There is _no way_ that capturing packets off open wifi networks was illegal or immoral. I know because I was doing a mobile wifi startup at the time and we investigated the legal boundaries of open wifi. Although not all points were litigated, anyone installing an AP could choose encryption, it was likely illegal to use an open AP without asking, but the packets were more like shouting across the back fence than the privacy afforded a cell phone conversation.
Google assumed that the obvious law would be enforced
With Glass, Google is taking the road that cameras, and cell phones, do all of this today anyway. Anyone who has Glass on their face is just like someone holding a cell phone to their face (either taking a picture or talking or using navigation), and using Glass has the exact same privacy problem as a cell phone, and cell phones are already a known quantity (it's illegal to record most audio, legal to record most video, legal to record police). It's just so freaking obvious, even if a republican congressman from texas writes a letter on behalf of his committee on privacy.
Google will now make the same mistake, and assume that the obvious law will be enforced as it obviously should be.
Instead, we are grappling with this social aspect of giving individuals the power that governments and businesses have already (CCTV). The obvious answer is to give the people the same power as businesses and government. But, instead, we seem more afraid of our neighbor than these other folks --- which is just crazy.
Maybe, however, Google has the right idea this time. Seeing 1500 influential people will start the conversation, before they put this beast to retail and get slammed. Maybe they're doing something clever. Good, Google.
I see problems that are called sloppiness, like bad variable names, and "ugly" looking loops. These are not worth worrying about. I find that many new programmers - programmers raised looking at open source code that is coded without comments with the fewest possible lines - find "ugly". Even the use of Gotos and similar, use of variables without accessor functions. The refactoring is to make functions shorter, to remove comments (since now the code is self-documenting). This kind of quality problem you should overlook, because it's more stylistic than you think.
From your description, I think you're horrified by this lack of "neatness", and if so, you should get over that. (You talk about needing to "clean up" constantly - making me think this is simply moving lines around).
There's another quality problem, which is incorrect modularization and abstraction. When I see code that is going around external provided APIs, not creating APIs but simply objects called "Object" and similar. PUtting functionality into a higher level module when a lower level module should be expanded so other people can use the same functionality - but it's "a pain" because you have to write test code and update documentation. Code that is incorrectly modularized is technical debit that will always be hard to remove.
This kind of quality problem needs to be discussed. In your situation, the answer is always to ask questions. If your partner is always busy or blows you off, you go to another senior person and say "Joe doesn't have time for me, and I don't understand X way he factored the code, can you give me 5 minutes to explain this style?" If it really is as bad as you say, another senior person will grimace in horror, and tell you he'll go deal with it. You should expect to get reassigned to a better project in a few weeks.
Machines have less problems. I'd like to be a machine. -- Andy Warhol