What a bullshit case, judgement, and punishment. Unencrypted wifi should be collectable. Don't broadcast in the plain on a public channel if you want some special level of privacy. This is an incredible case and probably not politically worth the fight for google. All of our rights have been limited by this judgement.
But most unencrypted wifi exists because of tech illiteracy/laziness on the part of users. Its not a conscious choice they made. Commercial collection is exploiting this. Finally your last sentence is unnecessarily hyperbolic.
Generally, it isnt the job of the state to protect the ignorant and the lazy. Sorry, but this kind of precedent is going to lead to even more draconian judgements over "computer trespassing" and "hacking." Computer crime laws aren't reasonable as-is and now with this new case law, they're arguably worse.
The ISM band exists within strict FCC control. There is no "don't sniff" provision and if there was, it would make promiscuous mode or applications like inssider illegal.
It is exactly the job of the state, because the ignorant do not know how to protect themselves, or even that they are ignorant.
I dare say that every day you are protected by the state from those who would take advantage of your ignorance in many, many aspects of the world. The system works well enough that you don't even notice what you're ignorant of!
By this logic, ignorance should then be accepted as a defense to illegal activity, especially in today's world where, increasingly, everyday activity is a crime.
To be fair, he's never said anything about abstract defense or justification - rather, he's talking about government dealing with the consequences.
Edit: so I suppose the distinction's that that the first implies self-contradiction, and the other doesn't. Or perhaps the line is drawn when policy like that interferes with official judgment. Who knows.
Let's be fair. the_watcher posts a comment of fifteen words. It's too much to expect "nuanced debate" in a single sentence. I take it you were unconvinced by that sentence; do you believe your three sentences are much more persuasive? Can you imagine a viewpoint that approves most state-provided security services, yet still rejects the actions of the Attorneys General in this case?
Perhaps you're upset by the language? "Paternalist", to my eye, is a descriptive term that closely matches the circumstances under discussion. If you find that adjective has unfortunate connotations, by all means suggest another that has approximately the same definition.
Sorry, but I think Bloomberg is on the correct side of that issue, even if he won't win in court. It's becoming increasingly clear that large quantities of sugar are a long-term poison. Since there's no practical use for soft drinks other than "They taste good" (which is a personal-happiness argument, but a particularly juvenile and narrow-minded one), large softdrinks should be banned. If arsenic salts tasted really good, and they were not already banned, would you oppose efforts to get restaurants to stop serving that?
Just because a paternalistic state is usually bad doesn't mean that government shouldn't intervene in anything.
The state is generally obligated to provide security to homeowners who can not be bothered to lock their homes.
If someone enters your house without your permission and refuses to leave you may call the police. If there are any immediate threats to person or property the police response will usually be swift (though, of course, this depends on your local P.D.).
You have a security problem. You call the police. Now you have two security problems.
I'll stipulate that this isn't what we were taught in junior high civics, but it is the experience of many communities in the USA that security problems are best handled without the intervention of police.
How is this any different than "exploiting" data from Facebook, or mailing lists of people who did not check the box next to the words "I don't want my information to be shared with third-parties"?
How does an unsecured Wi-Fi network, emanating signal out into the street, deserve some sort of "expectation of privacy"? You deserve no expectation of privacy if your blinds are pulled-up and your windows are open. Why should Wi-Fi be any different, just because users can't be bothered to learn to protect their assets?
I wouldn't call it laziness. Network setup is something most people just pay their ISP to take care of. It's a commodity service. They don't care how the bits get from here to there, they just want to check their email and go on Facebook.
How many people do you know who, say, do their own water softener maintenance? Is that plumbing illiteracy/laziness, or is it a sign that people are willing to pay for service that frees their time and attention for more productive things?
Except these are self-installs. If it was something their ISP took care of, it would more than likely have a password. So yeah, if I did my own plumbing in a half-assed fashion, I should pay the consequences.
If these politicians and prosecutors cared one bit about helping people, they'd regulate the aftermarket wireless router industry to have passwords by default. Or have the FCC change the rules on usage of the ISM band. Instead, they're just posturing for career advancement and media attention.
Remaining tech illiterate is a choice people make.
While I think it's sleazy to spy on people's open WiFi, I don't think it should be illegal.
Making it illegal is a complete waste of resources because it doesn't solve the problem. Google is a giant company and they only got found out more or less by accident. In every other case it's almost trivial to spy on unencrypted WiFi without anybody knowing, which means it would be nearly impossible to enforce a law against it.
