Google fesses up to not deleting street view data in the UK.

[Anti Federalist]

Pretty piss poor that this is the UK and not here.


Google Acknowledges Still Having Contested User Data

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...360965420.html

Google Inc. GOOG +3.52%has acknowledged it retained Internet user data collected surreptitiously through wireless networks as part of its street-mapping service after it had been ordered to destroy it, according to information posted Friday by a U.K. regulator.

The Information Commissioner's Office, which oversees data privacy in the U.K., said it now intends to examine the data, which includes email correspondence, "as soon as practicable."

The ICO said in a statement that "the fact that some of this information still exists appears to breach the undertaking to the ICO signed by Google in November 2010."

In a letter to the ICO, Google Global Privacy Counsel Peter Fleischer had acknowledged that the Mountain View, Calif., Internet search giant "has recently confirmed that it still has in its possession a small portion of payload data collected by our Street View vehicles in the U.K."

Mr. Fleischer's letter adds that Google still has user data from the U.K. "and other countries," though he didn't specify which ones.

Mr. Fleischer didn't provide details about why the data wasn't destroyed. "Google apologizes for this error."

A Google spokeswoman declined additional comment.

Google uses cars mounted with detection equipment and cameras to help keep its maps service up-to-date with location information and photos.

In 2010, Google made the surprising announcement that it had inadvertently collected user data through equipment on those cars that scanned wireless networks, including email messages.

Google blamed a single engineer for writing computer code that was later mistakenly uploaded into the company's scanning equipment, but the revelation prompted investigations by privacy regulators in multiple countries including the U.S. and U.K.

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission fined Google $25,000 in April for its "noncompliance" with the regulator's requests for related information. "For many months, Google deliberately impeded and delayed the Bureau's investigation by failing to respond to requests for material information," the FCC said at that time. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission had concluded an investigation into the matter without penalizing Google in 2010. Investigations in other countries are continuing.

The U.K.'s ICO ordered Google to destroy collected user data in 2010. According to an agreement signed at that time, Google pledged to delete the data while committing to new security training for employees.

In his letter, Google's Mr. Fleischer wrote to the ICO that the company "would now like to delete the remaining U.K. data, but would like your instructions on how to proceed. We are prepared to arrange for you to review this data, or to destroy it."

The ICO said in its statement that it has been in contact with "other data protection authorities in the EU and elsewhere" regarding the Google matter, as it seeks a coordinated response.

"This information should never have been collected in the first place," the regulator said.

[dannno]

lol, in the UK??

The government REALLY hates competition..

http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2010/...-crimes-a-day/

[Petar]

I think that regulations forbidding google from photographically documenting public spaces are an example of big government stifling technological progress which would otherwise benefit us all.

[phill4paul]

I'm sorry...

[phill4paul]

I think that regulations forbidding google from photographically documenting public spaces are an example of big government stifling technological progress which would otherwise benefit us all.

You think that what you think benefits us all, benefits us all. Thanks for that.

[dannno]

I think that regulations forbidding google from photographically documenting public spaces are an example of big government stifling technological progress which would otherwise benefit us all.

Well here the govt. seems to be taking advantage of the information Google provides and getting in bed with them. I don't see anywhere in the Constitution that says they should be spying through private or public means.

I just find it hilarious that in Britain they have the control grid setup so well they don't seem to want these guys in the picture.

[Petar]

You think that what you think benefits us all, benefits us all. Thanks for that.

So what makes you entitled to have your own subjective opinion of what benefits us all applied to everyone via the initiation of force?

Well here the govt. seems to be taking advantage of the information Google provides and getting in bed with them. I don't see anywhere in the Constitution that says they should be spying through private or public means.

I just find it hilarious that in Britain they have the control grid setup so well they don't seem to want these guys in the picture.

The Constitution merely outlines what type of government power is authorized, what could this have to do with Google's mapping activities?

[Anti Federalist]

I think that regulations forbidding google from photographically documenting public spaces are an example of big government stifling technological progress which would otherwise benefit us all.

I never gave permission for my private property and wireless transmissions to be entered into a corpo/government database and put on public display.

[phill4paul]

So what makes you entitled to have your own subjective opinion of what benefits us all applied to everyone via the initiation of force?



The Constitution merely outlines what type of government power is authorized, what could this have to do with Google's mapping activities?

How long have you thought that I believed that I felt I was entitled? Entitled to my own subjective opinion of what benefits us all applied to everyone via the initiation of force?
Do you obsess on this? More importantly, how do my posts make you feel?

[Petar]

I never gave permission for my private property and wireless transmissions to be entered into a corpo/government database and put on public display.

Well, if your house is visible from public property then I don't think it is reasonable for you to expect to get some kind of Area-51/state-secret treatment in that case...

Wireless transmissions are sort of another subject though... One thing I can say is that anyone who signs up with Google and then proceeds to use their search engine is effectively giving google permission to track their searches... I do not believe that government has any business monitoring that though, so it would be nice to see some heads roll at the NSA for that kind of thing specifically...

[specsaregood]

"This information should never have been collected in the first place," the regulator said.

Microsoft on the otherhand released the source code to their similar data collection system to show that they were not collecting that type of information.

[Petar]

How long have you thought that I believed that I felt I was entitled? Entitled to my own subjective opinion of what benefits us all applied to everyone via the initiation of force?
Do you obsess on this? More importantly, how do my posts make you feel?

Google has as much right to take photos as anyone. It makes me feel crazy when people do not understand this. Maybe I feel crazy because I am crazy. Is that crazy?

[Anti Federalist]

Google has as much right to take photos as anyone. It makes me feel crazy when people do not understand this. Maybe I feel crazy because I am crazy. Is that crazy?

You can take a photo.

You cannot spy into my back yard, looking into places where one would not normally have visual access to nor do you have the right to take that photo and broadcast it to the world or enter into god knows how many government databases, nor does government have the right to prosecute for what they think they might be seeing in said photos.

[Anti Federalist]

Wireless transmissions are sort of another subject though... One thing I can say is that anyone who signs up with Google and then proceeds to use their search engine is effectively giving google permission to track their searches...

If I'm understanding this properly, it had nothing to do with anybody using google as a search engine, they just used their spy cars to suck up and record whatever wireless transmissions that came into range.

[phill4paul]

Google has as much right to take photos as anyone. It makes me feel crazy when people do not understand this. Maybe I feel crazy because I am crazy. Is that crazy?

Does Google have the right to take pictures of your property through your wall? We are at that point. You're not gonna win this debate. How does that make you feel?

[Petar]

You can take a photo.

You cannot spy into my back yard, looking into places where one would not normally have visual access to nor do you have the right to take that photo and broadcast it to the world or enter into god knows how many government databases, nor does government have the right to prosecute for what they think they might be seeing in said photos.

Google drives down the street with cars that have cameras connected to them.

If they start climbing over people's fences to photograph them in their backyards then I would say that you have a point.

Does government have the right to prosecute people based on what a private company records from a public road?

I would say yes, if that person is breaking a law that is legitimate, and actually prohibits something that should be prohibited.

If I'm understanding this properly, it had nothing to do with anybody using google as a search engine, they just used their spy cars to suck up and record whatever wireless transmissions that came into range.

Oh, then I completely misunderstood.

This is the part where I admit to being the dumbass who did not read the actual article…

Also, I really don't know what to think if that is the case, I will have to do some more research first…

Does Google have the right to take pictures of your property through your wall? We are at that point. You're not gonna win this debate. How does that make you feel?

Google has the right to build giant robotic spiders that will break into your house, eat your brains, and index all of your thoughts to be stored on government computers.

[Anti Federalist]

Google drives down the street with cars that have cameras connected to them.

If they start climbing over people's fences to photograph them in their backyards then I would say that you have a point.

That's what their satellite images do.

Does government have the right to prosecute people based on what a private company records from a public road?

I would say yes, if that person is breaking a law that is legitimate, and actually prohibits something that should be prohibited.

Ah well, then there is no more Fourth Amendment. All cops have to do is filter all their spying through a private company.

Oh, then I completely misunderstood.

This is the part where I admit to being the dumbass who did not read the actual article…

Also, I really don't know what to think if that is the case, I will have to do some more research first…

I've been following this case off and on since it came up, and that is my understanding of it.

Google has the right to build giant robotic spiders that will break into your house, eat your brains, and index all of your thoughts to be stored on government computers.

LOL - Scroogle has the right to build rape machines then.

[brushfire]

"Dont be google"

[LibertyRevolution]

I never gave permission for my private property and wireless transmissions to be entered into a corpo/government database and put on public display.

You may be giving permision and not realize it...

Do you broadcast and SSID from your router? If so you are freely offering your networks location publicly.
Do you run password protected network? If not then you are offering free access to the public.

By broadcasting an SSID, you are making your network public. This gives google every right to log the location of your network and any information it transmitting.
If your network is not locked, then you are offering a free wi-fi hotspot. They do not need to ask permission to use it, the signal leaves your property.

You can take a photo.

You cannot spy into my back yard, looking into places where one would not normally have visual access to nor do you have the right to take that photo and broadcast it to the world or enter into god knows how many government databases, nor does government have the right to prosecute for what they think they might be seeing in said photos.

AF.. in a perfect world...
But as it stands now.. they have every right to do it.

You don't own the air space above your house..
If I want to put a wireless cam on a remote controlled helicopter and have it hover over your house and tape your backyard all day and stream it live to the internet.. I have every right.

You cant even shoot it down or jam it.. you would be braking the law..

You ok today AF?
It is like you woke up this morning and thought you had all your rights back and that you actually owned that property you live on...

[Anti Federalist]

It is like you woke up this morning and thought you had all your rights back and that you actually owned that property you live on...

Yeah, tell me about it.