Google says its cars grabbed emails and passwords

[twhiting9275]

2. I'm pretty sure, at least under our law, that Jane would be facing court action with no doubt the various teleco cases being referenced, clearly they would not be binding to a decision.

Read through RIAA cases, you'll be surprised. The person holding the IP address is always responsible. This would be the person paying for the account. This has been gone over quite a few times. You can't claim ignorance here, it's not a legal defense

 

[David McHenry]

You're comparing apples to oranges here, and nobody's claiming they have a 'right' to come empty it out. Even Google is saying "Hey, we screwed up".
Now, believe me, I hate Google, with a fiery passion. They're way too big, far too unchecked and regulated, and they basically have a 'get out of jail free' card because of their size alone. HOWEVER, in this case, it's not Google that is the major problem. The major problem is the person(s) sending information that should be encrypted openly, then whining about it not being private. Hey, if your system is open, it's GOING to get hacked, it's GOING to get taken from you. This is a PERFECT example of that. Secure your systems! Open wi-fi is horrible and grossly insecure.

Last I checked it wasn't illegal to not secure your wifi, or leave your house unlocked.

It is illegal to enter both with out prior permission. Stealing a wi-fi connection for any purpose is theft of services. Cell phone service comes in over air waves, does that mean I can freely use those signals if I found a way to?

 

[HannahP]

RIAA aside, there is a philosophical question at the root of this, and that is, is it wrong to use someone's unsecured whatever.

I don't think it is. In the case of your wifi, the unsecured signal is there in my house. You set up the modem that put it in my house. You gave it to me. If I am walking down the street and your unsecured wifi signal is enveloping me in its yummy goodness out there on the sidewalk, you are making it available to me if I feel like sitting down on the curb and downloading weird Asian lumberyard porn.

Whatever the unsecured person's intent is is not the point. By their lack of reasonable action to protect themselves, they are giving me a piece of their pie. And who doesn't love pie?

For the analogy fans in the house, if my unsecured neighbor walked past my house and $10,000 fell out of a hole in their pocket, am I wrong to walk by 5 minutes later, pick it up and look around and say, "Thanks, universe!" and go buy 600 pounds of French cheese? Or should I put up a sign on all the trees on the block; "$10,000 found. Please come by to pick it up."

There is a disturbing lack of culpability in the world. People burning their angry, thin lips on hot coffee and suing some company, or suing because they fell off a swing and tore their party dress. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? How about if you leave your front door unlocked and people take all your stuff, tough sheet, meester! It's your fault. You left the door open. You dropped the money. You sent your probably toxic and horribly radioactive mutant wifi ray into my living room. You did that stuff.

Google should be able to drive down the street and pull whatever they want out of the air! It's there for the taking. If you don't think it should be there in the ether for the taking, then change that. Don't let it out. Lock the door. Sew up the hole in your pocket. Do something besides standing around with a victim sign around your neck.

 

[AnthonyCea]

LOL Michael, Google is only doing what hackers have done for years by driving down the street and scanning the air, they did not invent this last week.

 

[twhiting9275]

Stealing a wi-fi connection for any purpose is theft of services.

But, see, that's not 'theft'. Again, via the almighty google's definition:

In criminal law, theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent

A> there is no property taken (though this can be expanded to services)
B> consent IS given here, in that the individual knowingly provides an open wi-fi, open to anyone. The individual is made aware of the implications constantly (try connecting to any open wi-fi through windows, you'll get alerted about the problems), they choose to do so. This is not the same as leaving your door unlocked.
and most importantly:
C> This is not 'illegal'. NO law has been created to address this, and rightfully so. How is user X supposed to distinguish between wi-fi that is NOT deliberately left open, and wi-fi that IS? They're not. Thusly, the only solution is to close out private wi-fi, period, leaving only PUBLIC wi-fi (libraries, communities, cities, stores, etc) open. The problem? People are too stupid to actually go through with this. They think that having an 'open internet' is cool. They think that, of course, until they see that lawsuit coming at 'em.

 

[David McHenry]

But, see, that's not 'theft'. Again, via the almighty google's definition:

A> there is no property taken (though this can be expanded to services)

Internet is a service. WiFi is an extension of that service. Theft of service (of any kind) is illegal in numerous states across the US alone. Is this the same theory that piracy isn't stealing because property really isn't taken, or do you run a cable from your neighbors house to power the TV service...

Using someone else's internet is stealing not only from the person who pays for it but also the ISP.

B> consent IS given here, in that the individual knowingly provides an open wi-fi, open to anyone. The individual is made aware of the implications constantly (try connecting to any open wi-fi through windows, you'll get alerted about the problems), they choose to do so. This is not the same as leaving your door unlocked.

No merely leaving your internet connection open doesn't grant consent for use, and pretty much wraps up your knowledge of the law and how things work. Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 47 of the United States Code deals with anybody who "intentionally access a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access" Here and here are some actual legal cases that establish, an open wifi connection isn't free game.

If you want some UK precedents go here

 

[twhiting9275]

You seem to think I'm defending google here. I'm not. The fact is though that this is the fault of not just Google, but the idiots not securing their information.
Your examples are irrelevant here. Of course, you're going to defend the ignorant and stupid, that's your choice. The fact is though that it is not Google's fault that the person was broadcasting private information in clear text. That's the person's fault. Only an idiot would side with the fool that chose to use an open network.

I've repeatedly been asked by friends to join their 'open' network, and repeatedly I've refused. Why? Simply put, it's INSECURE and STUPID to transmit private data over an insecure, open wireless connection. Just because you want to do it doesn't mean it's right. It just means that you're ignorant of the risks involved.

 

[ManagerJosh]

Just as a technical note, you do NOT need to join someone's WiFi network in order to capture packets.