incrediBILL - 10:27 pm on Mar 13, 2013 (gmt 0)
It's still silly because it was openly broadcast information without encryption meaning the person broadcasting it obviously didn't care if it were intercepted otherwise they would have had a password requirement at a minimum. Kind of like someone complaining others listened in and recorded their CB or Shortwave broadcasts where weren't scrambled.
Back when the fist cordless phones came out, long before spread spectrum, everyone knew they weren't encrypted either and you switched to a hard-wired landline if you didn't want people listening to your conversation. If you think listening to others cordless calls was hard, it wasn't, you just unplugged your base station and then you could hear the other parties over your handset.
Oh well, at least this chapter's over, but I wouldn't be surprised if something more interesting was going on as well and possibly why the small fine as maybe a deal was struck. I'm not conspiracy theorist at all but I know for a fact that while the government couldn't do what Google did without a warrant, once someone else has done it they're perfectly within their legal rights to "buy a copy" if it were made available. That's the business model some data mining companies that currently stealth mine the internet that I won't mention anymore because I got tired of seeing my blog posts being monitored by those groups and DOD, DHS, etc. which was easily spotted in my logs.
FWIW, Google didn't do anything drive-by hackers do except Google fessed up and they aren't the one's I'd be worrying about if I were running an open wifi because it would be easier to set someone up for some real trouble using their open wifi IP connection.