Microsoft Opens Its WiFi Data Collection Source Code; Why Doesn't Google Do The Same?
from the important-questions dept
Google's been facing a lot of difficulty lately due to its ridiculously dumb implementation of its WiFi access point data collection software. Lots of companies use such software to try to create a location map that can be used in the absence of GPS. Both Microsoft and Apple have similar projects, and yet it's really only Google that's gotten in trouble for theirs, mainly for the way it collected data. Now comes the news that Microsoft is releasing the source code of their WiFi data collection software, which only serves to raise more questions about why Apple and Google haven't done the same.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyoneβs 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: data collection, open source, wifi
Companies: apple, google, microsoft
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
World upside down
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: World upside down
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: World upside down
We also have experience of Microsoft selling one thing (even to the US government) and then pulling a switcharoo a short time later. Though, in this case, they already appear to be rather noncommittal in revealing all information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: World upside down
It is simply are seeing of reality, as opposed to some dream world.
MS has been releasing huge amounts of freely available source code for years and years, with far less strings attached to them than for example FOSS puts on theirs.
So it is no real change, just a realisation of what is really happening and not what people 'tell' you what is happening. (to suit their own particular bias).
It also goes to the fact that as far as "open source" and google are concerned it means, "what we can use, as long as we do not have to put anything back, or pay any money".
Google is one of (if not THE) most closed, proprietary IP and insular than any other company in the "IT" industry, (allthough you cannot call Google an IT company, as their business is advertising sales, not software or services)...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ... with far less strings attached to them than for example FOSS puts on theirs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ... with far less strings attached to them than for example FOSS puts on theirs.
start with GPLv2 and go from there...
Then you can progress onto Stallmans so called 4 'freedoms'.
Which actually Stallmans 4 LAWS, then you can go into the viral nature of the GPL, and then look at the lgpl, and then GPLv1, then you can look at MS's source code offerings.
Then if you are really keen you can examine the actual code itself, you know ! the C Source code that makes up the software.
Then you can do some functional analysis of said code, you can look at the overall quality of the code, how well containment is achieved, how structured it is, or how spagetti it is, you can examine consistency and the quality of documentation and support.
Then you will never have to ask for a citation again, asking for a citation says "im too lazy to think for myself, so tell me everything and feed me like a baby".
Sorry, it is not my responsibility to teach you how to think..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ... with far less strings attached to them than for example FOSS puts on theirs.
In that case, please stop making unsupported statements as though there were fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ... with far less strings attached to them than for example FOSS puts on theirs.
Sorry it's not up to others to do your research for you . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ... with far less strings attached to them than for example FOSS puts on theirs.
But the real value is what code do they release under what terms? They don't release key code that is absolutely necessary to see in order to judge if something is safe or not. Meanwhile, the Linux ecosystem does release the code necessary to judge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: World upside down
http://www.kismetwireless.net/download.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: World upside down
And I'd tend to believe Google is mostly based in open source rather than closed source (obviously they have to keep search and other similar algorithms safe from external eyes due to the fact that they are the source of the company revenues. But other than that they've been pretty open concerning their codes.
Still, M$ did it right this time. I personally like M$ for their outstanding customer support. Each with it's own good points ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kismet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kismet
It is really a moot point anyway. They were collecting UNENCRYPTED data that anyone can STILL collect.
This has been blown WAY out of proportion!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Kismet
But as you said, the open wireless data they collected can be collected by any1 so why all the yelling about how evil Google is? The street view thing is another example. I can go to your neighborhood, take several pics of the street (public place, any1?) and post on my facebook account open to whoever wants to see. What's the difference? None. But Street View is Google. Google is money, and in the US it's a revenue stream through litigation. Lame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google Hate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google Hate
But there is that whole do no evil thing. I feel sorry for the competition if they decide to be evil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google Hate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why Doesn't Google Do The Same?
(and they did not write it, so if they show it, the person who did write it will call foul....)
3. it would show how Google does not care about what they gather, or anything the would be considered due diligence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why Doesn't Google Do The Same?
Or what about HBGary Federal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why Doesn't Google Do The Same?
You (and me) seem to be well aware of it.. so where is the cover up ?
And where is the failure in 'due diligence'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Glenn Beck style
why doesnt google open source their code?
if you have nothing to hide...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Glenn Beck style
Don't forget that this is code that Google spent time and money developing; why the hell should Google release that for free when it'd get absolutely nothing? Honestly the EFF should be teaching people how to secure their networks, not going after companies who look at publicly broadcasted data.
Could you imagine the ACLU going after civilians recording the police on their cellphones? I'm sorry, I like the EFF and what it does, but this was probably one of the more boneheaded statements it's made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Glenn Beck style
The 3rd-party audit that Google had done on this code showed, to me, that Google didn't have to collect the body of data frames for mapping WI-FI access points but they did anyway. The script used to control the code had a set of flags to use which determined which type of frames were collected (control, management, and data). You could either collect a type of frame or discard it without saving a copy. However, only for encrypted data frames was there a flag for discarding the body as opposed to header information. For unencrypted data frames, if you collected them there was no option to discard the frame body. That tells me that Google's collection of this data was not accidental. I do not see any nefarious use of this information because it was partial. Google was not spending time monitoring any specific access point or host. It does show that Google was not very concerned about a perceived invasion of privacy. They should be, at the very least for the PR benefit.
http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/www.google.com/en//googleblo gs/pdfs/friedberg_sourcecode_analysis_060910.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Glenn Beck style
The EFF focusing on Google's code rather than defending Google from the obvious fact that WiFi is radio broadcast is just all kinds of stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wake up Mike, this is just another M$ PR/propaganda campaign. They try (and failed) to look better (for anyone who can code pretty much anything).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I suppose they have some statistical analysis which removes error caused by movement of the various transmitters (no one would ever move one of these things - right?)
The whole thing crashes if a new wifi std were to use some sort of frequency hopping or other obfuscation technique. The reason for obfuscation is obvious - right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
***
Hey. It would be great to get access to the entire library, OS, and build tool-chain code since without this source there is no other way to judge the security and privacy of the system (assuming you use off the shelf hardware with no prior collaboration with such hardware vendors). Can you give a price quote to have this information be made accessible to the entire public of peers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No proof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]