The Wi-Fi database that shamed Google

Started by leafspring, April 30, 2010, 05:00:59 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

leafspring

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18844-innovation-the-wifi-database-that-shamed-google.html

General question: Why is everyone freaking out because of Street View, being it pictures or Wi-Fi scans that are taken?
I don't know how many lawsuits were filed against Google in Germany alone but there are quite a lot and Google even thinks about completely cancelling Street View in the EU because of the pressure. What's so frightening about this service?
Lang lang er vejen for Aslaug
Længe venter lykken på Kraka

penang

Quote from: Rimmon on April 30, 2010, 05:00:59 PMhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18844-innovation-the-wifi-database-that-shamed-google.html

General question: Why is everyone freaking out because of Street View, being it pictures or Wi-Fi scans that are taken?
I don't know how many lawsuits were filed against Google in Germany alone but there are quite a lot and Google even thinks about completely cancelling Street View in the EU because of the pressure. What's so frightening about this service?
Privacy ?

Shooting 2.4 GHz frequency waves out from the house to the world outside and still they demand privacy ?

LOL !!

Oshyan

Yes, I think the hysteria around this is ridiculous. The outside of your house, and your *broadcasted* wireless SSID are not private, period. There are legitimate functional, educational, scientific, and simply practical reasons to record this kind of data and make it generally available. Barbara Striesand sued the California Coastal Archive project a few years back:http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/barbrahouse1.html
I've personally found that project's imagery to be very useful on occasion, and I certainly find Google Street View to be highly useful. Meanwhile any Joe Random with a cell phone camera, let alone a dSLR, can wander around my neighborhood and take any pictures they want. I'm good with that, there's nothing wrong with it, and Google is giving me a helluvalot more benefit in exchange for the same basic right. ;D

- Oshyan

Walli

well, some kind of hysteria is a good thing, it´s crazy what amounts of data are collected and is used to make money with your data. But: I think that people are making antihype around the wrong things. Streetview? Not a big deal in my eyes, especially because by request your house/garden/car/face/whatever will be garbled.


neuspadrin

If I recall correctly, the main original issue was Google later realized they grabbed some packets of possible information of what users were DOING on said networks while they passed by which is a bit more of a bad thing...


HOWEVER
Maybe people should learn to just ENCRYPT their networks if they disagree... sheesh.  WEP, WPA, WPA2, anything would have prevented google from bothering to mark yours - or to prevent any random person from using your network for evil things.

Just don't leave your wireless open, simple solution.

FrankB

You have to look a little bit deeper to understand why people don't want to simply let google get away with what they do around streetview.
For once, google has actually stored data e.g. from email being sent while scanning the networks. That's not a good thing for sure. They apologized for it, but in general people suspect they have done it deliberately and are reluctant to just accept their excuses.
Secondly, not everyone feels comfortable to be photographed and published to the world. Their option to get your photo erased or garbled IS an opt-out, instead of an opt-in. Trouble is google can't tell you "look we've shot you here, and here, and there. please let us know how you want to proceed.". Also, on your end, there's no way to find out where you've been shot exactly. Maybe you have been shot picking your nose, or embracing your secret lover, pissing at a wall, driving another person's car or whatnot, all of which could potentially being extremely embarrassing, if not potential harmful for your social life.
If people wander around your house and take a photo, chances are that it won't be posted anywhere, not to speak of posted on a site that surely all your neighbors will look at at one point in time.

Thirdly, my mother has a WLAN, she not of the internet generation that much I can tell you. She can have a WLAN because nowadays even she can install one, because they pretty much run out-of-the-box. However, she's never heard of that WLANs have to be secured. This generation doesn't think that far. You can't just assume that everyone is sensitive of internet security things. Luckily she has sons who can tell her how it works, but that's not true for everyone.

I like the google streetview service, but I think the following should (have) happen(ed):
- google must not store WLAN information at all. Doesn't give any benefit to streetview anyway
- google must use a software to auto wipe-out all people or faces from their streetview shots. People faces add nothing important to streetview

I believe if they would have done these 2 things, everyone would be easy about streetview.

Frank

Oshyan

Why would Google volunteer the information that they stored more data than they intended? Nobody asked them to, the original upset was just over the wifi SSID logging. They then went on to say, upon further internal and unprompted investigation, that they had gathered more data than they intended. So I really don't think this is malicious, and don't really see any benefit to Google for doing it intentionally either.

It's true that many tech unsavvy folks are getting wireless equipment. Fortunately most of the ones I've seen lately are coming preconfigured with a basic encryption key, posted on a sticker on the hardware or in the manual (and unique to the device). This is the way it should be done. Instructions are included for getting on with the password.

I agree that keeping *anyones* face in there is not useful, but it was my impression that they actually already took out all recognized faces, at least with newer data. There is newer image processing tech that can help assemble imagery of places without people in them at all, provided enough imagery of the place from different times or perspectives. I'd rather see that being done ultimately.

- Oshyan

Walli

afaik faces - if software works like it should, will be garbled automatically. Wasn´t the same true for license plates? Not sure.

The main problem is (in my eyes), that Google operates in a grey area. And they simply do what they want, without discussing before if its okay or not. I mean, I am not allowed to post pictures of persons on the web or anywhere else. I always have to get the permission from this person (there are exceptions to this rule).
Google simply does it and reverses the permission thingy and claims that people have to tell them, not to be in there.