has google broken the law?

[petemurphy]

re this collecting of emails and passwords - is this actually illegal or is the fact they did not access the computers -just what was floating through the air - ok?

thinking the computer misuse act - do any other acts apply?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11614970

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/18/sectio...


Unauthorised access to computer material. E+W+S+N.I.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if—

(a)he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer [F1, or to enable any such access to be secured] ;

(b)the access he intends to secure [F2, or to enable to be secured,] is unauthorised; and

(c)he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case.

(2)The intent a person has to have to commit an offence under this section need not be directed at—

(a)any particular program or data;

(b)a program or data of any particular kind; or

(c)a program or data held in any particular computer.

[F3(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a)on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both;

(b)on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both;

(c)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both.]

[FraserLFA]

It's highlighted just how easy it is for criminals...

[TheEnd]

It might be more to do with Data Protection, and holding personally identifiable info which they weren't allowed to do.

They same problem has dogged them in loads of different countries

http://www.techeye.net/business/google-sued-over-s...

[ZesPak]

No, as the law clearly states that it has to be "intentional", and google claims it wasn't. They just caught what was in the air.

Oh, and only people using WEP or nothing will be "caught", be glad it's google that did and not some random person with bad intentions.
You're a bit daft to use WEP or less in this day and age imho

[petemurphy]

ZesPak said:

No, as the law clearly states that it has to be "intentional", and google claims it wasn't. They just caught what was in the air.

Oh, and only people using WEP or nothing will be "caught", be glad it's google that did and not some random person with bad intentions.
You're a bit daft to use WEP or less in this day and age imho

isnt the fact they were capturing such data good enough for intent? i dont go outside and just happen to get that data?

[TheEnd]

Yea, you don't accidentally record and store the data when you were just planning to save the network SSIDs.

Especially since this is almost worldwide.

I am getting a bit curious into what google is all about. They were essentially a search engine, that are now running driverless cars round the US.

I'm just waiting til they announce AI military software for nuclear missile command.

[mrmr96]

I would imagine there's a "wireless telegraphy" law which covers unauthorised intercept of messages/information.

[mrmr96]

Here we go:
click

Per here:

Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (c. 36)
Main body
Part 2 Regulation of radio spectrum
Chapter 5 Miscellaneous
Misuse of wireless telegraphy

The Law said:

48
[b]Interception and disclosure of messages
(1)
A person commits an offence if, otherwise than under the authority of a designated person—
(a)
he uses wireless telegraphy apparatus with intent to obtain information as to the contents, sender or addressee of a message (whether sent by means of wireless telegraphy or not) of which neither he nor a person on whose behalf he is acting is an intended recipient,[/b] or
(b)
he discloses information as to the contents, sender or addressee of such a message.
(2)
A person commits an offence under this section consisting in the disclosure of information only if the information disclosed by him is information that would not have come to his knowledge but for the use of wireless telegraphy apparatus by him or by another person.
(3)
A person does not commit an offence under this section consisting in the disclosure of information if he discloses the information in the course of legal proceedings or for the purpose of a report of legal proceedings.
(4)
A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
(5)
“Designated person” means—
(a)
the Secretary of State;
(b)
the Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs; or
(c)
any other person designated for the purposes of this section by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

You'll see that "intent" is part of the offence.

[ZesPak]

petemurphy said:

ZesPak said:

No, as the law clearly states that it has to be "intentional", and google claims it wasn't. They just caught what was in the air.

Oh, and only people using WEP or nothing will be "caught", be glad it's google that did and not some random person with bad intentions.
You're a bit daft to use WEP or less in this day and age imho

isnt the fact they were capturing such data good enough for intent? i dont go outside and just happen to get that data?

Let me put it this way, if the garbage men pick up the garbage on the street, they have access to a lot of sensitive letters (letters from the bank, invoices, booking papers from your vacation,...), but they don't use it, their intention was to pick up garbage, if there is sensitive information in your garbage that you didn't shred, it's not their fault they have it in their possession.
Even better, now the "garbagemen" are saying: watch out people, you put way too much person information in your garbage, we didn't expect that, but we don't have any bad intentions with it!!

So, good on them imho. Also if you don't want to believe them, can't blaim you, but I can't see why they would be lying.

[mrmr96]

ZesPak said:

petemurphy said:

ZesPak said:

No, as the law clearly states that it has to be "intentional", and google claims it wasn't. They just caught what was in the air.

Oh, and only people using WEP or nothing will be "caught", be glad it's google that did and not some random person with bad intentions.
You're a bit daft to use WEP or less in this day and age imho

isnt the fact they were capturing such data good enough for intent? i dont go outside and just happen to get that data?

Let me put it this way, if the garbage men pick up the garbage on the street, they have access to a lot of sensitive letters (letters from the bank, invoices, booking papers from your vacation,...), but they don't use it, their intention was to pick up garbage, if there is sensitive information in your garbage that you didn't shred, it's not their fault they have it in their possession.
Even better, now the "garbagemen" are saying: watch out people, you put way too much person information in your garbage, we didn't expect that, but we don't have any bad intentions with it!!

So, good on them imho. Also if you don't want to believe them, can't blaim you, but I can't see why they would be lying.

The difference is that garbage men are collecting garbage. That is their primary intention. Google was driving around in cars collecting information. (Photos, GPS coordinates, MAC addresses, SSID's, and payload data). Their primary intention was gathering data.

[MasterBlaster]

mrmr96 said:

ZesPak said:

petemurphy said:

ZesPak said:

No, as the law clearly states that it has to be "intentional", and google claims it wasn't. They just caught what was in the air.

Oh, and only people using WEP or nothing will be "caught", be glad it's google that did and not some random person with bad intentions.
You're a bit daft to use WEP or less in this day and age imho

isnt the fact they were capturing such data good enough for intent? i dont go outside and just happen to get that data?

Let me put it this way, if the garbage men pick up the garbage on the street, they have access to a lot of sensitive letters (letters from the bank, invoices, booking papers from your vacation,...), but they don't use it, their intention was to pick up garbage, if there is sensitive information in your garbage that you didn't shred, it's not their fault they have it in their possession.
Even better, now the "garbagemen" are saying: watch out people, you put way too much person information in your garbage, we didn't expect that, but we don't have any bad intentions with it!!

So, good on them imho. Also if you don't want to believe them, can't blaim you, but I can't see why they would be lying.

The difference is that garbage men are collecting garbage. That is their primary intention. Google was driving around in cars collecting information. (Photos, GPS coordinates, MAC addresses, SSID's, and payload data). Their primary intention was gathering data.

This is the bit that I don't get. Google announced that they wanted to collect street photos, so all they needed was van equipped with 360degree camera and GPS. How can you "accidently" collect wifi data and its payload? and why do the authorities let them get away with it at all? Is there a more sinister motive?

[qube_TA]

What they did was collect wireless AP details rather than emails addresses, this enabled them to create a semi-GPS service as a device can work out where it is by the wireless networks that are in range. Improves their mapping service.

They wouldn't be able to sniff folks networks if they were encrypted (at least not from a quick drive-by in a Google car) but they would be able to get the wireless SSID. Not that hard to do, from my laptop I can see 8 other networks, I can't connect to them but I can see that they're there.

As long as they're not being Evil about it then I'm sure no harm has been done.

[Parrot of Doom]

MasterBlaster said:

This is the bit that I don't get. Google announced that they wanted to collect street photos, so all they needed was van equipped with 360degree camera and GPS. How can you "accidently" collect wifi data and its payload? and why do the authorities let them get away with it at all? Is there a more sinister motive?

Because if you drive around scanning wifi, you can easily catalogue the location and strength of public wifi networks, both paid and free. Then you can add that to your database.

[mrmr96]

qube_TA said:

What they didclaimed to be doing was collect wireless AP details rather than emails addresses, this enabled them to create a semi-GPS service as a device can work out where it is by the wireless networks that are in range. Improves their mapping service.

This makes sense. (It's a more accurate version of what they use to pinpoint a non-gps phone, by looking at what masts are nearby and I can see a use for it.) But what they actually did was somewhat different because they DID collect payload data from insecure networks, and that's the bit which they claim was an accident.

[Martin Keene]

Parrot of Doom said:

MasterBlaster said:

This is the bit that I don't get. Google announced that they wanted to collect street photos, so all they needed was van equipped with 360degree camera and GPS. How can you "accidently" collect wifi data and its payload? and why do the authorities let them get away with it at all? Is there a more sinister motive?

Because if you drive around scanning wifi, you can easily catalogue the location and strength of public wifi networks, both paid and free. Then you can add that to your database.

Yes, but you can't "accidentally" equipe a car to collect Wifi data. The equipment was put in the cars, and was put the fir a reason. So I fail to see how Google accidentally collect wifi data, on a wifi scanner, that they fitted to a car, what did they expect to get wifi pixies?

[Zod]

I don't believe that Skynet is real and I don't believe that Google's intent here was anything other than innocent.

It may do people a favour by encouraging them to secure their wifi. BT has a lot to answer for shipping their routers with WEP as the default protocol.

[Mr Will]

Martin Keene said:

Parrot of Doom said:

MasterBlaster said:

This is the bit that I don't get. Google announced that they wanted to collect street photos, so all they needed was van equipped with 360degree camera and GPS. How can you "accidently" collect wifi data and its payload? and why do the authorities let them get away with it at all? Is there a more sinister motive?

Because if you drive around scanning wifi, you can easily catalogue the location and strength of public wifi networks, both paid and free. Then you can add that to your database.

Yes, but you can't "accidentally" equipe a car to collect Wifi data. The equipment was put in the cars, and was put the fir a reason. So I fail to see how Google accidentally collect wifi data, on a wifi scanner, that they fitted to a car, what did they expect to get wifi pixies?

The wifi scanners were installed because they wanted to know what wifi networks were in what location, so that devices without GPS (such as laptops) can know where in the world they are.

[qube_TA]

mrmr96 said:

qube_TA said:

What they didclaimed to be doing was collect wireless AP details rather than emails addresses, this enabled them to create a semi-GPS service as a device can work out where it is by the wireless networks that are in range. Improves their mapping service.

This makes sense. (It's a more accurate version of what they use to pinpoint a non-gps phone, by looking at what masts are nearby and I can see a use for it.) But what they actually did was somewhat different because they DID collect payload data from insecure networks, and that's the bit which they claim was an accident.

Well it would serve you right for running an open-network anyway.

[mrmr96]

qube_TA said:

mrmr96 said:

qube_TA said:

What they didclaimed to be doing was collect wireless AP details rather than emails addresses, this enabled them to create a semi-GPS service as a device can work out where it is by the wireless networks that are in range. Improves their mapping service.

This makes sense. (It's a more accurate version of what they use to pinpoint a non-gps phone, by looking at what masts are nearby and I can see a use for it.) But what they actually did was somewhat different because they DID collect payload data from insecure networks, and that's the bit which they claim was an accident.

Well it would serve you right for running an open-network anyway.

You wouldn't steal from an old lady who assumed her door was locked when it wasn't.
You shouldn't steal her data just because she doesn't know how to secure a wireless network.

[mcdjl]

Mr Will said:

Martin Keene said:

Parrot of Doom said:

MasterBlaster said:

This is the bit that I don't get. Google announced that they wanted to collect street photos, so all they needed was van equipped with 360degree camera and GPS. How can you "accidently" collect wifi data and its payload? and why do the authorities let them get away with it at all? Is there a more sinister motive?

Because if you drive around scanning wifi, you can easily catalogue the location and strength of public wifi networks, both paid and free. Then you can add that to your database.

Yes, but you can't "accidentally" equipe a car to collect Wifi data. The equipment was put in the cars, and was put the fir a reason. So I fail to see how Google accidentally collect wifi data, on a wifi scanner, that they fitted to a car, what did they expect to get wifi pixies?

The wifi scanners were installed because they wanted to know what wifi networks were in what location, so that devices without GPS (such as laptops) can know where in the world they are.

As I recall they claimed originally that some one in the software side had added an extra line (I doubt it was just one but thats not the point) of code which saved all the data being sent, rather than just the ID of the networks. They may have claimed he hadnt realised that he was saving everything but did claim that it wasn't their as a companys intention to store all of it.