{"id":1941,"date":"2013-09-19T15:58:18","date_gmt":"2013-09-19T15:58:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/?p=1941"},"modified":"2020-06-04T20:54:00","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T20:54:00","slug":"ninth-circuit-denies-google-federal-wiretapping-lawsuit-against-internet-giant-can-proceed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/ninth-circuit-denies-google-federal-wiretapping-lawsuit-against-internet-giant-can-proceed\/","title":{"rendered":"Ninth Circuit Denies Google: Federal Wiretapping Lawsuit Against Internet Giant Can Proceed"},"content":{"rendered":"

Thursday, September 19, 2013, by Gabriel Kussin
\nThe Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held<\/a> that Google, the largest search tool on the internet, can be sued for violations of the U.S. Wiretap Act after inadvertently collecting information from unencrypted wireless networks from its Street View camera cars. In affirming the Northern District Court of California\u2019s ruling, the three judge appellate panel rejected Google\u2019s argument that the data was not restricted under federal wiretap restrictions and overruled Google\u2019s motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed by residents across the country. The decision represents a significant victory for electronic privacy advocates, but symbolizes the continuing struggle to redefine electronic communications in American laws.
\nBetween 2007 and 2010, Google equipped its highly recognizable Street View cars, which capture \u201cpanoramic, street-level photographs for its Google Maps service,\u201d with antennas and software that were capable of automatically accessing Wi-Fi networks to increase accuracy of their GPS services. Instead, these additions ended up accumulating 600 gigabytes of \u201cpayload data,\u201d which included passwords, emails, personal files, and private documents. \u00a0When Google discovered the error, it immediately shut down the cars and apologized, yet it was not enough to avoid a consolidated, class action lawsuit that alleged violations of the U.S. Wiretap Act as well as a variety of state and local communications laws.<\/p>\n

With recent revelations of government surveillance of personal and corporate internet accounts, the Ninth Circuit seemed cognizant of individual rights to web privacy.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Google\u2019s dual argument<\/a> hinged on an exceptions clause in the U.S. Wiretap Act stating that the data collected was either \u201cthrough an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public\u201d or resembled \u201can open radio collection.\u201d While the Ninth Circuit acknowledged that Google\u2019s argument had \u201csome force,\u201d they stated that a Wi-Fi network, that is intended for consumption solely in a private home or business can\u2019t be considered under either of these exemptions, since the car had to be in the immediate area of the network and the software had to take a more significant step of connecting to the network. This goes beyond simply tuning into a radio station available over the airwaves.
\nThe decision actually closely mirrors<\/a> a district court in Georgia\u2019s decision that did not permit collection of information from over unencrypted, cordless telephone calls. Focusing not just on the intent of the lawmakers, the Georgia court used the intent of the cordless phone makers, who clearly did not want calls from their products to be \u201cincidentally broadcast.\u201d
\nWhile a seemingly innocuous mistake by a company whose informal motto is \u201cDon\u2019t Be Evil,\u201d the lawsuit could cost Google billions of dollars. With recent revelations of government surveillance of personal and corporate internet accounts, the Ninth Circuit seemed cognizant of individual rights to web privacy. The court clearly delineated a difference between individuals who access their neighbors\u2019 non-password protected networks to get online themselves, and a multinational corporation accessing, storing, and perhaps even using data collected from those networks, or even an individual attempting to gather information for their own personal benefit.
\nIn March, Google agreed<\/a> to pay $7 million to settle a probe into the matter involving thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia. As part of that settlement, Google agreed to destroy data collected in the United States. Unfortunately, the damage may be just beginning for Google.
\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Thursday, September 19, 2013, by Gabriel Kussin The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that Google, the largest search tool on the internet, can be sued for violations of the U.S. Wiretap Act after inadvertently collecting information from unencrypted wireless networks from its Street View camera cars. In affirming the Northern District Court of …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1941"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1941"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1941\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7580,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1941\/revisions\/7580"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1941"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1941"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1941"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}