00:32
Mr. Asim Rajput
That appears to be the legal theory embraced by the Silicon Valley federal judge presiding over a dozen combined lawsuits seeking damages from Google for eavesdropping on open WiFi networks by its Street View mapping cars. The cars had been equipped with WiFi-sniffing hardware to record the names & MAC addresses of routers to improve Google location-specific services.
The query of whether Google is liable for damages for secretly intercepting information on open WiFi routers across the United States is boiling down to the definition of a "radio communication.
But those cars were also capturing the contents of net packets that were sent over unencrypted WiFi as they drove by, something the company said was an accidental leftover from testing.
While the company quickly admitted that it had made a mistake and temporarily grounded its fleet of mapping vehicles last year, the company was confronted with a lot of investigations around the globe, as well as class-action lawsuits that were joined in San Jose, Los angeles. The lawsuits are being heard by US District Judge James Ware.
At the middle of the legal flap is whether Google breached the Wiretap Act. The answer is important not only to Google, but to the millions who use open, unencrypted Wi-Fi networks at coffee shops, restaurants or any other business trying to cull customers.
Google said it is not illegal to intercept information from unencrypted, or non-password-protected Wi-Fi networks. Plaintiffs lawyers representing millions of Americans whose net traffic was sniffed by Google think otherwise, and are seeking unspecified damages.
Judge Ware, however, suggested the answer to the far-reaching privacy dilemma lies in an unanswered query. They has asked each side to define radio communication (PDF) as it applies to the Wiretap Act, and wishes to know whether home W-Fi networks are radio communications under the Wiretap Act.
In response, Google wrote last week that open WiFi networks are akin to radio communications like AM/FM radio, citizens band and police and fire bands and are readily accessible to the general public. Indeed, packet-sniffing program, such as Wireshark and Firebug, is basically available online.
Hence, because unencrypted WiFi signals travel over the radio spectrum, they are not covered by the Wiretap Act, (PDF) Google responded.
There can be no doubt that the transfer of any sign, signal, writing, images, sound, information, or intelligence of any nature transmitted over the radio spectrum constitutes a radio communication. Indeed, there is nothing in the text or legislative history of the Wiretap Act that would exclude any transmission sent over the radio spectrum from the definition of radio communication, Google wrote.
The plaintiffs lawyers countered that the communications in query started on a computer and only briefly were relayed on radio waves across the lounge from the recipient's router to her laptop computer.
The fact that either the first or final few feet of the electronic communication may have gone by wireless transmission ['Wi-Fi'] does not transform the communication in to a radio communication broadcast similar to an AM/FM radio or a CB., (PDF) plaintiffs lawyer Elizabeth Cabraser wrote. Nor is there anything in the statute to define radio communications as synonymous with anything sent on a radio wave, however briefly and without regard to the entirety of the communication process at use.
Both sides agree, however, that it's illegal to listen in on cordless rings.
According to the Wiretap Act, it's not thought about felony wiretapping to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication process that is configured to that such electronic communication is readily available to the general public, according to the text of the federal wiretapping statute.
The Federal Trade Commission closed its inquiry in to the brouhaha in October, without imposing any sanctions on the Mountain View, Los angeles net giant. The Federal Communications Commission commenced a probe in November, but has not announced a conclusion.
Several state attorneys general are also looking in to the debacle.
The FCC's government affairs chief wrote last year that Google's behavior also raises important concerns. Whether intentional or not, collecting information sent over WiFi networks clearly infringes on consumer privacy.
Google said it didn't recognize it was sniffing packets of information on unsecured WiFi networks in about a dozen countries over a three-year period until Italian privacy authorities began questioning what information Google's Street View cars were collecting. Google, along with other companies, use databases of WiFi networks and their locations to increase or replace GPS when trying to figure out the location of a computer or mobile tool.
The query of whether Google is liable for damages for secretly intercepting information on open WiFi routers across the United States is boiling down to the definition of a "radio communication.
But those cars were also capturing the contents of net packets that were sent over unencrypted WiFi as they drove by, something the company said was an accidental leftover from testing.
While the company quickly admitted that it had made a mistake and temporarily grounded its fleet of mapping vehicles last year, the company was confronted with a lot of investigations around the globe, as well as class-action lawsuits that were joined in San Jose, Los angeles. The lawsuits are being heard by US District Judge James Ware.
At the middle of the legal flap is whether Google breached the Wiretap Act. The answer is important not only to Google, but to the millions who use open, unencrypted Wi-Fi networks at coffee shops, restaurants or any other business trying to cull customers.
Google said it is not illegal to intercept information from unencrypted, or non-password-protected Wi-Fi networks. Plaintiffs lawyers representing millions of Americans whose net traffic was sniffed by Google think otherwise, and are seeking unspecified damages.
Judge Ware, however, suggested the answer to the far-reaching privacy dilemma lies in an unanswered query. They has asked each side to define radio communication (PDF) as it applies to the Wiretap Act, and wishes to know whether home W-Fi networks are radio communications under the Wiretap Act.
In response, Google wrote last week that open WiFi networks are akin to radio communications like AM/FM radio, citizens band and police and fire bands and are readily accessible to the general public. Indeed, packet-sniffing program, such as Wireshark and Firebug, is basically available online.
Hence, because unencrypted WiFi signals travel over the radio spectrum, they are not covered by the Wiretap Act, (PDF) Google responded.
There can be no doubt that the transfer of any sign, signal, writing, images, sound, information, or intelligence of any nature transmitted over the radio spectrum constitutes a radio communication. Indeed, there is nothing in the text or legislative history of the Wiretap Act that would exclude any transmission sent over the radio spectrum from the definition of radio communication, Google wrote.
The plaintiffs lawyers countered that the communications in query started on a computer and only briefly were relayed on radio waves across the lounge from the recipient's router to her laptop computer.
The fact that either the first or final few feet of the electronic communication may have gone by wireless transmission ['Wi-Fi'] does not transform the communication in to a radio communication broadcast similar to an AM/FM radio or a CB., (PDF) plaintiffs lawyer Elizabeth Cabraser wrote. Nor is there anything in the statute to define radio communications as synonymous with anything sent on a radio wave, however briefly and without regard to the entirety of the communication process at use.
Both sides agree, however, that it's illegal to listen in on cordless rings.
According to the Wiretap Act, it's not thought about felony wiretapping to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication process that is configured to that such electronic communication is readily available to the general public, according to the text of the federal wiretapping statute.
The Federal Trade Commission closed its inquiry in to the brouhaha in October, without imposing any sanctions on the Mountain View, Los angeles net giant. The Federal Communications Commission commenced a probe in November, but has not announced a conclusion.
Several state attorneys general are also looking in to the debacle.
The FCC's government affairs chief wrote last year that Google's behavior also raises important concerns. Whether intentional or not, collecting information sent over WiFi networks clearly infringes on consumer privacy.
Google said it didn't recognize it was sniffing packets of information on unsecured WiFi networks in about a dozen countries over a three-year period until Italian privacy authorities began questioning what information Google's Street View cars were collecting. Google, along with other companies, use databases of WiFi networks and their locations to increase or replace GPS when trying to figure out the location of a computer or mobile tool.
0 comments:
Post a Comment