Google Street View Wifi Collection Case Finally Headed to Trial Court

03 July 2014 Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog Blog
Authors: Peter Vogel

The US Supreme has refused to consider 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” which claim was rejected in December 2013 by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed an amicus brief in support of Internet users and stated:

This case involves the intentional interception of electronic communications sent over home Wi-Fi networks. The intercepted data includes personal information and communications – passwords, e-mails, financial records, and other documents – that individuals consider extremely private.

The fact that this data was transferred over a wireless network does not change its private nature. Internet users are constantly at risk of cyber attacks and exploits, but they still retain their right in law to communicate privately across computer networks.

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (“ECPA”) ensures the privacy of these communications, and its protections should not be interpreted in an unfair and inconsistent way.

Now the class action suit is headed to the trial court in the California, and it will be interesting to follow since other countries around the world have held against Google.

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

Insights