Judge Who Doesn't Understand Technology Says WiFi Is Not A Radio Communication
from the seriously? dept
Well, this is disappointing. As you probably know, about a year ago, Google admitted to accidentally collecting some data from open WiFi networks via its Google Street View cars. The cars were setup not just to photograph streets, but to do some location-based tracking by cataloging WiFi networks (a very common location setting technique). If you understand basic technology, you can understand what they were doing, and how it was almost certainly not to capture data from the network, but just to determine location info. Furthermore, the only data it collected was from open WiFi networks where people were transmitting unencrypted data in the open. This was data that was being broadcast.But, lots of people don't understand technology and people around the world, including in governments, freaked out about this data collection. So, of course, people started filing highly questionable class action lawsuits. As more and more such lawsuits were filed, they were all consolidated into a single court. Earlier this year, we noted that the judge was trying to determine if Google's actions amounted to an illegal wiretap under ECPA (the Electronic Communications Privacy Act).
If you understand how wireless networks work, the idea that this is wiretapping is hilarious. And wrong. This is data that is broadcast in the open. Anyone can read it. You don't need special equipment or anything. You just need basic software to see what data is traveling across the network.
Tragically, the judge has gone the other way on this point (so far). Google had asked for the wiretapping/ECPA claim to be dismissed, as it claimed (quite reasonably) that it wasn't wiretapping. The judge put together an astoundingly confused ruling that decides otherwise. While the link here blames the wording of ECPA, which is certainly partly to blame, I think the judge's confusion over the technology is equally at fault. Basically, it's true that ECPA is somewhat vaguely worded, but it does say that:
It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person... 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 publicFurthermore, the statue defines "readily accessible to the general public... with respect to a radio communication" by saying that it is the case if the communication is "not scrambled or encrypted."
So, this should be open and shut. An open WiFi network is clearly readily accessible to the general public by its nature. And the statute doubles down on that point by noting that the communication was not scrambled or encrypted, and thus is, by the definition in the statute, "readily accessible to the general public."
So we're done here. Right? Not unlawful. Except... no. The judge instead goes through some of the most convoluted reasoning imaginable to try to claim that data transmitted over WiFi is not radio communication. Say what now? It is true that ECPA was drafted before WiFi existed, but that doesn't mean it's not a radio communication. That's what all wireless communication is. It's a form of radio communication. That's just basic technology. But not to this judge. And, thus, Google doesn't get to dismiss the wiretapping charges. Hopefully they'll appeal and somewhere up the chain this will be corrected.
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
Filed Under: data, ecpa, open wifi, radio communication, street view, wifi, wireless, wiretapping
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Also
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh wait, wrong trope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A: Your honor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But if the encryption is any good, what good would encrypted data be?
I thought that what Google was trying to collect were MAC addresses to build a gigantic database to enable more precise geolocation of phones, even when GPS is turned off on the phone.
Example: I often turn off GPS to conserve battery, unless I specifically need very precision location, such as for driving/walking directions. But I don't turn off the location capability. I appreciate it with my phone can pin down its location more precisely than just the cell towers. For instance, the phone might recognize the MAC addresses of several nearby WiFi hotspots, even if they're not open for public use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Is that a knock on your door?
/sarc(?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't think they did, but it's kind of a moot point, as it would still be encrypted. Unless they spent time and significant compute resources to crack it (which they didn't).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typical for judges..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Knowing you don't know, is knowledge enough.
FOR THE LOVE OF RESEARCH HE DIDN'T EVEN WIKIPEDIA Wi-Fi!
which contains the basic description of Wi-Fi
"IEEE 802.11 radio standards"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Knowing you don't know, is knowledge enough.
I've seen attorneys purposely confuse judges on multiple occasions and, since I'm not involved in a legal profession, I'm betting that it's a standard procedure. Obviously, there needs to be some sort of fine for attorneys who obfuscate or maybe a bounty for every incorrect statement, said bounty being paid by the attorney who filed it.
Or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Knowing you don't know, is knowledge enough.
So, some attorney in this case presented false evidence purporting to show that WiFi isn't radio based and that is what the judge based his ruling on? Citation, please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Knowing you don't know, is knowledge enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Knowing you don't know, is knowledge enough.
I don't think there's any evidence that's what happened. Anybody can just make stuff up. For instance, I could go around "speculating" that JMT is a compulsive masturbator, which is a perfectly reasonable possibility, but that shouldn't stop someone from questioning whether it is in fact true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knowing you don't know, is knowledge enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Knowing you don't know, is knowledge enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knowing you don't know, is knowledge enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knowing you don't know, is knowledge enough.
OK then, you're an idiot. Can't refute that, can you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knowing you don't know, is knowledge enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knowing you don't know, is knowledge enough.
I guess you can't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knowing you don't know, is knowledge enough.
Citation please?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Knowing you don't know, is knowledge enough.
You cite something, since you're the one who laid out that idea. I stated a fact, which is that the judge rules based on the evidence presented to him. I also stated an opinion that was pretty clearly presented as an opinion, which is that it seems to be standard procedure to purposely confuse judges.
The point, which has gone over your head, is that the judge isn't supposed to Google or Wiki or even dead tree Britannica the term 'wi-fi'. That information should be clearly and factually presented by the attorneys, laying the groundwork for a clear ruling or a clear appeal if the judge has gone senile.
Also? Confusing information ≠ False evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Knowing you don't know, is knowledge enough.
"What makes me sad is there isn't a system in place for the public to punish the attorneys involved for not clearly laying out the facts of the case. Remember that the judge's job isn't to know everything. The judge's job is to look at the facts placed before them and make a determination.
I've seen attorneys purposely confuse judges on multiple occasions and, since I'm not involved in a legal profession, I'm betting that it's a standard procedure."
Look familiar? Are you seriously trying to deny that you laid out that idea? Really?
I also stated an opinion that was pretty clearly presented as an opinion...
An opinion is what you think *about* something. Making up stuff about what may or may not have happened is called speculating. You were clearly speculating, even if you try to deny it. And you got called on it.
Also? Confusing information ≠ False evidence.
If information is false, then it's false. Whether it's also confusing has no bearing on it's veracity. Or is that "over your head"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knowing you don't know, is knowledge enough.
I absolutely deny that I stated that the attorneys in this case, or in any case, presented false evidence to a judge. That is not shown or implied by my statements. Are you seriously trying to redefine the words that I wrote?
Again, since you obviously didn't understand it the first time: Confusing information ≠ False evidence.
If information is false, then it's false. Whether it's also confusing has no bearing on it's veracity. Or is that "over your head"?
You're an idiot who has missed the point twice now. Obviously, presenting facts in a confusing way is still a way of presenting facts. I never stated nor implied that any attorney ever presented falsehoods to a judge, by way of being confusing. That's completely illogical and I have no idea how you ever arrived at that idea.
Anyway, the part of my comment that you keep missing, is that presenting facts in a misleading and/or confusing way (which is not the same as presenting falsehoods) is damaging to our system and the people in it. I believe that it's unethical and should be punishable.
I'm also curious as to why you're arguing about this. Do you think that the judge made a good decision, based on good evidence? Do you believe that the information submitted by the attorneys had no bearing on his decision? Or that many attorneys see no problem with confusing a judge in their favor? What, exactly, is your point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knowing you don't know, is knowledge enough.
That certainly seemed to be the idea implied. Maybe that's not what you intended, but that's how it came across.
Are you seriously trying to redefine the words that I wrote?
Nope. I think that's what you're doing.
You're an idiot...
And now yo resort to name calling. Yeah, real convincing.
I never stated nor implied that any attorney ever presented falsehoods to a judge, by way of being confusing. That's completely illogical and I have no idea how you ever arrived at that idea.
Once again, I refer you to your original statement.
I'm also curious as to why you're arguing about this. Do you think that the judge made a good decision, based on good evidence? Do you believe that the information submitted by the attorneys had no bearing on his decision? Or that many attorneys see no problem with confusing a judge in their favor? What, exactly, is your point?
I think that if you want to apologize for the judge by laying the blame off on the attorneys, then you need to present some evidence supporting that position. Speculation masquerading as opinion isn't very convincing, no matter how much name calling you add to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knowing you don't know, is knowledge enough.
That is certainly not how it came across to me, especially if you read it closely and think about the words used. I think you're just trolling since you still haven't answered the question about what your point really is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knowing you don't know, is knowledge enough.
Sorry if I ruffled the feathers of one of your club members (not really). Did you even both to read all the way through to the end of the comment, where it answered that question, before you started spitting out your reply on your keyboard?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knowing you don't know, is knowledge enough.
Wait, did you write it in magical letters than only you can see?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knowing you don't know, is knowledge enough.
Wait, did you write it in magical letters than only you can see?
Oh, so you can't see the letters? Really? You can't see where the question of "What, exactly, is your point" is immediate followed by the answer of "I think that if you want to apologize for the judge by laying the blame off on the attorneys, then you need to present some evidence supporting that position"? Really? Wow. Or maybe you're being more than just a little dishonest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knowing you don't know, is knowledge enough.
No, only you can see the magical letters.
"What, exactly, is your point" is immediate followed by the answer of "I think that if you want to apologize for the judge by laying the blame off on the attorneys, then you need to present some evidence supporting that position"?
You originally said this: "So, some attorney in this case presented false evidence purporting to show that WiFi isn't radio based and that is what the judge based his ruling on? Citation, please."
You're now saying that the point of accusing me of speculating about people presenting false evidence was to provoke me into providing an example of something that I didn't say?
That's really, really hilarious. Also, I think you're just writing whatever comes to mind now.
Really?
Yes, you really aren't making any actual sense. Maybe you should try typing your point in real text this time. Or at least quit flailing about making yourself look worse.
Wow.
Yes, exactly. I mean, would it really be so hard to admit that you're in the wrong here? You could just say 'Hey, I misunderstood what you wrote and thought you were saying something about presenting false evidence, which would be a pretty serious accusation. However, I now see that you were actually writing about presenting factual evidence in an unclear way. Sorry!' and then move on.
Or maybe you're being more than just a little dishonest.
Dishonest about what, exactly? You can easily see what I've actually written so it would be impossible for me to be dishonest about those comments now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knowing you don't know, is knowledge enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knowing you don't know, is knowledge enough.
Only if you're reading the magical words that are only visible to you that appeared underneath or beside what I actually wrote. This quote 'attorneys... not clearly laying out the facts of the case' is clearly me writing about laying out facts in an unclear way, not about laying out false evidence. Again, you're an idiot.
Nope. I think that's what you're doing.
Which word am I redefining? Fact? Unclear? Or the magical words that only you can see?
And now yo resort to name calling. Yeah, real convincing.
If you believe that calling you an idiot magically refutes my point, then you've proven the characterization. Thanks!
Once again, I refer you to your original statement.
Please do refer to it. Which part implies that I believe that anyone has ever presented false evidence to a judge?
I think that if you want to apologize for the judge by laying the blame off on the attorneys, then you need to present some evidence supporting that position.
I think that if you want to discuss this topic, you need to have a basic understanding of how our legal system works. Also, I presented my own experience to back my opinion. Don't like them? Refute them. Maybe you'll learn a little but about what judges and attorneys actually do in the meantime.
Speculation masquerading as opinion isn't very convincing, no matter how much name calling you add to it.
I wasn't attempting to convince you of anything, so what's your point again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knowing you don't know, is knowledge enough.
More name calling. Wow, you must absolutely be right then!
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knowing you don't know, is knowledge enough.
More actual points, using facts and logic. Wow, I am absolutely right!
/not sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Although...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-space_optical_communication
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Although...
Not true. All laser communication is basically wifi...on a different frequency. The electromagnetic spectrum contains everything from Radio waves, microwaves, infrared, visible light, ultra-violet, x-rays, and gamma rays (from low to high frequency.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Although...
No, he was right. Although laser and radio are both electromagnetic, that doesn't mean they are the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Although...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Although...
Few, I would imagine. So, now, how does that make laser and radio the same?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Although...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Although...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Although...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Although...
Nasch was pointing out a factual error in Mike's article, which makes it completely relevant, dick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Although...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Although...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Although...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Although...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_ mass
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Although...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Although...
Sorry, having mass and frequency doesn't make something a "radio wave".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Although...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeBroglie_wavelength
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Although...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Although...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Although...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Although...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: [...]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: [...]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Although...
According to some quantum mechanics perspectives, the entire universe is just a collapsing waveform.
Yes, this is entirely irrelevant to the actual topic. But fun!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Although...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Although...
Then why were you rebutting the comment that radio and lasers are not the same? Do you understand how to reply to a comment and how threading works?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Although...
I believe there was an article recently making the rounds about crickets that used sound waves to conceal their communications.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What can Google do?
What can Google do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What can Google do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stinky...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Encrypted as a whole or just a part in the middle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your kitchen serves food, but it's not a restaurant.
And please, Mike, show us your data which is not based on Google's own statement, that confirms you in stating that no encrypted data was collected. -- And please tell us how their receivers determined that without receiving it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your kitchen serves food, but it's not a restaurant.
You don't know much about open WiFi and how it broadcasts public invitations, do you?
And please tell us how their receivers determined that without receiving it!
Again, you are just demonstrating your ignorance of how WiFi works. (Hint: The encryption is negotiated before the encrypted data is sent.)
You really should learn a little more about such things before spouting off about them in order to avoid looking like such a fool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Your kitchen serves food, but it's not a restaurant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your kitchen serves food, but it's not a restaurant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your kitchen serves food, but it's not a restaurant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your kitchen serves food, but it's not a restaurant.
So who else would be able to show what Google collected?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your kitchen serves food, but it's not a restaurant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Demigod Judges
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Demigod Judges
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Demigod Judges
The comment was "until a higher ranking judge says otherwise", which presumes "upon appeal". Try reading the entire comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can receive the analog and listen to the beeping and buzzing of the encoded signal. But you cannot decode it, even if it is a "public" broadcast. Clearly, making it digital is already enough to make it somewhat private, as additional equipment beyond a radio receiver is required to decode it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Clearly, you don't know what you're talking about. Your comment here was posted using digital communications. Does that make it "somewhat private"? I think you're full of it.
...as additional equipment beyond a radio receiver is required to decode it.
Again, you should reconsider making such ignorant statements. Digital radio receivers decode digital transmissions just fine.
I realize that you may hate the idea of open WiFi and people communicating freely, but your statements are ludicrous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wouldn't a publicly broadcast SSID without encryption be implicit permission to do so? If not, why not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The intent of the act in question is to permit users to receive any signal that passes through their home / space and listen to it in a normal manner. The intent is to make illegal the decoding of protected or encoded signals, and that would include anything that has been made digital, even if it is not heavily encoded. Essentially, because you have to take an additional step beyond pure reception of the signal to understand what is in it, you have broken the law.
Now, generally I don't see this applying to an open Wi-fi connection. But I could see (as is the case thing time around) where this sort of law might be applied to widespread scanning for wifi information. Clearly the data had to be at least someone "treated" to extract the SSID information (and to know it if is locked or unlocked), which appears to go against the law as written.
It isn't a question of what is right or wrong in your mind, only how it matches up to the law as written.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Bullshit and you know it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Gee sounds like a wireless device falls pretty clearly into the same category as a short-wave radio to me, almost any appeals court is likely to come to the same conclusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"DIGITAL" is a theoretical or man made constuct, we call 4.7volts to 5.1volts a DIGITAL LOGIC ONE
And we call 0v to 0.6volts a digital logic zero,
But the VOLTS themselves are analogue, and the number of electrons can vary by a large number.
Even with that variation within limits it is still 'called' a digital 1, by convention, and within other limits it is called a ZERO, you cannot 'broadcast' or transmit 'digital', you have to convert that digital information into analog (for you US ppl) RADIO, before transmission.
A WiFi network is a NETWORK, it is not one site acting as a 'broadcaster' with a large number of 'receivers' listening to that broadcast.
When you enter a WiFi network you become a part (node) of that network, you sync into the spread spectrum frequency cycle and you engage in two way communications within that network.
If you are not engaging in direct communications with the network, but are outside the network Tapping into the two way data streams that occur between the nodes of the network, you are engaging in 'wire(less) tapping', it is no different to creating a device that can listen to mobile phones or that can listen into someones wireless keyboard or mouse, or home cordless phone.
If you are listening to someone cordless phone, you are not listening to someone who is making a 'broadcast' you are listening into a private conversation between two persons.
That is illegal, and the judge is quite correct to make the ruling he did, and the person who appears not to understand the technology are those commenting here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you will just who everyone how silly you are..
I can see why you would not bother to do that..
after all there is no point in confirming your an idiot...
"Digital signal levels" "depend on the system".
As I said there is no such thing as 'digital' (except for the name)..
Digital is a form of analogue, but I cannot expect you to understand that simple concept in a million years!!!!
"So I wont even bother trying "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We'll you are 'sort of' right, yes a digital logic '1' is a different ANALOGUE VOLTAGE level if you are using TTL as opposed to CMOS, or ECL or DTL, and yes a logic '1' in your cpu might only be 2.3volts.
Is a "volt" a "digital" value ?, no a 'volt' is an analog value, it can vary between levelsand in fractions of values.
And "volts' are what runs around inside your computer, not "1"'s and "0"'s.
Only an idiot who does not understand even the most basic of idea's would make the statements you made AC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As an electrical engineer with many years designing communications systems, I can tell you that you're wrong. Let me clear up some of your "technical" misconceptions.
Analog and digital are just different ways of representing the same thing. In both analog and digital radio transmission information is added to the basic radio signal in some way and there are many ways of doing this which I'll not go into here. Both analog and digital radio signals usually require processing beyond the mere reception of the signal in order to extract the useful information contained within. You can take an analog signal, digitize it, and then process it in the digital domain if you wish. You can convert back and forth between the digital and analog domains and use whichever one is the most convenient. And "digital" does not mean "encrypted". Both analog and digital signals can be encrypted or not.
Essentially, because you have to take an additional step beyond pure reception of the signal to understand what is in it, you have broken the law.
Really? I somehow doubt that as that would outlaw listening to just about all radio signals. You'd think I would have heard of that by now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, if it's not radio...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then again, other countries (hint, hint - China) do a lot to block foreign countries from selling products within their borders, like leveraging high tariffs, so the U.S. isn't the only guilty party here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judges
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Packet Radio
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Packet Radio
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No one said that at all. And if you have a personal router that you don't want broadcasting your unencrypted info, turn on encryption. Pretty straightforward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can anybody confirm that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110701/12225114934/judge-who-doesnt-unders tand-technology-says-wifi-is-not-radio-communication.shtml#c669
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Source: Arstechnica: Judge to Google: sniffing even open WiFi networks may be wiretapping
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The main thing that quote proves is that the judge indeed is technically ignorant, yet he doesn't let that stop him from pretending otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Security Through Obscurity? yea that's obviously a great business plan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Source: Mediapost: Google Can Be Sued For WiFi Interceptions
That decision apparently did go in favor of Google.
So it may be to soon to judge the impact of that as there are others things Google could still try and prevail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google Hate
Everybody should be aware that the Google hate is out there. Call it out for what it is, when it shows up. Look for which Google competitor is up to what tricks. Unmask them. Point the finger back at the Google competitors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google Hate
There is absolutely nothing in this decision that indicates a bias against Google. I don't think your argument is a red herring only because I, certainly most people here, and probably Judge Ware think that Google should not be considered to have committed wiretapping. The current law is wrong in relation to WIFI technology, however, "Google hate" is irrelevant to this case.
My "irrational" bias against Google has to do with my experience with the Google Toolbar. I downloaded it to check it out and the disabled it because I did not want all the URL's sent out by my browser ending up in a Google database. At a later time, when I was using the Wireshark packet sniffer for something else, I noticed a lot of unexpected traffic going to an IP address within the Google range. Even though I had completely disabled the Google Toolbar via the add-on controls, it was still sending all my URLs to Google. There was nothing accidental about that. Google provides great tools but they don't come free. You are paying for them by giving up your privacy. The Google Toolbar example demonstrates that I was intentionally misled by Google so that they could continue to collect personal data concerning me. Google may consider that benign and not evil but when they are deceptive in their privacy practices I do consider that evil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually the Judge gets it
Read the opinion (again). The judge acknowledges that wi-fi uses radio technology, but is arguing that Congress meant something else when they put the word "radio" into the law.
You could disagree about what Congress meant (if anything), but I don't think the judge's interpretation is unreasonable. Radio is an ambiguous term. When the average person says "the radio is on", they probably aren't referring to a wi-fi router or mobile phone. And given that Congress is full of average people (at least in terms of technical ability), going with the technically inaccurate definition makes sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google
But Google did save all kinds of data going through the networks. Anything unencrypted, which can be emails, chat, file transfers or even cleartype passwords, could end up in their database. Read up on the reporting on the german complaints, and if I remember correctly also in sweden. I dont have a citation right now though.
Anyway, it feels to me like its massive overkill to achieve the stated objective. And as always when large entities collect lots of data on people, I get suspicious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google
See this Techdirt Article, and the source link in the article: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100622/0340389918.shtml
Also this Quote from Google when this first came out:
The problem shown is that the "emails, chat, file transfers or even cleartype passwords" where embedded in the same packets as the MAC Address / SSID packets. While there is a solution, like truncating the packet down the real problem is in the wifi protocol trying to packet every packet as full as possible instead of dedicating different packets for identification and other data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Wireless router is like a short-wave radio...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This was data that was being broadcast.
Google don't do a drive-by at my house, I don't care to take the time understanding what information you're steeling and you could get shot at. Why should I?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judge is right...
Without reference to whether such redio communications was readily accessible to the general public and not scrmbled or encrypted.
Should the Court interpret radio communications so broadly within the Act to include such technolgoies as wireless internet and cellular phones, this exception could lead to absurd results.
Mike:
The judge instead goes through some of the most convoluted reasoning imaginable to try to claim that data transmitted over WiFi is not radio communication.
Convoluted ???
The judge is correct, and Mike sorry to say you are wrong, if you wanted to follow your logic, then all the optic fibre cables would be "wireless" as well !!! Right !
Also by definition, WiFi is not a "broadcast" it is a TWO direction (full duplex) communications 'link'.
Just as is a cellular phone, they work by 'handshaking' and they both perform the task of sending and receiving. Therefore by definition it is not a 'broadcast'.
and again No Mike, not "all forms of radio communications are "wireless"", not by a LONG shot...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Judge is right...
Sorry, darryl, optical is not radio.
Also by definition, WiFi is not a "broadcast" it is a TWO direction (full duplex) communications 'link'.
WiFi supports two-way point-to-point communications, as well as one-way broadcast, multi-point and so on. So do other forms of radio.
Darrly proves once again that just a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing in the hands of an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Judge is right...
The Judge thinks that cellphones that if he considers open WIFI as a radio communication that it will erode privacy on cellular netowrks. Which would be true, if cell networks were unencrypted... And not specifically protected by other laws like 47 CFR Part 15.37(f)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Judge is right...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Light has mass ????
Light does not have mass !!! light travels at the speed of light ! (go figure), nothing with mass can travel at the speed of light and it would require infinate energy to accelerate it to that velocity.
If light stops travelling at the speed of light, it ceases to be light.
As light only travels at one speed the more energy you put into a photon of light (the faster it does not go), but it's frequency increases.
THE ONLY difference between a photon in a radio wave at 30Mhz and an X-Ray Photon (or Gamma ray) is the amount of energy that photon has acquired.
When a photon strikes matter(an electron) in imparts that energy into that electron, giving that electron a higher energy state.
Electroncs have mass (electron mass), because photons can change electrons there is an interaction between light and matter. (this could be the radio signal you pick up off your Wifi Antenna, to your view outside your window, the process is the same).
That is why you can see things, and why light makes you warm, and why radio's work.
Next time you talk to your local physist ask him if he can tell you the 'mass of a photon' ?
You might have to wait awile until he stops laughing at you, but you'll get that.
and yes, that relationship between the energy of a photon and it's interaction with matter (mass) is that unknown equation
e = mc^2
that says, that you can never put enough energy into a mass to make it go at the speed of light.
therefore, nother with mass can travel at the speed of light, but what can travel at the speed of light (c)
LIGHT can, and only light, if it is travelling at that speed it is light.
Light (everything) is analog, light can be a wave or a particle (but not both) depending on how you look at it !
(so can matter).. there is no need to cloud this simple misunderstand about Wifi and "broadcasting" with the physics of light.. but I cannot let that one go without comment :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Light has mass ????
Because if it did, it would be affected by gravity and we could see it bend around gravity fields in space. Oh, wait... Never mind that. Darryl says it has no mass and he used three exclamation points so he must be right!!!
If light stops travelling [sic] at the speed of light, it ceases to be light.
Light slows down when it travels through certain mediums. Never mind that either. Darryl says it doesn't so it doesn't!!!
there is no need to cloud this simple misunderstand about Wifi and "broadcasting" with the physics of light.. but I cannot let that one go without comment :)
Never mind those WiFi broadcast beacon signals, ethernet broadcast modes, etc. Darryl say WiFi doesn't broadcast, so it doesn't!!! Good enough for me!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes AC, light is not affected by gravity - space is. and time
Speed of light = constant
Speed of time = Variable
If constant speed light goes through variable speed time, it 'appears' (from an outside observer) that the speed of light has varied.
Light does not have mass !!!
Because if it did, it would be affected by gravity and we could see it bend around gravity fields in space. Oh, wait... Never mind that. Darryl says it has no mass and he used three exclamation points so he must be right!!!
Yes, light does not have mass, it would be affected by gravity and we could see it bend around gravity fields in space !!! YES, and why... ?????
Because it is space itself that is bent, the light is still traveling at the same speed, but it's path is longer (its not going in a straight line, but following CURVED space).
So if you walk to the shop at 1 Mile per hour, but when you walk back (at the same speed) you take a different path that takes you longer to get home, you have not traveled at any different speed!!
You have traveled along a longer path...
(Gee, did not think that was THAT HARD)..
Or if you would like to think of it another way, gravity makes time go slower, so when a photon of light passes through gravity it will travel at the same speed in a slower medium (time itself is slower, not the speed of light in that time).
On second thought dont worry about, and DO NOT think about it, Silly me for thinking you could even begin to understand simple relitivity theory.
Light slows down when it travels through certain mediums. Never mind that either. Darryl says it doesn't so it doesn't!!!
The propagation of light through a medium is different from light in 'free space'.
Then a photon of light strikes a 'medium' it will strike an electron that is orbiting a nuclius, if the photon strikes the electron it is ABSORBED by the electron.
(THE PHOTON IS GONE, it ceases to exist when it is absorbed by the electron).
The electron in turn gains the energy of the photon, and moves to a higher energy state.
After a certain time (very short) that electron will 'fall back' to the lower energy level, in the process it will release a PHOTON.
NOT THE SAME PHOTON THAT STRUCK IT, but a NEW PHOTON !!.
This process is quick, but it does take a finite time to occur.
So a photon strikes matter, it annialates itself into an electron, that electron gains energy (the energy of the photon that is now gone), the electron gainst mass, but is in an unstable state.
It drops back into is correct orbit, and loses a quantum of energy (the same as it gained) and then that electron will emit a photon, and lose some mass.
As soon as you see or detect a photon it is gone, and you cannot see a photon directly, you only see photons when they are destroyed.
So once again,
If a photon is not traveling at the speed of light it is not a photon.
Photons travel at ONLY ONE SPEED, but they can travel in empty space that is not flat !.
A single speed over a different (longer) path APPEARS to the observer to be a different speed.
Trying to teach Einstein's theory of relativity to clueless AC's....... priceless...
Ever been to school ? or read a book ?... ever said to yourself "how does that work?" ???
Anything else you do not understand that I might be able to help you out with ?
Would you like me to explain how the internet works, or how a motor car works?
(or how to tie your shoelaces ?)
"ethernet broadcast modes" is radio ???? just because the word 'broadcast' is used does not mean RADIO BROADCAST,
If you run a WiFi network do you require a 'broadcasters license'????
NO, because they are not operating as broadcasters.
You're 50Mhz cordless phone contains a radio transmitter, so by your definition it is making a broadcast, but as there is only one intended receiver of that broadcast, (the receiver on your land line phone) it is not 'broad' it is NARROW, and specific, one to one, privite and NOT intended to be a broadcast.
Ethernet is across wires (it is therefore not radio).
So if you have a computer with multiple CPU's in it, and one of those CPU "broadcasts" an interrupt, then you consider that 'fair game' as well, after all it uses the word "broadcast".
Even through strictly it is not, it is broadcast within the confines of your computer, and only to the other CPU's withing the computer.
MIKE:
Wireless
by Mike Masnick
Fri, Jul 1st 2011 12:44pm
Filed Under:
data, ecpa, open wifi, radio communication, street view, wifi, wireless, wiretapping
Companies:
google
Permalink.
Judge Who Doesn't Understand Technology Says WiFi Is Not A Radio Communication
The judge understand exactly that it IS a RADIO COMMUNICATION, but he does (rightly) undstand that it is not a 'radio broadcast'.
He understands technology apparently better than you do Mike ! he know you can have radio communication without also having radio broadcast.
He also understands that just because it is in an analogue form (this time radio) that does not make it 'fair game' for anyone who has the required technology to easedrop on that communications.
You computer, your keyboard, and your monitor are all 'broadcasting' signals our right now, if you have to correct equipment you can capture those signal and rebuild what you are doing on your computer.
It's called "tempest", it is a standard way to spy on your enemies computers, governments and military spend a huge sum of money to try to reduce the tempest hazard by RF shielding and coding methods.
Most radio transmissions are not ment as a broadcast, but are specific to a particular user.
So again, the Judge is not arguing that it is not radio communication, he is correctly arguing that the nature of that radio communication is not for 'broadcast' purposes.
I can see why you are not a practicing laywer Mike, you appear to have a poor grasp on standard terms and definitions.
You do not seem to be able to differentiate between 'radio communications' and 'radio broadcast' or simply the term 'broadcast' ! this I find astounding !
The law simply and correctly states that "just because a Radio transmitter is somewhere in the system does not make that system a 'broadcaster".
And therefore what you transmit is not a 'free for all' because at some point the information travels on a radio signal....
That means Mike, if you are tapping away on your computer with a wireless keyboard, I am not allowed to sit outside your house and capture what you are typing.
(do you consider yourself 'broadcasting' to all the world with you use a wireless keyboard?)
And you know that to be the case Mike, so why try to claim otherwise ?
It would not be due to the fact that Google write your pay cheques !!!
and you would rather them pay you than pay a court LOL...
But when it comes to protecting your income, you (Mike) appear to be willing to say or do anything. Gotta keep the boss happy I guess.
@AC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes AC, light is not affected by gravity - space is. and time
Oh, I see. It's not the light that has changed speed, but the rest of the world has changed in "speed time". Kind of like it's never darryl that's wrong, but the rest of the world.
You know, it's a good thing that there's only one photon in the world too, because otherwise multiple photons might be trying to make us live at different speeds and we'd all end up in alternate universes, kind of like the one darryl lives in.
Trying to teach Einstein's theory of relativity to clueless AC's....... priceless...
Seeing a doofus misapply it, even better.
"ethernet broadcast modes" is radio ???? just because the word 'broadcast' is used does not mean RADIO BROADCAST
Of course not, it's a network mode. Thus precluding claims that " Oh, well maybe the information is broadcast on the radio but not on the on the network", or some such bull.
If you run a WiFi network do you require a 'broadcasters license'???? NO, because they are not operating as broadcasters.
It's not because they aren't broadcasting, it's because they're operating within limits on unlicensed spectrum. I suppose you'd try to claim that the low-power FM transmitter that I use to broadcast music around my property isn't broadcasting just because it doesn't have to be licensed. What a load.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes AC, light is not affected by gravity - space is. and time
c0 is the maximum speed of light that occurs in free space. It is not a set speed of light through all mediums, as you seem to believe. e=mc^2 does not mean what you seem to think it does.
Light is a form of electromagnetic radiation and is governed by Maxwell's equations. I won't go into all the vector calculus here, but the speed of light and other electromagnetic propagation is related to the electric permittivity ε and the magnetic permeability μ by the equation c = 1/√εμ. In free space, ε = ε0, μ = μ0 and thus c0 = 1/√ε0μ0. So, light does indeed slow down in materials where the electric permittivity and magnetic permeability differ from ε0 and μ0, respectively. Sorry, darryl. Maybe Maxwell's equations don't apply in your universe, but they do here. I deal with this stuff all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Light has mass ????
I bet you know all about TOR, and torrents, and how to get around DRM and how to get the song's and movies you want for free. That you also know all about technology and like Mike have a deep understanding of all things legal and to do with the 'net' in any way shape or form.
But, what I find amazing is your complete lack of understanding, or interest in trying to comprehend anything to do with your very own existance, and how things actually work.
Clearly, you have never given a second thought to what 'light' is or how it is you are able to see things.
Or what an electron is, and how it interacts with matter, and with photons. You have probably seen the equation
e = mc^2 many times but you have never ever given it a second thought, you most certainly probably think it only has to do with atomic bombs !
That atomic reaction (from e=mc^2) is occuring billions of times a nanosecond inside each of your eyes !
So what happens ?
A photon with energy 'e' inters your eye, and strikes an electron, that electron gains mass 'm' (electrons have mass).
So the energy of the photon is converted into mass in the electron, the electron moves to a higher energy state.
In the eye, that higher energy state would create a 'excited molocule' that will 'transmit' (BROADCAST !!) that electron (or chemical/ion/exciton) to your brain.
The photon being absorbed by the electron, ceases to exist.
It is replaced by a small about of mass, that is from the energy from e=mc^2.
There are 3 values in that equation:
Energy, mass and 'c', Do you notice that you can change the value of e and the value of m, but you cannot change the value of c.
the apparent change in the speed of light in different mediums is due to the medium and not the light.
between the individual particles inside that medium light is traveling at its constant speed, if that light strikes the medium it is absorbed, (as it ceases to travel at c, if it is not traveling at c it is not light).
It is absorbed, it is destroyed and it ceases to exist, in it's place is an excited electron that in a finite time will fall back into a stable orbit, in the process it will emit a photon A NEW PHOTON, the old one is gone and this is a new one. that takes time so it appears from an outside observer that the light itself is traveling slower.
Because you assume (wrongly) that it is the 'same' light, which it is not. It's a new photon that simply 'looks like the old one'
If you were the photon observing the system you would not see ANYTHING :)
A photon travels at the speed of light (299782.458Kms/sec), at that speed time stands still.
that means from the photons point of view time does not exist, the instant you are created you are destroyed !
Because you experience zero time, you also experence zero distance (you cannot go 'anywhere' in zero time), so the photon also have no 'perception' of distance.
So the photon an astronomer observes through his telescope of a start 13 billion years old, he is detecting a photon that was created the instant it is observed, even though it has arrived from a source 13 billion light years away.
The photon's age is zero, and the distance it has traveled is zero, and if it is anything else, it is not a photon!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Light has mass ????
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_mass
(having cake and eating it too... mmmmm, scrumptious!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really though...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YHGTBSM!
I can't even try to explain the plaintiff's convoluted thinking. The WiFi was open, but the network and data were encrypted? Packet sniffers are "rare" and "out of the purview of the general public", even though I can Google up at least a dozen software and hardware companies making products that range from a cost of free to thousands of dollars?
I guess it just goes to show you that if lawyers and judges can twist the law and language enough, they can make white into black and down into up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: YHGTBSM!
And then you do !!!!
How can a network be accessible and inaccessible at the same time?
By just how he says it is, that's how.
He said (correctly) that the system is there to allow the public access to the internet, for the user to be 'part of the network' by establishing two way communications with the network and becoming a node of that network.
The judge is correctly stating, that using a packet sniffing software, and 'sidelining' the network, and 'reading the data streams' is not the intent or intention of the desired purpuse for the WiFi node.
He is also correct that packet sniffing software allthough as you stated is availble to the 'general public' it is not the perview of the general public.
That means it is not a common thing for the 'general public' to have the technical skills or motive to do that.
And once you do have that motive, you cease to become the 'general public'.
These Wifi hubs are intended for the purpose of providing internet connection for the general public, or for private members of the general public.
My brain hurts something awful after trying to wrap my head around what the judge was thinking.
If thinking makes your brain hurt, then TD is the place to be :)
Then again, some things are just not 'that hard' !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: YHGTBSM!
If you go out in public it may not be your intent or desired purpose to be observed doing so. Still, someone who does observe you in public has not committed a crime in doing so. (Although it seems the judge in this case and darryl might disagree with that.)
He is also correct that packet sniffing software allthough as you stated is availble to the 'general public' it is not the perview [sic] of the general public.
pur�view/ˈpərˌvyo͞o/Noun
1. The scope of the influence or concerns of something.
2. A range of experience or thought.
So it seems that since most people have probably never posted a comment on Techdirt, it is out of the "range of experience" and thus out of the purview of the general public to do so. I guess that makes us all a bunch of evil hackers like Google! Go turn yourself in now, darryl.
That means it is not a common thing for the 'general public' to have the technical skills or motive to do that.
Uncommon <> illegal.
And once you do have that motive, you cease to become the 'general public'.
Then I doubt that anyone is in the "general public" since almost everyone has some unusual characteristic. Hey, that's it, everyone's a criminal because we're all deviants! Way to go, darryl.
These Wifi hubs are intended for the purpose of providing internet connection for the general public, or for private members of the general public.
WiFi is for providing *network* connectivity, it is not limited to the internet. It's even intended for use by us uncommon "deviant" individuals, not just darryl's idealized "general public".
If thinking makes your brain hurt, then TD is the place to be :)
Especially if you try to follow any of darryl's twisted logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: YHGTBSM!
Apparently being able to maintain two contradictory beliefs in ones head, reconcile them somewhat, and still make a bad decision is what it takes to become a judge these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"There is no end in sight"
Light does not experience time, as time stands still at the speed of light, therefore light has no age, it's age is zero.
It does not experience distance, because distance is speed times times.
Therefore, for light..
there is no end in sight
(and no start)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
preparation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
any benefit for google?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People's own fault...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ignorant Judge
This judge is as "dumb as a box of rocks" and would probably consider an answering machine an illegal wiretap as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]