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.
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!
I'm sorry, but how can an antenna possibly be illegal? If that were true, then a long piece of wire would now be illegal too.
Hrm, no, we're talking 2.4GHz, I guess that would actually be a *short* piece of wire, my bad.
But regardless, it's like saying owning a screwdriver is illegal because it could be used to take the hinges off an insecure door. Dumb.
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
It's like saying having a copy of DeCSS is illegal because it could be used to take copies of movies and put them on the Internet for copyright infringement. Dumb.
As everyone knows, "Use a can of Pringles, go to jail".
All joking aside, the FCC has always mainted, "That the air waves are free". Recieving data is one thing, but transmitting back is quite another. And just because my front door is open, doesn't mean anyone has permission to enter. The good guys can do everything the bad guys can do. The difference between the good guys, and the bad guys is that the good guys choose not to do it.
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
to be realistic, no one is going to bash down your door looking for cantennas. just like no one is going to bash down your door for using bitorrent to download a linux dist. on the other hand, if you are found driving around at night in an urban area pointing a laptop-connected cantenna at places of business, well ...
2.4GHz is also an amateur band, and it is quite legal to use homebuilt antennas for amateur use. Possesion of a cantenna is *certainly* legal. Transmitting through it may or may not be depending on a number of factors.
You have violated Robot's Rules of Order and will be asked to leave the future immediately.
So if someone sets the network up with no encryption, MAC IDing, or the like then there is an open invitation to anyone who can meet the minimum requirements.
--
So who is hotter? Ali or Ali's sister?
(You as an experimenter could design and build such a device without any special permission. If a company were to do it and sell it commercially, I think they'd still need FCC certification.)
And of course, ham radio operators are licenced, and can use transmitters in the 2.4 gHz band, up to 1500 watts (or 1 or 100 watts if it's spread spectrum like WiFi), if they follow all the ham radio rules.
But anybody can listen to anything they want, and can make antennas for receiving of any sort. In fact, as long as you're only receiving and not transmitting, I don't see how wardriving could ever be illegal.
(I believe this even applies to listening to analog cell phone calls, though it is illegal to make or sell equipment that can listen to those bands. But I do believe it's still legal to listen to the calls, as long as you don't tell anybody else what you've heard. (The law is a bit more complicated than that, but I won't get into that right now.))
Oh really? I guess you've never heard of charges like `posession of drug paraphernalia' or anything like that? Similar things often apply to lock picks, crowbars and wire cutters as well. I agree that these laws are stupid (as there's already laws against having drugs and committing burglarly) but the are the law.But in this case, the police are nuts, and the FCC is likely to smack them down. Only the FCC gets to police the airwaves -- they've made this quite clear in the past.
However, for normal users, using normal power WiFi equipment, transmitting with one of these cantennas is illegal. Possession isn't, but transmitting is. The FCC regulations limit the amount of power you can transmit with, and it's based either on effective radiated power or volts/meter. Either way, any sort of directional antenna (like a cantenna) increases these figures without increasing the total power, and therefore exceed the FCC permitted power (unless they reduce their transmitter power by a similar amount, of course. Which they probably don't do.)
Exactly my thought: street cops have no business or legal standing to decide which antennas or transmitters are legal or not.
That is solely up to the FCC. This issue has been proven in court before. For example, vehicle operators in NY charged with assorted violations for having equipment in the vehicle capable of receiving police radio calls. Courts have repeatedly found that the local police have no jurisdiction to regulate a federally licensed use, i.e. ham radios that happen to be capable of receiving police radio. The cops don't like that, of course. They want to have jurisdiction over everything. I know of cases where aircraft have had to make emergency landings on roads and been issued traffic tickets for things like illegal parking, etc. The cops justify their own existance by how many tickets they write. (See how many tickets I wrote? Of COURSE we need more cops and more laws!)
In this case, the 2.4gHz ISM band is unregulated and you certainly CAN own and use any receive-only antenna and operate any approved transmit antenna. Hams can operate any 2.4gHz antenna they want and at higher power levels to boot.
Any dispute over someone's right to operate in that band is up to the FCC, who has their own invesigative and enforcement officers (a small outfit called the FBI, perhaps you've heard of them?), thank you very much local copper.
My main question is why they are even bringing up this issue. If the guy was accessing the wifi network without authorization, bust him for that. There's no need to go chasing after "illegal" antennas. Unless they haven't got any other solid evidence. Hmmm.
Sig for hire.
This alone deserves a standing ovation.
qntm.org
Nope. If I don't lock my door, it doesn't imply that I'm giving someone permission to walk through my house. Unless I tell you you can access my wireless network, you aren't authorized to use it.
...
You've just shown how little you know about wireless networks. By default, your wireless network is doing exactly that. Unless setup otherwise, a wireless network is broadcasting the fact that it is there and is open to all comers. It's like you standing by your open front door yelling out to the world "Hey, guys, come right on in, the water's fine!"
If you want only a certain subset of computers in this world to use it, then setup MAC address filtering - that's a bit like having a couple of hefty bouncers standing along side your door pushing people away. If you only want a certain subset of people to use it, then set up encryption - that's like having a lock on the door, and only people who have the key can enter. But in both of these cases you're still standing outside inviting anyone and everyone to come in.
However, if you don't want to yell out to the world to enter your house, the equivalent in wireless terms is to simply not broadcast your ESSID. It's not hard to do
This type of law enforcement is ignorant, stupid and just plain wrong. The guys weren't doing anything illegal, even if it might have been immoral. A far better solution would be to let the guys keep on using the unsecured, open networks and publicise the fact. Maybe that way people might learn a bit about how to set up a wireless network correctly.
IAANG.
Yes, you are correct that in most cases, your computer would be set for DHCP when you open up and look for a new wireless network. It sees a SSID, associates and asks "Can I get in (get an IP?) "
The AP that's BROADCASTING it's beacon (not that it HAS to!) says "Sure, have an IP... "
You get your IP, you're permitted in (as opposed to refused) and then you go about your merry way.
There are multiple instances along the way where you could have been refused entry.
As if people can't tell, I support your position of being given permission by being given an IP. There was a conversation there.... and nobody said no.
To move the door analogy into the mix, it would be like having a doorman standing by the open door. You ask the doorman "Can I have a room?" He says "Sure, take room 42, it's open." and you walk in and go up to the fourth floor. The doorman could have stopped you. He could have told someone you were there. He could have carded you. He could have asked what your business was. But no, he told you "Use room 42, it's not taken" and let you in. Sure, you perambulated in on your own, but he certainly made no move to stop you.
$.02. FWIW
-- There is no sig line, only Zuul.
And just because my front door is open, doesn't mean anyone has permission to enter.
It is NOT the same! First, a wireless router is broadcasting it's self and if unsecured implies an open INVITATION! Not to mention, that a computer REQUESTS an IP only to be GRANTED, implicitly, by nature of the router ISSUING an IP address. Posting a sign outside your house reading, 'Open House' (at least in America) is an invitation for passerbys to just walk inside. Doing so, and you can't cry about people coming into your home. The police will tell you to take down the sign.
I won't have had this much fun in months!
:)
:(
I can see a giant flashing neon sign above your head that says "VIRGIN"
Or "MARRIED"
Don't be an ass. Your door doesn't send out signals that scream "Please come in and use me" to every person that passes by either. This isn't like breaking and entering, and assuming no protections are enabled, it is perfectly legal and SHOULD be perfectly legal to access the network. It's like operating a web server on port 80, but not telling anybody. If I connect to your site, and it serves me a page, I am not breaking into your network. If you run an open access point, I connect, and it gives me an IP address, I am not breaking into anything and I went to no effort to get connected.
I think it goes too far when they feel it's OK to arrest Joe Public for walking by the front of my house while it's unlocked though. :-)
Actually, he's being arrested for being in possession of a hand with which he could, conceivable, open your unlocked door
sigs are hazardous to your health
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 !!!!
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
And even if the law agrees with you, the police, judge and jury may not. `Honest officer, this bong, er, water pipe is only for tobacco!'
The case has to be beyond a reasonable doubt. To make such a case, the residues would need to be tested. If those test come up negative for illegal substances, they do not have a case. There is a difference between "smoking paraphernalia" and "drug paraphernalia." Laws against simple posession are tenous at best. Even a soda can can potentially be used as "drug paraphernalia". Typically, "drug paraphernalia" charges are pressed only when drugs are found relatively close by, or if drug residues are suspected on the device. Burnt pot, or crack smells far different tha burnt tobacco. Besides, water pipes do make a cool collectables, since they can be so different in their design.
The amatuer radio service is not the primary user of the 2.4 GHz band. As such, any amatuer radio operator must take additional precautions that there is no interference with those who have primary allocation of the band. Unlicensed users are even further down the "chain of respect."
And being polite to the man with the badge does not always work...I got worked over by a cop at a traffic stop for no apparent reason. Fortunately my girlfriend was with me, and later it came out that he pulled me over because I honked my horn at his wife, who was illegally causing a "rolling roadblock" ( in GA blocking the highway by driving in the fast lane and NOT passing the vehicle to your right is illegal )...well I got a good lawyer...and got that fuckwad cop fired.
I have never met a cop that was not full of himself, acting like he was fucking king of that little section of the world and everyone around had to kiss his ass. In general...cops need to be taken down a couple of notches.
Like I said let a fuckwad cop tell me I have an illegal antenna. I'll open a can of worms on him that he will not believe. I will stand up for my rights, and I know exactly who to contact to bring maximum pressure to bear.
SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0
0 rows returned