Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
Forum Moderators: goodroi
At the time, Google said it only collected "fragments" of personal Web traffic as it passed by, because its Wi-Fi equipment automatically changes channels five times a second. However, with Wi-Fi networks operating at up to 54Mbps, it always seemed likely that those one-fifth of a second recordings would contain more than just "fragments" of personal data.
That has now been confirmed by CNIL, which since June 4 has been examining Wi-Fi traffic and other data provided by Google on two hard disks and over a secure data connection to its servers.
"It's still too early to say what will happen as a result of this investigation," CNIL said Thursday.
"However, we can already state that [...] Google did indeed record email access passwords [and] extracts of the content of email messages," CNIL said.
... according to the French National Commission on Computing and Liberty (CNIL)
[edited by: engine at 9:27 am (utc) on Jun 19, 2010]
[edit reason] extended quote [/edit]
Nobody is saying what Google did was right, or at least I'm not. What we're saying is that Google isn't the problem here. The problem is that these networks are unsecured.
There's no law against doing what Google did here in the states, unless they have to bypass your security in order to do so. Secure your networks if you don't want Google or anyone else getting your information.
I think, for pretty much any consumer anywhere, their attitude is that the default permission is 'NO', even if it's unencrypted. If you're going to make the argument that the default permission is 'yes' because people failed to protect themselves,
the problem isn't with burglers and thieves, its with people who leave their windows open. the problem isn't with muggers. the problem is with old ladies walking down the street with their handbags open. the problem isn't with drunk drivers, its with other road users not keeping a safe distance behind them. what's the difference? you've got someone committing a crime here (not in all countries, i know). they'e doing something they shouldn't be doing. it's an open and shut case.
joined:June 15, 2001
[edited by: mack at 1:23 am (utc) on Jun 26, 2010]
Slow down and think for a second. We are talking about people broadcasting information into the PUBLIC.
How you compare that to a purse snatcher I do not know.
it doesn't matter that its being broadcast publically. all this public airwaves stuff has got nothing to do with it
Don't tell me I can't sit on your corner and record how many people have blond hairThat you can do - it's gathering statistical information.
songs are broadcast over the public airwaves every single day... These things are intellectual property
[edited by: londrum at 3:51 pm (utc) on Jun 29, 2010]
Wi-Fi networks operating at up to 54Mbps
I'm interested in where you found the legal distinction between statistical and personal informationFrankly, I didn't bother to look for one since it's blindingly obvious. Perhaps you'd like me to find the legal definition of life too - see below.
thats the point i was trying to make. they are still protected by laws. and the fact that they were broadcast unencrypted over the public airwaves doesnt make a blind bit of difference -- they are still protected by laws. and no one thinks to question it.
being lax with your peronal security doesnt give the big bad wolf leave to eat your porridge.
You should go into politics - that's a lot of words that say nothing new...
Frankly, I didn't bother to look for one since it's blindingly obvious
So, your analogy is convoluted, because you have a very specific detail which changes things should you change it. The fact that the schoolboy is 50 yards away with a microphone makes it not your fault, the reason being that he had to actively engage in listening to your conversation and use a device to do so.
Just to be clear, I specified a rifle-mic since it is a specialist piece of equipment used to listen to a conversation, just as special equipment (or software) is needed to listen to unencrypted wireless network traffic
"dual use at least I would say, good for goodies and also for baddies!
The absence of encryption does not grant anyone any rights whatsoever to record and/or use private information. Anyone who thinks it does is a complete idiot!
I think that you missed the point that what they do with the data is of paramount importance when assessing wrong doing.
laws do not prevent a crime
so why does it matter if it's illegal?
I don't even know where to begin with the stupidity of this comment, however...
Of course laws do not prevent crimes - laws define what is and what isn't a crime. I would expect the average six year old child to understand that...
You are clearly educated, unfortunately you didn't ever learn to think logically. Doubtless, in your mind you're a clever guy, but as the genuine article, I have to tell you that you are utterly deluded...
but those with the intellect of an average 12 year old or above can skip this
so why does it matter if it's illegal?out of context.
For instance, a computer running windows with a wireless card running packet-sniffing software and logging the data that it finds definitely qualifies as "specialist equipment".
As to what constitutes private data and what constitutes personal data I'll try to explain by example