This is just denying a dismissal of the suit, but it's pretty interesting. I'm still reading the opinion, but the court's reasoning appears to be that wifi shouldn't be considered a "radio communication" under the wiretap act because it didn't really exist at the time it was written (and doesn't really belong in a category with things like traditional radio systems), but, as "electronic communication", they find open wifi is <i>not</i> "readily accessible to the general public".<p>There is a distinction to be made here, but I'm worried about that particular one. It seems like it would be better to make it on something like accessing the data not meant for you and storing it/processing it (something closer to many privacy laws). Criminalizing the access of open wifi seems like it will quickly become problematic, and I'm sure some enterprising DAs will find it the perfect tool for some case they're having trouble making stick.<p>That said, this is just denying a dismissal, so we could get more nuance if this goes to trial.
I would hope the eventual decision is that unencrypted wi-fi is like CB radio or even a loud conversation in a public place. Practically, it's trivial for others nearby to overhear, even incidentally to their own use of the same shared medium, so people should expect it. If you want privacy, add some level of scrambling... and then penalize effortful descrambling, that violates an effortful expectation-of-privacy.
Ooh, massive privacy violation on one side, and on the other side Google is getting in trouble for grabbing data weev-style without having to hack into a network.<p>The discussion here should be fun one way or the other.
I think it's unfortunate that this is the case that is forming a discussion around Google and privacy. There are important, unanswered questions about what Google and similar companies do with data about you. But what they do with packets they saved essentially by accident a few years ago is not one of them.
Google has a rapacious appetite to collect data of every kind. They also seem to have a casual and lax attitude to the collection of that data. I really don't think they take privacy that seriously at all (security and privacy are not always the same things).<p>Just to recall some facts about Google's wi-fi exploit : various regulators around the world have mostly agreed with Google's assertion that it did not deliberately plan to collect wi-fi data. Yet this incident also suggests a lax internal culture towards gathering data. This incident occurred without consequence for Google until it was discovered by external investigators.<p>The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC), when they were investigating Google over this matter, said that Google had "deliberately impeded and delayed" the investigation for months.<p>Earlier this year, Google were given 35 days to delete wi-fi data by the UK Information Commissioner's Office. Google had earlier pledged to destroy additional discs containing private data but had failed to do so. Does this sound like a company where privacy and data collection are treated with high importance?<p>Let's not forget that Google collects a phenomenal amount of tracking data. Sure, they take security seriously, but do they take privacy seriously?<p>The facts above are taken from the following BBC report:
<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23002166" rel="nofollow">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23002166</a>