[AusNOG] Google creepier than Conroy?

[Bevan Slattery]

> Specifically:  A "telecommunications network" means, "a 
> system, or series of systems, for carrying communications by 
> means of guided or unguided electromagnetic energy or both, 
> but does not include a system, or series of systems, for 
> carrying communications solely by means of radiocommunication."
>
> So this gets to the crux of it:  Is a WiFi node "a system for 
> carrying communications solely by means of 
> radiocommunication"?  Or is it a part of the larger "series 
> of systems for carrying communications" 
> installed in the house, only some of which relies solely on radio?

The Street View cars also drove past many businesses and café's in which licensed telecommunication providers operated hotspots as part of their national network and covered under the carrier licence.  So either way, there is an extremely high probability that a Wifi network that's part of a telco network was intercepted, even if the residential Wifi access points are deemed not part of a telco service.

> I'm sure that's one of the things the AFP is going to be 
> looking at during their investigation:  If the case ever 
> reached prosecution, the AFP will need to PROVE that an 
> unsecured WiFi AP installed in a house is a 
> "telecommunications network," and there's probably a 
> likelihood that Google will mount a defence which, in part, 
> calls the matter into question.  In my opinion (which is 
> every bit as lawyerly as Bevan's :-) there are pretty good 
> reasons to believe that they'd be able to convince a judge 
> that they haven't.

Sorry - but I think you are completely wrong.  There are plenty of access points operated by Telco's not just home users.  Google's defence will be, as they have stated very publicly in recent days, that this was a big mistake.  If they want to argue 'technicalities' and legalese saying "yeah we intended to snoop, but hey a persons open Wifi access point is fair game" then it's game over.  They've lost the trust, the rest is irrelevant.

The issue is simply this.  Did they break the law?  Well the AFP will probably determine that.  Secondly, was deliberate?  Original reports indicated it was intentional (Google code was used).  Google has come out and said it was a "mistake".  Google have since come forward to offer the data to authorities in the past few days. If that's the case and the data was never used, then as I suggested a couple of days ago this will all be put behind us (meaning no prosecution).

So please either directly quote me in future or don't put words in my mouth.  And please don't disregard qualifying statements both prior to and post comments that have been made.

Cheers

[b]