[LINK] google misdeeds and Australia's Privacy Commissioner

[Richard Chirgwin]

Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 04:29:47PM +1000, Richard Chirgwin wrote:
>   
>> At the physical layer, you're absolutely right. But a WiFi network is 
>> not only Layer One - it's also the MAC layer, Layer Two. At the MAC 
>> layer, the "network" is created by devices obeying the addressing rules 
>> (among other things). 
>>     
>
> can you see the danger inherent in taking (a specific small subset of)
> current technical conventions and enshrining them in law?
>   
Yes. I agree that wherever possible, the law needs to be neutral of the 
technology.

If the postman delivers my neighbour's mail into my letterbox, I do not 
therefore have the right to open it.

Ethernet frames are addressed to a particular host. If I receive those 
frames (not by accident; I cannot install and run a "sniffer" unless I 
intend to do so), I do not therefore have the right to look in them.

I can avoid "sniffing" other peoples' data: Don't install and run 
sniffer software.

It is pretty straightforward: it's at least ill-mannered (and possibly 
illegal) to decide that possession of a sniffer confers the right to 
look at other peoples' networks. That's all I'm saying, and I can't see 
why it's an offensive statement.

RC

>
> ethernet isn't the only data link layer you can run on top of wifi. sure
> it's the most common, and can be thought of as the de-facto standard -
> but a) standards change and evolve(*) and b) it is not mandatory.
>
>
>
> (*) the underlying core "standard" of the internet is - "rough consensus
> and working code". with very few exceptions, everything else is just a
> discussion paper (aka "Request For Comment") or proposal ("this is how i
> think X should work. feel free to implement as follows").
>
> ever wonder why IP lives on and OSI essentially died? it's because that
> rough consensus and mutual co-operation model works better, and allows
> for more innovation, than mandates from on high.
>
> craig
>
>