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

[Sean K. Finn]

Telstra are using a Cyber Safety excuse?

WONT SOMEBODY PLEASE, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Matthew Moyle-Croft
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:36 PM
To: Chris Hurley
Cc: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Telstra's Texan Teaser - Tin Foil Stetsun anyone?

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<mailto: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<http://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<http://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<http://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<mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog


_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net<mailto: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/20120627/9fe2d1f6/attachment.html>