Results 1 to 8 of 8
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By TopDogger

Thread: Google Was Intentionally Gathering Personal Information

  1. #1
    TopDogger's Avatar
    TopDogger is offline Über Hund
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Hellfire, AZ
    Posts
    2,946
    Thanks
    341
    Thanked 883 Times in 671 Posts

    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
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  2. #2
    bogart's Avatar
    bogart is offline Super Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,772
    Thanks
    1,886
    Thanked 776 Times in 609 Posts
    The sad part about this is that the Federal Communication Commission found that no laws have been violated.

  3. #3
    TopDogger's Avatar
    TopDogger is offline Über Hund
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Hellfire, AZ
    Posts
    2,946
    Thanks
    341
    Thanked 883 Times in 671 Posts
    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
    Last edited by TopDogger; 6 May, 2012 at 16:01 PM.
    Loko likes this.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  4. #4
    Doc's Avatar
    Doc
    Doc is offline Professional Curmudgeon
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Mexico
    Posts
    18
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 19 Times in 10 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TopDogger View Post

    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.

  5. #5
    bogart's Avatar
    bogart is offline Super Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,772
    Thanks
    1,886
    Thanked 776 Times in 609 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TopDogger View Post
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by TopDogger View Post
    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.

  6. #6
    Doc's Avatar
    Doc
    Doc is offline Professional Curmudgeon
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Mexico
    Posts
    18
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 19 Times in 10 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by bogart View Post


    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.

  7. #7
    TopDogger's Avatar
    TopDogger is offline Über Hund
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Hellfire, AZ
    Posts
    2,946
    Thanks
    341
    Thanked 883 Times in 671 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by bogart View Post
    The sad part about this is that the Federal Communication Commission found that no laws have been violated.
    That's part of the problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by bogart View Post
    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.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  8. #8
    bogart's Avatar
    bogart is offline Super Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,772
    Thanks
    1,886
    Thanked 776 Times in 609 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TopDogger View Post
    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

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •