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

[Matt Perkins]

The some what scarey part is that had Telstra batched this info off on a 
weekly basis and it not been done in real time chances are we would 
still be oblivious.

Im guessing within the T&C's that im sure we all agreed to but didn't 
read they are likely to have permission to do whatever they want with 
the data. There are some laws however that deal directly with carriers 
and there are certain privacy laws that apply to carrier's only. Without 
making at $5000  call to someone in the legal field im not sure I can 
confirm that.

One thing I would think would be correct is that if US Music/Film studio 
a) sends a subpoena to Telstra's outsourced data miner company b in the 
US to hand over all there data so they can trawl it for url's of torrent 
sites. Im guessing they would be compelled to hand over the data without 
question.

Matt.


  On 27/06/12 1:42 PM, Joshua D'Alton wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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
>>     <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
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     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
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog


-- 
/* Matt Perkins
         Direct 1300 137 379     Spectrum Networks Ptd. Ltd.
         Office 1300 133 299     matt at spectrum.com.au
         Fax    1300 133 255     Level 6, 350 George Street Sydney 2000
         SIP 1300137379 at sip.spectrum.com.au
         PGP/GNUPG Public Key can be found at  http://pgp.mit.edu
*/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20120627/07ebcada/attachment.html>