ie8 fix

Between the Lines

Larry Dignan, Andrew Nusca and Rachel King

Google rejects state AG's request; Legal action to follow?

By | December 17, 2010, 12:03pm PST

Google had until today to comply with the Connecticut Attorney General’s demand that it hand over the data its Street View cars collected via unsecured WiFi.

But Google, which has been cleared of wrongdoing by the Federal Trade Commission but remains under investigation by the Federal Communications Commission over the matter, rejected AG Richard Blumenthal’s request, according to a Wall Street Journal report. That has left the state AG pondering his next steps, including legal action.

Blumenthal earlier this week filed a civil investigation demand, the equivalent of a subpoena, for the company to hand over the data so it can review it and determine if any of its state laws were broken.

It’s one thing for Google to have the data in its possession, obtained when the Street View cars drove by and captured information from unsecured WiFi networks, but does any one really want Google to start sharing it and putting it in the hands of state officials, too? The company has said repeatedly that it’s eager to delete the data but is continuing to work with authorities - both in the U.S. and in other countries - to determine which laws, if any, were broken.

Having been cleared by one federal agency already, there doesn’t seem to be much motivation for Google to be handing over data to every local government - yes, that includes one of 50 states - that wants to sift through it. In this case, the fewer hands than have access to that data, the better.

We’ll see if Blumenthal, Connecticut’s U.S. Senator-elect, follows through with his threats of legal action in the coming weeks or if he’ll be too busy getting ready to settle into his new gig on Capitol Hill. In the meantime, Google has bigger fish - in the form of governments overseas - to contend with on this matter.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Sam has been a technology and business blogger for more than 18 years.

Disclosure

Sam Diaz

Sam Diaz has nothing to disclose.

Biography

Sam Diaz

Sam has been a technology and business blogger, reporter and editor at ZDNet, the Washington Post, San Jose Mercury News and Fresno Bee for more than 18 years. He's a member of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists and a graduate of California State University, Fresno.

54
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Google rejects state AG's request; Legal action to follow?
birumut Updated - 17th Jun
Great!!! thanks for sharing this information to us!
sesli sohbet sesli chat
0 Votes
+ -
Why Not?
John Zern Updated - 17th Dec 2010
Everyone wants wikileaks to post classified data, so what's the probelm here?
@John Zern

First off, it's PRIVATE CITIZENS DATA, not governmental data, which the United States citizenry have a right to (unless an operation is currently ongoing that would be put in danger by us having access to this data) as the employers of the military and government officials, including Congress and the President.
@Lerianis10
Latent B*l S**t. There is no difference, just, hipocarcy!
@windozefreak

I'm sorry, did you mean to say horse cancer?
@Lerianis10
@John Zern: No, not 'everyone' wants stolen classified documents published. At best, it is irresponsible. At worst, it is downright dangerous and could lead to the death of many dedicated military and intelligence personnel.
0 Votes
+ -
Wikileaks has not endangered anyone
StandardPerson Updated - 21st Dec 2010
@Noah44
As the WSJ reported on 13th August, Wikileaks asked the Pentagon and human rights organisations to flag any documents that might endanger military personnel or activists. It's not Wikileaks' fault that the Pentagon refused to cooperate.

To this day, I have not heard even the Pentagon claim that anyone has been harmed by anything that Wikileaks has published.
0 Votes
+ -
Isn't "Big Brother" the perceived problem?
use_what_works_4_U 17th Dec 2010
IMHO, Google intercepted a lot of data that was broadcast freely to anyone with a WiFi enabled computer. This is no different than someone reading the bank statement that I left face up on a table at Starbuck's.

Then everyone started complaining that Google had "my personal private information" (which they effectively shouted out to the world by not taking the simplest of precautions for securing transmission) and "oh my goodness what will they do with it?" Supposedly that was the AG's concern - that Google shouldn't have this data to begin with. Yet the A.G. wants Google to effectively hand the data over to Big Brother lock, stock, and barrel so that the Government can dig through it with no restraint? I'm sorry, but no!

The theory that you are trying to enforce privacy laws by spreading data even further afield just makes no sense whatsoever. If the A.G. wants to know what kind of information is bing freely broadcast, then they need to get off their a$$3$ and go intercept the data themselves! happy
0 Votes
+ -
Same as red light cameras in Houston
LiquidLearner 17th Dec 2010
@macadam

People complain that the red light cameras violate privacy. I'm not sure how it violates privacy when it's taking pictures of you while you're driving down a public road. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Some states do have laws that prevent you from attempting to bypass encryption on wireless but I don't know of any that ban connecting to or intercepting data that's unencrypted. Of course phreaking is illegal and that's sort of the same thing, just on a hard line rather than a wireless connection.

Should Google have done it? No way. But I fail to see how giving it over to state governments is going to help anything and will likely only make matters worse. I trust Google more than our government, which isn't saying much.
@LiquidLearner

Okay, then in that thinking, someone can follow you around ALL DAY when you are in the public, and not be charged under the stalking laws, which have just become redundant because of your argument.

See the problem here!
@LiquidLearner

Who are these people? Saying red light cameras violate privacy is one of the worst arguments against them I have heard.

Some legitimate concerns (which have been discovered in certain jurisdictions) are -

1) Have all the yellow light times for monitored lights been checked to comply with state and federal guidelines? In one case a jurisdiction reduced the yellow light time to get more revenue.

2) Do the cameras capture the identity of the driver if it is a moving offense? Confirming identity should be required unless it is a non-moving violation attached to the car.

3) Does a state licensed police officer review video from each flagged potential violation to certify it was in fact a violation and not misidentified by software?

4) Do violations proceed through the normal state/county/city court system, rather than a private "adjudication" system designed to mislead people that it is a government agency with the full force of law? Can the alleged violator at any time request proceedings to be moved into the court system if it is private? Is the private company allowed to attach private "adjudication" charges above what is allowed if the alleged violation went through the courts?

5) If private companies administer the program, does the sponsoring government agency allow them to attach liens to the driver's car, or report them to credit agencies (which I am adamantly against), or do they merely get to report the car or driver to the state to flag them at registration/renewal time?

That's the really big issues just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are plenty more.
@LiquidLearner
It will hold them accountable for breaking the law (stealing). It will also reinforce the message that nothing or no one is above the law. That's enough to give me goose bumps and a warm feeling comparable to indigestiion, right down the center.
0 Votes
+ -
@LiquidLearner If you don't see that then you really need a wake up call. After all they can commit fraud, Steal personal data sell it to who they want, All the while our true government tries to stop it and we vote it down.
@macadam
Reading is different from storing and keeping it and later claiming it as owning.
Hope that helps
0 Votes
+ -
Perhaps I'm a bit confused here. Why does this AG need to see the data to know if any laws were broken? Does his state have a law that says it's unlawful to collect only certain information from an unsecured connection? Apparently there is not a law against simply collecting just any data from an unsecured connection. Anyone know? Or is this AG just fishing for publicity?
@steeleblue_cactus
That is what he does as AG, file lawsuits in attempt to impress everyone. He filed against Microsoft for anti-trust.

He falsely claimed to have served in Vietnam War. He obtained five military deferments from 1965 to 1970 to get out of going to Vietnam. That's your Senator-Elect Connecticut.
0 Votes
+ -
@steeleblue_cactus

Too bad that Google cant turn it around and go after him. But the public wont stand for that. It's ok for big govt to go after big business (cause big business is evil by definition), but the motives behind the AG and other politicians are never questioned.
@otaddy

Actually, yes, they are, on a regular basis. My parents, my family, and my friends have on numerous occasions questioned what Attorney General's in various states are doing, so I know that is false.
0 Votes
+ -
Looks like the criminals at Google
iPad-awan 17th Dec 2010
won't surrender without a fight. I'm not surprise -- Google is too evil to let anything like the law get in its way.
0 Votes
+ -
Typical response
otaddy 18th Dec 2010
@iPad-awan

Google is evil by default cause they are a big company. Nobody questions the AG's motives or the stupidity of people who didnt secure their networks.

BTW, the FTC said they did nothing illegal so perhaps its the state govt leaders of Connecticut who are too evil to let the rule of law get in the way.
@otaddy

Agreed. With all due respect, if they were scanning UNSECURED wireless networks.... there is no reasoning for a right to privacy here.
@otaddy
The FTC is someone else's law, not theirs. They ave laws too, and google is beholding to abide by those laws also. See how that works??
@iPad-awan

Your ISP has more information on you than Google does...They are required to keep that data for what?...18 months or so?....Why do you think that the law enforcement authorities want a tie to all service providers to monitor all communications? And you call Google evil?
@linux for me
Between ISP and the subscriber, there is an agreement, but between Google and the unsecured wifi user, there is no binding "agreement".
@iPad-awan
I see issue on both the ends. Google for storing the info (reading and discarding is differnt, but storing it on its servers is different and I interpret as wrong doing) and AG wants to see what is there is another bad move. If AG actually wanted to pull Google to the court they could have, but this move is wrong.
0 Votes
+ -
They need to protect that information, but they also need to prove it and all its copies are distroyed. How you can do that, I don't know... but giving it out to people to review does not make sense.

They collected data probably illegally, charge them a big fine, and give it to the people effected, so they dont try to do it again, and force them to delete the information
@x21x
I totally agree with you.
@x21x
And, see if there was any criminal activity here, and, if so, send someone to jail! That would be better insurance that they will not do it again!
0 Votes
+ -
"Having been cleared by one federal agency already, there doesn?t seem to be much motivation for Google to be handing over data to every local government - yes, that includes one of 50 states - that wants to sift through it."

Just so everyone's clear here -- there is nothing that would limit "local government" to "state". Theoretically, every City Attorney, District Attorney (there are over 3000 counties in the U.S.), County Attorney and similar official could seek data gathered in their jurisdiction (town, city, county, or whatever) to see if it violated any local ordinance.

Also, IF there is a state or federal criminal law violation "venue" (i.e., the "correct" place with jurisdiction) for criminal charges is in the county where the violation occurred, i.e., if someone forges a check in Dallas County, Texas and the Harris County (Houston) District Attorney finds out about it, he can't seek an indictment because venue is in Dallas.

Something no one is mentioning is that there already are relevant federal laws. For decades private ship-to-ship and ship-to-shore radio communications were sent over unencrypted channels, usually straight amplitude-modulation. Under the laws, it is not a crime to intercept and listen to such communications. However, it is a crime to disclose the content of such intercepted communications.

Google's situation is the same--you have to have a receiver to intercept routine CB or other such signals, so you have to take active steps, whether you are using analog or digital technology. (If I understand correctly, AM and FM "radio" and even that new-fangled "broadcast television" are "wireless", aren't they? ...)

I haven't checked, but I don't recall seeing any mention that the FCC had changed any of its regulations or that Congress changed the related laws. Until they do, it seems like those will apply. If Google DOES provide the information it will be violating FEDERAL law. Under U.S. law, the airwaves cannot be governed by STATE governments, the FEDERAL government has EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction.
@Rick_R

Actually, I don't think that it should even be a crime to disclose the content of those things.
The fact is that if you are using something unencrypted that anyone can listen to WITHOUT tapping the line or something similar?
You have no right to privacy.
@Lerianis10

I agree with you. But what we feel doesn't make it law. In the absence of Federal law dictating how you may receive unencrypted WiFi, relevant similar laws will be looked at to develop case law during a trial. Rick_R's point about ship to shore communication laws are very likely to be considered.

I think another consideration would be FCC part 15 rule #2 "This device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation." I'd argue reception of unencrypted traffic is undesired operation, and therefore the device and license it operates under was not intended to guarantee private communication. Your communication should only be as private as the operator is able to secure it.
@Lerianis10
That's just plain cracy! So, if you don't have a fence around your yard, you don't have a right to privacy in your home?? Some of us need to reconize...!!!
@Lerianis10

i can listen to a phone conversation over a normal telephone line with an inductive probe without ever physically touching the phone line. if i actually do it, i'm guilty of illegal wiretapping even though i didn't touch the wire.

however; i believe broadcast signals, encrypted or not, are all lumped together under the laws that Rick_R referenced, and so in the United State, Google would be in violation of Federal law if the information is turned over to the AG office
@Rick_R

Most informative post, with the most new RELEVANT information right here...
@Rick_R

You should send your comment to Google! Excellent points.

I think they should destroy the data right now. Forget the governments. No government needs the actual data to decide if a crime was committed or to prosecute the case; Google has admitted publicly that it collected the data. That settles the fact that they collected the data, making the ongoing presence of the data nothing but a security breach.
0 Votes
+ -
Blumenthal is on a fishing expedition.
osreinstall 18th Dec 2010
Blumenthal wants Google to hand over data so that he can decide what to charge Google with. I'm afraid he will need a warrant because no one including corporations are required to incriminate themselves.

Every once in awhile Google is correct.

Oh, do everyone a favor, Google, delete all the wifi data you got and put this crap to rest.
0 Votes
+ -
Fishing Expedition
sboverie 20th Dec 2010
@osreinstall
The AG demanding data from google is disturbing in that the AG can go through the data and charge people for crimes. This would be an end run around illegal search and seizure based on the idea that the data was collected by someone not limited by law; for now.

The AG does not need all the data to determine if the collection was legal or not. Having all the data is something that I don't trust google to have but trust is even lower when an ambitious politician starts throwing their weight around.

Google should not have collected such data and having collected it they are stuck with keeping it until the government can tell them to delete it.
0 Votes
+ -
It was a request.
osreinstall 20th Dec 2010
@sboverie@...

Therefore it is a fishing expedition. If he has enough data to prove that the rest of the data is illegal he will get a search warrant. Now I hope he only asks for Connecticut residents only since that is his only jurisdiction if the warrant goes thru.

The feds already set precedent saying what Google did was lawful. The only data acquired was unencrypted non-password wifi. This tells everyone you want to share and expect no privacy. Glad I have an RJ45 connection.
0 Votes
+ -
Wouldn't it be possible to correlate names & addresses, IP addresses to the rest of the data in Google's archive, including searches?
How deep did they delve into these private networks? And why?

Why not answer?

Another thing, why trust a private corporation more than the government.
Rephrase that: why trust the government LESS than ANY private, unaccountable, non-transparent, centrally controlled corporation?
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Google rejects state AG's request; Legal action to follow?
erik.soderquist Updated - 20th Dec 2010
@voltrarian

if i choose not to trust a corporation, i can cease to do business with said corporation. if sufficient numbers of people do so, the corporation is forced to change or end.

that doesn't work with governments, and so constraint of governments against many forms of corruption are far weaker. just look at the IRS and an IRS audit where you are guilty of everything the IRS claims until you prove your innocence

and it is amazing how harsh the IRS is on people who try to "not do business with them"

(edit to correct spelling)
@erik.soderquist

Not to do business with a mom and pop store down the street might mean something in this day and age, but it meant nothing when the private and large financial industry played the active, major role in destroying the American and World economy.

In reality, your personal boycott remedy only goes so far in checking the power of private interests that may abuse their power. There is an unavoidable matter of scale when comparing the power of the individual to the power of an organized, focused, centralized interest.

That's why democracy was purposefully put into place. American democracy was founded as a organized collective group of individuals to check the power of government. Back in 1776, corporations did not have such increasing and growing power, amplified by technology and transnational finance. During that time, governments were the main powers which needed to be checked.

It's a reality that corporations and financial organizations are increasing in power & influence in a scale, larger than most world governments.
The individual must be able to check and balance this power to protect the freedom of _the individual_.
@voltrarian

the matter of scale requires a similar matter of scale on the part of the consuming public in general.

if suddenly everyone in the world refused to use any of google's services, people paying google for advertising would stop paying because the advertisements were not being seen.

it is very unlikely that such a scale could be reached without horrendous acts by the company in question.

my point was that acts by a corporation that would instill the level of distaste required for such a boycott to be successful are sometimes considered routine by governments.

if MasterCard frequently arbitrarily froze people's bank accounts, garnish people's wages, etc because MasterCard said these people owed MasterCard money, and it was then up to the people, who now no longer have access to their own money to higher a lawyer, etc, to prove that MasterCard was wrong to be able to get their bank accounts and wages restored, people would stop using MasterCard just to avoid the risk of this happening...

the IRS has this power, and there is no way to "stop using the IRS" like there is for MasterCard



PS: i have no beef with MasterCard, and used their name only to serve as an example. in fact, i have two MasterCard debit cards and have been quite happy with their service
Here's an idea... delete the data.
I agree that you have only yourself to blame if you don't secure your network, but I also realize that many people are ill-equipped to do this or even understand that their communications are not secure.

My questions are:

Why on Earth did Google think this was a good idea to begin with? If you were running a company and an employee said to you, "let's scan all the computer-illiterate people and collect their personal communications data," would you honestly conceive of this as morally-correct behavior? Rather like peeping into someone's bedroom window because they have their curtains open. Do that, go to jail as a Peeping Tom.

And, if Google is "eager to delete the data" why haven't they? They certainly *should* do this: Especially if an alternative is handing the data over to the government.
@NathanBridger your network you can still easily be hacked. I know I set mine up using a 26 charactor password and was hacked in less than 2 hrs. So why bother to try to secure it.
@NathanBridger

currently they are prohibited from deleting the data until all pending investigations are closed
0 Votes
+ -
DICK BLUMENTHAL
CaptOska 20th Dec 2010
More grandstanding by my representative, he bankrolled it into a Senator's seat. If the republicans didn't front some dopey tea-bagger (Linda McMahon, CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment) they would have won Connecticut too.

As far as riding around and collecting WIFI info... FCC rules state that as long as you do not intend of using the information for any illegal activities, it is legal to receive and demodulate any RF signal.
0 Votes
+ -
@CaptOska No, actually, it isn't legal to receive and demodulate *any* RF signal; which is why warrants are necessary to listen to cellphone calls, and why those frequencies are locked out of FCC-approved scanners.

Section 705 of the Communications Act prohibits a person from using an intercepted radio communication for his or her own benefit. One court held that, under this provision, a taxicab company may sue its competitor for wrongfully intercepting and using for its benefit radio communications between the company's dispatchers and drivers.
Obviously this A.G. is just trying to get a jump on enforcing net neutrality. It's not faaaaaair for google to have all this information that the gov't doesn't have.
Great!!! thanks for sharing this information to us!
sesli sohbet sesli chat

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix