Now Cantennas Are Illegal Too? Why Don't They Just Outlaw WiFi?

from the says-who-exactly? dept

Mon, Jul 25th 2005 1:09am — Mike Masnick

Is it really so much to ask to have people who are making and enforcing laws concerning technology actually understand the technology they're dealing with? Following the series of recent arrests of people for using open WiFi networks, the definition of illegal equipment is being stretched. In the UK arrest, the guy was arrested for "possessing equipment for fraudulent use of a communications service," which all of us who have WiFi in our laptops probably are guilty of. At least that's just in the UK. Over here in the US it's apparently still legal to have WiFi equipment -- but if you dare try to boost your signal with an antenna, watch out. According to the head of the Sacramento Valley Hi-Tech Crimes Task Force, the popular "cantenna" device is completely illegal. For those who don't know, someone a while back worked out that you could boost the range of your WiFi router with a Pringle's can. It requires a bit of work, so a small operation sprung up to sell Cantennas. They're quite popular with people who want to spread WiFi around a house where the basic router won't reach certain parts of it. Hell, even CompUSA sells them! But, according to this "high tech" police officer: "They're unsophisticated but reliable, and it's illegal to possess them." The article includes a story about how the police arrested a high school student for breaking into his school's network to change his grades and they (gasp!) found a cantenna in his room! Again, the crime he committed has nothing to do with having an antenna booster, but that doesn't stop the reporter and the cop from talking about the evils of connecting to WiFi networks.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

41 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2005 @ 4:06am

No Subject Given
They probably are illegal under Part 15 FCC regulations, but I find it highly unlikely that that there is a California law regarding them. Seems to me just another blowhard cop trying to cause a panic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bob Dole, 25 Jul 2005 @ 8:30am
  
  Re: No Subject Given
  Local police have no jurisdiction to enforce Part 15 FCC rules. (Assuming they even know what that means)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Robert, 25 Jul 2005 @ 7:32pm
  
  Re: No Subject Given
  Only in violation of the FCC regulation if you do not hold a technician class or higher amateur radio license when you use it (I don't think there's a lawa against owning an antenna). If you hold a license, you are permitted to build and operate equipment near that band, and at much higher transmitted power levels than FCC maximum for part 15 devices.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jude, 9 Mar 2007 @ 1:11pm
    
    Re: Re: No Subject Given
    I am 16 and own several wifi antennae. I have a HAM liscense. Getting a HAM liscense has never been easier! My advice is if you like wifi, get a HAM liscense. Get a book from ARRL at: http://www.arrl.org/catalog/lm/ . For practice tests go here: http://www.qrz.com/testing.html . After you continue scoring consistantly passing grades. Go take the HAM test and and have your liscence on the day of passing the test. Really not that much work or effort envolved!!!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anon, 4 Aug 2015 @ 10:11am
    
    Re: Re: No Subject Given
    Perhaps, but I have read that the portion of the wifi spectrum open to amateur radio has restriction on what you can transmit -- with encryption being banned, effectively (perhaps?) disallowing transmission of any HTTPS traffic? (not at all sure, really0
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- t('-'t), 31 Aug 2005 @ 7:00pm
  
  Re: No Subject Given
  ok this has got to be the most retarted thing i have EVER heard yes its illagle to crack wep encrptions and change your grades but to go into a PUBLIC acses poiont is COMPLEATLEY leagil if its not encrypted then thiers no way in hell thay can press any charge aginst you and comeout on top. its not true your going to tell me that because a antena is home made its illagle antenas have benn around seince wifi and now justbecause some black hat fux decided to change his grades and a few other smartas crackers broke the law so what. thats a compleatly diffrent thing. this is so retarted i dont giva shit im not spending 400$ on something i can make in my house.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2006 @ 8:08am
    
    Re: Re: No Subject Given
    Learn how to spell.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rick, 10 Jul 2017 @ 11:57pm
    
    Re: Re: No Subject Given
    It's not the accessing the access point itself but hacking/cracking into parts of the school network system that is most certainly password protected and all. This means, there was certainly hacking into either a faculty or administrator or administrative staff member's account.
    
    You or any hacker can be liable for hacking and it doesn't matter if you done it over an unencrypted network. Remember the days of hacking networks over public telephone systems or even over radio waves like packet radio, satellite communication, etc. Remember, that was the beginning of internet communications. Back in those days, several campus LANs and like local networks in various parts of the U.S. and eventually throughout the world would locally be connected together on 10 Mbps and like LANs but each LAN would be connected to each other on maybe a ~1.6 MHz wide channel by radio easily capable of communicating a 1.544 Mbps. Basically, T-1 ethernet over radio.
    
    When you had only a few hundred devices connected, it was easy to do this with only about 10 channels. Eventually, all this expanded and distinct networks were being connected together by high speed communication trunk lines. A few of them only existed and only were for key top tier connection points.
    
    Now we have a kid, it isn't the kid connecting into the non-password encrypted Wifi. It was the kid accessing parts of the network and tampering with his school grades records.... basically a digital version of sneaking into the school and having his grades changed. He got in trouble for altering his grades and violating numerous student conduct violations and possible hacking crimes because at some point, this kids records would have had to go through an administrative staff members account login and password to access those records. So basically, infiltrating into faculty or staff 'user accounts' to get authorization. Alternatively, the person would have had to have network administrator account access. The person couldn't otherwise have got through without have user login and password of somewhat who had authorization privileges. That is what he or she got in trouble for.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
z0idberg, 25 Jul 2005 @ 8:19am

no terrorists?
the only amazing thing about this article is that there was no mention of how terrorists could use cantennas to communicate with each other so they must be outlawed.
or perhaps how they could be used to view *GASP* pornography!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2005 @ 4:37pm
  
  Re: no terrorists?
  don't you mean *GASP* child pornography!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zoter, 25 Jul 2005 @ 9:52am

Part 15
Yup - they are, technicly, illegal.

Wi-Fi gear operates under Part 15 of the FCC rules. Those rules state you can't modify or use any antenna that isn't 'accepted'. Acceptance is a procedure the manufactures jump through. So adding an after market or home brewed antenna is a violation of part 15.

So is using any kind of external ammplifier.

There's a lot more to Part 15 - but those are the biggies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Hero, 25 Jul 2005 @ 10:25am
  
  Re: Part 15
  So is using any kind of external ammplifier.
  Unless it's approved for the use.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Atmos42, 25 Jul 2005 @ 10:56am
  
  Re: Part 15
  According to Wireless Garden's website http://www.cantenna.com/, maker of the Cantenna:
  
  Is it legal to use your Cantenna?
  
  Yes, our Cantennas and Pigtails have been tested and comply with part 15 of the FCC rules. Make sure other wireless devices that you use also comply. Compliance with FCC regulations is your responsibility. Check with your Internet Service Providers to find out if they permit sharing of their Internet connections.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Zotter, 25 Jul 2005 @ 11:14am
    
    Re: Part 15
    Uh, in-spite of what the Cantenna sellers say on their web site - take a look at what the FCC says on the subject.
    
    http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet63/oet63rev.pdf
    
    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, what it sounds like the cantenna sellers may be saying is their device, being by itself - well, basicly useless, is compliant with part 15. They could just as easily say it's compliant with almost any rule - cuz it does nothing. It also absolves them of liability if a user gets 'caught'.
    
    Remember - you can't certify an antenna or a pig tail. You certify an end user transmitter - complete with feedline and antenna.
    
    But then, maybe the sellers are using the 'blanket' standard of what a Wi-fi transmitter is and ensure their gear will stay within compliance with any and every Wi-fi transmitter available.
    
    And then, there's the actual 'risk of getting caught', wich is so low as to hardly be worth mentioning.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- stix, 25 Jul 2005 @ 1:36pm
  
  Re: Part 15
  Uh, adding a modified antenna effectively makes it an "experimental/homebrew/one-off system" something that part 15 specificly alows. it does however transfer the responsibility for compliance to the user and depending on the antenna it may or not be compliant.
  either way, while use may be prohibited possesion never is, so this cop is obviously talking with the wrong end of his anatomy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lanzaa, 25 Jul 2005 @ 8:13pm
  
  Re: Part 15
  [Code of Federal Regulations]
  [Title 47, Volume 1]
  [Revised as of October 1, 2004]
  From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
  [CITE: 47CFR15.23]
  
  [Page 758]
  
  TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION
  
  CHAPTER I--FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
  
  PART 15_RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES--Table of Contents
  
  Subpart A_General
  
  Sec. 15.23 Home-built devices.
  
  (a) Equipment authorization is not required for devices that are not
  marketed, are not constructed from a kit, and are built in quantities of
  five or less for personal use.
  (b) It is recognized that the individual builder of home-built
  equipment may not possess the means to perform the measurements for
  determining compliance with the regulations. In this case, the builder
  is expected to employ good engineering practices to meet the specified
  technical standards to the greatest extent practicable. The provisions
  of Sec. 15.5 apply to this equipment.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Dragon, 26 Jul 2005 @ 6:32pm
  
  Re: Part 15
  I remember the C.B. laws...
  Those didnt go over to well either...
  In the 70's everyone had one and hardly anyone had a permit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill Moore, 25 Jul 2005 @ 10:25am

Cantenna Possession a Crime
I wonder if there is actually an ordnance on the books outlawing "cantennas" or if this officer was just speaking from a hidden orifice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Hero, 25 Jul 2005 @ 10:27am

Why Don't They Just Outlaw WiFi?
Don't say that too loudly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NC, 25 Jul 2005 @ 12:40pm

Cantenna is not illegal.
I haven't read any of the other comments on this article, but all anyone needs to do to determine the legality of the cantenna is read the FCC Part 15 rules on operation in license-exempt spectrum. Local law enforcement has no right to determine someone's guilt based on the posession of an antenna. If posessing a cantenna is illegal, then any other antenna permitted by FCC standards would be illegal too. The only way a cantenna would be illegal is if someone was using it to interfere with someone else's licensed network. As we all know, wi-fi operates in unlicensed spectrum. It is the responsibility of the owner of the network to properly secure it and understand that others can interfere with it and receive their signal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2005 @ 8:31pm

Recomment WEP?
I like the fact that they recomend WEP for security. That will hold up for what 10min if someone really wants to get in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2005 @ 6:03am
  
  Re: Recomment WEP?
  it'll not keep then out of the network, but it WILL stop them sniffing what you're sending.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - cartossin, 1 Jan 2007 @ 2:48am
    
    Re: Re: Recomment WEP?
    First of all, if they havent discovered your key through active or passive sniffing, it WILL keep them out of your network. However if they HAVE found your key, not only can they use your connection, but they CAN sniff what you are sending.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
matt, 26 Jul 2005 @ 12:36am

No Subject Given
i'll call BULLSHIT

http://www.eff.org/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jmm, 26 Jul 2005 @ 12:52am
  
  Re: No Subject Given
  I wonder how close we are to having licenses. I mean we have them for cars, houses, heavy equipment, school bus drivers. why not a wireless license? or an IP license? it would help cops, or tech cops. is there such a thing? hmmm any ideas?
  
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - mike-ish, 26 Jul 2005 @ 11:19am
    
    Re: No Subject Given
    they'll have boater's licenses long before then.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Brad, 4 Oct 2005 @ 2:15pm
    
    Technician Class License
    Its not that hard to get a technician's license; its a good way to meet some of the ameture radio people in your area, cause they are the ones who administer the test. Plus its cool to have a call sign ;)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mongocrush, 26 Jul 2005 @ 2:55pm

part 15
I'm a little confused about that part 15. Would the can part be considered part of the antenna? I mean all it really does is direct where the signals from the antenna goes. It doesn't really increase the signal it just directs where the signal goes and then you will have more signals going in the right direction instead of being wasted going 360degrees. Am I completely crazy, or on the correct path with this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dalebert, 31 Oct 2006 @ 8:50am
  
  Re: part 15
  The FCC tests looking at the received signal levels. If you change the transmitter or antenna so the received signal is higher, then you are in violation.
  For several thousand bucks you can probably go to you local cerified lab and get your system certified.
  This will ensure you are sending harmonics on any of the 'forbidden bands' or interefering with other services. The regulations are meant to keep our country in compliance with the Geneva Convention (i.e., Federal laws). The fines can be quite steep.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
den christen, 31 Jul 2005 @ 6:51pm

cantanna
give up more civil liberties so king george can completly destroy and decimate all access to the activities of this police government currently in power in the USA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymous coward, 1 Aug 2005 @ 7:44pm

Not illegal according to another Sac. High Tech Cr
I attended a security conference in Sacramento last week, and another member of the Sacramento High Tech Crime Force said the cantenna was NOT illegal, and said the lieutenant took quite a bit of razzing internally for making the comment, but also said the newspaper took the comment out of context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Fweep, 29 Aug 2005 @ 11:19pm
  
  Re: Not illegal according to another Sac. High Tec
  Guy I know used to work for the SCSD's High-Tech unit, he reports that this Lt. Lozito is notorious for being a real douchebag.
  
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sol, 2 Aug 2005 @ 1:04pm

We Are Supposed to Bow Down...
...to our all mighty government masters and their enforcers even if they are incompetents who have no idea what the hell they are talking about. Sometimes it appears their goal is to make us all criminals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
UKtheBunny, 26 Aug 2005 @ 7:20am

WIFI and Equipment
It is not illegal to amplify your signal or use experimental equipment if you hold a valid HAM Radio License
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- cartossin, 1 Jan 2007 @ 2:50am
  
  Re: WIFI and Equipment
  Or even if you don't! (making your statement pointless)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
A. George Gavalas, 25 Feb 2006 @ 3:01pm

FCC Part 15 states clearly
The FCC states clearly that if ANY device, radio or antenna, is built at home without it being built from a kit, it is legal so long as no more than 5 are built, it doesn't impede against safety (i.e. doesn't interfere with a hospital or airport/airbase), and they aren't sold. If it is built from a kit, the kit has to adhere to part 15, but all cantenna kits in MAJOR stores do adhere to these rules. There is nothing illegal about an external antenna for broadcast or receiving. IN FACT, the fcc makes it clear that so long as it doesn't exceed 30 meters or infringe upon safety, it is the responsibility of the offended party, not the offending, to rectify the issue, whether it be to lock down their internet access, get more powerful antennas to provide access to themselves, or whatever other impedence someone may cause. Local law enforcement needs to become more educated on the laws as they stand. This is a grey area to most, but the law is basically the same in every state, not that which state matters. If they try to say using the bandwidth is illegal, then crossing state lines to view a website makes it a federal case bound by federal law. Under fedreal law, like physical property, if you don't post a no trespassing sign, you don't have a fence, and you don't ask them to leave, you can't arrest someone for being on your property so long as they don't take anything. Allowing them an ip address through your dhcp server and having no encryption or captive portal in place is legally granting them access to use your bandwidth under federal laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Frank, 22 Mar 2007 @ 7:50am

cantennas
Outlaw antennas? The next thing you know they'll want to outlaw naked chainsaw juggling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bubba, 11 Jun 2007 @ 5:09pm

cantenna
I once spoke to Jesus on my cantnna. He said it was ok.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Big Brad, 25 Oct 2007 @ 9:42am

Corner Reflector Cantenna
I've been building these units for a while..Not the typical cantenna. take a look, They work vey well, I'm not changing anything internally. They consider this illegal? http://wificantenna.net/default.aspx
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2015 @ 1:12am

It should be outlawed. It's death on humanity. Educate your self.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Charlie, 20 Dec 2015 @ 1:19pm

Wt about Hams?
Are the antenna's radio HAMs use illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]