Hey, You With the Open Wi-Fi: You're An Idiot

No, No, No, Your all missing the point. Yes, Google manned up and stated they where going to delete all the data. BUT wait! The Countries are not seeing as a privacy Issue. It never really was. It an OH YES a large corporation swimming in money just admitted they they screwed up. How can we get some of that cash from this? Oh we can also start yelling about it and show the people their government is watching out for them. A few of those governments went wait, whats in all that info we need to see and most of the rest just jumped on the bandwagon.. Sad really. As for the Street View "Don't you dare Take a picture of my House from a public street" crap is a byproduct of the tin foil hat conspiracy that people taking pictures of home and building are really planing to break in or an act of terror. Its the same argument I get in to with police who think Its illegal for me to take pictures downtown. Herd mentality at its worst.
 
This is a much better analogy:

Essentially, an open wireless network is basically a radio broadcast. Picking up local radio broadcasts is not illegal.

The article's right. Open wifi is a risk the user takes, and thereby has no expectation of privacy.
 
Hey, You With the Yapping Chatterbox: MAYBE I MADE MY WIFI OPEN ON PURPOSE. n00b pwnt *runs away*
 
rflcptr said:
Yes, he has a point. People haven't taken personal responsibility for things and have blamed Google instead.
Click to expand...

Ok, then you have no issue with me if I capture your emails and read them, right? Unless you encrypt your emails and give the recipient the key they are plain text transmission and can be easily captured and read.
 
tinsoldier said:
Sounds like going through an unlocked door and taking stuff that wasn't theirs to me? :confused:

I imagine the first analogy someone would bring up to argue my point is that this situation is like standing on your front lawn yelling out your personal info to whomever is listening. However, I would argue that it takes no technical competence at all to listen to people spout off personal info in a public space or to peak at people through open windows which is where the idea breaks down. Collecting/recording personal data off an unsecured wireless feed isn't something most people can do. In fact, it's a very intentional act and not something that happens accidentally. Google claims the collection of this extra data was accidental but that's one hell of a mistake compared to seeing a naked neighbor.

If the only thing they recorded was the addresses of SSIDs they detected and nothing else I doubt there would be such an uproar.
Click to expand...

This bears repeating. I would add that many WIFI snoops know how to crack WEP or WPA encryption.
 
mortonP said:
Ok, then you have no issue with me if I capture your emails and read them, right? Unless you encrypt your emails and give the recipient the key they are plain text transmission and can be easily captured and read.
Click to expand...
Please. :rolleyes:
Noetic said:
I would add that many WIFI snoops know how to crack WEP or WPA encryption.
Click to expand...
WEP has been irrelevant for a while. WPA was replaced by WPA2, which I welcome anyone to try to break. Secondly, breaking encryption is actually illegal, and Google didn't do it.

What was your point, again?
 
tinsoldier said:
The article says:



Sounds like going through an unlocked door and taking stuff that wasn't theirs to me? :confused:

I imagine the first analogy someone would bring up to argue my point is that this situation is like standing on your front lawn yelling out your personal info to whomever is listening. However, I would argue that it takes no technical competence at all to listen to people spout off personal info in a public space or to peak at people through open windows which is where the idea breaks down. Collecting/recording personal data off an unsecured wireless feed isn't something most people can do. In fact, it's a very intentional act and not something that happens accidentally. Google claims the collection of this extra data was accidental but that's one hell of a mistake compared to seeing a naked neighbor.

If the only thing they recorded was the addresses of SSIDs they detected and nothing else I doubt there would be such an uproar.
Click to expand...

Wifi is broadcasted. The street view card didn't smash through people's front doors or invade personal property. Thus, the analogy of a door is fundamentally flawed because *there is no door*. Google basically overheard a conversation in public, THAT is a far better analogy.

Also, I suspect they were sniffing for mac addresses to make a location database. How do you guys think things like skyhook work? By mapping wifi macs to physical locations. You've got to get that database created somehow. I would bet that there was a bug where all packets received were recorded instead of just the SSID broadcast packets. Pretty easy to overlook something like that if you are testing at a location with wifi security.
 
My neighbor, a software engineer by trade (like half the people in my neighborhood) has his wifi AP open. He should know better.
 
To stay on topic, I'd say the author has a point.Essentially, an open wireless network is basically a radio broadcast. Picking up local radio broadcasts is not illegal.

The article's right. Open wifi is a risk the user takes, and therefore they should have no expectation of privacy. I don't get what the big deal is with all this hysteria. Keep your network locked down, put a fence up if you don't want someone looking in your yard or at your house.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
You'd be surprised how many places have some messed up names. I took pictures of a peak called Whiskey Dick Mtn. this summer in WA.
Click to expand...

It's your mind that is messed up and not the name. Dick is a person's name and not a penis.
 
rflcptr said:
Please. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yep, the usual response I get when I make a valid point that a person can't logically defend. Let me ask you this instead then. Why did google even capture peoples data in the first place? Why did it take google almost a year before they actually deleted the captured data?
 
mortonP said:
Yep, the usual response I get when I make a valid point that a person can't logically defend.
Click to expand...
LOL. You and I both know capturing email is illegal. :rolleyes:
Let me ask you this instead then. Why did google even capture peoples data in the first place? Why did it take google almost a year before they actually deleted the captured data?
Click to expand...
According to them, it wasn't intentional. They broke no encryption, and targeted nothing (email, etc). They took their time because a) they performed an internal audit and b) they were being investigated by other parties.
 
Some valid points, but honestly do we really need people like this coming out to apologize for a corporation that couldn't care less about them? Get some priorities :rolleyes:
 
rflcptr said:
Please. :rolleyes:

WEP has been irrelevant for a while. WPA was replaced by WPA2, which I welcome anyone to try to break. Secondly, breaking encryption is actually illegal, and Google didn't do it.

What was your point, again?
Click to expand...

Well, WEP keys are what is often packaged with wireless modem/router combos (Verizon would be an example). WPA2 is breakable, though not nearly as simple. This information is first page Google stuff.

Like RFID and magnetic strip readers, the tools for sniffing packages are not in the realm of your average, reasonably honest user. The jump to cracking the encryption is not such a far leap for anyone interested in snooping your wireless information.
 
Oldie said:
You guys are going about this all wrong with this theft analogy. Google (as far as I know) did not trespass onto private property or physically remove anything from the homes.

The correct way to analogize the situation is this: If I look in to someone's open window, while not standing on their property, and draw a picture or take a photo of what I see inside...am I a criminal?
Click to expand...

It isn't a crime to look at someone's house. It is a crime to access someone's network without permission.
 
ScottSwing said:
It isn't a crime to look at someone's house. It is a crime to access someone's network without permission.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that drawing a picture is probably the stupidest analogy I've heard so far. This topic usually has some asinine analogies, but that one certainly takes the cake.
 
rflcptr said:
LOL. You and I both know capturing email is illegal. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

And so is capturing data, but, oh wait, it was a corporate company of America so it is OK for them but if I did the same and got caught my ass would be in jail.
 
rflcptr said:
According to them, it wasn't intentional. They broke no encryption, and targeted nothing (email, etc). They took their time because a) they performed an internal audit and b) they were being investigated by other parties.
Click to expand...

I do not believe them. If you or anyone else does then you are gullible. I want to know how and why they captured the data, no article has explained that yet. All we get is "it was not intentional and was an accident".
 
Noetic said:
Well, WEP keys are what is often packaged with wireless modem/router combos (Verizon would be an example). WPA2 is breakable, though not nearly as simple. This information is first page Google stuff.
Click to expand...

WPA2 AES isn't broken. If you know of a way to break AES, there are dozens of government agencies that would love to talk to you not to mention hundreds of universities and research labs.

Like RFID and magnetic strip readers, the tools for sniffing packages are not in the realm of your average, reasonably honest user. The jump to cracking the encryption is not such a far leap for anyone interested in snooping your wireless information.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. It's a small leap from owning a gun to murdering people. It's that leap that is significant. Capturing wifi packets is normal (hell, it's required - how else do you think your computer can find all those wifi access points?). Breaking encryption proves intent and is illegal, two extremely important aspects.

Also, if they managed to capture email passwords that means there are email sites out there that aren't using SSL for passwords - they should all be banned from the internet, seriously wtf?

mortonP said:
I do not believe them. If you or anyone else does then you are gullible. I want to know how and why they captured the data, no article has explained that yet. All we get is "it was not intentional and was an accident".
Click to expand...

I could just as easily say you are being tin-foil hat level of paranoid.

I can tell you how they captured the data: with a wifi card. They can typically be found in laptops, smartphones, or USB dongles.

I can tell you why they captured the data: To map wifi access points to a GPS location to make their own competitor to SkyHook.

Now, as for why we should trust them, well, that's simple. Because there really isn't a reason not to. They came out and said they did this. That didn't try to cover it up, it wasn't exposed by a 3rd party, etc... They came right out of the blue and said it happened. If they were trying to capture the data, why the hell would they tell people about it? Why the hell would they go through this PR and legal nightmare if it was intentional? That just doesn't make any sense, it's crazy talk. What they've said is quite logical and reasonable, and the alternatives are basically conspiracy theories. Why wouldn't you believe them at this point?
 
kllrnohj said:
WPA2 AES isn't broken. If you know of a way to break AES, there are dozens of government agencies that would love to talk to you not to mention hundreds of universities and research labs.
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzDbvd5knmQ

A first page Google example. I agree that a very strong, random numeric, letter and symbol based password would take an excessively long time to crack, even with cloud help.



kllrnohj said:
Irrelevant. It's a small leap from owning a gun to murdering people. It's that leap that is significant. Capturing wifi packets is normal (hell, it's required - how else do you think your computer can find all those wifi access points?). Breaking encryption proves intent and is illegal, two extremely important aspects.
Click to expand...

Poor analogy, gun owners hunt and sport target practice as well as have their weapons for self defense. The aforementioned instruments have little use outside of their specific realms, save for stealing information. With regard to wifi, what would be the purpose behind capturing, reading and storing packets not intended for you?
I only mentioned this in reference to another post and it is now going hopelessly off track.

Indeed SSL should be on all email servers.
 
ScottSwing said:
It isn't a crime to look at someone's house. It is a crime to access someone's network without permission.
Click to expand...
Assuming an unencrypted signal, link?
mortonP said:
And so is capturing data, but, oh wait, it was a corporate company of America so it is OK for them but if I did the same and got caught my ass would be in jail.
Click to expand...
Okay.
Noetic said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzDbvd5knmQ

A first page Google example. I agree that a very strong, random numeric, letter and symbol based password would take an excessively long time to crack, even with cloud help.
Click to expand...
Yeah, given enough time, brute force attacks will find the key. :p
 
Noetic said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzDbvd5knmQ

A first page Google example. I agree that a very strong, random numeric, letter and symbol based password would take an excessively long time to crack, even with cloud help.
Click to expand...

Better yet, don't use a word that is in a dictionary. He brute forced it uses a pre-generated dictionary lists.

Poor analogy, gun owners hunt and sport target practice as well as have their weapons for self defense. The aforementioned instruments have little use outside of their specific realms, save for stealing information. With regard to wifi, what would be the purpose behind capturing, reading and storing packets not intended for you?
I only mentioned this in reference to another post and it is now going hopelessly off track.
Click to expand...

You do realize you just greatly limited the scope of generic equipment, right? The equipment in question can be as basic as your off the shelf wifi card. Pretty much everyone in this thread has at least one device if not half a dozen that are capable of capturing packets (which is *anything* with a wifi card. They are *all* capable of capturing packets - if they weren't they wouldn't work in the first place). There isn't some super special hardware needed. The bug probably was that they weren't discarding packets that weren't SSID broadcasts. I bet they were just trying to map wifi locations - and to do that you must capture and store packets (which, btw, is what your laptop or phone or whatever does as well).
 
The person whom owns a router must use by law, "due diligence", and also must realize they enable the broadcasting of their router, as it is setup how they set it up. If they did not want it to broadcast their router to the open wifi channels, they should have properly used "due diligence" and set it up correctly after they bought the thing.

Yes........ you are a HUGE idiot if you think leaving your wifi open is safe. I personally do not use mine but rarely, and turn it on only when needed (with a random full keyboard, 2-hand spam in 128-bit encryption so even if a hacker sniffs out my private wifi they will need lots of time to crack my random huge password anyhow)
 
There are some people who leave them open so that if they were to get caught doing something illegal they think they can claim it was an open connection so someone else must have connected to it and done the illegal act. Someone used that as a defense recently and the court didn't accept it as a valid defense. I don't know why not because they can't prove the person they charged did it if it was an open connection. Thought it was innocent until proven guilty and not the other way around?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top