MAY 26th 2010 In this era of infinite connectivity, the privacy of personal information and the wider question of ownership of intangible assets are topics that everyone in the street seems to have a view on.
Me too... and I don't care who knows it.

Recent news about Google has got some folks pretty agitated and I feel compelled to rattle my stick in this hornet's nest of ideology and ignorance.

Just to recap, The Mighty Goog's Street View vehicles have been whizzing around the world taking photos of everything. Opponents have been angry because taking photos in public places is an oppressive, Orwellian act and should be banned. And bad people, such as burglars, will use these pictures to 'stake out' their targets.

It has also transpired that the vehicles have also been mapping where all the millions of wifi routers are located and making a note of their unique MAC/IP addresses. Opponents have said that this information, which is available to any 14 year old with a smartphone, is private and Google should be recording it.

Furthermore, the Street View fleet has been receiving and storing chunks of unsecured information sent from these wireless routers. Critics consider this is plainly rude and an invasion of people's privacy. And probably illegal somehow, albeit differently illegal in different jurisdictions.  

All in all, a great "evil corporation" story. Or is it?

Let's take these objections one by one. Firstly, the monster montage of photos. Unless you live in Iran or North Korea, anyone with the capability and inclination is able (with some exceptions) to photograph public highways lawfully. If your privacy is breached or your confidential information disclosed by such photography, in most countries there are legal means for redress.

I'm confident that even the most belligerent civil liberty obsessives will privately acknowledge that Street View is actually a pretty useful tool. And, if you've been snapped coming out of a lap dancing club or holding hands with your best friend's partner or just wearing a really crap sweater, you can always ask for your fuzzy photo to be removed. 

Next, there is the matter of logging wifi routers. This really is about as malicious and dangerous as compiling a database of  the colours of people's front doors but it's infinitely more useful for everyone in the long run. For the non-geeks among you, I'll explain.

The overlapping mesh of wireless nodal points is getting denser and more complex all the time. Right now, we have an increasing array of options allowing us to get connected wherever we are. These including wimax, cellphone base stations, pico cells, femtocells and even private home routers made available for public sharing via systems like BT Fon. Rest assured that even your national government agencies tasked with managing the airwaves in your country (FCC, Ofcom etc) don't know the full extent or distribution of these wireless routers. You know what? Even some of the cellphone networks don't have comprehensive data about their own coverage!

The fact that Google, at their own expense, have undertaken this mammoth task is to be applauded. How they share this valuable information is certainly up for debate and it's fair to assert that being too proprietorial about their newfound insights would be a corporate and social mistake. 

Thirdly, let's tackle the allegation of eavesdropping/snooping/spying. If I stand naked at a window, exposing my genitals to the passing traffic in my street, it would be unfair of me to accuse onlookers as being perverts or voyeurs for taking a look. Hey, I've put on a few pounds in recent years but I'm still a fine specimen of manhood.  And if I'm putting it on display, people have a right to enjoy what's on offer! Similarly, if you're transmitting unencrypted information into the wide blue yonder via radio waves, you really should understand that people can and will intercept the data. My nudity analogy may seem facetious but it's pretty robust. When it comes to privacy, the responsibility of one party  to behave discretely is as pertinent as another's to refrain from actions that willfully infringe their confidentiality.

With the Google case, the business was unquestionably inept in allowing this 'slurping' to happen. Much like a corporate autistic savant, Google has awesome technical capabilities but often struggles with empathy and diplomacy. In their defense, much like a former colleague who could force his tongue up his nostrils, Google are learning that just because they can do stuff, it's not always great for making friends.

Finally, I'd like to draw your attention to this photo I took recently with my Blackberry. I think it serves as a useful parable.

It shows a Japanese student in my home town, crouching outside someone's office and hopping onto their open router to make a Skype video call back home. 

I'm confident that I wasn't infringing his privacy by taking the photo nor by taking a peek at the image on his screen, nor by listening in to his side of the conversation. He was in the STREET!

(And, as it happens, my grasp of the Japanese language is pretty poor, but nevertheless, I was being nosy.)

Furthermore, I don't believe he was acting in an immoral or anti-social manner by using the connection. The owner had not, apparently, provided consent  to use the router but neither had they explicitly withheld it by protecting the router. And, as the owner had not been incovenienced or deprived in any way I'm not even sure that the crafty kid with the laptop could be successfully prosecuted. Computer Misuse Act 1990, doesn't really hit the spot. Check it out.. It doesn't make provision for this kind of stuff, although I accept that other legislation might leave egg on Google's face.

To conclude my rant... It seems to me that at the heart of this debate are two truths. Firstly, mobile connectivity is essentially a potential force for good. But, like dynamite (invented by the guy whose name is given to the Nobel Peace Prize) it needs to be handled sensibly. Secondly, there's little doubt that laws, business practices and social etiquettes are evolving at a significantly slower rate than the progress of modern technology. 

OK. I'm done now.  Please feel free to mail me if you think I'm talking nonsense and should share in your fear and loathing for Google. Or perhaps you're a lawyer and shed some light on the subject!