Google Confirms Street View Cars Grabbed More than Street Views

[fitbabits]

Whoops! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_google;_ylt=ApxAtE3ybiyev8cbG.kavA2s0NUE;_ylu=X 3oDMTNkZ2l1NDMwBGFzc2V0A25tLzIwMTAxMDI1L3VzX2dvb2d sZQRjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzkEcG9zAzYEcHQDa G9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl9oZWFkbGluZV9saXN0BHNsawNnb29 nbGVzYXlzaXQ-)

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – Google Inc admitted for the first time its "Street View" cars around the world accidentally collected more personal data than previously disclosed -- including complete emails and passwords -- potentially breathing new life into probes in various countries.

The disclosure comes just days after Canada's privacy watchdog said Google had collected complete emails and accused Google of violating the rights of thousands of Canadians.

"If in fact laws were broken...then there's some serious question of culpability and Google may need to face significant fines," said Marc Rotenberg, the executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington DC-based privacy advocacy group.

Regulators in France, Germany and Spain, among others, have opened investigations into the matter.

A coalition of more than 30 state attorneys general in the United States also have launched a joint probe.

It remains unclear how many people may have been affected by the privacy breach.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who is leading the multi-state investigation, said in a statement on Friday that Google's disclosure about the types of data it collected "validates and heightens our significant concerns," and noted that the investigation is continuing.
Let this be a cautionary tale to those people who have unsecured wireless connections - secure that connection. It's not rocket science!

[BLeeP]

Man, I really hope Google didn't get my gmail account.

[TrackZero]

Any government that considers totally open wireless networks "private" are sadly mistaken (including my own, who shamefully does).

[Narradisall]

Well, ok.

Bit of encryption would have helped. Typical though, it's not like streetcars was some evil plan to take over the world.

[AntonThaGreat]

I figured it out. They started with the Google Maps cars manually controlled driving all over the place and taking all our data. Then they figured, that the process would be easier if they had automated cars. So now, they were going to have fleets of robo-cars driving about and taking all your data. Once they had all of our data, they would have owned the world.

But we showed them, didn't we?

I'm going to send this to my friend using GMail and do a little more research on how we can stop this on Google Search. Then I'm going to create a presentation using Google Docs. Then I'm going to again use Google Checkout to buy poster material on my loca... oh shit

[Narradisall]

Never fear, I can stop it all by uploading this virus from my Google phon..... fuck!

[Savok]

'Bout time people started taking notice of the shit Google has been pulling. How do you "accidentally" steal a pile of information? Do no evil my arse.

[TrackZero]

'Bout time people started taking notice of the shit Google has been pulling. How do you "accidentally" steal a pile of information? Do no evil my arse.

Again, it's not stealing when you publicly broadcast it. It's the equivalent of "How dare you see me standing naked in the front window of my house?!" while you were standing naked looking out the front window of your house.

[Narradisall]

I would still have to side with Savok on this one...

Why were the cars even set to download and capture this information to start with?

It's not like seeing some naked person in their house, it's actively capturing data the car should not have been set to do. Unless they developed a way to capture emails and passwords through photo's.


I don't quite get how it was capturing this data, in relation to the function of the cars.

[Savok]

E-fucking-xactly.

All you'd need is a GPS and a camera, where the fuck does harvesting 600Gb of data come from?

And just because you're an idiot for standing in front of your window naked doesn't mean the man hiding in your garden with a camera isn't in the wrong either.

[TrackZero]

I would still have to side with Savok on this one...

Why were the cars even set to download and capture this information to start with?

It's not like seeing some naked person in their house, it's actively capturing data the car should not have been set to do. Unless they developed a way to capture emails and passwords through photo's.


I don't quite get how it was capturing this data, in relation to the function of the cars.

It was mapping wireless networks as part of some old project/code, this was explained by google a year or so back.

And yes, it's still like standing naked in the window. Don't be paranoid and understand if your WiFi has zero encryption, it's a straightforward broadcast device. Google be damned, it's irrelevant. That data is being sprayed out.

[Savok]

*pfft*, right.

Still doesn't explain why they ended up storing 600Gb of other people's data, I'd think all they needed was a simple "yes/no" on where there was wifi anyway.

And stalking is ok if you're "asking for it", awesome.

[jeffbax]

What do you expect from the worlds creepiest CEO?

[Voodoo]

Only 600Gb? That certainly isn't very much. :D

For the public WIFI, couldn't they use those to connect to their own servers? Certainly would save A LOT for them on data comm.

[Goronmon]

This has been known about for months. Not too big of a deal. From what it sounds like, Google wanted to figure out a mapping of wi-fi networks as they collected images for Street View. They used some pre-existing code that happened to grab more data than they had originally planned. I know the UK already let Google off the hook a few months ago.

Honestly, if they had meant to do it on purpose, they could have grabbed much more information and probably would have made more of an effort to hide what they were doing.

[Goronmon]

*pfft*, right.

Still doesn't explain why they ended up storing 600Gb of other people's data, I'd think all they needed was a simple "yes/no" on where there was wifi anyway.

And stalking is ok if you're "asking for it", awesome.
600GB is nothing compared to the amount of information they store about people when you take into account other things like the collection of search habits, GMail and Google Docs.

[Savok]

But it's collecting information outside of their already ever growing sphere of influence.

Letting Google run wild is gonna come back and haunt us all, mark my words.

[Goronmon]

But it's collecting information outside of their already ever growing sphere of influence.

Letting Google run wild is gonna come back and haunt us all, mark my words.
But it's such an insignificant level of data that I'm not sure what to be worried about considering what they are already tracking.

Not that I think we should always give Google a free pass, I just think that if you want to bust out the torches and pitchforks, there are better examples than this wi-fi snooping fiasco.

[Savok]

It's an obvious example though, like the bullshit they pulled with China. We don't get much information outside that since Google employees sign more NDAs then people at Area 51.

[biosc1]

But it's collecting information outside of their already ever growing sphere of influence.

Letting Google run wild is gonna come back and haunt us all, mark my words.

http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/4851/drdoomchap.gif

[muddi900]

*pfft*, right.

Still doesn't explain why they ended up storing 600Gb of other people's data, I'd think all they needed was a simple "yes/no" on where there was wifi anyway.

And stalking is ok if you're "asking for it", awesome.

Routers leak this info. Anyone can store it without knowing about it. ANYONE.

Which is not to say the big G didn't know about it.

[Narradisall]

It was mapping wireless networks as part of some old project/code, this was explained by google a year or so back.

And yes, it's still like standing naked in the window. Don't be paranoid and understand if your WiFi has zero encryption, it's a straightforward broadcast device. Google be damned, it's irrelevant. That data is being sprayed out.

So was that feature supposed to be on, or not? If it was part of some old project.

My point was, these cars were computers. Taking pictures and mapping an area. That's the function, so unless you tell a computer to download the info, it won't. Hence why the naked comparision seemed silly to me.

If the computers weren't supposed to (and hypothetically weren't), it would be like you standing naked in your window, as a blind guy walks by. :D

I don't have any sympathy for people that don't protect their wi-fi's, but if google streetview had been doing what it intended to do, encrypted or not, thet shouldn't have been downloading that data. Computers don't accidentally 'catch an eyeful' of naked guy, they're told to look for it.

[Cit Phil Cit]

Heh. I can't even find my wifi network. it doesn't broadcast, and has a 17 character password if you manually add the name.

[Goronmon]

So was that feature supposed to be on, or not? If it was part of some old project.
This is purely theoretical, but it probably went something like this...

They decide they want to track the existence of wi-fi networks. Someone looks for in-house projects that can help with that. They find one that tracks and stores data on wi-fi networks so they include it in whatever system they place in the street views cars to do so. Fast forward some amount of time after these things have been driving around. People start looking at the data and realize that there is much more information than they had originally anticipated.

[Vermillion]

You act like Google parked outside your house and was sucking up your info. No, they were driving by and probably in range of your house for what, all of 2-3 seconds? And that they didn't even look at the data for fear of privacy concerns.

And the amount of data they collected is pretty freaking low. That was 30 countries over 4 years and they only collected 600 GB? That's nothing.

I don't agree with the whole "it's not stealing" argument though. That's like saying, well if you leave your car doors open it's your fault for your car gets taken for a joy ride by a stranger. Actually, it's not and it still is stealing. Look at the definition of steal "To take (the property of another) without right or permission" or "To get or take secretly or artfully". Pretty sure meets that definition square on (shut your pie hole if you say your data isn't property, as steal also applies to words/ideas).

The thing you need to look at here is intent. Did Google have the malicious intent to gather username and passwords of people using their goomobiles? I would say no. Just say "my bad", delete the data, and move on.

[Generation ABXY]

I'm with Vermillion. If they delete the data and stop collecting more of it, I'm willing to say, yeah, this was a simple mistake.

[Narradisall]

Goronmon. I get ya, that does sound like a plausible explanation.

I would agree with vermillion too, given the amount of data and intent, it's not likely a multiple million dollar company is going to deliberately steal your email so they hack you facebook account. Google likely didn't have malicious intent here, they should just be more careful in future.

[muddi900]

MWAHAHAHAH! It seems Narradisall knows his place. (http://www.theonion.com/articles/google-responds-to-privacy-concerns-with-unsettlin,16891/)

[TrackZero]

I don't agree with the whole "it's not stealing" argument though. That's like saying, well if you leave your car doors open it's your fault for your car gets taken for a joy ride by a stranger. Actually, it's not and it still is stealing. Look at the definition of steal "To take (the property of another) without right or permission" or "To get or take secretly or artfully". Pretty sure meets that definition square on (shut your pie hole if you say your data isn't property, as steal also applies to words/ideas).

The thing you need to look at here is intent. Did Google have the malicious intent to gather username and passwords of people using their goomobiles? I would say no. Just say "my bad", delete the data, and move on.

It's not a car, it's not a physical object. It's a signal you're literally sending out from your home on purpose. If there is any attempt at even turning on shitty security (WEP), then I'd immediately agree the person is trying to have privacy and anyone going after it is stealing. But considering the technology can be for any purpose, you have zero way to say what someone is trying to do when their WiFi is open (maybe it is for public use). That data is being pushed in the open and is IS your fault if you leave that proverbial door open. Otherwise, any laws to protect against someone connecting to an open network get crazy-bad (and obviously only people completely clueless about IT would get worked up about it) and intrude on everyone elses rights and freedoms.

If I'm walking down the street, you're literally pushing the signals with your open text username/passwords through my freaking body. Think about that. If I have any type of device to receive that frequency of signal (even if it's nothing to do with internet), any laws in place to "protect" you would then make me liable for damages. Ultimately the onus needs to always be on the user. Heck, I'm Canadian and I'm telling you that considering open WiFi in any way private is the worst kind of nanny-state nonsense I've ever heard.

[LiquidRain]

I'm going to leave my big 60" TV facing outside on my front window and HEY GUYS STOP WATCHING MY TV I DON'T WANT YOU DOING THAT.

[TrackZero]

i'm going to leave my big 60" tv facing outside on my front window and hey guys stop watching my tv i don't want you doing that.

i'm going to sue u for seeing mah tv! Your after mah channelz!

[Hemalin]

Don't mind me, just watching TV at Liquid's house.

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i264/Hemalin/peeping_tom.jpg

[Vermillion]

How did I know that this was going to devolve real quick into what is stealing.

Track, I already said that, while I understand the data is not a physical object, that the term steal is still applicable in that it can apply to non-physcial objects (such as words or ideas). I think people with unsecure wireless are generally just ignorant. They are usually completely unaware that they are broadcasting personal info. That doesn't mean that everyone has free reign to take advantage of their mistake.

Personally, I think the whole "they're stupid" is a snobbish/elitest attitude tech savy people towards those that aren't.

Google should do these people a solid, drive back to their house, and fix their damn wireless connection.

[diablopath]

Does the concept of intention bear no importance? It's not like a lot of people are *intentionally* broadcasting a lot of this stuff, so the "TV at the window" analogy isn't quite accurate. I know many people that just don't know the technology and weren't aware, prior to my warnings, that their network was unsecured.

[TrackZero]

You're both ignoring my main point. Legally speaking the onus is always on the user, ignorance isn't an excuse to point the finger at someone else, because they can unintentionally break any laws made to "protect" the person who just claims they don't know better. Quite simply, the stupid should be punished instead of everyone else. If you can't use the technology, then don't, but don't expect everyone else should bend down to your level to appease your false sense of safety.

Edit: And yes, again, it's a broadcast device. The rest of us picking up it's open signal is not stealing by any definition, physical or not. If you start hucking oranges at me as I walk down the street and one goes into the bag I'm carrying, I'm not a thief, you're just an idiot.

[Savok]

Oh fuck sake we don't care about what the law says. If laws stopped businesses from being assholes then there wouldn't be any businesses left.

Google portrays itself as everyone's friend, "do no evil", this is a lie, as such it'd be business as usual as with any corporation but people actually believe Google and give them incredible amounts of leeway.

And for the god damn record, I don't even have wifi, I don't fucking trust it for these very reasons.

[Deadend]

How did I know that this was going to devolve real quick into what is stealing.

Track, I already said that, while I understand the data is not a physical object, that the term steal is still applicable in that it can apply to non-physcial objects (such as words or ideas). I think people with unsecure wireless are generally just ignorant. They are usually completely unaware that they are broadcasting personal info. That doesn't mean that everyone has free reign to take advantage of their mistake.

Personally, I think the whole "they're stupid" is a snobbish/elitest attitude tech savy people towards those that aren't.

Google should do these people a solid, drive back to their house, and fix their damn wireless connection.

No, you can't STEAL an idea unless you are in Inception, you can plagiarize an idea, but finding out someone's non-secret? Did Good plagiarize or take actions based on data that was passively recorded? Now that is a question.
I also assume it was passive data-recording of open networks, not active/intrusive.

But they are being stupid about wi-fi, and the word tech-savy makes me want to kick someone in the dick. As the "non-savy" are generally being willfully ignorant and don't want to understand basic concepts or ideas about technology and refuse text messaging. They tend to go "OH! I DON'T GET TECHNOLOGY!" before even attempting to use a device. So yes, they do deserve contempt, like anyone else who is told "look, this will take about 10 minutes to explain it, if you want to get the basic idea." or even just follow the big bold words in most instruction manuals that say "THEN CHECK THIS BOX TO ENABLE WPA/2, now think of a good password, do this or you will be raped!" and then ignore it going "IM NOT TECH SAVY!" In short, fuck them.

[TrackZero]

Oh fuck sake we don't care about what the law says. If laws stopped businesses from being assholes then there wouldn't be any businesses left.

Google portrays itself as everyone's friend, "do no evil", this is a lie, as such it'd be business as usual as with any corporation but people actually believe Google and give them incredible amounts of leeway.

And for the god damn record, I don't even have wifi, I don't fucking trust it for these very reasons.

Ah, now I see where you hangup is. My points I've brought up here have nothing to do with google. I don't care what company this could have happened to, my points all still stand as it being a non-issue. If you want to hate on google, by all means, have at it, but that's irrelevant to what the rest of us have been discussing. I suggest you create a new thread about how google is your personal devil.

[Narradisall]

MWAHAHAHAH! It seems Narradisall knows his place. (http://www.theonion.com/articles/google-responds-to-privacy-concerns-with-unsettlin,16891/)

Always side with the guy that knows where you live. ;)

[Savok]

Ah, now I see where you hangup is. My points I've brought up here have nothing to do with google. I don't care what company this could have happened to, my points all still stand as it being a non-issue. If you want to hate on google, by all means, have at it, but that's irrelevant to what the rest of us have been discussing. I suggest you create a new thread about how google is your personal devil.
I don't care what company it is either, gathering 600Gb of sensitive data from unknowing idiots and then just sitting on it is alarming for anyone. My problem is that were it anyone else people would have fucking pitchforks and torches out, only since it's Google it's ok.

That you'd be willing to ignore any company running around farming information is even more appalling.

[TrackZero]

I don't care what company it is either, gathering 600Gb of sensitive data from unknowing idiots and then just sitting on it is alarming for anyone. My problem is that were it anyone else people would have fucking pitchforks and torches out, only since it's Google it's ok.

That you'd be willing to ignore any company running around farming information is even more appalling.

Bolded to make my point.

As to your last statement, that doesn't make any sense. I've made all my points saying this entire topic is a non-issue, of which you've had no response to rather than "Oh fuck sake we don't care about what the law says.". You want a mob, go make one, but you have no legs to stand on.

[Savok]

Jesus fuck I'll spell it out.

I have a serious problem with this under any circumstance, the fact it's Google so no one really cares only compounds the problem.

This isn't a bunch of assholes looking to make trouble, this is a massive company that's stock and trade is information, running round in a car collecting the information from idiots and then sitting on it. Then lying about it.

[LiquidRain]

I'm sorry, what? Where in the article is Google lying? Let's have a look.

Google's Street View cars, which are well known for crisscrossing the globe and taking panoramic pictures of the city's streets, accidentally collected data from unsecured wireless networks used by residents in more than 30 countries, Google disclosed in May.
Oh yeah they're really hiding the fact that they got this stuff. They waited sooooooo long to disclose this data. So long, in fact, that governments and journalists waited over 6 months to tell us about it!

A Google spokesperson said the company had not examined the roughly 600 GB of data captured by the cars in any detail to avoid violating privacy.

Google also said in the blog post that it hoped to delete the data as soon as possible.

Google had deleted the data in countries where regulators had given it permission to do so, a spokeswoman said.
And here's why I made the point above: Where regulators had given it permission to do so. That is, Google could not delete the data they collected because they were abiding by the law in keeping it in the first place. They had to ask the governments if they could delete the data. You think they collected that data because they wanted to? That's not what they were interested in! They don't want your emails and passwords!

Your anger is misdirected.

[TrackZero]

What Liquid said. You're off base here Savok, just let it go.

[Ink Asylum]

I don't care what company it is either, gathering 600Gb of sensitive data from unknowing idiots and then just sitting on it is alarming for anyone.

It's only alarming if you're an unknowing idiot about your sensitive data. I simply cannot muster any anger towards anyone, Google or otherwise, who accidentally picks up data people are foolishly broadcasting without protection or encryption, while in the process of researching wi-fi networks. It is the virtual equivalent of what the Google Street View cars are already doing, gathering publicly available data. If Street View doesn't upset you, then this really shouldn't either.

I'll save my ire for clear violations of privacy and obvious intent to use gathered data for malicious purposes. This smattering of e-mails picked up accidentally doesn't come close to anything like that.

[burger]

Again, it's not stealing when you publicly broadcast it. It's the equivalent of "How dare you see me standing naked in the front window of my house?!" while you were standing naked looking out the front window of your house.

That doesn't make any sense...otherwise the police wouldn't need a warrant for such things. Just because it can be intercepted doesn't mean it's public and freely available.

[LiquidRain]

That doesn't make any sense...otherwise the police wouldn't need a warrant for such things. Just because it can be intercepted doesn't mean it's public and freely available.
Again, people aren't understanding.

Google is not intercepting wifi messages. You cannot intercept a radio signal that is broadcasting itself freely and unencrypted.

Imagine this: A man commits a crime. He yells in his house repeatedly for 3 hours while cops are sitting on the street that he has commited this crime. Cops knock on the door and the man all of a sudden denies the crime.

Do the cops need a warrant to testify that the yelling took place should it go to court?

[Savok]

Enjoy the Internet when Google owns it.

[Ink Asylum]

I, for one, am glad this discussion hasn't devolved into paranoia and hyperbole.

[burger]

Again, people aren't understanding.

Google is not intercepting wifi messages. You cannot intercept a radio signal that is broadcasting itself freely and unencrypted.

Imagine this: A man commits a crime. He yells in his house repeatedly for 3 hours while cops are sitting on the street that he has commited this crime. Cops knock on the door and the man all of a sudden denies the crime.

Do the cops need a warrant to testify that the yelling took place should it go to court?

You'd have a point if it wasn't illegal in most states to grab people's wi-fi signals. ;)

Otherwise your analogy is spot on! :p

[biosc1]

I do love, how in some markets, they are told to delete the data by one arm of the government and then told by another arm of the government that it would be illegal to delete the data. (I think it was France)

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/57/tinfoilz.jpg

[MagGnome]

I, for one, am glad this discussion hasn't devolved into paranoia and hyperbole.

Seriously.

I'm usually one of the first people to sound the alarm when a corporation abuses power, but in this case I really don't see what the big deal is.

[J Arcane]

As I recall, at least one of the countries actually told them not to delete the data because their governments wanted it for themselves, a request Google thankfully refused.