Updates to this story
Google has received a writ from Vicki Van Valin and Neil Mertz as part of a class action that their privacy was violated by Street View vehicles picking up data from open wireless internet connections used at home. They also want a court to prevent Google from destroying the data that's been collected.
The case launched in an Oregon district court.
The plaintiffs allege Google using its fleet of specially adapted vehicles captured data using 3G/GSM/wi-fi antennas and captured their data using a packet sniffer.
Google, it's alleged, included wireless packet sniffers in the vehicles that captured the MAC address, and data consisting of all or part of any documents, emails, video, audio and VoIP info over the network.
After Google collected and decoded Ms Van Valin's and Mr Mertz data it stored the information on its servers. "On information and belief, hundreds if not thousands of Google employees throughout the United States and the world have access to data maintained on Google's servers," the writ alleges.
The class action affects both Oregon and Washington states, said the filing. 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.
http://blog.alessiosignorini.com/2010/05/google-collected-wifi-data-for-geo-location-purposes/
Clearly it was better to stream the raw data packets to disk and then analyze them later than trying to do it all on the fly in the car. It is probably even impossible given the amount of processing power required to do the analysis of raw wifi/GSM packets.
So what, they may have captured chunks of your unencrypted emails, IMs and shopping sites. Is that a problem? No. Any dude on the street with an iPhone can do the same, or any tech guy at your Internet provider can do the same. You are broadcasting those information on the street, they did not come to steal them from your house! It's like having an apple tree with fruits hanging out of your property.
If they released those data publicly, that would be a problem, but that is not the case. Unfortunately it is Google, so that is a big deal... :)
based on ur apple tree example, its not consider stealing if someone takes ur property without asking if its in the open right?
Also if you're going to try to tell someone else they're wrong, you should really make sure you're at least using the language you're speaking in properly.
http://www.teamofprogrammers.com/2010/05/i-spoke-to-loud-and-someone-heard-me-im.html
In my blog post above, i segment out the different parts of what Google did and relate it to someone who's passing by your house and looking at your house. Since this is literally what Google was doing.
This class action lawsuit is ridiculous. This world is turning into a bunch of people wanting a free ride, wanting handouts. The working class is dwindling.
Its sheep like you that will allow all your privacy rights to diminish to nothing.
The proper analogy is if you have curtains in your house that block a view into your bedroom. But if someone puts a ladder in front and looks over the top of the curtain, they can see in. Both that and Google's conduct violates the law.
Now what about public places that provide free WiFi services? Starbucks, McDonalds, libraries, airports, etc... how are they suppose to protect the info? Or maybe we should go back to dark age, just because some giant thinks it can mess up with our privacy?
As Software Engineer I can say that things like this can't happen by mistake, to sniff and parse the data a lot of efforts are required and that "small" piece of code is not that small at all.
@Dave perhaps you didn't read Alessio's post also. He explains the parsing of the data wasn't done on the fly, which is what it was saved in the first place.
It's amusing that because a company connected to the public network that NOW everyone is all up in arms. Free wifi services are open for ANYONE to packet sniff with no extra coding needed, as there are already programs out there for this very purpose. So why weren't people up in arms before about their privacy?
Simple. There was nobody they could make money off of before.
You're a Software Engineer as well? So i'm sure you are well aware that most any site that has sensitive information would already have a layer of encryption with SSL certs. But nobody wants to remind people of this in their articles about "Google's Privacy Violations!". Because if they did, how could they get people all fearful that their identity is going to be stolen? Fear mongering gets rather difficult when people don't omit details.
On a side note, Dave, if they were using standard .NET Framework libraries, it really could be a a small piece of code. Unless someone is using old school methods of programming :)
The constant "blaming the victim" from most people here is disgusting. "Hey, officer, her blouse was cut real low so I just knew she wanted to have me fondle her" This Pirate Bay mentality is shameful...anything is "legal" re: the internet.
Google downloaded information and stored it. Nobody is asking why. There is only so many prime numbers and encryption is reaching a point of not really being so. Next time some Russian teen-aged hacker finds your Visa number, just go blame yourself for trusting encryption technology while you are at it...should walked to the store and used cash.
Your words make it seem like it isn't really about fixing the problem of people being uneducated on how to secure their networks, it's about being able to attain victim status to jump on the wagon of free money!
99% of the people who would get something IF the class action succeeds, were not affected in anyway by the information being gathered.
There's a good chance nobody would have even known if google hadn't admitted to the actions themselves.
For the 1% of people who may have been affected (lets say they were sharing an idea with a friend, over a public network, that had some intellectual property and valuable ideas in the conversation, or maybe someone's facebook login was caught in a packet), THAT is why google decided they should change what they were doing and how they were doing it.
Amusing that you would try to relate anyone on this thread to pirate bay. Not a single person, Google included, involved in this conversation can be grouped with Pirate Bay. PB knowingly operate and encourage sharing of "pirated software". Google is one of the few companies who seems to gear all of it's business decisions in the better interest of the public, even when it may cause a stir (like admitting to a wrong doing).
The fact is, there is no law against what they've done. New laws may be put in place, but they won't affect Google's past actions. Is what they've done ethical? That's debatable (obviously with all your insanely drawn metaphors), but Google ALREADY decided it wasn't how they wanted to operate, so they've stopped that operation until they find another way that will fit within their self-imposed code of conduct.
And here's where i attack your character...
It's very clear what kind of person you are when you use words like "disgusting" and "victim" in a debate about mapping out PUBLIC Wireless Access Points. You jump from public WAP mapping to rape? How'd you make that leap?
I'd hate to have to live in your world Alderwood.
Saving that data seems to be rather meaningless to google. They have maybe 10 seconds top of packet transmissions. Everybody is over reacting. That data is going to just sit there and collect dust.
Google's only mistake was underestimating how high strung people are when it comes to something they don't understand.
Read the articles and the papers filed with the court. There is a federal statute that prohibits exactly what Google did.
I'll correct you, the federal statute prohibits exactly what was alleged as done, of which has been misconstrued in many different ways by different parties to allow them to attempt to benefit from it.
I still stand by that most of the people who are jumping on the bandwagon just want free money. I hate free loaders :)
>based on ur apple tree example, its not consider stealing >if someone takes ur property without asking if its in the >open right?
Jake, this is a terrible analogy. If you do not secure your WiFi network, you have knowingly and actively broadcasted that information for others to intercept PASSIVELY. Due to the inherent design of WiFi, you can’t stop that data from being broadcast to your computer. Outside computers do not even need to do anything in order to intercept the data. It is just AUTOMATICALLY broadcast to all stations within earshot.
If you would like a more accurate analogy, try this one on for size:
In most states pets (specifically Dogs) are considered personal property.
Now if you left for work everyday and left your front door wide open, I would be committing a crime if I were to walk in your house and take your dog. The fact that the front door is open is no excuse.
Now, if your dog walks out that front door and wonders into my yard, have I REALLY committed a crime? Of course not! Technically your dog, which is property, is now on my property and in my possession, but if the dog left on its own and sought out my yard, I had no participation in a crime. It is merely a circumstance that has occurred by your own negligence.
This is exactly to predicament that Google is in. WiFi is a wondering Dog that will seek out someone else system if allowed to roam free. For those of you who do not want your important data to get out, keep your dog in your own yard and lock the gate!
Any privacy here at all?
1) Yes there are laws against this in the UK with a £500,000 fine under "the data protection act" Google defo broke the law in the uk and our government isnt pleased.
2) For all those people saying its your own fault google have done this if you cant be bothered to protect your wifi.
True people should be made more aware of wifi security, not everybody are expert. But, and this is the crutch of the matter here.
What google did was illegal and underhand, like a burglar sniffing around peoples houses looking for that open window, google behaved just like that, sniffing around for peoples unprotected connection, taking advantage of people who dont know what they are doing. Just like a criminal does. the only difference is, this was done electronically. which is indeed the fastest growing crime
Hope they throw the book at them, google are getting far too big and think they own the world, Hope the Uk takes these cocky Yanks down a peg or two now...