dslreports logo
 story category
FCC Investigating Google Wi-Fi Screw Up
As Joe Barton rattles his saber at Google

At the tail end of last month, the FTC dropped their inquiry into the Google Wi-Fi Street View kerfuffle, satisfied by Google's argument that their collection of user Wi-Fi data was a screw up, the data wasn't particularly useful, and that Google had made changes to prevent this from happening again. That supports studies from earlier this year showing that Google vehicles were moving too quickly, and changing channels too frequently, to really collect much useful information from the unsecured hotspots passed.

Click for full size
The FCC this week confirmed they too have been investigating Google, adding their inquiry to several already underway by numerous state attorneys general. Meanwhile, Joe Barton, most famous recently for apologizing to BP for their "unfair" treatment during the gulf oil spill, is accusing Google of lying:
quote:
Key Republicans and Democrats in Congress have indicated that the privacy issues raised by Google's Street View data collection could be a factor when lawmakers consider new Internet privacy legislation next year. Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, a senior Republican lawmaker, suggested last week on C-SPAN that Google's data collection wasn't accidental and that it was "something to look at."
So why is Barton, a guy who apologized to AT&T for FCC efforts to protect consumers, concerned about Google? Barton's traditionally a pretty loyal political player for AT&T, Verizon and Comcast, who may be trying to make a little extra policy hay out of Google's screw up. A new battle looms over privacy laws, and numerous companies (including Microsoft and AT&T) are trying to get privacy laws passed that make disrupting Google's market power a priority, and consumer protection an afterthought.

The more fear that can be raised concerning Google, the easier it will be for companies who supposedly loathe regulation -- to get Google heavily regulated. While Google screwed up here, raising very serious questions about how clueless Google is about what they're doing on a daily basis, there's no evidence their Wi-Fi collection problem was intentional or malicious. And unlike like some companies that trample privacy laws, Google has at least been very honest about the fact they screwed up.
view:
topics flat nest 
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL

1 recommendation

Mr Matt

Member

Joe Barton a perfect example of government corruption.

Joe obviously knows who butters his bread and kisses their monopolistic butts. Joe is a poster boy for impeachment of corrupt lawmakers. Twice conservative lawmakers attacked the music industry. First time was in the 1950's, when conservative lawmakers did not approve of Elvis Presley gyrations, they accused Disk Jockeys of accepting Payola, ruining the careers of several D.J.'s. Then in the 1960's the Beatles came along and conservative lawmakers did not like long hair and played the same tune accusing Disc Jockeys of accepting Payola. It is now time for lawmakers like Joe Barton to face the music and impeachment for accepting payola campaign contributions, to pass laws favorable to their corporate cronies.

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

1 recommendation

r81984

Premium Member

Privacy Issues??

Google did nothing wrong and certainly did not invade anyones privacy.
You can't go around giving away free unencrypted data and then tell everyone you gave your data to that they invaded your privacy.
That just does not make any sense.

DavePR
join:2008-06-04
Canyon Country, CA

DavePR

Member

Re: Privacy Issues??

In the USA the only electronic communications considered "public" are radio and TV broadcasts, public service (e.g. police and fire), NOAA Waether Radio, and amateur radio communications. All other wireless communications are "private", whether encrypted or not, under the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which was passed on behalf of AT&T and Radio Shack.

Google was mining for router info. They accidentally logged some payload, but the router MAC address, married to your physical address, is what they were stealing. Wardriving is a crime.
talz13
join:2006-03-15
Avon, OH

talz13

Member

Re: Privacy Issues??

said by DavePR:

Wardriving is not a crime.
Fixed.

Piggybacking is where I would be concerned, but merely noting the unencrypted beacon data is not against the law.

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

r81984 to DavePR

Premium Member

to DavePR
said by DavePR:

In the USA the only electronic communications considered "public" are radio and TV broadcasts, public service (e.g. police and fire), NOAA Waether Radio, and amateur radio communications. All other wireless communications are "private", whether encrypted or not, under the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which was passed on behalf of AT&T and Radio Shack.

Google was mining for router info. They accidentally logged some payload, but the router MAC address, married to your physical address, is what they were stealing. Wardriving is a crime.
Wardriving is not a crime especially since it does not involve connecting to anything. An open access point will LET any wifi client connect and read data. Any user that connects to an access point must be authorized by that access point to connect (there is an handshake). If the access point is open then anyone tries to connect will get authorized by the AP.

Clarifier
@rcn.com

Clarifier to DavePR

Anon

to DavePR
said by DavePR:

In the USA the only electronic communications considered "public" are radio and TV broadcasts, public service (e.g. police and fire), NOAA Waether Radio, and amateur radio communications. All other wireless communications are "private", whether encrypted or not, under the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which was passed on behalf of AT&T and Radio Shack.

Google was mining for router info. They accidentally logged some payload, but the router MAC address, married to your physical address, is what they were stealing. Wardriving is a crime.
This is not correct. Unencrypted radio communications are not protected by ECPA.

The ECPA is 18 USC 2511. Subsection (g) of that section is as follows:

(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person—
(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;

Section 2510 (definitions) says:
(16) “readily accessible to the general public” means, with respect to a radio communication, that such communication is not—
(A) scrambled or encrypted;
MASantangelo
Premium Member
join:2004-07-19
Pittstown, NJ

MASantangelo to r81984

Premium Member

to r81984
I just listened to a talk by a FBI Special Agent specializing in computer crime, and he explained things as this:

According to USC 18 Section 1030, (a)Whoever (2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains (C) information from any protected computer; has committed a violation of the law.

He went on to explain that any computer device attached to the internet, by definition, is a protected computer (by virtue of the fact that the internet is interstate commerce).

I don't know how accurate his descriptions are, or if I'm relaying them properly, but it seems pretty clear that Google violated the law here. Even if they just associated with open AP's they still did not have authorization for any type of access, and as such have violated the law.
MiloMindbend
join:2001-01-18
Jeannette, PA

1 recommendation

MiloMindbend

Member

Re: Privacy Issues??

(As usual) there is such a disconnect between the law and reality, though. If you're running a wireless capture trying to debug your own WLAN, you can't _not_ receive your neighbor's unencrypted WiFi traffic if it's on the same channels you're scanning and within range of your receiver. You can throw that data away after the fact, but your radio is receiving the packets and passing them up the stack to whatever program you're using to capture packets.

Google didn't "access anyone's computers". Google wasn't "wardriving" and trying to break into people's networks. They were observing 802.11 beacon packets (and probably probe responses), looking for ESSIDs. This _can't_ be illegal, as it's how _every_ 802.11 client finds a network to join. The fact that people were throwing unencrypted data out there in plain view of everyone on the street should not be Google's fault, regardless of how anyone twists the current laws.

Law and technology are rarely compatible.
MASantangelo
Premium Member
join:2004-07-19
Pittstown, NJ

MASantangelo

Premium Member

Re: Privacy Issues??

I see what you're saying here, but I also see how the law can be applied. The law probably doesn't care that this is how every 802.11 client finds a network.

Furthermore, while I may not have a problem with you connecting to my WiFi, I may actually have a problem with a corporation connecting to it.

It all boils down to authorization, not even the content. Beacon packets and ESSIDs are data, and Google was not authorized to get this data. That is how the law -could- be applied.

I hope I wasn't coming across as endorsing this view of the law; I am merely trying to explain it as I see it possibly being interpreted.

JackKane
@covad.net

JackKane

Anon

Re: Privacy Issues??

This is a very disturbing interpretation. The law doesn't care about what you would have a problem with either, as it would create a legal nightmare. All 802.11 wifi devices scan their surrounds for ssid info, and if my neighbor decided to have a problem with me seeing his SSID, then is this suddenly Unauthorized access and is illegal? that makes all wifi devices, operating systems, and the protocol itself potentially illegal, based solely on the capricious feelings of the device owners and prosecutors? Sorry, I'm afraid the law cannot be applied this way.

The ssid is little more than a street marker in the wireless universe. Anything that's part of the wireless conversation (assuming one is actively taking place over a unsecured higher-level protocol, such as this forum posting) is protected by the law, but not the SSID itself. Otherwise the radio frequency number on which I hold a private conversation would be private as well, but that is certainly not the case.

DavePR
join:2008-06-04
Canyon Country, CA

DavePR to MiloMindbend

Member

to MiloMindbend
It wasn't incidental, nor accidental, nor inadvertent; they intentionally helped themselves without permission, then used the stolen data to make money. This is a crime in the USA. You did not sign an agreement when you installed your router that Google has permission to use your ISP related data to push location based services at you. You do have to give permission for the iPod to do this, and for your phone to do this; what gives Google the right to just help themselves?

By the way, the law was enacted to create the illusion of security, largely by exacting severe punishment on violators. It was to keep scanner hobbyists from listening in on analog phone calls. Unencrypted analog phone calls were widely available on old UHF TVs, but the government still made scanner radio manufacturers block reception of anything from 806-910 MHz (cellular band). This made more sense than encrypting phone calls(?) It is also illegal to listen to a neighbor's cordless phone or baby monitor.

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

ArrayList

Premium Member

Re: Privacy Issues??

just by what your saying I could be held liable for selling a map of all of the wifi SSIDs in my neighborhood. Even though all I would have to do is write down the list, not necessarily connect to those networks.

seriously, who cares about this stuff? if you don't want people on your network, secure it. ignorance is the worst defense.
talz13
join:2006-03-15
Avon, OH

talz13 to DavePR

Member

to DavePR
said by DavePR:

It wasn't incidental, nor accidental, nor inadvertent; they intentionally helped themselves without permission, then used the stolen data to make money. This is a crime in the USA. You did not sign an agreement when you installed your router that Google has permission to use your ISP related data to push location based services at you. You do have to give permission for the iPod to do this, and for your phone to do this; what gives Google the right to just help themselves?
Google is using your ISP related data? As far as I can tell, they're using the available unencrypted non-personal data coming from the router, and associating it with GPS data that they themselves are tracking and providing. The only case this applies is if it's an ISP issued wifi router (I don't personally know anybody who has one of those, they all bought their own). Otherwise, leave the ISP out of it.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Goggle is 800 lb gorilla & will be continually investigated

Google should get used to it. Microsoft had to go thru non-stop investigations and harassment just for being the biggest. And the attacks came from both so-called consumer advocates and vote seeking populist politicians(mainly state attorneys general). Google is now the company replacing Microsoft as the one to be harassed and investigated to death. It goes with the territory.

DavePR
join:2008-06-04
Canyon Country, CA

DavePR

Member

Re: Goggle is 800 lb gorilla & will be continually investigated

If you don't stop them, who will?

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

ArrayList

Premium Member

Re: Goggle is 800 lb gorilla & will be continually investigated

stop them from doing what?
nutcr0cker
join:2003-04-02
Chandler, AZ

nutcr0cker

Member

I want Joe Barton to appologize again

Makes a good ringtone for a corporatist GOP/tealiban applogizing.

WiseOldBear
Laissez les bons temps rouler!
Premium Member
join:2001-11-25
Litchfield Park, AZ
Motorola MB8600
Synology RT2600ac

WiseOldBear

Premium Member

Politician = Whore

Perhaps the only difference between a slimy, sleazball, arrogant putz like Barton and all the other trashy whores elected to office is that he is stupider than most. Time for another American Revolution--through them ALL out, ban them from ever holding office again, and lets try a new passel of them.

Jim Kirk
Premium Member
join:2005-12-09
49985

Jim Kirk

Premium Member

Re: Politician = Whore

Public executions would be more persuasive.

Bill Neilson
Premium Member
join:2009-07-08
Alexandria, VA

Bill Neilson

Premium Member

We are doing a shakedown on poor old AT&T, Verizon,

and other million dollar companies!

We should let them do ANYTHING they want, WHENEVER they want, WHEREVER they want!

thender
Screen tycoon
Premium Member
join:2009-01-01
Brooklyn, NY

thender

Premium Member

The big deal is not because of this wifi nonsense

This one occasion isn't the problem. It merely alerted the public to what has been happening for YEARS.

The fact that a company whose sole purpose is parading their way into every part of my life to profit off what I am interested in and who I am drove around the country doing this is.

It is not that bad, but it alerted the public to the fact that they should watch their privacy a little more.

BobRobertson
@suddenlink.net

BobRobertson

Anon

Re: The big deal is not because of this wifi nonsense

"whose sole purpose is parading their way into every part of my life to profit off what I am interested in and who I am drove around the country doing this is."

The Fed.Gov? Couldn't agree more.

Oh, right, the Feds didn't drive around doing it, they simply ordered the ISPs to pipe everything you do directly to the recordkeepers at Ft. Meade.

A private company with whom you have no compulsion to do business is hardly a concern, compared to those who rob you and rape you on a continuous basis.

thender
Screen tycoon
Premium Member
join:2009-01-01
Brooklyn, NY

thender

Premium Member

Re: The big deal is not because of this wifi nonsense

What bothers me is one of those monsters was built right in front of us.

The federal government has been doing that for a long time. google came up during my adolescence, and I use the services that allow them to mine my data.