Advertisement

April 19, 2014

Google: Better to Seek Forgiveness Than Permission?

For years, Google has been blazing trails in the technology world and along the way they have been caught in a few snares. The latest entanglement wrapped up this week as the company settled a two-year investigation led by an executive committee that represents 38 states and the District of Columbia over the company’s unauthorized collection of data from unsecured wireless networks (for historical background see our previous blog posts on this issue hereherehere and here).

Briefly, the investigation centered on Google Street View vehicles which were launched by Google to photograph areas for the Google Street View service.  While collecting data for Street View, the vehicles collected network identification information sent over unsecured wireless networks.  Google also gathered payload data that was transmitted over the networks while the vehicles were in the area—including the URLs of requested Web pages, email messages and other private information that was transmitted to or from the network user at the time.

The settlement includes a $7 million penalty that will be dispersed among the states. By way of example, Massachusetts will receive more than $327,000 in the settlement.  In addition, Google agreed to provide comprehensive privacy training to its employees; to sponsor a nationwide public service campaign to help educate consumers about securing their wireless networks and protecting personal information; and to continue to secure, and eventually destroy, the data collected and stored by its Street View vehicles nationwide between 2008 and March 2010.  The program will not be directly monitored, but according to the New York Times, if a state believes that Google is not upholding its end of the agreement the state can raise the issue to the executive committee.

Google asserts that they now think about privacy issues at the start of product development, a privacy-by-design approach that has been urged by the Federal Trade Commission (see the FTC’s report here).  Google is no stranger to settlements: last year they settled with the FTC for $22.5 million, the highest fine ever imposed in a single consent order.

©1994-2014 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Cynthia Larose, Privacy, Security, Attorney, Mintz Levin, Law Firm
Member

Cynthia is Chair of the firm’s Privacy & Security Practice and a Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP).  She represents companies in information, communications, and technology, including e-commerce and other electronic transactions. She counsels clients through all stages of the “corporate lifecycle,” from start-ups through mid- and later-stage financings to IPO, and has broad experience in technology and business law, including online contracting issues, licensing, domain name issues, software development, and complex outsourcing transactions.

...
617-348-1732

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.