A person familiar with the matter told Ars by phone on Friday that similar notifications had gone out to Ireland, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Austria, and Australia.

Google re-scanning its disks

In the letter, Google’s global privacy counsel, Peter Fleischer, wrote that “in recent months,” the company has been “reviewing its handling of Street View disks and undertaking a comprehensive manual review of our Street View disk inventory.

“That review involves the physical inspection and re-scanning of thousands of disks,” he added. “In conducting that review we have determined that we continue to have payload data from the UK and other countries.”

The person familiar with the matter also stressed that the correspondence between Google and regulators was “confidential," adding that the company was not interested in giving a "running commentary" on interactions with regulators.

That comment seems to suggest that had the ICO not published Google’s letter on Friday that the public would not be informed of this new development.

Dormant investigations could be reignited

Google has been under fire from various data protection authorities around the world over its collection of open, unencrypted WiFi data as part of the Street View project. In a report released by the Federal Communications Commission in April 2012, Google was found to have knowingly snooped on such WiFi data, but the case was dropped, and the company was fined a paltry $25,000.

European—particularly German—data protection authorities, who are well-known for being more stringent with such matters, have ongoing investigations and some are even weighing whether to bring criminal charges. A spokesperson for the Hamburg data protection authority told Ars in May that as a result of the FCC report, the agency felt “duped” by Google.

In a response (PDF) posted to the ICO website, Steve Eckersley, the agency’s head of enforcement, said that the ICO would examine the remaining data and stressed that it should be stored securely until the examination was complete.

“Once that examination has been completed, I will be in a better position to advise you on how to proceed in terms of destruction,” he wrote. “In the meantime, could you please start the arrangements to enable us to examine the data as soon as practicable.”

Here's a thought. How about people encrypt their WiFi data? Otherwise anyone within range gets your broadcasts. You can't stand on your rooftop with a megaphone screaming obscenities and complain that somebody at street level a block away recorded your rantings then uploaded them to Yotube under the title, "My Neighbor the Asshole".

Well, I think the fact that they're playing their hand face up says a lot. Having previously said they deleted all the data, and after a thorough scan showed some still existed I'd image most people/companies would simply not mention the matter and delete the data (for realz).

Its possible - but we dont know... I was just sating that the payload data could actually be integrated with other street view data...

I can't see how it could be integrated any other way than be in the same directories. If they did merge them into a single file, they are doing large amounts of unneeded work. As a software person, merging multiple data types in the same file is asking for trouble, if for no other reason that you can no longer use standard tools.

Here's a thought. How about people encrypt their WiFi data? Otherwise anyone within range gets your broadcasts. You can't stand on your rooftop with a megaphone screaming obscenities and complain that somebody at street level a block away recorded your rantings then uploaded them to Yotube under the title, "My Neighbor the Asshole".

How about you encrypt your phone then. That's easy to tap too (and also radiates EM into the environment) so you obviously should not expect any privicy. There is a world of difference between broadcasting something because you want others (or the world in general) to hear it (as in your example) and something that just happens to use radio technology to function and by the laws to physics cannot restrict that transmission to the confines of your house. Most modern communication systems use scrambling to "whiten" the EM they transmit. Considering that is basically a form of encryption (but with a well known key) how is it any less than say WEP where the key can be recovered in minutes with no special hardware?

Thankfully in the UK that standard is whether of not a member of public has a reasonable expectation to be overheard. Reasonable being obvious typical occurrence i.e. random people within earshot and NOT having to expect covert surveillance, concealed mics, or packet sniffers even if this kind of technology is easily deployed. Something being easy doesn't make it legal. The fact that people can and should take reasonable measures to protect themselves does not dismiss the criminality of acts against them.Google violated the law here, and no matter how easy it was to do they have committed a criminal act and should be punished or else they (or others) will just as easily do it again.

I agree encrypting your WIFI is a very good idea but if you don't it should not effect your legal standing or 3rd pary liability.

Its possible - but we dont know... I was just sating that the payload data could actually be integrated with other street view data...

I can't see how it could be integrated any other way than be in the same directories. If they did merge them into a single file, they are doing large amounts of unneeded work. As a software person, merging multiple data types in the same file is asking for trouble, if for no other reason that you can no longer use standard tools.

I agree, the code as originally described looked to either [management frames] or [data frames without the encryption bit set]. That's 2 specific frame formats being logged (it's not just a case of encryption on or off) and didn't match well with their original "it was accidental" BS. From their recent discosure to the FCC it was clear the team that wrote this held this data in case it was useful but didn't use it, that kind of implys that is was tracked and stored separatly from the WIFI position data, either that or even the FCC decaration was another lie...

Here's a thought. How about people encrypt their WiFi data? Otherwise anyone within range gets your broadcasts. You can't stand on your rooftop with a megaphone screaming obscenities and complain that somebody at street level a block away recorded your rantings then uploaded them to Yotube under the title, "My Neighbor the Asshole".

How dare you bring common sense into this conversation... it ruins the groupthink around here that it's somehow "evil" to listen to information that is being publicly broadcasted though.

This is not the only situation where they've cried about how they "accidentally" committed same act where they've been called out on after the fact.

It is an ongoing pattern with Google and people seem to just let them get away with it.

If you think it was incompetence - if you think it was accidental - then you're stupid. Otherwise - there would be 1 maybe 2 countries on the list where Google gleaned data not 11. They've also done it here in the US as well.

I understand them having a network connection to upload their "map" data directly to their servers "on-the-fly" while building out their street view system -- BUT that would be an out-going connection.

Why then would they need to (and this would have had to been manually setup in some fashion - whether turned on or programmed) download information from incoming 3rd party signals ?

It would be 2 separate systems. In 12± countries spanning 8000+ miles.... This was not all done at the same time in 5 minutes - and I am to believe that over the course of many months no one caught this accidental downloading of data ? No one noticed an excessively large amount of hard drive space being eaten up in all of that time ?

I've done enough tech work through the years to notice if there is an additional 500MB of data on a drive that shouldn't be there - the timespan of a week on the outside. Their tech know how much data they have they notice if there is a change and how much of a change - what the expected amount is and they investigate if that change falls out of the expectation.

Before anyone bitches that Google has soooo much total data blah blah blah - this was for a specific given project that could easily be monitored and they did testing out the ass before they launched it globally - so they damn sure knew what to expect. There was no way they did not know what was going on before someone blew the whistle.

Google is in the business to collect and repurpose data - but we are to believe that pile of data collection to be an accident ?

If you think it was incompetence - if you think it was accidental - then you're stupid. Otherwise - there would be 1 maybe 2 countries on the list where Google gleaned data not 11. They've also done it here in the US as well.

I'm stupid, am I? Meh, I've been called worse. I may take a crack at some of your other apoplectic rantings later if nobody else tears them to appropriately tiny shreads, but first I have to get the taste of those stuffed words out of my mouth.

The article is about Google finding that they didn't delete all the wifi data from their "Street View disk inventory". That means they have a pile of disks sitting around that were used in Street View cars, and they haven't properly managed them since their wifi data collection fiasco came to light. Once they told the various regulatory authorities of the affected countries that they had collected this data (accidentally or otherwise, I never offered any interpretation of that) they had a clear obligation to ensure they handled the data properly from that point forward. They were supposed to delete all the wifi data collected in the UK and they did not. It would have been easily handled by taking the disks out back and hammering them flat, but Google shelved them instead. I have a hard time seeing how that is evil, but it is certainly incompetent. Someone deserves to be fired.

This is so not worth making a fuss about. I don't care that some household on some particular street next to a convenience store somewhere in the world decided to name their network "LOL OUR NETWORK", and I don't care that Google has tracked that and kept this meaningless information that any bystander in the area with a WiFi enabled device, such as a cellphone, could get the same data about in seconds.

Are we so infantile as a society and as people in general that we worry about this shit as a breach of privacy? For fuck's sake. I condone the tracking and storing of publicly accessible information in mass volumes by any corporation that wants to do so on the basis that 1) It's not a big deal 2) This information is largely meaningless and useless (okay, it might be meaningful and useful, but it doesn't give anyone an advantage over knowing it when others don't since it's accessible to anyone), and 3) It's not a big deal.

I know they didn't "mean" to keep this information, it can probably just be chalked up to incompetence or human inability to check absolutely everything and to be perfect, but I don't see the big deal.

To anyone out there that does see this as a big deal, let me ask you in order to try and understand where you're coming from: Why is this a big deal? Please don't say principle. Give me a real, reasonable, functional reason as to why this data is so sensitive and how it could be used in a way that would be a reasonable invasion of your privacy?

This is so not worth making a fuss about. I don't care that some household on some particular street next to a convenience store somewhere in the world decided to name their network "LOL OUR NETWORK", and I don't care that Google has tracked that and kept this meaningless information that any bystander in the area with a WiFi enabled device, such as a cellphone, could get the same data about in seconds.

The bottom line is that this is a total farce. If you broadcast something, and someone else records it, you're the one being an idiot and the person recording isn't doing anything wrong. I have no idea why Google keeps making public statements about this though considering how many idiots start screaming when they do.

I also don't buy that this was intentional. Google has no use whatsoever for a few fragments of totally random TCP connections. It's uninteresting, extremely fragmented and unlikely to be useful even in a highly processed and aggregated (aka. no longer private) form. They get much better data willingly provided to them out of the services they run.

Google is too honest for its own good. You'd think this whole Wifi debacle would've taught them to just quietly fix shit when they notice an internal mistake, but noooo, they're still coming clean even when it's been a thankless duty throughout.

This is not the only situation where they've cried about how they "accidentally" committed same act where they've been called out on after the fact.

It is an ongoing pattern with Google and people seem to just let them get away with it.

If you think it was incompetence - if you think it was accidental - then you're stupid. Otherwise - there would be 1 maybe 2 countries on the list where Google gleaned data not 11. They've also done it here in the US as well.

I understand them having a network connection to upload their "map" data directly to their servers "on-the-fly" while building out their street view system -- BUT that would be an out-going connection.

Why then would they need to (and this would have had to been manually setup in some fashion - whether turned on or programmed) download information from incoming 3rd party signals ?

It would be 2 separate systems. In 12± countries spanning 8000+ miles.... This was not all done at the same time in 5 minutes - and I am to believe that over the course of many months no one caught this accidental downloading of data ? No one noticed an excessively large amount of hard drive space being eaten up in all of that time ?

I've done enough tech work through the years to notice if there is an additional 500MB of data on a drive that shouldn't be there - the timespan of a week on the outside. Their tech know how much data they have they notice if there is a change and how much of a change - what the expected amount is and they investigate if that change falls out of the expectation.

Before anyone bitches that Google has soooo much total data blah blah blah - this was for a specific given project that could easily be monitored and they did testing out the ass before they launched it globally - so they damn sure knew what to expect. There was no way they did not know what was going on before someone blew the whistle.

Google is in the business to collect and repurpose data - but we are to believe that pile of data collection to be an accident ?

A single incident for a very short period of time might be an accident - but repeated incidents over several years becomes deliberate.

Or from another perspective, I've frequently had to remove hundreds of GBs of useless old files from local government computers to make room for a backup to run that may not have actually worked in months. These aren't irrelevant backups, either, as there can easily be legal repercussions if the originals were lost. Yet no one is actually verifying the backups worked - at many, many different locations. There are also tons of files I leave behind because I don't know if those files are important to someone anymore. I can't even keep track of my own files with 100% certainty, not since the DOS days. You want to call Google evil, do it for clearly bad things, like they did with their previous social site overshare.

The Safari browser thing is almost evil, bypassing an outdated restriction that few companies took seriously doesn't really rise to the level of evil. Buzz wasn't an accident, it was stupid, and they backtracked quickly. Stupid evil, yes, but they learned their lesson, for the short-term. Collecting some open wi-fi packets has yet to be shown to be evil. Potentially stupid evil, but currently it fits neatly in the category of plain stupid.

The bottom line is that this is a total farce. If you broadcast something, and someone else records it, you're the one being an idiot and the person recording isn't doing anything wrong.

You are absolutely right.

Obviously, you would have no objection if someone mounted in IR camera facing the wall of your bedroom and recorded the video; after all, you are broadcasting the infrared radiation.

Quote:

I also don't buy that this was intentional. Google has no use whatsoever for a few fragments of totally random TCP connections. It's uninteresting, extremely fragmented and unlikely to be useful even in a highly processed and aggregated (aka. no longer private) form. They get much better data willingly provided to them out of the services they run.

How do you "accidentally" collect and save emails? Especially if all you are ostensibly doing is trying to use WiFi signals for determining location.

In addition (tinfoil hat) how do we know that Google was not collecting information from various encrypted signals and using their large computing resources to decrypt the information? Breaking WEP is easy; breaking WPA is only slightly more challenging, especially if you have Google's resources. (/tinfoil hat).

The bottom line is that this is a total farce. If you broadcast something, and someone else records it, you're the one being an idiot and the person recording isn't doing anything wrong.

You are absolutely right.

Obviously, you would have no objection if someone mounted in IR camera facing the wall of your bedroom and recorded the video; after all, you are broadcasting the infrared radiation.

Well, that wouldn't work, for one You'd need to something more than infrared to even see if anyone was home (unless they turned on the growing lights whenever they arrived), let alone what they were up to.

The distinction is extremely important in US law, however (and the accessibility of radio communications are defined on their own, handwave-y forum analogies be damned). Because they weren't encrypted, the FCC found it reasonable enough that the Wiretap Act's definition of "readably accessible to the general public" did apply, at least reasonable enough that it wasn't worth it to pursue a case.

Seriously people, read the actual findings. Analogies will get you nowhere.

I also don't buy that this was intentional. Google has no use whatsoever for a few fragments of totally random TCP connections. It's uninteresting, extremely fragmented and unlikely to be useful even in a highly processed and aggregated (aka. no longer private) form. They get much better data willingly provided to them out of the services they run.

How do you "accidentally" collect and save emails? Especially if all you are ostensibly doing is trying to use WiFi signals for determining location.

In addition (tinfoil hat) how do we know that Google was not collecting information from various encrypted signals and using their large computing resources to decrypt the information? Breaking WEP is easy; breaking WPA is only slightly more challenging, especially if you have Google's resources. (/tinfoil hat).

Because you'd get almost nothing out of it for the effort wasted? This kind of speculation is silly without a motivation. Because you are very unlikely to succeed at cracking anything with a handful of encrypted packets?

They could probably get far more valuable information from encrypted wireless traffic just walking around silicon valley, and even if they were into corporate espionage, it still probably wouldn't be worth the server resources to try to crack it.

Seriously, what could you even do with fragments of emails and web sites? Unless they plan to drop all domestic employees and turn only to ransoming bank account passwords from offshore connections (and no one sends their back account passwords in the clear anyways), what on earth could they do that would be more valuable than what they already do?

Edit: and before any accusations, let me be clear that this should never have happened. I still think this though:viewtopic.php?p=22829098#p22829098hopefully this serves as a good lesson and motivator (like Girls Around Me and Path and Firesheep) that this stuff is easy to do with the information you push publicly to social networks and in the clear over public wifi. Users need to be more careful, but they will never be careful enough, so we developers have a real responsibility to always default to sensible privacy and (for the love of god) encrypted connections.

Here's a thought. How about people encrypt their WiFi data? Otherwise anyone within range gets your broadcasts. You can't stand on your rooftop with a megaphone screaming obscenities and complain that somebody at street level a block away recorded your rantings then uploaded them to Yotube under the title, "My Neighbor the Asshole".

100% not relevant. The European court already decided it wasn't legal so any arguments to the contrary are simply noise -- as far as this particular case goes.

Obviously, you would have no objection if someone mounted in IR camera facing the wall of your bedroom and recorded the video; after all, you are broadcasting the infrared radiation.

Of course I would object, but I would solve the problem on my end.

The big difference here, of course, is that it's transient and more akin to someone taking a photo on my street and capturing my leg in the living room window.

Quote:

How do you "accidentally" collect and save emails? Especially if all you are ostensibly doing is trying to use WiFi signals for determining location.

Because if you're trying to capture and log SSID broadcasts, your WiFi adapter is in promiscuous mode already and it's probably harder to filter out the irrelevant information than it is to collect everything on the wire.

Because if you're trying to capture and log SSID broadcasts, your WiFi adapter is in promiscuous mode already and it's probably harder to filter out the irrelevant information than it is to collect everything on the wire.

Wow the first sensible person here with an ounce of technical knowledge. Almost all the rest of the thread is just idiots commenting rubbish about something they do not understand.

Here is what most likley happened without having to resort to evil...Google decided to do street view - because they employ very clever people to come up with good ideas. Legal department looks into it and decides this idea is ok providing certain things are done.

Google tries do be efficient and gets some of the clever people to think of other ideas that the cars can do while they are driving down thousands of streets. One of them comes up with wardriving collecting SSIDs and MAC addresses for WiFi positioning. Legal department throws a fit and says no. Clever person directs them to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyhook_Wireless and explain they are already paying a company for data which was collected in exactly the same way years ago. Legal department reluctantly OKs it saying make sure you dont collect to much.

Google collects the data in exactly the same way as every other company which had previously scanned for this WiFi data. This means passivley listening for WiFi beacon signals while noting their location strength and direction in a database along with exact GPS data and of course the street view photos etc. The only way to do this is to collect packets which will contain this information unencrypted even if you are using WPA.

The clever people laugh at the legal department comment of dont collect too much. Of course they are not going to collect to much, most of it will be encrypted anyway and if they collected everything it would just fill up the hard drives very quickly so they filter out most of the data. The person who thinks this is just a straight packet capture they can delete sounds like an idiot who has just dicovered wireshark and not actually used it properly....

This is where the mistake was made. The clever people had a stupidity moment when the set the filters because they either didnt think about it enough or thought it would be too much processing to cut out all the payload data. Everyone also probably assumed there would be a lot less unencrypted WiFi out there and they got a shock.

Legal department decides to come clean on the mistakes because Google is a target and people will complain about them doing what others get away with. But they cannot just delete all the data like that because it is tied up in databases with other data. The reason the haven't deleted it all yet is probably lazyness.

Because we have a few people here defending and apologising for Google like the quote above and acting like "use r teh encrypt" (and people wonder why the world thinks America stomps around doing what it likes, it doesn't matter that you think people shouldn't leave their wifi unprotected, Google is obligated to do as they are told by the UK when they are operating in the UK) has anything to do with the actual article, I feel it's important to point out this one simple point.

If they didn't delete all the data because they are evil/lazy/forgot/it was more complicated than expected/whatever then they... SHOULDN'T HAVE TOLD THE ICO IN THE UK THAT THEY HAD DELETED IT ALL IN DECEMBER 2010.

Here's a thought. How about people encrypt their WiFi data? Otherwise anyone within range gets your broadcasts. You can't stand on your rooftop with a megaphone screaming obscenities and complain that somebody at street level a block away recorded your rantings then uploaded them to Yotube under the title, "My Neighbor the Asshole".

It still deosn't make it right to drive by and swipe what is still essentially private property.

It's still illegal for anyone to go into an unlocked house and take their stero system.

Here's a thought. How about people encrypt their WiFi data? Otherwise anyone within range gets your broadcasts. You can't stand on your rooftop with a megaphone screaming obscenities and complain that somebody at street level a block away recorded your rantings then uploaded them to Yotube under the title, "My Neighbor the Asshole".

It still deosn't make it right to drive by and swipe what is still essentially private property.

It's still illegal for anyone to go into an unlocked house and take their stero system.

That's not property. It's communication, and there's no deprivation if you overhear the packets. There's a much better argument about expectations of privacy than property. Then there are the computer security laws that are slowly coming into being. It's still at conflict with what is essentially someone tuning into your public broadcast of a tiny radio station using standards that anyone can intercept. Google shouldn't have been capturing packets, but that's more from a proper behavior for a company standpoint. And again, the usefulness of the brief captures seems really low for almost any use that even data mining Google could come up with, making it difficult to accept that there were malignant intentions.

It's a black mark on Google, but for being careless with its consumer-facing behavior, not for world-dominating plans.

Because if you're trying to capture and log SSID broadcasts, your WiFi adapter is in promiscuous mode already and it's probably harder to filter out the irrelevant information than it is to collect everything on the wire.

Wow the first sensible person here with an ounce of technical knowledge. Almost all the rest of the thread is just idiots commenting rubbish about something they do not understand.

Coming from someone who can't figure out BBCode quoting, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you would think so little of your fellow Ars readers' technical skills.

I'm sure Google has engineers that are far better at wifi data capture and management than I, since I just used Google to figure this out whereas they wrote the damned thing, but here's how you can capture SSID information without recording people's emails, passwords, etc.

Perhaps I made an editing mistake and have better things to worry about, perhaps you missed the point of my argument.

I gave a plausable theory spinkled with some facts and clues.

Thankyou for pointing out that I am a careless forum poster and not completely comfortable with BBCode. Now you have pointed out my flaws I will go to work this morning and tell them that that despite my 17 years experience I feel I am no longer capable of running the datacenter. My skills are lacking and the hundreds of servers and customer data I look after is clearly in risk of spontaneous self destruction. I will make them remove all the biometrics and change the other access codes I have and then remortgage my house so I can pay them back the significant wages they have foolishly been giving me.

Oh no wait a minute, you seem to think that the Google street view cars are running Mac OSX and manually doing things in vi.

Good trolling sir.

EDIT:Are you actually suggesting Google engineers should use Google? Wont that break the Internet?

Perhaps I made an editing mistake and have better things to worry about, perhaps you missed the point of my argument.

I took the point of your argument to be that separating SSID information from payload data is somehow difficult or error prone, to which I respond that "airport -s" (or the equivalent on any OS you care to use) is completely trivial and perfectly effective. But go ahead and try to ignore that if it makes you feel better.

Quote:

I gave a plausable theory spinkled with some facts and clues.

That's a joke, right?

Quote:

Thankyou for pointing out that I am a careless forum poster and not completely comfortable with BBCode. Now you have pointed out my flaws I will go to work this morning and tell them that that despite my 17 years experience I feel I am no longer capable of running the datacenter. My skills are lacking and the hundreds of servers and customer data I look after is clearly in risk of spontaneous self destruction. I will make them remove all the biometrics and change the other access codes I have and then remortgage my house so I can pay them back the significant wages they have foolishly been giving me.

You run a datacenter and you find BBCode difficult? You're right, you should find other work.

Quote:

Oh no wait a minute, you seem to think that the Google street view cars are running Mac OSX and manually doing things in vi.

Uh, no. Google Street View cars will run whatever Google wants them to, obviously. I used vi to (1) trim leading whitespace, (2) mask SSIDs and (3) mask BSSIDs. Obviously that would be a counterproductive thing for Google to do manually or otherwise, but if they wanted to post-process their easily captured, payload-free SSID data in a similar fashion maybe you could get yourself a new job with them by suggesting 'man sed' in your interview.

Quote:

Good trolling sir.

Poking fat holes in your argument isn't trolling. A better example would be, "Almost all the rest of the thread is just idiots commenting rubbish about something they do not understand."

So yeah, you trolled me, and here I am still feeding you. Wtf am I doing...

While you essentially agree with my point. "Google didn't do it for evil reasons". You felt the need to show off for some reason with some code proving that you can manually do something which I clearly know you can already.

Here are the points again...

Google almost certainly did not do it for evil reasons. It is perfectly plausable that the engineers thought it a better idea to just log packets rather than processing the mac and ssid out of them. I wouldn't have done it like that, neither would you but they had a reason we dont know of. Like any big company google cannot control all the thoughts and actions of it's staff. It's openess, encouragment for experimentation and learning only make this worse.They are a target which will be criticised for doing the same as others get away with [Skyhook and others].

This kind of action is very common in busines although it may seem like illogical incompetence to the mindset of someone who works in IT or similar technical field.

... Do you disagree with any of that?

I didnt pick though your code and point out any mistakes, this was for a couple of reasons:[1] You appear to have something of a clue what you are talking about.I got this.[2] It clearly wasn't code you excpected people to test but was a cut / paste / edit spinkled with a few jokes to make a point. Me pointing out a minor and irrelevant mistake would be pedantic. I got this.[3] You actually seem to enjoy using vi. Each to thier own but I feel you had ulterior motives.

You pick on an a small mistake which I made because I wrote a much longer post and then deleted most of it. Yes I know I should be more careful around the forum nazis. I can make a joke at my own expense even in my work as you can see. Having to be able to compitenetly use everything means you become master of nothing therefore i make a few mistakes.

Apart from a few little jokes you appear to have no sense of humour so lets just leave it here eh?

I still see people defending Google as just being lazy and not intending to cause harm, which I have no problem with but I feel I need to again point out that the point of the article isn't "if your wifi is open can Google do as they please" or "are Google lazy or evil" the point of the article is if they didn't delete all the data in december 2010 then they...

...SHOULDN'T HAVE TOLD THE ICO THAT THEY HAD DELETED IT ALL IN DECEMBER 2010.