KeepHip.com

I don't see the problem. If you're broadcasting to the public without encryption or a password, how can you have a problem with someone collecting the data? Assuming they're telling the truth about not using the data, this doesn't seem evil to me at all.

Yes, I expect the mailman to read my postcards besides his keeping of the usual list of who's sent me a letter when. I know he uses this information to put better aimed ads into my mailbox, so I'm infinitely grateful. If a woman shows some cleavage she's expecting everybody to pull out their cameras and document the view before putting it into a database with date, time and location, and let's not forget the obligatory upskirt shots, she's asked for it after all. I also like the fact that there's someone following me in the supermarket, shooting a video of what I buy and in which order, it can only enhace the service.

To me, it seems like if you leave your door open, it's ok to come in and steal my credit cards numbers.

As a matter of fact, I'm not sure it's just as illegal.

Why are your CC numbers in grygus's appartment? Is he the Solar to your Guruness?

If you leave your door open it's not okay to take your credit cards, but if you walk around reciting the numbers out loud you'd have to be a screaming retard to not expect someone to use them.

Google took absolutely nothing that wasn't freely provided. The only example you guys gave that was even close was a woman with cleavage showing getting her picture taken... YES in that case she should not have a problem with it, and if she does then she should put some fucking clothes on!

Google never claimed this was enhancing any service; they explicitly say it was an accident, that the data was never used, was never intended to be used, is being deleted as fast as it can be, and the entire enterprise has been suspended in the meantime. Not really sure what else you want them to do here. I guess they could have simply stayed quiet about it, but it seems to me less evil to openly admit to your mistakes.

I think the example with the postman is a perfect match.

But if your attitude is that every piece of information on themselves that someone shares is free for the taking, incorporating into databases, etc. then we're not on the same ground. I believe that data should be collected with discretion, because any collected data can be abused easily, especially if in digital form. Collecting just for the sake of collecting shouldn't happen. Of course I come from a country where in the past restrictive governments used eavesdropping to suppress their citizens, so I may be more sensitive to these dangers, real or not.

Returning here, I'd just like to make very explicit that I was concerned not about the fact that the information / cleavage / postcard is seen, but that it's recorded and stored in a searchable medium. Your answer seems to steer around that part. Do you not consider it important? To me, it's the crux.

Indeed. If they were just seeing if there was unencrypted data, I might still have concerns, but that's not nearly as bad as actually storing the data they picked up.

The postman example is bad because (a) you had him reading the postcard on purpose with the intent to learn more about you, which wasn't the case here, and (b) you specified that he was using that data "for your benefit," when they're not using it at all.

If Google had done this intentionally you would have something, but they didn't. I suppose if you assume they are lying now, then you're right. I don't see any evidence of that, though.

Ok, so my postman example addressed the general nature of google instead of this special case. Now have this postman also write down how many people he's seeing through your windows, and what they look like (streetview) together with what he heard from the conversation that was ongoing in the garden. Still not scared?

They have the wifi data in their databases. At some point some query would have picked them up, be it because someone went through the data looking what they had, not caring much where it came from, be it because they suddenly became / have always been evil. Once the data is there, it's there. I think it's natural to assume that a company like google that's built on cross-linking any data they can find is going to cross-link any data they have. I know that if I'd be looking for a project in my hypothetical workplace at google, I'd look through their databases for data sources that have not yet been tapped. "Uh, payload data. Oh well, it wouldn't be here, if we couldn't use it."

You go too far again. They didn't peep through windows. They stayed in the street and everything was transmitted to them. Am I scared of someone who walks down the street hearing conversations and loud music and television? No, I'm not. Part of living in a free society is the right of someone else to walk down the street and hear these things. If you don't want them to hear that, don't play your music/TV loudly and don't talk in the street about things you don't want all and sundry to hear.

Everyone whose data was gathered was being irresponsible. I do believe there can be consequences for irresponsible behavior in a free society without that society descending into chaos or fascism. If you are careless with your information, someone else will get hold of it. That's not even a terrible consequence, but a very reasonable one. They are lucky it was Google, maybe they will learn a lesson without any real repercussions. Or I suppose they can sit around complaining about a fantasy police state instead of taking responsibility of their own actions. I would see that activity as pointless and counterproductive, but surely they could.

Again you neglect the collecting part.

The light coming out of my window is due to the electrig lighting in my room and is radiating out. It's exactly the same thing, even in terms of physics (electro-magnetic radiation). Now pose a video camera in front of my window, and let's see how far you can fare with that.

And you keep ignoring the transmission part.

How about if I stand in the street and read a book using your light? Is that an invasion?

The light is transmitted out my window, I addressed that. You don't record the light when you read the book. I wouldn't complain if you used the wifi that's coming out of my house to boil some water either.

Maybe the following will be more to your liking: with old CRT monitors at least it was possible to deduce the image on the screen with some accuracy from the electromagnetic radiation they produced. I'm sure you would deem it perfectly fine for someone to record the so-reconstructed pictures as well.

I don't record the light but it still might give me information. Would you be unnerved if a neighbor approached you and asked where you got purple lampshades because they noticed purple light coming out of your windows?

The CRT example is a better one, yes. But it's still not complete, because we have to imagine the following:
- CRTs are very easy (and free of charge) to completely shield from this.
- The gatherer was not spying on me in particular, and was actually gathering a different emission entirely but also picked this up.
- The gatherer promised that they didn't look at the pictures and were deleting them with all speed.

With all that done, I do admit that I think that would bother me more than this, for some reason. I still wouldn't call it evil, and I would still say primary blame belongs to the people who couldn't be bothered to shield their CRTs, however.

If everyone had a simple password, even "password," Google would have gathered nothing.

As for the lampshades, yes, I would consider it an infraction in my privacy, though a minor one.

I don't see what difference a password makes, really. If google hacks the encryption and then records the data or if they record the unencrypted data doesn't make a difference for the problem I'm having: the unauthorized and unexpected recording of the data. There are other problems with decrypting of course. Anyway, we're not going to agree, I think all data recording should happen with discretion, you don't. As this difference seems to be rooted in fundamental beliefs: end of discussion.

Fundamental beliefs? I don't think so... if you walk down the street announcing personal details, have you not waived the right to privacy concerning those details? That's what you're doing if you don't secure your WiFi network in any way: you're blasting your information to the world. I don't think an expectation of privacy in this case is valid.

I don't think we disagree on the notion or importance of privacy; our only conflict is whether the concept even applies in this situation. That doesn't mean you're wrong that we'll never agree, but I don't believe the core of the argument is really very fundamental. I believe that privacy implies some responsibility on both sides; I'm not obligated to keep your secret if you don't make it a secret in the first place. I just don't want you thinking I'm somehow against privacy in general.

I don't believe that your against privacy, but I believe that privacy involves both sides. As much as I don't do silly stuff in public, I don't care about everything I overhear you saying when talking to someone else, even if it happens in public. I believe the latter being as essential to the functioning of society as the former.

I don't think a home wi-fi connection is a valid comparison to "walking down the street" because someone reciting their credit card numbers over a loud speaker is an explicit act of broadcasting.

Home wi-fi users are probably ignorant of the range of their wireless systems and ignorant of the fact that their information can be "overheard". I'm sure if you explained to them the dangers involved in home wireless they'd change their behavior, whereas they would view the guy "walking down the street" shouting out the same data they are unaware that they are broadcasting as crazy.

Google taking advantage of this ignorance, in my view at least, is evil.

Google says they didn't care either. They accidentally overheard it and are deleting it.

I agree that it's done mostly out of ignorance, but if you are mumbling shit in the street and someone hears you because you aren't thinking about where you are, it's still your fault. Not being conscious about your own security doesn't completely absolve you of the responsibility.

If they really took advantage of it, I would agree. But you'd have to assume that they are lying to believe that. I don't see the point in this lie; if they were going to lie, they could tell the lie that they never got the data in the first place. It's much less controversial in the short-term, no more controversial if they're caught, and the two lies are equally falsifiable. It seems highly likely to me that they're telling the truth. An accident can't be evil.