[AusNOG] Telstra's Texan Teaser - Tin Foil Stetsun anyone?

[Tom Berryman]

Thanks Geoff:
http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/telstra-accused-of-next-g-web-stalking-20120705-21ivs.html 

Tom Berryman 
I.T. Systems Engineer
Connectivity I.T. // Director 
T: 03 5622 4600 
E: tom at connectivityit.com.au 
W: www.connectivityit.com.au 


-----Original Message-----
From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Aqius
Sent: Thursday, 28 June 2012 3:18 PM
To: 'Brett Johnson (SkyMesh)'; ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Telstra's Texan Teaser - Tin Foil Stetsun anyone?

Apologies if I missed it, but does anyone have an example with a trace of the traffic as it happened... preferably one that can contribute to a demonstration of reasonably unique identification of an individual... 

For example, if a url is submitted with form processing information such as a user/address etc - I'm particularly interested in seeing if the URL's are being visited in entirety or getting an idea on the parsing techniques that may have been used prior to handing the URL's on.... Also, I've been reading that Telstra have stopped the activity which I'm sure they likely has, but has anyone actually tested it?

Cheers

-----Original Message-----
From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net
[mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Brett Johnson
(SkyMesh)
Sent: Thursday, 28 June 2012 1:21 PM
To: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Telstra's Texan Teaser - Tin Foil Stetsun anyone?

Well someone noticed..

http://www.zdnet.com.au/telstra-halts-customer-tracking-339340404.htm

Brett

On 28/6/2012 12:02 PM, Narelle wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 3:03 AM, Paul Brooks 
> <pbrooks-ausnog at layer10.com.au> wrote:
>> On 27/06/2012 1:36 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>>> But those same carriers seem to think nothing of not only disclosing 
>>> who everyone is communicating with, but in some cases even sending 
>>> the contents of the communications themselves (e.g., "GET http://foo 
>>> HTTP/1.0" -- that's call content, not call metadata!)
>> IANAL, but this may contravene the Telecommunications (Interception 
>> and access) Act
>> 1979 - Sect 7 seems to apply.
>>
>> This communication has clearly been intercepted while passing over a 
>> telecommunications system, between handset device and webserver 
>> device. It has also been recorded, stored, and sent to another person.
>>
>> A real lawyer aught to have a look at that.
> IANAL either, but I did go briefly through the Telecommunications Act 
> and the Interception Act yesterday to no avail. My memory has this 
> sort of thing as exempt along the lines of carriers doing it for the 
> purpose of conducting their business, and it exempts third parties, 
> too. The intent is really for managing and forecasting traffic not 
> really to the extent that this is going, imho.
>
> The act is on austlii folks - and I doubt there is precedent on this one.
>
>
> Cheers
>
>


_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog


_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog