NEWS: Google accused of criminal intent over StreetView data

Google is "almost certain" to face prosecution for collecting data from unsecured wi-fi networks, according to Privacy International (PI).

The search giant has been under scrutiny for collecting wi-fi data as part of its StreetView project.

Google has released an independent audit of the rogue code, which it has claimed was included in the StreetView software by mistake. But PI is convinced the audit proves "criminal intent".

"The independent audit of the Google system shows that the system used for the wi-fi collection intentionally separated out unencrypted content (payload data) of communications and systematically wrote this data to hard drives. This is equivalent to placing a hard tap and a digital recorder onto a phone wire without consent or authorisation," said PI in a statement.

This would put Google at odds with the interception laws of the 30 countries that the system was used in, it added.

MORE:

Reply to
John Navas
Loading thread data ...

I'm not defending Google, but I have to wonder how much "unencrypted content (payload data)" they were able to gather as they drove down the various streets. It seems like the vehicle would be out of range before it could gather much payload data.

Reply to
Char Jackson

If they were trying to do wifi location as part of their mapping I doubt that they would be moving, I would expect them to be stationary to increase the accuracy of their triangulation when using GPS. Googles patent:-

Reply to
Bob

I've only seen the camera cars twice, once on my street and once again in another residential part of my city. Both times they were moving with the speed of traffic, about 25-30 MPH. If they were stopping every time they saw an open network, they wouldn't get very far.

Reply to
Char Jackson

I haven't seen them as yet as I was on holiday when they did my town. Given the accuracy of GPS and if they were moving all of the time I can't see that wifi location will be all that accurate. They seem to have taken pictures every 12 metres on the estate and according to my neighbour they stopped several times however he didn't say whether this was prior to turning into other roads or not. Several roads were missed although they effectively circumnavigated those areas by using other roads.

Reply to
Bob

Well if they want to send over a bomb or missile then it won't be accurate enough but for commercial purposes such as "here are some nearby fish and chip shops" it seems fine.

Reply to
bod43

Where I live over 50% oh households turn off their routers when they are not at home and at present I am staying at relatives, about 200 miles north of where I live, and that figure has increased to about 80%. I would also say that with people changing their ISP options and consequently their SSID's, most people never change their ISP's unique SSID's but everytime the router or ISP is changed the SSID changes, that their has been a 40% change in the last 18 months and I doubt Google are going to renew their database that frequently so I am not convinced about using consumer wifi as a location device in the UK. It would probably work with wifi hotspots which tend not to change and are near to your "fish and chip shops" but I see no reason for them to be recording wifi networks on housing estates which are a couple of miles away from anything.

Reply to
Bob

Or, depending on your point of view, equivalent to overhearing some snips of a telephone conversation while walking past an open window.

This doesn't appear to be a very objective or credible "study".

I'm not suggesting that Google's actions were entirely appropriate but this kind of rhetoric isn't going to help people understand what actually took place and why.

Reply to
Malcolm Hoar

In article , John Navas wrote: " Google is "almost certain" to face prosecution for collecting data " from unsecured wi-fi networks, according to Privacy International " (PI).

What garbage.

1) Publically received radio while driving down a public street. 2) They didn't crack the encryption. 3) The content wasn't important. 4) They had no intent to turn all of that completely public unimportant content into a criminal use.

Those aren't "OR". They are "AND".

The people after Google are politicians (and those fooled by them), not good citizens.

Reply to
Brad Allen

You'd have to think like a programmer to realize these things, but:

  1. MAC addresses (Bob Metcalfe et al & Std Bodies) are used, not SSIDs.
  2. When you are a user of the data, you also send the data back to the database about what you find. So, you find out MAC address A and B are in the known database, and MAC address C D E F G and H aren't around that are in the database, and MAC address I J K L are around but not in the database. You send an update to the database of what you found. The database and you do probabilistic calculations to figure out if MAC addresses A and B simultaneously moved or if you're actually where the database has them marked. This has to do with tracking the location the set of all MAC addresses across time and place.
  3. It's not just the wifi routers: it's the clients, too, so that doubles the number of stations to store info about.

So, the 50% to 80% of households turning off their Wifi routers or changing their SSIDs doesn't really stop the database from working. Coupling it with real-world use (constant update, GPS backup data, people who don't turn off their wifi, etc.), the database really is very useful for what it does. I can see that in some pockets it isn't as useful, but for the most part, it is very useful.

Google driving about is basically to seed the database faster than GPS-enabled responders can, but with GPS response updating the database, it's basically not necessary for the Google seed. It's just a quick jump-start to the whole process.

Of course, if it's programmed wrong, then it doesn't have to work right or well.

Reply to
Brad Allen

FYI, business grade GPS is quite accurate even while moving, on the order of a few feet. Even my new wrist GPS can manage that.

Reply to
John Navas

As I pointed out the router is being changed and hence the MAC address is changed.

Reply to
Bob

And how do you know? Have you actually gone to known reference point and taken several readings or do you assume the adverts are correct? "The declaration of the accuracy by Garmin GPS receivers often leads to confusion. What does it mean if the receiver states an accuracy of 4 m? This readout refers to the so-called 50 % CEP (Circular Error Probable). This means that 50 % of all measurements are within a radius of 4 m. On the other hand, 50 % of all measured positions are outside of this radius. Furthermore, 95 % of all measured positions are within a circle of twice this radius and 98.9 % of all positions are within a circle of

2.55 the radius. In the given example, nearly all positions are within circle with a radius of 10 m. The determined position is in the worst case accurate to 10 m."
Reply to
Bob

I do repeatability testing against fixed objects. Quite important when you want (as I do) to be able to navigate a boat in close quarters without good visuals (e.g., in dense fog).

Reply to
John Navas

Their maps aren't very good, either. I got rid of mine when right after a map download update, my stick-on Garmin GPS showed me flying across the bay rather than riding on the north-bound span of the Benicia bridge. The update wasn't free, and I considered that an egregious error, even for freeware.

I quit using it as not dependable.

Reply to
John Higdon

" > 1. MAC addresses (Bob Metcalfe et al& Std Bodies) are used, not SSIDs. " As I pointed out the router is being changed and hence the MAC address " is changed.

Sorry; the almost irrelevant SSID mention threw me off and I didn't do detailed reading. Your principle is correct: the MAC address therefore changes.

Reply to
Brad Allen

Are the numbers of people using ISP provided WiFi routers (for which they probably pay $10 or so/month extra) that high? And doubly so, is there that huge a turnover where you (the earlier poster) are?

I'm much more familiar with areas where the WiFi routers tend to be about 90 percent third party and owned by the consumer (i.e. Linksys, D-Link, etc.). And the churn is less than 5 percent/year...

Reply to
danny burstein

The large ISP's in the UK provide routers each of which comes with encryption enabled and a unique SSID, the SSID's can be of the type BT-abc, SKY-xyz etc. Most users do not change their SSID so it is easy to see when a router has changed. With the advent of 11n I am starting to see that a lot of the routers are being replaced and as the ISP packages change and the increase in availablity of higher speed broadband there is quite a bit of movement between ISP's. I do have some neighbours who use their own routers but in some cases the turnover there is quite high as their needs change. My nearest neighbour has had 8 router/AP's in the last 3 years as his experiments to improve his access around his house, garden and garage were just not quite what he had hoped.

Reply to
Bob

I think that what google have done is probably illegal in the UK. Certainly I have read in the papers that some guy was convicted of sitting outside a house "borrowing" the WiFi. We have many, many wide ranging criminal laws and it would seem impossible that Google are not in breach.

However, in contrast to the Gary McKinnon case where we are keen and anxious to bundle him off to the USA after he 'walked' into some unsecured computers (totalling perhaps 100) we don't seem to care that google has 'walked' into perhaps millions of similarly unsecured computers in every part of the country.

We send defenceless citizens to jail, influential corporates can do what they like and we simply turn away.

formatting link
"In the UK the ICO has said it is reviewing the audit but that for the time being it had no plans to pursue the matter. "

ICO =3D Information Commissioner's Office

Reply to
bod43

When navigating on the water I use a Garmin GPS, easily the gold standard in consumer navigation, but when driving I use Google Maps on my Android phone, which works a treat!

Reply to
John Navas

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.