🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 18:22:03 -0700, John Navas <jncl1@navasgroup.com>
wrote:

>"The independent audit of the Google system shows that the system used
>for the wi-fi collection intentionally separated out unencrypted
>content (payload data) of communications and systematically wrote this
>data to hard drives. This is equivalent to placing a hard tap and a
>digital recorder onto a phone wire without consent or authorisation,"
>said PI in a statement.

I'm not defending Google, but I have to wonder how much "unencrypted
content (payload data)" they were able to gather as they drove down
the various streets. It seems like the vehicle would be out of range
before it could gather much payload data.

On 10/06/2010 06:14, Char Jackson wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 18:22:03 -0700, John Navas<jncl1@navasgroup.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "The independent audit of the Google system shows that the system used
>> for the wi-fi collection intentionally separated out unencrypted
>> content (payload data) of communications and systematically wrote this
>> data to hard drives. This is equivalent to placing a hard tap and a
>> digital recorder onto a phone wire without consent or authorisation,"
>> said PI in a statement.
>
> I'm not defending Google, but I have to wonder how much "unencrypted
> content (payload data)" they were able to gather as they drove down
> the various streets. It seems like the vehicle would be out of range
> before it could gather much payload data.
>
If they were trying to do wifi location as part of their mapping I doubt 
that they would be moving, I would expect them to be stationary to 
increase the accuracy of their triangulation when using GPS.
Googles patent:-
<http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220100020776%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20100020776&RS=DN/20100020776>

On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:28:30 +0100, Bob <bob@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 10/06/2010 06:14, Char Jackson wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 18:22:03 -0700, John Navas<jncl1@navasgroup.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "The independent audit of the Google system shows that the system used
>>> for the wi-fi collection intentionally separated out unencrypted
>>> content (payload data) of communications and systematically wrote this
>>> data to hard drives. This is equivalent to placing a hard tap and a
>>> digital recorder onto a phone wire without consent or authorisation,"
>>> said PI in a statement.
>>
>> I'm not defending Google, but I have to wonder how much "unencrypted
>> content (payload data)" they were able to gather as they drove down
>> the various streets. It seems like the vehicle would be out of range
>> before it could gather much payload data.
>>
>If they were trying to do wifi location as part of their mapping I doubt 
>that they would be moving, I would expect them to be stationary to 
>increase the accuracy of their triangulation when using GPS.
>Googles patent:-
><http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220100020776%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20100020776&RS=DN/20100020776>

I've only seen the camera cars twice, once on my street and once again
in another residential part of my city. Both times they were moving
with the speed of traffic, about 25-30 MPH. If they were stopping
every time they saw an open network, they wouldn't get very far.

On 10/06/2010 16:57, Char Jackson wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:28:30 +0100, Bob<bob@invalid.invalid>  wrote:
>
>> On 10/06/2010 06:14, Char Jackson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 18:22:03 -0700, John Navas<jncl1@navasgroup.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "The independent audit of the Google system shows that the system used
>>>> for the wi-fi collection intentionally separated out unencrypted
>>>> content (payload data) of communications and systematically wrote this
>>>> data to hard drives. This is equivalent to placing a hard tap and a
>>>> digital recorder onto a phone wire without consent or authorisation,"
>>>> said PI in a statement.
>>>
>>> I'm not defending Google, but I have to wonder how much "unencrypted
>>> content (payload data)" they were able to gather as they drove down
>>> the various streets. It seems like the vehicle would be out of range
>>> before it could gather much payload data.
>>>
>> If they were trying to do wifi location as part of their mapping I doubt
>> that they would be moving, I would expect them to be stationary to
>> increase the accuracy of their triangulation when using GPS.
>> Googles patent:-
>> <http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220100020776%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20100020776&RS=DN/20100020776>
>
> I've only seen the camera cars twice, once on my street and once again
> in another residential part of my city. Both times they were moving
> with the speed of traffic, about 25-30 MPH. If they were stopping
> every time they saw an open network, they wouldn't get very far.
>
I haven't seen them as yet as I was on holiday when they did my town. 
Given the accuracy of GPS and if they were moving all of the time I 
can't see that wifi location will be all that accurate. They seem to 
have taken pictures every 12 metres on the estate and according to my 
neighbour they stopped several times however he didn't say whether this 
was prior to turning into other roads or not. Several roads were missed 
although they effectively circumnavigated those areas by using other roads.

On 10 June, 18:02, Bob <b...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 10/06/2010 16:57, Char Jackson wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:28:30 +0100, Bob<b...@invalid.invalid>  wrote:
>
> >> On 10/06/2010 06:14, Char Jackson wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 18:22:03 -0700, John Navas<jn...@navasgroup.com>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> "The independent audit of the Google system shows that the system used
> >>>> for the wi-fi collection intentionally separated out unencrypted
> >>>> content (payload data) of communications and systematically wrote this
> >>>> data to hard drives. This is equivalent to placing a hard tap and a
> >>>> digital recorder onto a phone wire without consent or authorisation,"
> >>>> said PI in a statement.
>
> >>> I'm not defending Google, but I have to wonder how much "unencrypted
> >>> content (payload data)" they were able to gather as they drove down
> >>> the various streets. It seems like the vehicle would be out of range
> >>> before it could gather much payload data.
>
> >> If they were trying to do wifi location as part of their mapping I doubt
> >> that they would be moving, I would expect them to be stationary to
> >> increase the accuracy of their triangulation when using GPS.
> >> Googles patent:-
> >> <http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=P...>
>
> > I've only seen the camera cars twice, once on my street and once again
> > in another residential part of my city. Both times they were moving
> > with the speed of traffic, about 25-30 MPH. If they were stopping
> > every time they saw an open network, they wouldn't get very far.
>
> I haven't seen them as yet as I was on holiday when they did my town.
> Given the accuracy of GPS and if they were moving all of the time I
> can't see that wifi location will be all that accurate. They seem to
> have taken pictures every 12 metres on the estate and according to my
> neighbour they stopped several times however he didn't say whether this
> was prior to turning into other roads or not. Several roads were missed
> although they effectively circumnavigated those areas by using other roads.

Well if they want to send over a bomb or missile then
it won't be accurate enough but for commercial purposes
such as "here are some nearby fish and chip shops"
it seems fine.

On 10/06/2010 20:21, bod43 wrote:
> On 10 June, 18:02, Bob<b...@invalid.invalid>  wrote:
>> On 10/06/2010 16:57, Char Jackson wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:28:30 +0100, Bob<b...@invalid.invalid>    wrote:
>>
>>>> On 10/06/2010 06:14, Char Jackson wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 18:22:03 -0700, John Navas<jn...@navasgroup.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> "The independent audit of the Google system shows that the system used
>>>>>> for the wi-fi collection intentionally separated out unencrypted
>>>>>> content (payload data) of communications and systematically wrote this
>>>>>> data to hard drives. This is equivalent to placing a hard tap and a
>>>>>> digital recorder onto a phone wire without consent or authorisation,"
>>>>>> said PI in a statement.
>>
>>>>> I'm not defending Google, but I have to wonder how much "unencrypted
>>>>> content (payload data)" they were able to gather as they drove down
>>>>> the various streets. It seems like the vehicle would be out of range
>>>>> before it could gather much payload data.
>>
>>>> If they were trying to do wifi location as part of their mapping I doubt
>>>> that they would be moving, I would expect them to be stationary to
>>>> increase the accuracy of their triangulation when using GPS.
>>>> Googles patent:-
>>>> <http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=P...>
>>
>>> I've only seen the camera cars twice, once on my street and once again
>>> in another residential part of my city. Both times they were moving
>>> with the speed of traffic, about 25-30 MPH. If they were stopping
>>> every time they saw an open network, they wouldn't get very far.
>>
>> I haven't seen them as yet as I was on holiday when they did my town.
>> Given the accuracy of GPS and if they were moving all of the time I
>> can't see that wifi location will be all that accurate. They seem to
>> have taken pictures every 12 metres on the estate and according to my
>> neighbour they stopped several times however he didn't say whether this
>> was prior to turning into other roads or not. Several roads were missed
>> although they effectively circumnavigated those areas by using other roads.
>
> Well if they want to send over a bomb or missile then
> it won't be accurate enough but for commercial purposes
> such as "here are some nearby fish and chip shops"
> it seems fine.
>
Where I live over 50% oh households turn off their routers when they are 
not at home and at present I am staying at relatives, about 200 miles 
north of where I live, and that figure has increased to about 80%. I 
would also say that with people changing their ISP options and 
consequently their SSID's, most people never change their ISP's unique 
SSID's but everytime the router or ISP is changed the SSID changes, 
that their has been a 40% change in the last 18 months and I doubt 
Google are going to renew their database that frequently so I am not 
convinced about using consumer wifi as a location device in the UK. It 
would probably work with wifi hotspots which tend not to change and are 
near to your "fish and chip shops" but I see no reason for them to be 
recording wifi networks on housing estates which are a couple of miles 
away from anything.

In article <gcf016thal9dvq3e3cl34eupjgtk8inoqj@4ax.com>, John Navas <jncl1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>"This is equivalent to placing a hard tap and a
>digital recorder onto a phone wire without consent or authorisation,"
>said PI in a statement.

Or, depending on your point of view, equivalent to overhearing
some snips of a telephone conversation while walking past an open
window.

This doesn't appear to be a very objective or credible "study".

I'm not suggesting that Google's actions were entirely appropriate
but this kind of rhetoric isn't going to help people understand
what actually took place and why. 

-- 
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar           "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| malch@malch.com                                     Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/               Shpx gur PQN.                |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In article <gcf016thal9dvq3e3cl34eupjgtk8inoqj@4ax.com>,
John Navas  <jncl1@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.

>Where I live over 50% oh households turn off their routers when they are 
>not at home and at present I am staying at relatives, about 200 miles 
>north of where I live, and that figure has increased to about 80%. I 
>would also say that with people changing their ISP options and 
>consequently their SSID's, most people never change their ISP's unique 
>SSID's but everytime the router or ISP is changed the SSID changes, 
>that their has been a 40% change in the last 18 months and I doubt 
>Google are going to renew their database that frequently so I am not 
>convinced about using consumer wifi as a location device in the UK. It 
>would probably work with wifi hotspots which tend not to change and are 
>near to your "fish and chip shops" but I see no reason for them to be 
>recording wifi networks on housing estates which are a couple of miles 
>away from anything.

You'd have to think like a programmer to realize these things, but:

1.  MAC addresses (Bob Metcalfe et al & Std Bodies) are used, not SSIDs.
2.  When you are a user of the data, you also send the data back to the database
    about what you find.  So, you find out MAC address A and B are in
    the known database, and MAC address C D E F G and H aren't around
    that are in the database, and MAC address I J K L are around but
    not in the database.  You send an update to the database of what
    you found.  The database and you do probabilistic calculations to
    figure out if MAC addresses A and B simultaneously moved or if
    you're actually where the database has them marked.  This has to
    do with tracking the location the set of all MAC addresses across
    time and place.
3.  It's not just the wifi routers:  it's the clients, too, so that doubles
    the number of stations to store info about.

So, the 50% to 80% of households turning off their Wifi routers or
changing their SSIDs doesn't really stop the database from working.
Coupling it with real-world use (constant update, GPS backup data,
people who don't turn off their wifi, etc.), the database really is
very useful for what it does.  I can see that in some pockets it isn't
as useful, but for the most part, it is very useful.

Google driving about is basically to seed the database faster than
GPS-enabled responders can, but with GPS response updating the
database, it's basically not necessary for the Google seed.  It's just
a quick jump-start to the whole process.

Of course, if it's programmed wrong, then it doesn't have to work
right or well.

On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:02:18 +0100, in
<0qydnah-CPAHh4zRnZ2dnUVZ8lmdnZ2d@bt.com>, Bob <bob@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>On 10/06/2010 16:57, Char Jackson wrote:

>> I've only seen the camera cars twice, once on my street and once again
>> in another residential part of my city. Both times they were moving
>> with the speed of traffic, about 25-30 MPH. If they were stopping
>> every time they saw an open network, they wouldn't get very far.
>>
>I haven't seen them as yet as I was on holiday when they did my town. 
>Given the accuracy of GPS and if they were moving all of the time I 
>can't see that wifi location will be all that accurate. ...

FYI, business grade GPS is quite accurate even while moving, on the
order of a few feet.  Even my new wrist GPS can manage that.

-- 
Best regards,   FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John            FAQ for Wi-Fi:  <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
           Wi-Fi How To:  <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems:  <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

On 11/06/2010 02:42, Brad Allen wrote:
>> Where I live over 50% oh households turn off their routers when they are
>> not at home and at present I am staying at relatives, about 200 miles
>> north of where I live, and that figure has increased to about 80%. I
>> would also say that with people changing their ISP options and
>> consequently their SSID's, most people never change their ISP's unique
>> SSID's but everytime the router or ISP is changed the SSID changes,
>> that their has been a 40% change in the last 18 months and I doubt
>> Google are going to renew their database that frequently so I am not
>> convinced about using consumer wifi as a location device in the UK. It
>> would probably work with wifi hotspots which tend not to change and are
>> near to your "fish and chip shops" but I see no reason for them to be
>> recording wifi networks on housing estates which are a couple of miles
>> away from anything.
>
> You'd have to think like a programmer to realize these things, but:
>
> 1.  MAC addresses (Bob Metcalfe et al&  Std Bodies) are used, not SSIDs.
As I pointed out the router is being changed and hence the MAC address 
is changed.

On 11/06/2010 03:16, John Navas wrote:

> FYI, business grade GPS is quite accurate even while moving, on the
> order of a few feet.  Even my new wrist GPS can manage that.
>
And how do you know? Have you actually gone to known reference point and 
taken several readings or do you assume the adverts are correct?
"The declaration of the accuracy by Garmin GPS receivers often leads to 
confusion. What does it mean if the receiver states an accuracy of 4 m? 
This readout refers to the so-called 50 % CEP (Circular Error Probable). 
This means that 50 % of all measurements are within a radius of 4 m. On 
the other hand, 50 % of all measured positions are outside of this 
radius. Furthermore, 95 % of all measured positions are within a circle 
of twice this radius and 98.9 % of all positions are within a circle of 
2.55 the radius. In the given example, nearly all positions are within 
circle with a radius of 10 m. The determined position is in the worst 
case accurate to 10 m."
<http://www.kowoma.de/en/gps/accuracy.htm>

On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 08:33:35 +0100, in
<rcWdndNTXqZNe4zRnZ2dnUVZ8oqdnZ2d@bt.com>, Bob <bob@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>On 11/06/2010 03:16, John Navas wrote:
>
>> FYI, business grade GPS is quite accurate even while moving, on the
>> order of a few feet.  Even my new wrist GPS can manage that.
>>
>And how do you know? 
>Have you actually gone to known reference point and 
>taken several readings or do you assume the adverts are correct?
>...

I do repeatability testing against fixed objects.  Quite important when
you want (as I do) to be able to navigate a boat in close quarters
without good visuals (e.g., in dense fog).

-- 
Best regards,
John

Navas' Sailing and Racing in the San Francisco Bay Area
http://sail.navas.us

In article <rcWdndNTXqZNe4zRnZ2dnUVZ8oqdnZ2d@bt.com>,
 Bob <bob@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> And how do you know? Have you actually gone to known reference point and 
> taken several readings or do you assume the adverts are correct?
> "The declaration of the accuracy by Garmin GPS receivers often leads to 
> confusion.

Their maps aren't very good, either. I got rid of mine when right after 
a map download update, my stick-on Garmin GPS showed me flying across 
the bay rather than riding on the north-bound span of the Benicia 
bridge. The update wasn't free, and I considered that an egregious 
error, even for freeware. 

I quit using it as not dependable.

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

" > 1.  MAC addresses (Bob Metcalfe et al&  Std Bodies) are used, not SSIDs.
" As I pointed out the router is being changed and hence the MAC address 
" is changed.

Sorry; the almost irrelevant SSID mention threw me off and I didn't do
detailed reading.  Your principle is correct: the MAC address
therefore changes.

In <4c1317d5$0$1606$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> qm@sonic.net (Brad Allen) writes:

>" > 1.  MAC addresses (Bob Metcalfe et al&  Std Bodies) are used, not SSIDs.
>" As I pointed out the router is being changed and hence the MAC address 
>" is changed.

>Sorry; the almost irrelevant SSID mention threw me off and I didn't do
>detailed reading.  Your principle is correct: the MAC address
>therefore changes.

Are the numbers of people using ISP provided WiFi routers
(for which they probably pay $10 or so/month extra) 
that high? And doubly so, is there that huge a turnover
where you (the earlier poster) are?

I'm much more familiar with areas where the WiFi routers
tend to be about 90 percent third party and owned by
the consumer (i.e. Linksys, D-Link, etc.). And the
churn is less than 5 percent/year...




-- 
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
		     dannyb@panix.com 
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

On 12/06/2010 07:31, danny burstein wrote:
> In<4c1317d5$0$1606$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>  qm@sonic.net (Brad Allen) writes:
>
>> ">  1.  MAC addresses (Bob Metcalfe et al&   Std Bodies) are used, not SSIDs.
>> " As I pointed out the router is being changed and hence the MAC address
>> " is changed.
>
>> Sorry; the almost irrelevant SSID mention threw me off and I didn't do
>> detailed reading.  Your principle is correct: the MAC address
>> therefore changes.
>
> Are the numbers of people using ISP provided WiFi routers
> (for which they probably pay $10 or so/month extra)
> that high? And doubly so, is there that huge a turnover
> where you (the earlier poster) are?
>
> I'm much more familiar with areas where the WiFi routers
> tend to be about 90 percent third party and owned by
> the consumer (i.e. Linksys, D-Link, etc.). And the
> churn is less than 5 percent/year...
>
>
>
>
The large ISP's in the UK provide routers each of which comes with 
encryption enabled and a unique SSID, the SSID's can be of the type 
BT-abc, SKY-xyz etc. Most users do not change their SSID so it is easy 
to see when a router has changed. With the advent of 11n I am starting 
to see that a lot of the routers are being replaced and as the ISP 
packages change and the increase in availablity of higher speed 
broadband there is quite a bit of movement between ISP's.
   I do have some neighbours who use their own routers but in some cases 
the turnover there is quite high as their needs change. My nearest 
neighbour has had 8 router/AP's in the last 3 years as his experiments 
to improve his access around his house, garden and garage were just not 
quite what he had hoped.

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

On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 15:43:07 -0700, in
<higgy-E0F8F6.15430711062010@news.announcetech.com>, John Higdon
<higgy@kome.com> wrote:

>In article <rcWdndNTXqZNe4zRnZ2dnUVZ8oqdnZ2d@bt.com>,
> Bob <bob@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> And how do you know? Have you actually gone to known reference point and 
>> taken several readings or do you assume the adverts are correct?
>> "The declaration of the accuracy by Garmin GPS receivers often leads to 
>> confusion.
>
>Their maps aren't very good, either. I got rid of mine when right after 
>a map download update, my stick-on Garmin GPS showed me flying across 
>the bay rather than riding on the north-bound span of the Benicia 
>bridge. The update wasn't free, and I considered that an egregious 
>error, even for freeware. 
>
>I quit using it as not dependable.

When navigating on the water I use a Garmin GPS, easily the gold
standard in consumer navigation, but when driving I use Google Maps on
my Android phone, which works a treat!

-- 
Best regards,   FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John            FAQ for Wi-Fi:  <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
           Wi-Fi How To:  <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems:  <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 06:07:16 -0700 (PDT), bod43 <Bod43@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

>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.

Have there been any reports claiming that Google 'borrowed' any
bandwidth? All I've seen so far is that they might have created a log
of open AP's, which is basically a passive activity. I was going to
say it's hard to believe that would be illegal, but then you said
this:

>We have many, many wide ranging criminal laws and it would seem
>impossible that Google are not in breach.

Sounds like the laws might be the bigger problem.

On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 10:53:36 -0500, in
<k3b716lomjhn98o6r22j4vadpthpgj7p5i@4ax.com>, Char Jackson
<none@none.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 06:07:16 -0700 (PDT), bod43 <Bod43@hotmail.co.uk>
>wrote:

>>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.
>
>Have there been any reports claiming that Google 'borrowed' any
>bandwidth? All I've seen so far is that they might have created a log
>of open AP's, which is basically a passive activity. I was going to
>say it's hard to believe that would be illegal, but then you said
>this:
>
>>We have many, many wide ranging criminal laws and it would seem
>>impossible that Google are not in breach.
>
>Sounds like the laws might be the bigger problem.

The laws are actually a model of private data protection.
We should be so lucky in the USA.

-- 
Best regards,   FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John            FAQ for Wi-Fi:  <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
           Wi-Fi How To:  <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems:  <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

The Wi-Fi traffic collected by Google's world-roving Street View cars
included passwords and email, according to a report citing a preliminary
study from the French data protection authority.

IDG reports that the French National Commission on Computing and Liberty
(CNIL) has examined part of the data, after it was turned over by
Google. "It's still too early to say what will happen as a result of
this investigation," CNIL told IDG.

"However, we can already state that [...] Google did indeed record
e-mail access passwords [and] extracts of the content of email
messages."

MORE:
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/18/google_street_view_cars_wifi_data_includes_emails_and_passwords/>

In article <ec4o165c3s0ac1n3u4ifmv5unffkholfuf@4ax.com>, John Navas <jncl1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>"However, we can already state that [...] Google did indeed record
>e-mail access passwords [and] extracts of the content of email
>messages."

That's not good but if folks are using cleartext passwords
over a wireless connection, they really shouldn't have a
"reasonable expectation of privacy".

If I were one of those "victims" I'd be more worried about
the other folks who may have recorded that info (and not
very worried about Google). But, of course, Google represents
a much more attractive target for those seeking financial
reward for their own stupidity.

-- 
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar           "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| malch@malch.com                                     Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/               Shpx gur PQN.                |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 01:44:26 GMT, in
<hvh7dqg3aa002malch@news.sonic.net>, malch@malch.com (Malcolm Hoar)
wrote:

>In article <ec4o165c3s0ac1n3u4ifmv5unffkholfuf@4ax.com>, John Navas <jncl1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>"However, we can already state that [...] Google did indeed record
>>e-mail access passwords [and] extracts of the content of email
>>messages."
>
>That's not good but if folks are using cleartext passwords
>over a wireless connection, they really shouldn't have a
>"reasonable expectation of privacy".

I respectfully disagree -- the problem is the fundamentally flawed POP3
protocol that many (most?) ISPs still use -- it shouldn't take a
computer science degree to use basic Internet services.  Shame on us.

-- 
Best regards,
John

"We have met the enemy and he is us" -Pogo

In article <lbdo16lm1jrk0a7ode5n08i7osqd7lpt4d@4ax.com>, John Navas <jncl1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>>That's not good but if folks are using cleartext passwords
>>over a wireless connection, they really shouldn't have a
>>"reasonable expectation of privacy".
>
>I respectfully disagree -- the problem is the fundamentally flawed POP3
>protocol that many (most?) ISPs still use -- it shouldn't take a
>computer science degree to use basic Internet services.  Shame on us.

POP3 is certainly an issue but you can't hang that one on Google.

It would be interesting to know the distribution of the 
captured passwords, by protocol.

I'm guessing that they caught more HTTP Basic Authentication
passwords than POP3 since most of the inexperienced users
(that I know) use webmail versus POP3/SMTP.

At least those are "encrypted" with Base64 ;-)

-- 
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar           "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| malch@malch.com                                     Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/               Shpx gur PQN.                |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Malcolm Hoar wrote:
> In article <ec4o165c3s0ac1n3u4ifmv5unffkholfuf@4ax.com>, John Navas <jncl1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> 
>> "However, we can already state that [...] Google did indeed record
>> e-mail access passwords [and] extracts of the content of email
>> messages."
> 
> That's not good but if folks are using cleartext passwords
> over a wireless connection, they really shouldn't have a
> "reasonable expectation of privacy".

Not just using cleartext passwords over wifi, using cleartext passwords 
over UNPROTECTED wifi.  (If they had any protection on their wifi, then 
Google wouldn't have connected or recorded anything.)  In that case they 
absolutely have no expectation of privacy.  It's like shouting your 
password to your friend across the street.

jc

John Navas wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 01:44:26 GMT, in
> <hvh7dqg3aa002malch@news.sonic.net>, malch@malch.com (Malcolm Hoar)
> wrote:
> 
>> In article <ec4o165c3s0ac1n3u4ifmv5unffkholfuf@4ax.com>, John Navas <jncl1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "However, we can already state that [...] Google did indeed record
>>> e-mail access passwords [and] extracts of the content of email
>>> messages."
>> That's not good but if folks are using cleartext passwords
>> over a wireless connection, they really shouldn't have a
>> "reasonable expectation of privacy".
> 
> I respectfully disagree -- the problem is the fundamentally flawed POP3
> protocol that many (most?) ISPs still use -- it shouldn't take a
> computer science degree to use basic Internet services.  Shame on us.

Most ISPs offer protected protocols.  I use protected protocols with all 
my email accounts on 3 different ISPs.

Most end users don't bother to learn how to setup their software to use 
the protected protocols.  This is not the ISPs fault.

jc

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 08:24:04 -0700, in <hvinei$4k0$4@speranza.aioe.org>,
JC Dill <jcdill.lists@gmail.com> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 01:44:26 GMT, in
>> <hvh7dqg3aa002malch@news.sonic.net>, malch@malch.com (Malcolm Hoar)
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> In article <ec4o165c3s0ac1n3u4ifmv5unffkholfuf@4ax.com>, John Navas <jncl1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "However, we can already state that [...] Google did indeed record
>>>> e-mail access passwords [and] extracts of the content of email
>>>> messages."
>>> That's not good but if folks are using cleartext passwords
>>> over a wireless connection, they really shouldn't have a
>>> "reasonable expectation of privacy".
>> 
>> I respectfully disagree -- the problem is the fundamentally flawed POP3
>> protocol that many (most?) ISPs still use -- it shouldn't take a
>> computer science degree to use basic Internet services.  Shame on us.
>
>Most ISPs offer protected protocols.  

Some do, some do not, and there's no excuse for those that still market
and provide unsafe and insecure service.

>I use protected protocols with all 
>my email accounts on 3 different ISPs.

You're not typical.

>Most end users don't bother to learn how to setup their software to use 
>the protected protocols.  This is not the ISPs fault.

It absolutely is the fault of the ISP to market and provide an unsafe
and insecure mail protocol to non-experts, just as it would be the fault
of a car manufacturer to make a car without enough bolts to hold on the
wheels.  

Average users are not required to become computer experts just to use
standard Internet services safely.

-- 
Best regards,   FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John            FAQ for Wi-Fi:  <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
           Wi-Fi How To:  <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems:  <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 08:22:43 -0700, in <hvinc0$4k0$3@speranza.aioe.org>,
JC Dill <jcdill.lists@gmail.com> wrote:

>Malcolm Hoar wrote:
>> In article <ec4o165c3s0ac1n3u4ifmv5unffkholfuf@4ax.com>, John Navas <jncl1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> "However, we can already state that [...] Google did indeed record
>>> e-mail access passwords [and] extracts of the content of email
>>> messages."
>> 
>> That's not good but if folks are using cleartext passwords
>> over a wireless connection, they really shouldn't have a
>> "reasonable expectation of privacy".
>
>Not just using cleartext passwords over wifi, using cleartext passwords 
>over UNPROTECTED wifi.  (If they had any protection on their wifi, then 
>Google wouldn't have connected or recorded anything.)  In that case they 
>absolutely have no expectation of privacy.  It's like shouting your 
>password to your friend across the street.

The problem is hardware manufacturers that marketed insecure wireless
devices, not the unsuspecting victims that bought them -- users are not
required to become computer security experts just to use Internet
services safely.  The industry has at last faced up to its
responsibilities, and is now doing much more to ensure that wireless
networks are secure by default: Wi-Fi Protected Setup.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi_Protected_Setup>

-- 
Best regards,   FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John            FAQ for Wi-Fi:  <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
           Wi-Fi How To:  <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems:  <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

On 19/06/2010 16:40, John Navas wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 08:22:43 -0700, in<hvinc0$4k0$3@speranza.aioe.org>,
> JC Dill<jcdill.lists@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> Malcolm Hoar wrote:
>>> In article<ec4o165c3s0ac1n3u4ifmv5unffkholfuf@4ax.com>, John Navas<jncl1@navasgroup.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> "However, we can already state that [...] Google did indeed record
>>>> e-mail access passwords [and] extracts of the content of email
>>>> messages."
>>>
>>> That's not good but if folks are using cleartext passwords
>>> over a wireless connection, they really shouldn't have a
>>> "reasonable expectation of privacy".
>>
>> Not just using cleartext passwords over wifi, using cleartext passwords
>> over UNPROTECTED wifi.  (If they had any protection on their wifi, then
>> Google wouldn't have connected or recorded anything.)  In that case they
>> absolutely have no expectation of privacy.  It's like shouting your
>> password to your friend across the street.
>
> The problem is hardware manufacturers that marketed insecure wireless
> devices, not the unsuspecting victims that bought them -- users are not
> required to become computer security experts just to use Internet
> services safely.  The industry has at last faced up to its
> responsibilities, and is now doing much more to ensure that wireless
> networks are secure by default: Wi-Fi Protected Setup.
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi_Protected_Setup>
>
The NFC option has been suspended due to lack of test bed support.

"Notice on 9th June, 2010:
Test bed device support for the NFC (Near Field Communication) test 
option for Wi-Fi Protected Setup has been discontinued. Additionally, no 
member has responded within the past 30 days to a request for new NFC 
candidate devices for the test bed.

Due to the lack of test bed equipment support and in accordance with the 
MRD requirements for NFC testing, Wi-Fi Alliance staff has suspended NFC 
option testing and will be removing the test feature from the WSC1.0 
test plan and certification system testing menu. Reinstatement of NFC as 
an optional certification feature will require a new initiative within 
the task group and associated blind poll/plugfest work."
<http://www.adt.com.tw/english/indexNewsData.phtml?NEWSID=278>

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 17:16:33 +0100, in
<O-SdnSyjvrf9cIHRnZ2dnUVZ8q-dnZ2d@bt.com>, Bob <bob@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>On 19/06/2010 16:40, John Navas wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 08:22:43 -0700, in<hvinc0$4k0$3@speranza.aioe.org>,
>> JC Dill<jcdill.lists@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> Malcolm Hoar wrote:
>>>> In article<ec4o165c3s0ac1n3u4ifmv5unffkholfuf@4ax.com>, John Navas<jncl1@navasgroup.com>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "However, we can already state that [...] Google did indeed record
>>>>> e-mail access passwords [and] extracts of the content of email
>>>>> messages."
>>>>
>>>> That's not good but if folks are using cleartext passwords
>>>> over a wireless connection, they really shouldn't have a
>>>> "reasonable expectation of privacy".
>>>
>>> Not just using cleartext passwords over wifi, using cleartext passwords
>>> over UNPROTECTED wifi.  (If they had any protection on their wifi, then
>>> Google wouldn't have connected or recorded anything.)  In that case they
>>> absolutely have no expectation of privacy.  It's like shouting your
>>> password to your friend across the street.
>>
>> The problem is hardware manufacturers that marketed insecure wireless
>> devices, not the unsuspecting victims that bought them -- users are not
>> required to become computer security experts just to use Internet
>> services safely.  The industry has at last faced up to its
>> responsibilities, and is now doing much more to ensure that wireless
>> networks are secure by default: Wi-Fi Protected Setup.
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi_Protected_Setup>
>>
>The NFC option has been suspended due to lack of test bed support.

That's only one of four methods -- there are three other methods.  Every
Wi-Fi Protected Setup certified product must support the PIN method.

-- 
Best regards,   FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John            FAQ for Wi-Fi:  <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
           Wi-Fi How To:  <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems:  <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

On 19/06/2010 18:50, John Navas wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 17:16:33 +0100, in
> <O-SdnSyjvrf9cIHRnZ2dnUVZ8q-dnZ2d@bt.com>, Bob<bob@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 19/06/2010 16:40, John Navas wrote:
>>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 08:22:43 -0700, in<hvinc0$4k0$3@speranza.aioe.org>,
>>> JC Dill<jcdill.lists@gmail.com>   wrote:
>>>
>>>> Malcolm Hoar wrote:
>>>>> In article<ec4o165c3s0ac1n3u4ifmv5unffkholfuf@4ax.com>, John Navas<jncl1@navasgroup.com>   wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "However, we can already state that [...] Google did indeed record
>>>>>> e-mail access passwords [and] extracts of the content of email
>>>>>> messages."
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not good but if folks are using cleartext passwords
>>>>> over a wireless connection, they really shouldn't have a
>>>>> "reasonable expectation of privacy".
>>>>
>>>> Not just using cleartext passwords over wifi, using cleartext passwords
>>>> over UNPROTECTED wifi.  (If they had any protection on their wifi, then
>>>> Google wouldn't have connected or recorded anything.)  In that case they
>>>> absolutely have no expectation of privacy.  It's like shouting your
>>>> password to your friend across the street.
>>>
>>> The problem is hardware manufacturers that marketed insecure wireless
>>> devices, not the unsuspecting victims that bought them -- users are not
>>> required to become computer security experts just to use Internet
>>> services safely.  The industry has at last faced up to its
>>> responsibilities, and is now doing much more to ensure that wireless
>>> networks are secure by default: Wi-Fi Protected Setup.
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi_Protected_Setup>
>>>
>> The NFC option has been suspended due to lack of test bed support.
>
> That's only one of four methods -- there are three other methods.  Every
> Wi-Fi Protected Setup certified product must support the PIN method.
>
PBC is also mandatory and as far as I am concerned a pain in the neck. I 
have found a number of people, including myself, who have had difficulty 
getting this to work with some routers and have had to eventually input 
the encryption manually.
   If manufacturers are not prepared to support present test beds to 
make things easier for users then wonders what the future will bring.

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 19:16:41 +0100, in
<B9adnagrM-0VlIDRnZ2dnUVZ8u-dnZ2d@bt.com>, Bob <bob@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>On 19/06/2010 18:50, John Navas wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 17:16:33 +0100, in
>> <O-SdnSyjvrf9cIHRnZ2dnUVZ8q-dnZ2d@bt.com>, Bob<bob@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 19/06/2010 16:40, John Navas wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 08:22:43 -0700, in<hvinc0$4k0$3@speranza.aioe.org>,
>>>> JC Dill<jcdill.lists@gmail.com>   wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Malcolm Hoar wrote:
>>>>>> In article<ec4o165c3s0ac1n3u4ifmv5unffkholfuf@4ax.com>, John Navas<jncl1@navasgroup.com>   wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "However, we can already state that [...] Google did indeed record
>>>>>>> e-mail access passwords [and] extracts of the content of email
>>>>>>> messages."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not good but if folks are using cleartext passwords
>>>>>> over a wireless connection, they really shouldn't have a
>>>>>> "reasonable expectation of privacy".
>>>>>
>>>>> Not just using cleartext passwords over wifi, using cleartext passwords
>>>>> over UNPROTECTED wifi.  (If they had any protection on their wifi, then
>>>>> Google wouldn't have connected or recorded anything.)  In that case they
>>>>> absolutely have no expectation of privacy.  It's like shouting your
>>>>> password to your friend across the street.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is hardware manufacturers that marketed insecure wireless
>>>> devices, not the unsuspecting victims that bought them -- users are not
>>>> required to become computer security experts just to use Internet
>>>> services safely.  The industry has at last faced up to its
>>>> responsibilities, and is now doing much more to ensure that wireless
>>>> networks are secure by default: Wi-Fi Protected Setup.
>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi_Protected_Setup>
>>>>
>>> The NFC option has been suspended due to lack of test bed support.
>>
>> That's only one of four methods -- there are three other methods.  Every
>> Wi-Fi Protected Setup certified product must support the PIN method.
>>
>PBC is also mandatory and as far as I am concerned a pain in the neck. ...

Only for the access point, not for the client devices.

-- 
Best regards,   FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John            FAQ for Wi-Fi:  <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
           Wi-Fi How To:  <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems:  <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

On 06/19/2010 08:40 AM, John Navas wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 08:22:43 -0700, in <hvinc0$4k0$3@speranza.aioe.org>,
> JC Dill <jcdill.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>>Not just using cleartext passwords over wifi, using cleartext passwords 
>>over UNPROTECTED wifi.  (If they had any protection on their wifi, then 
>>Google wouldn't have connected or recorded anything.)  In that case they 
>>absolutely have no expectation of privacy.  It's like shouting your 
>>password to your friend across the street.

Agreed. Anyone that has an a interest in Wardriving can do the same. I
think however it issue is the fact that Google specializes in data
collection & have the resources to tie all that information together.

> 
> The problem is hardware manufacturers that marketed insecure wireless
> devices, not the unsuspecting victims that bought them -- users are not
> required to become computer security experts just to use Internet
> services safely.  The industry has at last faced up to its
> responsibilities, and is now doing much more to ensure that wireless
> networks are secure by default: Wi-Fi Protected Setup.
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi_Protected_Setup>
> 

Good luck with that. Users in any college dorm, college apartment
complex etc., would most likely immediately disable any default security
features.

I suspect the kids are getting a little better regarding this
(security), but it's not uncommon at all for college students to open
their (parent paid) high speed wifi so that all of their buddies can hop
on and use the feed.

I was pretty upset to learn that my son & his roomates (college) were
all using the open wifi from the guy in the apartment across the hall
(who had encouraged them to go ahead and use it). Of course they were
all transmitting college papers, job applications (with social security
numbers, financial info, etc., etc.) across this network.
  I sat down with a laptop and collected info for a full day. I then
showed them, and the guy supplying the access, the info that I'd
collected from them, the guy supplying the access, others accessing the
network (porn and all). Spent the evening buttoning up the "supplier's"
network in return for the "supplier" allowing the kids to continue using
the network via wpa2.
  They were pretty surprised to learn that an "old guy" actually knew
how to "snoop on their personal and private" network access... Go figure.

John Navas wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 08:24:04 -0700, in <hvinei$4k0$4@speranza.aioe.org>,
> JC Dill <jcdill.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 01:44:26 GMT, in
>>> <hvh7dqg3aa002malch@news.sonic.net>, malch@malch.com (Malcolm Hoar)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <ec4o165c3s0ac1n3u4ifmv5unffkholfuf@4ax.com>, John Navas <jncl1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "However, we can already state that [...] Google did indeed record
>>>>> e-mail access passwords [and] extracts of the content of email
>>>>> messages."
>>>> That's not good but if folks are using cleartext passwords
>>>> over a wireless connection, they really shouldn't have a
>>>> "reasonable expectation of privacy".
>>> I respectfully disagree -- the problem is the fundamentally flawed POP3
>>> protocol that many (most?) ISPs still use -- it shouldn't take a
>>> computer science degree to use basic Internet services.  Shame on us.
>> Most ISPs offer protected protocols.  
> 
> Some do, some do not, 

Correct.  When "most do" then obviously "some do not".

> and there's no excuse for those that still market
> and provide unsafe and insecure service.

Bullshit.

> 
>> I use protected protocols with all 
>> my email accounts on 3 different ISPs.
> 
> You're not typical.
> 
>> Most end users don't bother to learn how to setup their software to use 
>> the protected protocols.  This is not the ISPs fault.
> 
> It absolutely is the fault of the ISP to market and provide an unsafe
> and insecure mail protocol to non-experts, 

More bullshit.  Many users use software that can only fetch email with 
POP3.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with offering this protocol for 
those who request it.

> just as it would be the fault
> of a car manufacturer to make a car without enough bolts to hold on the
> wheels.  

That's a very stupid analogy, but I'm not surprised you brought it up 
because it's exactly what I expected of you.

A much better analogy is like selling a car where you can't easily lock 
all of the doors with one button or twist of the key.  Where you have to 
actually take the time to lock each door individually.

> Average users are not required to become computer experts just to use
> standard Internet services safely.

They don't have to be experts.  They only have to ask the question - is 
this the most secure way to setup my system?

jc

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 08:22:43 -0700, JC Dill <jcdill.lists@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Malcolm Hoar wrote:
>> In article <ec4o165c3s0ac1n3u4ifmv5unffkholfuf@4ax.com>, John Navas <jncl1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> "However, we can already state that [...] Google did indeed record
>>> e-mail access passwords [and] extracts of the content of email
>>> messages."
>> 
>> That's not good but if folks are using cleartext passwords
>> over a wireless connection, they really shouldn't have a
>> "reasonable expectation of privacy".
>
>Not just using cleartext passwords over wifi, using cleartext passwords 
>over UNPROTECTED wifi.  (If they had any protection on their wifi, then 
>Google wouldn't have connected or recorded anything.)  In that case they 
>absolutely have no expectation of privacy.  It's like shouting your 
>password to your friend across the street.
>jc

Not all parts of wi-fi transmissions are encrypted.  The headers,
source and destination MAC addresses, system management packets,
control packets, and some broadcast packets are not encrypted.  One
could easily map a network by simply collecting the source and
destination MAC addresses.  I have not seen anything from Google
indicating exactly what data they were collecting, but my guess(tm) is
that it was MAC addresses, SSID names, and possibly sniffing
broadcasts to determine the type of connectivity.  They were
apparently only logging uncrypted data, but from the vague wording,
could include payload data.  From the unencrypted data, they'll get a
user count, network map, equipment type, and a good guess as to the
backhaul type.  If that data was NOT encrypted, they would get IP
addresses, payload type, service number, and RIP broadcasts, which
would reveal considerably more information about the system and its
topology.


-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

"30 states may join probe of Google Wi-Fi snoop"
'As many questions as answers'

As many as 30 states may investigate Google for surreptitiously sniffing
traffic traveling over open Wi-Fi networks over a three-year span,
Connecticut's top law-enforcement official said on Monday.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said his office will
lead the multi-state investigation into the unauthorized data collection
by Google Street View cars. A �significant number of states� are
expected to participate, according to a press release issued by his
office that claimed representatives from more than 30 states joined a
recent telephone conference call to discuss the probe.

�While we hope Google will continue to cooperate, its response so far
raises as many questions as it answers,� Blumenthal said in the release.
�The company must provide a complete and comprehensive explanation of
how this unauthorized data collection happened, why the information was
kept if collection was inadvertent and what action will prevent a
recurrence.�

MORE:
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/21/google_wifi_snoop_inquiries/>

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 01:44:26 +0000, Malcolm Hoar wrote:

>>"However, we can already state that [...] Google did indeed record
>>e-mail access passwords [and] extracts of the content of email
>>messages."
> 
> That's not good but if folks are using cleartext passwords over a
> wireless connection, they really shouldn't have a "reasonable
> expectation of privacy".
> 
> If I were one of those "victims" I'd be more worried about the other
> folks who may have recorded that info (and not very worried about
> Google). But, of course, Google represents a much more attractive target
> for those seeking financial reward for their own stupidity.
	I sleep with a twelve bore and a 9mm. Nobody's going to accuse me 
of stupidity when I get a break-in.
	PS ... on my tenth wife. I TELL them to whisper "it's me" when 
they go to the bathroom, but in the end they always forget ....

	BTW, you don't need to collect the emails and passwords to map MAC 
addresses for the NSA.
	Airodump with the write option set to csv collects the mac, no 
content at all. They'll have to think of a better excuse.
	[]'s
	

In article <2ctv16liflced4ep87c1gdtgtgrntk80f3@4ax.com>, John Navas <jncl1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>"30 states may join probe of Google Wi-Fi snoop"

It's not like they have any more pressing issues that need
attention... sigh.

-- 
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar           "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| malch@malch.com                                     Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/               Shpx gur PQN.                |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Malcolm Hoar" <malch@malch.com> wrote in message news:hvqndsg35c002malch@news.sonic.net...
> In article <2ctv16liflced4ep87c1gdtgtgrntk80f3@4ax.com>, John Navas <jncl1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>"30 states may join probe of Google Wi-Fi snoop"
> 
> It's not like they have any more pressing issues that need
> attention... sigh.

That's how they divert the public's attention from the real crises.
As a famous poet once said, "'Give them bread and circuses and they will never revolt."

-- 
John Richards

On 6/22/2010 9:12 AM, Malcolm Hoar wrote:
> In article<2ctv16liflced4ep87c1gdtgtgrntk80f3@4ax.com>, John Navas<jncl1@navasgroup.com>  wrote:
>> "30 states may join probe of Google Wi-Fi snoop"
>
> It's not like they have any more pressing issues that need
> attention... sigh.
>

Must be election year in the 30 states.