[AusNOG] the legal consequences of ignoring compliance

[Sean K. Finn]

Section 178
‘Authorisation for access to existing information or documents under Section 178 of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979.’

It refers to it being necessary for ‘Criminal’ Law.

However, no matter how bad the bad guy is, I’m NOT HOTMAIL.

S

From: Paul Wallace [mailto:paul.wallace at mtgi.com.au]
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 5:11 PM
To: Sean K. Finn; ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
Subject: RE: [AusNOG] the legal consequences of ignoring compliance

Sean –

What law did the request you received rely upon? (e.g. Sect 313)

??

-P



From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net> [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Sean K. Finn
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 4:19 PM
To: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] the legal consequences of ignoring compliance

At the risk of incurring the wrath of various organisations,

We were just sent a request for more information about a subscriber from one of the various state police task forces.

The IP address that they requested from, was a VERY VERY generic Something at hotmail.com<mailto:Something at hotmail.com> address, definitely NOT an IP address.

Although provided within an established request-for-information framework, the situation almost always arises that the information being asked for isn’t even POSSIBLE to give.

On the odd occasion that we receive one that looks valid (Generally one in ten requests), and given the success rate of the other attempts, one finds oneself asking the question;

Is this request that looks legitimate actually asking for the correct information, or will we inadvertently give wrong information because the question that has been asked wasn’t the right one to begin with?

I’m *almost* tempted to frame (one of) the *requests* we received today and hang it on my wall.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not anti-establishment, pro piracy or pro anarchy, because I’m not.

I *am* very wary of collateral damage caused by not questioning the questioner, however.

S.

(And perhaps I WILL frame the received request, with the price of viewing pleasure set and indexed as one cold beer).

(The above are my personal views and not that of my employer).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20130517/5635f284/attachment.html>