site Search:


 
   
story category
Google Sued Over Inadvertent Wi-Fi Data Gathering
You're concerned about privacy but running a completely open hotspot?
by Karl Bode Thursday 20-May-2010 tags: business · security
As we noted the other day, Google admitted they've been accidentally collecting some transmitted data from unsecured hotspots via Street View vehicles. However, Google says the data was only fragments, given the vehicles were in constant motion and the hardware used changed channels roughly five times a second. Google has acknowledged the mistake, co-founder Sergey Brin yesterday plainly saying "we screwed up, and I’m not making excuses about it." While Google works with privacy regulators around the world to coordinate data deletion, they're now being sued by two Oregonians who don't want it deleted:

Click for full size
...both plaintiffs' privacy has been breached, and it's alleged Google's conduct breaches 18 USC §2511. Under 18 USC §2520, the plaintiffs and class members are entitled to $100 a day for each day their data was breached, or $10,000 per violation per plaintiff. The filing also asks for punitive damages.

The plaintiffs have also asked the court to immediately prevent Google from destroying the payload data it has collected because that would spoil critical evidence. So they want a preliminary and permanent injunction to prevent Google doing this.

While what Google did was sloppy (the collection occurred due to old code Google didn't intend to use) and wrong, the data collected likely was about as useful as Congress -- and it would seem that deleting it sooner rather than later would make more sense. It was also collected solely from people who couldn't be bothered to secure their Wi-Fi routers -- which means security and privacy pretty clearly weren't high on their action item lists anyway.

view: topics flat text 
Post a:

NOYB
St. John 3.16
Premium
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR
kudos:1

My Door Is Not Locked != Help Yourself

"It was also collected solely from people who couldn't be bothered to secure their Wi-Fi routers -- which means security and privacy pretty clearly weren't high on their action item lists anyway."

So an unlocked door makes it legal to steal my belongings? I don't think so.

--
Be a Good Netizen - Read, Know & Complain About Overly Restrictive Tyrannical ISP ToS & AUP »comcast.net/terms/ »verizon.net/policies/
Say Thanks with a Tool Points Donation
caco
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Whittier, AK

2 edits

Re: My Door Is Not Locked != Help Yourself

Big difference between breaking into your house and what Google did. This is a money grab plain and simple.

N10Cities
Premium
join:2002-05-07
Lavaca, AR
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·World Lynx

Re: My Door Is Not Locked != Help Yourself

said by caco:

Big difference between breaking into your house and what Google did. This is a money grab plain and simple.
+1 .... someone looking to get PAID..... someone sniffed their unsecured wireless..... tough tacos....

They were asking for it and should have known better. Just like leaving your house unlocked.....someone sooner or later will discover it and exploit that fact....


Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:30
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech

2 edits
So an unlocked door makes it legal to steal my belongings?
That's not what's being said, and besides, that metaphor is old and boring.

A more fun metaphor? If you're standing buck naked on your porch within full view of the road -- yet complaining about people not respecting your privacy, I would think much of the problem would involve you. Especially if you then proceed to launch a lawsuit pretending you care about privacy when you weren't willing to don so much as a bathrobe...
Yezidi

join:2009-11-17
Brooklyn, NY

Re: My Door Is Not Locked != Help Yourself

Both metaphors are incorrect. They assume volition on the part of those with unsecured routers. Most people who buy routers are unaware of the necessity to secure them and the manufacturers set the defaults to the least secure options.

YeahOKBuddy

@208.49.47.x

Re: My Door Is Not Locked != Help Yourself

I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. In every single piece of documentation that comes with a consumer grade router, one of the first things it recommends you do is SECURE YOUR ROUTER. That means change its default password and put encryption on it.

FutureMon
Keep your Mitts off RMoney
Premium,ExMod 2002-05
join:2000-10-05
Seaside, CA

1 edit

Re: My Door Is Not Locked != Help Yourself

Not to mention the fact that it's become standard practice (at least in my area) that when cable or dsl wireless modems are installed by technicians, they automatically set them up with WEP or WPA/WPA2 so they are secure out of the gate. In this case, you'd have to purposely disable that security yourself to open the router up for public access.

- FM
FLATLINE

join:2007-02-27
Buffalo, NY
Ummm No Ignorance is no excuse!

james

join:2001-02-26
CWCville USA

Re: My Door Is Not Locked != Help Yourself

said by FLATLINE:

Ummm No Ignorance is no excuse!
Indeed, there is no exuse for not having any ignorance!
dpp3530

join:2002-11-02
Bethel Park, PA
said by Karl Bode:

So an unlocked door makes it legal to steal my belongings?
That's not what's being said, and besides, that metaphor is old and boring.
Even better metaphor. I'm selling my house and Century 21 comes in and puts up one of those signs that has the AM radio transmitter. "This house at 3701 Forest Road, Bethel Park, PA is a three bedroom colonial and the asking price is $300,000."

Now the Google truck is driving by, and their radio is tuned to that frequency - because all of those signs operate on the same frequency. As they drive by, they pick up "Park, PA is". Technically, that's personal information they picked up -- part of my address.

Can I sue? No, I'm publicly broadcasting this information across the airwaves. If you have an unsecured WAP, guess what, you're broadcasting personal information across the airwaves. If someone happens to hear it, don't start whining that they shouldn't have been listening. Lock it down so they can't!

james

join:2001-02-26
CWCville USA
Sorry chief, the law specifically refers to intentional interception of communications and intent to disclose it. Google has done neither.

This isn't google breaking into peoples houses who have unlocked doors and taking street view pictures. This is a naked dude standing on his porch (as Karl said) and complaining that google took a picture inadvertently while driving by.
--
[bquote= Metatron2008 See Profile ]
But people who download thousands of movies and games.... Yes, they are as bad as any murderer[/bquote]
nuxi

join:2009-04-08

Re: My Door Is Not Locked != Help Yourself

Close, its actually irrelevant whether they intended to intercept it or intended to disclose it in this case. 18 USC 2511 contains this exception:

(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person—
(v) [or] for other users of the same frequency to intercept any radio communication made through a system that utilizes frequencies monitored by individuals engaged in the provision or the use of such system, if such communication is not scrambled or encrypted.

Since WiFi is an unlicensed radio band, everyone is a user, thus everyone can monitor it as much as they wish.

FutureMon
Keep your Mitts off RMoney
Premium,ExMod 2002-05
join:2000-10-05
Seaside, CA

Re: My Door Is Not Locked != Help Yourself

agreed. I wouldn't call it "intentional interception" either.

To the analogy of the guy standing on his porch naked, this would be more like him standing there and yelling at the passers-by to make sure they looked at him, then claiming they violated his privacy.

The devices that are "looking" aren't breaking any laws. If they get a response, and happen to connect as a result, privacy laws shouldn't apply because the machine was unsecured. You might as well try to sue people for leaving you messages on your answering machine. After all, they used your electricity when they caused your answering machine to kick on and record their message.

You can't really compare this to privacy of a physical nature.

- FM

jap
Premium
join:2003-08-10
038xx

Re: My Door Is Not Locked != Help Yourself

said by FutureMon:

To the analogy of the guy standing on his porch naked, this would be more like him standing there and yelling at the passers-by to make sure they looked at him, then claiming they violated his privacy.
You've come very close to established case law (USA) and it does make a good analogy for the topic at hand (unlike the silly "door unlocked/locked).

It's acceptable to walk around your house with the windows unobstructed as long as you are not soliciting attention (eg: dancing at the window with a light on yourself). On the porch you are exposing yourself (pun noted, not intentional) to legit obscenity complains. "At the glass" applies to practically all division of built-structure property usage rights. This includes federal historic zones: non-historic commercial signage affixed to the inside of your glass pane is permitted, outer face of glass is not. Of course you're a jerk either way and no sympathy if someone puts a rock through but that's another matter.

Kinda blows my mind people even argue that RF signals I throw off my property shouldn't be read by anyone who cares to, secured signals excepted.

battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000
"So an unlocked door makes it legal to steal my belongings?"

Wow that's a pretty original analogy. Did you come up with that on your own?

DarkLogix
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3
as others have said its more like some fool standing in the street nude and complaining that people are seeing him

DarkLogix
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3
just go to »www.wigle.net/ and see more data than google got on wifi
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..

Re: My Door Is Not Locked != Help Yourself

oh i'm sure someone besides Wigle.net complied that. You tell me how they were able to plop those SSIDs down on a map like that and make them right where every building is located. My City Hall building, police department, my employer's networks are listed as well as the police department where i work.

But that site will be pulled shortly.
--
www.twopugsbrand.com Kosher, Vegan, and Organic Certified Dog and Cat treats/foods and other products!

FBGuy
yippee ki yay
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Reviews:
·Comcast
·T-Mobile US
·AT&T U-Verse

2 edits

Re: My Door Is Not Locked != Help Yourself

said by hottboiinnc:

oh i'm sure someone besides Wigle.net complied that. You tell me how they were able to plop those SSIDs down on a map like that and make them right where every building is located. My City Hall building, police department, my employer's networks are listed as well as the police department where i work.

But that site will be pulled shortly.
nope. that site has been in service since 2001. I've contributed some myself. ever heard of wardriving? I do it just to make a map of networks. It uses special software that combines GPS coordinates with SSID information. I don't connect to any open networks or try to break into any encrypted ones. I just make a map of it. nothing more.
--
sbcglobal.net speedtest result 11/11/09 - 5256kbps
u-verse line stats: »c0wz.beevomit.org/

birdfeedr
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI
kudos:5
said by hottboiinnc:

But that site will be pulled shortly.
Big deal. My network is on wigle's map. But it's secured as posted elsewhere below. They captured mine because they tracked down a main road which I'm near. If I lived further down my street, I'd be off that list, because the driver didn't get paid enough to drive all over.

Can I join a class action suit?

DarkLogix
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3

Re: My Door Is Not Locked != Help Yourself

wigle.net didn't use google data just good ol war driving

they don't get paid at all

DarkLogix
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3
sorry bub but the site has been around longer than google maps (2001)

it won't be pulled anytime soon and nothing they're doing is actually illegal
PDXPLT

join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
Google didn't "enter" anything. What they did was *NOT* "wardriving", which involves attaching to a WiFi network without authorization, and possibly accessing computer network resources without permission; that's illegal in most places.

What they did was sniff (only receive) packets; packets that were sent in the clear on an unlicensed radio band that available for use by all.

A better analogy is if you're communicating with your neighbor by means of signs you stick in your lawn, so the neighbor can read them, and you get upset that Google reads them as they drive by. It's not reasonable to have any expectation of privacy for these messages.

FBGuy
yippee ki yay
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Reviews:
·Comcast
·T-Mobile US
·AT&T U-Verse

Re: Bad analogy

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wardriving

wardriving does not involve connecting to AP's. read the article.
--
sbcglobal.net speedtest result 11/11/09 - 5256kbps
u-verse line stats: »c0wz.beevomit.org/

DarkLogix
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3

Re: Bad analogy

correct war driving is just a quick pass by sniffing for ap's and logging the GPS location and any ap info it can grab

Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT

Re: Bad analogy

said by DarkLogix:

correct war driving is just a quick pass by sniffing for ap's and logging the GPS location and any ap info it can grab
My Touch Pro can do that with WiFiFoFum.

Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
·Time Warner VOIP
said by PDXPLT:

Google didn't "enter" anything. What they did was *NOT* "wardriving", which involves attaching to a WiFi network without authorization, and possibly accessing computer network resources without permission; that's illegal in most places.

What they did was sniff (only receive) packets; packets that were sent in the clear on an unlicensed radio band that available for use by all.

A better analogy is if you're communicating with your neighbor by means of signs you stick in your lawn, so the neighbor can read them, and you get upset that Google reads them as they drive by. It's not reasonable to have any expectation of privacy for these messages.
please it only takes a few milliseconds to send data over wifi a lot can be done

so even if it were Changing 5 times a second it could still send data over the web
--
Folding parts 4 sale
»[FS] or [WTT]Intel LGA771 MB,CellsPhones PS2 DDWRT

WTF

@comcast.net
said by NOYB:



So an unlocked door makes it legal to steal my belongings? I don't think so.

Bad and old analogy that doesn't fit.

Using the analogy that would mean the house is putting it's unlocked door in front of me anytime I get near it, even if I just want to go down the sidewalk or street without even looking at the house. If I lived next door to that house, why is it putting the unlocked door all over my property weather I want it there or not?

I'm not saying it's right but rather pointing out how that analogy just doesn't fit and never did.

As for privacy, if you don't turn on security in the router, it's your own damn fault if your privacy got leaked or compromised. It's not like Google went out looking for the open routers, the routers found them.

JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA
Reviews:
·PHONE POWER
·Comcast
said by NOYB:


So an unlocked door makes it legal to steal my belongings? I don't think so.
You're tossing all your stuff out your door and onto the public street. I walk by, and one of your sticky socks sticks to the bottom of my shoe.

I don't think that's stealing, no.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us

Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT
We have 2 secure APs and 1 unsecure AP at our house.

The 2 secure APs are for our internal network and our unsecure AP is directly to the Internet, but filtered (combination of Dansguardian, Squid, and a set of iptables).

I don't care if people use our internet, as long as they behave themselves and not hog it all.
--
Bresnan 15M/1M
MyWS[PDC@3.6GHz,4GB RAM,2x1TB HDDs,Win7]
WifeWS[A64@2GHz,2GB RAM,120GB HDD,Win7]
Router[2xP3@1GHz,512MB RAM,18GB HDD,SMC 8432BTA,2xDigital DE504,Compaq NC3131,Intel Pro/1000MT,IBM Gigabit Ethernet-SX,Allied Telesyn AT-2560FX,Gentoo Linux]
yokocar

join:2008-04-12
Whitby, ON

1 edit

Where's my tin hat

This is such a non-story. If you're stupid enough to use an unsecured wireless network, you should be glad it was Google, and not someone intending something more serious. It's not like Google's cars parked in front of Starbux or something...at least not for that reason! These two Oregon twits are out for nothing but the payout.

See 6 replies to this post

Jon
Premium
join:2001-01-20
Lisle, IL

Accidentally?

Yeah right.

See 12 replies to this post
wahoospa

join:2006-03-23
Charleston, SC

Plaintiffs' Privacy Violated?

Quote:'both plaintiffs' privacy has been breached'
Can the plaintiffs prove their privacy was violated or they just trying to sue to get some money, or are they doing this so the lawyers get money?

BBBanditRuR
Dingbits

join:2009-06-02
Parachute, CO

Re: Plaintiffs' Privacy Violated?

Its a money grab. I'm not saying they're (Google) perfect, but I doubt they would want to purposely bring a privacy issue into play.
--
Listen...do you smell something?

DarkLogix
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3

Re: Plaintiffs' Privacy Violated?

to add to this how do those 2 even know if google got their wifi data?

Napsterbater
Premium,MVM
join:2002-12-28
Milledgeville, GA
Reviews:
·VOIPo
·Windstream
·BroadVoice

Re: Plaintiffs' Privacy Violated?

said by DarkLogix:

to add to this how do those 2 even know if google got their wifi data?
Good point, Google should look into their data just to say "hey dumb asses we didn't even get anything from you".
--
ASUS M4A79T Deluxe | AMD Phenom II x3 720 BE AM3 w/4 Cores @ 3.41Ghz(OC) | 4Gb DDR3 Memory @ 1600mhz | Sapphire ATI HD4870 1GB 800mhz/1000mhz(OC) | 2x500GB HDD's Raid 0 | Windows 7 Ultimate x64 Build 7600 (RTM) | Windstream DSL 12m (14.9m Sync)/766k

DarkLogix
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3

Re: Plaintiffs' Privacy Violated?

or even worse hay you were stealling internet
then goes and finds the owner of the AP and tells them to secure their ap

netwire
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Shelby, NC
kudos:1

Sheesh

It's cases like this that ruin the judicial system. I hope the courts rip the Plaintiffs' a new one.

DarkLogix
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3

Re: Sheesh

or a new two and three

woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA

hmmmmm....

Can I get in trouble if my ssid says "keepthe_uckout" ?
--
BlooMe

cchhat01
Dr. Zoidberg

join:2001-05-01
Elmhurst, NY

Re: hmmmmm....

My SSID says FBI

Noah Vail
Son made my Avatar
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Bright House
·Sprint Mobile Br..

Google has your data = BAD | Government has your data = GOOD

As I've posted before....

Am I more worried about Google having a sample of my AP data, or the NSA having entire private conversations?

Somehow I see the NSA having more ability to casually ruin my life than Google.

How about ordering our privacy threats, by the severity of the danger they present?

NV
--
In my perfect religion, a giant hole appears and sucks up all the lousy people.
I call it the Crapture.

Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT

Re: Google has your data = BAD | Government has your data = GOOD

Heh.. The NSA can get anything they want with a few clicks. If you think any type of data is REALLY secure, think again.

Google, not as much.
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
what i question more is why is it people in the EU openly hate the streetview cars maybe taking their picture yet they seem to accept the police having security cams on every corner.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports
Bubba Rock

join:2010-04-21
Despite how interesting people may feel their lives' are, the very large majority of people lead pretty mundane, typical, and uninteresting lives (in the eyes of the government).

So actually I consider it a stronger privacy threat when things center on profit!

Noah Vail
Son made my Avatar
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Bright House
·Sprint Mobile Br..

Re: Google has your data = BAD | Government has your data = GOOD

said by Bubba Rock:

Despite how interesting people may feel their lives' are, the very large majority of people lead pretty mundane, typical, and uninteresting lives (in the eyes of the government).
I am certain that personal data collected by the federal government will still be available - to the federal government, a generation from now.

I am also certain that federal data collection, retention and analysis methods will become increasingly efficient.

Unless you say otherwise, I'll assume neither of these predictions seem unlikely to you.

First:Can you name me a corporation that the above would apply to?

Second: In the course of it's duty to serve me, why is it appropriate for the federal government to - without consent - collect any of my personal data?

NV
--
In my perfect religion, a giant hole appears and sucks up all the lousy people.
I call it the Crapture.
Bubba Rock

join:2010-04-21

Re: Google has your data = BAD | Government has your data = GOOD

Well a generation from now, maybe, maybe not, but in a generation it will likely be mostly irrelevant anyway.

I'm betting that for-profit data collection, retention, and analysis will remain more advanced and wide spread.

1) I say any corporation that collects data on people will also grow more efficient with their collection, retention, and analysis. Will it remain a generation from now? who knows, but if the company is big enough, probably!

2) Well they are not just serving you, but the whole of the people, and more often than not trying to prevent very bad events from happening.
neftv

join:2000-10-01
Broomall, PA

Didn't they learn...

Didn't they learn the lesson from when they photographed every street. They had to blur out faces, license plates etc.

jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:1

Re: Didn't they learn...

said by neftv:

Didn't they learn the lesson from when they photographed every street. They had to blur out faces, license plates etc.
They didn't have to do anything.

Outside of your house, there is no expectation of privacy. This includes your face, your license plate, and any data that you are broadcasting.

Romney2012
Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe in
Premium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4

1 edit

Re: Didn't they learn...

said by jjoshua:

said by neftv:

Didn't they learn the lesson from when they photographed every street. They had to blur out faces, license plates etc.
They didn't have to do anything.

Outside of your house, there is no expectation of privacy. This includes your face, your license plate, and any data that you are broadcasting.
That is only true in the US. In the EU, privacy standards are much higher and they do have higher expectations of privacy from private companies(government itself is a different matter - they pretty much get carte blanche to do anything(see London street cams)).

Edit: PS>> Germany levels broadside at Google: »news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100520/ap_···y_google
--
Are you happy with your rep in Washington, DC?
Bubba Rock

join:2010-04-21
said by jjoshua:

said by neftv:

Didn't they learn the lesson from when they photographed every street. They had to blur out faces, license plates etc.
They didn't have to do anything.

Outside of your house, there is no expectation of privacy. This includes your face, your license plate, and any data that you are broadcasting.
then don't complain when we also have cams on every corner thanks to that exact stupid argument.

Romney2012
Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe in
Premium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4
said by neftv:

Didn't they learn the lesson from when they photographed every street. They had to blur out faces, license plates etc.
No. Google has ALWAYS followed the policy of act first & apologize later when issues of ethics are concerned. It is much easier to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission. If they had to get approval from governments all over the world and also satisfy all the privacy groups BEFORE rolling out some new product or data collection process, they would do nothing.
--
Are you happy with your rep in Washington, DC?

FBGuy
yippee ki yay
Premium
join:2005-03-19

Re: Didn't they learn...

bottom line is, they broke no laws.

No to ESPN

@sbcglobal.net

Family Ties

Which government agency do you think google has ties with? Think about it.

Don't thinks so? Which Chinese intelligence agencies do you think google worked with?

superdog
I Need A Drink
Premium,MVM
join:2001-07-13
Lebanon, PA

all about the money!

These people could care less about their privacy, hence the lack of encryption. All these people see is mega $$$$ and deep pockets. The lawyers are loving it and laughing at Googles mistake all the way to the bank!
--
»www.wavecrazy.net

toddbs98

join:2000-07-08
North Little Rock, AR

Why were they sniffing in the first place?

If the purpose of the Google vehicles purpose was to take photographs for street view on Google Maps, then why were they sniffing for wi-fi hotspots in the first place?
The excuse that we left in old code is kind of weak to start with, but then when you hold onto the data for years and lie about collecting it, makes the excuse of being accidental even weaker.
--
Patriots always speak of dying for their country never killing for it. Bertrand Russell

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
·row44

Re: Why were they sniffing in the first place?

said by toddbs98:

If the purpose of the Google vehicles purpose was to take photographs for street view on Google Maps, then why were they sniffing for wi-fi hotspots in the first place?
The excuse that we left in old code is kind of weak to start with, but then when you hold onto the data for years and lie about collecting it, makes the excuse of being accidental even weaker.
How about because they want to map access points which is 100% legal to do and would be very useful for google users.

Google did nothing wrong by recording Wifi broadcasted in the public domain. If anyone did not want others to read what they do online they would encrypt their router.
Google could only read data that people freely gave away.
--
Your behavior is inconsistent with your desire to be treated like everyone else.
sam64

join:2006-07-31
Newtown, PA

Money Grabbing Opportunity Smelled by Lawyers & Dumb Idiots

This is a money grabbing opportunity smelled by lawyers and the dumb idiots who sued. Karl's analogy is a good one - if you stand naked on your porch and someone sees you, does that become an invasion of your privacy.

With camera devices being ubiquitous on almost everything electronic these days and this rate we will all have to carry release forms lest we inadvertantly snap a picture of some dumb sh*& in the background while taking a picture of our kids.

I hope the courts use some sense and throw this lawsuit out. Additionally, send a message to these dumb assess for wasting the court's time.

Make no mistake - if you leave your wifi network unsecured, someone is going to find it and use it.
TheMG
Premium
join:2007-09-04
Canada
kudos:1

Re: Money Grabbing Opportunity Smelled by Lawyers & Dumb Idiots

Yup, welcome to the USA, where people sue at every opportunity!
squison

join:2001-07-07
Decatur, GA
Reviews:
·AT&T Southeast
·Clear Wireless

US Code 2511

Sorry, doesn't apply.
»www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/···00-.html
(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;

(v) for other users of the same frequency to intercept any radio communication made through a system that utilizes frequencies monitored by individuals engaged in the provision or the use of such system, if such communication is not scrambled or encrypted.

jig

join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA

Re: US Code 2511

i believe that "readily accessible to the general public" has already been interpreted to exclude sniffing packets of other WAP users, regardless of whether encryption is enabled.

certainly, i would make the argument that the software used to sniff such is readily available (i think you can download a knoppix distribution that will boot with something like that just a click away), but.... since it requires a tool that is more than something you'd need to harvest SSID's, it's still a problem.

as far as the other code section, i think there are similar interpretations that exclude WAP hotspots. the providers can monitor, but other users can't intercept other communications. it's funny, one interpretation of that section could be that as long as you and i both have POTS phones, I can intercept your calls. i doubt that's the intent of the section.
--
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.
squison

join:2001-07-07
Decatur, GA
Reviews:
·AT&T Southeast
·Clear Wireless

Re: US Code 2511

Then what does it apply to? Intercepting any radio traffic requires some sort of tool, a receiver..whatever (not up on my radio terminology).

I think the POTS example doesn't apply since it uses private bandwidth whereas wifi goes over unlicensed spectrum. Or maybe not, where's a lawyer when you need one?

jig

join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA

Re: US Code 2511

i think the second section is specifically concerned with cordless phones, walkie talkies, short wave radio, and the like. there's a thin line between those and 8.201x broadcasts, but i think it's recognized in caselaw.
--
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.

Ioweyou

@comcast.net

No sympathy here

Google will get no sympathy from me. Driving down the street to make a map has nothing to do with collecting data from routers, secured or unsecured. People are always moving and changing their equipment configurations so I see no plausible use for any information they collected, for any reason.

See 9 replies to this post
XEvilWyvernX
Premium
join:2004-10-28
Parkersburg, WV

Hmm

Next youll have some idiot suing because they have a photo of his car on google maps. It violated his cars privacy hehe

Selenia
I love Debian
Premium
join:2006-09-22
Lanesboro, MA
kudos:2

Re: Hmm

I have seen my house and my car on Google Earth LOL. That's nothing new.

camaro92
Question everything
Premium
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA

Re: Hmm

Same here everyone can if they looked,does that mean we all have a class action lawsuit ,please this country has become so sue happy that it has turned into a huge bandwagon.

CanaBeePee

@dsl.bell.ca

There's that word inadvertant again ...

Can someone please tell me how Google or its contractors inadvertently collected this data? The 'news' reports that I've seen or heard call it "inadvertent" without question or explanation.

To me, that's a bit like saying "British Petroleum was inadvertently drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico when the drilling caused a disaster to happen".

Monday, 04-Jun 11:25:05 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 12.5 years online © 1999-2012 dslreports.com.