You know what Google needs? Another Street View data-slurp probe
London's man in Europe wants UK to launch an inquiry
A UK inquiry should be held to determine whether Google knew that its Street View cars were collecting personal data over unsecure Wi-Fi networks for use in other projects, a politician has said.
Claude Moraes, an MEP who represents London, said that allegations contained in a recent US regulator's report into the matter should be followed up in the UK.
In May 2010 it emerged that the cars Google used to photograph towns and cities for its Street View service had also been scanning the airwaves to identify and map Wi-Fi networks. This process resulted in the gathering and storage of data snippets as they passed through the networks.
Earlier this year the Federal Communications Commission concluded its investigation into Google's unlawful collection of personal information. It found that a single engineer working for the company had intentionally written software code that allowed the Street View cars to collect "payload" data from unencrypted Wi-Fi networks the cars came within range of "for possible use in other Google projects."
The software design was pre-approved by a manager at the company. It enabled the gathering of entire emails, usernames and passwords when Google's camera-mounted cars scanned Wi-Fi networks.
The FCC said Google had disclosed details that "revealed that on at least two occasions [the engineer] specifically informed colleagues that Street View cars were collecting payload data". The information also confirmed that the engineer told a senior manager on the Street View project that the software had "sniffed out" the data.
However, the regulator's report said "Google's supervision of the Wi-Fi data collection project was minimal". The FCC fined Google $25,000 for "wilfully and repeatedly violating" its requests for responses to its inquiries but said it had "decided not to take enforcement action" against the company.
"These allegations are extremely worrying and could point to a trend where private companies are purposefully intending to harvest private data without citizens' authorisation," Moraes said in a report. "Allegations that Google may have had knowledge of their actions are extremely serious.
Last month the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) told Out-Law.com that it would study the FCC's report and that it could yet determine to take enforcement action against Google for the unlawful data collection.
The watchdog has previously conducted two assessments of the data breach. In its initial assessment in July 2010 the ICO declared that it would take no action because it was "unlikely" that Google had gathered much personal data. However, following investigations by Canada's Privacy Commissioner the ICO decided to reinvestigate. Canadian Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart had said that entire emails, highly sensitive personal information and even passwords were collected by Google. The company has admitted the claims.
In its second assessment in November 2010 the ICO determined that Google's Wi-Fi data gathering activities had been a "significant breach of the Data Protection Act" but decided not to fine the company. The Data Protection Act provides that it is unlawful to obtain personal data knowingly or recklessly. Instead the ICO warned of taking "further regulatory action" if Google did not comply with undertakings it agreed to. Those undertakings committed Google to improving its privacy policies and consenting to the ICO conducting an audit of its practices.
In reporting on the outcome of its audit in August last year the ICO said that Google had offered it "reasonable assurance" that it had made changes to how the company addresses privacy issues.
However, a spokesperson for the ICO previously told Out-Law.com that enforcement action may yet be taken against Google after the watchdog had studied the FCC's findings.
The ICO is due to conduct a follow-up to its privacy audit of Google this month.
Last month the Guardian newspaper reported that Google may face a police or Home Office investigation into whether its Street View data collection amounted to a breach of UK communication hacking laws.
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) sets out the laws relating to lawful and unlawful interception of communications. Under RIPA unlawful interception takes place if a person makes "some or all of the contents of the communication available, while being transmitted, to a person other than the sender or intended recipient of the communication". It also states that interception is illegal on messages stored "in a manner that enables the intended recipient to collect it or otherwise to have access to it".
Under RIPA law enforcement agencies, including the police and MI5, can tap phone, internet or email communications to protect the UK's national security interests, prevent and detect terrorism and serious crime or to safeguard the UK's economic well-being.
Telecoms firms are allowed to unintentionally intercept communications in line with RIPA if the interception "takes place for purposes connected with the provision or operation of that service or with the enforcement, in relation to that service, of any enactment relating to the use of postal services or telecommunications services."
Copyright © 2012, Out-Law.com
Out-Law.com is part of international law firm Pinsent Masons.
Re: Not this again
Hang on just a mo.
GSV were trotting around taking photos. That's fine; it's what they said they were doing.
BUT Can someone please explain WTF a WiFi connection was necessary for if the purpose o fthe exerecise was just taking photos?
In fact, why was there an active WiFi point in the vehicle in the first place? The thing is going to spend its entire active life more than 30m from base, after all.
Dataslurping begins to sound pretty bloody intentional - you don't "accidentally" design a WiFi system into a camera, do you?
Re: Not this again
By that logic you presumably also believe that people who occasionally forget to lock their cars/houses deserve everything they get as well.
Just because something isn't secured doesn't mean it's okay for anyone who feels like it to wander in and collect whatever they fancy.
Re: Not this again
It's more like complaining that people are eavsdropping when shouting down a cellphone on the train.