Slashdot Mirror
Possession of Cantenna Now Illegal?
Mad-Mage1 writes "The recent arrests in Florida and the UK of men who were accessing unsecured wireless hotspots has created a flood of articles that contain panic inducing rhetoric. "A small subset of computer-savvy hackers has the know-how and gadgets for more nefarious activities," claims the Sacramento Bee (via Techdirt). "They're (Pringles cans fashioned into antennas) unsophisticated but reliable, and it's illegal to possess them," quips Sacramento County Sheriff's Lt. Bob Lozito of the Sacramento Valley Hi-Tech Crimes Task Force." I hope they tell Fry's about all the illegal antennas they're stocking, too.
What if the Pringles Antenna is not assembled, but all the necessary parts are in your possession?
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
so can you no longer buy them from cantenna.com ?? because i've been so out of the loop i haven't even heard about the cantenna.. i want one now haha
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
I don't use Cantenna. I use Pringles !
What does your Credit Report look like?
Damn, guess I better throw out my yagi and my omni.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
But sir, this is my TV antenna that I use with my WinTV PCMCIA adapter card.
No wonder why I got bad reception, its in the WRONG antenna jack!
Sounds to me like a standard issue case of some locals not knowing what they're talking about...for all they know the only use of these things is to infiltrate other peoples networks. I think there are some "Higher-Ups" who could clear this up for them.
Marky Mark Killed Jason Bourne!
The cantenna itself isn't illegal to posess, but it may very well be illegal to use if it boosts the directional signal beyond the FCC's limit. Remember, 2.4GHz space is unlicensed, but it's not completely unregulated. Power limits are in place to prevent greedy users from stepping on the whole band and locking out others. (See FCC rules.)
The reason why there's all those proprietary connections in antenna space is because you're only supposed to use antennas that are approved for use with the transmitting device, so you stay within the perscribed limits for effective directional power. (Just recently the FCC announced plans to allow for mix-and-matching of antennas.) Connect a tightly directional antenna to a transmitter that's operating at full power meant for omnidirectional use, and you'll have an illegal setup. That's exactly the situation most canttenas find themselves in.
Lets make windows illegal too, after all, it only *automatically* hacks into unsecured AP's.
or are there any women wardrivers ?
seems everyday like hacking is strictly a sausage party
I think that's called having the munchies. You're only in trouble if you have the grass with you still or you can be proven to be intoxicated.
I'll be your candy shop of infinite deliciousity if you'll be my discotheque of endless rump-shaking.
"I hope they tell Fry's about all the illegal antennas they're stocking, too."
I suppose it is illegal to possess the "Cantenna" because it has not undergone government, ala FCC, testing.
...end up in the can!
Sounds like a consultant that can speak Stupid could demonstrate all the legal uses for the many gadgets we use. It'd be a great way to make some money and keep our bretheren out of jail
Because our whole city wide wireless network relies on hacked up antennas of many descriptions including cantenna's... Heh, lucky we live in Australia where stupidity comes in smaller doses from our law enforcement and thanks to the Free Trade Agreement our new American Overlords!
I ate your fish.
...some cantennas violate FCC rules on how much power can be emitted in what amount - and almost all aren't FCC certified. But I thought we knew that. Nobody's going to bother you for using a cantenna in your own home, but it is likely illegal to wardrive with an unapproved antenna. (Now possession vs. use I'm not sure of - but that's minor.)
I mean, if you could talk to the base station without exceeding the limits, why do you need any more than a commercial antenna? Don't tell me that companies willingly sell antennas well under the approved limit...
My Yagi out of my cold dead ... oh wait ... thats my gun ... sorry.
First of all Here is the reg sheet on low powered unlicensed transmitters
See Page 2 - Antenna Requirements
Changing the antenna on a transmitter can significantly increase, or decrease, the strength of the signal that is ultimately transmitted. Except for cable locating equipment, the standards in Part 15 are not based solely on output power but also take into account the antenna characteristics. Thus, a low power transmitter that complies with the technical standards in Part 15 with a particular antenna attached can exceed the Part 15 standards if a different antenna is attached. Should this happen it could pose a serious interference problem to authorized radio communications such as emergency, broadcast and air-traffic control communications.
In order to prevent such interference problems, each Part 15 transmitter must be designed to ensure that no type of antenna can be used with it other than the one used to demonstrate compliance with the technical standards. This means that Part 15 transmitters must have permanently attached antennas, or detachable antennas with unique connectors. A "unique connector" is one that is not of a standard type found in electronic supply stores.
(Section 15.203)
It is recognized that suppliers of Part 15 transmitters often want their customers to be able to replace an antenna if it should break. With this in mind, Part 15 allows transmitters to be designed so that the user can replace a broken antenna. When this is done, the replacement antenna must be electrically identical to the antenna that was used to obtain FCC authorization for the transmitter. The replacement antenna also must include the unique connector described above to ensure it is used with the proper transmitter.
Now here is the stick. So yes, technically under federal law they are.
If the operation of a non-compliant transmitter causes interference to authorized radio communications, the user should stop operating the transmitter or correct the problem causing the interference. However, the person (or company) that sold this non-compliant transmitter to the user has violated the FCC marketing rules in Part 2 as well as federal law. The act of selling or leasing, offering to sell or lease, or importing a low-power transmitter that has not gone through the appropriate FCC equipment authorization procedure is a violation of the Commission's rules and federal law. Violators may be subject to an enforcement action by the Commission's Field Operations Bureau that could result in:
Section 15.1
Section 15.5
Section 2.803
Section 2.805
Section 2.1203
o forfeiture of all non-compliant equipment
o $100,000/$200,000 criminal penalty for an individual/organization
o a criminal fine totalling twice the gross gain obtained from sales of the non-compliant equipment
o an administrative fine totalling $10,000/day per violation, up to a maximum of $75,000
what? what I thought we were in the trust tree in the nest, were we not?
dit...dit...dit...
Today, sherif deputies in California unleashed a country wide 'Pringles can ring' bust, raiding over 22 seven-elevin stores. They managed to confinscate over 133 cans of Pringles before they had to cease activities. Apparently the commando-style raids all went smoothly, but an unnamed source in the sherrif's department stated the raids ceased because , 'We were full'.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Pringles can antennas are legal to own in the US. They are not legal to use for 802.11 equipment because you are only permitted to use an antenna that has been expressly approved for the specific model of 802.11 base station that you are using it with.
When Linksys comes up with a new antenna design, they must test it with every single AP they want it to be legal to use it with. The idea is that you can't accidentally transmit a stronger signal than you're supposed to.
If you are a radio amateur, you can re-classify the gear and use it legitimately, as long as you use no encryption, no swearing, nothing commercial, etc. etc.
However, for most people, and most uses, pringles can antennas are unquestionably illegal to use. They also usually don't work that well - many of them are _directional_, sure, but they're directional because they're weak in most directions, rather than strong in a particular one.
A good antenna would mask the signals behind you and boost the signals in front. Many pringles designs mask the signals behind you but don't amplify the ones in front. That makes them really not very useful.
The title is the typical stupid panic inducing kind "Hackers prey on unguarded wireless links" but it contains a good point: That with unsecured wireless routers and unencrypted transmissions, anybody near you place can use view your activities and use your internet connection and either steal your identity or abuse the connection and have it traced back to you.
It's not hard to understand, but when I go to a friends' house who has wireless, 2 times out of 3 my notebook can use their internet w/o a problem. Then I end up telling them to admin their router and set it up for encrypted transmission + letting only certain wireless MAC addresses through.
Any other suggestion on security?
...their slang. Are they calling it Cantenna these days? And does that refer to the leaf form or the resin?
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
"They're (Pringles cans fashioned into antennas) unsophisticated but reliable, and it's illegal to possess them,"
That's not strictly accurate, but it contains a grain of truth.
It is an unlawful violation of the FCC regs to USE a cantenna, as it has not been certified for use with any radio broadcast systems.
Violators may be forced to immediately and permanantly cease use of their uncertified system. That is the extent of the possibile penalties.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
I actually leave my wireless network unsecured on purpose.
It's virtually never the case that I need the full bandwidth from my ISP, so if anyone else wants to use it, they're welcome.
Yeah, there's always the (very faint) possibility that someone's going to use my wireless network to access kiddie-porn or bomb-making articles or some such.
But I'm willing to take the risk in order to share the wealth a bit.
I hope someone points out the error of his statement in a very public manner, to persuede other law enforcement officials from making uninformed blanket statements like this. Yes, this is a single statement, but the problem is that anyone with a motive or just the urge to bust a user of a cantenna can say "look, the sherriff in such and such place said it's illegal, I can arrest you for it" without even checking the facts. This kinda stuff can carry on long after the first statement was issued, and snowball into a really ugly affair. If you are at all worried about this, do something, make a call, and like I am about to, INFORM him that he was wrong.
... it's illegal to possess a Heathkit 50-ohm dummy load?!? /dating myself //nobody else will
Now they just added more "driving" into wardriving...
Go to the w3.org and put Slashdot.org through the validator.
Will they go after copies of the ARRL Handbook next?
I'm not an expert here in terms of regulations and such so take my question/opinion with a grain of salt (and please answer if you know the answer).
I can understand how putting a more powerful TRANSMITTING antenna on an access point would be bad. The FCC is actually looking out for us, making sure we don't scramble our brains with too much power. However, how can having an antenna that simply boosts a weak signal to your computer be regulated? The power from the transmitter is the same...this receiving antenna is simply taking this weak signal and making it a bit more usable for your computer. How is this illegal?
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
Lozito, meet fcc part 15 rules:
Also, cantennas are no better (except in terms of price) than commercially available antennas which are also legal to own and use, provided you use them in accordance with fcc regulations, for instance by not exceeding power and gain limits, and without breaking any other applicable laws.
(disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, or an RF engineer)
I'm sure the honorable Lt. Bob Lozito, the officer quoted as stating that the antennas are illegal, could articulate which section of the law makes them so. Give him a call:
e rvices/hi_tech.cfm)
Hi-Tech Crimes Task Force
4510 Orange Grove Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95841
916.874.3002
(Courtesy of:
http://www.sacsheriff.com/organization/contract_s
I checked up on the task force and sent a request for more information. You can to here: info@sachitechcops.org.
From the looks of their website, they are a loose collection of law enforcement agencies that are using this organization so they can be associated with a group with "High Tech" and "Task Force" in the title
I think this title association was described in a Dilbert book...
I am billdar, and I approve this message.
Same topic with same wording was posted on broadbandreports.com earlier today: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/65821
I read the article and made a cantenna out of a coffee can. Now I'm a criminal!! Thanks /.
To bad it doesn't even really work, I soldered the wire in badly.......bbbbzzzzt!
Well, California is notoriously known for making mountains out of mole hills. It's also known to blatantly lie. See Comments made at the CPUC hearings about the SBC/AT&T merger where John Miller claimed to be the assistant police cheif of the LAPD stated that the Dept. of Homeland Security wants emergency response to only have 1 method of communication and so AT&T and SBC should be allowed to merge. This is, of course, a blatant lie and he had to be paid to say such things. The DoHS REQUIRES 5 methods of communications specifically so when things break they won't be out of contact....
But I digress. I've lived in CA for almost 6 years now. EVERY time something comes up protests start (see last years presidential election) or people start spreading F.U.D. even deeper than MS does. Just like Lt. Bob Lozito said. If it were illegal, why are pringles still sold in that can? I mean, get real people.
Just as our wonderful Senator Feinstein. She's actually saying that because there were shootings in Columbine (1999) that it's proving the assault weapon ban works and needs to be extended. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the assault weapon ban was in effect at the time of colubine (1994-2004) and it didn't seem to stop those kids from having "assault" weapons. Nor did it stop the bank robbers in LA from having metal armor and AK-47 Assault rifles. To me, that speaks the other way around. IT'S NOT WORKING OR THESE PEOPLE WOULDN'T HAVE THEM, NOW WOULD THEY?!??!?!?! The age old saying of "Gun control is hitting your target" sits well with me. I'm of a firm belief that anyone should be able to own any firearm they want as long as they take the appropriate safety courses. It's not the guy who legally obtains and carries a weapon that concerns me......
Unfortunately, I'm very rapidly coming to the belief that if the person is involved with CA government, they are probably lying...period. Not just twisting the truth like other politicians, I mean flat out lying.
So...since this was way off topic....Yeah, I'm going to go freebase some pringles right now so I can toss the can in my back seat and go speeding through Sac. to see if I can get arrested for possession or something.
I'm always wary of "quips" made by law enforcement officers and politicians. They sometimes turn dead serious.
This applies to those who design and sell complete transmitters. If the transmitter you purchased was FCC certified, and you as an individual happened to install a different antenna, what can they do? And someone selling an antenna can't be held liable, it's not a transmitter by itself.
Channels 1 thru 6 are inside the 2.4Ghz ham radio band. If you have a valid amateur radio license, you have the right to operate with homebrew equipment.
The July 2005 QST magazine has an article about ham expermenting with 24dbi dish antennas and standard off the shelf AP's. They claim 12 miles is easy, but they run into problems with ack timing at longer ranges. Bandwidth rolls off significantly... at 34 miles!
I contacted the officer asking for clarification of his claim:
bani: Er, what exact law makes cantennas illegal? I'd seriously like to know.
bob_lozito: Bad quote.
bani: is there an accurate transcript or recording available?
bob_lozito: Not sure. Either way, it is not illegal and if I inferred it, I was
wrong. I have had so many emails concerning this, it is getting to the
point that I cannot get any work done.
I cannot reply to all of you but am trying to do the best I can.
He admitted he was wrong, maybe we can cut him some slack?
You can only put out so many decibels (and most equipment is right at the upper limit without high gain antennas).
HOW'S MY POSTING? CALL 1-800-POSTING
saw the number up there, so i called. apparently his time has been taken up all day today repsonding to nerds like me, but he was able to clarify on the comment he made about cantennas being illegal to paraphrase, he stated that while he knows that cantennas are NOT illegal he said that tools that burglars use ARE illegal and are illegal to possess, and this should apply to the tools used to break into networks as well. He seemed really irritated about this whole fiasco talking to him, and apparently has had a lot of calls and emails about his quote. poor guy.
www.omglolh4x.com
That's a rather scary statement - isn't the connector on the back of the average Linksys WiFi router (or Airport base station, or 99% of the WiFi PC cards) standard?
I really doubt it.
In any case, as a licensed ham operator, I can make as many as I want. As a matter of fact, I can modify the card, run the output through an RF amplifier, modify a microwave oven to spit out some serious power, or....
Mooooa ha ha ha ha!
Sorry, got carried away there for a second.
Anyhow;
1) Make sure it's a ham frequency;
2) Identify the transmission with my call letters;
3) Turn off encription;
And I'm good to go.
Oh yah, there is the small matter of staying within the (typically 2000 watt) power limits.
While the requirement for unique connectors remains, the regulations for certification of antennas have changed with the new rules introduced in October 2004. These new regulations permit any user to install any antenna that is of the same family or style, and equal or lower gain, than any certified antenna. For example: if a 10-dBi patch antenna is certified for use with a specific WLAN transmitter, any patch antenna with a gain of 10 dBi or less may also be used, regardless of its manufacturer. Or if a Yagi directional antenna with a gain of 13.5 dBi is certified with a transmitter, any Yagi antenna with 13.5 or less gain may be used with that transmitter.
s 469/products_white_paper0900aecd801c4a88.shtml
The FCC staff clarified that under the Communications Act, the FCC has exclusive authority to resolve matters involving RF interference (RFI) when unlicensed devices are being used, regardless of venue. The FCC also affirmed that the rights that consumers have under the FCC rules to install and operate customer antennas one meter or less in size apply to the operation of unlicensed equipment, such as Cisco and Linksys Wi-Fi access points.
This means that local municipalities, cities, or neighborhood groups cannot impose restrictions on installations of 802.11 WLAN products on property controlled by a user, except where public safety is a concern.
From http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/wireless/p
War-driving: Very Pringles Appropriate! (Those of you who shop at the grocery store Albertson's and listen to their intercom ads will understand.)
And a couple of decades ago, the amateur power limits were changed from 2kW input to the final stage to 1500W output from the final. Not that any of that's terribly relevant at 2.4GHz, for most of us anyway.
if a business is operating on an insecure wireless network, that is pure negligence on their part, and they should be held accountable for the ramifications of doing so.
Title 47, section 151 (Creation of FCC):
:
For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is created a commission to be known as the "Federal Communications Commission", which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this chapter.
Title 47, section 153 (Definitions)
(22) Interstate communication
The term "interstate communication" or "interstate transmission" means communication or transmission
(A) from any State, Territory, or possession of the United States (other than the Canal Zone), or the District of Columbia, to any other State, Territory, or possession of the United States (other than the Canal Zone), or the District of Columbia,
(B) from or to the United States to or from the Canal Zone, insofar as such communication or transmission takes place within the United States, or
(C) between points within the United States but through a foreign country; but shall not, with respect to the provisions of subchapter II of this chapter (other than section 223 of this title), include wire or radio communication between points in the same State, Territory, or possession of the United States, or the District of Columbia, through any place outside thereof, if such communication is regulated by a State commission.
--
Clearly the FCC does not have jurisdiction in matters of intRAstate commerce.
No authority is conferred to it by congress. It is because that is the sole domain of state governments. The consitution LIMITS the powers of the federal government as well as establishes them. In this regard, congress's authority to control intrastate broadcasts is limited.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
The limit for part 15 devices is 1 watt (30 dbm) absolute power or 4 watts (36 dbm) effective radiated power (EIRP). Most wireless cards are around 35 milliwatts (~15 dbm), and are well within the absolute limit. EIRP is measured as transmit power+gain, so a 15 dbm wireless card connected to a 12 dbi cantenna gives us 27 dbm EIRP, about 1/10th the legal EIRP limit. (Note: this is for point-to-multipoint communication. The gain restriction is much looser for point-to-point setups.)
Those who use high power cards (200 milliwatt (~23 dbm) wireless cards are available) may be close to or over the limit, but I doubt they represent a majority of cantenna deployments.
Homemade antennas are permissible according to part 15 section 23 (subject to a few restrictions).
Well, being a California native who doesn't live there anymore, I can readily apply the bumper sticker logic to your complaints:
"Welcome to California, Now go home!"
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Its not illegal to posess a cantenna! The legality/illegiality happens when you are an unlicensed part 15 user using more than 1watt ERP. The thinking here is this.. An orinoco card is 80mW a cantenna is about 12db gain. So 12x.80 is about 960mW (Still less than 1W) Now if you add cable you induce loss. So you probably only get about 10db gain.. still not illegal.. Now, the FCC does have issue with people experimenting with antennas that aren't tested with the radios so there might be a problem there. Either way, posession of the antenna does not break any laws. Its not like you're carrying around a lock pick set for god sakes!
So whoever wrote the post and the editor missed the point of the article entirely. The article is telling people to secure their wireless networks to prevent unwanted guests accessing your network for nefarious purposes. However, one line was pulled out of the article, saying possessing certain antennae is illegal, when it probably should have said these antennae can be used illegally by breaking the FCC maximum output power requirements for WiFi. The point was to warn people that a person doesn't need to be parked next to your house to access your network, since by using the right equipment, someone can access your network from a long distance. Given all the publicity on /. over security, I'm surprised that an article claiming that people need to lock down their wireless networks is described as "containing panic inducing rhetoric".
Vote for Pedro
you mean "corporate mercenaries" and "bribed off power brokers".
For local, small farm networking?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/65821
before you spam him into oblivion perhaps give it a second thought:
Several users e-mailed Lt. Bob Lozito to let him know he was dead wrong. You can't broadcast with a Cantenna or you'll violate FCC guidelines, but you can receive signal. Also, there's no law on the books in any state we're aware of that would make owning a makeshift Wi-Fi antenna illegal. "have received several similar emails," says Lozito. "My comment was not accurately quoted," he states.
http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?p roduct_code=315787&pfp=srch1
INSERT INTO comment VALUE('Doh!') WHERE user='you';
Atleast they weren't War Cocking. *cough*
" Yesterday upon the stair I met a man who wasn't there. He wasn't there again today. I wish that man would go away."
Not on Linksys- I'm looking to use CanTennas out in the country where they are unlikely to interfere with neighbor's setups (heck, the neighbors in question are mainly Mennonite and don't believe in such new fangled wireless gadgets) for my parents and brother to network the two ends of the farm together (over about 1/4th mile). But I can't find that damned connector anywhere. I'll probably have to end up taking one of the two antennas and hack it up.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
From the post: men who were accessing unsecured wireless hotspots...
There's the key term, "unsecured." By definition, if it's unsecured, it's PUBLIC. End of case.
Okay, well, it SHOULD be the end of the case, but we know it won't be.
Those calls for computer users to be licensed before connecting to the internet are starting to sound less and less off-the-wall.
"Yes, send it back. You're too stupid to own a computer..." http://www.snopes.com/humor/business/wordperf.htm
"I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
Columbus, OH - State regulators are up in arms over an apparent physical law that allows photons to escape state boundaries, and leak into neighboring states, and even into Canada.
"This is clearly an issue for us." said Warren B. Crapola, director of Ohio's Department for Screwing People Over. "We simply cannot have our radio signals being lost to us, particular to backwaters like Michigan and Indiana."
Legislators are set to pass the Photon Restriction Act, and hope to have photons stopped at the state line by Fall.
"We're confident," says Governor Dolt Q. Nailbrain, "that not only will Ohio's photons be kept in the state, but that there's a potential revenue stream here as we tax crossborder photons. I hope that an amendment to the proposed bill will give us a grandfathering clause allowing us to tax photons back to 1965."
Neighboring Michigan is looking at a similar law that would ban neutrinos. "Are you aware," said Michigan's Attorney General, "that these beasties pass through your body. It's just plain indecent."
Not to be left out, Indiana hopes to redirect all unwanted X-rays directly into Ohio. "We feel destroying Ohio and turning it into a moltent, irradiated slagheap will bring us in line with Federal requirements, particularly the Patriot Act." said spokesperson Marylin Ipeenightly.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Suppose somebody is downloading bad stuff (or spamming) from your IP and the authorities sniff it, do you really want to risk having them kick down your door (or chase you onto the subway)? All because your such a nice guy, offering free internet access to god-knows-who?
We (both the authorities, and citizens) just can't be too careful, in these troubled times...
Kinda makes me wonder about that murdered Russian "spammer", too....hmmm.....
Come to think of it, they are addicting. Once you pop, you really can't stop. Count me in.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Pop o Pies doing "Fascists Eat Donuts," The lyrics go like this; "Make those donuts with extra grease / This batch is for the chief of police.".
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
How is this news? I mean really??? ... I don't, I've never heard of him, besides, he's a bloody COP. He's entitled to believe whatever he likes is illegal, it's NOT UP TO HIM.
.. Hi-Tech crimes probably translates to laptop-theft and computer vandalism at the local high-school.
.. that usually gets blind support these days.
Does anyone know " Sacramento County Sheriff's Lt. Bob Lozito of the Sacramento Valley Hi-Tech Crimes Task Force."
This is typical scaremongering and dis-information. Hey, he's a County Sheriff
I'm surpised he didn't use the words "Terrorist" or "Communist" or "Unpatriotic" in the article
Let me know when any court actually backs this up.
If you get an IP from a DHCP request, as far as I'm concerned that constitutes authorisation. How else am I supposed to know if I am authorised ?
...... sure here's an IP
/. posts used as evidence)
Me : Am I authorised an IP on this network
DHCPD : Lemme check your MAC address
http://www.ja.net/CERT/JANET-CERT/law/cma.html#1
Computer misuse offences
Unauthorised access to computer material.
1.-(1) A person is guilty of an offence if-
1. he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer;
2. the access he intends to secure is unauthorised; and
3. he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case.
(2) The intent a person has to have to commit an offence under this section need not be directed at-
1. any particular program or data;
2. a program or data of any particular kind; or
3. a program or data held in any particular computer.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.
hmm, oh bugger. I'd better not rely on that in court ! (and if I do, I hope I don't get my
http://www.dhcp-handbook.com/dhcp_faq.html#widpx
# How can I prevent unauthorized laptops from using a network that uses DHCP for dynamic addressing?
This would have to be done using a mechanism other than DHCP. DHCP does not prevent other clients from using the addresses it is set to hand out nor can it distinguish between a computer's permanent MAC address and one set by the computer's user.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
So the ERP of sending an 80mW signal to a 12dB gain antenna is not going to be 12*80, but something *much* larger.
For those non-ham radio types, a "Cantenna" was originally a "dummy load" for tuning or testing a radio transmitter. Sold by Heathkit, it consisted of a 50 ohm non-inductive resistor submerged in a gallon paint can full of oil for heat dissipation.
I was wondering if Homeland Security determined that al Qaeda was using them as pipe bombs or something....
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
the Heath Company, approximately 1961, for its brand of oil-filled dummy loads for amateur radio tuning use. Heath is still around. try calling these the "chiptennas" instead, eh?
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
for those really thick pretzels - made of better tin, so they get better reception.
...
When they outlaw those, only outlaws will eat pretzels
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
To me.. I'm quite sure that the internet providers (big scale) would just *love* to make sure that everyone needs to buy a connection and pay them mucho, even if the person never uses it, or barely uses it. I'd rather see everyone have a chance to communicate; let's not regulate it on such a microcosmic scale and let people, as another poster says, "share the wealth" if they want.
Especially residentially. For an alternate reasoning, the OS (suprise!) should be the one to make sure that data on a
computer is safe. Sharing shouldn't be dangerous. Go change things there first (easier the hardware too!)
thanks for the good intro there, parent..
If we as a tech geek worldwide nation were to send Sacramento County Sheriff's by mail our used empty and UNCONTAMINATED cans to 'Prevent them from being used for' "illegal purposes" it may just get some notice and hoist the fools on their own petards.
Sacramento County Sheriff Department
3341 Power Inn Rd Ste 313
Sacramento, CA 95826-3835
mail them empty and uncapped, just slap the mailing label on it and seal the end with clear tape. we don't want them treated as possible 'other things' it matters not if the get there crushed. We can keep screaming at them that they are fools, but unless the world notices the won't either.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
Was there something in the newly extended Patriot Act that allowed local dildo sheriffs to make up the law as they go along? Just make sure you don't run when some bozo dressed like an insurance salesman pulls out a big gun and tells you to stop because he's the police.
"Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
Exactly the correct answer. Yes, only a federally sworn official can enforce a federal law, not a State sworn offical, to void a conflict of interest. The guy from the Sherriff's dept. is blowing smoke and possibly a total idiot.
Good post - please mod parent up.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
Spread Spectrum transmitters operating at 2.4GHz are allowed to operate at 1 watt power output. All 802.11 B/G transmitters fall into the spread spectrum category.
Most of the off the shelf 802.11 equipment operates in the 20mW to 100mW range. You would still likely be within the legal power limit even with a high gain antenna attached.
Heh, it's still incorrect. The FCC has said that you can have up to 5 "home built" transmitters as long as they are not intended for sale.
These home-built transmitters are only subject the EIRP limits, not to any gain limitations involving the original antenna.
You still must obey good engineering practices and are still required to cease operation if you interfere with any higher priority radio service (i.e. everything, including ham).
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Seems like a LOT of people beat me to the punch. Yeah, he's getting a lot of flak about his statement, but I'm pretty sure that his "I got a TON of calls about that statement" story will spread a lot further among his fellow law enforcement officials if at least for no other reason that how he was unable to get regular work done because of the sheer number of calls. Yes, this one guy is a little incoveinced for today and maybe a few days after, but how many false arrests, harrasments, and other crap did we prevent by saying something about it before it could get carried away? Well done, fellow geeks, well done!
a beowulf cluster of pringles cans!j pg
http://www.stjosephisland.com/pringles_002_small.
Using a cantenna (or indeed, any antenna other than that which the device was certified with, except in certain circumstances) *is* against the law.
It just happens to be administrative law, not legislative law. The FCC regulations are laws regarding transmission of radio frequencies, and it is a violation of such regulations to use a "cantenna" to broadcast as a Part 15 user, which is what you fall under as a consumer with your wifi equipment. If you have a HAM license, you can operate under a different set of regulations, but there are restrictions on what you can do with the radio, and most people don't have such authorization who are using these antennas.
Not to mention it is illegal to connect to someone else's computer network and use its resources without their explicit approval. This legal approval may be automated (software that takes payment or verifies location) or not (you have to talk to the owner) but unless you're given some sort of legal authorization, not just the technical authorization, you're also breaking the law.
So, two things in one there, really.
The news article is flawed b/c the report misquoted the sheriff about the cantenna.
- http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/65821
This is from broad band reports
Several users e-mailed Lt. Bob Lozito to let him know he was dead wrong. You can't broadcast with a Cantenna or you'll violate FCC guidelines, but you can receive signal. Also, there's no law on the books in any state we're aware of that would make owning a makeshift Wi-Fi antenna illegal. "have received several similar emails," says Lozito. "My comment was not accurately quoted," he states.
So really all this argument is about bad journalism. The sheriff only mentioned that it is illegal to posses a cantenna while in the act of breaking into wifi networks. Email the sheriff to see for yourself that he did not mean that cantennas are illegal.
Depends, the limit for mobile operation is 1 watt EIRP... that's after antenna gain.
Fixed station operation has much looser limits. 4 watts EIRP or higher (the formula is kinda complex, just read this URL).
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Someone at cantenna.com is selling Pringles cans for $49.95!?
THAT is the REAL crime here if you ask me.
</humor>
If it's unsecured, that doesn't mean it's public. No, if it's broadcasted, then it's public.
If the transmitter you purchased was FCC certified, and you as an individual happened to install a different antenna, what can they do?
If you violate the power limits, and ignore FCC requests to cease transmitting RF interference with someone that complains, they can fine you a lot of money.
That said, there is an exemption for home-built transmitter setups. You still have to follow the power limit rules, and still must cease transmission if you interfere with someone.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Or, on a more likely risk: Getting blacklisted by your ISP for spamming, etc. Even saying "I was open sharing!" would just dig the hole deeper.
Me? I would like to open my AP, but I have shares on a number of machines that I just don't want to make that more open.
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
...after living in Sacto for much too long, let me shed a bit of light on how this works.
When the time comes to discuss annual budgets at the Sheriff's department, or the CHP, as an example, these dopes head out and bust anyone they can find...and then get a headline in the paper. The point being to somehow rationalize their pitiful existance as supposed civil servants and keep themselves off the unemployment rosters.
I know I've helped sponsor a new wing on the CHP training academy.
OK, I do agree with the access problems, based on state, here is a list of access laws by state, then do a search on the LAW number to get detail. http://www.crime-research.org/library/State.pdf I however can find no law about using a CAN,lol for CA or Sacramento County law
Black Gray White Hats Unite to protect http://testing.OnlyTheRightAnswers.com
Bob: "Hey, Rick, what the hell is that?"
Rick: "That's my car, Bob"
Bob: "No, not the CAR, that thing on the front wing.."
Rick: "Oh, that - it's my home-built radio antenna"
Bob: "But it looks kinda dumb - it's an old coat hanger, Rick"
Rick: "Well, many people use coat hangers for antennas, Bob"
Bob: "Not WOODEN ones, Rick!"
AT&ROFLMAO
>That's a rather scary statement - isn't the connector on the back of the average Linksys WiFi router (or Airport base station, or 99% of the WiFi PC cards) standard?
Nope. It's a combination BNC / threaded coax thing which I can't seem to find anywhere. Very proprietary. Having small batches of these crappy connectors made is probably a lot more expensive than a standard BNC plug/jack set. Oh well, yet another government regulation that costs the taxpayers money (needlessly!).
My other car is first.
Are you retarded? He said that the reported incorrectly paraphrased him. He didn't say it. No one mod my post, mod the parent down.
Sacramento County Sheriff's Lt. Bob Lozito
Yes because red-neck cops are also lawyers.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
How about crediting the inital source of that story? broadbandreports.com article
The FCC places limits on the allowable gain that an antenna used on "public" frequencies can have.
It's not that the FCC doesn't like reformed potato paste, it has to do w/ keeping the freq you use from interfering from others trying to use the shared medium.
Get your license. It's a piece of cake. It allows for using less congested freqs and to pump out more power.
Mike Coles
'bluelip'
kc2ciw
Yep, I never spell check.
More incorrect spellings can be found he
What? My 25 year old Heathkit Cantenna (50 Ohm Resistive Antenna Load) is illegal? I think not. Still, if you ran enough power through it you could work fairly distant stations on 20m when the band was open.
m =5792059903&category=4672&ssPageName=WDVW&rd=1
Here's a picture for those that have never seen one http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ite
While they don't sell kits anymore, the company is still in business, and retains copyrights on all the old manuals, etc.
http://www.heathkit.com/
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
Good to see that Pete Shipley is still being credited as someone who matters in the wireless world. Heaven forbid they actually find an intelligent reliable source for their article.
He's probably the one who told them home-made antennas are illegal.
Just block SMTP to your ISP for anyone unauthenticated...
----
All of whose base are belong to the what-now?
Sections 125 and 126 of the Communications Act 2003:
# 125
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30021--c.htm
Basically, in order to be convicted he must have been "dishonest" (but doesn't define "dishonesty"). The way I read it, wardriving is entirely legal if you wear a big sign round your neck saying "I am looking for unsecured wireless internet connections".
If adding the part to your rifle would push it into the ugly gun catagory (assault rifle) and you did'nt register it as such (in CA).
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Unlike ordinary, computer-illiterate hackers, these are true Men of Rennaissance AND polymaths to boot.
Looking for a better WiFi antenna? Like asian cooking?
wok this way...
http://www.usbwifi.orcon.net.n/
The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
A lot of the commodity WiFi APs with external antenna connections use RP-TNC connectors. Linky
You would need to eat a lot of Pringles.
....
http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/
I wonder if you can get a bounced 802.11 signal
Feel free to add your favorite cliches here....
Too lazy to create a sig...
coupls of months ago I met my brother at Chicago O'Hare (so the ppl I wrote about can just index easily into that one of their failures....) We were gabbing about anyhting, he had some people with him, they went for some superjuice conference in Utah. We sat there, he showed me stuff on his laptop (Linux, MS honeypotted how you get it only in Europe!). Came that guy sitting right in front of us, although there were ample of free seats anywhere. My I: U.S. Gov He soon showed up as a 'client' in a little popup. We agreed to 'feed' him. about 30GB were posted to his destinationh. Since we knew he wanted the direct HF link, we redirected him to _his_ provider (.mil anyone.....) I guess we rendered his multi receiver gadget he held in his clammy hands unusuable for at least two hours. Very shortly after we initiated th feed, he left....... His face looked, let's say, surprised........ Spy vs Spy I think WiFi hacking is fun ... from the hacked side.....
Those ppl who are cited here: all misinformation.
Because: if you provide free routing sdrvices, be advised: they will be used!
... why is it that my hometown paper (the Bee) always seems to come out with the most reactionary/idiotic quotables to pretty much any subject? Ugh...
-Vendal Thornheart
How do they get caught? Its simple to change your mac-address.
Seriously, catenna and wireless packet sniff to me is just similar to your ears hearing the conversation of your loud neighbors.
It is the neighbor's responsibility to secure his network, as is securing his confidential conversations. As long as I'm not putting my ears hear his house or install a bug nor crack any encryption, I don't think that should be considered a crime.
Surely packet sniffing for others' packets can be immoral, but now the courts are considering that as a crime? Shall we cut our ears so that we don't hear the conversations / arguments of our neighbors?
Give me a break.
That's true for anything mass produced, but there is an exception for homemade devices:
If you outlaw Pringles, then only criminals will have Pringles.
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
Surely something has to be said about intent. It would be a sad state of affairs if as the Lt. Sherif contends mere possesion of an antenna is a crime.
Oh, come on. Just disassemble the device, throw out the proprietary connector, and put in a standard one. Been there, done that, in everything from low power through 220V AC to 2.4 GHz signal (pick a good connector for 2.4GHz or you'll have badass losses). Saves an awful lot of headache.
Sometimes governments' desires have to be ignored in the same way they ignore our desires, in order to keep the world in symmetry.
Now only outlaws will have antenas.
If enithin kan gow rong it whil. (Murfey)
Her direct line is (916) 321-1203.
Maybe we should all give her a call and politely suggest she check her assertions before printing them.
-CF
*Sheriff pulls over car, saunters up and taps on window*
"Well, well boy, what have we here. Is that a Pringles can you got down there, or are you just happy to see me?"
remember a certain university that was trying to restrict use of wireless network communications? the fcc knocked on the the door and said, 'ahem, this is our business' and the university said 'oops, sorry'
i would almost believe that some county or city passed an ordinance and the fcc will probably be knocking on their door.
eric
In other words, two people setting up an intentional directional link that does not interfere with other RF devices is good.
Using a 'cantenna' to crack wi-fi networks at greater range is already illegal under various other statutes. Mere possession of the 'cantenna' is legal.
Unmodified... any legal clause which specifies unmodified infringes on the right to personal creativity. The united states, land of the free, where you cant say what you want, cant bare arms at all in several states (and you have to be 21 and shell out cash, loose your privacy, and claim to be a hunter in the rest), and now you cant have a can of pringles.
The rant is appropriate in this case, but you can mod me libertarian anyway. In the end it comes down to this: unless you are selling those antennas, any creation/posession of those antennas is protected (ROFLOL!!!) by the constitution, usage, or resale would still be countered by the usual garbage of the FCC though.
There isn't any foundation in law for what states and counties are enforcing with wireless networks. They're just making up garbage, and as usual there's no accountability (and little intelligence) in politics.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
Just to get offtopic for a second, I love your Sig. I have a 229.
My Sysadmin Blog
Read this it pretty much says otherwise:
This is the html version of the file http://wireless.fcc.gov/outreach/2004broadbandforu m/comments/YDI_externalamps.pdf.
G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:lh4AFv9U208J: wireless.fcc.gov/outreach/2004broadbandforum/comme nts/YDI_externalamps.pdf+site:fcc.gov+802.11+certi fied+system&hl=en
Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.
These search terms have been highlighted: 802.11 certified system
Page 1
8000 Lee Highway
Falls Church, VA 22042
703-205-0600
www.ydi.com
Using External Amplifiers and Antennas
in the License-Free Band
By Michael F. Young
President and CTO
YDI Wireless
Introduction
WLAN is moving outdoors: Both for fixed wireless and mobile Hot Zones. Whether or not WLAN
manufacturers intended for their equipment to be used for extended range solutions, more and
more people are using amplifiers to extend the range of their WLAN systems.
With growth in use of amplifiers comes an equal
growth in misunderstandings about the sale and use
of external amplifiers for the license-free bands. This
article discusses some of the technical and legal
issues associated with amplifiers.
To understand amplifiers, one needs to know certain
technical terms. Please read thru this tutorial first:
www.ydi.com/deployinfo/wp-decibels.php
Wh y Use An Amplifier?
Most WLAN cards and Access Points (APs) have
about +15 of dBm (32 mW) of TX power. A few claim
up to +20 dBm (100mW). While this is good for indoor
and short-range links of a hundred feet or so
depending on obstacles, long range (miles) requires
higher transmit power and/or high gain outdoor
antennas. However, when you put the antenna
outdoors to obtain the line-of-sight needed for long
range, the coax cable from the radio to the outdoor
antenna often introduces excessive attenuation to
both the transmit and receive signals.
This figure shows a typical installation of an amplified
single channel WIPOP (Wireless Internet Point of
Presence). For best performance, the amp must be
located at the antenna. This is to have minimum cable
loss from the antenna to the LNA (Low Noise
Amplifier) in the pole-mounted amp to minimize the
Page 2
system noise figure. Likewise, to reach the full transmit power that the system is certified for
requires the amp be placed right at the antenna. In effect, the amp takes the coax cable loss
between the antenna and the radio out of the equation. It also allows for maximum TX power
authorized and typically increases the radio receiver sensitivity by a few dB.
Amplifiers used for Time Division Duplex (TDD) radios such as FHSS and 802.11b DSSS radio
must be bi-directional. Normally, the amplifier is in the receive mode and is amplifying all of the
incoming signals. When the radio, AP or WLAN card transmits, it senses this RF energy and
switches very quickly (less then 600 nanoseconds) into the transmit power amplification mode.
When the transmitter goes off the air, the amp switches back to receive amplification mode.
Customers who use amps sometimes complain, "I don't want to use amps because they amplify
noise and interference on receive." This is true; it amplifies everything across the entire band.
That is what amplifiers do. However, the LNA does three very important things:
1. Boosts the received signal that the antenna pulls in before any appreciable loss
Forget about the pringles "cans". The are actually foil wraped around cardboard. The first couple of months of bad weather, they go soggy and cave in.
Far better is the (Metal) can an expensive bottle of whiskey comes in. Remember to keep the plastic lid to keep the spiders out.
Lots of policemen will have these in their homes as well..
"We has seen the enemy and they is us!"
Move along... there is no sig here.
Sorry folks, looks like I had bad info. http://www.sachitechcops.org/ Hi-Tech Crimes Task Force 4510 Orange Grove Avenue Sacramento, CA 95841 http://www.sachitechcops.org/news022205.htm Apologies to those who mailed out already.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
Good point. I was only casually trying to connect a BNC cable to the thing once, since it looked like it would fit. Alas, it did not :)
If I were serious, though, I would definitely open the thing up and solder on suitable connectors.
My other car is first.
In the Soviet Union we do not allow unauthorized radio receivers, particularly with decadent capitalist cantennas.
You Americans (its happening in the UK too) are so unfortunate- you think your living in a democracy but really your country is taking them all away. If it carries on like this you will end up living in a country with just as many ridiculous laws, rules and regulations as some of the countries in the middle east your president is trying to change. Soon it will be illegal to let your women on the streets -and your TV and Video games will be illegal unless they have be molly-coddled by the government. Good luck in this world because it going to get worse before it gets better and the terrorists are winning. Us brits are killing innocent people because of the fear they have created they are way more successful at changing politics than we can ever forcefully be.
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
One of the nicest things about Wifi is that it can be open/free. Lots of city people boast about how in their city you have all neighborhoods that have complete Wifi coverage, for every garden or bench you would like to sit on. Give and take. I keep my Wifi open Just for that. From logs I can see some regular neighbors using my net (MAC addresses). Probably people siting in the Garden near my apartment. And I do the same, all the time. ...
So please, as usual, Do not listen to Police, and any "stick up their ass" personnel and
Keep Wifi Free !!!!
Well they did a good job of getting /. exposure. Poor guys, they got nothing better to do then chasing me through sactown streets. LOL :)
p -14020155c.html
I would also like to post the original sacbee article:
http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/13176715
It is now illigal to posses eyes. Just today, a man was caught sitting in his car watching a big screen TV his nieghbor had mounted on the rooftop. After he was arrest for "illigal tv viewage and theft" it was also found he had a pair of glasses at his home to help facilitate this new kind of information theft. The local sheriff's department suggests that people put their televisions inside their home, but note that if they are stupid enough to leave them outside, they'd be more than happy to arrest people looking at it anyways.
A lot of the commodity WiFi APs with external antenna connections use RP-TNC connectors. Oh, TNC. Looks about right for the Netgear AP I'm using (I knew the connector looked familiar). You can get them from Maplins in the UK - they even sell a TNC to BNC adapter. In any case, if the parent is right, it's definitely not proprietary or hard to get hold of.
Return to sender.
Yep drop in a box with the addess on it for the recive and sender and no stamps. By normal postage law they pay the postage. Got to love post.
That is if you stick on the lid with the postage sticker.
I think the can with lid on would pass as a postable item. If I did I would most likely never see it again.
This is a really novel way of dumping the trash.
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for Pringles
and it really pissed me off
Or using a file-sharing program is illegal since it can be used to up/download copyrighted material !!!
The "Antenna Rule," which is 47CFR15.203, states clearly that it is illegal for a manufacturer of a device to even give the user the ability to change the antenna from the original factory unit. SO, while possession of a commercially purchased Cantenna may not be illegal, use of one certainly is under this part. This law only applies to intentional radiators that are required to be certified under Part 15 rules. Furthermore, 47CFR15.23 exempts home-built units for personal use that are not built from a purchased kit or design.
Units built by Amateur Radio operators are further not covered under Part 15 and are instead regulated by 47CFR97.15.
For your reference:
TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION
CHAPTER I--FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
PART 15_RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES--Table of Contents
Subpart C_Intentional Radiators
Sec. 15.203 Antenna requirement.
An intentional radiator shall be designed to ensure that no antenna
other than that furnished by the responsible party shall be used with
the device. The use of a permanently attached antenna or of an antenna
that uses a unique coupling to the intentional radiator shall be
considered sufficient to comply with the provisions of this section. The
manufacturer may design the unit so that a broken antenna can be
replaced by the user, but the use of a standard antenna jack or
electrical connector is prohibited. This requirement does not apply to
carrier current devices or to devices operated under the provisions of
Sec. 15.211, Sec. 15.213, Sec. 15.217, Sec. 15.219, or Sec. 15.221.
Further, this requirement does not apply to intentional radiators that
must be professionally installed, such as perimeter protection systems
and some field disturbance sensors, or to other intentional radiators
which, in accordance with Sec. 15.31(d), must be measured at the
installation site. However, the installer shall be responsible for
ensuring that the proper antenna is employed so that the limits in this
part are not exceeded.
[54 FR 17714, Apr. 25, 1989, as amended at 55 FR 28762, July 13, 1990]
I doubt they'd appreciate the exposure ./ really provides, eh? :)
I've been involved in my share of being chased by those guys...they don't take it very well when your hardware outclasses theirs. The Sac county CHP really gets upset when you outrun their slowpoke of an airborne officer.
When I first read the headline I scratched my head. Why would a dummy antenna be illegal?
Heathkit sold a dummy antenna (really a 1000w 50ohm resistor in a paint can filled with transformer oil) back in the 60's and 70's for hams to use for testing transmitters without causing interference, the device was called a 'cantenna'. Guess the word now has a new meaning.
BTW since hams also have use of the 2.4ghz band, this new cantenna would be LEGAL for sale and use by hams in this band.
this reminds me of a mayberry episode where barney makes up his own laws..
Where is this $14.95/mo. DSL TFA talks about?
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
IIRC, the Sacramento Bee has been a laughingstock for years. It was when I lived in Sacramento (I think that was 1997). This paper has continued to hurl it's spew despite being disproven and caught outright lying. Shouldn't there be a filter for assinine source?
Don't use the Troll mod just because you disagree with me.
All I know is my SID is KEEP_OUT_BITCH with MAC filtering and WEP.
I'm going to take a stab in the dark here and say that Lt. Bob Lozito was talking out his ass as opposed to citing an actual law.
I have been quoted in a couple of articles in local papers over the past few years. I have never seen an article that didn't include at least one misquote. Usually something minor, true, but a misquote none the less.
I don't know what the cause of this is - bad note taking? Reporters hearing what they expect, instead of what you say? Misunderstanding of the nuances of jargon and other terminology that sounds like everyday language? Cutting out a few seemingly useless words that inadvertently changes the meaning of a quote, or joining a couple of quotes together to get something that isn't quite what the speaker meant? Maybe I'm just misremembering what I said?
Regardless of the cause, it happens - you think you said X, and the reporter writes that you said Y. It's happened to me frequently enough that I'm quite willing to believe that it's not an uncommon occurance. If the officer in question has had any dealings with the media before, he's probably been in the same situation. Even if a transcript of the conversation does exist, who do you think made the transcript? The reporter who allegedy got the quote wrong in the first place! His comments sound a lot less like CYA to me, and a lot more like "I didn't say that, and if the reporter thinks that I said it, or that I implied it, then they misunderstood me".
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
Since when is an antenna illegal to posess? Seems a certain sheriff needs to refresh his legal studies.
Of course it's always good to have lots of other gear in the car. That's where an amateur radio and general radiotelephone license come into play.
I fondly remember a tax deduction a fellow ham used that was for a tropospheric propagation experiment. The IRS actully let it fly. In reality it was a Yaesu repeater, cans, and antenna.
Most bureaucratic government agencies have absolutely no clue about technology. This included law enforcement and the IRS.
However, if that sherrif actually gets an FCC field agent out there you may have some ehsplainin to do.
All radio transmissions are regulated. Certain modes of operation (frequency, modulation method, effective radiated power) do not require a license.
All 802.11 systems do not require a license, but are technically regulated. The FCC doesn't drive around with WAP sniffers looking for people running hot systems with kilowatt amplifiers, but if they learn of (i.e. receive complaints) an operator interfering with a licensed service, they may investigate and/or send a Notice Of Violation.
Just because it's easy to connect this stuff up with cool antennas doesn't mean you're not breaking FCC rules and regs. I have my WAP dialed down to its lowest power setting and it covers my condo just fine. The people two rows over aren't going to get in, they are not my concern.
So if your amateur radio neighbor is talking to China using 5 kilowatts and his signal is coming out your toaster, there's a violation. The radio operator is REQUIRED BY LAW to help fix the problem through making sure his rig isn't bleeding (bad grounds, loose connections) and by helping on your end (bad grounds, defective toaster, etc).
The normal rule of thumb is that you use the MINIMUM amount of power to maintain the contact. You use high power to establish the contact, but once you've made contact and started conversing, you're expected to dial down your output to a lower level.
For example, I'm calling CQ on 70cm with 50 watts and I make a contact. Their signal is strong, I find out that they are on the same highway about 10 miles ahead of me. I go to a 10 or even 5 watt mode.
(The benefits of a formal education: licensed ham for 15ish years, Cisco certified and formally classroom trained in wireless ).
When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
In a vaguely related historical note, the King of England once forbade the manufacture of shovels and other metal tools in the American colonies. This was to ensure continued dependence on the mother country to import those tools. Enforcement was relatively easy because there weren't all that many forges and blacksmiths in the colonies at that time. Enterprising colonial farmers countered by using simple tools to make their own shovels out of hardwood. Examples still exist.
I'm not retarted. Are you? If so, no disrespect intended.
Anyway, from your post, the guy did not clearly refute the "paraphrased statement". In fact he seemed to defend it by using a similar analogy to justify the presumed illegality of the item. I don't see anything anywhere where it was clear he didn't make that statement, or that he felt the paper should retract it. So what are you talking about?
If your description of the dialogue with him is accurate (which might be a substantive leap of faith), I might actually read between the lines and say the guy DID say the statement, but is now back-pedaling, because in your post he doesn't appear to come out completely against it, or else the way in which you paraphrased his response was ambiguious and unhelpful.
In any case, if there was an inaccuracy, the paper should issue a retraction and we shouldn't have to try to take the word of an anonymous poster in a tech forum. I have to assume until we see a retraction, I'd attribute the boneheaded statement to the boneheaded LEO.
You mean that Heathkit Cantenna I've been using as a dummy load (its intended purpose) is now illegal??!?!?!
I guess it's the PCBs from the oil inside!
There is no generally accepted definition for wardriving that makes it illegal. Wardriving is the act of logging wireless access points. Doing more than merely logging may be illegal, but that isn't wardriving.
Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)
Hi, on behalf of all of us - welcome to Slashdot. If you'll check the line right below the post's subject, you'll see an Author. An Author is the person responsible for originating the content of a "post".
Uhm, I didn't write the GP post. I was just belittling you for your inability to process information.
Good day.
LMAO! Apparently the people at http://www.cantenna.com/ don't know they're illegal since they're selling a nice souped up version with it's own tripod even!
Jay Dale "If you're not living on the edge then you're taking up too much space!"
Well, no doubt about that! Anyways, what part of sac you live?
Lived in North Highlands & Fair Oaks, Orangevale...Carmichael...Folsom...worked in various sectors, including Roseville and West Sac.
I've been in Asia for more than the last decade. Southern China at the moment. The Police here tend to leave me pretty much to myself. They don't see much need for the kinds of games the cops play in Sacto.