RSS
Did Korean Officials Really Need To Raid Google Offices Over Street View WiFi Sniffing?
from the seems-a-bit-extreme dept
It's been a few months since Google admitted that its Street View vehicles were collecting some data from open WiFi networks. Those familiar with the basic technology involved have explained why this was almost certainly an accident, and there's no evidence whatsoever that anything was even done with the data. However, there have been a whole bunch of lawsuits filed, and it's difficult to find a government that hasn't said they'd investigate the issue.
To date, it seems that Google has bent over backwards to work with every government investigating this issue, no matter how varied their requests were on the matter. So far, the UK's investigation has found that the WiFi sniffing didn't appear to collect any sensitive data, though others are still investigating. More recently, Google agreed to allow Germans to opt-out of Street View.
Given Google's clear willingness to help out, it seems a bit odd that South Korean officials -- many months after the news of this came out -- suddenly decided to raid Google's Korean offices over this matter:
To date, it seems that Google has bent over backwards to work with every government investigating this issue, no matter how varied their requests were on the matter. So far, the UK's investigation has found that the WiFi sniffing didn't appear to collect any sensitive data, though others are still investigating. More recently, Google agreed to allow Germans to opt-out of Street View.
Given Google's clear willingness to help out, it seems a bit odd that South Korean officials -- many months after the news of this came out -- suddenly decided to raid Google's Korean offices over this matter:
A police statement said they suspected Google has been collecting and storing data on "unspecified internet users from wi-fi networks"Brilliant police work there, guys. It only took you three months to "suspect" what Google admitted in May.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
All we really need to do is eat, breathe, and die. Everything else we do, e.g., sex, facebook, and raid offices, we do purely for fun.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The logical question being, of course, how can we combine those nominal activities to compound the funness? For instance, could Korean LEOs standing-doggystyle their way into the Google offices to conduct their raid while updating their Facebook posts?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Also, for the sake of completeness there should be a shark in there somewhere...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Yes, they *did* need to.
Why do you stand up for a mega-corporation that can defend itself?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Yes, they *did* need to.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
All I could think...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Yes, they *did* need to.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Yes, they *did* need to.
No, no, no. That's the Spanish Inquisition. THEY'RE chief element is surprise....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Yes, they *did* need to.
Yes. Its as though the cops bashed down the door while the proprietors were opening the door for the cops.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Yes, they *did* need to.
Hmmmm, actually last time I checked the definition of a Corporation was an entity of it's own with limited inherent rights. Corporations are created as an entity on behalf of the people creating it to shell liability and operate as a singular "person" separate from the multitudes involved in creating and operating it.
Regardless of that, I agree corporation needs more oversight, but Google isn't my biggest concern. The corporations that I see committing the biggest violations of trust and rights are the cities, counties, and states. For instance the cities exploiting safety laws to fill budget shortfalls, to violate individual rights, and to exploit private information they have collected.
If you think these other companies selling your email address or anonymous browsing data are bad, just wait until this spending orgy causes local government corporations to need to start "monetizing" their data.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2010/08/11/google-in-south-korea-storm-in-a-teacup/
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Not using the data?
Sure enough, it placed me on the map within 150 feet of my actual location...Is it possible the google maps software recognized the locked down wifi as a location point?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Look at http://wigle.net/gps/gps/Map/onlinemap2/
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Privacy...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "Normal Procedure in Korea"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
I can only assume Google did not pay the required 'offerings' to the right officials.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Yes, they *did* need to.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Necessary but Ineffective
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Necessary but Ineffective
Um. Well, this wasn't private info because it was broadcast publicly.
That is why I think no one can say "the raid is unnecessary". The police must investigate the suspect.
There are ways to investigate that don't require a raid. That's the point. Every other gov't has simply asked for the info and Google turned it over.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Necessary but Ineffective
Yes It is private info. If it is not, it couldn't become such an issue. Only broadcasted is "Google Korea gathered a private into", not exactly what info and to what extent.
"There are ways to investigate that don't require a raid. That's the point. Every other gov't has simply asked for the info and Google turned it over."
I agree with you there are many other investigation methods considered. But no one can't say if the Google says X, X is always true. I think Korean investigating authority and also the court which issued the warrant are focusing on the possibility for Google Korea to hide the information they gathered or not to disclose all the info they gathered. The authority cannot entirely rely on nor trust the suspect's statement. That's why I said the raid is not unnecessary in the view of the authority. But as Google has no server in Korea, the raid was ineffective I guess. Of course someone can say, that's why the raid is unnecessary. If you're saying this point. Yes, you are right. I think the Korean authority missed this point or even didn't trust Google Korea's explanation 'we don't have a server in Korea' until they confirm it by means of a raid.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment