FCC Clears Google Over Wifi Eavesdropping But Fines It $25,000 For “Noncompliance” With Requests

google-privacy-200The US Federal Communications Commission has cleared Google of any legal wrong-doing over its Street View cars that intercepted wifi transmissions. That’s the good news for the company. The bad news? The FCC is fining Google $25,000 for “willfully and repeatedly” not cooperating with the investigation.

The StreetView Wifi Eavesdropping

In 2010, it was discovered that Google’s Street View cars were doing more than just taking pictures. They were also gathering information about wifi locations, meant in part as a way for Google to better locate people using services such as Android phones or search. But along with wifi access points, Google was also gathering information being transmitted through those points, including emails, passwords and more.

The company said the data was gathered by mistake and that it was “mortified” by what happened. But that didn’t stop regulatory bodies around the world from investigating Google for potential wrong-doing.

Our Google Maps Privacy: The Street View & Wifi Scorecard page summarizes the status of cases in various countries. In the US, the Federal Trade Commission ended its investigation without any penalty. The separate FCC decided to issue one on Friday, though the news broke today through places like the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.

Cleared Legally

The FCC’s ruling can be found here (hat tip to TechCrunch). In it, the agency cleared Google of violating Section 705(a) of the US Communications Act, which prohibits unauthorized interception of communications, saying there was no “clear precedent” for applying the act to wifi communications.

Google argued to the FCC that unencrypted communications are “readily accessible” to the general public and thus neither violates the US Wiretap Act nor the Communications Act. The FCC seems to dodge agreeing with this, thus the whole “no precedent” thing. But the FCC specifically says that it did “not find sufficient evidence” of a violation.

For its part, Google sent me this statement:

We worked in good faith to answer the FCC’s questions throughout the inquiry, and we are pleased that they have concluded that we complied with the law.

Penalized For Noncompliance With Investigation Requests

The document is littered with unflattering references to Google’s cooperation, or alleged lack of cooperation, with the case. From the opening of the report, where the FCC explains that it is fining Google $25,000 for “noncompliance” with requests:

For many months, Google deliberately impeded and delayed the Bureau’s investigation by failing to respond to requests for material information and to provide certifications and verifications of its responses.

In this Notice Of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL), we find that Google apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Commission orders to produce certain information and documents that the Commission required for its investigation.

The report goes on to list the FCC’s grievances with Google, in particular:

  • It provided only five document in responses to the FCC’s broad request for information
  • It didn’t provide any email correspondence nor perform any comprehensive review of emails related to the case, deeming that to be “a time-consuming and burdensome task”
  • It didn’t identify individuals who may have authorized or reviewed the wifi information
  • It redacted some information as to make it useless to the FCC (ironic given how the FCC report itself is so redacted in parts that what remains is useless)
  • It didn’t provide an affidavit signed by someone with personal knowledge of the information that was provided to the FCC

The FCC goes on to say it took five attempts to get the affidavit it wanted, along with several back-and-forths to get additional information it sought. It also takes a slam at Google, the search leader, for saying searching through email would take too much time:

Although a world leader in digital search capability, Google took the position that searching its employees’ e-mail “would be a time-consuming and burdensome task.

Again, for its part, Google told me that it provided every piece of documentation that the FCC asked for during its inquiry.

Google Engineer Takes The 5th

Perhaps the most harmful part of the report to Google, in my view, is that the engineer whose code eventually created the mess that Google found itself in refused to talk with the FCC, citing his Fifth Amendment right against incrimination:

The Bureau also issued a subpoena to take the deposition of the Google engineer (Engineer Doe) who developed the software code that Google used to collect and store payload data. Through counsel, however, Engineer Does invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and declined to testify.

Recall what Google said of the engineer’s involvement, when the case first came to light:

Quite simply, it was a mistake. In 2006 an engineer working on an experimental WiFi project wrote a piece of code that sampled all categories of publicly broadcast WiFi data. A year later, when our mobile team started a project to collect basic WiFi network data like SSID information and MAC addresses using Google’s Street View cars, they included that code in their software—although the project leaders did not want, and had no intention of using, payload data.

If it was just a mistake, you’d think the engineer would have no problem explaining what happened. Perhaps everything was just an innocent mistake, and the engineer was just unreasonably afraid. But taking the Fifth creates the appearance of some type of wrong-doing, even if that’s not the case.

The FCC also left open that because it couldn’t interview Engineer Doe, it couldn’t fully know if perhaps encrypted communications had been decrypted somehow. If that were the case, then the FCC might have had a legal case against Google.

Part of me wonders why the FCC didn’t offer some type of immunity to the engineer, given that the real target was Google. Perhaps it did — I’ll try to see if I can learn more when the work-week begins.

Part of me also wondered if this engineer was still working for Google. Having code you wrote get reused in a way you didn’t expect isn’t something you think an employee would be fired over. But refusing to cooperate in an FCC investigation? While the employee might have the Fifth Amendment right to refuse to testify, I suspect Google would also be within its right to say that it no longer wanted him to be working there.

Google said it doesn’t typically comment on employment status nor could it speculate as to why the engineer refused to testify.

Related Stories

Related Topics: Channel: Local | Google: Legal | Google: Privacy | Google: Street View | Top News

Sponsored


About The Author: is Founding Editor of Marketing Land. He’s a widely cited authority on search marketing and internet marketing issues, who has covered the space since 1996. Danny also serves as Chief Content Officer for Third Door Media, which publishes Search Engine Land and produces the SMX: Search Marketing Expo conference series. He has a personal blog called Daggle (and keeps his disclosures page there). He can be found on Facebook, Google + and microblogs on Twitter as @dannysullivan.

Connect with the author via: Email | Twitter | Google+ | LinkedIn



Marketing Day:

Get the top marketing stories daily!  

Share

Other ways to share:
 

Read before commenting! We welcome constructive comments and allow any that meet our common sense criteria. This means being respectful and polite to others. It means providing helpful information that contributes to a story or discussion. It means leaving links only that substantially add further to a discussion. Comments using foul language, being disrespectful to others or otherwise violating what we believe are common sense standards of discussion will be deleted. You can read more about our comments policy here.
  • http://abrah.am Abraham Williams

    > Through counsel, however, Engineer Does invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and declined to testify.

    I would think that the engineer would be using Google’s counsel and that it was probably their recommendation to invoke the Fifth. I wouldn’t think that this would get the engineer in hot water with Google.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003482763723 Best Hermesuk

    Shop Herve Leger,Herve Leger Dress,Christian Louboutin,Jimmy Choo and more!100% price guarantee,30 – days Free return policy, 24/7 friendly customer service,Free Shipping.
    http://www.wowshopvogue.com/

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003482763723 Best Hermesuk

    From the Queen of Jordan to the Hollywood star,from the royal nobles to the fashionable,all women are revel in have a pair of christian louboutin shoes.
    Bright-blue suede pumps with a heel that measures approximately 160mm/ 6.5 inches with a 65mm/ 2.5 inch concealed platform. Christian Louboutin pumps have a pointed toe, a signature red sole and simply slip on.
    http://www.wowshopvogue.com/products/Christian-Louboutin-Bright-%252d-Blue-Daffodil-160mm-Suede-Platform-Pumps.html

  • an hoàng

     http://amthuchanoi.net.vn/

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/VGW5DEFRZT55JCYBKEHNQ55J74 Jonathan Godfrey

    Danny, if Google tells you “it provided every piece of documentation that the FCC asked for during its inquiry,” but in Google’s own communications with the FCC says it had “not undertaken a comprehensive review of email or other communications” requested by the FCC because doing so “would be a time-consuming and burdensome task,”  do you think they’re telling you the truth?  

    How about reading some of the report you cite.  What you missed was a scathing indictment of Google obstruction in this case explicitly because they failed to produce the requested information.  If you had read to page 2 (point four) of the FCC filing you would have read: “Google deliberately impeded and delayed the Bureau’s investigation by failing to respond to material requests for information and to provide certifications and verifications of its responses. … [Google] willfully and repeatedly violated Commission orders to produce certain information and documents that the Commission required for its investigation.”

    You got your story all wrong. 

    But, it’s good to see where your story comes from.  Short version: Google told me it was true so I wrote it.  Nice work there.

  • WindhorseTour

    Google provides us services,but also,she has her own rules.What we can do is to analysis her secrets

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    Jonathan, I think you need to go back and read for yourself again what I wrote about the report. I made it clear that the FCC wasn’t happy with the information that Google provided. Repeatedly. In detail. What you cite — I cited.

    I also provided Google’s response. There’s nothing “wrong” with that. That’s just good reporting, asking them for a comment. That doesn’t mean I’m saying that they are correct with what they said — just what they said.

    The short version is exactly what the headline said: the FCC cleared Google of legal wrong-doing but is fining it for non-compliance with the investigation. Unless Google appeals that fine — and the appeal is upheld — then it’s indeed guilty of the non-compliance.

  • http://www.blogsablog.com/ serdar

    Was an nice article. Thank you. I like this site 

Get Our News, Everywhere!

Daily Email:

Follow Marketing Land on Twitter @marketingland Like Marketing Land on Facebook Follow Marketing Land on Google+ Subscribe to Our Feed! Join our LinkedIn Group Check out our Tumblr! See us on Pinterest

 
 

Click to watch SMX conference video

Join us at one of our SMX or MarTech events:

United States

Europe

Australia & China

Learn more about: SMX | MarTech


Free Daily Marketing News!

Marketing Day is a once-per-day newsletter update - sign up below and get the news delivered to you!