Judge: Sniffing Unencrypted Wi-Fi is Not Snooping Patent Troll Innovatio IP Used Snooped Data as Evidence There has been some legal debate over the last few years about whether sniffing unencrypted, non-password protected Wi-Fi can really be considered wiretapping -- considering the data is simply there for anyone with the know how to access. The question most recently came to the surface during the whole Google Street View Wi-Fi snooping controversy. A Judge in that case made the odd decision that Wi-Fi is somehow not radio communications, and therefore that Google had violated the Wiretap Act. Now in a different case involving patent troll Innovatio IP (who has been suing hotels and grocery stores for violating supposed Wi-Fi patents), a Judge has ruled the exact opposite. According to the Judge in the Innovatio IP case, Innovatio wanted to use packet-sniffed data from open unencrypted networks as evidence in the case, and the Judge has declared it's just fine. From the ruling: With a packet capture adapter and the software, along with a basic laptop computer, any member of the general public within range of an unencrypted Wi-Fi network can begin intercepting communications sent on that network. Many Wi-Fi networks provided by commercial establishments (such as coffee shops and restaurants) are unencrypted, and open to such interference from anyone with the right equipment. In light of the ease of “sniffing” Wi-Fi networks, the court concludes that the communications sent on an unencrypted Wi-Fi network are readily available to the general public. So it was illegal when Google "accidentally" (according to Google) collected unencrypted Wi-Fi data when mapping hotspots, but it's legal when a patent troll does it in order to gather information so it can sue hotels, grocery stores, and coffee shops. It seems more than a little obvious that this isn't the last we hear of this debate.
|
 | | Yea Wouldn't the hotels, grocery stores, and coffee shops simply show the equipment in question to Innovatio IP and have them take up any legal issues with the vendor???
I don't see apple suing end users of the Samsung phones and devices in their patent dispute. | |
|  | | | Re: Yea said by MertJen :I don't see apple suing end users of the Samsung phones and devices in their patent dispute.
Shhh! Don't give Apple ideas. Next thing you know they will be asking all carriers who subsidize their iPhones to ban the IMIE of all samsung devices from their network in an "Us or Them" mentality.
Back on topic - So would it be legal for me to look in to my neighbor's bedroom and watch her undress? After all, using the same logic as the Troll Judge, her window is open for all to see so there should be no expectation of privacy when I sit in the tree with my popcorn 
--
"My weakness is that I care too much" | |
| | |  vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | Re: Yea said by TheHelpful1:So would it be legal for me to look in to my neighbor's bedroom and watch her undress? If you're not sneaking on her property to get a better look, I don't think you'd have any legal obligation to look away. Of course the old adage about the types of people who get naked in front of open windows not being the types of people one would want to see naked applies. | |
| | | | | | Re: Yea said by vpoko:Of course the old adage about the types of people who get naked in front of open windows not being the types of people one would want to see naked applies. *shudder*...
--
"My weakness is that I care too much" | |
| | | | WHT
join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX
kudos:5 | said by vpoko:the old adage about the types of people who get naked in front of open windows
Reminds me of an old Johnny Carson joke...
Upset woman: "Officer, I can see my neighbors in their back yard naked!"
Policeman: "I can't see them."
Upset woman: "Well if you stand on this ladder, pull back the bushes, and get a pair of binoculars you can!" | |
|
| | | | Bad example as there is case law supporting not only your right to do so (watch neighbor) but also showing she can be arrested for displaying herself. | |
| | | | | | Re: Yea I do recall someone tried to get a law passed to make having an unencrypted wi-fi signal illegal. Although that might have been related to the MPRIAA trying to close a loophole of people saying it was a wi-fi squatter doing the downloading...
--
"My weakness is that I care too much" | |
|
| vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA
1 edit | Apple could sue end users unless Samsung provides indemnification (taking on the liability), which I doubt they do, but I have no idea. A similar thing happened when the SCO group threatened to sue Linux end users (though companies, not individuals) unless they bought a license from them.
The patent system needs a major, major overhaul. And if that can't be done, I'd be for abolishing them entirely even though that's less than ideal. | |
| | | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: Yea said by vpoko:Apple could sue end users unless Samsung provides indemnification (taking on the liability), which I doubt they do, but I have no idea. A similar thing happened when the SCO group threatened to sue Linux end users (though companies, not individuals) unless they bought a license from them.
The patent system needs a major, major overhaul. And if that can't be done, I'd be for abolishing them entirely even though that's less than ideal.
I do not think even the "House of Jobs" could afford that PR shit storm. The media would come down on them like the Hammer of Thor for harassing regular citizens like mafia gangsters shaking people down for protection money.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| cwcjr
join:2002-08-02
Huntsville, AL | So now is it legal to read other people's Email at HotSpots? Considering Knology still HAS NO secure Email and does not support SSL for Email Clients, I guess if you use a Knology Email account it is ok for everyone at the Starbucks to read your Email??? | |
| | Reviews:
 ·Windstream
 ·VOIPo
| Re: So now is it legal to read other people's Email at HotSpots? said by cwcjr:Considering Knology still HAS NO secure Email and does not support SSL for Email Clients, I guess if you use a Knology Email account it is ok for everyone at the Starbucks to read your Email???
E-Mail in general is not secure, use a different e-mail provider.
--
ASUS M4A79T Deluxe | AMD Phenom II x3 720 BE AM3 w/4 Cores @ 3.41Ghz(OC) | 4Gb DDR3 Memory @ 1600mhz | Sapphire ATI HD4870 1GB 800mhz/1000mhz(OC) | 2x500GB HDD's Raid 0 | Windows 7 Ultimate x64 Build 7600 (RTM) | Windstream DSL 12m (14.9m Sync)/766k | |
| | vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | Starbucks' WiFi connection is (or should be, I don't actually use WiFi there to know) encrypted. Once the connection hits their access point, it would no longer be encrypted since your email provider doesn't support SSL. But to get at that unencrypted data, someone would literally need to wiretap them, which would still be illegal. | |
| | |  SeleniaI love DebianPremium
join:2006-09-22
Lanesboro, MA
kudos:2 | Re: So now is it legal to read other people's Email at HotSpots? said by vpoko:Starbucks' WiFi connection is (or should be, I don't actually use WiFi there to know) encrypted. Once the connection hits their access point, it would no longer be encrypted since your email provider doesn't support SSL. But to get at that unencrypted data, someone would literally need to wiretap them, which would still be illegal.
You never been on Starbuck's wifi, have you? It's an open unencrypted AP. Use SSH or vpn if you want any decent level of encryption. The very definition of wifi being public is being an unencryptesld AP setup for others to access. Some hotels use encrypted wifi, but often the password stays the same and network setup is poor. Pretty well meaning any past or present guest or their buddies could join the network and sniff from there. Meaning SSH or vpn is even a wise idea in this case. I use vpn for anything I send over public wifi. I may browse without, occasionally. Both laptop and phone have strict firewalls via iptables, whenever on public wifi.
--
A fool thinks they know everything.
A wise person knows enough to know they couldn't possibly know everything.
There are zealots for every OS, like every religion. They do not represent the majority of users for either. | |
|
 maartenaElmoPremium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:1 | Remember the 900 Mhz analog cordless phones? You could buy a portable scanner in just about any radioshack, that could tune in to these phones and you could listen in and hear exactly what was said. A friend of mine had one, and his neighbor had such a phone. His bedroom faced their side of the house, and they always had the kitchen window open so you could hear the phone ring. He would always tune in to the frequency the phone was set to (which was somewhere right below or right above 900 Mhz) and heard many a good conversation. Especially since he found out that way the neighbors wife was cheating. 
I wonder whether that was illegal back in those days. I think at some time they outlawed the scanners that could go up to 900 Mhz, but he got his before they did that. He could also listen to police, fire, air traffic control, and others.
Nowadays the DECT phones on 2.4 Ghz and 5.4 Ghz are digitally encrypted, so its useless to even buy a scanner to try.... Plus, most police and fire are now digital as well with encryption. Air traffic control I think you can still listen in to.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" | |
| | Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
| Re: Remember the 900 Mhz analog cordless phones? said by maartena:I wonder whether that was illegal back in those days. Yes, it is illegal to intercept cordless telephone conversations, ditto for analog cellular conversations when AMPS was still around.
said by maartena:Nowadays the DECT phones on 2.4 Ghz and 5.4 Ghz are digitally encrypted, so its useless to even buy a scanner to try You can still buy analog cordless phones, though the 2.4Ghz ones are rather annoying if you have nearby wi-fi networks. Idle wi-fi networks are heard as 10 clicks per second (the normal wi-fi beacon rate), while busy ones are heard as static that can drown out your conversation if you're close enough to the AP and/or client.
I'd love to go retro and find one of the old school 1.7mhz cordless phones with the long telescoping antenna.  | |
| | | | Remember 49MHz analog phones?
Remember 800MHz analog cellular phones?
There's no way what Google or this troll company did was illegal until someone writes up a law making it illegal. | |
| | |  TamaraBQuestion The Current ParadigmPremium
join:2000-11-08
Da Bronx
 ·Optimum Online
 ·Clearwire Wireless
| Re: Remember the 900 Mhz analog cordless phones? said by nothing00:There's no way what Google or this troll company did was illegal until someone writes up a law making it illegal.
I agree. My neighbors argue a lot with their windows open, they transmit into my home. It's not illegal to listen, just like it is not illegal to look into their un-shadded windows. Radio traffic transmitted into my home is likewise free and legal to listen to (but illegal to use if I remember my Amateur Radio license test correctly). It may be illegal to break the encryption on encrypted traffic, but traffic transmitted in the clear, and into my property is fair game.
Bob
--
"Remember, remember the fifth of November.
Gunpowder, Treason and Plot.
I see no reason why Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot."
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people"
| |
|
|  aaronwtPremium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
 ·Verizon FiOS
| said by maartena:You could buy a portable scanner in just about any radioshack, that could tune in to these phones and you could listen in and hear exactly what was said. A friend of mine had one, and his neighbor had such a phone. His bedroom faced their side of the house, and they always had the kitchen window open so you could hear the phone ring. He would always tune in to the frequency the phone was set to (which was somewhere right below or right above 900 Mhz) and heard many a good conversation. Especially since he found out that way the neighbors wife was cheating.
I wonder whether that was illegal back in those days. I think at some time they outlawed the scanners that could go up to 900 Mhz, but he got his before they did that. He could also listen to police, fire, air traffic control, and others.
Nowadays the DECT phones on 2.4 Ghz and 5.4 Ghz are digitally encrypted, so its useless to even buy a scanner to try.... Plus, most police and fire are now digital as well with encryption. Air traffic control I think you can still listen in to.
Aren't the DECT phones 1.9GHz? | |
| | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: Remember the 900 Mhz analog cordless phones? Yes. Perhaps maartena  ] meant DECT, 2.4 GHz, and 5.4 GHz cordless phones tend to be digitally encrypted. | |
|
| | Communications Act of 1934 It has always been legal to listen into radio communications. But you can't repeat what you heard. There was an exception with the Communications Act of 1987 which stated that you could not listen to the 806 to 960 MHz. frequencies used in 1st gen. CEL communications. It never covered PCS or AWS bands. Back then I think it was to remove "wiretapping" by the police. Buy a current radio scanner, it won't let you listen to those frequencies. Sort of a moot point now with 3rd and 4th gen. digital communications.
If I can't repeat what I heard on the scanner, how can wi-fi snoopers? | |
| | AndrewG2
join:2006-01-20
Niagara Falls, ON | Re: Communications Act of 1934 Yah, I keep meaning to tell the police that it's quite legal to have a police speed radar scanner, as long as I don't slow down.
I'm not seeing how they are getting out of the "acting on information" violation of radio snooping.
I have heard that police used to occasionally have stings for that, like report a UFO down in a field over their frequencies and arrest everyone who showed up. | |
| | | | | Re: Communications Act of 1934 Here, the law is a scanner is only illegal to own if you use it for illegal activities. It is not against the law just to own it. Even had the police chief agree with me at a crime watch meeting last year about this. | |
|
| |
|
|
2 different federal court rulings - on to the appeals courts
