[kwlug-disc] [OT] Google sniffing wifi, collecting emails and passwords.

unsolicited unsolicited at swiz.ca
Mon Jun 21 21:15:11 EDT 2010

Insurance Squared Inc. wrote, On 06/21/2010 6:48 PM:
> < rant>
> I know I sound a bit like a whack job on this.

You don't.

Ever since your SEO presentation, I've thought that you are better 
aware about all things Google, the 'real story', than anyone on this list.

Google clearly treads over what people consider reasonable, privacy 
wise. Repeatedly. Caught or not.

Lori - your stance on open connections is unreasonable.
People shouldn't have to be educated on everything they buy. If 
there's anything unreasonable, it's that routers come set unencrypted, 
forcing the user to specifically choose unencrypted. Another 
embarrassing failure of my industry. Let alone web sites that don't 
encrypt user names / passwords. Golden (Execulink) for example, has / 
had, no TLS / SSL connectivity to e-mail.

	Newspaper or no, just because we're 'like the other guy' doesn't mean 
we don't all wish for different. Part of what grates, particularly 
with computers, is the 'sneakiness' factor. Probably not infrequently 
treading on people's 'innocence' and ignorance.

	Buyer beware may be true, but nobody likes it.

 > If they want to crack my WPA2 then I'll see them in court.

If you know. And they'll bury you with unsustainable costs such that 
you won't even start. We, perhaps unjustifiably so, have expectations 
of corporate of ethics. [Don't mean to try to figure out where the 
ethical line is here, merely saying that the behaviour is expected.]

Using Bing, or not, doesn't address the issue here. (Data collected.)

I wonder how long we'll wait before we get confirmation and 
verification that they've erased the 'extra' data.

Chris - analogy still needs work. [Granted, copyright/google analogies 
aren't converging here.] Having sold a copy of the contents of the 
container, if it is easy to copy those contents and give it to someone 
else without remuneration to the creator, it is prudent for the 
creator to take steps to make it less easy to copy. It is reasonable 
for the creator to want to prosecute, or see prosecuted, those who 
steal. The fact that doing so, or preventing the copying, is not 
feasible, is not relevant here. Give them another way to accomplish at 
least those reasonable elements, out of their entire set of 
(unreasonable) goals.

	A debit transaction is a private, personal, interaction between two 
(a few?) parties. It is reasonable to expect the information only to 
be used for the purposes of making the transaction, and nothing else. 
Not marketing, not credit reporting, not anything else.

	Granted, I think I agree with Lori - in essence a router mac address 
isn't much different than a house address number. Sort of.

I guess, in the end, the problem is that there is no 'common man 
oversight' on the use of 'private' data, let alone enforcement 
mechanisms for breaches if the oversight wanted something addressed. 
For the current bill, obviously such 'common man oversight' has 
failed. For the former, yes, this is why we have laws, enforcement 
agencies, courts, etc., etc., yada, yada, yada. (Just how well does 
public opinion think all these are working? NOT.)

For google - better to ask forgiveness than permission?

More information about the kwlug-disc mailing list