[LINK] Google's WiFi bungle

[Kim Holburn]

IANAL and I always use the term "broadcast" in the simple technical  
sense, not in the legal sense so you would have to read my emails in  
that light.

I assume when you use the term "authorised" and "unauthorised" you are  
using that in some legal sense.  Which act does it come from?  ACMA is  
mostly concerned with spectrum use and transmitter power.  I'm not  
familiar with the broadcasting act but I can't imagine it is relevant  
to wifi.  There is an act dealing with wifi?

On 2010/May/19, at 8:39 PM, Richard Chirgwin wrote:
> "Broadcast" in the meaning of various Acts doesn't mean "transmits a
> signal someone else can receive". It has specific meanings associated
> with the licensed activities of the operators and their transmitters.
>
> While a WiFi base station "broadcasts" in the sense of "transmits data
> which can be received by an unauthorised third party", this does not
> make it "any broadcast". Moreover, if I set up a base station for my  
> own
> use, it is definitely not "intended for anyone within reception  
> range."
> If I leave the base station unsecured, I am foolish, but that doesn't
> change my intention that the base station is for my use.
>
> As far as the Broadcasting Act and ACMA regulations are concerned, a
> WiFi base station is not a broadcast transmitter.
>
>
>> given that there are both "open" and "closed" networks operating on
>> the same wifi spectra and all interfering with each other to varying
>> degrees, it's unreasonable to assume that there's any privacy at all
>> when using wifi devices and it's more than unreasonable to  
>> criminalise
>> anyone listening to what is being broadcast.
> In other words, "I can receive this, therefore I have the right to
> receive it, and I have no obligation to respect the privacy of the  
> base
> station."
>
>> wifi is not a point to point
>> link (even wifi connections set up for that purpose aren't actually
>> point-to-point), it's an omnidirectional broadcast accessible by  
>> anyone
>> within range.
>>
>> criminalising that would make it illegal to even scan for "open"  
>> networks
>> that you are allowed to use...
> Nobody said "criminalise authorised access". Unauthorised access,
> however, is already criminalised, which is the main reason Google is
> pleading accident. It has nothing to do with what actually happened;
> Google is merely trying to minimise its criminal jeopardy, because  
> it's
> in a Jesus-load of trouble.
>> because it's physically impossible to scan
>> for those without ALSO detecting any "closed" networks that are in  
>> range.
>>
> Nobody said detecting the existence of a network was the same as
> sniffing packets traversing the network. One is, as you note,  
> intrinsic
> to WiFi. The other is a criminal act. It's really not that hard to  
> tell
> the difference between saying "There's a network called Kent Street,  
> but
> I want George Street", and logging into George Street; compared, on  
> the
> other hand, to saying "Look! Kent Street is unsecured. That means they
> must *want* us to sniff their packets".
>
> [snipping for brevity]
>>
>>> The equivalent of bouncing an infrared beam off house windows to
>>> eavesdrop conversations inside.
>>>
>>
>> absolutely not!
>>
>> passively receiving something that is being broadcast is VERY  
>> different
>> to actively snooping.
>>
> Google *was* actively snooping. Its software sought and captured not
> just the SSIDs and MAC addresses, but payload data. Its PRs and legal
> counsel claim accident. But that speaks to the intent of the activity,
> not its nature.
>
> RC
>>
>> craig
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

-- 
Kim Holburn
IT Network & Security Consultant
T: +61 2 61402408  M: +61 404072753
mailto:kim at holburn.net  aim://kimholburn
skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on request