[AusNOG] Google creepier than Conroy?

[Bevan Slattery]

> If an unsecured wireless access point is freely providing 
> data to any client that tries to attach, is this interception?

So if AFACT set up a Wifi interception device at the Qantas lounge and
downloaded all the data transmitted in order to see if there were
copyright infringers, you would think that is not interception?

Part of the iiNet defence in the AFACT case was that it was illegal for
iiNet to intercept a telecommunication service without appropriate
authority.  Everyone who has been in this industry *before*
Google/Web2.0  should know that 'intercepting' a communication without
appropriate authority is "bad".  I live by it and it works.

People in Google probably thought that if "an unsecured wireless access
point is freely providing data to any client that tries to attach" isn't
interception.  I wonder how that's working for them right now...

Almost certainly a simple mistake.  But a great outcome to all this is
that people in Australia (and in our industry), were made aware that
recording a communication between parties is illegal regardless whether
it is via a cellular network, fixed line network or a Wifi network.

Because for the guy/girl/child/bank/lawyer at the other end who typed
that email/sent that file/is having that conversation/posted that photo
has no idea on which last mile technology you will receive it (and most
likely on multiple devices on different last mile devices being your
iPhone, your laptop and work computer), but does so with the expectation
that only the intended recipient for whom it is intended is the person
who receives it and not some corporation war driving down your street.

[b]