Long room??? Long run. Brain disconnect from fingers.

Did they have to do it by publicly announcing to all the world the names of Congressmen and Congresswomen who had open wifi ports? Would it not have been better to just state that there were people in Congress with open wifi and just let them know privately instead of publicly.

Plus, seriously, how much data do you think can be captured when you are just driving by in a car that is taking photos? Unless you are a full blown conspiracy nut, about all they were going to get is just the SSID and a few packets at most. Now are you trying to imply that this data was being collected to be sold and used for nefarious purposes? You, of all people, should understand the mindset of programmers and software engineers. Most of them are not politically motivated and just do something because they think it is cool without thinking if they should be doing it.

I am not defending that this feature was installed in the streetview cars. But I think it is stretching credulity to define nefarious Anti-American causes to nothing more than a higher tech version of war-driving with a Pringles can antenna.

It is a bigger issue that the Wireless AP’s were open and unsecured. But that was not Google’s fault. I am not sure how much your software work has involved network issues. I have been a network designer for over twenty years. I am also an amateur radio operator and have spent significant on both the hardware and software aspects of wireless communication. I have seen streetview vehicles in operation. They are in as constant motion as possible in order to maximize the area of roads that are photographed. Other than picking up the broadcasted SSID from the AP while passing a location, it is highly unlikely that any significant level of data could even be captured and if something is, it would be pure luck if it was something spy worthy.

So, in order for there to be any use for the data, it has to either be sold to a third party(which there is, as of now, absolutely no proof) or someone would have to return and sit near the location with other equipment to gather more information. Either way, this would be more of a law enforcement issue and not something for Congressional inquiry. There is technically no law against intercepting data from an unlicensed FCC Part B device that a wireless AP is as far as I am aware. They are not protected like cell phone conversations are. Is there a technical or legal argument I am missing here?

I am a Republican. But I am also a techie. If I am reading you right, you want to have a law passed to prohibit intercepting data from unencrypted wireless AP’s? I am trying to figure out if this is meant as an attack on Google because it does tend to be more on the liberal side or is it just trying to protect people who don’t understand how open their technology are. I am actually against the latter since it would add a lot more layers of regulation to wireless network management. Are we going to outlaw open AP’s? I am afraid that is what our Congress, with its hideous record of being able to deal with technology would do. This would also have a major effect on small business who provide wifi access as methods of pulling in customers. I

My concern is that any Congressional response to this would be to create some kind of open law that would also put the FCC in even more charge of regulating wifi networks. As they are Part B devices, the FCC tends to keep its hands off. I fear the unintended consequences of pushing an untrained Congress into regulating the way wifi works. Plus, if you start restricting access to wifi monitoring, how many of my technical tools for troubleshooting issues of wifi interference will become illegal? I am torn between issues of privacy and issues of personal responsibility along with not wanting government regulation messing things up. It is a catch-22.