I have hoped to convey that there are two types of data collection: systematic/intentional and casual/incidental.<div><br></div><div>I agree that if a WiFi access point is considered a telecommunications system under the Act then intercepting any data that is for another�recipient�is in breach of the Act.</div>
<div><br></div><div>What are your views on recording broadcasts and beacons? For it seems that Google really just wanted beacons.</div><div><br></div><div>The Act also defines 'interception' as the act of listening to or recording a communication:</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote" style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><div>For the purposes of this Act, but subject to this section,�</div><div>interception of a communication passing over a�</div>
<div>telecommunications system consists of listening to or recording, by�</div><div>any means, such a communication in its passage over that�</div><div>telecommunications system without the knowledge of the person�</div>
<div>
making the communication.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>A 'communication' is�</div><div>�</div><blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote" style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><div><div>
communication includes conversation and a message, and any part�</div></div><div><div>of a conversation or message, whether:�</div></div><div><div>�(a) in the form of:�</div></div><div><div>�(i) speech, music or other sounds;�</div>
</div><div><div>�(ii) data;�</div></div><div><div>�(iii) text;�</div></div><div><div>�(iv) visual images, whether or not animated; or�</div></div><div><div>�(v) signals; or�</div></div><div><div>�(b) in any other form or in any combination of forms.�</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>And who/what is the intended recipient?</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote" style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><div>
<div>
(1) For the purposes of this Act, the intended recipient of a�</div></div><div><div>communication is:�</div></div><div><div>�(a) if the communication is addressed to an individual (either in�</div></div><div><div>the individual�s own capacity or in the capacity of an�</div>
</div><div><div>employee or agent of another person)�the individual; or�</div></div><div><div>�(b) if the communication is addressed to a person who is not an�</div></div><div><div>individual�the person; or�</div></div><div>
<div>�(c) if the communication is not addressed to a person�the�</div></div><div><div>person who has, or whose employee or agent has, control�</div></div><div><div>over the telecommunications service to which the�</div></div>
<div><div>communication is sent.�</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It seems simple that email, VoIP, video conferencing is a form of communication since there are two or more individuals or persons but more complex for file transfers and interactions with a machine: is�accessing a web page a communication? Downloading a file? logging into an account?</div>
<div><br></div><div>One could also argue that an insecure WiFi communications is in contravention of the act since S7.1c states, in part, that 'A person shall not�do any thing that will enable another�person to intercept�a communication passing over a telecommunications system.'</div>
<div><br></div><div>Therefore, an insecure WiFi network enables another person to intercept a communication.</div><div><br></div><div>I have heard that Germany are taking this view with proposed legislation.</div><div><br>
</div><div>Phil</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Bevan Slattery <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Bevan.Slattery@staff.pipenetworks.com">Bevan.Slattery@staff.pipenetworks.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">Phil,<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> Borrowing from the Australian Privacy Foundation policy on<br>
> CCTV Surveillance, I think there is a big difference between<br>
> data collected in a systematic manner and data collected in a<br>
> casual manner which gives rise to privacy concerns that are<br>
> of a different nature and gravity from institutionalised uses.<br>
<br>
</div>Sorry, but quoting CCTV surveillance privacy policy is about as relevant<br>
as quoting the "Blockbuster Video Return Policy". �It simply does not<br>
apply here. �Let me quote something more relevant for you:<br>
________________________________________________________________<br>
Prohibition on Interception of Telecommunications<br>
<br>
Section 7 of the TIA Act states:<br>
<br>
� �(1) A person shall not:<br>
� � � �(a) intercept;<br>
� � � �(b) authorize, suffer or permit another person to intercept; or<br>
� � � �(c) do any act or thing that will enable him or her or another<br>
person to intercept;<br>
� � � �a communication passing over a telecommunications system.<br>
<br>
A person who contravenes subsection 7(1) is guilty of an offence<br>
punishable on conviction by imprisonment for a period not exceeding 2<br>
years (s105). Note, however, that limited exceptions to the s7(1)<br>
prohibition are specified in other subsections of s7. These include<br>
interception under an interception warrant.<br>
_______________________________________________________________<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
[b]<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>
</div>