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

[Matthew Moyle-Croft]

I quote from http://exchange.telstra.com.au/2012/06/27/update-on-telstras-mobile-cyber-safety-tool/ :

"We understand our customers’ concerns about protecting their privacy online and are serious about keeping trust on this front by being transparent about the way we deal with customer data."

Doesn't everyone feel the concern?  No actual apology for this behaviour, just faux-concern after complete dismissal just a day ago.

MMC


On 27/06/2012, at 1:01 PM, Chris Hurley wrote:

> Mmmm I think if you move from the position of common carrier by inspecting/
> tracking information "too" closely then aren't you stepping into the film
> industries anti piracy position. If you are doing this then I can see their
> lawyers lining up and saying your encouraging/aiding piracy.
> Just a thought. 
> 
> 
> On 27/06/12 1:17 PM, "Geoff Huston" <gih at apnic.net> wrote:
> 
>> Somehow we've managed to cross a dangerous line in the last few years. It used
>> to be that carriers operated under the ethos, if not the regulatory framework,
>> of a common carrier. These days it seems to be a pervasive attitude of "all
>> your packets belong to us."
>> 
>> I think its encouraging that there is still a body of opinion that thinks its
>> unethical, and even plain wrong, for a carrier to track its customers so
>> intensely. Moving customer data across borders to other legislative regimes
>> may be convenient but what protections accompany the data export? Does a US
>> regulatory framework protect the rights to privacy for individuals who are to
>> them simply "aliens"?
>> 
>> I think the sarcastic tone from the news.com story is ill-placed - the issues
>> relating to a right to expect a common carriage service to be used by common
>> customer within basic terms of integrity and privacy of use are important
>> underlying issues here. Having a common carriage provider spy of your every
>> move via a third party operating in a different regulatory and legal regime,
>> and presumably then position this offshore third party in a unique position to
>> monetize this collected information, is not exactly a healthy development as
>> far as I can tell.
>> 
>> 
>> On 27/06/2012, at 4:27 AM, Christopher Pollock wrote:
>> 
>>> The tone of that news.com.au article is unsettling, mostly because it can't
>>> decide whether it's being sarcastic or not.  It seems to be both
>>> simultaneously mocking everyone for being concerned about what appears to be
>>> extremely concern-worthy behaviour but then goes on to then treat the same
>>> concerns as legitimate when coming from a politician.
>>> 
>>> Expert opinions and observations coming from a group like this are going to
>>> be far more accurate and well-founded than those of a politician, and I'm a
>>> little insulted for both the list and MMC that News.com.au are treating this
>>> like the behaviour was not worthy of being investigated; as if we're all
>>> silly for going WHOA HANG ON A SEC WHAT when presented with some seriously
>>> shifty-looking requests.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20120627/d23910fc/attachment.html>