[AusNOG] Google creepier than Conroy?

[Bevan Slattery]

Hi Scott,

> Are you referring to Google's "intentional" (by their 
> admission) capturing of SSID and MAC address details from 
> Wifi networks as they drove past.
>
> Or are you referring to their "non-intentional" (by their 
> admission) capturing of user data from those networks?

The interception of communications of which you were not intended *and*
subsequent interception, capture and storage of payload data is a very
serious issue  *regardless* of whether it be intentional or otherwise.
Someone, somewhere in Google intended that software to perform exactly
as it has.  Someone, somewhere in Google then installed that software
within the street view vehicles and then captured this information
around the globe.  Whether it is a simple internal control issue that
failed to raise the flag, or something more serious is yet to be
determined.  I personally think the capturing and storing of payload
data was 'intentional' (as that is what the software was designed to do)
but a mistake in internal controls to send it out in the wild.  Notice
that Google's own words do not say it was 'unintentional' but a mistake.

> From all accounts both occurred, but to treat them as a 
> single item - especially when referring to intent - makes the 
> presumption that even someone like Google can't be human 
> occasionally and make a mistake.

Interestingly, Google's first admission was that their software did not
in any way capture *any* payload data. A number of European regulators
persisted and asked for copies of the data (which Google said it would
destroy).  Subsequently Google came forward and later reversed their
previous position and admitted that it "had mistakenly captured payload
data".

My point is simply this.  Google by it's own admission intercepted,
captured and stored communications it was not explicitly authorised to
do so, nor was it intended as the recipient of that communication or
payload data.  This requires investigation.  Do I think Google had bad
intentions with the data?  No.  Do I think senior management would have
immediately stopped this if they knew what was going on?  Almost
certainly.

But Google have admitted to wide spread interception and storage of
payload data without consent.  Citizens deserve to know from an
independent third party, exactly what data was captured and stored and
how this whole sorry mess happened in the first instance.  I think the
Minister is right to be very concerned about the events which have
transpired.

Just my 2 cents.

[b]

PS:  I think Grahame Lynch's commentary on this in Commsday was
outstanding.