back to article Google to Supremes: End this Street View fight once and for all

Google is taking the battle over its Street View data collection to the US Supreme Court, seeking a final decision on the legality of its Wi-Fi snooping activity. The company has filed a petition (obtained by Wired) asking the Supremes to hear its appeal of a decision by the US Ninth Circuit court of appeals. The case dates …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Slight difference?

If I understand correctly, Google is equating its slurpage with the actions of sysadmins who are engage in securing their own networks and thus 'listening' to traffic.

If this is the argument, Google needs to have its collective ass kicked, starting with the legal team. The sysadmin who secures his/her own network is working within an organisational boundary, where a reasonable argument can be made for judicious oversight. In applying this logic (?) to its own activities, Google appears to tacitly assume a paternal oversight of _all_ computer communications -- and that is something to be struck down with no subtlety whatsoever.

The very act of making this claim begs further punitive action.

5
5
Silver badge

Re: Slight difference?

"The sysadmin who secures his/her own network is working within an organisational boundary, where a reasonable argument can be made for judicious oversight. In applying this logic (?) to its own activities, Google appears to tacitly assume a paternal oversight of _all_ computer communications . . ."

Google is the internet, and they should have no problem convincing a judge of that since that's probably what the judge thinks already. (sigh)

2
1

Re: Slight difference?

Just don't use Google.

Job done, no users, no profit.

1
3
Gold badge
Unhappy

Re: Slight difference?

"Google is the internet, and they should have no problem convincing a judge of that since that's probably what the judge thinks already. (sigh)"

Stupid, but (probably) correct given the average technical nouse of the average judge (any judge, not just USian).

1
1
Bronze badge

Re: Slight difference?

Google is the internet, and they should have no problem convincing a judge of that since that's probably what the judge thinks already. (sigh)

Ok, if Google is the internet how come The Internet has a Microsoft "e" icon? Explain that Mr Oh-so-clever tech guy!

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Slight difference?

They had to use an "e" so everyone would know Apple wasn't the internet. Besides, if they used "i" it would look too much like the on/off button. It all makes sense if you can Handel the logic.

0
0
Silver badge
Flame

Ridiculous legal argument

So a third party who is snooping on a network is the same as an employee or security contractor who is hired to secure the network, simply because both look for unencrypted and/or identifying network traffic?

That's like saying that an arsonist is on the same legal ground as a fireman, because they might both go to your home with combustion in mind...

2
2
Silver badge

Odd line of argument

I've always thought it was security professionals who worked for the company owning the networks they were securing and hackers who didn't and tried to get in from outside.

It can't make legal precedent, if it does then all anyone who's up to no good with someone else's network has to do in the future is cite this case.

0
0

Re: Odd line of argument

Without a red-team trying to defeat proposed security measures you get "its secure when i say its secure" bunglers in charge. A best effort to defeat security should be applied by the company for the benefit of the company.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Never really saw the problem with this

They were collecting only data that was broadcast and available to anyone walking past. Why is this such a terrible thing?

8
3
Anonymous Coward

Re: Never really saw the problem with this

"They were collecting only data that was broadcast and available to anyone walking past. Why is this such a terrible thing?"

Wireless Telegraphy Act

"It is legal to receive those transmissions, but it is illegal to "act upon any information" picked up from those transmissions.

Google has already lost.

Enough said.

2
1
Silver badge

Too much pitchfork-rattling, too little rational thought around here today

The point of this appeal doesn't seem to be whether Google was particularly right or wrong to listen in on what it did - but rather whether they are punishable for the act of intercepting radio transmissions as pertinent to the US "wiretap" act, ie. whether they should be punishable based on that law. I don't find it unreasonable to point out legally that some other people are also engaging in the same type of activity without being prosecuted for it. Whether the court agrees or not remains to be seen, but that's an entirely different issue.

2
0

Public Broadcasts are Public

Trying to identify intent from radio waves can only be done after the fact. By clever design, streaming signals can be automatically sorted to separate WiFi ID#s from the rest and dump before recording.

Like holding ones hand in the air to avoid interference calls, sending non pertinent info to bit heaven can only rate style points for artistic merit and should not affect the judge. Google did not initially get style points for what StreetView did. No harm in that.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

in othe words, ROI

they paid a fortune into the current Administration's reelection, and on senators/congressmen of the same party. Not counting their assistance with using their "social" media systems to promote the candidates.

Now it's time to cash in on the investment. Anyone wonder why the President takes a call from Zberg while ignoring petitions and calls from even his own party's senators?

West coast "tech" payola. not much different than Hollywood "investment" into the legislative folk that maintain ridiculous copyright and patent schemes to Hollywood's benefit.

0
1
Unhappy

Why?

This may be a naive question, or an easily answered one, but why does a vehicle taking photographs/video of locations in streets need to record wi-fi traffic?

Have I missed a past discussion or explanation?

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums