Re: Privacy Police Go Paranoid Against Google

[Robert Graham <robert_david_graham () yahoo com>]

What I find interesting about this is that the conclusions the audit comes to, and which you come to, are freaking 
obvious if you understand anything about "wifi sniffing". 


I thought I did a pretty good describing the technical details (http://bit.ly/apd4oM), but it's very much an "eyes 
glaze over" post. As soon as people detected a hint of a hex dump, they immediately close the browser. Yet, being able 
to visualize a hex dump of what the packets look like goes to the heart of this matter. It's easy to see why Google 
cares about the headers of all packets, even when they don't care about the payloads.





________________________________
From: Larry Seltzer <larry () larryseltzer com>
To: FunSec <funsec () linuxbox org>
Sent: Sun, June 13, 2010 2:26:45 PM
Subject: [funsec] Privacy Police Go Paranoid Against Google

 
http://blogs.pcmag.com/securitywatch/2010/06/privacy_police_go_paranoid_aga.php
 
(Yes, this is a little about driving
traffic to my blog, but it’s also on-point for funsec.
 
Why
do people get so irrational about privacy issues?
I've
spoken to several people who have been involved with real software development
(as I have) and we all find Google's explanation of the Street View Wifi data
collection incident perfectly
plausible. I'll go further: The idea that they intended to collect Wifi payload
data for this operation is highly implausible.
….


_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.