Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Wi-Fi Roundup Has Lawyers Chasing Landmark Jackpot

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 20 posts

Re: Google Wi-Fi Roundup Has Lawyers Chasing Landmark Jackpot

#11

Post by zaroth »

What a bizarre process. So if these 22 people can't find their MAC in the .pcap then it's case closed? What if they weren't home at the time, and it's just beacons? So only if they happened to be streaming a video from Netflix at the time, causing enough continuous traffic load so that some actual L3 packets pop up in the scan, only then do we get to squeeze some billions from Larry and Sergey?

Don't get me wrong, I really like the idea of sending a strong signal to companies that driving a van up to my house and pcap'ing my packets is not acceptable. But I do hope it's proportionate. $1 per byte sounds about right, so 200GB = $200B. Don't worry, we can let them pay over 100 years. Oh wait, there's already a name for that. Taxes.

At least this will set a great precedent for suing the NSA next, right?

Re: Google Wi-Fi Roundup Has Lawyers Chasing Landmark Jackpot

#12

Post by cromwellian »

oceanstone wrote: post #2

My 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...

No good deed goes unpunished, especially when there's lawyers and money involved.

Re: Google Wi-Fi Roundup Has Lawyers Chasing Landmark Jackpot

#14

Post by bowlofpetunias »

oceanstone wrote: post #2

My 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...

Since when is admitting it only after you got caught being "upfront"?

Re: Google Wi-Fi Roundup Has Lawyers Chasing Landmark Jackpot

#16

Post by URSpider94 »

iamshs wrote: post #5

But, 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?

IANAL, so corrections are welcome, but my understanding is this:

To bring a civil suit against another party, you must have standing, which means you must be able to show that you, personally, suffered damage at the hand of the other party. These 22 people can't just sue Google for damages on behalf of everyone whose data was allegedly hoovered up by StreetView, they have to prove that their data was collected. If they can't, then other people could bring the same suit and look for their data in the evidence as well.

Once a defendant or defendants prove that they have standing to bring the case, they could then petition the judge to certify a class action, at which point the lawyers representing the class would ask for discovery to find and notify all the other class members.

I view this as a very valuable rule of law; without this, there are attorneys who would just spend all day filing speculative lawsuits in hopes of forming a class action.

One other notable places this rule has come into play in the recent past: in litigation around gay marriage, when the government refused to defend its marriage discrimination laws, religious groups tried to step in to take on the defense, only to be told they had no standing because they were not being harmed by other people getting married.

Re: Google Wi-Fi Roundup Has Lawyers Chasing Landmark Jackpot

#17

Post by icebraining »

zaroth wrote: post #11

What a bizarre process. So if these 22 people can't find their MAC in the .pcap then it's case closed? What if they weren't home at the time, and it's just beacons? So only if they happened to be streaming a video from Netflix at the time, causing enough continuous traffic load so that some actual L3 packets pop up in the scan, only then do we get to squeeze some billions from Larry and Sergey? Don't get me wrong, I…

What if they weren't home at the time, and it's just beacons?

Then Google didn't actually capture their private data, no? Kinda makes it hard to allege damages.

Re: Google Wi-Fi Roundup Has Lawyers Chasing Landmark Jackpot

#18

Post by brudgers »

oceanstone wrote: post #2

My 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...

The article does not contain an apology. It contains an excuse ( old code ) and expresses Google's hope that the evidence can quickly be deleted. The words "sorry", "apology", or their derivatives and synonyms do not appear in the link.

Saying it was a mistake does not acknowledge the possible harm actual persons may have suffered. 'Mistake' references the possible harm Google suffered as a result of its actions, e.g. poor press.

Re: Google Wi-Fi Roundup Has Lawyers Chasing Landmark Jackpot

#19

Post by wlesieutre »

cornewut wrote: post #13

If it's ok to collect electromagnetic emissions in range from 430 to 790 THz [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum ], why it shouldn't be the same for 2.4 GHz?

Do you disagree with United States v. Danny Lee, where the Ninth Circuit decided that you need a warrant to spy through someone's walls with a thermal camera?

It's all EM radiation, but monitoring one vs the other has very different real world implications.

In this particular instance, the plaintiffs had security options available on their wifi transmissions (unlike thermal emissions) and chose to transmit in the clear instead, so that's part of what the case is discussing.

Re: Google Wi-Fi Roundup Has Lawyers Chasing Landmark Jackpot

#20

Post by iamshs »

URSpider94 wrote: post #16
iamshs wrote: post #5

But, 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?

IANAL, so corrections are welcome, but my understanding is this: To bring a civil suit against another party, you must have standing, which means you must be able to show that you, personally, suffered damage at the hand of the other party. These 22 people can't just sue Google for damages on behalf of everyone whose data was allegedly hoovered up by StreetView, they have to prove that their data was collected. If th…

Aha makes sense. So the process can continue perpetually until someone is proven to be a victim. Thanks for the answer.
Post reply on HN