[AusNOG] Wifi Security and Interception

[Bevan Slattery]

> > 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.
> 
> Bevan, I think if you're going to make that accusation you 
> should be naming those people so they can defend themselves.

Yeah.  Good point.  I probably just assumed they clearly articulated
their position to the list and it was pretty self evident.  Will try to
keep this in mind.

> >  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.
> > 
> 
> If you're going to make that assertion, then I think you're 
> overlooking both lawful intercept, and carrier staff being 
> allowed to capture network traffic for network performance / 
> troubleshooting reasons.

I'm pretty sure I explained lawful interception as an exemption in
previous posts when I was directly referring to the TIA.  I also
probably assumed many people on this list would understand their
position with respect to lawful interception (versus unlawful
interception) as a general principle under the TIA (outside the fact
whether the last mile/B side is a wifi access point).

Whilst it's obvious to me and others I probably should have re-state the
qualification of lawful interception exemptions.  However, if you are on
AUSNOG, being a newtork operators list and you actually have no clue
about your legal position on intercepting a communication then that's
just scary.

Good (and constructive) points Mark.

Thanks

[b]