Stephen Conroy, the Australian politician who has been pushing hard to massively filter and censor Australia's internet has been fighting Google for a while now. After the company made comments about why such censorship was a bad idea, rather than respond to the issues, Conroy came out swinging by attacking the company for its Buzz privacy mishap, and quoting Eric Schmidt out of context. So, of course, with Google's WiFi data capture admission, Conroy has some new ammo. He's claiming that it couldn't possibly have been an accident and that this represents "the largest privacy breach in history across Western democracies."
While it's no surprise that Conroy doesn't like Google and its opposition to his plan to censor the internet, perhaps he should stay away from laughably ridiculous hyperbole. The only data Google collected was what was passed over open WiFi connections in the split seconds that it drove by those access points with its Street View vehicles. These are networks where anyone on those networks could have just as easily have done the same thing -- except if someone was really on one of those networks, they could keep recording that data, rather than moving on when the traffic light changed. Furthermore, there's no evidence that Google ever did anything whatsoever with whatever data it did collect. Making claims about this being some huge privacy breach when there's no evidence that anyone ever even saw the data seems pretty questionable.
Late last week, of course, Google 'fessed up to the fact that it was accidentally collecting some data being transmitted over open WiFi connections with its Google Street View mapping cars. As we noted at the time, it was bad that Google was doing this and worse that they didn't realize it. However, it wasn't nearly as bad as some have made it out to be. First of all, anyone on those networks could have done the exact same thing. As a user on a network, it's your responsibility to secure your connection. Second, at best, Google was getting a tiny fraction of any data, in that it only got a quick snippet as it drove by. Third, it seemed clear that Google had not done anything with that collected data. So, yes, it was not a good thing that this was done, but the actual harm was somewhat minimal -- and, again, anyone else could have easily done the same thing (or much worse).
That said, given the irrational fear over Google collecting any sort of information in some governments, this particular bit of news has quickly snowballed into investigations across Europe and calls for the FTC to get involved in the US. While one hopes that any investigation will quickly realize that this is not as big a deal as it's being made out to be, my guess is that, at least in Europe, regulators will come down hard on Google.
However, going to an even more ridiculous level, the class action lawyers are jumping into the game. Eric Goldman points us to a hastily filed class action lawsuit filed against Google over this issue. Basically, it looks like the lawyers found two people who kept open WiFi networks, and they're now suing Google, claiming that its Street View operations "harmed" them. For the life of me, I can't see how that argument makes any sense at all. Here's the filing:
Basically, you have two people who could have easily secured their WiFi connection or, barring that, secured their own traffic over their open WiFi network, and chose to do neither. Then, you have a vague claim, with no evidence, that Google somehow got their traffic when its Street View cars photographed the streets where they live. As for what kind of harm it did? Well, there's nothing there either.
My favorite part, frankly, is that one of the two people involved in bringing the lawsuit, Vicki Van Valin, effectively admits that she failed to secure confidential information as per her own employment requirements. Yes, this is in her own lawsuit filing:
Van Valin works in the high technology field, and works from her home over her internet-connect computer a substantial amount of time. In connection with her work and home life, Van Valin transmits and receives a substantial amount of data from and to her computer over her wireless connection ("wireless data"). A significant amount of the wireless data is also subject to her employer's non-disclosure and security regulations.
Ok. So your company has non-disclosure and security regulations... and you access that data unencrypted over an unencrypted WiFi connection... and then want to blame someone else for it? How's that work now? Basically, this woman appears to be admitting that she has violated her own company's rules in a lawsuit she's filed on her behalf. Wow.
While there's nothing illegal about setting up an open WiFi network -- and, in fact, it's often a very sensible thing to do -- if you're using an open WiFi network, it is your responsibility to recognize that it is open and any unencrypted data you send over that network can be seen by anyone else on the same access point.
This is clearly nothing more than a money grab by some people, and hopefully the courts toss it out quickly, though I imagine there will be more lawsuits like this one.
Last month, we wrote about the out-of-proportion freak out in Germany over the news that Google's Street View photo-taking cars were also mapping WiFi data. There seemed to be lots of concern over this, despite no specific explanation of what harm was being done. However, in a move that is sure to give more ammo to those attacking Google, the company has now admitted that it was accidentally collecting some open, unencrypted data traveling over those networks. This is, to be sure, a bad thing for Google to have done. It looks bad and Google is rightly apologetic for it (though, announcing it late Friday seems like an attempt to bury the news). It may, in fact, run afoul of some of Europe's more stringent privacy rules, though that point could be argued.
There's no way around the fact that Google should not have done this, and in doing so, it's just handed years worth of "evidence" of Google's evil nature to the company's critics. In context, however, it's still not clear that what Google did was really that bad. Anyone using a WiFi network can similarly see unencrypted data used by others on that same access point. It happens all the time -- which is why if you are using a shared network, you should always encrypt your traffic -- and most sensitive websites (webmail, banks, etc.) automatically encrypt the traffic. On top of that, as Google notes, since the data collected came from cars driving around, they were not connected to any particular WiFi network for very long at all.
But, for most people, I would imagine that those details won't matter much. Google, clearly, should have known better and should have more carefully understood the code it was using and what it was collecting. Not doing so is definitely a black mark on Google, and a reminder to everyone that data on the network may be open to prying eyes.
Vic writes in to let us know of yet another complaint against Google's Street View offering, this time in the UK, where apparently MPs and military bosses are upset that images are available on Street View of a "secret" SAS base. They're concerned that the images even show the sign saying "British SAS." But, of course, the only way Google got these images was by driving along public roads -- meaning that anyone could have driven along those roads and seen the same damn signs and buildings. It's not like this was actually a secret base at all -- and if it was, the UK military should have done a much better job of hiding it. If Google can "accidentally" discover it this way, you have to assume that anyone who actually cares would have figured it out long ago. The complaint is that those planning an attack can view the building via Street View... but, of course, they could also just drive by and take their own images. Oh, and of course, by complaining so loudly about this, it's only attracted that much more attention to the fact that the base exists and is viewable on Google Street View.
There's been lots of talk about whether or not Google's Street View effort violates anyone's privacy -- and also whether or not it's proper for police to use photos that were uploaded online in charging people with crimes. How about a combination of the two? A property owner in Canada was caught illegally chopping down some trees on a lot, and Google's Street View images appear to catch the tree choppers red handed. It's not yet clear if the Street View images will be used in the prosecution, but it does seem like valid evidence, though again it will raise privacy questions. However, I'm not sure what the argument really would be there, since it would really be no different than a neighbor taking a photograph (it was the neighbors who complained about the tree chopping in the first place).
We've been covering the case of a couple named Boring (no, seriously, that's their last name) who got upset and sued Google after they found pictures of their house in Google's Street View offering -- even though Google lets anyone remove images they dislike. The couple claimed that the images invaded their privacy and devalued their home (how an accurate photo could devalue the home is an open question). The case was quickly dismissed, but the Borings appealed, in lovely language about how this was about Google trampling on their right to privacy. The appeals court has thrown out most of the case, but actually is allowing the claim of trespassing to move forward in the lower court. Indeed, many did point out in our comments that it appeared that the Google vehicle may have driven onto the Borings' driveway in the process of photographing the home. Of course, proving any actual damage from the trespass may prove a bit more difficult.
Via Blaise we learn of a musician in Saskatoon, who heard that Google was going to be adding Saskatoon to its "Street View" efforts, and decided he was going to figure out a way to promote himself via Google Street View. He bought a sign with his band's name, and kept it in his car. He told all his friends to be on the lookout for the Google Street View car, and to alert him, but he actually spotted it himself while eating lunch one day. After following it around for a bit, he figured out the pattern the car was driving in, and set himself up a little ways ahead and was photographed. He dashed ahead again, and got photographed a second time as well:
But here's the thing: his face is blurred out due to pressure from various governments to "protect" people's privacy from Google Street View. So this raises an obvious question: what do you do if you want to be seen on Google Street View, rather than blurred, and your government has taken away that ability?
A few months ago, when Google launched its "Street View" tool in Switzerland, the government got upset and told Google to take the site down because it violated people's privacy. This was despite the fact that Google had been discussing the project with the government and put in place multiple privacy safeguards, including blurring faces and license plates. Apparently, it wasn't enough. Mr. LemurBoy alerts us to the news that Switzerland is now taking Google to court over Street View, claiming that it doesn't blur people enough, and that sometimes the cameras can see over fences or walls. Of course, anyone walking down the street can see the same things as well, and if they're tall enough, they can see over walls. Is Switzerland going to take tall people to court as well?
Following a bunch of other countries, it looks like Switzerland is the latest to freak out over Google Street View and to ban it, just a week after it was introduced. Google is apparently surprised by this move, noting that it had been talking to the Swiss gov't and had a bunch of privacy safeguards in place, which seemed to be working. Of course, you have to ask, are there surveillance cameras in Switzerland? If so, why is that okay when Google's Street View is not? Surveillance cameras are real-time. Street View is not. Surveillance cameras do not blur faces/license plates. Street View does. Why is one allowed and the other not? Of course, given how many local gov'ts have freaked out about Street View, it does make you wonder why Google would launch it these days without first having assurances from the gov't that it would be okay.
By now you've all heard about the lawsuit between Shepard Fairey for taking a photo, which the AP claims it owns (though, that's in dispute), and turning it into the iconic election poster for Barack Obama. However, it seems that other companies don't react in such a way when people turn their photographs into art. Ed Kohler points us to a story of a painter, Bill Guffey, who has been using Google Street View to find scenes around the globe to paint. He's able to paint far away towns without leaving his house. And he's doing it for commercial purposes. The article notes that he's painted nearly 100 such images, and sold 30 to 40 of them, some for as much as $1,500.
Now, if Google were acting like the AP, it might freak out and demand compensation. Of course, it would probably lose in court (as the AP is likely to lose) because the works are transformative and almost certainly fair use. But, being Google (and having copyright lawyers who understand these things), it doesn't seem likely to do that. Instead, it actually appears to be quite thrilled to find out about this project:
"When we were creating Street View, we were excited about all the everyday uses, like looking for parking or planning trips," Stephen Chau, product manager for Google Street View, said. "Bill's use of Street View, to inspire his paintings and to create a virtual community of artists, is a remarkable example that we hadn't imagined but are really excited to see. It's been amazing to see the possibilities that have opened up as Street View has been brought to more places around the world."
