Thread: Google Was Intentionally Gathering Personal Information

According to this New York Times article, Google's harvesting of personal information -- including e-mails and passwords -- was intentional.

Data Harvesting at Google Not a Rogue Act, Report Finds

The sad part about this is that the Federal Communication Commission found that no laws have been violated.

Yeah, but they did slap them with a miniscule $25,000 fine, which from Google's perspective probably barely raised a chuckle.

The issues are not so much that they did it, but rather why they did it and what they intended to do with the data. As I have been saying for years, Google does not provide free services. The price that you pay is the information that you provide.

We do need privacy laws in this country.

It looks like Google could get slapped to the tune of $10 million or more for their Safari hack.

Google May Face $10 Million Fine Over Safari Cookie Hack

Originally Posted by TopDogger

It looks like Google could get slapped to the tune of $10 million or more for their Safari hack.

And even that is a relative slap on the wrist, for them.

Originally Posted by TopDogger

The issues are not so much that they did it, but rather why they did it and what they intended to do with the data. As I have been saying for years, Google does not provide free services. The price that you pay is the information that you provide.

Most likely for testing purposes. The Google engineer that was in charge of collecting the WiFi data has a internet security patent.

Google’s alleged WiFi snooper has an Internet privacy patent
Google’s alleged WiFi snooper has an Internet privacy patent - GeekWire

Originally Posted by TopDogger

We do need privacy laws in this country.

There's already enough laws on the books. The problem is that judges don't understand social media. I've run across an article where a judge has ruled that "likes" aren't protected by the 1st amendment and people have been fired for likely something. The same also has happened with re-tweets and some people are now putting a disclaimer on their twitter profile that re-tweets are not an editorial endorsement.

Originally Posted by bogart

There's already enough laws on the books. The problem is that judges don't understand social media. I've run across an article where a judge has ruled that "likes" aren't protected by the 1st amendment and people have been fired for likely something. The same also has happened with re-tweets and some people are now putting a disclaimer on their twitter profile that re-tweets are not an editorial endorsement.

Agreed. There is an amazing amount of ignorance surrounding social media, amongst otherwise intelligent and educated individuals. Do we need a separate court system in order to be able to deal adequately with internet issues? As ridiculous as that idea should be, it almost seems as if we do. Particularly since internet is international in scope.

Originally Posted by bogart

The sad part about this is that the Federal Communication Commission found that no laws have been violated.

That's part of the problem.

Originally Posted by bogart

There's already enough laws on the books.

Another part of the problem is that laws have not been updated to reflect the reality of the virtual world of the Internet. When there are no rules or laws, there isn't anything to prosecute and there are no restrictions. The www literally means "wild, wild west."

FaceBook has been fined several times because they were caught violating their own policies. When you post a policy on your site, it becomes the rule for which you can be sued when you violate your own rules. My attorney recommended that I do not include privacy policies on my sites when I started my business just because of that. I don't violate privacy rules, so I do use privacy policies.

On the other extreme, look at the new Google TOS that no one could opt out of, yet it basically gives them the freedom to do whatever they want with your personal data.

Originally Posted by TopDogger

Another part of the problem is that laws have not been updated to reflect the reality of the virtual world of the Internet. When there are no rules or laws, there isn't anything to prosecute and there are no restrictions. The www literally means "wild, wild west."

The FBI is proposing an amendment to Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 to require backdoors on social media and email.

CNET learns the FBI is quietly pushing its plan to force surveillance backdoors on social networks, VoIP, and Web e-mail providers, and that the bureau is asking Internet companies not to oppose a law making those backdoors mandatory.

Read more: FBI: We need wiretap-ready Web sites - now | Security & Privacy - CNET News