|
Anon6
Anon
2010-Oct-28 12:57 pm
HmmI don't believe google deleted the data, but that's just me. | |
|
| |
Re: Hmmsaid by Anon6 :
I don't believe google deleted the data, but that's just me. I don't believe you don't believe google deleted the data, but that's just me. | |
|
| |
to Anon6
said by Anon6 :
I don't believe google deleted the data, but that's just me. Perhaps they didn't.... but they can't use it. Otherwise it would be known sooner or later and they'd get in deep trouble. My way of seeing it. | |
|
| joako Premium Member join:2000-09-07 /dev/null |
to Anon6
said by Anon6 :
I don't believe google deleted the data, but that's just me. Who cares? It was information that was transmitted in the open and without encryption. It's not like Google broke into people's houses and installed tracking devices. They had no expectation of privacy. Instead of blaming Google it should be a wakeup call for people with vulnerable networks. | |
|
| | |
Re: HmmYou could say the same thing about analog cordless phones but it's a Federal crime to record snippets of that conversation. Google should have known better. A simple filter would have kept them from recording anything besides the SSID and MAC. Surely somewhere there is smart enough to have considered what they'd be capturing without such a filter? | |
|
|
Finally some common sense.Dumping raw unecrypted wifi traffic to a log file is not a crime. | |
|
| KrisnatharokPC Builder, Gamer Premium Member join:2009-02-11 Earth Orbit 1 edit |
Re: Finally some common sense.said by insomniac84:Dumping raw unecrypted wifi traffic to a log file is not a crime. If it's a corporation doing it, it is. /sarcasm | |
|
| |
to insomniac84
I don't know that I'd call it common sense when a govt. agency decides to do nothing much... pretty much par for the course. | |
|
| FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
to insomniac84
The only ones that will pay are probably the programmers & managers involved that let this code get on to the Street View cars. They are probably looking for work elsewhere. | |
|
| |
to insomniac84
said by insomniac84:Dumping raw unecrypted wifi traffic to a log file is not a crime. That is a good question. How is the law interpreted here? » www.law.cornell.edu/usco ··· 00-.htmlTITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 119 > § 2511 quote: § 2511. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited
(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who (a) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;
| |
|
| | joako Premium Member join:2000-09-07 /dev/null |
joako
Premium Member
2010-Oct-28 8:48 pm
Re: Finally some common sense.If you keep on reading: quote: (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;
It is not even saying intent. Just the fact that the device is configured, even from the factory, without encryption it is not illegal to intercept. | |
|
| | |
to 28619103
said by 28619103:said by insomniac84:Dumping raw unecrypted wifi traffic to a log file is not a crime. That is a good question. How is the law interpreted here? » www.law.cornell.edu/usco ··· 00-.htmlTITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 119 > § 2511 quote: § 2511. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited
(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who (a) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;
There is no intention. Every wifi device has no choice but to intercept all wifi traffic in it's range. The radio picks it up no matter what. Dumping the traffic from ram to a hard drive doesn't change anything. | |
|
| KearnstdSpace Elf Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ |
to insomniac84
that law likely does not apply here since they would have to prove intent to intercept the contents of the the communications.
Also does anyone else not wonder why the governments are so worried with what has been sniffed up to wanting to see it? rather than just wanting evidence the data was completely destroyed. | |
|
Jim Gurd Premium Member join:2000-07-08 Livonia, MI |
Jim Gurd
Premium Member
2010-Oct-28 1:26 pm
No big dealAnyone who encrypted their wireless connection has nothing to worry about. That's part of the basic setup and anyone who isn't doing so has much bigger things to worry about than Google. | |
|
| |
Re: No big dealTrue, however, human nature is to blame somebody else first for one's own incompetence. | |
|
| | NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny Yours MVM join:2001-08-03 Grand Rapids, MI |
Re: No big dealsaid by TuxRaiderPen:True, however, human nature is to blame somebody else first for one's own incompetence. I have to agree. People are upset when Google drives by and finds wireless connections? Isn't that like google's street view driving by and finding a 3 year old running around the yard naked? » www.geekologie.com/2010/ ··· stre.phpOr half naked girls sunning themselves? » googlesightseeing.com/20 ··· et-view/The point is if your wireless is secure, they aren't going to catch anything. Heck, if you don't roam around outside naked or half naked, you won't get caught with your pants down (no pun intended). Same goes with your wireless point. If you secure it, then there is nothing to see here. | |
|
| | | jjeffeoryjjeffeory join:2002-12-04 Bloomington, IN |
Re: No big dealHeh, that's two different issues, not related. | |
|
| | | | NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny Yours MVM join:2001-08-03 Grand Rapids, MI |
Re: No big dealsaid by jjeffeory:Heh, that's two different issues, not related. It is related if you think about it. What is stopping someone who is wardriving from getting access to an open wireless point? What is stopping someone from driving through your neighborhood and seeing your kid running around naked in the yard? Nothing! If you don't want people to see it or get access to it, then secure it. Its a very simple procedure. | |
|
| | | |
to Nightfall
said by Nightfall:The point is if your wireless is secure, they aren't going to catch anything. They do catch it all. They were just dumping raw wifi packets to a log. Since google does research they datamined things that were not encrypted to see if anything useful could be learned. But if it is encrypted, the act of breaking the encryption is a crime. Make no mistake, it is easily decrypted. But legally, they can't do it. | |
|
| | | | NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny Yours MVM join:2001-08-03 Grand Rapids, MI |
Re: No big dealsaid by insomniac84:said by Nightfall:The point is if your wireless is secure, they aren't going to catch anything. They do catch it all. They were just dumping raw wifi packets to a log. Since google does research they datamined things that were not encrypted to see if anything useful could be learned. But if it is encrypted, the act of breaking the encryption is a crime. Make no mistake, it is easily decrypted. But legally, they can't do it. Capturing the packets of an encrypted network accomplishes nothing. Especially if you are running WPA2. | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: No big dealsaid by Nightfall:Capturing the packets of an encrypted network accomplishes nothing. Especially if you are running WPA2. You can still crack it passively. But it is unlikely that you got enough of a sample to do it while driving around. | |
|
| | | | FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
to insomniac84
All Google was looking for was the SSIDs of open WiFi APs to put in to their database of open WiFi for hotspots. The data capture, other than SSIDs was unintentional. | |
|
| |
| KearnstdSpace Elf Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ |
to Jim Gurd
WPA2-AES cannot be cracked*
*With in any reasonable time frame unless data is so important you can devote a petaflop class supercomputer to the cause. | |
|
|
Another Pay OffAnother pay off by a large company. I'd like to know how they claim Google won't do anything with the data in the future. you can't say they deleted all the information they had. Hell everyone knows that the data will NEVER go away unless the hard-drives it was stored on were burned and then shot into the space and back again. Just pushing the "delete" button won't do a damn thing. maybe other countries will put Google in their place and slap them around a bit. | |
|
| zolcos join:2010-05-19 Houghton, MI 1 edit
1 recommendation |
zolcos
Member
2010-Oct-28 2:30 pm
Re: Another Pay Offsaid by hottboiinnc4:Another pay off by a large company. I'd like to know how they claim Google won't do anything with the data in the future. And what exactly could be done with all these instances of one-fifth of a second of captured wifi data that people were publicly transmitting, where anything important was likely encrypted anyway (if not by wep/wpa then with https?) | |
|
| | ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
Re: Another Pay Offthanks for the shred of common sense. | |
|
koamPink Pecker Premium Member join:2000-08-16 East Puddle |
koam
Premium Member
2010-Oct-28 2:24 pm
TrustWhen you donate over $800,000 to Obama's campaign, they trust your word that you can handle these things internally. | |
|
| ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
Re: Trustobama had nothing to do with it. | |
|
HarddriveProud American and Infidel since 1968. Premium Member join:2000-09-20 Fort Worth, TX |
FTC got a small tap on the shoulder."hello, this is the NSA. we are in cahoots with Google over this whole thing. we're putting the data to good use in the fight against terrorism. move along to something else... or else." | |
|
toddbs98 join:2000-07-08 North Little Rock, AR |
Missing the point. I think most people are missing the the point here. Its not so terrible that they "accidentally" captured wifi data. But that they lied about it. First they said they didnt capture any data, then only SSID's then finally admitted what they really did. So how is anyone supposed to take their word that the have changed their ways? | |
|
|
|