[AusNOG] Google creepier than Conroy?

[Mark Smith]

On Sun, 30 May 2010 00:32:03 +0000
roland at chan.id.au wrote:

> Even Conroy has a point here. He's pointed out that the collection software was not written by accident. At some point it was designed to do what has been done. It may have been accidentally turned on for the data collection drives, but at some point Google actually wanted to do this and constructed the capability to do so. I don't imagine that it's a bug, it has to be a feature.
> 
> That's the creepy bit.
> 

The intent is what matters here, not the tool used, assuming Google's
explanation of why the tool exists is correct. If we're going to get
all principled about the tool, then we'd all better stop using tcpdump,
wireshark, nmap, iperf, arpwatch, hammers, screwdrivers, hair driers,
kitchen knives etc. etc. etc., because they all have malicious uses.
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

> Sent via BlackBerry® from Telstra
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Fort <afort at choqolat.org>
> Sender: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net
> Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 10:26:24 
> To: Scott Howard<scott at doc.net.au>
> Cc: <ausnog at ausnog.net>; Bevan Slattery<Bevan.Slattery at staff.pipenetworks.com>
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Google creepier than Conroy?
> 
> On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Scott Howard <scott at doc.net.au> wrote:
> 
> > 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?
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >   Scott.
> 
> Scott, I humbly disagree.
> 
> Firstly, given that large/public companies often tend to behave in a
> way devoid of any sanity or humanity due to their fiducial obligations
> to make ever more money, I think that allowing them so say "oops,
> sorry" without recourse, is a mistake.  Admitting fault is just a
> Peter Sandman PR strategy - "first, minimise outrage".
> 
> Secondly, no-one is arguing that this incident is like Union Carbide
> at Bhopal, for example; but in an age where your information is used
> by these companies purely to make money, their responsibilities need
> to expand appropriately.  The question is purely: Was their ("non
> intentional" or otherwise) data collection legal, or not?  That's the
> EU's case, and fairly stated.  Intent can be seen a matter of law
> rather than of morality - companies aren't humans.
> 
> Personally, and as a former staffer there; I tend to believe Google
> when they say they didn't use this information besides shipping it
> around on a bunch of disks - they were and are collecting purely
> massive volumes of data from these cars and so the WLAN data could
> have been missed.  Whatever.  That doesn't mean that collecting such
> data is legal, and they must be brought to account for it in every
> jurisdiction they broke appropriate laws.
> 
> -- 
> Andrew Fort (afort at choqolat.org)
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog