Google Wi-Fi Roundup Has Lawyers Chasing Landmark Jackpot
1–10 of 20 posts
Re: Google Wi-Fi Roundup Has Lawyers Chasing Landmark Jackpot
#2My understanding is that Google was really upfront about apologizing & explaining the mistake [1]. People see money signs though...
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/may/15/google-adm...
Re: Google Wi-Fi Roundup Has Lawyers Chasing Landmark Jackpot
#3My understanding is that Google was really upfront about apologizing & explaining the mistake [1]. People see money signs though... [1] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/may/15/google-adm...
Their explanation sounds pretty fishy to me:
> Google blamed the mistake on a piece of legacy code from an experimental project that had been re-used to programme equipment on the Street View cars
Somebody at some point specifically wrote code to sniff data off wireless LANs.
Re: Google Wi-Fi Roundup Has Lawyers Chasing Landmark Jackpot
#4My understanding is that Google was really upfront about apologizing & explaining the mistake [1]. People see money signs though... [1] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/may/15/google-adm...
If well-phrased heartfelt apologies got companies off the hook legally, there would be even less corporate accountability than there is today. I don't know the details of this case, but apologies and explanations after the fact shouldn't be a factor in deciding civil judgments.
Re: Google Wi-Fi Roundup Has Lawyers Chasing Landmark Jackpot
#5But, Google did mine Wi-Fi data of a lot of people, so why do only those 22 people are to be proven as victim. Can't the case be broadened?
Re: Google Wi-Fi Roundup Has Lawyers Chasing Landmark Jackpot
#6My understanding is that Google was really upfront about apologizing & explaining the mistake [1]. People see money signs though... [1] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/may/15/google-adm...
Their explanation sounds pretty fishy to me: > Google blamed the mistake on a piece of legacy code from an experimental project that had been re-used to programme equipment on the Street View cars Somebody at some point specifically wrote code to sniff data off wireless LANs.
In order to make a map of which wireless LANs are available, you switch the radio in receive mode and then cycle through the channels, capturing all packets. Then, you filter the packets for beacons. I believe when you "scan" for wireless networks, your wireless device is going to be doing something similar under the hood.
It'd be easy to accidentally leave debug logging turned on for the parsing code. Alternatively, if you use something off-the-shelf like kismet, the packet logs are saved in /var/log/kismet automatically.
Re: Google Wi-Fi Roundup Has Lawyers Chasing Landmark Jackpot
#7My understanding is that Google was really upfront about apologizing & explaining the mistake [1]. People see money signs though... [1] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/may/15/google-adm...
Their explanation sounds pretty fishy to me: > Google blamed the mistake on a piece of legacy code from an experimental project that had been re-used to programme equipment on the Street View cars Somebody at some point specifically wrote code to sniff data off wireless LANs.
You never wrote a piece of code that dumps to a logfile more data than it really needs, as part of learning and design?
Re: Google Wi-Fi Roundup Has Lawyers Chasing Landmark Jackpot
#8My understanding is that Google was really upfront about apologizing & explaining the mistake [1]. People see money signs though... [1] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/may/15/google-adm...
If well-phrased heartfelt apologies got companies off the hook legally, there would be even less corporate accountability than there is today. I don't know the details of this case, but apologies and explanations after the fact shouldn't be a factor in deciding civil judgments.
That being said, I do wish the practice of "neither admit or deny wrongdoing" wasn't standard in class action settlements etc. eg. the employee poaching scandal
Re: Google Wi-Fi Roundup Has Lawyers Chasing Landmark Jackpot
#9My understanding is that Google was really upfront about apologizing & explaining the mistake [1]. People see money signs though... [1] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/may/15/google-adm...
Their explanation sounds pretty fishy to me: > Google blamed the mistake on a piece of legacy code from an experimental project that had been re-used to programme equipment on the Street View cars Somebody at some point specifically wrote code to sniff data off wireless LANs.
The data they wanted was the MAC addresses of the routers. With that information, then can then improve their maps geolocation by seeing what wifi networks are in range.
The problem is they grabbed more than just MAC addresses.
Re: Google Wi-Fi Roundup Has Lawyers Chasing Landmark Jackpot
#10But, Google did mine Wi-Fi data of a lot of people, so why do only those 22 people are to be proven as victim. Can't the case be broadened?
It can, although that hasn't been litigated yet - that's the class action part the article refers to. A lawsuit like that often starts with a smallish number of plaintiffs whose injuries (in the sense of being negatively affected by someone else) are similar enough for a case to be made that they're representative of a larger group, whereas if there was only one plaintiff it would be impossible to decide whether a pattern of behavior existed.
Lawyers love class action suits because while they may only generate a small payout for each plaintiff the law firm running the suit may collect 30% of the payout in return for administering the settlement (writing to all potential plaintiffs, advising them of their rights under the settlement, disbursing payments and so forth). That's a lot of administrative work but for a large settlement it can still bevery lucrative. So much so that in very large lawsuits there is sometimes litigation between competing firms about which is best positioned to represent the plaintiffs, before the main matter is litigated. ISTR that happened with the tobacco litigation by the states in the 1990s, which ultimately involved something like a $20 billion payout.