Google's Street View Wi-Fi Data Included Passwords

Inacurate said:
If you want your privacy, be educated about it.

I say go Google! I'm happy about this because then maybe people who shouldn't even own a computer will stop using them. An extreme, but one I would like to see happen.
Click to expand...
People who don't know how to change their oil shouldn't own a car?

As a geek forum, I'm willing to bet a significant amount of people here have no idea how to properly maintain their vehicle. According to your logic, they shouldn't own one then.

Sorry, but pull your head out of your ass. There will always be the majority that doesn't know how to properly secure their network. The only way around this is for someone like Microsoft to forcefully install and maintain security of all their systems, and none of us want that.
 
TexUs said:
People who don't know how to change their oil shouldn't own a car?

As a geek forum, I'm willing to bet a significant amount of people here have no idea how to properly maintain their vehicle. According to your logic, they shouldn't own one then.

Sorry, but pull your head out of your ass. There will always be the majority that doesn't know how to properly secure their network. The only way around this is for someone like Microsoft to forcefully install and maintain security of all their systems, and none of us want that.
Click to expand...

But if I don't know how to change my oil but then also never bother to take the car to someone who does, I don't really have a right to be pissy at anyone but myself when the engine blows.
 
shadin said:
But if I don't know how to change my oil but then also never bother to take the car to someone who does, I don't really have a right to be pissy at anyone but myself when the engine blows.
Click to expand...

Except the engine didn't blow, it'd be more akin to Google running over and hitting it with a hammer a few times to see how it sounded...
 
TexUs said:
Google needs to be hung in court for this one. Their data-hunger has gone too far.
Click to expand...

On what grounds, exactly? IANAL, but I can't see how they've done anything even remotely worthy of civil or criminal liability. And that precedent is not one that we want set, regardless of how you feel about this Google thing.
 
TexUs said:
People who don't know how to change their oil shouldn't own a car?

As a geek forum, I'm willing to bet a significant amount of people here have no idea how to properly maintain their vehicle. According to your logic, they shouldn't own one then.

Sorry, but pull your head out of your ass. There will always be the majority that doesn't know how to properly secure their network. The only way around this is for someone like Microsoft to forcefully install and maintain security of all their systems, and none of us want that.
Click to expand...

I was going to make a reading comprehension joke and that you shouldn't be using the internet, but I really want you to take this seriously.

My next sentence said what exactly? "they have no knowledge of how to use, are incapable or unwilling to learn how to use it properly"

1) If you don't know how to use something, take the steps to teach yourself.
2) If you aren't smart enough to figure it out OR know you need to get some help and don't, you deserve what ever you get as far as Mother Nature is concerning, this counts.
3) If you are unwilling to educate yourself because you are lazy or don't want to take the time, the same fate should befall you.

Yeah, I'm an extremist. People should have a level of aptitude and IQ high enough to know what they are out of their league and need assistance and be willing to get the necessary help. I call this common sense.

I didn't know how to change the oil in my car when I got my first vehicle, however by flipping through the manual AND asking around, I realized it was suggested after a set number of driven miles. I can now also replace both CV shafts, alternator, air filter, exhaust system, brakes, headlight assembly and am fairly certain I could change a flat tire, if I ever get one. What's with the car analogies, anyway? LOL

It comes down to survival, at the very very basic level. Some have enough intelligence to know when to ask questions to determine any threat to themselves and others don't. Anyone caught with their passwords floating free in the airwaves, doesn't have it that basic survival instinct is my opinion. That's a pretty deep statement I think, but that is what I like to focus on personally. :)
 
So you're saying people shouldn't have a right to privacy or control of their own data if they leave their WiFi open?

I understand the next argument, "well, they broadcasted it into public space".... Well, sure. But they also didn't know they did that, either. Or knew the consequences. Radio stations across the country differ in that they know they're doing it.
 
TexUs said:
Where's all the Google fanboys that said this was NBD????

I could "accidentally" write a program to capture user's authentications on the network. And then I could "accidentally" have that program dump that data into a database.
It's still a security breach regardless. Google needs to be hung in court for this one. Their data-hunger has gone too far.
Click to expand...

Um, everywhere in this thread? Google was capturing MAC and SSID information, a practice that more than a few companies do, and when they found out what happened, rather than just delete it all and pretend it never happened (like any other company would have done), they came forward, admitted what had happened, and apologized. They made a mistake, admitted to it, and apologized. And you want to punish them for that?
 
Extra-Titanian said:
Um, everywhere in this thread? Google was capturing MAC and SSID information, a practice that more than a few companies do, and when they found out what happened, rather than just delete it all and pretend it never happened (like any other company would have done), they came forward, admitted what had happened, and apologized. They made a mistake, admitted to it, and apologized. And you want to punish them for that?
Click to expand...

So as long as corporations are sorry about their mistakes, we should let them off the hook?

I guess BP isn't too bad, I mean... They are sorry and all....
 
TexUs said:
So as long as corporations are sorry about their mistakes, we should let them off the hook?

I guess BP isn't too bad, I mean... They are sorry and all....
Click to expand...

Let them off the hook for what? Your witch hunt? :p
 
rflcptr said:
Let them off the hook for what? Your witch hunt? :p
Click to expand...
Google wrote, borrowed, whatever... They PUT INTO USE a program that harvested that data.
I have a hard time believing they didn't know about that, but even if they didn't: it was a mistake that shouldn't have happened.

Just because it was accidental does not mean the law won't apply.
 
TexUs said:
So as long as corporations are sorry about their mistakes, we should let them off the hook?

I guess BP isn't too bad, I mean... They are sorry and all....
Click to expand...

As long as they take care of their mistake properly and fully, I'm totally fine with forgiving them.
Besides, what Google did doesn't even begin to compare. If it weren't for them coming forward and admitting to it, NO ONE WOULD HAVE KNOWN! Seriously. No one's going to sit down at their computer and say "Oh Noes! Someone copied my 1's and 0's!" Everyone suing over this incident are just looking for a payday. Don't want people to access your network, read the manual, set up the encryption.
 
TexUs said:
Google wrote, borrowed, whatever... They PUT INTO USE a program that harvested that data.
I have a hard time believing they didn't know about that, but even if they didn't: it was a mistake that shouldn't have happened.

Just because it was accidental does not mean the law won't apply.
Click to expand...

Seriously, which law? This whole thing will barely have a splintered peg-leg in a civil court.
 
TexUs said:
So you're saying people shouldn't have a right to privacy or control of their own data if they leave their WiFi open?

I understand the next argument, "well, they broadcasted it into public space".... Well, sure. But they also didn't know they did that, either. Or knew the consequences. Radio stations across the country differ in that they know they're doing it.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I'm saying in fact. Ignorance is not an excuse nor does it protect you. I don't even necessarily need to go into the argument you think I would head towards, but it all ties together at the end of the day.

If these people do not have even a basic hint of common sense, can anything they are doing over unprotected wi-fi be of such importance and secrecy that it deserves a lawsuit against Google? Rhetorical question, because now you would repeat the "privacy line" and my follow-up to privacy is quite simple: You are not guaranteed privacy anywhere in life.

If someone wants privacy, they have to be smart enough to know what steps are necessary to get it. If they cannot take the appropriate steps, they forfeit the media driven "right" to privacy. Just because the laws haven't caught up yet to smack down these morons who want to sue over them being stupid, doesn't mean they should be given that opportunity.

No one is entitled to privacy when broadcasting unprotected information, no one. If they have even MAC-filter enabled, they have taken a step to securing privacy and anyone who has to knowingly take steps of their own to bypass that security, regardless of how easy, should absolutely be punished!
 
rflcptr said:
Seriously, which law? This whole thing will barely have a splintered peg-leg in a civil court.
Click to expand...

The privacy law, the one that protects stupid people from themselves and doesn't hold them accountable for their own actions simply because they were ignorant and can't be bothered to ask some questions!
 
"I understand the next argument, "well, they broadcasted it into public space".... Well, sure. But they also didn't know they did that, either. "

Pretty sure windows will not use an open wifi connection without giving you a warning.

In United States v. Ahrndt, No. 08-cr-468 (D. Ore. Jan. 28, 2010), a federal trial court held that a child pornography suspect had no constitutionally protected privacy right in the files found on his personal computer, stored in a shared iTunes folder fed by a Limewire account, accessible by a neighbor who was piggybacking on his unsecured wireless network.

Shit google didn't even connect to anyone's network :p.

US v Fields, 113 F. 3rd 313, 321 (2nd Cir 1997) "what a person chooses voluntarily to expose to public view thereby loses its Fourth Amendment protection"

I mean this is sorta up for debate, but there is not a law that specifically states open wifi traffic is private. Cordless phones (not cell phones) are specifically protected, that is another unencrypted radio broadcast-- but technology of the day made it pretty difficult to do anything else. These days, every wifi ap will tell you to enable some for of encryption, Windows warns you about it, people at the store will tell you you need to use it... at that point if you still decide to use an open wifi network, you're on your own IMO.
 
illgiveumorality said:
Is it legal to steal a car because someone left the keys in it?
Click to expand...

Because stealing a car and recording broadcast information are the same thing, right?

It is legal to record what people are shouting from their front porches with megaphones? Damn right it is.
 
Extra-Titanian said:
As long as they take care of their mistake properly and fully, I'm totally fine with forgiving them.
Click to expand...
That would assume BP has any money left to take care of their mistake :eek:

rflcptr said:
Seriously, which law? This whole thing will barely have a splintered peg-leg in a civil court.
Click to expand...
There's many cases of people leeching Open WiFi and getting slammed with a felony.
You take a huge global company like Google and acknowledge they have passwords acquired from people unaware (Which was the hingepin of those cases)...

I'm not saying it's right, per say... I just wish Google wouldn't be so data-hungry to do this crap in the first place. I'm HOPING out of all this comes awareness to secure your networks, and I'm HOPING out of all this comes awareness (by the Fed) to keep closer eyes on Google.

Inacurate said:
That is exactly what I'm saying in fact. Ignorance is not an excuse nor does it protect you.
Click to expand...
But isn't that exactly what you're saying of Google, as well? They didn't do it on purpose, it was an accident, so what's the big deal? If ignorance didn't protect you, than Google can't use it as an excuse anymore than the person that didn't secure their WiFi.
The double standard here is laughable.


Inacurate said:
Rhetorical question, because now you would repeat the "privacy line" and my follow-up to privacy is quite simple: You are not guaranteed privacy anywhere in life.
Click to expand...
No? I swore we had laws against peeping toms, trespassing, eavesdropping, etc...

bexamous said:
Pretty sure windows will not use an open wifi connection without giving you a warning.
Click to expand...
Who says they were using Windows?
Who says they were even using a desktop OS at all?

bexamous said:
I mean this is sorta up for debate, but there is not a law that specifically states open wifi traffic is private.
Click to expand...
No, but there's plenty of fines and even jailtime for people leeching WiFi. If a law were to be created, I can take a pretty accurate guess of which side of the fence it'd lean on. Especially under the current administration trying to "protect the people" with "Government knows best". If this were 60 years ago under a conservative I'd be more inclined to agree with you.
 
There's many cases of people leeching Open WiFi and getting slammed with a felony.
You take a huge global company like Google and acknowledge they have passwords acquired from people unaware (Which was the hingepin of those cases)...
Click to expand...
Link? Oh, small detail, Google didn't leech WiFi.
If this were 60 years ago under a conservative I'd be more inclined to agree with you.
Click to expand...
So you only agree with authority figures?
 
rflcptr said:
Link? Oh, small detail, Google didn't leech WiFi.
Click to expand...
A) Neighbor utilizing WiFi signal without consent.
B) Google utilizing WiFi signal without consent.

That's really all it comes down to. Yes, I know the technical differences. Yes, I for the most part agree with you. But in the courts eye's, Google took data not theirs without asking. That's what it'll come down to.

rflcptr said:
So you only agree with authority figures?
Click to expand...
Where'd I say I agreed with it? I just said which side, if there were to be a law, the law would side with. Reading comprehension fail.
 
TexUs said:
A) Neighbor utilizing WiFi signal without consent.
B) Google utilizing WiFi signal without consent.

That's really all it comes down to. Yes, I know the technical differences. Yes, I for the most part agree with you. But in the courts eye's, Google took data not theirs without asking. That's what it'll come down to.
Click to expand...

Google utilized their wifi? Last time I checked they were simply sitting in a vehicle, on public land, being bombarded with a one-way stream of information being purposely and openly being distributed by a private individual.

Are we also going to make laws against over-hearing or over-seeing conversations in public?
 
TexUs said:
A) Neighbor utilizing WiFi signal without consent.
B) Google utilizing WiFi signal without consent.

That's really all it comes down to. Yes, I know the technical differences. Yes, I for the most part agree with you. But in the courts eye's, Google took data not theirs without asking. That's what it'll come down to.
Click to expand...
Hopefully you understand the difference between actually connecting to the router and consuming bandwidth (leeching) and what Google did. Hint: they didn't connect to it.

Reading comprehension fail.
Click to expand...
The irony of TechieSooner continues to amuse.
 
TexUs said:
Apparently we do with cordless phones.
Click to expand...

That requires an intent to intercept personal communications. If I were to walk by with a radio that just happened to operate in the same frequencies no laws would have been broken.
 
TexUs said:
Apparently we do with cordless phones.
Click to expand...

As per US law - §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;
...
(c) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection;
(d) intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection; or
Click to expand...

By the way, here's the real kicker...

(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;
Click to expand...

and don't forget this part
(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person—
(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.
Click to expand...
 
Nemesis999 said:
As per US law - §2511. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited


By the way, here's the real kicker...



and don't forget this part
Click to expand...

Kudos for being the first person to actually dig something up ;)
Yes, I'd agree... With that being established, that they did no wrong.
 
TexUs said:
Who says they were using Windows?
Who says they were even using a desktop OS at all?
Click to expand...

Well I used Windows as an example, but most consumer products will warn you about open wifi. My phone does. I would think it would be difficult for someone to setup and use an open wifi network and not be warned at some point. Or if using something very obscure, they would then likely know exactly what they were doing already and have no grounds to claim expectation of privacy.
 
SCSI-Terminator said:
My point is that goverments should stop blaming Google for stupid people that can't setup basic security measures to stop what boils down to unintended overhearing of a conversation from public property.

Instead, goverments should look to starting programs to educate the populace on what they can do to protect their own privacy themselves, and how to setup basic encryption on their personel wireless networks. And thus prevent such problems from occuring in the first place.
Click to expand...

:thumbup:
 
rflcptr said:
Hopefully you understand the difference between actually connecting to the router and consuming bandwidth (leeching) and what Google did. Hint: they didn't connect to it.


The irony of TechieSooner continues to amuse.
Click to expand...

So if they didn't connect to it, how did they get passwords and apparently possible emails from people?
 
MrGuvernment said:
So if they didn't connect to it, how did they get passwords and apparently possible emails from people?
Click to expand...

It works on the same amazing magic as radios, with their astounding ability to receive signals without actually sending any back!
 
MrGuvernment said:
So if they didn't connect to it, how did they get passwords and apparently possible emails from people?
Click to expand...

WTFFFF This is hardforum... why do so little people know how things work???? This is like 30th story about Google&WiFI and every time the same stupid things are said over and over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top