[AusNOG] Police Wardriving. Where else but QLD!

[Paul Wallace]

Bevan -

Please allow me to remind readers of my comment:

The Telecommunications Act 1997 is a Federal Statute.

The TIA is also a Federal Statute.

Neither therefore have common involvement with the QPS.

.. & good luck gaining the Federal Police's support unless the effect of the hack is of the type that might cause it to make it into the papers.

-Paul

In relation to your responses ... in fact I am a tiny bit offended by some of them ...

E.G.


1.       You say: "However, for reference if you actually read the legislation you will also note that it covers lawful interception scenarios by State law enforcement agencies and others.
Bevan, that's utterly presumptuous & a tiny bit offensive ... you cannot possibly have any knowledge whatsoever whether I've read none, some,  or possibly 100% of this Act.
I'd be most grateful if you could kindly withdraw this statement.


2.       You say: "I have to say your suggested concept that Federal Legislation doesn't apply to state enforcement agencies is an interesting legal concept.

Bevan, is a misrepresentation of what I said .. which is set out above & plainly incapable of being paraphrased in the way you've interpreted same.

I'd be most grateful if you could kindly withdraw this statement.


3.       You say: "I'm not going to go through this because (1) they have been discussed previously on Ausnog and (2) I'm not going to invest in education when people aren't prepared to read the relevant legislation to have an informed discussion.
Well now ... are you repeating your attcke on me (above), or alternatively suggesting that none of our Members have read the Act you refer to?
(... and on behalf of any relative delegates, I didn't know you lectured in Law & were therefore entitled to admonish students for not reading the Act you'd required them to read herein.)



4.       Your say: "Secondly, I did not say QPS is intercepting a telecommunications service.  You assumed that and in your haste to put words in my mouth you assumed wrong.  I was very clear to say there appears to be some slight but material differences between this and the Street View incidents on face value.

Read the message above in red type Bevan ... it doesn't mention your name EVER and, on the basis that this is a 'one to many' forum, I suspect the calm independent Members will find this statement confusing!





5.       You say: "Again they are your words not mine.  I was pointing out that almost all the answers everyone are seeking are in the legislation.

If you've asked me what I meant by that statement, instead of alternatively attacking me, you'd have come to understand the very reasonable basis upon which what I said was proposed.


So ... are you going to ask me what I meant by that or alternately choose to just attack me further?

You need to understand that there's at least two discussions going on concurrently here ...

1.) the article in relation to the QPS's activities, and
2.) general interest by people in pondering where the 'line in the sand' exists is in relation to connecting to all manner of wireless devices by all manner of people in all manner of situations, whether intentionally & criminally, accidentally, or accidentally in a way that the Authorities might fear represents criminal conduct.

Goodness knows that if, in the long run, this Forum's Member's are unable to form a consensus of opinion, and then constructively extend that opinion to the Authorities in a way that allows them to quickly move ahead via expert opinion, thereby leading to useful Policing, in relation to the TIA, The Tel Act 1997, or the various State Criminal Codes, then we'd not be doing our civic or moral duty would we?

-Paul





From: Bevan Slattery [mailto:Bevan.Slattery at nextdc.com]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 7:32 PM
To: Paul Wallace; James Troy; Joseph Saxton; Jarrod Hassell; ausnog at ausnog.net
Subject: Re: Police Wardriving. Where else but QLD!

Hi Paul,

From:  Paul Wallace <paul.wallace at mtgi.com.au<mailto:paul.wallace at mtgi.com.au>>
> The Telecommunications Act 1997 is a Federal Statute.

Yes that is correct.

> The TIA is also a Federal Statute.

Yes that is correct.

> Neither therefore have common involvement with the QPS.

Firstly, I didn't say there was.  I was pointing out that people should read the legislation that is relevant rather than reference irrelevant bush law principles.  However, for reference if you actually read the legislation you will also note that it covers lawful interception scenarios by State law enforcement agencies and others.  By way of example here:

6E Lawfully intercepted information
...
(2) A reference in this Act to lawfully intercepted information
that was originally obtained by an agency, or by an eligible
authority of a State, is a reference to:

I have to say your suggested concept that Federal Legislation doesn't apply to state enforcement agencies is an interesting legal concept.

Secondly, I did not say QPS is intercepting a telecommunications service.  You assumed that and in your haste to put words in my mouth you assumed wrong.  I was very clear to say there appears to be some slight but material differences between this and the Street View incidents on face value.

So let's think about this.  Under Street View G not only connected to a wifi access point, but they actually captured and stored packets not addressed to nor intended for them.  Unintentional mistake.  Interestingly, on an open personal wifi access point with no interconnect to the internet/telco service this in itself may not be an issue.  However, the fact there are other network elements provided by a telco or that said wifi access points might have been run by a telco complicates matters.  I'm not going to go through this because (1) they have been discussed previously on Ausnog and (2) I'm not going to invest in education when people aren't prepared to read the relevant legislation to have an informed discussion.

Now at face value QPS are simply driving around seeing what networks are open/insecure, but not actually interfere with a communication, nor intercept one that they weren't the intended recipient.  Depending on what they do and how far they push things will need to be tested against the legislation.  Seeing what networks are open?  No biggie.  Connecting to networks and send/receive data within that network (non telco)? Probably getting slightly grey.  Then sending data over a line/network element (ADSL link for e.g.)?  Getting very murky.  Intercepting and storing other people communications?  Danger, Danger Will Robinson.

>  .. & good luck gaining the Federal Police's support unless the effect of the hack is of the type that might cause it to make it into the papers.

Again they are your words not mine.  I was pointing out that almost all the answers everyone are seeking are in the legislation.

[b]



The information contained in this email and any attachments may be confidential. This email and any attachments are also subject to copyright. No part of them may be reproduced, adapted or transmitted without the written permission of the copyright owner. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, interference with, disclosure or copying of this information is unauthorised and prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately advise the sender by return email and delete the message from your system. All email communications to and from NEXTDC Limited are recorded for the purposes of archival and storage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20120323/5c3df641/attachment.html>