TelecomTV TelecomTV
  • News
  • Videos
  • Channels
  • Events
  • Directory
  • Smart Studio
  • Surveys
  • Debates
  • Perspectives
  • DSP Leaders World Forum
  • DSP Leaders
  • Great Telco Debate
    • |
    • Follow
    • |
    • Subscribe
  • |
  • More
  • Webcasts
  • Surveys
  • Debates
  • Perspectives
  • Great Telco Debate
  • |
  • Follow TelecomTV
  • |
    • Subscribe
    • |
  • About
  • Privacy
  • Help
  • Contact
  • Follow TelecomTV
  • About
  • Privacy
  • Help
  • Contact
  • Sign In Register Subscribe
    • Subscribe
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search

Privacy

Privacy

US Supreme Court rejects Google’s wi-fi Street View appeal

Guy Daniels
By Guy Daniels

Jul 1, 2014

© Flickr/cc-licence/Scott Partee

© Flickr/cc-licence/Scott Partee

The US Supreme Court ruled yesterday that it would not consider Google’s challenge to a class action lawsuit that alleges it broke federal wiretap laws when its Street View vehicles collected data from private, open wi-fi networks. The decision leaves Google open to claims of liability for hijacking data on unencrypted Wi-Fi routers.

At the heart of the case is what constitutes a reasonable expectation of privacy? If a homeowner runs an open, unencrypted wi-fi network, then surely they cannot expect their data to remain private and free from interception – whether intentional or not? After all, Google was merely going about its business mapping roads and taking photos for its Street View service, oh, and hovering up as much wi-fi data as it could during the process.

But no. It doesn’t matter whether you take steps to protect your home network or not, the US courts have rules that you are still afforded the same right to privacy.

Why Google should have been engaged in collecting wi-fi data in the first place is somewhat controversial. The case dates back to May 2010, when German regulators questioned Google’s use of wi-fi data capture from its vehicles. Google says it was a mistake. Others say they got caught with their hands in the till and are now furiously back-tracking. What isn’t in doubt is that Google was indeed collecting wi-fi data – it has admitted as much. But Google said it only intended to collect publically broadcast SSID information and MAC addresses; in other words, the network name and unique IDs of routers and connected devices.

But what Google actually collected, via its Street View cars, was payload data. It argued that this data was never complete, and that only small fragments were collected “because our cars are on the move”.

Google placed the blame on a software mistake. “In 2006 an engineer working on an experimental wi-fi project wrote a piece of code that sampled all categories of publicly broadcast wi-fi data,” wrote Alan Eustace, Google’s SVP, Engineering & Research, in June 2010. “A year later, when our mobile team started a project to collect basic wi-fi network data like SSID information and MAC addresses using Google’s Street View cars, they included that code in their software – although the project leaders did not want, and had no intention of using, payload data.”

Joffe v-google-9th-cir-opin from gesterling

In June 2011, a US District Judge in San Francisco allowed plaintiffs in several consolidated private lawsuits to pursue Wiretap claims against Google, although he dismissed California state law claims. Judge James Ware made an important distinction between merely accessing an open wi-fi network (for example, to use someone else’s broadband contract to send and receive your own data) and actually sniffing the individual packets on that network (that could be construed as wiretapping).

Yesterday’s Supreme Court’s decision means that the September 2013 ruling by the US Circuit Court of Appeal remains intact, effectively refusing to exempt Google from liability under the federal Wiretap Act. Google may well argue that it inadvertently intercepted data (including user names, passwords and emails) from private wi-fi networks as its cars drove down streets, but it is still legally liable for any repercussions.

It’s now up to the original judge to decide if Google’s packet sniffing should indeed be accorded class action status, in which case expect plenty more fireworks in court. Unless Google settles out of court and the whole sorry episode quietly goes away. Google has already been fined $25,000 by the FCC for delaying its investigation into the matter – but a successful class action suite would cost Google substantially more…

Related Topics
  • Analysis & Opinion,
  • News,
  • Policy & Regulation,
  • Privacy,
  • Telecoms Vendors & OEMs,
  • Wi-Fi

More Like This

Digital Platforms & Services

Father of the Web advocates personal data ownership

Jan 11, 2021

Digital Platforms & Services

Facebook will be judged on competition grounds: Whether Zuck sucks is neither here nor there

Dec 10, 2020

AI, Analytics & Automation

Mobile operators could see revenues from digital identity services rise eightfold by 2025

Dec 9, 2020

Digital Platforms & Services

DoJ cuts to the chase in landmark Google antitrust case

Sep 28, 2020

Security

A browsing history is like a fingerprint - very easily identifiable

Sep 2, 2020

Email Newsletters

Stay up to date with the latest industry developments: sign up to receive TelecomTV's top news and videos plus exclusive subscriber-only content direct to your inbox – including our daily news briefing and weekly wrap.

Subscribe

Top Picks

Highlights of our content from across TelecomTV today

18:24

How Zoom evolved in the pandemic era

26:24

Red Hat and HPE discuss how to support open multi-vendor 5G network slices

14:28

How RADCOM is helping Rakuten Mobile run its innovative 5G network

8:33

Monetizing innovative telco edge services

  • TelecomTV
  • Decisive Media

TelecomTV is produced by the team at Decisive Media

Menu
  • News
  • Videos
  • Channels
  • Directory
  • Smart Studio
 
  • Surveys
  • Debates
  • Perspectives
  • Events
  • About Us
Our Brands
  • TelecomTV Tracker
  • TelecomTV Perspectives
  • DSP Leaders
  • DSP Leaders World Forum
  • The Great Telco Debate
Get In Touch
[email protected]
+44 (0) 207 448 1070

Request a Media Pack

Follow
  • © Decisive Media Limited 2021. All rights reserved. All brands and products are the trademarks of their respective holder(s).
  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Legal Notices