Supreme Court rejects Google’s wiretapping appeal, curbs tech industry power 

Business, Crime, Privacy, Rights, Technology

Google Inc., one of the largest, most pervasive and easily recognizable brands in the world, has plans to expand. However, some find the idea of an already powerful tech company amassing even greater force unsettling, especially given the fact that much of Google’s power comes from accessing private data.

The U.S. Supreme Court halted Google’s bid to overturn a lower court’s decision accusing the company of unlawfully wiretapping private users’ home networks and misappropriating data. The decision to decline Google’s petition for review came without explanation and dashed company hopes for a favorable outcome in the case. Google had hoped to make federal precedent of a case involving the unapproved surveillance of unencrypted home Wi-Fi networks.

Background of Google v. Joffe

The background facts of Google v. Joffe are fairly straightforward. In 2007, Google launched its well-known Street View application to complement its successful Google Maps application. The Street View application allowed users to access images relevant to their travels, facilitating an easier transition from point A to point B. These images were collected through the use of the Google Street View car, a vehicle equipped with multiple cameras designed to capture photographs of homes, businesses and landmarks.

Shortly after its launch, Google Street View cars began carrying Wi-Fi antennas that could pick up data from unencrypted public or household networks. In theory, this data research enabled users to better determine the type of services offered at a particular location or to more easily retrieve driving directions.

However, in addition to general, basic information, these antennas were also collecting what is known as “payload data,” or anything transmitted by devices connected to unencrypted wireless networks. It soon became apparent that Google Street View cars were collecting more than just images of front lawns. Litigation ensued.

Contentions between the parties

Google was sued under the federal Wiretap Act, which prohibits the intentional, unlawful interception of electronic communication. The act contains several common exceptions, including a stipulation allowing for the interception of information that is readily accessible to the general public.

Likening the payload data to unencrypted radio communication, Google argued that it had only collected available, accessible information. The company, it asserted, should therefore not face liability and the case should be dismissed.

On the opposite side, a class-action lawsuit headed by tech-expert Ben Joffe asserted that the definition of radio communication does not include unencrypted data transmitted over a Wi-Fi network and the Wiretap Act should not be extended to permit this type of interception. Plaintiffs further alleged that payload data often includes personal emails, passwords and other information that does not fall under the general public exception.

Following a lengthy opinion and affirmation of the District Court’s decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled in favor of the class-action plaintiffs, confirming that Wi-Fi data is not the same as radio communication and the intentional interception thereof violates the Wiretap Act.

Google’s subsequent attempt at Supreme Court review was swiftly rejected, solidifying the 9th Circuit’s holding and preserving the imposition of a $7 million fine, an amount Google can earn in just two hours and six minutes.

Court continues to rule in support of user privacy

What does this holding mean for the average internet user? And was the Supreme Court communicating a message by refusing to entertain Google’s argument that the information contained within household internet activity is the same as information contained in a radio transmission?

Possibly. Many of the Supreme Court’s recent holdings indicate a strong aversion to technological intrusion. Most notable in recent cases was its ruling in favor of criminal defendants decrying the warrantless searches of cellphones by law enforcement. The Supreme Court instructed police to remember the Fourth Amendment before scrolling through suspects’ mobile phones in search of additional criminal evidence.

By refusing to even hear Google’s appeal, the Supreme Court is presumably satisfied with the 9th Circuit’s interpretation of the Wiretap Act as applied to wireless networks and sees no reason to further confound the issue.

Photo credit: Modfos / Shutterstock.com