🚀 go-pugleaf

On 11 June, 02:34, q...@sonic.net (Brad Allen) wrote:
> In article <gcf016thal9dvq3e3cl34eupjgtk8in...@4ax.com>,
> John Navas  <jn...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> " Google is "almost certain" to face prosecution for collecting data
> " from unsecured wi-fi networks, according to Privacy International
> " (PI).
>
> What garbage.
>
> 1)  Publically received radio while driving down a public street.
> 2)  They didn't crack the encryption.
> 3)  The content wasn't important.
> 4)  They had no intent to turn all of that completely public unimportant
>     content into a criminal use.
>
> Those aren't "OR".  They are "AND".
>
> The people after Google are politicians (and those fooled by them),
> not good citizens.

I think that what google have done is probably illegal in the UK.
Certainly I have read in the papers that some guy was convicted
of sitting outside a house "borrowing" the WiFi. We have
many, many wide ranging criminal laws and it would seem
impossible that Google are not in breach.

However, in contrast to the Gary McKinnon case where we
are keen and anxious to bundle him off to the USA
after he 'walked' into some unsecured computers (totalling
perhaps 100) we don't seem to care that google has
'walked' into perhaps millions of similarly unsecured
computers in every part of the country.

We send defenceless citizens to jail, influential corporates
can do what they like and we simply turn away.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10278068.stm
"In the UK the ICO has said it is reviewing the audit
but that for the time being it had no plans to pursue
the matter. "

ICO = Information Commissioner's Office