<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Daniel Hall&#039;s Website &#187; Wifi</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.danielhall.me/tag/wifi/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.danielhall.me</link>
	<description>Because the Internet doesn&#039;t have enough opinions already</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 23 Oct 2011 23:15:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
<atom:link rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com"/><atom:link rel="hub" href="http://superfeedr.com/hubbub"/>		<item>
		<title>Google&#8217;s Privacy Bungle</title>
		<link>http://www.danielhall.me/2010/06/googles-privacy-bungle/</link>
		<comments>http://www.danielhall.me/2010/06/googles-privacy-bungle/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jun 2010 03:37:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Daniel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Computing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Encryption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hacking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wifi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wireless]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.danielhall.me/?p=621</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Google has recently taken a large amount of criticism for capturing unencrypted wireless network traffic as part of its Street View project. Google admitted to the world that although it was only looking to capture station MAC addresses it inadvertently &#8230;<p class="read-more"><a href="http://www.danielhall.me/2010/06/googles-privacy-bungle/">Read more &#187;</a></p>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Google has recently taken a large amount of criticism for capturing  unencrypted wireless network traffic as part of its Street View project.  Google admitted to the world that although it was only looking to  capture station MAC addresses it inadvertently also captured the payload  data. Many articles have emerged blasting Google for what Senator  Conroy calls &#8216;This is probably the single greatest breach in the history of privacy&#8217;. I believe Google hasn&#8217;t done all that wrong, to  understand why you need to know how a wireless network works.</p>
<p>Wireless networks can either be encrypted or unencrypted but in both  these cases only the payload is encrypted. The packet headers which  contain information about who the packet is addressed to and who it is  from. The reasons for this are similar to why you might write a letter  in code, but you would not write the envelope in code. In an unencrypted  network the whole packet is sent in clear text including the envelope  and contents. The difference between these analogies and how a real  network works though is that to read the envelope you need to physically  obtain it and there is only one copy. A wireless network broadcasts  everything to everyone within 100 meters.</p>
<p>This isn&#8217;t really a problem if your network is encrypted as people will  not be able to read it easily. If however your network is not encrypted  its the equivalent of yelling out everything that you type into and read  from your PC. Almost all banking websites will ask your PC to use extra  encryption, but many other sites will not. So anyone in a 100 meter  range of your computer or access point can watch everything you do on  your computer.</p>
<p>What Google were trying to do was get a list of the locations of these  access points. So they would have captured the headers of all packets  they saw, grabbed the wireless routers address out of it and marked its  location on a map. Except according to them they accidentally put code in  that captured the whole packet. This meant that for all the unencrypted  networks the Google Street View cars drove past they may have captured  private information.</p>
<p>There is a class action in Germany against Google for capturing this  data, and more can be expected elsewhere soon. Suing Google for this is  like walking in to a public place, yelling out a bunch of private  information and then suing anyone who happened to be recording at the  time, or suing someone for writing down smoke signals you send to someone from the top of a mountain. If your  access point is sending data unencrypted then every wireless device  within 100 meters cannot help but hear your data, you&#8217;re just lucky most  will ignore it.</p>
<p>If you really cared about your privacy you would at least make some  attempt to restrict others access to your data. Not knowing is much an  excuse as not knowing people were recording in that shopping mall. Don&#8217;t  take your privacy for granted, check whether your network is encrypted,  and if you don&#8217;t know how, get someone who does. Ignorance is not an  excuse! This time it was Google, the next time it could be an identity  thief.</p>
<p><strong>Random Thought:</strong> If privacy is so important to people at the moment, what&#8217;s with all the data on Facebook?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.danielhall.me/2010/06/googles-privacy-bungle/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

