Telstra accused of 'stalking' Next G web
Geoff Huston … Chief Scientist at APNIC. Photo: Edwina Pickles
Telstra is the chief scientist in one of the most important organizations have been criticized on the Web, “stalking” Millions of users of mobile phones, Next G, by a third visit to Canada have websites.
Geoff Huston , the scientific director of the Regional Internet Registry Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC ) and a former employee of Telstra, has been described in detail because he thinks Telstra violated the law when it was revealed a little more than a week ago that the telco sent the URL to its smartphone customers were visiting a third party for a new Web-filtering product. Although the majority of customers were visitingURL have the personal data before they were sterilized transmitted to third parties, some were not, as Telstra has admitted in a post on his blog in the comments to face hundreds of angry customers.
Advertisement: Story continues below
Telstra, which has been the collection of URLs after complaints rolled set of customers never asked permission to collect and transmit URLs visited. He said that URLs were not submitted to third parties in connection with customers, but critics say may have had some of them, information in them that they can identify someone. “Here is a case not only control the user’s activities without your knowledge and certainly without their consent, but within easy reach of the network conversation and eavesdropping on conversations of digital ‘user to extract parts of the content of the conversation and move it to a third party offshore, “Huston wrote in an article titled” all packets belong to us “on his personal blog. The third was Netsweeper , a company that makes Web-filtering products and services offering to Telstra and other companies in countries such as Yemen, Qatar and the UAE. Huston asked why Telstra had not investigated the matter and referred to the telco business of “stalking”, which was believed, “not part of the legitimate role of a [telecommunications] common carrier.” “There is no local regulatory authority to show interest in pursuing this and initiate a criminal prosecution? None so far.” Australian Privacy Commissioner Timothy Pilgrim is saying yet whether to investigate it. “We are still awaiting a report from Telstra on the issue,” his spokesman said in a statement to Fairfax Media on Monday. “After receiving the report to determine whether we initiate an investigation.” spokesman said today that Telstra had its investigation “given an initial response” in the matter. “We asked a few questions and we will be with them next week. After the meeting of the Privacy Commissioner to decide whether to investigate.” M ark Newton, network engineer, a former Australian internet service provider Internode , said that anyone who tries to downplay the problem, – as the founder of Risky.biz security website , Patrick Gray -. is “too little care,” rejects appeal a gray, some of the observations of Newton Telstra media describes this issue as “misleading”
“I think, diminish [Patrick] is the transfer of personal data under the ‘URL Telstra not “Take off, Newton says that Telstra and only by removing some information URL before it Netsweeper, which was on the URL to check a database of sites, whether they should in any future product dedicated to lock Telstra was sent to parents who want to limit the sites their children visit on their smartphones.
“If ‘http://server.com/account?user=newton’ a URL that is to say that Telstra would be made available as Netsweeper” http://server.com/account, “the person with the name “Newton” no cause for concern. URLs like “http://server.com/account/user/newton ‘would have sailed through untouched … and I think this is a greater risk of Patrick acknowledged is, “Newton said But Mark Gray challenged to a real example to find -. not in theory – a website containing personal data takes a URL of al l variables is stripped by a question mark. (Telstra stripped of the variable information, which sometimes contain personal information, after the question mark, for example, the URL before they Netsweeper.) “It is unlikely that you will find But you can, “said Gray.” Even if you do that, because the information has no relationship makes no sense. Without context can not be identified so that it will not be much concern from a privacy. “ He added that he thought the media coverage of the topic was” hysterical and totally misleading. “” with in an interview the ABC and Telstra said Mark Netsweeper monitoring data of the users were. This is absolutely wrong. He now has his position changed and now says that it could be under the circumstances, I have never observed a theoretical loss of user’s private information. “ The potential for personal information to Telstra sent to a company in Canada was something Green party communications spokesman Scott Ludlam concerns last week. ‘E’ potentially problematic, “ abc.net.au said last Wednesday. “Everything the United States is subject to the Patriot Act, although the data are made anonymous or sent as a batch.” The USA Patriot Act, introduced in 2001 to give the U.S. government broad powers to user data stored within the United States for intelligence purposes, according to Huston’s blog post. Remember when you first have to comment on Telstra to scmagazine.com.au, where older men Telstra spokesman Craig Middleton put out the collection raised by customers as the URL was “normal operation of the network, “said Newton, something was” misleading “Middleton said. Newton also the point that no Telstra customer can decide whether they wanted to move their URLs through a third party, let alone Telstra. “Run in secret they do not have appropriate messages to the consumer,” he said. “There was no way that a user Next G could make an informed decision about the fact that with Telstra as a service provider could be harmful in itself, make your privacyadded:.” Telstra was actually harvested a whole URL, even though I only pass, disinfected versions of them [Netsweeper] They never asked anyone if they could do the initial collection of data in the first .. the place was not done. almost no matter what they do with it then the whole system is corrupt, no matter how much effort they put into cleaning. “
Huston went further in describing his concerns about the confidentiality of the matter, increasing to the point that Telstra rushed out a new set of conditions with a new feature called” Intelligent Controls, “which was” complete with a collection of spelling errors, “only after consultation with scmagazine.com.au.He said that the revised document” indicated a lack of proofreading and perhaps [a] certain level in a hurry and may panic on the part of Telstra. “
In a statement yesterday, Telstra said it had an” obligation to protect the privacy “of its customers. ” We take our privacy obligations very seriously and are investing time and resources to protect the confidentiality To ensure the personal information of our customers. “believed that the way data is collected URLs respected” Telstra obligations with privacy “and said she had provided the Privacy Commissioner wrote a briefing on this subject on Monday.
“We are obliged to consult closely with our customers and industry stakeholders, in order to present all products of this kind in the future. “
Telstra today said it was” confident “no laws have been broken. Even if Telstra was found violated the law, the Privacy Commissioner currently has no power to sue, or a company to impose. laws that allow this are currently passed in parliament and propose fines of up to up to $ 1,100,000 and other severe penalties for privacy, by the Australian . Reply Patrick Gray were included Mark Newton’s comments about him after this story was first published Read more information.
This reporter on Facebook: / bengrubb
No comments:
Post a Comment