Did Korean Officials Really Need To Raid Google Offices Over Street View WiFi Sniffing?

from the seems-a-bit-extreme dept

It’s been a few months since Google admitted that its Street View vehicles were collecting some data from open WiFi networks. Those familiar with the basic technology involved have explained why this was almost certainly an accident, and there’s no evidence whatsoever that anything was even done with the data. However, there have been a whole bunch of lawsuits filed, and it’s difficult to find a government that hasn’t said they’d investigate the issue.

To date, it seems that Google has bent over backwards to work with every government investigating this issue, no matter how varied their requests were on the matter. So far, the UK’s investigation has found that the WiFi sniffing didn’t appear to collect any sensitive data, though others are still investigating. More recently, Google agreed to allow Germans to opt-out of Street View.

Given Google’s clear willingness to help out, it seems a bit odd that South Korean officials — many months after the news of this came out — suddenly decided to raid Google’s Korean offices over this matter:

A police statement said they suspected Google has been collecting and storing data on “unspecified internet users from wi-fi networks”

Brilliant police work there, guys. It only took you three months to “suspect” what Google admitted in May.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: google

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Did Korean Officials Really Need To Raid Google Offices Over Street View WiFi Sniffing?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
24 Comments
Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“Everything else we do, e.g., sex, facebook, and raid offices, we do purely for fun.”

The logical question being, of course, how can we combine those nominal activities to compound the funness? For instance, could Korean LEOs standing-doggystyle their way into the Google offices to conduct their raid while updating their Facebook posts?

out_of_the_blue says:

Yes, they *did* need to.

The more Google is investigated, the better. Corporations don’t have rights in the first place, they’re mere legal fictions, and all history shows that corporations need constant close scrutiny. As a corporation, Google must *prove* itself innocent, it doesn’t have nor merit the assumption that a “natural” person does. You assert “there’s no evidence whatsoever” while objecting to try and gather any such.

Why do you stand up for a mega-corporation that can defend itself?

interval (profile) says:

Re: Yes, they *did* need to.

You’re overreacting. You seem to be of the mindset that a corporation is by definition evil, and I don’t find that to be necessarily true. I think you should keep in mind that corps employ hundreds, even thousands, of people, and its mostly in corps that economically uplifting innovations happen. Corporations in fact do have some rights, not the same as living person, but still. Your automatic disregard for the welfare of a corporation is misguided. I suppose you believe it’d be best if the state employed everyone? That’s been a real success story everywhere its been tried…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Yes, they *did* need to.

he more Google is investigated, the better. Corporations don’t have rights in the first place, they’re mere legal fictions, and all history shows that corporations need constant close scrutiny. As a corporation, Google must *prove* itself innocent, it doesn’t have nor merit the assumption that a “natural” person does. You assert “there’s no evidence whatsoever” while objecting to try and gather any such.

Why do you stand up for a mega-corporation that can defend itself?

Hmmmm, actually last time I checked the definition of a Corporation was an entity of it’s own with limited inherent rights. Corporations are created as an entity on behalf of the people creating it to shell liability and operate as a singular “person” separate from the multitudes involved in creating and operating it.

Regardless of that, I agree corporation needs more oversight, but Google isn’t my biggest concern. The corporations that I see committing the biggest violations of trust and rights are the cities, counties, and states. For instance the cities exploiting safety laws to fill budget shortfalls, to violate individual rights, and to exploit private information they have collected.

If you think these other companies selling your email address or anonymous browsing data are bad, just wait until this spending orgy causes local government corporations to need to start “monetizing” their data.

ftfy says:

Re: Yes, they *did* need to.

The more corporations are investigated, the better. Corporations don’t have rights in the first place, they’re mere legal fictions, and all history shows that corporations need constant close scrutiny. As a corporation, they must *prove* itself innocent, it doesn’t have nor merit the assumption that a “natural” person does. You assert “there’s no evidence whatsoever” while objecting to try and gather any such.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: "Normal Procedure in Korea"

Having lived in Korea, I can say that Korean politicians and government bureaucrats can grandstand in front of the media with the best of them. Prosecutors like to see themselves on the evening news. No one makes a big deal about it because the public is cynical about government. One can reasonably assume there, just like lots of places nearer to home, that one of the principal figures in the investigation is preparing to run for office.

EEJ (profile) says:

Not using the data?

I just got an Ipod touch, and turned it on at a restaurant to see if I could find an open wifi network to access my email. The only wifi hotspot available was protected by security, so I couldn’t connect. A few minutes later, the person I was eating with asked about something nearby, so I fired up a map application which asked to use my location information. Since I didn’t have a wifi connection, I didn’t think much about it.

Sure enough, it placed me on the map within 150 feet of my actual location…Is it possible the google maps software recognized the locked down wifi as a location point?

Jimr (profile) says:

Having lived in Korea as a foreigner I came to the cynical belief that everything was for sale and every one could be bribed. Especially corrupt officials routinely came sniffing around the foreign offices and gave the clear impression that an ‘offering’ was required.

I can only assume Google did not pay the required ‘offerings’ to the right officials.

WICLAW from Korea (user link) says:

Necessary but Ineffective

The process was duly made under due process of law. Gathering private communication information without internet user’s consent is a crime, even though Google has admitted it and said sorry. In Korea, any person in violation of this shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or by suspension of qualification for not more than 5 years. That is why I think no one can say “the raid is unnecessary”. The police must investigate the suspect. However, I also think the police’s raid is ineffective, because Google’s server is not located at Seoul. The Korean police missed this point.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Necessary but Ineffective

The process was duly made under due process of law. Gathering private communication information without internet user’s consent is a crime, even though Google has admitted it and said sorry

Um. Well, this wasn’t private info because it was broadcast publicly.

That is why I think no one can say “the raid is unnecessary”. The police must investigate the suspect.

There are ways to investigate that don’t require a raid. That’s the point. Every other gov’t has simply asked for the info and Google turned it over.

WICLAW from Korea (user link) says:

Re: Re: Necessary but Ineffective

“Um. Well, this wasn’t private info because it was broadcast publicly”

Yes It is private info. If it is not, it couldn’t become such an issue. Only broadcasted is “Google Korea gathered a private into”, not exactly what info and to what extent.

“There are ways to investigate that don’t require a raid. That’s the point. Every other gov’t has simply asked for the info and Google turned it over.”

I agree with you there are many other investigation methods considered. But no one can’t say if the Google says X, X is always true. I think Korean investigating authority and also the court which issued the warrant are focusing on the possibility for Google Korea to hide the information they gathered or not to disclose all the info they gathered. The authority cannot entirely rely on nor trust the suspect’s statement. That’s why I said the raid is not unnecessary in the view of the authority. But as Google has no server in Korea, the raid was ineffective I guess. Of course someone can say, that’s why the raid is unnecessary. If you’re saying this point. Yes, you are right. I think the Korean authority missed this point or even didn’t trust Google Korea’s explanation ‘we don’t have a server in Korea’ until they confirm it by means of a raid.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...