[LINK] google misdeeds and Australia's Privacy Commissioner

[Stilgherrian]

On 22/06/2010, at 12:27 PM, Jan Whitaker wrote:
> At 12:03 PM 22/06/2010, Stilgherrian wrote:
>> On 22/06/2010, at 11:53 AM, Jan Whitaker wrote:
>>> [so how can she assert that "only fragments" were
>>> collected? This is illogical.]
>> 
>> Because if one has an explanation of the technology being used, one 
>> can make inferences about what is and isn't possible. That, too, is logic.
> 
> Only if you believe them. But if Google has been told not to look at 
> the collected data, they are all operating from ignorance. They may 
> not have by definition been able to collect encrypted data or they 
> made the decision to discard it because it was unusable (therefore 
> they had to know it was encrypted in order to make that decision). 
> But other passwords are entered in the clear. They should not have 
> accessed that data. They had no use for it. Therefore it breaches the 
> Privacy Act principle of collection. Therefore she is not 
> interpreting the Act properly.

None of that has anything to do with the question you asked, however.

You don't need to have any Google SEKRIT knowledge to know the capabilities of data collection using Wi-Fi from a cruising car. Just a knowledge of wireless comms and a bit of arithmetic.

Stil



-- 
Stilgherrian http://stilgherrian.com/
Internet, IT and Media Consulting, Sydney, Australia
mobile +61 407 623 600
fax +61 2 8569 2006
Twitter: stilgherrian
Skype: stilgherrian
ABN 25 231 641 42