by Mike Masnick
Tue, Apr 19th 2011 6:36am
In the consolidated cases against Google for intercepting some unencrypted data passing over open WiFi networks as part of its Street View operation, the judge is now looking to determine if basic packet sniffing is the equivalent of an illegal wiretap. Google, and one would imagine, most people who understand the technology, are arguing that's silly. The nature of WiFi is that it takes the unencrypted bits and makes them wide open to anyone on that network. That's how the technology is designed. If you don't like it, you encrypt. Arguing, retroactively, that seeing the data that is put in the open on purpose is somehow an illegal wiretap seems silly, but that's what the case hinges on. Hopefully, the judge is either technologically savvy enough to understand this, or can be well educated in the nature of how an open WiFi network works... Otherwise, a lot of people may be facing wiretapping charges for activity that many people consider perfectly normal on a network.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Short Sighted Newspaper Association Asks Trump To Whittle Down Fair Use, Because It Hates Google
- Senior Brazilian Court Says 'Right To Be Forgotten' Cannot Be Imposed On Search Engines
- The FCC Wants To Know Why Journalists Had To Pay $200 For WiFi At Presidential Debate
- Another Bad EU Ruling: WiFi Providers Can Be Forced To Require Passwords If Copyright Holders Demand It
- NYC Kills Internet Browsing At Free WiFi Kiosks After The City's Homeless Actually Use It