Did A Google Earth Mistake Cause A Couple's Brutal Murder?
Tumblr 101: Tips And Tricks To Get Started
Google faces landmark fine in Britain for 'gross invasion of privacy'
Britain's Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham, announced yesterday that a new investigation into the Google Street View privacy debacle will be opened. If found guilty of a breach of privacy, Google could face a fine of up to £500,000 ($790,000).While £500,000 might seem like a pittance compared to the billions of dollars that Google has in the bank, it is the maximum fine that a privacy breach in Britain can warrant. It would be a publicity disaster, too, and it would open the flood gates for fines from other countries.
Google has already admitted that both emails and passwords were scooped out of the air by its Wi-Fi snooping. It is probably no coincidence that Britain is only now announcing a new investigation into the matter -- and it's hard to see how this new investigation can return anything other than a guilty verdict for Google.
Comments
20
Subscribe to commentsChrisOct 25th 2010 7:19AM
I find this ridiculous.
Google accidentally collected packets of information from open Wifi networks. In these packets, one could find some user details if the information isn't encrypted. Basically any site that uses http, passes information in plain text, which is broadcast within a network, and easy for anyone to collect if they so desire.
Of course Google shouldn't have been collecting the information, but the information is in plain view. Users as basically announcing this information. Google didn't have to search or pry for the data, it was readily available to anyone listening. Users need to be more aware of their browsing habits if they want to protect their user credentials.
SilverWaveOct 25th 2010 7:21AM
No it is interception.
So should come under RIPA.
SilverWaveOct 25th 2010 7:26AM
If I leave my doors unlocked, that is foolish but not an invitation for you to enter.
dustin cogburnOct 25th 2010 9:18AM
Open signal's or not, you seem to fail to realize that over 75% of actual average joe computer users dont know the first thing about wifi. They had some dude from best buy set up their wifi and they just know when their laptop is in the house it magically connects to the internet explorers.
Put simply, how the hell do you protect yourself when your not even aware your in danger?
SilverWaveOct 25th 2010 7:20AM
> Britain's Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham
Yeah but he is a waste of space.
Slap on wrist (maybe).
Don't hold your breath though.
@davey_ladOct 25th 2010 8:00AM
IMO it's no different to someone using a neighbours unsecured wi-fi connection... the argument that "it was open" doesn't hold up in the eyes of the law. Open is the new closed
SilverWaveOct 25th 2010 12:58PM
Open is not the same as unsecured.
I may not seal an envelope but that is not an invitation for the postman to snoop.
worriedOct 25th 2010 9:31AM
You go out and take a picture of your street. your neighbour can sue you.
Not because your pick had anything private in it, but because it MAY have had some thing that was in the public domain, eg: the view of their garden...
storm in a teacup, thought police etc...
kmplsvOct 25th 2010 9:38AM
@dustin cogburn
It may sound blunt, but that definitely falls under the "ignorance is not an excuse" category.
SilverWaveOct 25th 2010 1:03PM
That is correct, Google can not claim to be ignorant of the interception laws.
Or ignorant of what the software was designed to do, through countless project meeting and code reviews lots of Google management signed off on this feature of the software.
it wasn't done by accident it was a design feature someone was paid and directed to produce as part of their working day.
Sebastian AnthonyOct 25th 2010 1:07PM
IIRC, the whole problem (if you believe it) was that some guy injected this code without someone signing off on it -- which is why they've hired someone to look after privacy!
And why they're training all the project managers on how to keep things private, of course :)
kmplsvOct 26th 2010 1:26AM
Wonderful. Then you agree. Individuals who took no measure to protect their credentials and left them exposed for all to see, have no reason to complain. Think about how ridiculous it would be if a person were walking nude down the street and as soon as you turned the corner and saw them, they decided to take legal action against you for being a peeping tom.
dustin cogburnDec 19th 2010 5:03PM
@kmplsv ignorance is knowing the issue and not doing nothing about it.
vyisOct 25th 2010 10:57AM
if someone just like to dance naked over the window without closing the curtain, how can he blame others for seeing him?
they are the one who left their wifi open (or just don't dig in for relevant knowledge), everyone in their neighborhood can easily catch their data. Are they going sue their neighbor for receiving data that contain their private information?
SilverWaveOct 25th 2010 1:09PM
>if someone just like to dance naked over the window without closing the curtain, how can he blame others for seeing him?
No and they would get arrested for public indecency.
But if someone tapped your unsecured telephone call that is the same as someone intercepting your browsing on the net or your web uid and pw.
>they are the one who left their wifi open (or just don't dig in for relevant knowledge), everyone in their neighborhood can easily catch their data. Are they going sue their neighbor for receiving data that contain their private information?
Well it would be difficult but yes you could in theory... as long as you didn't invite your neighbour to use the open connection.
SilverWaveOct 25th 2010 1:12PM
Also google are not getting done for "using" the connection they are getting done for intercepting your "using" of your own system.
minibarOct 25th 2010 1:49PM
chris is right. these are public airwaves. google drove their car on the street and listened. that's it. they didn't hack into anything or violate anyones personal computer. sure there needs to be better privacy, but that's mostly in the hands of the owners, manufacturers, and retailers of wifi gear. if those persons cannot or do not act responsibly, then regulators may step in.
SilverWaveOct 25th 2010 1:53PM
Have a look at these comments and think again.
http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2010/10/25/ico_google_probe/
AurrinOct 25th 2010 7:46PM
I don't know what's more ridiculous about this: that people are slamming Google when it was clearly accidental and they've been extremely honest and open about the mistake, or that it's the original Big Brother State planning to level the fine.
ScootahNov 8th 2010 1:47AM
When you broadcast information, I think you lose the right to be outraged if someone is listening.
Because that's what happened. People were broadcasting their information and google heard it. They weren't wardriving, they weren't breaking the ludicrously insecure encryption used by so many people. They were in effect just listening to the broadcasts of people who hadn't made even the most trivial efforts to keep their information private.
I can only imagine the people who are upset about this, printing their email and banking details on a shirt, wearing that shirt in public, and demanding that anyone who's security video caught their details be charged for breaching their privacy.