<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap:break-word; font-size:14px; font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">Hi Paul,</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">From: Paul Wallace <<a href="mailto:paul.wallace@mtgi.com.au">paul.wallace@mtgi.com.au</a>></div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">> The Telecommunications Act 1997 is a Federal Statute.</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">Yes that is correct.</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"></div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">> The TIA is also a Federal Statute.</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">Yes that is correct.</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">> Neither therefore have common involvement with the QPS.</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">Firstly, I didn't say there was. I was pointing out that people should read the legislation that is relevant rather than reference irrelevant bush law principles. However, for reference if you actually read the legislation you
will also note that it covers lawful interception scenarios by State law enforcement agencies and others. By way of example here:</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</div>
<div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">6E Lawfully intercepted information</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">…</div>
<div>(2) <font class="Apple-style-span" color="#ff0000">A reference in this Act to lawfully intercepted information</font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#ff0000">that was originally obtained by an agency, or by an eligible</font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#ff0000">authority of a State, is a reference to:</font></div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</div>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">I have to say your suggested concept that Federal Legislation doesn't apply to state enforcement agencies is an interesting legal concept.</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">Secondly, I did not say QPS is intercepting a telecommunications service. You assumed that and in your haste to put words in my mouth you assumed wrong. I was
<span style="font-weight:bold">very</span> clear to say there appears to be <b>some slight but material difference</b>s between this and the Street View incidents
<span style="font-weight:bold">on face value.</span></div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="font-weight:bold"><br>
</span></div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">So let's think about this. Under Street View G not only connected to a wifi access point, but they actually captured and stored packets not addressed to nor intended for them. Unintentional mistake. Interestingly, on an open
personal wifi access point with no interconnect to the internet/telco service this in itself may not be an issue. However, the fact there are other network elements provided by a telco or that said wifi access points might have been run by a telco complicates
matters. I'm not going to go through this because (1) they have been discussed previously on Ausnog and (2) I'm not going to invest in education when people aren't prepared to read the relevant legislation to have an informed discussion.</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">Now <span style="font-weight:bold">at face value</span> QPS are simply driving around seeing what networks are open/insecure, but not actually interfere with a communication, nor intercept one that they weren't the intended recipient.
Depending on what they do and how far they push things will need to be tested against the legislation. Seeing what networks are open? No biggie. Connecting to networks and send/receive data within that network (non telco)? Probably getting slightly grey.
Then sending data over a line/network element (ADSL link for e.g.)? Getting very murky. Intercepting and storing other people communications? Danger, Danger Will Robinson.</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"></div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">> .. & good luck gaining the Federal Police’s support unless the effect of the hack is of the type that might cause it to make it into the papers.</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"></div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">Again they are your words not mine. I was pointing out that almost all the answers everyone are seeking are in the legislation.</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">[b]</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"></div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"></div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"></div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"></div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"></div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"></div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"></div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"></div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"></div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"></div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</div>
<span style="font-size:12px"><br>
<br>
The information contained in this email and any attachments may be confidential. This email and any attachments are also subject to copyright. No part of them may be reproduced, adapted or transmitted without the written permission of the copyright owner. If
you are not the intended recipient, any use, interference with, disclosure or copying of this information is unauthorised and prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately advise the sender by return email and delete the message
from your system. All email communications to and from NEXTDC Limited are recorded for the purposes of archival and storage.</span>
</body>
</html>