Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday July 01 2014, @03:07PM   Printer-friendly
from the lets-find-where-we-stand dept.

The BBC is reporting , along with USA Today, that Google is going to be sued in the USA over snooping, rejecting the appeal from Google to dismiss legal action accusing it of breaking privacy laws. From the article:

Google must face a class action lawsuit alleging the Internet giant violated federal wiretap law when its Street View vehicles collected data from private Wi-Fi networks. The U.S. Supreme Court said Monday that it would not consider Google's challenge to the class action lawsuit.

The federal Wiretap Act bans the interception of electronic communications. Google had argued that it was not illegal to collect radio communications or any "form of electronic communication readily accessible to the general public".

But a San Francisco federal judge and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not agree and refused to dismiss the class action. The class action was filed on behalf of individuals whose information was collected from unsecured Wi-Fi networks when Google's Street View cars rode past unsuspecting households.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by captain normal on Tuesday July 01 2014, @03:55PM

    by captain normal (2205) on Tuesday July 01 2014, @03:55PM (#62521)

    What Google did may be morally wrong (when did they drop "do no evil"), but how are the plaintiffs going to prove damages? What did anyone lose other than the false sense of privacy they may have held.

    --
    When life isn't going right, go left.
    • (Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday July 01 2014, @04:07PM

      by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 01 2014, @04:07PM (#62528)
      If there isn't value, why did Google bother capturing it?
      --
      🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
      • (Score: 2) by Leebert on Tuesday July 01 2014, @04:17PM

        by Leebert (3511) on Tuesday July 01 2014, @04:17PM (#62532)
        • (Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday July 01 2014, @08:20PM

          by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 01 2014, @08:20PM (#62676)
          And now they, and everybody else for that matter, won't 'accidentally' do that again.
          --
          🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
      • (Score: 5, Informative) by frojack on Tuesday July 01 2014, @04:24PM

        by frojack (1554) on Tuesday July 01 2014, @04:24PM (#62539) Journal

        Seriously, do we need to refresh your memory about this yet AGAIN?

        This is the SAME street view flap that happened years ago, and Google has already explained that the data was collected and recorded because one engineer forgot to add filtering to the standard airsnort software that they were using to pick up WIFI beacons.

        No use was ever made of the data, or intended to be made, and google already paid the fines, and nobody's data was made public*. Nobody can prove that their data was compromised.

        Its the SAME SHIT DIFFERENT DAY.

        * the only time the data made it into public hands was when various governments demanded it. If they subsequently turned it over to the general public those governments should be sued. Google has already paid their fine.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 1) by present_arms on Tuesday July 01 2014, @04:46PM

          by present_arms (4392) on Tuesday July 01 2014, @04:46PM (#62553) Homepage Journal

          the only time the data made it into public hands was when various governments demanded it

          I think that's the reason why this has been brought up again, if Google hadn't have passed that data, this would have been a none issue

          --
          http://trinity.mypclinuxos.com/
          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Tuesday July 01 2014, @05:31PM

            by frojack (1554) on Tuesday July 01 2014, @05:31PM (#62577) Journal

            But then google would have had to thumb its nose at federal and state subpoenas as well as those from countless other countries.

            If anything this has taught Google that it does not pay to play by the rules. Once they discovered that they had accidentally collected this data they should have immeiately purged every copy of it, started an internal search to make sure there were no copies lurking on backup tapes, THEN and only THEN, issued a public declaration and appology, stating that they purged the data per their stated privacy policy.

            As is stands, no good deed goes unpunished.

            --
            No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Tork on Tuesday July 01 2014, @05:53PM

          by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 01 2014, @05:53PM (#62584)
          "No use was ever made of the data, or intended to be made, and google already paid the fines, and nobody's data was made public*"

          Doesn't matter. Google, a company that makes its money by snooping on people, was busted capturing data and the public is saying "nope!" Their motives are suspect and they should not have been capturing it in the first place, accidentally or not.

          "Google has already paid their fine."

          To the government, not to the people they collected data on.
          --
          🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
          • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday July 01 2014, @10:31PM

            by kaszz (4211) on Tuesday July 01 2014, @10:31PM (#62748) Journal

            A company that steps away from the "do not be evil" and have massive monetary incentive. And can be and is served with NSL. They simple lost the benefit of doubt. It may be a completely innocent mistake but how can we know?

            It's the same as with the story of smartphones and truecrypt etc. We don't believe. We want audited proof or else it will be seen as untrustworthy. That binary NVidia blob and Intel silicon can be spying for all I know.

          • (Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday July 02 2014, @02:02AM

            by frojack (1554) on Wednesday July 02 2014, @02:02AM (#62814) Journal

            To the government, not to the people they collected data on.

            Well, hence, the title of this subthread.

            Private citizens don't get to prosecute on behalf of the state to enforce laws.
            Private citizens need to prove they were damaged.

            --
            No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
            • (Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday July 02 2014, @02:12AM

              by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 02 2014, @02:12AM (#62817)
              Would there be a law to break if no damage could be caused that way?
              --
              🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 02 2014, @11:49AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 02 2014, @11:49AM (#62963)

                Yes, there could be a law to break even if no damage were able to be caused that way. Laws don't have to be reasonable to be passed.

                However, just because it is possible for damage to be caused by what Google did, that doesn't mean there actually was any damage caused by it.

                • (Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday July 02 2014, @03:56PM

                  by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 02 2014, @03:56PM (#63111)
                  So you're saying that there is no value in this data even though Google tried to grab it and there's laws against it. Right?
                  --
                  🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday July 02 2014, @05:17PM

                    by frojack (1554) on Wednesday July 02 2014, @05:17PM (#63148) Journal

                    Its actually never been determined if there is in fact any law in the US that prohibit what google did. And once again: Google did not TRY to grab it.

                    They collected it accidentally, while trying to record WIFI beacons. They accidentally recorded snippets of unencrypted data as well as the beacons.

                    Its a stretch to suggest that wiretapping laws apply to broadcast of unencrypted radio transmissions. This has never been proven in court.

                    And yes, there is no value in the data accidentally collected, because you get a snippet here and there of random packets that happened to be part of non ssl streams.

                    But more to the point, even if someone happened to collect a fragment of a message of unencrypted email (who connects to email without ssl), and this data is kept on tape till purged and nobody saw it, THERE IS NO PROVABLE DAMAGE to the wifi user.
                       

                    --
                    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
                    • (Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday July 02 2014, @05:39PM

                      by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 02 2014, @05:39PM (#63159)
                      Ah yes... 'accidentally' captured data, so they claim.

                      So there's no value, but if we take them at their word they caught the misdeed, admitted to it, and 'deleted it with a third party present' because... well the data is nothing. Right.

                      "THERE IS NO PROVABLE DAMAGE to the wifi user."

                      None of the governments involved, including the US, agree with you.
                      --
                      🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday July 02 2014, @06:57PM

                        by frojack (1554) on Wednesday July 02 2014, @06:57PM (#63197) Journal

                        Actually they DO agree with me.

                        If they didn't, they would order google to pay money to each person who had data slurped.
                        In many cases Google has just paid off governments to make the problem go away and avoid costly trials, even if there were no identifiable statutes that were violated.

                        Google has never been convicted of violating any specific law in the US with regard to this incident.

                        Even the current ruling of civil liability does not indicate that there was criminal liability.

                        --
                        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
                        • (Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday July 02 2014, @07:14PM

                          by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 02 2014, @07:14PM (#63206)
                          "If they didn't, they would order google to pay money to each person who had data slurped."

                          No... they'd pay a fine... just like they actually did.

                          "Google has never been convicted of violating any specific law in the US with regard to this incident."

                          They haven't been found not-guilty, either. Though they have admitted they weren't supposed to be doing that, tsk tsk.

                          "Even the current ruling of civil liability does not indicate that there was criminal liability."

                          It's almost as if we would need some sort of impartial third party to judge the liability of Google's actions. Time to put on your best suit!
                          --
                          🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                          • (Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday July 02 2014, @10:36PM

                            by frojack (1554) on Wednesday July 02 2014, @10:36PM (#63304) Journal

                            Never having been found guilty is the perfect definition of Not Guilty.

                            Tork, stop being a dick. I know you made it out of the 7th grade where you learned this stuff.

                            --
                            No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
                            • (Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday July 02 2014, @11:00PM

                              by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 02 2014, @11:00PM (#63314)
                              "Never having been found guilty is the perfect definition of Not Guilty."

                              Umm... No. Heh. There weren't any charges brought so neither guilt or not-guilt has been ascertained. We're on the victims' side of it here, now, as opposed to just being about law-breakage. (You really seem to have a hard time with this concept.) They took the data and just because they were caught doesn't mean no damage was done.

                              "Tork, stop being a dick. I know you made it out of the 7th grade where you learned this stuff."

                              Frojack, stop being a Google Apologist. You're so quick to take what they're saying at face value that you're willing to forgive a violation of your trust even though their entire business model is about cashing in your privacy. This has ramifications for what they did and for what they will do, you can't just hand-wave it away because they posted on a blog that they're so so sorry for collecting information they'd very much like to have on you.
                              --
                              🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                              • (Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday July 02 2014, @11:40PM

                                by frojack (1554) on Wednesday July 02 2014, @11:40PM (#63329) Journal

                                Guilt is a legal finding.
                                Therefor unless you have been found guilty, you are not guilty.

                                --
                                No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
                                • (Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday July 02 2014, @11:56PM

                                  by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 02 2014, @11:56PM (#63333)
                                  Yes they were fined for being 'not-guilty'.
                                  --
                                  🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
    • (Score: 2) by everdred on Tuesday July 01 2014, @07:05PM

      by everdred (110) on Tuesday July 01 2014, @07:05PM (#62621) Journal

      > when did they drop "do no evil"

      They've never heard of it. Because it's actually "Don't be evil" [wikipedia.org].

  • (Score: 3, Funny) by Alfred on Tuesday July 01 2014, @04:04PM

    by Alfred (4006) on Tuesday July 01 2014, @04:04PM (#62525) Journal

    the amazingly timed poll finishes
    http://soylentnews.org/pollBooth.pl?qid=30&aid=-1 [soylentnews.org]

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Lagg on Tuesday July 01 2014, @04:45PM

    by Lagg (105) on Tuesday July 01 2014, @04:45PM (#62552) Homepage Journal

    This is such a dead horse right now and was just an excuse for sensationalism when it happened. What google did during their silly little wardrive-lite is equivalent to what my cellphone, laptop and wifi dongle does all the time. They deserve more scrutiny and have been real assholes lately about various things. But this is not one of them and it only serves to weaken legit arguments. It also doesn't do much to dismiss that "litigious 'murikan" stereotype.

    --
    http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01 2014, @07:08PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01 2014, @07:08PM (#62623)

      Wish I had mod points for you. A thousand times yes.

  • (Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday July 01 2014, @05:13PM

    by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 01 2014, @05:13PM (#62568)

    Using free/open wifi is wiretapping now? This never should have made it to court. Even if google knew of and was connected to every open access point in the world, it would be legal.

    --
    SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
    • (Score: 1) by present_arms on Tuesday July 01 2014, @05:27PM

      by present_arms (4392) on Tuesday July 01 2014, @05:27PM (#62575) Homepage Journal

      Going to play devils advocate here, isn't snooping on open wifi the same as somebody coming and snooping around my home because my front door is unlocked?

      --
      http://trinity.mypclinuxos.com/
      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday July 01 2014, @05:37PM

        by frojack (1554) on Tuesday July 01 2014, @05:37PM (#62579) Journal

        This has been argued adinfinitum years ago on the green site as well as every tech site on the web.

        Once again, the answer is NO:

        Its more akin to you keeping all of your stuff out on the lawn and in the public street, and then suing anybody who even briefly glanced in the direction of your pile of soiled boxer shorts.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 2, Funny) by present_arms on Tuesday July 01 2014, @07:13PM

          by present_arms (4392) on Tuesday July 01 2014, @07:13PM (#62630) Homepage Journal

          agreed as I said I was just playing devils advocate to get the discussion moving :)

          --
          http://trinity.mypclinuxos.com/
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Tuesday July 01 2014, @08:11PM

          by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 01 2014, @08:11PM (#62669)
          "Its more akin to you keeping all of your stuff out on the lawn and in the public street, and then suing the company who sent out fleets of vehicles, nation-wide, to take pictures of your soiled boxer shorts, with the intention of making them globally available."

          FTFY.
          --
          🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01 2014, @06:52PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01 2014, @06:52PM (#62608)

        It's more like standing on the street and looking into your open window and seeing something because you didn't have curtains / blinds on the window.

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday July 01 2014, @05:44PM

      by frojack (1554) on Tuesday July 01 2014, @05:44PM (#62581) Journal

      Its worse than that. Since your wifi is always listening for wifi hot spots, and can not help but pick up other snippits of information while doing so. Even if you never have your phone associate with that router.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
  • (Score: 1) by hendrikboom on Tuesday July 01 2014, @07:12PM

    by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 01 2014, @07:12PM (#62629) Homepage Journal

    Google seems to be treated differently from the NSA. They too say it's OK because they never looked at the data without a warrant.

    • (Score: 1) by present_arms on Tuesday July 01 2014, @07:22PM

      by present_arms (4392) on Tuesday July 01 2014, @07:22PM (#62636) Homepage Journal

      One law for them and another for the rest of us. Seems to have been the way since money was invented.

      --
      http://trinity.mypclinuxos.com/
      • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday July 01 2014, @10:35PM

        by kaszz (4211) on Tuesday July 01 2014, @10:35PM (#62752) Journal

        It's been that way since some people had more power than others.