User:School student writer1001

August 14, 2011

Ezekiel Etuk 1111 W. Colfax Ave. Denver, Colorado 80204-2060

To: EDITOR IN CHIEF: Evan Hansen MANAGING EDITOR: Jenny McKeel

I read the article Published on your website wired.com. The article I read and wrote a response for was “Judge Grants Google ‘Street View’ Wiretap Appeal” is an article by David Kravets. The author explores the actions of a San Francisco Federal District Court Judge James Ware, granting Google the right to appeal his decision concerning the definition of wiretap; wiretap in this description is in the context of “open”, “unencrypted Wi-Fi networks. David Kravets tells of how “a dozen combined lawsuits seeking damages from Google [because the defendants considered those particular actions to be]… eavesdropping”.

The plaintiffs in the case felt like Google had breached a duty owed to them. The duty that was breached, according to the plaintiffs, is involved in the Wiretap Act. On the contrary, Google, in its argument to the court, explained that it did not breach the Wiretap Act. Google also claimed that “unencrypted, non-password-protected Wi-Fi networks are similar to radio communications/ stations; and anyone can access these communications.

Ultimately, the thesis in this article is whether “packet-sniffing on non-password protected Wi-Fi networks is illegal wiretapping”. The evidence the author uses to support a balanced presentation of the facts are: “Google’s Street View cars were collecting [information] along with other companies, use databases of Wi-Fi networks and their locations to augment or replace GPS when attempting to figure out location of a computer or mobile device” and “Ware’s [ruling] was needed for what is known as an “interlocutory appeal”. Consequently, Judge Ware granted Google the right to appeal his decision. The case is now headed to the “9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. As a result, the case may ultimately end up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

In my opinion, the intended audience this article was meant to reach was: general computer users, hackers, internet privacy advocacy groups.

My Reaction to this article is doesn’t the F.C.C. regulate such industries like the one Google participates in? I was especially surprise that no one knew that Google was secretly collecting such information until a German company realized it and decided to blow the whistle. The industry that Google works in, thus providing its services to its customers is a highly regulated and or process based industry. Therefore, wouldn’t Google need to give notice to the potential customer or innocent by standing citizen that it was accessing unsecure Wi-Fi networks?

I am personally affected by this article because I frequently use unsecured networks for the purposes of submitting my school assignments; since I do not have a stable living situation, I have to use “open”, “unsecured Wi-Fi networks” where ever I find them. However, the fact that I use unsecured Wi-Fi networks does not mean that I want my personal information on Google’s database. Unfortunately, it is yet to see what the outcome of this case will mean for those that are concerned about privacy over the internet.

Thank you for allowing the article by David Kravets to be published. Have a great day.

Sincerely,

Ezekiel Etuk