Google has just admitted to spying and stealing private information from millions.

[Panchoevo]

We're just having a good, old-fashioned, high spirited discussion about privacy and such.

Of course, you are correct.

 

[Jerry Hildenbrand]

lol. actually, we're waiting for the OP to back up his assertions that:

A. Publicly broadcasted data is private.
B. Something was stolen.

I think Google should tell whoever is complaining to shove it. Prove they broke the law in court. But I understand it's a better business move to say sorry and move on.

 

[Jerry Hildenbrand]

Why would I waste my time in a futile attempt to educate you on the law? Educate yourself. Get a book. Place it before you. Turn the pages. Read. Try to understand the legal definition of publishing, and you will realize that your posting is wrong.

Here, is a futile effort: Those citizens, sending private emails, were not publishing. The company, google, wrongfully took private information. It does not negate the wrongful taking, just because the door was not locked, or if the door was wide open, or if the thing taken was sitting on a park bench. It remains a wrongful taking.

Publishing was never mentioned. Try again.

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

Why would I waste my time in a futile attempt to educate you on the law? Educate yourself. Get a book. Place it before you. Turn the pages. Read. Try to understand the legal definition of publishing, and you will realize that your posting is wrong.

Here, is a futile effort: Those citizens, sending private emails, were not publishing. The company, google, wrongfully took private information. It does not negate the wrongful taking, just because the door was not locked, or if the door was wide open, or if the thing taken was sitting on a park bench. It remains a wrongful taking.

Agreed (mostly). If I take something that isn't mine I should be punished. That's the way the law works. You are still at fault if you don't secure your stuff. Just because you don't get punished doesn't mean it's not true.

 

[Panchoevo]

No. I believe that common sense should prevail. Protect your stuff. Most crimes are crimes of opportunity. Especially theft. If something is left unprotected the odds of it getting stolen (or in this case accessed) go WAY up.

The absence of common sense in the victim, does not insulate a bad actor from committing a crime. This matter was resolved long, long ago in the law. I will you give you an example from the middle of the previous century. Around 1950 or so, a defense could still be made that if a woman wore salacious clothing, then she was "asking for it" in the former charge of "rape". Of course, our society, no longer forgives, or lessens this crime based on the victims clothing. Again, the absence of common sense in the victim, does not insulate a bad actor from committing a crime. If you steal from Einstein, or from a mentally impaired person, you are still a thief. The simple adage, "common sense should prevail" does not guarantee justice, in fact, it clouds justice.

 

[I.R.R.V.]

Seems to me someone should get a iPhone and trust stevo to keep their info secure.....

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

The absence of common sense in the victim, does not insulate a bad actor from committing a crime. This matter was resolved long, long ago in the law. I will you give you an example from the middle of the previous century. Around 1950 or so, a defense could still be made that if a woman wore salacious clothing, then she was "asking for it" in the former charge of "rape". Of course, our society, no longer forgives, or lessens this crime based on the victims clothing. Again, the absence of common sense in the victim, does not insulate a bad actor from committing a crime. If you steal from Einstein, or from a mentally impaired person, you are still a thief. The simple adage, "common sense should prevail" does not guarantee justice, in fact, it clouds justice.

I'm still waiting on your replies to gbhil's assertions. Also what I'm saying is that there should be more common sense in the law. I personally will take some responsibility for something if I didn't use some common sense to prevent it. I can't get mad at GM (or any other car manufacturer) if the engine seizes because I didn't get the oil changed when I was supposed to. People should use common sense to protect what is theirs. If you drop your phone and it gets damaged, but you didn't have a case on it, is that HTC's fault?

You seem to be missing the point that what constitutes common sense is not necessarily what constitutes the law. Case in point, McDonalds got sued because the lid of their coffee cups didn't say "Caution Hot." That's common sense. Everybody knows that coffee is hot. But that didn't stop McDonald's from getting sued and having to pay out for it. I'm waiting for a judge to throw something like that out because of common sense. It'll happen sooner rather than later.

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

The absence of common sense in the victim, does not insulate a bad actor from committing a crime. This matter was resolved long, long ago in the law. I will you give you an example from the middle of the previous century. Around 1950 or so, a defense could still be made that if a woman wore salacious clothing, then she was "asking for it" in the former charge of "rape". Of course, our society, no longer forgives, or lessens this crime based on the victims clothing. Again, the absence of common sense in the victim, does not insulate a bad actor from committing a crime. If you steal from Einstein, or from a mentally impaired person, you are still a thief. The simple adage, "common sense should prevail" does not guarantee justice, in fact, it clouds justice.

And legally speaking (again from experience) a store like Best Buy has to follow some very specific steps to actually prosecute someone for shoplifting. 5 steps, to be more specific. If all 5 steps aren't followed then the person can walk out with anything they want and the chance of prosecution is very slim. This is a case where common sense should prevail but it doesn't. The law works against the business trying to do the right thing and protect their products. I've seen shopping carts full of unpaid product walk out the door and nothing happens to the person. Legally nothing can, so that must make it right. At least according to your points. It seems that you think the law is absolute. So if I can find a loophole around the law I can do anything I want. If I can't get prosecuted then it's not wrong.

 

[Panchoevo]

lol. actually, we're waiting for the OP to back up his assertions that:

A. Publicly broadcasted data is private.
B. Something was stolen.

I think Google should tell whoever is complaining to shove it. Prove they broke the law in court. But I understand it's a better business move to say sorry and move on.

Try to grasp this, in the law, "publicly broadcasted" is "published". that would be the only way that this material would not be private. The material that google stole was not published. It was private, like your telephone conversations, whether hard wired, or cellular, in which you can have legal expectations of privacy. In the U.S., depending on your jurisdiction, either one, or all parties must consent to these conversations being recorded. I have not heard yet that millions of Britons consented to google intercepting their private communications.

Your brilliant, "shove it", and "prove it in court" are masterpieces.

I'm certain that the British Justice department is shaking in its boots, and is terribly fearful of taking google to court. Because you probably don't get it--NOT.









Try reading. It leads to education.

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

Try to grasp this, in the law, "publicly broadcasted" is "published". that would be the only way that this material would not be private. The material that google stole was not published. It was private, like your telephone conversations, whether hard wired, or cellular, in which you can have legal expectations of privacy. In the U.S., depending on your jurisdiction, either one, or all parties must consent to these conversations being recorded. I have not heard yet that millions of Britons consented to google intercepting their private communications.

Your brilliant, "shove it", and "prove it in court" are masterpieces.

I'm certain that the British Justice department is shaking in its boots, and is terribly fearful of taking google to court. Because you probably don't get it--NOT.









Try reading. It leads to education.

Not securing your wifi is pubilcly broadcasting it. That's the point we've been trying to make.

EDIT: Read any warning when you connect to a public hot spot. It says that you're publicly broadcast any and all information sent/received over an open wifi connection and that particular business isn't responsible for someone getting a hold of your data.

 

[Panchoevo]

And legally speaking (again from experience) a store like Best Buy has to follow some very specific steps to actually prosecute someone for shoplifting. 5 steps, to be more specific. If all 5 steps aren't followed then the person can walk out with anything they want and the chance of prosecution is very slim. This is a case where common sense should prevail but it doesn't. The law works against the business trying to do the right thing and protect their products. I've seen shopping carts full of unpaid product walk out the door and nothing happens to the person. Legally nothing can, so that must make it right. At least according to your points. It seems that you think the law is absolute. So if I can find a loophole around the law I can do anything I want. If I can't get prosecuted then it's not wrong.

Your simplistic view of the law would be correct if it were designed to protect the criminal. Fortunately, the law strives to protect the victim. I don't know what "5" things you are talking about, but larceny has 7 elements which must be proven in court in order to gain a conviction. Tap your fingers on the keyboard and look up the term, and you might understand what is happening regarding the shopping cart. Takes work. Takes time. Takes a commitment to the truth. Takes one away from gaming. Not a fashionable pursuit these days.

 

[Jerry Hildenbrand]

Try to grasp this, in the law, "publicly broadcasted" is "published". that would be the only way that this material would not be private. The material that google stole was not published. It was private, like your telephone conversations, whether hard wired, or cellular, in which you can have legal expectations of privacy. In the U.S., depending on your jurisdiction, either one, or all parties must consent to these conversations being recorded. I have not heard yet that millions of Britons consented to google intercepting their private communications.

Your brilliant, "shove it", and "prove it in court" are masterpieces.

I'm certain that the British Justice department is shaking in its boots, and is terribly fearful of taking google to court. Because you probably don't get it--NOT.


Try reading. It leads to education.

Publicly broadcasted is no where near the same as published, and I'm sure you know that.

It ceased to be private when is was offered to the public by being broadcasted on an open channel.

You have a legal expectation of privacy, provided you have taken normal measures to procure it. Yelling across a parking lot can not be private. Sending data on an open channel can never be private.

You're trolling. Everyone here sees it. You have a valid point, but you felt the need to sensationalize it with words like "Private data" and "Stolen". Scotland Yard, a year later, doesn't believe a crime was committed, and no charges have been filed, yet you proclaim them as thieves. On a Google-centric website.

And since you seem to enjoy it, and have resorted to insults, it's now finished.