Google In The Hot Seat Over WiFi Privacy Breach

HARTFORD, Conn. -- Google representatives on Monday said the search engine company has not broken any laws with the collection of data for its mapping service, after Connecticut's attorney general pressed the company to "come clean with the American public."

Authorities fear the information gathered for Google's Street View service, which provides pictures of neighborhoods, may violate privacy laws.

Last month, Google acknowledged it had mistakenly collected data over public Wi-Fi networks in more than 30 countries.

Police in Germany and Australia already have launched their own investigations into the matter.

"As we have said before, this was a mistake," said a Google spokeswoman in an e-mail statement to the Associated Press. "Google did nothing illegal and we are working with the relevant authorities to answer their questions and concerns."

The attorneys general of Connecticut and Missouri have both sent letters to Google executives asking for clarification on the information collected for Street View.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal held a press conference Monday urging the search engine company to reveal whether it had illegally collected data from state personal and business wireless computer networks.

"People have legitimate expectations that private information will be kept private," he said. "These drive-by data sweeps may violate not only those expectations, but also possibly the law."

The Attorney General also said in his statement, "Drive-by data sweeps of unsecured Wi-Fi networks here would be deeply disturbing, a potentially impermissible, pernicious invasion of privacy," adding, "My office can evaluate whether laws were broken."

He said the data collection could give Google access to personal e-mails, passwords and web browsing histories, though he had no reports of any problems.

"Google should come clean with the American public by answering questions we have put to them about whether it intercepted information from unsecure wireless data networks while its Street View cars were taking pictures of people's homes and businesses," said Blumenthal. "Their credibility depends on truthful and prompt answers to these questions."

Comments

[AnonymousDissenter]

03:19 AM on 06/09/2010

Google... don't be evil.

[EcnelisDoogod]

01:43 PM on 06/08/2010

Meanwhile, at&t and other telecoms get retroactive immunity for their obvious violation OF THE LAW. Hmmm. What's wrong with this picture?

[EcnelisDoogod]

01:52 PM on 06/08/2010

Remember this? http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/04/70619

[Eris23]

03:38 PM on 06/08/2010

Also, the DOJ prosecutes the person who leaked the info.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/us/16indict.html

[TedEjr]

12:14 PM on 06/08/2010

From the article--Google representatives on Monday said the search engine company has not broken any laws with the collection of data for its mapping service (End Quote)

Sounds like Google has some clever attorneys.

Unless some legislature has passed a regulation indicating that one cannot engage in x, y, or z behaviour, then, technically, one has not broken a LAW. Regardless of the lack of appropriateness of the act.

As others have said, the general public has NO idea how insecure their information is when they use WIRELESS internet connections. Whether that be at Starbucks, or whether that be at home. The ONLY way to 100% guarantee that your information will not be tapped by your neighbor, or the person sitting next to you, is by being connected through a cable. When you do anything of a confidential nature in a wireless fashion it is like walking outside naked. You are exposed to the world. WAP and WEP notwithstanding.

[Eris23]

01:21 PM on 06/08/2010

I don't see how their attorneys are even being clever though. That would imply that they have tried to play with the wording of a law in order to make an otherwise illegal act appear legal. Yet, that hasn't been done, and there's pretty clear language at 18 USC 2510-2511 that is on Google's side.

I'll agree with you that the general public may be unaware as to how unsecure their wireless connections are. However, I'm not even so sure it's unawareness as much as it is ambivalence and apathy involved. Almost a decade ago when I got my first wireless router, while it did come with password protection/encryption disabled, the set up guide had instruction on how to enable it. That hasn't changed. Meanwhile, more and more stories have come out over the years regarding others doing nefarious things with peoples' unsecured wireless connections (hacking others' machines without having to worry about being personally traced, downloading pornography, pirated material, etc.).

Thus, I bet a lot of it has more to do with people just not caring and thinking nothing will happen to them, as is the case with most people who do something reckless and end up getting burnt as a result. It's not that they didn't know someone could grab what they were doing. They just assumed it would never happen until they found out it did.

[TedEjr]

01:35 PM on 06/08/2010

Yes, they are trying to play clever with wording, but my point is that their point is that since the act is not SPECIFICALLY illegal, they claim that they are innocent of breaking any laws.

Technically, that is true. But, the are using the non-existence of a statute to justify acts which are QUESTIONABLE, even though TECHNICALLY not illegal. That was why I say that they are being clever. That was MY intent. Yes, your definition of clever is a valid analysis also. But that was not the perspective that I was coming from. There ARE two ways to view it.

Put another way, if there are no laws outlawing you from taking fruit from your neighbors tree (I know that there ARE, but for the hypothetical, pretend that there are not.) and you take some. Morally, that is not right. But, should you justify your act because technically there is no law prohibiting it?

[TedEjr]

02:45 PM on 06/08/2010

In the immortal words of Gilda Radner's character, Roseanne RoseannaDana---Nevermind. LOL.

One time is my max with explanations.

[janice33rpm]

11:30 AM on 06/08/2010

Great article highlighting the need for everyone to have a much higher computer/data security awareness. Check a (free) blog, "The Business-Technology Weave" (can Google to it) - it reflects what this article is saying. Breaches are costly ($), but have a bad enough one and the cost is exponential: You could lose your #1 asset - your reputation - and possibly the business itself. Breach potential has to be attacked by instituting a new cultural awareness, and Business Continuity planning should address it, as well as Acceptable Use, Security, and DR plans and policies. The majority of breaches are due to human error, therefore awareness and common sense are key, in supporting all necessary best practices. The blog author also has a book we use at work, "I.T. WARS" (you can Google that too). It has a great Security chapter, and others that treat security. Highly recommended. Great stuff.

[thinkb4uleapII]

11:06 AM on 06/08/2010

I'm beginning to think that Google is likely making money "hand over fist" from a large variety of undocumented sources -- the same for Facebook (hence the great privacy debate).

Consider that Google is able to analytically trend the direction, with great accuracy, of a vast array of internet activity. There are a lot of people, companies, organizations, agencies, governments, et al., willing to pay for that type of predictive analysis. For example, Goldman Sachs and others may have a financial interest in small companies whose profile have grown significantly over recent years (a form of insider trading perhaps), or areas where the housing market is rebounding... the data mining possibilities are endless. This type of information can easily be extracted using Google's search technology. Transactions for these types of services can also be easily disguised using Google's keyword advertising system.

Is any of the above illegal? I don't know, but the financial impetus to harvest more and more precise personal data is obvious.

[Eris23]

10:20 AM on 06/08/2010

This is actually getting a bit old. I'm no fan of Google but, if someone wants to claim what they did was illegal, I'd love to see them cite a law that specifies how. So far, the only info I've gotten from that involves an attorney who launched a class action law suit, where the law cited demonstrates very clearly that Google didn't violate the law.

[thinkb4uleapII]

11:08 AM on 06/08/2010

It may not be illegal, but it certainly strikes an ominous tone with me.

[Eris23]

11:21 AM on 06/08/2010

However, you've got politicians and prosecutors grandstanding about this regarding the legality of it. That actually bothers me more.

[geedeck]

10:18 AM on 06/08/2010

It's important to realize this is no big deal. No one should have any expectations of privacy on an unsecured network. It's like if you taped your social security card to your front door, you wouldn't have any reasonable claim to the privacy of it.

Unsecured wireless is exactly the same.

This isn't a google problem. This is a technology education issue, much like America has always had. People are always terrified of being smart about computers. That's the really scary thing, and nothing more. Google is merely the most benign way we could ever hope to draw attention to this issue.

[sizogee]

09:17 AM on 06/08/2010

Here's how we know Google has nothing malicious in mind, and that this was an accident:

There is no way Google could have used this information to make money. What are they going to do? Steal identities and get fake credit cards? Piece together a user database that pales in comparison to their legally-obtained user database?

[Eris23]

10:22 AM on 06/08/2010

I'm sure there are ways it could piece together information from various packets to get some valuable information. However, it still isn't breaking the law. Running an unsecured wireless internet connection that can be picked up from outside one's home is akin to having a conversation with someone in a public park. If someone over hear's anotherand acts in some way based on what they said, they haven't violated that person's privacy.

[thinkb4uleapII]

11:27 AM on 06/08/2010

You are kidding, right? The ability for them to make money from the information harvested in this specific case may be minimal, but tie this technology to their already extensive analytical tools and the financial opportunities are profound (saying nothing of the privacy implications).