Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge Rules Sniffing Open Wi-Fi Networks Is Not Wiretapping

Posted by Soulskill on from the makes-you-a-bit-of-a-jerk-though dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Ars reports on a decision from a district judge in Illinois, who ruled that sniffing traffic on an unencrypted Wi-Fi network is not wiretapping. In the ruling, the judge points out an exception in the Wiretap Act which allows people to 'intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public.' He concludes that 'the communications sent on an unencrypted Wi-Fi network are readily available to the general public.' Orin Kerr disagrees with the ruling, saying that the intent of the person setting up the network is important: 'No one suggests that unsecured wireless networks are set up with the goal that everyone on the network would be free to read the private communications of others.'"

39 of 308 comments (clear)

  1. I agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's wireless tapping... D'oh.

  2. Odd... by fyngyrz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...because listening to unencrypted cellphones is illegal.

    I think that the difference between your conversations and pizza ordering on an analog transmission and on a digital one WRT 4th amendment protection should be zero.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Odd... by bhcompy · · Score: 2

      Because you have an expectation of privacy

    2. Re:Odd... by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not sure where that is in the 4th amendment.

      Even so... I think most people *do* have an expectation of privacy when they're receiving and sending email, surfing the net, etc. We -- as technical types -- may be very cynical about just how naive that expectation is, and particularly so if you incorporate an awareness of all the government "finessing" of 4th amendment issues, but my feeling is that the average person would be quite startled if you walked up to them and told them you knew what they'd sent via email the previous evening.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    3. Re:Odd... by michael_cain · · Score: 2

      Cites, please? And is the statute (illegal implies it's either in statute or a regulatory rule with the force of law) specific to cell phones? Back in the day, when I paid some attention to this type of thing, the case law was pretty clear that if you transmitted unencrypted material you had no expectation of privacy, hence no wiretap order was needed.

    4. Re:Odd... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      With enough ignorance, you can have an expectation of anything in any situation at all. The intent of "expectation of privacy" is that it's to a reasonably informed person, not to someone who is wholly ignorant of the topic.

      I might have an expectation that I could step into an operating theatre and perform a successful heart transplant. I mean, how hard can it be? But that is based on my own ignorance, and has nothing to do with reality. The "expectation of privacy" clause should be interpreted in the context, "... by those who have some notion of reality", or it's completely meaningless, because ignorance knows no bounds.

    5. Re:Odd... by fyngyrz · · Score: 2

      Let's just review this little bit of law:

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

      ...email is a facet of today's "papers", as the telephone was a facet (which congress recognized with explicit telecommunications laws... which appear to me to be redundant, but that's just me.)

      The thing about our right of security is that it isn't about hardening. If I don't lock my door, that's not an invitation for you to come in and raid my refrigerator. If I write my papers in English, that's not an invitation for you to read them and walk off with my banking info or anything else. If a lady wears a dress, that's not an invitation for you to look up it. In all cases, the boundary can be trivially hardened: I can lock my door, I can write my papers in code, the lady can wear jeans. None of that has any bearing on the expectations of privacy, though -- the boundaries don't move.

      This bears on cellphones. The 800 mhz band (was) easily accessible to anyone with a scanner at one point. This was used as an attempt to say that the conversations on that band were not to be protected. basically the argument was there was no hardening. The door was open, in a sense. And the end result was... those conversations were protected by law. Because it isn't about hardening. The analogy is to the mail. It's unencrypted, and the difficulty of reading someone else's mail is basically zero. So "expectations", you would think, would not incorporate privacy. But again, that's just not how we look at things. We consider our details private and inviolate because of what they are, not because of the medium or any level of obfuscation.

      Nothing in the 4th amendment says "if you encrypt, you have this right -- if you don't, the right evaporates."

      ...and I really don't think case law should over-ride clear constitutional specifics.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    6. Re:Odd... by msauve · · Score: 2

      He's probably thinking of the "scanner law" (47 CFR Part 15.37(f)), which made it illegal to make scanners which could receive cell calls after some date (not that it matters much since analog cellular went away). Or maybe 18 USC 1029, which requires "intent to defraud."

      Neither of which directly make it illegal to intercept calls.

      For that, there's 18 USC 2511, which might make it illegal to even listen to the conversation a person next to you is having. ("intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;")

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    7. Re:Odd... by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The intent of "expectation of privacy" is that it's to a reasonably informed person, not to someone who is wholly ignorant of the topic.

      I don't think that follows. I don't know what happens to my letters after I give them to the post office; but I still expect they won't be read by the government without a warrant.

      When my mother in law picks up the phone, she doesn't know any of the details of how her voice goes down that wire, or is switched, or amplified, put on microwaves, etc... but she still doesn't think anyone from the government has any business at all listening without a warrant.

      Our expectations of privacy from government intrusion aren't set by specific technical processes; they are set by the 4th amendment.

      Furthermore, I'm convinced that is exactly how they should be set. It's more than a little far-reaching to say that the only valid expectations require a technical understanding of the process involved.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    8. Re:Odd... by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My letters are indeed in an envelope; so are my internet communications. Several levels of envelope, in fact. An email package addressed to the recipient on the one hand, and packets containing the data as well. In fact, it's a lot easier for the average person to open the physical envelope and read my mail as compared to intercepting my email.

      Again, you're confusing hardening of the boundary with the existence of the boundary. The government is forbidden to access our personal information without a warrant. There's no exception in the 4th amendment that says "unless it's easy."

      An open door to your house doesn't automatically turn into "you can come in and do whatever you want."

      The whole point of the 4th amendment is to set the boundary for the government. It's not about technical means, it's not about easy, it's not about expectations: It's about the government having to comply with a specific process in order to be able to look at your stuff.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    9. Re:Odd... by chill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I disagree with your characterization.

      Your internet communications are NOT in several layers of an envelope. They are like post cards, with several rows of addresses. There is no envelope. Everything is written on the outside. They are shouted to the world on open WiFi. Well...at least to the part of the world within radio reception.

      I understand what you're saying about the 4th Amendment, but I can easily imagine a gov't agent back in the 1700s following a couple of people and listening as they have a discussion in public.

      In all honesty, this is why I advocated WEP -- yes, WEP -- to people who couldn't use WPA. It was, from a legal perspective, a clean signal that my intent was the contents of the transmission were private.

      Think of it like an interior, locked door. One of those cheap, hollow doors with a lock you can twist open if you try. The point of the door isn't to keep you out, but to let you know "you aren't supposed to be here unless invited in".

      Damn well activate WEP and use the password "abcdabcd" or some such.

      This is why my SSID at home is "private_keep_out" and why "No Trespassing" signs are needed.

      I think this one falls squarely under the "plain view" doctrine.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    10. Re:Odd... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Informative

      "I understand what you're saying about the 4th Amendment, but I can easily imagine a gov't agent back in the 1700s following a couple of people and listening as they have a discussion in public."

      You still aren't getting it. When you have a conversation in public there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Anyone can hear you. When you have a telephone conversation, however, it takes special effort and equipment to listen to your conversation. So it is rather reasonable to expect your conversation to be private. Whether it is a cell phone or land line. (All cell phone traffic is "encapsulated" in packets even when it is not encrypted).

      And so is WiFi traffic. While your WiFi might be open, and so it is easy for anyone to detect it or use it (anybody can see you using your cell phone, or borrow it if you let them), actually determining the contents of the communication (i.e., both sides of the "conversation") is another matter. Even your typical sniffer won't do that. It might record those contents but making sense of it takes further work.

      So, what it boils down to is that telephone calls and internet traffic are not like public conversations. It takes special effort and tools to intercept those communications. That leads straight to a "reasonable expectation of privacy".

      Further, there are already Federal laws against law enforcement using any electronic means to determine any activity in your household that is not readily visible from the outside. Internet use would certainly fall into that category of activity. So this judge's ruling would likely lead to a perverse (but not unheard of) situation in which a regular citizen could intercept communications legally but law enforcement could not.

    11. Re:Odd... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      "That don't need a warrant. I've had a few of my letters & packages opened and resealed. Once the item leaves your hand it's no longer protected from government spying."

      Yes, they do. Whether they actually get one is another matter (we know the government has broken the law at times), but legally they need either a warrant or probable cause.

    12. Re:Odd... by ATMAvatar · · Score: 2

      At a high level, my cell phone transmits calls no differently than my computer transmits emails - in both cases, the contents of the communication is sent unencrypted through multiple routers I do not control. Anyone with the equipment and the know-how could intercept both. However, somehow one form is protected and the other is not.

      I always found it odd that this "expectation of privacy" that allows the government to snoop on certain communications is defined by whether or not the government is already known for widespread snooping of the medium. We don't expect email has any privacy because it has been known for some time that there is widespread government interception of email, not because they are post cards. Somehow, cell phones got grandfathered in under the umbrella of land-line phones.

      The post card comparison is disingenuous because it ignores the fact that you are sending it through a government network (the post office) in addition to the contents being visible to handlers. You know beforehand that the government is handling your mail and may see the message. If the government was single-handedly hosting the telephone network and the internet as a whole, then the comparison would be valid.

      As the government is not hosting even a single cell tower, I would not normally expect them to intercept my calls. As it does not host any of the major internet links, I would not normally expect them to intercept my email. As they are not hosting wireless hot spots, I would not normally expect them to be listening to my wireless communication, either. It takes deliberate effort to intercept communication in any of these media, so it is reasonable for the average person to assume that such interception does not normally occur. That it *does* occur on a regular basis on every one of the above media should be a subject of far more outrage than we see.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    13. Re:Odd... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To maybe be clearer:

      Access to my open wifi is intended to be public. My own communications that go through it are not intended to be public.

      I think the judge erred in not distinguishing between the signals themselves and the communication content of those signals.

    14. Re:Odd... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      "*Lending* someone a cell phone is not that same thing, since you don't have to lend anyone wifi equipment."

      You are lending them the use of it. You are *allowing* them to use it. You are splitting hairs here that are so fine they may not exist.

      "Wifi is readily available outside the home. I can stand in the public street and pick up most signals."

      No, you are still missing the point. The signal is readily available... but the contents of those signals are not readily available. It takes special knowledge and equipment to intercept those signals. Sure, those things are: an adapter that can be put into monitor mode, and some sniffing software. Easy to get if you know what you're doing. But the whole point here is that you have to know what you are doing. As simple as it may be to YOU, this is "technical" knowledge that the average citizen does not possess. It is the "average citizen" standard we must go by, not YOUR technical knowledge.

      "Sitting in that public space and LISTENING to it is, as far as I'm concerned (and I'm a paranoid libertarian), considered in plain view."

      You can listen to it all you like, and it would be unintelligible gibberish. You need additional knowledge and at least the right software to actually intercept the content. That is the whole point.

      It actually takes far less knowledge and far simpler equipment to tap a land-line telephone than to intercept wifi content. So by your logic, it should be legal to tap telephones. After all, the wires are right there in public. You can see them on the poles and running to the houses, with your own eyes. No electronics needed.

      The point that you have not seemed to get is that it takes deliberate effort to perform such an interception. Someone just walking past with a standard wifi adapter and standard software (probably 98% of the community) would NOT be able to do that. They would have to have particular knowledge and equipment, and make a deliberate effort to do it. Just as someone walking past your house would need to make a deliberate effort to tap your telephone.

      "A cop can stand in the street and if you have a huge window and no curtains, if he can see a bag of pot on the table in plain view he can grab it."

      Not in this state he couldn't. That is... he could, if he were just walking by and glancing in. But if he were standing there, staring through my window, watching what I do, that is illegal "surveillance" in this state and he (or anyone else who did it) can be prosecuted for it.

      Again, the difference is whether it is something that you might just casually pick up as you stroll by, versus a deliberate effort you put forth in order to determine my activities. The latter is generally accepted by society to be wrongful and harmful, unless it is done by law enforcement under authority of a judicial warrant.

    15. Re:Odd... by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      When my mother in law picks up the phone, she doesn't know any of the details of how her voice goes down that wire, or is switched, or amplified, put on microwaves, etc... but she still doesn't think anyone from the government has any business at all listening without a warrant.

      The difference is that your grandmother did not net up the wireless hub and she did not select that phone line from a number of available ones (even though it was not encrypted). A standard phone line is not"readily accessible to the general public". It requires physically tapping into the lines.

      Intent is meaningless in privacy issues. I could stand at a corner shouting down the street with the intent of my friend hearing. The fact that everyone else can hear it too is irrelevant to my intent. If one's intent is to communicate privately over wireless then encrypt it.

      In the end, if one chooses an unencrypted wireless connection than one is broadcasting to everyone.

    16. Re:Odd... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      "If you want privacy, you must at least close your door or even your curtains."

      That's a very good analogy. Because in order to intercept someone's wifi communications, you need the technical knowledge and equipment, and to make a deliberate effort to do so. And you call that "public".

      By the very same logic, I can say that I could use my special knowledge and some lockpicks, and pick your door lock in only a couple of minutes.

      Should I then consider your living room to be "public"?

    17. Re:Odd... by chill · · Score: 2

      The lock is a method of keeping people out, like ENCRYPTION. A plain signal radio broadcast is not. The signal is in public space. This is why satellite providers ENCRYPT their signals.

      LISTENING to a radio signal ON PUBLIC PROPERTY is not the same as ENTERING a private house.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    18. Re:Odd... by tnyquist83 · · Score: 2

      By your logic, if someone has a public conversation in Chinese, it should be illegal to listen to them since proficiency in the Chinese language is "special knowledge".

      If you chose to send your personal information via Wi-Fi, cell phone, or other radio signal, you are sending that information as far as the signal will carry it to whomever is in range. If you were having a loud argument in your apartment, would you expect your neighbors to not listen in? If you send your personal information through someone else's private domain, or through the public domain (whether it is via sound wave, electromagnetic wave, or whatever), you have no reasonable expectation that people within range to receive that information aren't listening to it.

      Hardline telephones are completely different as the lines themselves belong to the telecoms. If someone taps a phone line, they are tapping the phone company's private property. If you decide to broadcast to everyone in range, that's your problem.

    19. Re:Odd... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 2

      It takes "special methods" to open most doors, you have to learn how to turn the knob or push the release lever. Just because internet communications are more complex, doesn't mean they are any less open than an unlocked door. For that matter, reading is a whole special skill required to understand written communication, takes years of learning - probably longer than it would take your average college grad to Google up the tools required to listen in on an open WiFi and start scraping out private communications.

      "Breaking" occurs when you get out the lock picks, or start trying every one of a thousand possible key shapes that might open a lock. Just using ordinary, published standards is not the same thing as encryption, or locking a door, or sealing an envelope.

    20. Re:Odd... by chill · · Score: 2

      No, it is not nor was it EVER illegal to receive an in-the-clear satellite broadcast if you didn't subscribe. This is why "pay" channels were scrambled early on (hello HBO). This is why people used the big dishes (C-band). All the main feeds were unencrypted and available for the taking. The broadcasters had no legal recourse for in-the-clear broadcasts.

      The airwaves belong to the public. While they are managed by the gov't to prevent chaos, if it is broadcast in the open it is fully legal to receive.

      This is my point. It is NOT illegal to receive a signal in the public airwaves from public (or your own private) space. You may fully demodulate said signal, but it is illegal to circumvent ENCRYPTION.

      You could make a case for what you're saying *if* the transmission required a patented codec to decode, and the hardware needed to decode it was under controlled distribution.

      Wifi isn't such an animal. The 802.11 signal is a standard and you are covered by all patents when you purchase the receiving hardware -- a NIC, base station or your phone.

      This is why a SECOND LAYER -- ENCRYPTION -- is needed for protection. Otherwise it is the legal equivalent of shouting in a public space. If I can hear you from your sidewalk, you have no expectation of privacy.

      No, needing a technological device like a radio receiver doesn't matter. Not when it is a publicly available like a wifi receiver is.

      If you set up a micro-FM transmitter in your home that reaches just outside to the street, I am fully within my legal rights to stand in the street with a portable radio and listen to what you transmit. You can scream that it wasn't intended for me all the time but that doesn't matter. THE AIRWAVES BELONG TO THE PUBLIC.

      By the way, encryption in certain frequency bands such as Ham Radio is illegal. It *MUST* be in the clear, and ANYONE can purchase a receiver and listen legally.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    21. Re:Odd... by Deadstick · · Score: 2

      The problem is that the law gave the illusion of privacy for cell phone calls rather than actual privacy - scanners that can listen to analog cellular were easy to come by even after the ban and there were a number of "private" cell phone conversations made public in the media even after the ban. Some scanners required a simple hardware mod

      In fact, some popular scanners from Radio Shack and Bearcat had the cellphone band locked out by grounding one pin on a chip. The grounding was provided by a jumper wire on the circuit board -- and it was installed extra long, protruding about an eighth-inch above the board so it was easily found and snipped...

    22. Re:Odd... by kenorland · · Score: 2

      Just because you think it takes "special equipment" doesn't make it so. Just about any computer can listen in on WiFi traffic easily, with no special equipment and just a couple of mouse clicks. Likewise, traditionally, analog cell phone conversations didn't require special equipment to listen to, many receivers could receive it. To prevent reception of analog cell phone conversations, many manufacturers had to add extra hardware to their radios.

      Anything you broadcast on the public airwaves should be there for anybody to listen to and record, without restriction. If you don't want it to be listened to, use a cable and encryption. The world does not owe you privacy on the public airwaves, and even less so on unlicensed bands.

  3. Can't disagree by bhcompy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Open networks are just that. If your intent is to keep your transmissions private, you should be using something better than an open network. Intent may be applicable in a pre-trial hearing on the validity of not having a warrant, but requiring insight in to the intent of an open wifi is highly unlikely at the warrant stage without some pretty strong inside information already.

  4. scanners by theNetImp · · Score: 2

    If it's wiretapping than anyone in the last 20 years who owned a scanner should be fined for listening in on their neighbors telephone calls because their wireless household phones weren't encrypted.

  5. One of those rare occasions I agree with the gov by MikeRT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    IFF the extent of it is to scan the wireless broadcast, not join the network and access the internet, their private network, files, printer(s), etc. then I think this is an amazing case of common sense. Joining their network and using the internet or anything similar to that is akin to going into someone's house and sleeping on their couch while they're not home. Sure, "you may not be harming them" and they're "not using it right now" but that's not relevant to whether you can jump in and use their resources.

    Wireless broadcasts without encryption, however, are akin to a neighbor who yells loud enough for everyone to know their family's business. I don't see any difference between my neighbors having a heated conversation that I can hear inside my house and them sending unencrypted packets into my house. The criminality should only come in if and when they are used maliciously.

  6. your intent doesn't matter by kenorland · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It isn't the function of government to protect your "intent" against your own stupidity.

    If you want to keep your communications private, encrypt them.

    1. Re:your intent doesn't matter by Catiline · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It isn't the function of government to protect your "intent" against your own stupidity.

      Bingo! Furthermore, the last few wireless routers I've setup automatically prompted to turn on some form of encryption during that process. If you choose not to use this feature, it should be viewed as a deliberate (not ignorant) choice in the nature of your setup.

      --
      Do you like Japanese imports?
  7. stupid question but who is orin kerr? :) by youn · · Score: 2

    and why does his/her opinion matter so much in the case? (it maybe does, just seeing the name in the summary made me ask the question)

    More on point... if you are going to broadcast open packets for everyone to peruse freely... even outside your house, it is like doing something illegal in public and complaining about being caught for it and any witness is illegally watching over your privacy. If it was a secured network, then yes, it would be illegal snooping

    --
    Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
    1. Re:stupid question but who is orin kerr? :) by Entrope · · Score: 3, Informative

      Orin Kerr a law professor who has been published a fair number of time on Fourth Amendment computer-related issues. I think he's even had one or two blog posts from the Volokh Conspiracy cited in judicial opinions.

      One of the notable ways he got that blog post wrong, though, is that the statute in question provides a specific definition of "an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public" -- and unencrypted WiFi networks are covered by that definition. One of the comments on the post provides a citation and the definition.

  8. Normally by DaMattster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not on the side of law enforcement but in this case the ruling is fair game. If you use an open, unencrypted wireless access point you do not have a heightened expectation of privacy.

  9. Intent doesn't matter by Hentes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are many open wifi access points set up with the intent of giving internet access to anyone who happens to be there. How am I supposed to know that the owner of an open network wants to share it or not?

  10. Re:One of those rare occasions I agree with the go by Kjella · · Score: 2

    Wireless broadcasts without encryption, however, are akin to a neighbor who yells loud enough for everyone to know their family's business. I don't see any difference between my neighbors having a heated conversation that I can hear inside my house and them sending unencrypted packets into my house.

    The difference is that each packet is keyed to the recipients address and to listen in you need a device explicitly made to intercept packets going to others. If you have tenants and offer them internet service and set up a dump of their traffic, are you doing a wiretap? Hell yes. If you are on a cable loop and modify the cable modem to dump all packets for everyone on the loop, are you doing a wiretap? Hell yes. Note that in an earlier case they found the exception didn't apply to cordless phones - the intent was obviously that it was designed to only be received on the handset it belonged to. Wifi packets are the same, you only intend to communicate with that one card and not the world. That it's unencrypted is mostly irrelevant, if you go through a door marked "staff only" you're trespassing even though it was unlocked. The intented user was clear.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  11. Re:One of those rare occasions I agree with the go by cantsleep · · Score: 2

    Interesting analogy of a 'yelling' neighbor. Unfortunately it's not helping your point.

    -You can't stop but to hear a yelling neighbor.

    -Is your personal network interrupted by theirs?

    -Do they have a reasonable expectation of privacy?

    Sending an "unencrypted" love letter to a girlfriend by postal mail offers me adequate expectation of privacy... and anyone can just simply intercept that letter many ways.

    You are trying to make a point that because you CAN do something from the comfort of your own home/car/bike you SHOULD be able to do it.

    The general public doesn't "readily have access" to interpret unencrypted wifi networks any _more_ than we have access intercepting personal wireless phones (which is also easy).

    We dont have any _less_ access to DVD decryption software (which is illegal, I'm told) than we do to wifi monitoring tools.

  12. Kerr is wrong by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 2

    Orin Kerr is wrong. Intent matters, but only up to the point where it's reasonable. If you decide to discuss a sensitive private matter with your SO by yelling at each other at the top of your lungs in a crowded lobby, you can't possibly reasonably expect that conversation not to be overheard by everyone in the lobby. The same with unsecured WiFi: you're broadcasting your traffic in the clear to anyone who has a receiver and you know this. It's up to you, if you intend a communication to be private, to take at least some reasonable steps to make it private. Choosing a method that's so blatantly exposing the communication to the public is decidedly not such a reasonable step. If you don't like it, sorry but the rest of us didn't agree to plug our ears just because you find it inconvenient to go somewhere private to have a private conversation.

  13. Re:One of those rare occasions I agree with the go by mysteryvortex · · Score: 2

    Joining their network and using the internet or anything similar to that is akin to going into someone's house and sleeping on their couch while they're not home.

    The problem with your analogy is that they are transmitting beacons frames without the privacy bit set. This frame basically says: "Hi I am a WiFi network, here is my name and all the other info you need to connect to me if you want to!" If you set the privacy bit it basically says: "Hi I am a WiFi network, here is my name and all the other info you need to connect to me if you are authorized!"

    In the case of your analogy, the beacon frame sans privacy bit is the eqivalent of posting a sign that says: "Feel free to sleep on my couch if you want to!"

    Whether or not the default mode should be open or private is another debate, and I understand that most new consumer wifi equipment has been addressing this from the should private point of view for quite a while. (see WPS)

  14. Re:Not reasonable by silas_moeckel · · Score: 2

    How about a common converse issue person A has a smartphone setup to connect to his linksys wireless network he walks down the street and the phone connects to his neighbors linksys network. Was he wiretapping or ortherwise hacking there network? Common sense tells me no they did nothing to keep there signal contained within there property or to keep people out of there network. As a network eng I know that basic troubleshooting involved sniffing traffic. From the case they were not spoofing the gateway IP or otherwise gaming the network, just listening to what they could see. This is no different than you shouting next to me and then complaining that I overheard.

    --
    No sir I dont like it.
  15. a radio broadcast by pbjones · · Score: 3, Insightful

    doesn't matter who is listening, in an age where encryption is standard, if you don't use encryption, or if you don't limit your transmission radius, then you have not indicated that you which your wi-fi to be private. A transmission via radio is open to 'listening' under laws in many countries, it is what you do with the material that is usually restricted.

    --
    There was an unknown error in the submission.