Posted on 07/02/2011 12:13:03 AM PDT by LibWhacker
A federal judge ruled that Google can be sued for wiretapping after sniffing open Wi-Fi in Wi-Spy privacy lawsuit about wardriving Street View vehicles.
Looks like Google Street View cars may have been "officially" riding dirty and Google may get slapped hard for its Wi-Spy fiasco. A federal judge did not dismiss the case against Google; instead in the first such decision of its kind, the judge ruled that sniffing open Wi-Fi packets might violate the Federal Wiretap Act.
Remember when intelligence gathering ability was allegedly "going dark" due to the masses moving to VoIP like Skype and the feds had wanted CALEA to require a backdoor so law enforcement can intercept online encrypted communication? Microsoft's "Legal Intercept" patent to monitor VoIP may be the easy-access eavesdropping the feds were hoping for, but it also wasn't too long ago when the FBI was seeking Google's help in wiretapping. It's doubtful the kind of wiretapping help the FBI wanted would have included when the Internet search giant intercepted packets on non-password-protected Wi-Fi networks. But now Google may be legally liable for wiretapping in regards to the 600GB "payload" of MAC addresses, usernames, emails, passwords and other "private" data gobbled up by Street View mapping vehicles.
U.S. District Judge James Ware ruled, [PDF] "The court finds that plaintiffs plead facts sufficient to state a claim for violation of the Wiretap Act. In particular, plaintiffs plead that defendant intentionally created, approved of, and installed specially-designed software and technology into its Google Street View vehicles and used this technology to intercept plaintiffs' data packets, arguably electronic communications, from plaintiffs' personal Wi-Fi networks. Further, plaintiffs plead that the data packets were transmitted over Wi-Fi networks that were configured such that the packets were not readable by the general public without the use of sophisticated packet-sniffer technology."
Although Google argued the data was "readily accessible to the general public," because the networks "were 'open' and 'unencrypted'" and should not then qualify as a wiretapping violation, Judge Ware called that claim "misplaced." This case is important on many levels as it may determine if sniffing open Wi-Fi packets constitutes wiretapping. Sniffing open, unencrypted Wi-Fi is hardly rocket science these days; even the truly clueless can master automated tools like Firesheep and FaceNiff. Whether you leave your wireless network open and unencrypted, or sometimes use such a wireless network at a coffee shop, we should all be paying attention to this to find out if we could be sued for wiretapping.
Google had first claimed it didn't realize it was wardriving, sniffing and snarfing up data on unsecured Wi-Fi networks in about a dozen countries. Then it claimed the Street View car debacle was a mistake and apologized. Now Google claims the lawsuit is "without merit" as it argued that open Wi-Fi networks were like "radio communications." Since the judge is not letting Google wiggle off the wiretapping hook that easily, now the company is considering appealing and is "still evaluating our options at this preliminary stage." I wonder if we'll see Street View cars rollin' or if there are too many people hatin' now?
To while away the hours, you flip open your laptop and begin surfing the internet's best, most awesome website, Freerepublic.com, when suddenly, nine jackbooted thugs in inpenetrable armored exoskeletons begin raining fists down on you, dragging you out of the car through the wing window (thank you Barrett-Jackson!) and haul you off to prison for 20 years.
Insanity. Is this still America?
What's next? Are they going to throw in you jail for reading a flyer left on your windshield because some merchant got peeved that you didn't buy something from him?
yousent to eop.gov.).
I’m not sure Google was living up to its earlier “do no evil” motto when it was doing this. It sounds like maybe the Google vans were cracking weakly encrypted WEP connections as well as logging nonencrypted connections. I’d be pissed at that.
As for places offering free wi-fi, the ethical thing to do is patronize them, order a coffee or something while in there with your PC.
Reading a ‘broadcasted’ signal into open air is hardly ‘wiretapping’.
....ENCRYPTION............
Are police scanners also “wiretapping”? Is listening to someone talking “wiretapping”?
For sure.
But since they haven't, one must go with common sense: failure to secure an eminently securable technology means you are offering the public a freebie.
And, far from committing a crime, anyone who creates an index of such unsecured networks creates a public good, not a crime.
Actually, all Google was trying to do was create an index linking extant WiFi networks to lat-long, in order to supplement other ways of triangulating a smart-phone. The fact that they collected some unencrypted content along the way is only of interest to Euroturds, not red-blooded Americans, enrobed in black or not. If the judge rules against Google, he's a traitor.
These are FCC approved transmitters broadcasting on public frequencies with FCC approved receivers. His equating listening in to an old style wireless phone line to receiving publicly broadcast data is beyond wrong, and I can't wait for this ruling to be stomped on.
Anyone with an open wireless wifi connection should be considered to be a public broadcaster who is inviting the public to use their service. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to lock out a network.
When it became illegal to receive unencrypted radio signals from cell phones a couple of decades ago that threw out long standing principle that Americans could listen to anything on the public airwaves and it was the duty of the transmitting party to secure their information.
That was a major difference between America and the rest of the world.
Not so much anymore...
Now if you listen to certain signals coming into your home on your own properly all without transmitting anything you can be found guilty of breaking the law. A line in the sand that leads to the likes of China who dictate what information is okay and not okay to listen to...
We have lost so much...
And no one really seems to care...
not sure but using some ones circiut to send receive is not the same as reading the data someone elses is sending and receiving.
Isnt this the issue,just like stealing some ones dial tone from a land line and making calls is not the same as monitoring those calls
Very. Very, slippery slope.
Go to your network settings right now, and you’ll likely see a list of possible wifi connections in range - and whether they’re secure or not.
Are you sniffing right this very moment?...
In some cases yes inded it is against the law. If the same laws applying to scanner monitoring apply to Google then yes they could be in serious trouble IF they are using what they pick up for commercial {economical} gain.
Also listening on a scanner you may listen all you with to most unencrypted signals. BUT some things you can not by law monitor even when analog such as cell phones and likely land lines cordless phones. Actually on scanner sold in the U.S. the cell spectrum is blocked. Being in possession of a scanner capable of monitoring cell calls made after a certain date which I can't remember and snuck into the U.S. from say Canada can get you in some bad trouble also.
Personally I have no like nor use for Google nor do I trust it. I block as much of their adware stuff as I can also. Not every thing that goes on is Googles business including what someones house looks like.
By that reasoning, it should be perfectly fine for anyone to intercept and listen to your cell phone conversations.
Some years ago (maybe this is still the case for all I know), in England you had to pay to listen to over-the-air TV. The TV police would go around with a van equipped with a radio direction finder, looking for the emissions from television local oscillators, and cross-checking them against a database of paid subscribers.
No subscription... a ticket. No concept of "free radio communications" there!
Bingo. If radio had just been invented, this judge would rule it 'wiretapping' to listen.
I don’t believe I’m clear on what Google did, but I do have an analogy that works for me on unprotected networks.
I’m walking down the sidewalk. Someone has left a chair sitting by the curb. I’m feeling a little tired, so I sit down for a rest.
Suddenly the police and the homeowner come screaming up and I’m arrested for breaking and entering, on the interesting theory that if the chair had been in his dining room that’s the only way I could have gotten to it.
But, of course, the whole point is that the chair wasn’t in his dining room, it was on the curb.
Moral: If you don’t want someone to sit in your chair, keep it in the dining room. If you set it out on the curb, expect others to sit down.
OTOH, if someone has even the weakest protection on their network, breaking in is IMO just as much a crime as entering a home where someone left the front door open.
I like your analogy. Works for me.
Seems to me that plugging a wireless router-switch into your DSL or cable modem without setting up the security would be like having a 100’ cord on your telephone and putting it on an apple crate next to your lawn chair by the curb: an invitation to some to sit down and make a call, or like leaving the keys in your car in the driveway. Someone without a Midwestern sense of property might think it was a standing invitation.
Exactly. By not turning on the safeguards you are tacitly permitting access and use.
The judge is hearing the case perhaps to set just such a precedent.
I don’t agree with the car bit, but otherwise I think you’re spot on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.