Google Loses Another Battle on Wifi Collection

10 January 2014 Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog Blog
Authors: Peter Vogel

One more court ruled against Google’s claim that when Street View collected unencrypted Wifi data between 2007 and 2010 that it was “readily accessible to the general public” so the collection was not a violation of the Wiretap Act. In December 2013 the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied Google’s appeal that the Wifi data was not a “radio communication.”  The US District Court rejected Google’s argument as did the 9th Circuit in September 2013, and the December 2013 ruling affirmed the previous rulings.

Computerworld  described the underlying claims of the plaintiffs against Google:

In 2010, Google admitted that its Street View cars had inadvertently captured data transmitted over open Wi-Fi networks when shooting photos. The company apologized for its actions and said it would destroy or render inaccessible close to 650GB of data it had collected from Wi-Fi networks.

Several individuals later sued, claiming Google had violated the Wiretap Act, which prohibits the intentional interception of electronic data.

Google claimed that its actions were legal because the only data it collected was data that was unencrypted and freely available to the general public over unsecured wireless networks. The company claimed that people who did not take affirmative action to protect their data on wireless network should no expectations of privacy over the data.

It likened unsecured wireless data to open radio communications and claimed that the Wiretap Act did not offer any privacy protections to the data.

Now this lawsuit is headed back to the trial court.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Authors

Related Services