Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (
More info?)
"George Neuner" <gneuner2@dont.spam.me> wrote in message
news:f9lpb0116q8nal4hs2463lh8e2r5jg2ie3@4ax.com...
> Please don't top post.
> A: Top posting.
> Q: What's the most annoying behavior on Usenet.
I was not responding point-by-point, but making general comments. I realize
style preferences vary from person to person, but you can't please everyone,
can you? There is no "proper" style for posting, any more than there is a
single monolithic law that deals with wireless interception.
>
>
> On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 17:37:36 GMT, "gary" <pleasenospam@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> > I find it hard to believe that anyone can claim to know for
> >certain that the law is perfectly clear in the U.S. about intercepted
> >transmissions. In the first place, much of the applicable law is privacy
> >law, and the bulk of this law is state, not federal, law. Federal law
does
> >*not* prevent state law from being more restrictive.
>
> That's the beauty of case law - no one can ever know for certain.
>
> States can further restrict Federal law when Federal law does not
> explicitly disallow it - there have been a number of laws written
> expressly to forbid state modification ... e.g., statutes giving
> Federal priority to criminal prosecution for a lesser charge and many
> laws dealing with interstate commerce.
I assume the relevant Federal law is 18 USC 2511. This contains several
clauses beginning with the phrases:
"It shall not be unlawful under this chapter"
"Notwithstanding any other provision of this title or section 705 or 706 of
the Communications Act of 1934"
"It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title
for any person"
Nowhere can I find any wording indicating that states are not free to make
independent and more restrictive law.
>
>
> >California and New York have strict laws forbidding the monitoring of
> >unencrypted cordless phone signals transmitted in the unlicensed radio
> >bands, in spite of "reasonable expectation of privacy". New Mexico has a
law
> >forbidding monitoring of communications including "wireless" - it places
no
> >restrictions on whether the wireless communication is encrypted or not,
or
> >in an unlicensed band. Fourteen states have specific laws forbidding
> >monitoring of cell phones, even though these transmissions are also
> >unencrypted. Actually, federal law also forbids cell phone monitoring,
and
> >the production and sale of devices that allow it.
>
> You are correct, but these laws are extensions of previously existing
> wiretapping statutes to cover new technology. They pertain only to
> telephone use and do not apply to, eg., CB or shortwave, police, fire,
> EMT, civil defense or aircraft radio transmissions.
I am not claiming that these laws will apply to wifi. I am claiming that it
is not clear that they do not. I cite the specific state laws regarding
cordless phones to indicate that some states believe that some kinds of
unencrypted transmissions in an unlicensed band are entitled to protection
beyond what Federal law offers. These laws are all worded so that they do
not apply to accidental interception - intent (which, to some extent, has to
be measured by behavior) makes a difference.
Even if these state laws do not apply, wifi could be added to the list -
just as cordless phones were - if state legislatures come to believe that
there is a privacy issue that needs to be dealt with.
I'm not interested in trying to prove that some specific state law does or
does not prohibit wifi eavesdropping. I'm trying to counter the impression
that Federal law about radio interception is the only law that matters, or
even that radio interception is the only legal issue. This is simply not
true. I'm also trying to make the point that eavesdropping just because you
can is at least unethical, and probably a legally grey area.
>
> In 1991, a tropical storm destroyed the transmission towers of WBZ
> 1030AM, a 50KW station in the Boston MA. When the towers were rebuilt
> in the spring of 1992, their alignment was different than it had been
> previously. For almost 2 months, residents living near the towers in
> parts of Hingham, Hull and Scituate received WBZ through a myriad of
> electrical appliances - including wierd things like toasters, ceiling
> fans and refrigerators. It came through telephones, intercoms, radios
> and televisions (even when turned off) and was superimposed on other
> broadcasts making them difficult to understand. It so overwhelmed the
> police sideband radios that emergency communication was nearly
> impossible in some parts of Scituate and Hull.
>
> The WBZ incident was certainly a fluke, but I lived that nightmare.
> There is no pratical way to prevent radio reception regardless of
> stupid laws to the contrary. If my braces happen to tune in
> somebody's portable phone - what the hell am I supposed to do about
> it? The laws are only meant to discourage unethical practices.
Isn't this example a bit extreme? Surely you acknowledge that there is a
difference between a neighbor who is clueless enough to run a wide-open wifi
network and a radio station which is clearly violating all sorts of laws to
generate a signal so powerful that you can't avoid receiving it, even
without a device designed to be a radio receiver!
I hesitate to get into more examples, because examples quickly become
tortured hypotheticals. I'll just say that privacy law is an extremely
tricky thing. Not all of the relevant law has to do specifically with
intercepting radio signals.
>
>
> >I think that very few of these laws have been tested against wifi. Even
if
> >you assume they do not apply, there may be other privacy laws that do -
for
> >example, if you record the intercepted information, or if you post it to
the
> >internet or otherwise spread it around.
>
> I said previously that *using* the information in any way could very
> well be a crime.
In New York, merely recording a cordless phone conversation is illegal. It
doesn't have to be used "in furtherance of a crime", it is a crime. As I
suggested above, other privacy laws that have nothing to do with
intercepting radio signals may apply. Just to make it clear: I'm not saying
that accidentally picking up your neighbor's signal is illegal, or
unethical. But consciously deciding to monitor his network traffic is a
different thing. Intent matters.
>
>
> George
> --
> Send real email to GNEUNER2 at COMCAST o NET
vmvc.35800$eY2.5442@attbi_s02...
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram