[AusNOG] Google creepier than Conroy?

Tue Jun 1 13:09:20 EST 2010

Try it from the same connection one with your wifi active and after  
clearing your cookies one plugged into Ethernet with wifi disabled.

On 01/06/2010, at 12:53 PM, Jared Hirst <Jared.Hirst at serversaustralia.com.au 
 > wrote:

> I tried it on a Telstra fibre in QLD (smart community) and it gave  
> me the exact address, was very cool.
>
>
> On 01/06/2010, at 12:49 PM, "Nathan Brookfield" <Nathan.Brookfield at serversaustralia.com.au 
> > wrote:
>
>> I used a Telstra connection to test and told me I was at Kent  
>> Street but had 2 or 3 other people try it and it was SPOT on!
>>
>>
>>
>> From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net [mailto:ausnog- 
>> bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Andrew Oskam
>> Sent: Tuesday, 1 June 2010 12:43 PM
>> To: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
>> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Google creepier than Conroy?
>>
>>
>>
>> Curtis, I opened that link on my machine and it was spot on dead  
>> accurate ... which I did not expect.
>>
>> Most of my experience with "Share your location" apps typically  
>> only tend to generalize my location...this one was 100% accurate.
>>
>> Freaky.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Andrew Oskam
>>
>> E  percy at th3interw3bs.net
>>
>>
>>
>> NOTICE:
>>
>> These comments are my own personal opinions only and do not  
>> necessarily reflect the positions or opinions of my employer or  
>> their affiliates. All comments are based upon my current knowledge  
>> and my own personal experiences. You should conduct independent  
>> tests to verify the validity of any statements made in this email  
>> before basing any decisions upon those statements.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 31/05/10 9:21 PM, Curtis Bayne wrote:
>>
>> If you're running Chrome, check this out: this is probably the end- 
>> game goal for Google :)
>>
>> http://html5demos.com/geo
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net on behalf of Narelle
>> Sent: Mon 5/31/2010 8:49 PM
>> To: ausnog at ausnog.net
>> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Google creepier than Conroy?
>>
>> On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Craig Askings  
>> <craig at askings.com.au> wrote:
>> > Why do I get the feeling that Dale Clapperton is lurking on this  
>> list and
>> > just shaking his head as we all play Telco Solictor..... Badly
>>
>> IANAL and neither have I read Google's actual code (so I am making
>> assumptions on what they've done)
>>
>> BUT
>>
>> I have read both the Telecommunications Act and the  
>> Telecommunications
>> Interception Act and it is my professional opinion that neither of
>> these acts is relevant to the activity under question. Both of these
>> relate to 'network units' or 'links' provided under carriage
>> services...
>>
>> Neither is the Privacy Act relevant.
>>
>> The one I do think is relevant, however, is the Crimes Act, at least
>> in NSW it's section 308 - the parts related to unlawful access to
>> someone's computer. Federally, it's the CYBERCRIME ACT 2001 -  
>> SCHEDULE
>> 1. You'd have to follow that assessment up with a review of relevant
>> case law, and this I haven't checked.
>>
>> The question in legislation imho is long settled that just because  
>> you
>> left the window open the burglar is still - in law - deemed to have
>> broken in...
>>
>>
>> On to the question of home network security and WiFi access points:
>> these things are appallingly insecure in general use. Consumers are
>> not generally aware that they are making their networks easily
>> accessible by anyone in the vicinity of them. Their expectation is
>> that they will be lucky if they can get it to work at all, so are
>> happy when their own computer/s can connect to it and then the
>> Internet.
>>
>> I've set up a few recently for people, and, as a statistically
>> unrepresentative sample, I've been using the set up wizards just to
>> see where they take me. None of them, so far, have left me with a
>> secured access point! The most they do is set a new SSID - they don't
>> prompt users to turn off broadcasting, nor add even a WEP key (let
>> alone something stronger), NOR change the default password! [These
>> are, of course, the next few steps I take...]
>>
>> Anyone who's spent any time on a helpdesk will also know how much fun
>> it is talking people through these steps on a telephone. One recent
>> experience I had with this went round and round  with the device
>> repeatedly refusing to accept the config... Of course, it "worked"
>> fine just following the bouncing ball, but, yes, it was totally
>> insecure. Customer was happy to have it totally open, as long as they
>> could get to the Internet... [yes, I fixed it later]
>>
>> imho Google may have done people a service by publicising this level
>> of insecurity. That said, I didn't see them actually publish any
>> useful data on - for eg - rates of insecurity in home wireless LANs,
>> or helpfully advise people that x level of WLAN usage exists. Please
>> don't get me wrong - I do consider what has been _alleged_ to have
>> occurred unethical!
>>
>> Has anyone seen the code in question? I saw in question time that Sen
>> Conroy had seen it, but I doubt he will have "decoded" it...
>>
>> What is Google's intent with this data? What have they admitted to
>> doing with it? How are they securing the information they have
>> collected? Have they issued a public statement on the topic?
>>
>> I have a strong recollection that had I done a similar thing as part
>> of a research study there would have been ethics committee approvals
>> required... but we wouldn't have had the funding!
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Narelle
>> narellec at gmail.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20100601/6c388b97/attachment.html>