Criminal Activity Regardless to how you feel on this subject, in the state of Maryland it is illegal to access a wireless network (open or secure) without the permission of the network owner/operator. That being said, if Google did this data gathering activity Maryland during the last year or so they broke state law. | |
|
 FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | deep packet inspection if what google did is illegal then so is the deep packet inspection that ISPs do. | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
|
