Google Street View Pursued Wardriving By Design

FCC slaps Google with a $25,000 fine for obstructing its investigation, but finds no laws broken

Google Drive: 10 Alternatives To See (click image for larger view and for slideshow)
Google Street View collected unencrypted data--including usernames and passwords--from Wi-Fi hotspots around the world by design.
That fact was literally blacked out when the Federal Communications Commission earlier this month released a copy of its
Street View investigation report
with numerous redactions. But the Electronic Privacy Information Center and other privacy rights groups had been pressing the FCC to
release its report in non-redacted form
. Those demands led Google to release a
version
that redacts only peoples names.
We decided to voluntarily make the entire document available except for the names of individuals, said Google spokeswoman Niki Fenwick in an emailed statement. While we disagree with some of the statements made in the document, we agree with the FCCs conclusion that we did not break the law. We hope that we can now put this matter behind us.
The more complete FCC report, however, raises numerous questions, such as why a Google engineer who was working on Street View only part-time (as part of Googles practice of allowing its employees to
spend 20% of their time
working on other projects) was allowed to make global data-interception decisions that apparently faced no legal review and was rubberstamped by managers.
[ Googles new file-storage service is generating plenty of buzz from privacy advocates. Should you be concerned?
Google Drive Privacy: 4 Misunderstood Facts
. ]
The data collection resulted from a deliberate software design decision by one of the Google employees working on the Street View project, read the report. In particular, a design document created by a Google employee--named only as Engineer Doe--detailed the usefulness of using the Street View cars for wardriving, according to the report.
Wardriving
refers to the practice of driving around looking for accessible wireless networks or wireless data traffic, then sniffing and storing the data theyre sending and receiving.
The FCC said it interviewed five Google employees during the course of its investigation, as well as an employee at consulting firm Stroz Friedberg, which Google hired to review its Street View program source code. But according to the FCC, in response to a subpoena to provide a deposition, Engineer Doe through counsel had invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and declined to testify.
Google has long argued that its Street View data-collection practices were legal. Furthermore, the Department of Justice, after its own investigation into the matter, chose in May 2011 to not prosecute Google for
violating the Wiretap Act
. Likewise, the Federal Trade Commission
wrapped its related investigation
in October 2010, and the next month, the FCC launched its own investigation.
The FCCs report, however, uses more circumspect language than Google to describe the Street View data collection practices. Notably, the agency said that there wasnt clear precedent for its applying the
Communications Act of 1934
to cover Wi-Fi communications, and that regardless, without Engineer Does testimony, significant factual questions remained unanswered. But the agency did hit Google with a $25,000 fine for obstructing its investigation--a charge that Google has denied.
Questions over Street View began surfacing in early 2010, when European regulators asked Google to detail exactly what types of data the company was collecting with its
Street View cars
. In April 2010, Google said that it was
collecting Wi-Fi network information
, and specifically, SSID data (i.e. the network name) and MAC address (a unique number given to a device like a WiFi router), but no other data, according to a
blog post
from Peter Fleischer, Googles Global Privacy Counsel. Networks also send information to other computers that are using the network, called payload data, but Google does not collect or store payload data, he said.
In May 2010, however, the company admitted that owing to a mistake, it had in fact been collecting payload data that wasnt password-protected, but that the data collection was incidental, fleeting, and often fragmented. Quite simply, it was a mistake, read a Google
blog post
. But according to the FCCs report, Googles payload data collection was by design.
Google quickly pulled the plug on such practices when they came to light. According to the FCC, a report from Stroz Friedberg said that as of May 6, 2010, it had verified that Google had stopped capturing payload data. By July, Google said that it had also removed all Wi-Fi sniffing equipment from its Street View cars.
By October 2010, meanwhile, Google admitted that in some instances entire emails and URLs were captured, as well as passwords. But Google said it had discarded all such data and that it was
putting new privacy controls in place
to prevent a repeat scenario.
Rob VandenBrink, a senior consulting engineer at Metafore, said on the
Internet Storm Center diary
that privacy alarm bells should have been ringing from the start of the wardriving program, although in an engineering aside, he did applaud Google for at least using a well-designed, off-the-shelf tool--
Kismet
--to handle packet capture. It was sensible that the engineer didnt go write a new tool for this--they used Kismet to collect the data, then massaged Kismets output during their later analysis, he said. Aside from the fact that anyone whos been in almost any SANS class would realize how wrong using the tool was, at least they didnt go write something from scratch.
The FCCs Street View report should serve as a lesson to any company pursuing technology projects that could lead to privacy or other legal questions: engineers arent legal experts. Long story short, this document outlines how the manager(s) of the project trusted the engineers word on the legal implications of their activity, VandenBrink said.
Too often, in fact, businesses fail to properly assess the potential legal implications of their technology projects. Many companies simply take their best shot at the do the right thing decision, he said. As you can imagine, if the results of a decision like this ever [come] back to see the light of day, it seldom ends well.
Still, how did a technology company of Googles caliber fail to head off the resulting Street View privacy debacle? In Googles case, they have a legal department on staff, and Id imagine that one of their primary directives is to keep an eye on privacy legislation, regulations and compliance to said legislation, he said. Though you cant fault the legal team if the question never gets directed their way.
InformationWeek is conducting a survey to get a baseline look at where enterprises stand on their IPv6 deployments, with a focus on problem areas, including security, training, budget, and readiness. Upon completion of our survey, you will be eligible to enter a drawing to receive an 16-GB Apple iPad. Take our
InformationWeek IPv6 Survey
now. Survey ends May 11.

Last News
▸ Some DLP Products Vulnerable to Security Holes ◂ Discovered: 23/12/2024 Category: security	▸ Scan suggests Heartbleed patches may not have been successful. ◂ Discovered: 23/12/2024 Category: security	▸ IoT Devices on Average Have 25 Vulnerabilities ◂ Discovered: 23/12/2024 Category: security

**Cyber Security Categories**
Google Dorks Database	Exploits Vulnerability	Exploit Shellcodes

CVE List

Tools/Apps

News/Aarticles

Phishing Database

Deepfake Detection

Trends/Statistics & Live Infos

Tags:
Google Street View Pursued Wardriving By Design