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

Status
Not open for further replies.

davewolfgang

Distinguished
Aug 30, 2010
451
0
18,810
17
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.
 

hunter315

Champion
Moderator
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.
 

azathoth

Distinguished
Jun 25, 2011
1,170
0
19,660
180
[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.
 

internetlad

Distinguished
Jan 23, 2011
1,080
0
19,310
10
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.
 

spiketheaardvark

Distinguished
Apr 14, 2009
129
11
18,715
7
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.
 

JeTJL

Distinguished
Oct 8, 2011
85
0
18,630
0
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.
 

jhansonxi

Distinguished
May 11, 2007
1,262
0
19,280
0
[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".
 

fonzy

Distinguished
Dec 23, 2005
396
0
18,780
0
[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.
 

hate machine

Honorable
Jun 14, 2012
255
0
10,780
0
[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...
 
G

Guest

Guest
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.
 

anti-painkilla

Distinguished
Mar 29, 2011
1,022
0
19,460
80
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.

 

ddpruitt

Honorable
Jun 4, 2012
1,109
0
11,360
45
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"
 

dheadley

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2006
171
0
18,680
0
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.
 

sykozis

Distinguished
Dec 17, 2008
1,759
5
19,865
37
[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.
 

cookoy

Distinguished
Aug 3, 2009
1,324
0
19,280
0
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.
 

blackmancer

Distinguished
Nov 29, 2008
429
0
18,810
16
[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!!
 

Pherule

Distinguished
Aug 26, 2010
591
0
19,010
8
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.
 

schmich

Distinguished
Sep 17, 2009
284
0
18,780
0
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.
 

Tremec

Distinguished
Apr 14, 2006
51
0
18,660
7
[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.

 

beayn

Distinguished
Sep 17, 2009
947
0
18,990
1
[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.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts