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