Google Street View Suit: WiFi 'Snooping' Case To Proceed, Judge Rules

By Andrew Longstreth

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Google Inc can be sued for allegedly violating federal wiretap law in a lawsuit over the data collection methods of its Street View cars, a judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge James Ware in San Francisco late Wednesday rejected Google's request to dismiss the lawsuit.

Individual plaintiffs from various states have accused the giant search engine company of intentionally intercepting data from personal wireless networks for its Street View vehicles. Their lawsuit seeks class-action status.

Google's Street View cars take panoramic pictures of city streets. The company disclosed in May that the cars had inadvertently collected data from unsecured wireless networks in more than 30 countries, prompting regulatory investigations.

The plaintiffs alleged that Google used vehicles for its Street View operation to collect and analyze various types of information from their wireless connections, including personal emails, passwords, videos, and documents.

Ware ruled that the plaintiffs had sufficiently stated a claim for a violation of the federal Wiretap Act, allowing them to continue to press their case in court.

However, the judge granted Google's request to dismiss part of the lawsuit. He threw out a claim by the plaintiffs for alleged violations of various state wiretap statutes and a claim under California's unfair competition statute.

"We believe these claims are without merit and that the court should have dismissed the wiretap claim just as it dismissed the plaintiffs' other claims," Google said in a statement. "We're still evaluating our options at this preliminary stage."

The case is in re Google Inc. Street View Electronic Communications Litigation, U.S. District Court, District of Northern California, No. 10-MD-02184.

(Reporting by Andrew Longstreth, editing by Gerald E. McCormick)
Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions

Comments

[AEX7]

01:10 PM on 07/01/2011

Glad to see a judge stand up for privacy rights for a change.

[Ericka Anne]

03:10 AM on 07/01/2011

There's one that exists MUCH greater than Google+ and Facebook. Who? OnlyMeWorld. Don't let the name throw you off; it has the potential to be bigger than the above-mentioned. Why? With all the problems that exist from such sites affecting the users PRIVACY, it is only right to have a social network that won't sell your information, recognize your FACE, make money off your site, and ask for every other piece of information you have to your name. I'm sorry but I don't feel the need to verify my Facebook account with my PHONE NUMBER, do you? And the new Google+ share circle--NO. Even if you post something intended for just YOU and a FRIEND, you click that little circle and off it goes shared to the worldwide web. Even if it's set to private! Though you probably know the same goes for facebook.

OnlyMeWorld.com --I love this site. I DID NOT need to use any of my real information to create the account, not even a real email. And an extra bonus is the ability to place Google Adsense Ads on your personal site and actually YOU--yes YOU, the user, gets paid for it! GENIOUS!! That and the geek within me loves the Games, Blogs, Video Chat etc...all in one place...

[theroundearth]

10:09 PM on 06/30/2011

"Google's Street View cars take panoramic pictures of city streets. The company disclosed in May that the cars had inadvertently collected data from unsecured wireless networks in more than 30 countries, prompting regulatory investigations."
. . . . . . .
How is it possible that photographic equipment would "inadvertently" collect networks' data?

[A terrible sadness]

09:02 PM on 06/30/2011

Uh, don't leave your wireless network unsecured, then? Just a thought.

[FBuchan]

10:43 PM on 06/30/2011

Good advice, but in this case it isn't really the specific issue. If you want to draw a parallel here to the real world, you probably have to go with a statement like, "If you leave your door unlocked while you are home, it is acceptable for anyone to wander in and steal your junk." If that were to happen, it would be considered a crime nonetheless, regardless of whether you had the door locked. If it boils down to that Google knowingly collected private data from folks who didn't or didn't know to lock their sytems down, the responsibility of that decision has to still rest with Google, and whomever inside the company choose to actually coolect the unsecured data. Theft is basically theft, whetehr it be private data or a TV, or a sock in a drawer.