Toggle sidebar

Google - Privacy and other issues

  • Thread starter Thread starter bdw
  • Start date Start date
Sort by date Sort by votes
If people are happy to leave their front doors wide open they should take it on the chin.
Click to expand...

No, not at all. This is an invalid argument that is often trotted out in these circumstances.

My sister did just that when she was working in her garden. A couple of neds saw this, entered through her back door and stole her handbag with her purse and credit cards. If what you are saying is true then it was my sister's fault right? The neds were not responsible?

Let's wait and see that the ICO says about it.
 
Upvote 0
Well if the ICO are any good then they'll accept the owners were basically broadcasting that information into the public domain. Its like getting upset someone has stolen you password after youve printed it in 120pt on A3 paper and blutacked it to your window.

I trust the ICO will realise that it is infact the owners responsibility not to broadcast that kind of information to all and sundry. If not, I will be greatly surprised.

Sorry to hear about your sister and her forgetfulness in closing her door.
 
Upvote 0
stugster said:
Well if the ICO are any good then they'll accept the owners were basically broadcasting that information into the public domain. Its like getting upset someone has stolen you password after youve printed it in 120pt on A3 paper and blutacked it to your window.

I trust the ICO will realise that it is infact the owners responsibility not to broadcast that kind of information to all and sundry. If not, I will be greatly surprised.

Sorry to hear about your sister and her forgetfulness in closing her door.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. This story was reported really quite badly I thought. Nobody took the time to mention any site dealing with private information worth it's salt would be a secure connection anyway. At worst they got an email, 99% of the time they got tiny snippets of IM, Porn surfing or Gaming packets etc.. Run of the mill web traffic that hits hundreds of servers before it gets to us anyway.

Infact whatever it was Google did get, they are such a massive part of the internet these days that the info likely would have touched a Google server anyway.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0
Its like getting upset someone has stolen you password after youve printed it in 120pt on A3 paper and blutacked it to your window.
Click to expand...

No it's not. People who do that know what they are doing, it's a deliberate act of stupidity. That is not what this is about. Google stole information, that has been proven. What they were doing is lillegal in most countries.

Your comment about my sister was not appreciated. Most of us leave our doors open when working in the garden. That is not forgetfulness.
 
Upvote 0
I don't see it as stealing at-all. It's broadcast information, there was no decryption or targeted attack and the user was not deprived of anything.

Sure, it wasn't broadcast with the express purpose of other people picking it up but what about if I sit outside your window and use your living room light to read a book, am I stealing your light?

Sure, Google should apoligize and delete the data but at the same time I don't think it's fair all this has dragged their brand through the dirt when it's really nothing. 30 seconds reading the manual would have solved this problem for most of the 'outraged' people who apparently now care enough about it to complain loudly, but didn't give a monkies about personal information before, when there was noone to shout at.
 
Upvote 0
bdw said:
No it's not. People who do that know what they are doing, it's a deliberate act of stupidity. That is not what this is about. Google stole information, that has been proven. What they were doing is lillegal in most countries.

Your comment about my sister was not appreciated. Most of us leave our doors open when working in the garden. That is not forgetfulness.
Click to expand...

Most of us dont!!

Want to know something really scary?? People are now suddenly get scared about someone holding their information, and think this is new??? Hello!!

When gainfully employed by one of the big boys years ago, and I mean twenty years ago plus, they had the ability to tell you where and when everyone was even whilst out shopping - so google and what it does is not new.

Someone somewhere is keeping tabs on you - if you dont want to be found, I believe Richard Branson is selling seats to the moon! :eek:
 
Upvote 0
30 seconds reading the manual would have solved this problem for most of the 'outraged' people who apparently now care enough about it to complain loudly,
Click to expand...

What "outraged" people who have had their data stolen have been complaining? The problem with this is that those who had their data stolen don't even know about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrCloser
Upvote 0
I still fail to see what data was stolen. It's been blown so out of proportion it's just absurd. Google, without intent, received a tiny little bit of unencrypted information broadcast through the air.

It's the technology theft equivelent of driving by a chinese restaurant and getting a air based particle of chicken noodle soup stuck on your tyre. Technically you could say it's theft, you didn't pay for that molecule of noodle.. but really? How pedantic do you have to be.

They got, if they were lucky, what 5 pages you viewed in that timeframe. The absurd thing is, they already have that data, every site you visit as Google Analytics installed and you likely Googled to get there.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0
I still fail to see what data was stolen. It's been blown so out of proportion it's just absurd. Google, without intent, received a tiny little bit of unencrypted information broadcast through the air.
Click to expand...
Yes it's so absurd that the ICO is investigating it for the second time and many countries worldwide are taking action against Google.

Without Intent? They did not just "receive" the broadcasts. They used software developed by their own staff to intercept this info then they said it was an accident. Have you ever heard of software doing something by accident? Now that is absurd.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0
Google's CEO Eric Schmidt continues his crusade to make a creepy, machine-driven future palatable, with two contributions of startling cybernetic idiocy within a week. "We don't need you to type at all. We know where you are. We know where you've been. We can more or less know what you're thinking about," he reminded users at the Washington Ideas Forum last week.
Click to expand...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/04/google_ericisms/

Schmidt . . .
'If you don't want anyone to know, don't do it'
Click to expand...
If you're concerned about Google retaining your personal data, then you must be doing something you shouldn't be doing. At least that's the word from Google CEO Eric Schmidt.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/07/schmidt_on_privacy/

Google CEO Eric Schmidt has said that if you don't like Google Street View cars photographing your house, you can "just move."
Click to expand...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/25/schmidt_on_street_view/

Yeah, Google's just a big cuddly toy, eh?

.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrCloser
Upvote 0
SteveGibson said:
Are you suggesting that Google would then use that data to transfer money into Google's coffers?

I'm with vvaannmmaann and Stu on this: unless Google are using super-duper equipment to read the wifi data, this story is more about the lack of wifi security than about Google.

Steve
Click to expand...

I see your point. However playing devils advocate, this argument is similar to the Police saying, well you deserved to have your car stolen because you left your car window open.

Does the act of leaving your car window open, make the criminals act of stealing your car any less illegal? And why should you have to secure your car?

Now, why should someone who has not secured their router, be punished by having their data eveasdropped by Google Wifi-cars?

Google reportedly sacked the developer responsible for adding this particular harvesting code. A submission of guilt?

It's not as if Google publicly announced they would be monitoring insecure networks to boost user security.

I know of at least one case in the UK where the Courts fined an individual for repeatedly using insecure wifi connections. How is what Google done any different?

Food for thought....:)

^rich
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bdw
Upvote 0
Depriving the owner of its use is not the same as listening to a person shouting out their personal details.
Click to expand...

Now you have made it perfectly clear that (despite all the evidence) you think google can do no wrong but that statement is just silly. No one shouted out anything. Some people who did not know any better had their data compromised illegally by google. That is the bottom line.

Not all people are as well informed as you about matters IT. You cannot blame people (or imply that they are irresponsible) for failing to cover a security situation that they did not know existed.
 
Upvote 0
bdw said:
Now you have made it perfectly clear that (despite all the evidence) you think google can do no wrong but that statement is just silly. No one shouted out anything. Some people who did not know any better had their data compromised illegally by google. That is the bottom line.

Not all people are as well informed as you about matters IT. You cannot blame people (or imply that they are irresponsible) for failing to cover a security situation that they did not know existed.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you're wrong. All routers come with setup instructions and warnings about what the boxes do. It's not Google's fault if someone voluntarily installs a device in their home that broadcasts their personal details to anyone wishing to tune in and listen. There's nothing advanced or complicated about the set up guides either, it boils down to just three things (or a mix of all three):

Stupidity, Ignorance, Laziness.

Whatever one you chose, those who have broadcast their details to anyone within range suffers one from one, some or all of those. And not a sniff of any TCP/IPSEC/MD5 or any technical terms is required.

Scenario:

Step 1: Connect cable

"Ohh It works! I wont bother doing any more, even though Step 5 is in bold red with WARNING written as a heading"
 
Upvote 0
I suspect one should be much more worried about using mobile phones .

Quote:-

"Security experts from IBM, McAfee and Symantec agree that virtually any type of cell phone can be broken into and maliciously controlled, though that takes a high degree of sophistication."

Earl
 
Upvote 0
I live in the real world where people make mistakes - even you Stugster and you are a professional. We cannot all know everything.
 
Upvote 0
bdw said:
I live in the real world where people make mistakes - even you Stugster and you are a professional. We cannot all know everything.
Click to expand...

I didn't for one minute suggest people don't make mistakes, not sure why that would come into play? I made statements to the effect that those who have unsecure wireless are lazy, stupid or ignorant.

I've yet to find one person who has an unsecured wireless network who didn't know that it was something they should be securing. "I've been too busy", "I don't know how", "I couldn't be bothered" are all heard often.

The ICO can only go by the facts presented to them. The facts are as follows:

- End users are purchasing broadcasting equipment with the ability to secure the communications
- End users are provided with sufficient instruction and warning that securing said communications is probably a good idea
- End users are then ignoring the instructions, powering up the devices, and then transmitting their data over unsecure medium
- Google have listened to an open radio signal and downloaded what they've heard
- End user hasn't had anything physically stolen, so there is no "theft" or criminal activity there
- Google are one of the good guys on the "bad guy - good guy" scale. They've probably actually done the idiots a favour by bringing the serious issues of plugging in a "transmit my personal life" box into your home system.

What would you rather? That we all just sat around and hoped nobody is listening to the public broadcast of personal information? What world do you live on?
 
Upvote 0
I didn't for one minute suggest people don't make mistakes, not sure why that would come into play? I made statements to the effect that those who have unsecure wireless are lazy, stupid or ignorant.
Click to expand...

And you are entitled to your opinion. Enjoy.
 
Upvote 0
Your average user won't know about securing their network though will they?

I know some of my customers over the last few years wouldn't have known that it even needed securing, they're still running windows 98 so this is a bit beyond them.

Then again, you could say that the local IT companies should be able to offer this service, small fee (it's easy enough to do) and make everyone aware of the problem.
 
Upvote 0
stugster said:
- Google have listened to an open radio signal and downloaded what they've heard
Click to expand...

You don't accidentally collect 'over-heard' personal details. To collect specific information they must have identified it's form and technical footprint (regular expression matching for email addresses etc) prior to 'listening'.

It is not technically possible to accidentally collect, identify and save as specific personal and account information.

My concern is not that Google set out to deliberately collect personal information, its the purpose behind their breach of UK laws that has to be exposed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bdw
Upvote 0
Esk247 said:
Your average user won't know about securing their network though will they?
Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't expect them to. But they should be able enough to read the installation instructions.

Just looking at the first result for Netgear Wireless Instructions shows a 2004 PDF manual for the wgm124. There's an entire section devoted to the importance of Security and how to do it (step by step instructions).
 
Upvote 0
quikshop said:
It is not technically possible to accidentally collect, identify and save as specific personal and account information.
Click to expand...

This statement makes it look like Google have gone out their way to collect this information (i.e. passwords, personal information, account details) and store it in a database.

Let's just step back for a minute and look at what has actually likely happened:

Google have packet sniffing technology set up to just dump everything that comes in eth0 onto a file.

Google have done a simple auto-connect of any wireless networks that are open.

That's all. This is being blown well out of proportion and people are STILL not appreciating that the liability should be on the idiot broadcasting the information to the public in the first place.
 
Upvote 0
stugster said:
This statement makes it look like Google have gone out their way to collect this information (i.e. passwords, personal information, account details) and store it in a database.

Let's just step back for a minute and look at what has actually likely happened:

Google have packet sniffing technology set up to just dump everything that comes in eth0 onto a file.

Google have done a simple auto-connect of any wireless networks that are open.
Click to expand...

That's like saying "Well I just tried your front door and found it unlocked, so its your fault I went inside and nicked everything!"

Google have admitted collecting specific pieces of data "accidentally", to do that they must have defined those specific data sets before hand, or searched through the 'dumped' data afterwards looking for specific pieces of data.

Your response to this is ignorant and naive of the realities of everyday users who know nothing of networks or how they work, and understand even less what the manual might be trying to tell them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bdw
Upvote 0
quikshop said:
That's like saying "Well I just tried your front door and found it unlocked, so its your fault I went inside and nicked everything!"
Click to expand...

It's not. Google aren't depriving the owner of their items, they're simply listening to the public broadcast.

Let's just say Google have collected the data, completely intentionally, so what? The worry isn't Google. The worry is the person who drove past three weeks ago, listened to the public broadcast and now knows you're off on holiday for three weeks.

What can Google really do with the data they've harvested? Does anyone really have any suggestions?

My response to this is realistic. Based on the facts as they are. I'm not going to make up situations to suggest Google have master-minded this event when all they've done is a bit of standard wardriving around the towns and saved the results. Again it stands, if you don't want your information public don't broadcast it to everyone who passes.

Understanding how to follow a simple guide that says "insert a password", "click save", "remember that password" is hardly something I would think those who have gone to the bother of installing the thing in the first place would have difficulty with.

I am not naive, I know fine well the number of people out there that are too lazy/stupid/ignorant. You DO NOT need an understanding of any networking or IT literacy of any sorts to secure your network. Just read the bloody installation guide. Thankfully the number is in considerable decline, and again emphasises how much of a non-story it really is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: directmarketingadvice
Upvote 0
This personal vendetta against them is pointless.
Click to expand...

It is neither personal nor a vendetta. Read the first post in this thread again.

All it is is an attempt to pull together information about the never ending stream of problems that Google is creating for itself through its illegal activities internationally and the frightening pronouncements of its CEO or whatever he is.

Can I suggest that if you do not have a problem with any this you leave this discussion to those of us who do?
 
Upvote 0
It's not. Google aren't depriving the owner of their items, they're simply listening to the public broadcast.
Click to expand...
Oh well in that case all those £100 Sky boxes are legal too then? No one is depriving the Sky of their "items". Now I wonder where I can get one ...?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0
stugster said:
Let's just say Google have collected the data, completely intentionally, so what?
Click to expand...

No one can take you seriously with a statement like that.

stugster said:
I am not naive
Click to expand...

Yes you are.

If you think for a moment that a multi-national accidentally on purpose collecting personal data has no intentions of using that data even in an aggregated form, or that a high percentage of broadband users can plug the box in but have no idea about how it works, let alone securing it, then you are extremely naive.

And this is not an anti-Google thing, I make a lot of money thanks to Google.

I think you need to lay off the coffee this afternoon ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: bdw
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Someone has been posing as my business, registered us for VAT and sold goods under our name
Replies
6
Views
3K
General Business Forum
The Byre
T
SEOpie
Google Analytics, FB Pixel, Adwords Retargeting - What is needed?
Replies
6
Views
2K
Legal, Employment and Insolvency
twaen
T
Jo A.
FCA and ICO publish joint update on GDPR
Replies
1
Views
1K
Legal, Employment and Insolvency
fisicx
fisicx
F
Damian Green and computer system security
Replies
10
Views
1K
IT & Internet
Joe Smith780
J
P
How to market to other businesses and deliver flyers effectively?
Replies
16
Views
1K
Sales, Marketing & PR
webgeek
webgeek

Latest Articles

Top Bottom
Back