Schools & Governments Blocking Google Because It Won't Let Them Spy On Users
from the which-is-it? dept
So various governments around the world remain furious with Google for its accidental Street View wifi data collection. However, at the same time, governments are also getting annoyed and using filters to block government employees from using Google products because Google is now increasingly running more and more of its apps (including search and Gmail) via SSL, making it harder for those gov't agencies to spy on what users are doing. So... which is it? Is Google bad for spying on data? Or is Google bad for not letting governments spy on data?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: governments, security, spying, ssl
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Both
Both, of course!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spying vs filtering
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Spying vs filtering
Anyone who ever knew about Google's offerings in the matter knows about plenty of other alternatives. And anyone who knew those alternatives was perfectly willing to spread the word to everyone who asked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
if you are willing to work that hard to just use google, i would hate to see your moral stand on 'candy from a baby'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: #6
I actually took a course in web design in high school that taught me nothing about web design, but did teach me how to evade the school's filters. The teacher mentioned that the school's filters could be easily circumvented. He stopped short of explaining how, but didn't raise an eyebrow when a couple student immediately picked off where he left off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps, but if a US school wants money from the feds they must at least appear to try make their best effort to filter content and protect the children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please explain ??
How can you say what Google did with streetview was accindental ?
How did google "accindently" set up WiFi scanning machine, logging, and recording. And specifically tell people to go out and look for these open points.
IM MULTIPLE CONTRIES.
How could that be anything than premeditated, planned, known, planned, and executed WITH INTENT.
For you to make a statement like that does you NO favors.
You may need to find out what the word "accidental"
"So various governments around the world remain furious with Google for its accidental Street View wifi data collection."
so it was a planed, prepared for, taking considerable time and effort to set up, and do.
But all that was an accident, people in various countries, accidently hit the "LOG WIFI" botton on their laptop, and "accidently" drove a carefull, dedefined course, "accidently" logged the data, "accidently" saved the data, and "accidently" sent that data to their boss who told them to "accidently" go out and collect that data.
Yes right Mike...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please explain ??
Not apologizing for them. I explained why what they did was bad, and I have challenged Google repeatedly on other issues.
How can you say what Google did with streetview was accindental ?
Because almost everyone who knows anything about what they were doing notes that it was almost certainly accidental. I will have a post up on that with more details tomorrow.
How did google "accindently" set up WiFi scanning machine, logging, and recording. And specifically tell people to go out and look for these open points.
That part is not accidental. It was known and publicly revealed ages ago that part of Google's Street View effort was to also map WiFi (something that many companies do, by the way). In order to map WiFi, one thing that is frequently done is to triangulate using packets. That is what Google did.
IM MULTIPLE CONTRIES.
I'm assuming you mean "in multiple countries," and again this is not surprising or confusing at all. They used the same system for Street View images and WiFi triangulation everywhere. Not surprising. Why would Google use different systems in different places?
How could that be anything than premeditated, planned, known, planned, and executed WITH INTENT.
Again, it was already explained *what* they were doing: they were trying to map WiFi -- a perfectly legal thing to do, which many companies have done. One way to do that is to judge where the traffic is coming from via catching a few bits. That's what Google did.
The *problem* and the *mistake* was that they didn't automatically delete the data.
But there is no sign, whatsoever, of intent. If there were, wouldn't Google have actually done something with the data rather than ignore it (as it did)?
You may need to find out what the word "accidental"
I understand it quite well. You have not proven that their usage had intent, other than you repeating that it must have. That's not convincing.
so it was a planed, prepared for, taking considerable time and effort to set up, and do.
Mapping WiFi, yes. Recording data was an accidental byproduct of that.
But all that was an accident, people in various countries, accidently hit the "LOG WIFI" botton on their laptop, and "accidently" drove a carefull, dedefined course, "accidently" logged the data, "accidently" saved the data, and "accidently" sent that data to their boss who told them to "accidently" go out and collect that data.
Again, you seem to ignore the multiple legitimate purposes that were going on here: the street view mapping and the WiFi mapping. Why would you ignore all of that, other than the simple fact that it proves there was a perfectly reasonable explanation for what happened, and that the actual data collection was an accident.
As for your claim that they sent the data to their bosses who told them to go out and collect, I have yet to see a single report that said that. Can you share where you heard that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Please explain ??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Please explain ??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please explain ??
he is also suffering a little on the credibility side because he continues not to note his significant business and personal relationships that he has with google and key members of the google team. he fails to mention the material and potential financial support google has given his site and his projects. i think that information like this would greatly change peoples opinion of his pieces about google.
basically, a pro-copyright blogger who failed to disclose relationships with the **aas or that they held panel discussions in the offices of emi would get raked over the techdirt coals. i find it interesting that mike doesnt hold himself up to the same level of scrutiny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Please explain ??
Heh. I find it amusing that you missed the two negative pieces I ran on Google last week.
There are all sorts of things that Google does that I disagree with, and I have no problem saying so.
he is also suffering a little on the credibility side because he continues not to note his significant business and personal relationships that he has with google and key members of the google team. he fails to mention the material and potential financial support google has given his site and his projects. i think that information like this would greatly change peoples opinion of his pieces about google.
The brief and tiny relationship with Google was clearly disclosed. Trust me, the "financial" relationship with Google you want to make a big deal out of is not what you think it is, and has no impact on the credibility of this site, and has not changed my stance on anything related to Google. I still ding them for the same things I dinged them for before, and I still side with them on the same things I sided with them on before.
If Google never hosts us for another event (a definite possibility), it would be of no loss to us. We've already got about 5 other companies who have offered to host us for future events. Google's contribution to our business is immaterial to the extreme. If I pissed off Google (and, at times, it seems that people there are pissed off at what I write) we would not be losing anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Please explain ??
"The brief and tiny relationship with Google was clearly disclosed. Trust me, the "financial" relationship with Google you want to make a big deal out of is not what you think it is, and has no impact on the credibility of this site, and has not changed my stance on anything related to Google. I still ding them for the same things I dinged them for before, and I still side with them on the same things I sided with them on before." - the problem is, there is no way for us to know that. it is exactly the same sort of connection that you would crucify others for. do you like the feeling of where you are sitting right now? this is what you do to others on a regular basis, insinuating relationships and motivations that dont exist. from the outside looking in, your connections with google are numerous and enough to make us wonder. it would be more than enough for you to hang someone else.
"
If Google never hosts us for another event (a definite possibility), it would be of no loss to us. We've already got about 5 other companies who have offered to host us for future events. Google's contribution to our business is immaterial to the extreme. If I pissed off Google (and, at times, it seems that people there are pissed off at what I write) we would not be losing anything." - well now, are you saying there are 5 other companies you should no longer be commenting on, or you need to make disclosures about? do you see how this goes? again, this is the same sort of thing you would hang others for.
then again, i realize that you dont want to apply the same standards to yourself as you would to those you dislike or oppose. otherwise, you wouldnt threaten to reveal the ip addresses of comment writers, thus violating their privacy. interestingly, i couldnt find a privacy policy linked on your main page. where is it again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Please explain ??
Still I would take his word any day of the week instead of the word of such corrupt liars, greedy bastards from the entertainment camp(that are not that entertaining now days).
Google is friends with people at the moment, they didn't go all out suing people, and there are certainly things people dislike about them, but seriously is not them trying to pass laws to make harder for people to be honest and is not them suing mothers, 90'tish years old people, making extortion and bullying a way of life.
That is why people don't like you guy's, you people asked for it, now deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please explain ??
I mean, as soon as they found the data, they asked what did that particular government want to do with it. After the limbo, they set the record straight.
I'm sure that every last human being in the world is perfect and can admit to making a mistake.
How about quit with the "call to arms" type thing and more factual data?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Please explain ??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Continuing my thought...
Not to make that seem as an attack but optimizing code can sometimes leave unintended consequences. Yes, Google is filled with software engineers but even they make mistakes.
And let's think about it. Google could have said nothing about this, destroyed the data, and no one would be the wiser. Or they could take a blip in PR but show that they are maintaining a standard. They asked the governments what to do with this and followed the protocol for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Continuing my thought...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please explain ??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What does suprise me is that people think that blocking Google will do anything but annoy their students/employers.
Yes, by all means, block the most visited website in the world, the search engine that everyone knows. Make the user experience more cumbersome and annoying, this will surely improve workplace morale and student motivation.
what a crock of shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Security should be more important in this instance than the ability to see if students are watching porn.
Porn could be bad and certainly is abhorrent in a public space still is not like every single student will go his whole life without knowing what sex is so why again security is being left in second place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In school there's the juvenile "let's put gay porn as jimmys background" stuff, but actually looking at porn is done at home (also speaking from experience).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Collecting data
If people are stupid enough to not secure their own networks, then it's their own fault. For everyone else, it would be a small snippet of encrypted nonsense, and if people are that worried about what is being transmitted from their homes or offices, they should really have everything wired and not be broadcasting a signal at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe I'm missing something here but...
Not that long ago I recall that google was blocked because you could view banned web pages by looking at them via google's "english to english translator". The resulting URL looked nothing like the banned page and hence slipped through the filter.
BTW, my personal take on the google WIFI mapping is this
- If I post my private diary on the sidewalk outside my house and someone walks past and reads it, I have no grounds for accusing them of violating my privacy. As I understand it, google simply sniffed for unique mac addresses and in the case of unsecured networks some actual data came out in the process. What are the critics objecting to, that they sniffed out the data, or that they accidentally stored it ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe I'm missing something here but...
Docs is just one of a dozen apps that use https, also google offers "Google Apps for Education" which provides schools free email and docs for domains than end in .edu, since authentication happens through google.com they basically are blocking access to their own email.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Search is safe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SSH
I do realize there are always new ways around the filter, which I need to discover and figure out. Also, I think ya'll vastly overestimate the actual technical prowess of most students. Mention the words SSH, VPN, or Proxy and you'll just draw a blank stare from most people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But... but...
When we're doing it, it's collection of intelligence information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is street view service will be available in new Google Earth?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]