# Lifestyles & Discussion > Privacy & Data Security >  Google sniffing your wi-fi? yes They can

## Dripping Rain

From my SE homepage
heres the nice harmless looking wifi sniffers


If you dont know whats this about. well heres the back story




> Lawyers suing Google claimed Thursday they have discovered evidence in a patent application that Google deliberately programmed its Street View cars to collect private data from open Wi-Fi networks, despite claims to the contrary.
> 
> At this point, it is our belief that it is not an accident, said Brooks Cooper, an Oregon attorney suing Google in one of several class actions lawsuits around the country arising from Googles disclosure that its Street View cars intercepted Wi-Fi traffic around the world. Google has described the sniffing as a coding error.
> 
> The evidence, the relevance of which Google disputed Thursday, is a 2008 Google patent application (.pdf) describing a method to increase the accuracy of location-based services  services that would allow advertisers or others to know almost the exact location of a mobile phone or other computing device. The patent application involves intercepting data and analyzing the timing of transmission as part of the method for pinpointing user locations.


Continue reading
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...wifi-sniffing/

----------


## Maximilian American

Un-Believable...is it sure to say google inc plays with the devil?

----------


## madengr

People are just going after Google for their $.  People are too stupid to enable encryption.

----------


## american.swan

> People are just going after Google for their $.  People are too stupid to enable encryption.


I tend to agree with this.

----------


## specsaregood

//

----------


## Maximilian American

> People are just going after Google for their $.  People are too stupid to enable encryption.


Regardless of enabling encryption or not. The matter at hand is that Google Inc. has mobile devices that scan space to retrieve data without permission from systems for database storage. That is sinister.

----------


## pcosmar

> People are just going after Google for their $.  People are too stupid to enable encryption.



I don't worry about it. Nor about encryption either. Not in my location.
Google earth does not have a roadside view of my house. Or any in my area. my nearest neighbor is over a half mile away.

Aside from that,, I can crack a WEP encryption in a few minutes. (I don't, but I can) I am sure the folks a Google or any "agency" can also.
I run open wi-fi at home.

----------


## madengr

Would you guys agree with states that outlaw radar detectors?  How about if it were illegal to scan police radio traffic.  Once those EM waves leave your property, it is up to you to ensure they are properly safeguarded.

----------


## Bern

That article is from June.  Is there any update on the story/lawsuit?

----------


## Rael

Wpa2 ftw

----------


## pcosmar

> Wpa2 ftw


*Aircrack*

http://www.aircrack-ng.org/

I am in favor of Open Access wi-fi,,,everywhere. I am also in favor of Good Firewalls.

FYI- I am not leet, nor am I a cracker. But I do read, and am capable of following directions.

----------


## mnewcomb

I'm not sure I agree with any privacy when it comes to radio transmissions. Your transmissions are hitting my radio antenna... why is it wrong if I listen to them?

If I was yelling to my neighbor about something I want kept a secret, would it be wise to do so? Even if I was speaking in pig-latin (think encryption) would it be wrong if someone overheard that and interpreted it?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

If you don't want a signal detected, then don't broadcast it.  Complaining about them snooping your signal strikes me like getting angry at a passerby for seeing your porch-light.  Privacy begins at home.  If you want something private, then don't broadcast it.  I'm not the biggest Google fan, but in this particular story if you want someone to get angry at get angry at yourself for poor information security.  But for goodness sake if you are going to broadcast a signal, don't get upset when somebody puts an eyeball on your broadcast.  It's like I'm going to paint my house yellow, and then get angry because someone knows my house is yellow.  Common sense folks, please!  BTW -- WPA2 mmkaaaay.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> *Aircrack*
> 
> http://www.aircrack-ng.org/
> 
> I am in favor of Open Access wi-fi,,,everywhere. I am also in favor of Good Firewalls.
> 
> FYI- I am not leet, nor am I a cracker. But I do read, and am capable of following directions.


good luck w 512 bit encryption lol.  I'm guessing that program works great with 64bit and 128bit.  You'd probably have to hang out for a week and a half to two weeks to get enough data to crack 512.

----------


## specsaregood

> If you don't want a signal detected, then don't broadcast it.  Complaining about them snooping your signal strikes me like getting angry at a passerby for seeing your porch-light.


Just because the neighbor girl is undressing/dressing infront of an open window, doesn't mean you need to stand outside it and take pictures with one hand and the other hand down your pants.

----------


## pcosmar

> If you don't want a signal detected, then don't broadcast it.  Complaining about them snooping your signal strikes me like getting angry at a passerby for seeing your porch-light.  Privacy begins at home.  If you want something private, then don't broadcast it.  I'm not the biggest Google fan, but in this particular story if you want someone to get angry at get angry at yourself for poor information security.  But for goodness sake if you are going to broadcast a signal, don't get upset when somebody puts an eyeball on your broadcast.  It's like I'm going to paint my house yellow, and then get angry because someone knows my house is yellow.  Common sense folks, please!  BTW -- WPA2 mmkaaaay.


Exactly.
Encrypt your communications if you are concerned/paranoid.
Set up and run a good firewall.

btw, you can access my signal. That gets you to the router. You can ping it all day and not find my computers. (repeated attempts will lock you out) so the best you can do is connect to my ISP through my router.

While you are sitting in the woods. 

This has no affect on me.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> *Aircrack*
> 
> http://www.aircrack-ng.org/
> 
> I am in favor of Open Access wi-fi,,,everywhere. I am also in favor of Good Firewalls.
> 
> FYI- I am not leet, nor am I a cracker. But I do read, and am capable of following directions.


PS -- Aircrack only cracks WPA2 via brute force per this link.  Allow me to reassess then, unless you have a stupidly simple password (for heaven's sake why bother then?) it's not 2 weeks, more like 2 months.  Brute force attacks are not very useful anymore unless you have supercomputers on both ends.

----------


## Reason

don't use a wireless router?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Just because the neighbor girl is undressing/dressing infront of an open window, doesn't mean you need to stand outside it and take pictures with one hand and the other hand down your pants.


People have been arrested for doing a strip-tease in front of an open window, and somehow I don't think the Googlebot is crawling up into anybodies private property.  If you don't want to be seen naked, then don't strip in front of an open window facing the road.  How is that not blatantly obvious?  Indeed, I would tend to assume that anybody who strips in an open bay window facing the road is doing so with the express intent of being ogled.

----------


## specsaregood

> If you don't want to be seen naked, then don't strip in front of an open window facing the road.  How is that not blatantly obvious?


That's not what I said.   What they are doing is more akin to taking pictures of the girl undressing infront of the window.  It is one thing to walk by and notice it and keep on walking.  It is another to sit there and slurp and save the data. (take pictures)

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Exactly.
> Encrypt your communications if you are concerned/paranoid.
> Set up and run a good firewall.
> 
> btw, you can access my signal. That gets you to the router. You can ping it all day and not find my computers. (repeated attempts will lock you out) so the best you can do is connect to my ISP through my router.
> 
> While you are sitting in the woods. 
> 
> This has no affect on me.


This too.  The important bits of security should either come on a hardware firewall or other points on your LAN.  The WAP is actually the least important part of your security protocol.  If you are relying solely on the security/encryption available on your WAP, then you may as well be unsecured.  Other than data security the only reason for WEP/WPA measures is to keep neighbors from leeching.  For THAT purpose, you are better off with a MAC address filter to be honest.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> That's not what I said.   What they are doing is more akin to taking pictures of the girl undressing infront of the window.  It is one thing to walk by and notice it and keep on walking.  It is another to sit there and slurp and save the data. (take pictures)


She should close her curtains or stop broadcasting her body. Sorry.  Once you release stuff into the public domain, it's public.  Don't like it?  then don't release it.

----------


## Clairvoyant

> PS -- Aircrack only cracks WPA2 via brute force per this link.  Allow me to reassess then, unless you have a stupidly simple password (for heaven's sake why bother then?) it's not 2 weeks, more like 2 months.  Brute force attacks are not very useful anymore unless you have supercomputers on both ends.


Or you could just get access to a bot net which really is just too easy.

Plus I am doubting google has a shortage of supercomputers.

People can really overrate computer security because the only real security is lack of knowledge.  Companies can spend millions on security and still get hacked with relative ease, to think you are safe with a mass produced $100 router is silly, you are only safe from people who wouldn't know how to anyways.  Yet google is in the know.

I'm curious how people who are defending this would feel if it was a known hacker group collecting the same data.

----------


## specsaregood

> She should close her curtains or stop broadcasting her body. Sorry.  Once you release stuff into the public domain, it's public.  Don't like it?  then don't release it.


Well, I didn't say it should be illegal.  Just a matter of proper behavior.
At least google should officially drop the "do no harm" mantra.

----------


## pcosmar

> good luck w 512 bit encryption lol.  I'm guessing that program works great with 64bit and 128bit.  You'd probably have to hang out for a week and a half to two weeks to get enough data to crack 512.


I don't try. or bother at all. The tools are readily available.
I visit my mom from time to time, and my laptop recognizes several access points in the area.
I use hers.
The point I was making is that not only Google has the ability to do this. I expect that many more nefarious types also do.

Point in fact.
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wirel...rack-wpa--wpa2

*FIREWALL*
 Use it. Secure it.
Test it.
https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2

----------


## Clairvoyant

> She should close her curtains or stop broadcasting her body. Sorry.  Once you release stuff into the public domain, it's public.  Don't like it?  then don't release it.


Unless you have a patent or a copyright or something along those lines, then you can government thug anyone who does anything to what you released into public domain.  This is just the big company screwing over people who don't have the funds to stop them.

Just wait til they have sniffers all around the city and your cell phone location is tracked 24/7.  Don't like it?  Shouldn't have brought your cell phone in "public domain".

----------


## pcosmar

> Unless you have a patent or a copyright or something along those lines, then you can government thug anyone who does anything to what you released into public domain.  This is just the big company screwing over people who don't have the funds to stop them.
> 
> Just wait til they have sniffers all around the city and your cell phone location is tracked 24/7.  Don't like it?  Shouldn't have brought your cell phone in "public domain".


They already do.

And once you access my (or anyone's) router, it is connected through a hard line to the ISP.
The Phone Co. in my case. And phone line have been tapped for a long time.
All of them.

So for all your "security" who are you really fooling?

----------


## pcosmar

So,,,
Has anyone run the ShieldsUp test?
https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2

If you got anything less than,




> Your system has achieved a *perfect* "TruStealth" rating. *Not a single packet* — solicited or otherwise — was received from your system as a result of our security probing tests. Your system ignored and refused to reply to repeated Pings (ICMP Echo Requests). From the standpoint of the passing probes of any hacker, this machine does not exist on the Internet. Some questionable personal security systems expose their users by attempting to "counter-probe the prober", thus revealing themselves. But your system wisely remained silent in every way. Very nice.


It should be unacceptable to you.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Unless you have a patent or a copyright or something along those lines, then you can government thug anyone who does anything to what you released into public domain.  This is just the big company screwing over people who don't have the funds to stop them.
> 
> Just wait til they have sniffers all around the city and your cell phone location is tracked 24/7.  Don't like it?  Shouldn't have brought your cell phone in "public domain".


If you broadcast a signal, then that broadcast is in the public domain.  Whether that be a laptop, WAP, or cellphone it matters not.  If you don't want to be tracked in public, you have several choices - leave your cell at home, pull the battery, or keep it in a faraday cage.

The moment you advocate for criminalizing the observation of a broadcast signal, you are advocating for tyranny, and I want no part of it.  

Freedom comes with a little gem that Ron Paul calls _responsibility_.  Frankly, this willingness to eradicate liberty just so that you don't have to take the responsibility of securing your own broadcast signals which you willingly and intentionally broadcast, horrifies me.  

If you don't want your signal seen, then don't broadcast a signal.  Is that really all that difficult?  For goodness sake people take responsibility for yourselves and stop begging the jackboots to take liberty away for a momentary perceived security!

The path you advocate would make police scanners illegal.  radar detectors illegal.  you could be thrown in federal "rape-me" prison for buying a non government approved radio!

Is that really what you want?

----------


## specsaregood

> So,,,
> Has anyone run the ShieldsUp test?
> If you got anything less than,
> 
> It should be unacceptable to you.


I dont get that and it is perfectly acceptable to me.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> So,,,
> Has anyone run the ShieldsUp test?
> https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2
> 
> If you got anything less than,
> 
> 
> 
> It should be unacceptable to you.


That's kinda tough when operating an actual public web and domain server...

----------


## pcosmar

> I dont get that and it is perfectly acceptable to me.


Ok.

----------


## specsaregood

> That's kinda tough when operating an actual pubic web and domain server...


and ftp, smtp, vpn, etc

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> and ftp, smtp, vpn, etc


Oh yeah, all them too.

----------


## pcosmar

> That's kinda tough when operating an actual public web and domain server...


But it can narrow down what ports are intentionally open and those that should not or do not need to be open.

less that you need to watch for intrusion.

The same a a public building, that has areas not open to the public, and locked doors.

----------


## pcosmar

> and ftp, smtp, vpn, etc


I use those, but don't serve them.
My computers will only accept connections that I initiate.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> But it can narrow down what ports are intentionally open and those that should not or do not need to be open.
> 
> less that you need to watch for intrusion.
> 
> The same a a public building, that has areas not open to the public, and locked doors.


Yeah, I only open what ports I need.  If I had a bigger budget, I'd also set up a honeypot and direct preferred traffic past it into the real deal.

----------


## pcosmar

> Yeah, I only open what ports I need.  If I had a bigger budget, I'd also set up a honeypot and direct preferred traffic past it into the real deal.


If I had any budget,,,,

My point was that people are concerned with wi-fi,,which is only the transmission, but really is not "security" at all.
once passed the router and on to the ISP it is still likely to be tapped.
I really don't see the concern with someone riding a signal to make a connection to the web.
If you run an open server you are already accepting outside connections. Does it matter if they come through the hard-line or through the air?
Tapping into an open wi-fi does not affect the computers in the house. (unless there is a bandwidth issue)
And with 5 computers running through my router on basic DSL, I have never had an issue with that.

It seems that folks are thinking that someone tapping their wi-fi is getting access to their computer.
If they are it is a firewall issue. Not a wi-fi issue.

I still am in favor of Open Wi-Fi. Though the best means to do that are up to local communities  and the ISP's.

----------


## specsaregood

> Tapping into an open wi-fi does not affect the computers in the house. (unless there is a bandwidth issue)


Well it could be an issue if what they are doing on your connection is illegal.

edit: if i was gonna do something illegal on the internet, I sure wouldn't do it from my own home connection.  And places with public wifi are more likely to have cameras

----------


## pcosmar

> Well it could be an issue if what they are doing on your connection is illegal.
> 
> edit: if i was gonna do something illegal on the internet, I sure wouldn't do it from my own home connection.  And places with public wifi are more likely to have cameras


Perhaps that is another issue of *too many laws.*

Also the connection can be investigated by MAC address. And that it was not from your computer.
If real investigation was ever done. 

Does no one pay any attention to these little pop ups?



> Although this page is encrypted, the information you have entered is to be sent over an unencrypted connection and could easily be read by a third party.
> 
> Are you sure you want to continue sending this information?


*That does not matter if it is wi-fi or hard-line.*

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Well it could be an issue if what they are doing on your connection is illegal.
> 
> edit: if i was gonna do something illegal on the internet, I sure wouldn't do it from my own home connection.  And places with public wifi are more likely to have cameras


This.  I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if some Dem operative leeched my signal and did all kinds of militia, bombs, and pedo porn just to flag me and make a stink.  That's one reason why I have good security and encryption on my WAP.  That plus a logger on my hardware firewall means even if they do their efforts wouldn't match my logs, and cross that with the log entries on the WAP router and I'm pretty much immune from such garbage.

----------


## specsaregood

> Perhaps that is another issue of *too many laws.*
> 
> Also the connection can be investigated by MAC address. And that it was not from your computer.
> If real investigation was ever done. 
> 
> Does no one pay any attention to these little pop ups?
> 
> *That does not matter if it is wi-fi or hard-line.*


Whether it is too many laws will seem less important if they bust down your door because somebody was hacking govt computers or trading child porn on your internet connection.  And it will still be up to you to defend yourself.  And MAC addresses aren't all that hard to change.

----------

