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.
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.
...end up in the can!
I liked the Cantenna band in Star Wars.
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 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.
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
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?
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
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).
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
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.
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.
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?
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
I agree. The spying issues are only relevant if your not already paranoid. You should already be using ssh and other encryption for anything useful for identity theft etc. (what do you trust your Internet provider for some reason?). These war driving spammers are the only real issue (how many are there anyway?). This seems like allot of work for a spammer or kiddie-pornographer to go through when they can so easily hijack several thousand windoze boxen with ad-aware and spam through those instead. Or more likely pay someone in another country to do it for them so their not traceable as the source.
I like the idea of open AP's all over town, call me a communist I guess. I'm not letting some stupid alarmist government who arrests innocent Internet connection owners from stopping me. It's kind of like arresting the post-office for accidentally shipping a bomb someone else put in the mail.
by the way, sense when is it illegal to distribute e bomb-making articles anyway?
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.
That's true for anything mass produced, but there is an exception for homemade devices:
Suddenly makes me wish I'd set up that "legitimate use" cantenna link to my employer a couple of years ago. I figure if I can see our base stations for half a mile without a cantenna, I could probably see them from my house at five or six miles.... :-)
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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
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 !!!!
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.
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]
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.
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