Commentary
FCC Investigates Google's WiFi Goof -- And Congress Might, Too
- by Wendy Davis , Staff Writer @wendyndavis, November 11, 2010
What's more, Google didn't exactly inspire confidence with its public disclosures about the incident. Although the data collection came to light in May, it wasn't until last month that Google finally admitted that its Street View cars captured transmissions like passwords and URLs, and not just fragments of conversations.
But, while the news certainly was a public relations debacle for Google, it's not at all clear that the company violated anti-hacking laws, given that the networks weren't protected by passwords.
Nonetheless, several WiFi users have already filed potential class-action lawsuits, and consumer advocates are clamoring for some sort of official sanction for the company.
So far, the authorities have disappointed advocates by failing to take action against Google. On the contrary, late last month the Federal Trade Commission closed its investigation, noting that Google plans to delete the data and has promised that it won't use the material collected. "This assurance is critical to mitigate the potential harm to consumers from the collection of payload data," the FTC stated.
But, even though the FTC isn't moving forward, a different agency, the Federal Communications Commission, is investigating whether Google violated any laws. "As the agency charged with overseeing the public airwaves, we are committed to ensuring that the consumers affected by this breach of privacy receive a full and fair accounting," the FCC's enforcement bureau head, Michele Ellison, told The Wall Street Journal.
Meanwhile, look for Congress to start discussing new legislation. Just a few days ago, influential lawmaker Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) said in an interview with C- SPAN that Congress could hold hearings on the WiFi snooping and potentially enact new privacy laws.
Wendy Davis is a Senior Writer at MediaPost. You can reach Wendy at wdavis@mediapost.com
Google was only able to access this broadcasted data, because there was no privacy firewall installed on the sender's machine. There should be some responsibility on the part of the consumer to protect their property.
I'd say that was a nonsense response Jeff. If i leave my front door open, i don't expect Barclays Bank to wander in and help themselves to my passport number! I expect them to pull the door shut for me, perhaps leave me a note, but certainly not steal things just because i made an error.
Please, get your head around the fact that a data company just drove around the world not only paying apparent disregard to the privacy of individuals, but also scant morality in failing to delete the data. The bottom line? Staff at Google ought to stop behaving like they are part of a cult and remember they are first citizens of their countries. That way, when they find themselves in breach of law and ethic, they can decide not to be evil, delete and discard and shred what they should not store, and take less than 6 months to issue an apology.
I also think it's a spineless FTC that took no action to lay a hefty fine on the USA's technology "pin-up" for a blatent breach. Not even 1MM USD for charity? No wonder governments have fiscal deficits!
What message does it send to other alleged breachers like those alleged zombie cookie setting profilers at Specific Media?
There, can i dismantle my soap-box now?
Robin, entering a house is not the same as the home owner standing on the doorstep with a bullhorn announcing their intentions to the world, which is what an unsecured WiFi connection actually is. Yes, Google could've just deleted the data and not said a word, yet they chose to announce that they had captured this data, thus shining a spotlight on practices that should have been changed a decade ago -- like shipping consumer electronic devices in unprotected modes.
You need to wrap your head around what constitutes true privacy versus publicly accessible material. If a homeowner transmits their data to the world, even if it was done inadvertantly, it's no longer private, is it?