Google: We Really Didn't Delete All Street View Data

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
It's sad that they are still "claiming" that they "accidentally" collected and STORED the data. Find the executive that "approved" it - for a LONG jail sentence.
 
Any data acquired from an unsecured wifi connection should be allow to be kept and sold to anyone, it is like doing something on your front lawn and being offended when you find images of it on the internet, if you make it publicly accessible it should be fair game. If i can drive down your street and harvest data off your unsecured wifi you really shouldn't be allowed to have wifi.
 
[citation][nom]hunter315[/nom]Any data acquired from an unsecured wifi connection should be allow to be kept and sold to anyone, it is like doing something on your front lawn and being offended when you find images of it on the internet, if you make it publicly accessible it should be fair game. If i can drive down your street and harvest data off your unsecured wifi you really shouldn't be allowed to have wifi.[/citation]

There is so many things wrong with what you have just said, that I don't believe it's necessary for me to form a counter arguement.
 
it's the router owner's own damn fault for not securing their property, or at least buying it somewhere that would secure it for them. It's not hard to do, shit they all come with discs.

Either way, If i left my car on the street, unlocked with the doors wide open and somebody came and stole it, the insurance company ain't gonna pay me squat because I left it totally accessible to anybody.
 
I'd be curious about how much data street view collects. That's a lot information to sift through. Heck, I have hard enough time managing all the pictures my wife takes of the kids.

That said google is really good about collecting data but they seem to have a hard time with getting rid of it.
 
It's both parties fault. It's a bad thing for people to leave their network unsecure and Google's fault for tapping into it. It's anyone's choice to be ignorant and not secure their wifi and it's any companies choice to not follow rules.
 
[citation][nom]internetlad[/nom]it's the router owner's own damn fault for not securing their property, or at least buying it somewhere that would secure it for them. It's not hard to do, shit they all come with discs.Either way, If i left my car on the street, unlocked with the doors wide open and somebody came and stole it, the insurance company ain't gonna pay me squat because I left it totally accessible to anybody.[/citation]Not a good analogy since a car is a physical device. WiFi radio waves are energy and don't care about property lines. The same problem affects cell phones and most any display susceptible to Van Eck phreaking. The legal issue is that to connect to a WiFi, your signal must enter their property - an odd situation with omni-directional antennas because everyone's signals cross property lines all the time. Considering that some people believe that RF energy can cause health problems (direct action upon cells or indirectly through medical devices like heart pacemakers), I'm surprised there hasn't been any lawsuits between neighbors for "RF trespassing".
 
[citation][nom]JeTJL[/nom]It's both parties fault. It's a bad thing for people to leave their network unsecure and Google's fault for tapping into it. It's anyone's choice to be ignorant and not secure their wifi and it's any companies choice to not follow rules.[/citation]

So it's a woman's fault for being raped because she was wearing revealing clothing? and then the rapist gets a slap on the wrist because he claims it was an accident.
 
[citation][nom]fonzy[/nom]So it's a woman's fault for being raped because she was wearing revealing clothing? and then the rapist gets a slap on the wrist because he claims it was an accident.[/citation]

I don't even...
 
I don't get it. Accidentally or otherwise, there's no reason they should be using wifi while mapping, let alone sniffing.

If it's to find and list hotspots, well, listing private access points is either pointless or potentially fraudulent. So again, they have no business sniffing.
 
Its to use the wifi SSID's to assist GPS. You wifi sees the SSID, forwards that to google and they can get a closer estimation of where you are. 3 SSID's and they can pin point you. I understand collecting certain information but they got more that was necessary.

Also they are giving the Govt the data, they should have deleted it before letting the ICO 'analyse' it. Probably terms of their pathetic $25,000 fine.

 
I'm glad they're at least auditing their systems to make sure they get rid of all of it. How many companies have "missed" data they were suppose to delete and just said "Oops we thought we got it all"
 
I don't know. Probably the same number of companies that "missed" intentionally writing code to sniff wifi networks. or "missed" intentionally storing the information. or "missed' intentionally lying about doing it. or "missed" lying about deleting it.

Actually thinking about it. Not many companies could have done all this and more besides Google.
 
[citation][nom]hunter315[/nom]Any data acquired from an unsecured wifi connection should be allow to be kept and sold to anyone, it is like doing something on your front lawn and being offended when you find images of it on the internet, if you make it publicly accessible it should be fair game. If i can drive down your street and harvest data off your unsecured wifi you really shouldn't be allowed to have wifi.[/citation]
Only 1 problem with selling data for an unsecured WiFi....it's considered theft of service to connect to it and would leave Google as an accomplice.
 
The initial instruction was very clear: just delete all personal data collected. But google wants to play safe and pass the ball back to ICO: you decide what we should delete. Now ICO wants to pass back the burden by saying: you should not have collected them in the first place. Back to just delete all personal data plus maybe some fine for us telling you so again.
 
[citation][nom]internetlad[/nom]it's the router owner's own damn fault for not securing their property, or at least buying it somewhere that would secure it for them. It's not hard to do, shit they all come with discs.Either way, If i left my car on the street, unlocked with the doors wide open and somebody came and stole it, the insurance company ain't gonna pay me squat because I left it totally accessible to anybody.[/citation]

when someone steals something, they do that knowingly, they don't accidentally steal your TV. so all that happens with that attitude is - "Oh look, someone left their car unlocked, this justifies me stealing it" which is the attitude of lowlifes who need sterilisation!!
 
Now I wonder why the ICO wants the information from Google? I'd sooner trust Google with the information than some company or whatever that I've never heard of before (ICO)

Not British btw so my lack of knowledge of the ICO's existence is justifiable.

I also agree that people that don't secure their wireless properly deserve to get their information stolen. It's not that hard to enable WPA2-AES and disable broadcast.
 
You make it sound as if Google were caught still having data. They did a full examination on their own of their Steetview data. They found out that some WIFI data was still there and they told the public about it. They're being transparent and reported their wrong-doing themselves.
 
[citation][nom]cookoy[/nom]The initial instruction was very clear: just delete all personal data collected. But google wants to play safe and pass the ball back to ICO: you decide what we should delete. Now ICO wants to pass back the burden by saying: you should not have collected them in the first place. Back to just delete all personal data plus maybe some fine for us telling you so again.[/citation]But that was not the agreement the ICO wants a copy of all the data collected so if Google just deleted it it would be a crime, if they just up and send it to them after the deadline the ICO is blindsided. This is a heads up from Google that there is more.
My issue is who is performing oversight on the ICO? Are they using this data for anything? Passing it along to Intelligence agencies? I personally think that having WiFi is a responsibility, everyone out there has a relative, Friend, Co-worker, or ISP, that can walk them through securing WiFi. Anyone with an open WiFi should be sent a notice to correct the issue or lose their internet connection until it is corrected.

 
[citation][nom]hunter315[/nom]Any data acquired from an unsecured wifi connection should be allow to be kept and sold to anyone, it is like doing something on your front lawn and being offended when you find images of it on the internet, if you make it publicly accessible it should be fair game. If i can drive down your street and harvest data off your unsecured wifi you really shouldn't be allowed to have wifi.[/citation]
You're wrong, because people don't *know* that it's publicly available and don't know how to change it. If you tell them, 99% of them will want their wifi secured with a password.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom