[SATLUG] So much for Google being your friend.

pcdls pcdls.ronin at gmail.com
Fri Jun 4 17:38:04 CDT 2010

On 6/4/2010 9:49 AM, David Kowis wrote:
> On 6/4/2010 8:42 AM, pcdls wrote:
>> On 6/4/2010 7:48 AM, David Kowis wrote:
>>> On 6/4/2010 1:22 AM, pcdls wrote:
>>>> Pretty much saw this coming.  Hope none of you have made any
>>>> compromising searches....at least, not intentionally.
>>>> http://www.pcworld.com/article/197955/google_relents_will_hand_over_european_wifi_data.html
>>>> Hopefully, Texas law should have some interesting counter-measures to
>>>> deal with their goofiness (it does).
>>> Because they kept the data, or because they're caving into the
>>> government's demands?
>>> Just curious as to what you see the core problem being.
>>> Personally, if you've got open unencrypted wifi, and someone collects
>>> your packets, shame on you. It's like shouting in a room, and getting up
>>> set when someone writes down what you're saying...
>>> David
>> Core problem:  There is a continuous and relentless effort to justify
>> these sorts of actions.  Where does it end?
>> I love analogies!!!
>> It's like having a private conversation and someone has bugged your
>> phone to write down what you're saying.  Silly rabbit!!  Stop using your
>> phone!
> I don't think that using an unencrypted wifi is like having a bugged
> phone... One is physical compromise of the phone, and the other is
> un-affected by any third party at all.
>> It's like leaving the door to your house unlocked so that people with
>> poor manners and a lack of decency can just come in whenever they feel
>> like it to check out what you're doing...and then report it.  Always
>> keep your house in lockdown and trust noone!
> Yes, but you don't broadcast things outside your home. A better analogy
> is if you left the door open and then complained because people took
> pictures inside your house from across the street. They're trespassing
> on your property, which they had to physically enter. You don't have
> similar restrictions with wifi, anyone with an antenna can pick up
> stuff, often from a long way away.
>> It's like going about in public, being deliberately followed, and
>> watched ( ala cointelpro )...but, hey, you're in public!  Stop going out
>> in public!
> Well it is public. You can take measures to hide, but people can follow
> and watch you all they want. If you don't want to be looked at, and
> watched, take steps to protect yourself.
>> I suspect, as time goes on, the next statements to come from the
>> apologists will be:  "Hey, we can't help that no matter how hard people
>> try to encrypt their data or their communications, we will always have
>> the keys!"  And, when that statement is made.  Will we accept it?
> I'm a big proponent of privacy, but it doesn't work out in this
> situation, because it's not like bugging your wifi adaptor. You're
> broadcasting everything to everyone. If you want what you're doing kept
> secret, don't use wifi, or at the very least, keep it encrypted.
> I'm not justifying their actions. I asked a question, which you never
> answered. Breaking the crypto that you're using is far different than
> picking up unencrypted wifi. Listening to the packets is far different
> from bugging your wifi to collect the data. You're broadcasting into
> open space every time you use wifi, encrypted or not.
> David
Your question was answered.  You asked a question and qualified it 
further with a statement of curiosity of the core problem.  I gave you 
the core problem.  It's the "decency" of the thing.  Whether the 
transfer of potentially compromising information is done by private 
citizens, soulless entities (corporations), or by government, it will 
always be wrong.  Just because something can be done, especially where 
the treatment of other human beings and their private lives are 
concerned, doesn't mean it should be done.

I, agree, it's our responsibility to encrypt our own wifi and to protect 
our own data.  It's just that this kind of news always makes me damned 
feisty and leads me to question whether our technical communities are 
actually familiar with basic human ethics.  Do they see human data and 
profiles as simple assets?  People as product?  Judging by the actions 
of the likes of Google, Facebook and many others, that would seem the case.

Thank you for dissecting my analogies.  I appreciated that.  Where I was 
going with that was that it's too easy to justify potentially harmful 
acts upon our fellow man, just because such things can be done, legal or 

Thank you for the response.  Your insight was helpful.


"Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus the 
beneficiaries are spared the shame and danger that their acts would 
otherwise involve..." ~ Frederic Bastiat

More information about the SATLUG mailing list