[LINK] google misdeeds and Australia's Privacy Commissioner

[Richard Chirgwin]

Craig Sanders wrote:

[snipping]
> because they're both broadcasts into public spectrum using technological
> devices to assist. it makes no difference that one is broadcasting sound
> waves in a directly audible to human ears and the other is broadcasting
> microwaves accessible to anyone using one of the hundreds of brands of
> compatible devices.
>   

This is where we keep falling into disagreement.

My position is that *payload* frames on wireless Ethernet are not 
intended to be treated as "broadcast". The relevant standard says "if 
the frame is addressed to another host, do not process it". The payload 
frame carries the address of its intended destination. If I want to 
process a frame that's not addressed to my host, I must at a minimum 
decide to install software that enables this.

I agree that network diagnostic tools are important and useful. Their 
casual misuse - either inadvertently or through bad manners - creates a 
very real risk that someone will regulate their use.

RC

>
>   
>>> you don't need to ask for permission to listen if someone's yelling 
>>> in your vicinity.
>>>       
>> What makes you so sure you sure that listening to someone yelling in the 
>> street is comparable to a corporation collecting personal information 
>> for the purposes of the Privacy Act?  Sorry to be pedantic -- actually 
>> I'm not sorry, the law is kinda  pedantic -- but an individual 
>> overhearing someone shouting isn't subject to the Privacy Act, whereas a 
>> company recording personally identifiable information (without telling 
>> anyone they're doing so, and then sending that information transborder 
>> to another jurisdiction) is.
>>     
>
> and, once again you keep claiming that there was PII without bothering
> to prove it.
>   

> assertion is not proof.  accusation is not guilt.
>
>   
>> Many wifi users don't know how it works, don't know it's range, don't 
>> have any inkling that a company might drive down their street and listen 
>> in on their transmissions.  They didn't think they were doing anything 
>> like shouting shouting into a megaphone, 
>>     
>
> that's not the fault or responsibility of the listener, ignorance is no
> excuse.
>
> the information is readily available. it's not secret or hidden or
> obscured in any way. the documentation (and/or configuration menus)
> for the devices usually warn the user about privacy implications and
> encourages them to set an encryption password.
>
>
>   
>> and they didn't give consent for Google to collect their network
>> transmissions.
>>     
>
> they didn't need to. they broadcast it publicly for anyone to overhear,
> whether they knew that was what they were doing or not. 
>
> it's NOT (and can not be for obvious practical reasons) the
> responsibility of the listener to figure out whether a broadcast was
> meant to be private or not, it the responsibility of the broadcaster to
> take approporiate steps to encrypt their public transmissions.
>
> if you want to keep a secret, it's best not to broadcast it to the
> world.
>
> craig
>
>