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

[Joshua D'Alton]

Marketing/PR spin, they don't want to admit fault.

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft <mmc at mmc.com.au> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120627/600aa992/attachment.html>