Google Urges Court to Reconsider Odd Wi-Fi Wiretap Ruling Earlier this month a Federal Appeals court ruled that Google could be held liable for their 2011 scandal in which Street View vehicles collected snippets of data from unsecured hotspots when passing by. The court's ruling was rather odd in that to conclude Google violated the Wiretap Act, the court had to first declare that Wi-Fi isn't a radio communications (it is) and that unsecured open hotspots aren't readily available to the general public (they are). In a filing with the Appeals Court, Google argued that the ruling is likely to cause confusion over what constitutes a wiretap and what over the air signals are protected under the law. "This error is exceptionally important," said Google. "It promises to have a substantial, long-lasting effect on the application of the Wiretap Act in an environment of rapid technological change." "If allowed to stand, the panel’s ruling will create confusion about the Wiretap Act’s prohibitions, threaten the development of new radio-based technologies, and raise questions about whether activities that Congress intended to protect may now be deemed unlawful." Groups like the EFF agree. "The Wiretap Act imposes both civil and serious criminal penalties for violations and there is a real risk that researchers who intentionally capture payload data transmitted over unencrypted Wi-Fi—even if they don't read the actual communications —may be found in violation of the law," the organization said in a recent blog post. "Given the concerns about over-criminalization and overcharging, prosecutors now have another felony charge in their arsenal."
|
 | | Wi-Fi isn't a radio communications Must be great to be a Judge and not have to use critical thinking or common sense to do your job. Does this mean we don't have to follow the rules and regulations set forth by the Federal Communication Commission regarding wifi??  | |
|  |  tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4 | Re: Wi-Fi isn't a radio communications that's why there are appeals.
If the first courts thinking was so misguided this should be over quickly, if it's upheld perhaps we'll hear a clearer explanation of the logic. | |
|
| | that's the problem with being the judge You should always be careful about setting precedent, as the judgement can go far beyond your zest to be punitive towards a felon, and no judge likes to see his rulings get overturned. | |
| | | Really?? I don't care who connects to open hotspots and what they do, they are open for a reason, either on purpose or stupidity | |
| axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| Agree with Google here Google's data capture was negligent but it wasn't criminal. Sometimes I run an unsecured hotspot, if some stranger connects it's crazy to say they are wiretapping my network. Also it would be crazy to say they are performing unauthorized computer access, but that's another law. | |
| | | | Re: Agree with Google here Could you take that one step further and say that there is no such thing as "authorized" access to an unsecured hotspot? | |
| | |  TamaraBQuestion The Current ParadigmPremium
join:2000-11-08
Da Bronx
·Optimum Online
| Re: Agree with Google here said by talz13:Could you take that one step further and say that there is no such thing as "authorized" access to an unsecured hotspot?
That would make CableWiFi, libraries, and all other free hotspots illegal. | |
| | | | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 | Re: Agree with Google here No, not really. The ruling has nothing to do with connecting to open hotspots. The ruling was involving eavesdropping on someone else's wireless connection and recording their data.
| |
| | | | | tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Agree with Google here Ok suppose you are driving across the desert with a dashcam, and every once in a while there are a series of billboards some with a "please join us" ad and some with a "not welcome"/"no vacancy"/ "go away" message.
It's not wrong to record the message, but it would be wrong to go to the location and record more. | |
| | | | | | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 | Re: Agree with Google here It would not be wrong to record things which your dashcam would normally pick up in the course of its normal operation. It would be wrong, however, to rip the camera off the dash and surreptitiously stick it in an opened hotel window.
Google's argument is that it is possible for anyone to rip off the camera and do this so it should be legal... the judge said no, it is not the normal use of the dash cam. Even though the sign says 'Please join us', they don't mean to secretly join other guests in their room, it means you can get your own room.
Not perfect but that is as close as I can get with that analogy. Before we get into a long series of analogies, I am not saying the judge was right or wrong, only saying that the ruling is not what people think it is.
Ultimately, the real question is: Is it 'wiretapping' to sniff someone else's data on an open wireless connection. Right now, this judge says Yes. | |
| | | | | | | TamaraBQuestion The Current ParadigmPremium
join:2000-11-08
Da Bronx Reviews:
·Optimum Online
| Re: Agree with Google here said by CXM_Splicer:Ultimately, the real question is: Is it 'wiretapping' to sniff someone else's data on an open wireless connection. Right now, this judge says Yes. Having been active in both short-wave and amateur radio in the past, I know it's perfectly legal to receive radio transmissions of all sorts. There is nothing illegal about listening to an open radio transmission. The "Air Waves" belong to us, the people, and anything put into them is fair and legal game. Radio transmissions which are encrypted are another story, you can listen but you are not allowed to reverse-engineer the encryption and decrypt. The judge is wrong, anything transmitted over the air in the clear is free to hear!
--
"Remember, remember the fifth of November.
Gunpowder, Treason and Plot.
I see no reason why Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot."
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people"
| |
| | | | | | | | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1
1 recommendation | Re: Agree with Google here said by TamaraB:I thought what Google did was sniff out the SSIDs and router names of open WiFi hot spots to compile a listing of free WiFi access points. You're saying they spied on people like the NSA does? Well, not as thoroughly as the NSA but yes. As the Street-View car was driving around, it was recording snippets of traffic between the open router and people that were connected to it. So, if you just happen to be logging in to an email server, usenet server, web page etc. in the clear while the car was driving past your open hotspot, Google recorded that info. If you were fetching an email in the clear, Google potentially has a copy of that email.
said by TamaraB:The "Air Waves" belong to us, the people, and anything put into them is fair and legal game... The judge is wrong, anything transmitted over the air in the clear is free to hear! Personally I am right there with you (an extra class ham) except I don't worry about encryption either, if it is on the air and I have the ability to decode it, I will listen 
The problem is that isn't the way the law is written. There ARE communications that are protected even though they are in the clear. Analog cell & cordless phones were an example (though pretty much defunct today), police MDTs were in the clear but illegal to monitor. The Wiretap Act prohibits any person from intentionally intercepting or attempting to intercept a wire, oral or electronic communication by using any electronic, mechanical or other device. There is an exemption in the wiretap law for 'Radio Communications'. Though the term is not defined in the law, that exemption was deliberately written to ALLOW people to listen to ham radio traffic, police/fire/public safety radio calls, taxi dispatchers, and everything else that scanner listeners usually hear because those are not one-on-one communications systems.
What the judge is saying is that, while WiFi does work over radio (yes the judge realizes this) it does not fit the intended use of the phrase 'Radio Communication' legally as far as the exemption for 'interception' under the wiretap law goes. Google's argument is anything that is transmitted by radio fits under the exemption and is legal. The judge says no, there are electronic communications on radio that are still illegal to intercept. In the email example above, interception of email while in transit to the recipient is specifically prohibited under the law, no matter what medium it is traversing. That is exactly why the feds go after 'stored communications' which have a protection expiration date. | |
| | | | | | | | | TheWiseGuyDog And ButterflyPremium,MVM
join:2002-07-04
East Stroudsburg, PA
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Optimum Online
1 recommendation | Re: Agree with Google here One of the better explanations of the decision I have seen. Just to be clear this decision was 3 judges agreeing with the original judge. The decision is actually an interesting read. Just as something of a summary
said by Decision :Taken together, these disparate provisions offer evidence that Congress does not use "radio' or "radio communication' to reference all of the myriad forms of communication that use the radio spectrum. Rather, it uses "radio' to refer to traditional radio technologies, and then separately describes other modes of communication that are not ordinarily thought of as radio, but that nevertheless use the radio spectrum.
--
Warning, If you post nonsense and use misinformation and are here to argue based on those methods, you will be put on ignore. | |
|
| | | | | | tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·Comcast
| But google just record what the saw from the dash.
In fact you HAVE to listen to determine if ANY Wi-Fi is their and if any is "open" or has a "go away" SSID, encryption, or any of the other things that would indicate you had a desire/expectation of privacy.
To say NO ONE can run ANY AP because they MAY intercept even the ssid of another WLAN would basic outlaw Wi-Fi. | |
| | | | | | | | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 | Re: Agree with Google here Communicating with the access point is not the issue, that is a normal function of the access point. For YOU to put your wireless network card in promiscuous mode and intercept traffic between ME and the access point is not the normal function of WiFi.
The judge is saying that doing that is wiretapping under the law. | |
|
| | | | TamaraBQuestion The Current ParadigmPremium
join:2000-11-08
Da Bronx Reviews:
·Optimum Online
| said by CXM_Splicer:No, not really. The ruling has nothing to do with connecting to open hotspots. The ruling was involving eavesdropping on someone else's wireless connection and recording their data. I thought what Google did was sniff out the SSIDs and router names of open WiFi hot spots to compile a listing of free WiFi access points. You're saying they spied on people like the NSA does?
--
"Remember, remember the fifth of November.
Gunpowder, Treason and Plot.
I see no reason why Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot."
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people"
| |
|
| | it sounds tin foil But it could be an attempt to get open wifi ruled a crime. Not just accessing it, but providing it. | |
| | TamaraBQuestion The Current ParadigmPremium
join:2000-11-08
Da Bronx Reviews:
·Optimum Online
| Re: it sounds tin foil said by [Probitas :]But it could be an attempt to get open wifi ruled a crime. Not just accessing it, but providing it. What would be the point of doing that? Free WiFi is ubiquitous here and serves a very real purpose. No one benefits by cutting it off.
| |
| | | | | Re: it sounds tin foil Sure someone benefits, the service providers who force a sale onto another customer to get access. | |
| | | | TamaraBQuestion The Current ParadigmPremium
join:2000-11-08
Da Bronx Reviews:
·Optimum Online
| Re: it sounds tin foil said by Probitas :Sure someone benefits, the service providers who force a sale onto another customer to get access.
No. It's the service providers who are in direct competion who have banded together to provide the service to all users of any of the ISPs. For instance here: Cable WiFi Internet access is brought to consumers through a collaboration among U.S. Internet service providers. Bright House Networks, Cox Communications, Optimum, Time Warner Cable and XFINITY allow each other's high-speed Internet customers to access more than 150,000 WiFi hotspots.
This is possibly the only thing these competing companies have done together to benefit all their customers. If you have cable here in NYC, you can connect to free WiFi practically anywhere.
--
"Remember, remember the fifth of November.
Gunpowder, Treason and Plot.
I see no reason why Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot."
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people"
| |
| | | | | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 | Re: it sounds tin foil I LOVE that service and use it all the time here in the city on my Optimum account  It allows me to have Internet all over the city without paying for 3G/4G! I am sure Verizon & AT&T are not thrilled with it but Mega-Kudos to the cable companies for banding together.
Now, if only the cell companies could figure out how to do this with their spectrum... | |
| | | | | | TamaraBQuestion The Current ParadigmPremium
join:2000-11-08
Da Bronx Reviews:
·Optimum Online
1 recommendation | Re: it sounds tin foil Indeed! I too have Optimum. I bought a WiFi-Only iPad, and like yourself, use it all over the place with NO DATA PLAN!! In fact, I just cancelled my AT&T iPhone 5 account and went with a cheap VZ Pre-Paid phone. My iPhone 5 now functions perfectly as an iPod Touch on CableWiFi when out, and home WiFi when home. Everything works except voice of course. But my Cell phone is now a $35.00/Mo flip phone.
It's telling that VZ and AT&T opted out of the CableWiFi system. They hate the fact that here in NYC (and in other major metropolitan centers) you can run WiFi enabled devices like pads, laptops, and phones without using their over-priced expensive wireless data plans.
--
"Remember, remember the fifth of November.
Gunpowder, Treason and Plot.
I see no reason why Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot."
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people"
| |
|
| | | I agree, I think that's what the courts were aiming for with this ruling. | |
|
 IowaCowboyWant to go back to IowaPremium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
·Comcast
 ·Verizon Broadban..
| I'm siding with the judge on this one Google is a big corporation that has no respect for user's privacy.
If they legally could, they would have searchable databases of people's very private information such as mental health, medical records, financial info, etc.
I have some medical history/hospitalizations I'd rather keep private and thank god for HIPAA. Otherwise my friends and the world would know thanks to Google.
At least Apple has a little more respect for user's privacy. Hopefully Google will end up losing this lawsuit in the end because someone had to draw the line on Google's invasion of privacy business model. Even though snooping at unsecured hotspots may seem harmless, it may lead to that so-called "slippery slope" where Google may find their way into your private medical records.
--
I've experienced ImOn (when they were McLeod USA), Mediacom, Comcast, and Time Warner and I currently have DirecTV. They are much better than broadcast TV.
I have not and will not cut the cord. | |
| |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness | Re: I'm siding with the judge on this one So you side with CLEARLY incorrect ruling because you don't like the defendant? Please never be on a jury. | |
| | TamaraBQuestion The Current ParadigmPremium
join:2000-11-08
Da Bronx Reviews:
·Optimum Online
| said by IowaCowboy: .... I have some medical history/hospitalizations I'd rather keep private and thank god for HIPAA. Otherwise my friends and the world would know thanks to Google. You wouldn't be dumb enough to read your medical files over a CB radio would you? Likewise, you should be smart enough not to put those files on Google, or download them over an open WiFi network. Keeping your private information private is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.
--
"Remember, remember the fifth of November.
Gunpowder, Treason and Plot.
I see no reason why Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot."
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people"
| |
|
 VeloslaveGeek For GodPremium
join:2003-07-11
Martinez, CA
1 recommendation | Our government goes after Google for snooping The same government that runs the NSA...
Is it just me??? | |
|
| |
|
|
