You don't see what the deal is with a major corporation doing wardriving and packet capturing?
> If you broadcast your crap around you can't blame people for receiving it.
By your logic then if someone gets robbed on the streets, then it's their fault for "walking around freely"?
Well, to more strictly match the analogy--if someone is walking around with a purse that is constantly leaking coins, and they get "robbed" (by someone finding some of said coins and wandering off with them), then I would say that that is their own fault, yes.
So to keep Google away from logging my network data I need a strong virtual fence now, otherwise they'll come spying on my traffic?
That is 100% wrong. Google shouldn't be snooping on my data at all, not even if my AP was within their corporate headquarters reach. That is simply not acceptable behavior from a major corporation.
On the other hand, the existence of the paparazzi is not enough to justify banning the freedom to take pictures in public places.
All of these laws have to be carefully balanced to make sure we retain our rights.
The paparazzi make a living from those photos, so there is a reason for them to be out there doing that(not saying I agree, just saying there's a reason for it).
What is Google doing driving around collecting personal data for? Google is a search engine with several great products around it. WTF are they driving around collecting data for? See? It doesn't make any sense, this is plain creepy.
Personal information is a different matter. It's perfectly reasonable to take issue with Google for taking people's data without their knowledge about it.
I agree that it's not a perfect analogy, but it is quite a bit closer than being robbed, as the the OP suggested.
Really? Do you have any idea how wrong that statement is?
So if a song is played in public, it becomes public?
I don't, actually. There was no "hacking" or exploitation of any kind - any idiot with a wifi card can do the same thing.
>By your logic then if someone gets robbed on the streets, then it's their fault for "walking around freely"?
If I stand on the corner shouting out my social security and bank account numbers, I expect somebody will rip me off. Changing the type of wave from a sound wave to a radio wave doesn't really change anything.
What the hell? So if Pizza Hut were to start capturing radio waves you'd find that normal?
Why is it normal for Google to go around capturing customer data? That is my question. Even if my data is open to the public, absolutely not encrypted, why is it normal for a major corporation to go around capturing it. THAT is the question, not whether I had encryption or not!
IMO no corporation should be going around recording my data even if it was broadcast in plain sight.
The only way to protect your information is to not broadcast in the open.
Well if making things illegal doesn't protect us any more then we're in serious trouble here.
Come on that a bit excessive...
No one is hurt if packets are captured. Its not a violent act. Surely we can loose the hyperbolae.
I am saying that its not realistic to expect privacy if you do things in a public space, including broadcasting your data. If you choose to tell a story out on the street and I hear it you don't get to then say I am invading your privacy by hearing it.
Your analogy is broken, and I think you know it.
The bigger question is, "is it OK for someone to methodically collect data that people (inadvertently) broadcast about themselves?". The advertising industry has been doing it for years, and it's really a legal and ethical fuzzy area. The more productive conversation will revolve around privacy rights and expectations.