More And More Lawsuits Filed Against Google Over Street View WiFi Slurping

from the evidence? dept

We've already covered one class action lawsuit filed against Google for its WiFi data slurping activities, and it appears that lots and lots of lawyers are trying to jump into the game. Eric Goldman has a list of at least seven such class action lawsuits that have been filed already. While we agree that Google's actions were bad, and do deserve some scrutiny, I find it difficult to believe these lawsuits can get anywhere. In the first one that we covered, we noted that one of the complaints was from a woman who sent confidential company data via her own, unsecured WiFi access point, and we couldn't figure out how that was Google's fault.

The real issue, though, is that it will be nearly impossible (if not impossible) for anyone in any of these lawsuits to first show that any of their specific data was recorded by Google, and secondly, that any harm came to them because of it. And, as we've noted multiple times, the courts seem to want to (a) see actual privacy being breached, rather than theoretical privacy being breached and (b) see actually harm come to the plaintiffs from those breaches. Without either of those things, it's hard to see these lawsuits getting very far.

As Goldman notes, not at all sarcastically:

It's remarkable that these lawyers were able to conclude to their satisfaction that their named plaintiffs in fact had their payload data captured in the process--presumably by confirming that payload data was actually being transmitted at the precise time the cars drove by. I'm not sure how I would research this issue sufficient to satisfy my Rule 11 obligation, but these attorneys surely didn't just assume Google captured their clients' payload data...did they?

Filed Under: class action, harm, lawsuits, wifi
Companies: google

As Google Hands Over Collected WiFi Data In Germany, France And Spain, Ireland Tells Google To Destroy It

from the mixed-messages dept

We recently covered how the data that Google collected via its Street View WiFi efforts was caught in this weird legal limbo, between privacy laws, data retention laws and rules about destroying evidence. However, it looks like that's getting settled... but in very different ways in different countries. Somehow, Google has worked out a way to hand over the data in Germany, France and Spain... but over in Ireland, Google has been ordered to destroy the data. Not quite sure how this squares with the privacy laws in Germany, France and Spain... but hopefully we'll find out that the data collected by this system was mostly meaningless and we can get over the hype surrounding this whole thing.

Filed Under: data collection, data retention, europe, france, germany, ireland, privacy, spain, wifi
Companies: google

CSIRO Wants To Expand Its WiFi Tax: Sues Mobile Operators

from the no-wifi-without-paying-up dept

Every time we mention CSIRO, the Australian government-owned research group that claims to hold a patent on the basic concept behind WiFi, we get angry comments from people at CSIRO who claim that we've got it all wrong, and that even if they agree with us in general on patents, CSIRO's WiFi patent and the hundreds of millions of dollars it sucks from companies doing actual innovation, is perfectly reasonable. Uh huh. Of course, we still have problems with the idea that any government organization ought to be patenting anything. However, following the decision by a bunch of tech companies sued by CSIRO to pay $250 million to settle the giant patent lawsuit, CSIRO is coming back for more.

JohnForDummies was the first of a few of you to alert us to CSIRO's latest set of lawsuits against American tech companies, this time focusing on ISPs. Verizon Wireless, AT&T and T-Mobile have all been sued, even though none actually make WiFi equipment. However, since they all have WiFi-enabled devices (some of which were almost certainly made by the tech companies who already paid up) CSIRO claims they need to pay up again. Apparently patent exhaustion is not a concept CSIRO considers valid.

Oddly, the article in The Age about this lawsuit seems to side almost entirely with CSIRO, quoting people who insist that companies have "no choice but to pay up" and that CSIRO has the right to demand licenses from the "entire industry." It also quotes someone who falsely claims that the only reason companies would agree to settle is if they knew they were going to lose. That's not even close to true. Lots of companies settle patent disputes because it's often cheaper to do so. And, even if they think they can win, oftentimes their shareholders don't like the uncertainty and push for a faster settlement.

The Age article also provides some more background on the patents in question, highlighting that they're based on mathematical equations created in a 1977 paper. As JohnForDummies points out, mathematical equations are not supposed to be patentable...

Filed Under: australia, csiro, patents, wifi
Companies: at&t, csiro, t-mobile, verizon wireless

Stephen Conroy Continues To Attack Google; Claims WiFi Data Collection Was Done On Purpose

from the proof-plese? dept

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.

Filed Under: australia, censorship, politics, privacy, stephen conroy, street view, wifi
Companies: google

Class Action Lawsuit Launched Against Google, Because Some Woman Didn't Secure Her Own WiFi

from the blame-game dept

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.

Filed Under: class action, privacy, security, street view, wifi
Companies: google

London Wants To Offer Full WiFi Coverage... But How Will That Work With The Digital Economy Act?

from the questions... dept

Rik was the first of a few of you to send in the news that the mayor of London, Boris Johnson, is claiming that London will be fully covered by WiFi in time for the 2012 Olympic games. Of course, considering that the UK Parliament just passed the Digital Economy Act, which calls for carefully limiting access to the internet for people accused (not convicted) of infringement online, it makes you wonder how that's going to work. Even if Ofcom has said that the DEA rules won't initially apply to wireless providers, it does seem a bit odd to have the government offering a service like this. Once again, we're seeing how the government has these two competing issues that don't play well together: getting more broadband availability, while looking to help out the entertainment industry by kicking people off the internet at the same time. Who will be the first Olympic athlete kicked offline for downloading some music during the games?

Filed Under: london, olympics, wifi

Google Admits It Was Accidentally Collecting Some Open WiFi Data

from the oops dept

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.

Filed Under: europe, privacy, street view, wifi
Companies: google

German Court Says You Must Secure Your WiFi Or You May Get Fined

from the open-wifi-is-illegal? dept

Miranda Neubauer was the first of a few of you to send in the news of a bizarre German court ruling that makes it effectively illegal to offer open WiFi. Seriously:

Germany's top criminal court ruled Wednesday that Internet users need to secure their private wireless connections by password to prevent unauthorized people from using their Web access to illegally download data.

Internet users can be fined up to euro100 ($126) if a third party takes advantage of their unprotected WLAN connection to illegally download music or other files, the Karlsruhe-based court said in its verdict.

"Private users are obligated to check whether their wireless connection is adequately secured to the danger of unauthorized third parties abusing it to commit copyright violation," the court said.

This is backwards in so many ways. First, open WiFi is quite useful, and requiring a password can be a huge pain, limiting all sorts of individuals and organizations who have perfectly good reasons for offering free and open WiFi. Second, fining the WiFi hotspot owner for actions of users of the service is highly troubling from a third party liability standpoint. The operator of the WiFi hotspot should not be responsible for the actions of users, and it's troubling that the German court would find otherwise. This is an unfortunate ruling no matter how you look at it.

Filed Under: copyright, germany, passwords, security, third party liability, wifi, wireless