[whackberry]

> But then again I'm sorry, I have never seen what the big deal was about this.

You don't see what the deal is with a major corporation doing wardriving and packet capturing?

> If you broadcast your crap around you can't blame people for receiving it.

By your logic then if someone gets robbed on the streets, then it's their fault for "walking around freely"?

[derefr]

> By your logic then if someone gets robbed on the streets, then it's their fault for "walking around freely"?

Well, to more strictly match the analogy--if someone is walking around with a purse that is constantly leaking coins, and they get "robbed" (by someone finding some of said coins and wandering off with them), then I would say that that is their own fault, yes.

[whackberry]

So by your logic simply owning a Wi-Fi access-point at home and not adding strong cryptography is reason enough for a corporation to drive their car to your house and capture your data?

So to keep Google away from logging my network data I need a strong virtual fence now, otherwise they'll come spying on my traffic?

That is 100% wrong. Google shouldn't be snooping on my data at all, not even if my AP was within their corporate headquarters reach. That is simply not acceptable behavior from a major corporation.

[magicalist]

No, just like photography being allowed in public does not mean that a video camera is going to be pointed at your house 24 hours a day and you'll be mandated to like it.

On the other hand, the existence of the paparazzi is not enough to justify banning the freedom to take pictures in public places.

All of these laws have to be carefully balanced to make sure we retain our rights.

[whackberry]

Sure, but what is the parallel here?

The paparazzi make a living from those photos, so there is a reason for them to be out there doing that(not saying I agree, just saying there's a reason for it).

What is Google doing driving around collecting personal data for? Google is a search engine with several great products around it. WTF are they driving around collecting data for? See? It doesn't make any sense, this is plain creepy.

[derefr]

...because Google Maps has backup-geolocation through a database of wi-fi access point ID/GPS-pair mappings, which can only be discovered by exactly this wardriving process? It's kind of the central point of the story, here.

[shpoonj]

Thank you for summing this up so eloquently.

[fennecfoxen]

If by "robbed" you mean "overheard", maybe we can get somewhere by analogizing.

[lukeschlather]

No one was deprived of anything other than privacy. Yes, if you broadcast radio waves you shouldn't expect them to remain private.

[jarcoal]

That is not a valid comparison at all... would you go after Google for smelling what people are cooking from the street?

[fiaz]

I'm surprised that you think the smelling analogy is valid. There is nothing really at stake with letting the aroma from my kitchen waft onto the street aside from maybe what's in the meal I've prepared.

Personal information is a different matter. It's perfectly reasonable to take issue with Google for taking people's data without their knowledge about it.

[jarcoal]

Personal information becomes public when it's not properly secured and then broadcasted out into the world... even if the user doesn't understand it's happening.

I agree that it's not a perfect analogy, but it is quite a bit closer than being robbed, as the the OP suggested.

[whackberry]

> Personal information becomes public when it's not properly secured

Really? Do you have any idea how wrong that statement is?

So if a song is played in public, it becomes public?

[dantheman]

Are you arguing that I shouldn't be able to record audio on the street if someone is playing a song in the background?

[jlarocco]

> You don't see what the deal is with a major corporation doing wardriving and packet capturing?

I don't, actually. There was no "hacking" or exploitation of any kind - any idiot with a wifi card can do the same thing.

>By your logic then if someone gets robbed on the streets, then it's their fault for "walking around freely"?

If I stand on the corner shouting out my social security and bank account numbers, I expect somebody will rip me off. Changing the type of wave from a sound wave to a radio wave doesn't really change anything.

[whackberry]

> I don't, actually. There was no "hacking" or exploitation of any kind - any idiot with a wifi card can do the same thing.

What the hell? So if Pizza Hut were to start capturing radio waves you'd find that normal?

Why is it normal for Google to go around capturing customer data? That is my question. Even if my data is open to the public, absolutely not encrypted, why is it normal for a major corporation to go around capturing it. THAT is the question, not whether I had encryption or not!

IMO no corporation should be going around recording my data even if it was broadcast in plain sight.

[jlarocco]

It seems like you're missing the point. The only reason we're hearing about this is because Google is a huge, popular company and somebody leaked it. I could be listening to your wifi right now, and you wouldn't even know. There's no way you can know. Making it illegal isn't going to protect you.

The only way to protect your information is to not broadcast in the open.

[whackberry]

> Making it illegal isn't going to protect you.

Well if making things illegal doesn't protect us any more then we're in serious trouble here.

[1010011010]

It's illegal to steal cars, so we can rest assured that it will never happen again.

[jlawer]

> By your logic then if someone gets robbed on the streets, then it's their fault for "walking around freely"?

Come on that a bit excessive...

No one is hurt if packets are captured. Its not a violent act. Surely we can loose the hyperbolae.

I am saying that its not realistic to expect privacy if you do things in a public space, including broadcasting your data. If you choose to tell a story out on the street and I hear it you don't get to then say I am invading your privacy by hearing it.

[dkokelley]

>By your logic then if someone gets robbed on the streets, then it's their fault for "walking around freely"

Your analogy is broken, and I think you know it.

The bigger question is, "is it OK for someone to methodically collect data that people (inadvertently) broadcast about themselves?". The advertising industry has been doing it for years, and it's really a legal and ethical fuzzy area. The more productive conversation will revolve around privacy rights and expectations.