[AusNOG] Wifi Security and Interception

[Andrew Oskam]

Did the Queensland Police STORE the data they collected? If so, where is 
that data now? scary.


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 9/06/10 11:43 AM, Mark Newton wrote:
> On 09/06/2010, at 9:14 AM, Bevan Slattery wrote:
>
>    
>>   I can see the people on the CREDITCARD-NOG pointing out that the banks shouldn't have to re-imburse that tech-noob because he was so stupid to let his credit card out of sight.  And as he was not taking the appropriate security precautions, it's his own fault.
>>      
> The law actually says that the bank DOES have to reimburse the tech-noob,
> who is perfectly entitled to fill out a form to organize a charge-back
> on fraudulent transactions and get their own money back at the bank's
> cost.
>
> But the law also says that if the tech-noob builds up enough of a
> history of being the target of fraudulent transactions, there's no
> reason for the bank to continue to offer credit card services.
> The noob gets a soft landing for the odd occasional transgression,
> but if they consistently allow the security of their personal
> finances to fall by the wayside they'll face their own set of
> consequences.
>
> The rules our society operates under are a balancing act based on
> competing priorities and mutual obligations.  Where's the mutuality
> in the view you're elucidating about unprotected WiFi?  Where's the
> obligation on the person who is broadcasting their private data
> to all and sundry?
>
> While you're talking about the deliberate act (capitalized, no less)
> required to exploit a homeowner with an open door and an "on holidays"
> sign, you need to contrast that against the fact that Google clearly
> amassed the data they captured by accident -- and the only reason they
> were able to do that is because it was being broadcast in the clear.
>
>    
>> Maybe I'm just getting old and I'm a sentimental fool.  But I used to live in a time where people respected other peoples property and understood what was right and what was wrong.
>>      
> This isn't a question of whether anyone understands what was right and
> what was wrong.  I hope you can agree that the people who disagree
> with you aren't doing so because they lack a moral compass.  We're all
> guided by a strong sense of right and wrong which doesn't happen to
> agree with yours.
>
> The issue for me is that electronic privacy is an issue that our
> society hasn't had time to fully accommodate yet, and the understanding
> about what, precisely, happens to be right and wrong varies from one
> person to another.
>
> In that environment it's insane to specify hard-and-fast rules.  Where's
> the consent of the Governed?  How does the Government know which privacy
> expectations should be backed by criminal law and which ones are
> informed by laziness and poor understanding?
>
> Just to make sure you understand where I'm coming from, and where the
> confusion is:  Here's an article from 2009 describing something that
> the Queensland Police think is on the "right" side of right-and-wrong:
> http://www.itnews.com.au/News/150387,queensland-police-plans-wardriving-mission.aspx
> Why aren't they being investigated by the AFP?  Why weren't you posting
> messages to AusNOG last year about how terrible this was?  Why is it
> so awful for Google to capture unencrypted WiFi packets as an
> unintended side-effect of their main aim (geolocation), yet completely
> okay for THE FRIGGIN' POLICE to deliberately go out of their way to do
> exactly the same thing?
>
> There's your "creepy" right there, IMHO.  Given a choice between trusting
> Google and trusting the target of the Fitzgerald Enquiry, I know where
> I'd invest my faith.
>
> The Queensland Police clearly think that what Google did is okay,
> otherwise they wouldn't have done it themselves.  Who do we trust to
> draw the line, and where will they draw it?
>
>    
>>   I'm not saying that having a lack of Wifi security is a good thing, but I'm trying to remember the day when it became a bigger crime than the crime itself...
>>      
> Last night you were coaching accusations of criminality in qualifiers
> and equivocations.  Have you changed your mind?
>
>
>    - mark
>
> --
> Mark Newton                               Email:  newton at internode.com.au (W)
> Network Engineer                          Email:  newton at atdot.dotat.org  (H)
> Internode Pty Ltd                         Desk:   +61-8-82282999
> "Network Man" - Anagram of "Mark Newton"  Mobile: +61-416-202-223
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100609/9544d03f/attachment.html>