Technical details of the Google Street View WiFi controversy [May 2010]
erratasec.blogspot.com
Technical details of the Google Street View WiFi controversy [May 2010]
1–10 of 20 posts
Re: Technical details of the Google Street View WiFi controversy [May 2010]
#2"If you don't encrypt your traffic, then by implication, you don't care if people eavesdrop on it."
Re: Technical details of the Google Street View WiFi controversy [May 2010]
#3There are several comments below the article which noted that Google had turned over data to external French auditors, who reported finding passwords, emails, and other sensitive information in the WiFi data captured by Google. Personally, I would be more worried by external auditors having access to the data than Google.
Re: Technical details of the Google Street View WiFi controversy [May 2010]
#4"If you don't encrypt your traffic, then by implication, you don't care if people eavesdrop on it."
Isn't that like saying "if you don't lock your mailbox, then by implication you don't care if people read your mail"? Or, "if you don't lock your telephone junction box, then by implication you don't care if people tap your phone"?
Although I don't agree with your quoted statement, I don't think Google's capturing of data should be considered criminal, either.
Re: Technical details of the Google Street View WiFi controversy [May 2010]
#5"If you don't encrypt your traffic, then by implication, you don't care if people eavesdrop on it."
Isn't that like saying "if you don't lock your mailbox, then by implication you don't care if people read your mail"? Or, "if you don't lock your telephone junction box, then by implication you don't care if people tap your phone"? Although I don't agree with your quoted statement, I don't think Google's capturing of data should be considered criminal, either.
More like "If you shout loudly in your apartment, expect others to hear you."
Re: Technical details of the Google Street View WiFi controversy [May 2010]
#6"If you don't encrypt your traffic, then by implication, you don't care if people eavesdrop on it."
Isn't that like saying "if you don't lock your mailbox, then by implication you don't care if people read your mail"? Or, "if you don't lock your telephone junction box, then by implication you don't care if people tap your phone"? Although I don't agree with your quoted statement, I don't think Google's capturing of data should be considered criminal, either.
The difference is wifi broadcasts that information.
Re: Technical details of the Google Street View WiFi controversy [May 2010]
#7Surely Google knew they were saving the packet payloads, even if they didn't have any intended use for them. That is not the kind of detail a programmer can simply overlook. Calling it an "accident" is certainly disingenuous. The only accident was not realizing that people would care so much.
Re: Technical details of the Google Street View WiFi controversy [May 2010]
#8Surely Google knew they were saving the packet payloads, even if they didn't have any intended use for them. That is not the kind of detail a programmer can simply overlook. Calling it an "accident" is certainly disingenuous. The only accident was not realizing that people would care so much.
Consider it a favor from Google to point out how insecure wifis are if you don't use any encryption.
Re: Technical details of the Google Street View WiFi controversy [May 2010]
#9An interesting thought: should we blame Google or should we blame the unencrypted wifi hot spots?
The fact that it's so easy to sniff unencrypted wifis should be more worrying. I mean Google turned over the raw data, I may do the same and intentionally sniff even more data, steal everybody's password and not admit it.
Like the author said, you can punish Google, but that won't make those hotspots more secure. And you never know when will a real evil guy come to the neighborhood.
Re: Technical details of the Google Street View WiFi controversy [May 2010]
#10Surely Google knew they were saving the packet payloads, even if they didn't have any intended use for them. That is not the kind of detail a programmer can simply overlook. Calling it an "accident" is certainly disingenuous. The only accident was not realizing that people would care so much.
Consider it a favor from Google to point out how insecure wifis are if you don't use any encryption.
Consider it a favor when criminals break into your improperly secured house and steal all your stuff.