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>