[AusNOG] Wifi Security and Interception

[Bevan Slattery]

Chris,

> So my question is, what was Google's intent in listening?  

I highly doubt it.  If they did nothing with the data (and didn't
actually mean to obtain the data) then this will all boil down to being
simply a great opportunity for the wider community to understand the
importance of encryption on access points and a good opportunity for the
industry to understand where they stand with interception of Wifi.
Google coming forward and assisting regulators was the right move to
kill this issue so we can all move on.

> This is actually getting closer to what I perceive to be the 
> real issue.

I think the real issue here is that people on this list think it's "fair
game" to intercept and record a communication (ie. payload) if the last
part of the path happens to be over an unencrypted Wifi network.  There
are reasons why the TIA is why it is.  And that is it's BAD (and
possibly illegal) to INTERCEPT (and record) a COMMUNICATION (not talking
about ethernet/Wifi/L2 but a communication under the TIA) regardless of
bearer if you are NOT the INTENDED RECIPIENT. Period.

Cheers

[b]

PS:  If anyone has dealt with the AFP the following statements in IT
News would indicate no action will be taken.
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/214403,google-australia-prepares-for-two-f
ront-investigation.aspx

"The AFP can confirm that it has received a referral from the
Attorney-General's Department," he said.  "The referral relates to
possible breaches to the Telecommunications Interception Act ... This
matter is being assessed against the Case Categorisation and
Prioritisation Model (CCPM)."

Having dealt with the AFP on other telco issues, this is usually code
speak for "We are too busy chasing terrorists and paedophiles".