view:

topics flat nest

IowaCowboy

Supermarket Hero

Premium Member

join:2010-10-16

Springfield, MA 1 recommendation IowaCowboy Premium Member They need a lesson on privacy Google is not the greatest in terms of protecting privacy.



My house wi-fi is secured and the SSID is hidden. elefante72

join:2010-12-03

East Amherst, NY 3 recommendations elefante72 Member Re: They need a lesson on privacy Hiding SSID does nothing, and they were collecting data whether your encryption is on or not. And there are differing levels of "security" on a residential router.



If you want to increase your security add a VPN P2P tunnel (preferably openvpn) on top of your wireless payload. Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04

Binghamton, NY Crookshanks to IowaCowboy

Member to IowaCowboy

said by IowaCowboy: My house wi-fi is secured and the SSID is hidden.



.... reason being, that devices themselves (i.e., your laptop, smartphone, tablet, etc.) have to broadcast the SSID when they try and connect to a hidden network. If you have your hidden network programmed into any of these devices, then they will broadcast that SSID whenever they aren't connected to a wi-fi network, in an attempt to connect to the hidden network.



Just something to consider. Hiding the SSID actually exposes your privacy more than having it open........ reason being, that devices themselves (i.e., your laptop, smartphone, tablet, etc.) have to broadcast the SSID when they try and connect to a hidden network. If you have your hidden network programmed into any of these devices, then they will broadcast that SSID whenever they aren't connected to a wi-fi network, in an attempt to connect to the hidden network.Just something to consider.

r81984

Fair and Balanced

Premium Member

join:2001-11-14

Katy, TX r81984 to IowaCowboy

Premium Member to IowaCowboy

In this situation google did nothing wrong and did not invaded anyones privacy.

The open source code they used for their wifi AP finder also recorded the wifi traffic. Recording traffic from wifi access points from public spaces like the roads is 100% legal. Also, only unencrypted wifi traffic can be used for anything.

I cant believe a judge is so stupid and so computer illiterate they are awarding civil damages. There was not even $1 in civil damages anyways.

battleop

join:2005-09-28

00000 battleop Member Going by this logic... It's OK to listen in on digital and encrypted radio traffic. Since they are not "auditory" all of the other laws and rules making it illegal to listen to mobile phones and encrypted audio should be null and void.

tshirt

Premium Member

join:2004-07-11

Snohomish, WA tshirt Premium Member Re: Going by this logic... No "radio" wave length is in the auditory range of humans, that's why you need a radio/receiver/amplifier to demodulate and make it in to a sound we can hear.

The content is all data whether it's broadcast in digital or analog format.

As far as if it was intended to be public, it's impossible for someone to know without listening. since the SSID, (if broadcast) is intended as a station ID beacon, it would seem that "privacy" was NOT the intent of the sender.

time for a new appeal Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04

Binghamton, NY Crookshanks Member Re: Going by this logic... said by tshirt: since the SSID, (if broadcast) is intended as a station ID beacon, it would seem that "privacy" was NOT the intent of the sender.



It's illegal to listen into other transmissions broadcast in the clear, e.g., analog cordless phones, analog cellular phones (when they existed), etc. Why should wi-fi be exempt? The SSID is the network's way of saying "I'm here! Connect to me!" It is not the network saying "I'm here! Log the packets of all the clients connected to me!"It's illegal to listen into other transmissions broadcast in the clear, e.g., analog cordless phones, analog cellular phones (when they existed), etc. Why should wi-fi be exempt?

tshirt

Premium Member

join:2004-07-11

Snohomish, WA tshirt Premium Member Re: Going by this logic... "I'm here! Connect to me!" is all they intended to get and all that was likely in a 0.2 second time slice (reasonably establishes that extended eavesdropping was not the intent)

incidental listening (say picking up an extention to determine if another user is on the line) is not the same as wiretapping or deliberately staying on a party line to listen in. Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04

Binghamton, NY Crookshanks Member Re: Going by this logic... Irrelevant.



They could have avoided ALL "inadvertent" collection with a simple capture filter. Yours truly is capable of doing this with free software (Wireshark) but a Fortune 100 company with the best software and network engineers on Planet Earth couldn't figure it out?



The best thing you can say is that they were negligent. Those of us who are more cynical about them have to wonder if it wasn't intentional. This is the company whose CEO declared that privacy is dead, the company whose entire business model depends on targeted advertising, and we're supposed to take them at their word?



When they settled the AG lawsuit they agreed to destroy all data collected in the United States. Do tell, why are they saving the rest of the data if this collection was "inadvertent"?



What amuses me more than anything else is how they get a pass from the majority of the readership here, the same crowd that's up in arms when Verizon, AT&T, Time Warner, et. al sell the information they have on you for a profit, and that's in spite of the fact that the aforementioned disclose what they do and provide an opt-out mechanism. Google couldn't even bother with disclosure until they got caught, never mind allowing you to opt out of their data collection practices...

r81984

Fair and Balanced

Premium Member

join:2001-11-14

Katy, TX r81984 Premium Member Re: Going by this logic... They used free open source software. They just did not turn off the data logging that was on by default.

Also this judge is insane. What google did was 100% legal and caused no one civil damages.

StuartMW

Premium Member

join:2000-08-06 StuartMW Premium Member Given the wholesale spying these days I'm not a big fan of Google but given the NSA's wholesale spying on everyone Google's actions were pretty tame.



Of course the NSA's spying is "legal" because a bunch of politicians and judges say so despite the 4th Amendment.



Just goes to show that judges can reach any decision they want as long as it meets their ends.

r81984

Fair and Balanced

Premium Member

join:2001-11-14

Katy, TX r81984 Premium Member Re: Given the wholesale spying these days What google did was also 100% legal.

You are free to record radio waves in public areas.

anonome

@verizon.net anonome Anon Court declares itself liable for untold levels of ridicule due to a complete lack of understanding of all things technical.

elios

join:2005-11-15

Springfield, MO 1 edit elios Member Crazy presadent "The court oddly comes to its conclusion that Wi-Fi is not radio communications because the technology isn't auditory in nature"



HO HO this could be fun wonder what will mean for well ANY digital wireless signal



FCC is going have a LOONG talk with the judges after this

this could really break some things Chubbysumo

join:2009-12-01

Duluth, MN Chubbysumo Member Re: Crazy presadent since its not really "radio communications", i can use any spectrum I want, right?

elios

join:2005-11-15

Springfield, MO elios Member Re: Crazy presadent sounds like it to me

FCC is going to love this lol

dnoyeB

Ferrous Phallus

join:2000-10-09

Southfield, MI dnoyeB Member Not that odd The question is really what was meant by "Radio" as written into the law. If when the laws were written 'Radio' only meant audible broadcast transmission over a carrier, then the court would be correct.

Yucca Servic

join:2012-11-27

Rio Rancho, NM Yucca Servic Member Radio definition Radio is the wireless transmission of signals through free space by electromagnetic radiation of a frequency significantly below that of visible light, in the radio frequency range, from about 30 kHz to 300 GHz.



The definition doesn't say what technology it uses. Radio is radio and a modern miracle.

Barron

Laissez les bons temps rouler!

Premium Member

join:2001-11-25

Litchfield Park, AZ 246.4 30.0

·Cox HSI

Motorola MB8600

Synology RT2600ac

Barron Premium Member They Are Lawyers--Do Not Expect Logic Hey the legal system is not about truth, logic, justice or any of that. It is about ego, power, winning and greed. Heed Willy Shakespeare's words: "First we kill all the lawyers."



And then we send all elected politicians to Antarctica where the collective hot air will indeed produce global warming. Hey the legal system is not about truth, logic, justice or any of that. It is about ego, power, winning and greed. Heed Willy Shakespeare's words: "First we kill all the lawyers."And then we send all elected politicians to Antarctica where the collective hot air will indeed produce global warming. CXM_Splicer

Looking at the bigger picture

Premium Member

join:2011-08-11

NYC CXM_Splicer Premium Member The real problem with this... is in the way the law is written. There is no doubt that WiFi operates over radio, the court realizes this. The problem is that the exemption for the wiretapping statute is specifically for 'radio communication' and not the broader 'electronic communication'. While 'radio communication' is not expressly defined, the court relied on case law to determine the meaning. They are simply saying that WiFi signals don't fit the legislative purpose of the wiretap exemption.



Besides that is the 'readily accessible to the general public'. Obviously we all know it is possible for someone in the general public to access the data but it is simply not what the general public does. The general public doesn't put their WiFi cards into promiscuous mode and drive around intercepting traffic. They DO drive around and log the locations of SSIDs (war driving) and the court would have probably held that to fit the 'readily accessible...' clause but intercepting the traffic requires more than what the general public do on WiFi.



Remember, the court is making decisions based on the way the law is written and applied, not on common meanings. When those two don't agree, it is time to rewrite the law.



Probitas

@teksavvy.com Probitas Anon double standard If I as a customer of ISP leave my wireless open, I can be held liable for providing access for pirating purposes. Yet Google can be held responsible for sniffing that open and unsecured content too? Come on, make up your minds, they can't both be guilty. CXM_Splicer

Looking at the bigger picture

Premium Member

join:2011-08-11

NYC CXM_Splicer Premium Member Re: double standard You can't be held liable for pirating that happens on your open wireless connection unless you are aware of it and facilitate it.

elios

join:2005-11-15

Springfield, MO elios to Probitas

Member to Probitas

oh yes they can the court loves having both parties as the both the perp and victim just look all the silly cases of teen "sexting" where both parties are under age and every one involved is both victim and perp

FFH5

Premium Member

join:2002-03-03

Tavistock NJ FFH5 Premium Member Mountain out of a molehill This whole multi-year vendetta against Google is bogus. They collected some info by accident; did away with it(as much as courts let them); and made sure it couldn't happen again. Both countries and ambulance chasing lawyers are just looking for an undeserved payday. No one was harmed here and courts should have thrown these civil cases out of court long ago. Stumbles

join:2002-12-17

Port Saint Lucie, FL Stumbles Member Re: Mountain out of a molehill If only the same tenacity had been used against Mircosoft back in the day.

skeptic

@montanasat.net skeptic Anon Google's story change when German prosecutors began investig The author seems not to recall the changes in Google's story once German prosecutors began their investigation. US federal officials were content to take Google's word at face value (or maybe they had the blessing of DOJ and the NSA to suck up encrypted payload data). However, once they were required to answer questions under penalty of perjury, Google admitted to gathering data on all networks, encrypted and unencrypted. Whether one can believe that the only info they retained on encrpted networks was an SSID and the fact it was encrypted, recent revelations of their partnership with NSA makes many of us skeptical, especially in light of multiple changes in Google's story to German criminal investigators. As the German investigation proceeded, several of Google's engineers indicated that Google's broad collecton of router data wasn't inadvertent as the company sent the data to multiple divisions (anyone not beleve that at a minimum the US government was given all router data showing which were encrpted and which weren't and most likely NSA was given unencrypted data and encrypted payload data to decrypt).

r81984

Fair and Balanced

Premium Member

join:2001-11-14

Katy, TX r81984 Premium Member Re: Google's story change when German prosecutors began investig Recording radio waves in public is 100% legal so this whole thing makes no sense. b10010011

Whats a Posting tag?

join:2004-09-07

Bellingham, WA b10010011 Member So if WiFi is not radio comunications this means the FCC... No longer has any control over it.

elios

join:2005-11-15

Springfield, MO elios Member Re: So if WiFi is not radio comunications this means the FCC... or any digital wireless transmission of that matter yea FCC cant be happy your comment..

