Judge Agrees That Perhaps It Would Be Best For Someone Else To Review His Claim That WiFi Isn't A Radio Communication
from the good-news dept
We were pretty surprised a few weeks back when a judge claimed that Google could be subject to wiretapping charges for collecting snippets of data during the Street View data collection might be illegal wiretapping, because he didn't consider open WiFi to be radio communications. Under the law, open and unencrypted radio communications are not subject to wiretapping rules, because, well, they're open. Claiming that open WiFi isn't a radio communication made most techies' jaws drop... and Google quickly suggested that the judge let them get a second opinion on that point, before going through with a full trial.Thankfully, the judge has agreed, recognizing that perhaps he didn't answer that initial question correctly.
Thus, in light of the novelty of the issues presented, the court finds that its June 29 order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a credible basis for a difference of opinion, and also finds that certification of the June 29 order for appeal would materially advance the litigationIn other words... let's make sure I got that part right before we do anything else. That's good. I'm happy to see that Judge James Ware at least recognizes that people may disagree with his contention that WiFi is not a radio communication and will allow that point to be explored further.
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 collection, radio communication, street view, wifi, wiretapping
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
A baby monitor is "radio communication" too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A baby monitor is "radio communication" too.
Good on him though. Except for the part about his "opinion" that Wifi isn't radio. There is no opinion involved, it's a fact. But at least he's trying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A baby monitor is "radio communication" too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A baby monitor is "radio communication" too.
Divergence between the technical and the legal definitions implies a need for correction. The technical definition is usually based upon fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A baby monitor is "radio communication" too.
wifi is radio. Any opinion to the contrary is not merely a different definition, it's plain and flat out WRONG.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A baby monitor is "radio communication" too.
> but that still wouldn't make it true.
> (btw it's an urban legend, nobody ever tried
> to pass that law..)
You could also pass a law to teach intelligent design and accept a definition of science that includes the supernatural.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_edu cation#Kansas
But that wouldn't make it true.
And this is not an urban legend.
So it would seem that legislators and/or judges ought to somehow be able to make radio not be radio. Radio broadcasts (of packets) are somehow magically not broadcasts of electromagnetic waves; those non-waves do not escape beyond your property; and magical forces prevent them from being freely received by anyone with a suitable receiver. (Suitable Receiver in this case being an ordinary laptop running freely downloadable software.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A baby monitor is "radio communication" too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A baby monitor is "radio communication" too.
But my belief (or worldview) has nothing to do with science. It doesn't belong in a science course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A baby monitor is "radio communication" too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A baby monitor is "radio communication" too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A baby monitor is "radio communication" too.
I have had the feeling that words in laws tend to not mean what you would normally mean by it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A baby monitor is "radio communication" too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A baby monitor is "radio communication" too.
Some might think that a law against people pointing telescopes at other people's houses will fix the problem.
Go ahead and think that. Your law still doesn't prevent those waves from reaching a neighbor's telescope.
The real, obvious, workable, feasible, practical and EFFECTIVE solution is . . .
. . . to close the drapes or blinds! (gasp, imagine that!)
Similarly WiFi packets being broadcast by radio are exactly that. Law doesn't change physics. If you don't want someone reading them, then encrypt them. It is typically a checkbox and a password field in your WiFi router's setup. If you don't use it, then don't think any kind of law actually protects you.
(Don't think any kind of law actually stops piracy either. Or free speech. But that's another topic.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A baby monitor is "radio communication" too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A baby monitor is "radio communication" too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A baby monitor is "radio communication" too.
"Radio" waves are not the all inclusive of "EM Radiation" although the later includes the former in its definition; note that "Radio Spectrum" is defined as electromagnetic radiation within a frequency band lower than 'about' 300GHz. Visible Light is never included (neither is ultraviolet, heat/infrared, etc).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A baby monitor is "radio communication" too.
But this has nothing to do with anything. Yes, it's creepy. What do you want to do about it? When you speak in an open channel, you can't really complain that someone else is eavesdropping, even if it IS creepy because YOU ARE speaking in a public channel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A baby monitor is "radio communication" too.
When we used our baby monitor we used to hear peoples phone calls over it all the time. We heard people setting up drug deals, a couple who both were cheating on each other. We even heard the weekly prayer conference call that took place every Monday & Wednesday. We heard Credit Card and Social Security numbers, all while we were just listening for our daughter crying.
We were in an apartment complex with less than 10 units and knew everyone in it. We told the people in our apartments to upgrade off of their 900mhz phone, but most of what we heard wasn't from our building.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A baby monitor is "radio communication" too.
Ignorance of reality is no excuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A baby monitor is "radio communication" too.
If I'm sitting in the middle of the mall talking loudly about a drug deal I'm about to do, and a cop hears it, I'm in trouble. But wait, it wasn't intended to be public right? Um, wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A baby monitor is "radio communication" too.
http://mindhacks.com/2010/02/11/the-burglar-with-the-lemon-juice-disguise/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A baby monitor is "radio communication" too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Even today you need to watch out what you buy because some have zero privacy.
Quote:
Source: http://phreaking.livejournal.com/28672.html
Apparently baby monitors can also be picked up from a mile away.
Those things are dangerous for privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You can pick up those transmissions from a mile away from what I read, but I'm sure you could pick up the transmissions with a TV set from the neighbor, because I saw that happen a lot when the channel is near the same frequency as the cordless phone.
Now are those things private or not since they are being broadcasted in the open?
If the guy is a pedo he probably would find no judge to say he had any expectation of privacy but if he was a another judge they probably say he had a expectation of privacy.
That ambiguity on the courts is what takes away my confidence on the system, and the tendency to carve out ever expanding exceptions to the rules, until the law resembles nothing what when it started and gets confusing and even more ambiguous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Your concern is valid, and it is your choice to use or not use said item. Do not attempt to foist upon others the responsibility for your decisions. Even if you were unaware of the issue beforehand, that is your problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In the case of baby monitors and cordless phones people should have the information about how private they really are on the package, and that is a problem for congress to solve forcing manufacturers to print on the box what security is being build into the devices, so people can know what to buy and what not to buy if they expect any privacy at all.
Today we have people trying to create exceptions to rules and making the law confusing and difficult to understand let alone follow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is what I'm trying to say here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Society should not be required to fund the policing of the open airwaves simply to protect those who broadcast upon them.
Caveat emptor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The judge in that case apparently had no problem making it clear if it was not encrypted and it was visible there was no need for a warrant and it was a public broadcast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But it's ok when the police do it. See groping.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public Derision
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public Derision
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Public Derision
it's either strong evidence that he should be kept (though probably still not assigned tech cases until he's done some study on the subject)because he's willing to do the right thing in such situations rather than the typical government reaction of attempting to reject reality and punish dissent, or strong evidence that his decisions can be swayed more easily by public opinion than fact, and that he should be removed from the job as quickly as possible.
which it is depends on information which, to the best of my limigted knowledge, we do not have. (i certainly don't.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public Derision
I would be saying he should no longer be a judge if he had tried to prevent any appeal of this obviously wrong decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Radio
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Umm, did anyone else get chills...
OK, the WiFi may be unencrypted and open...but accessing the device containing the photos almost certainly involved some hacking...IANAPedo but I would think they'd be smart enough to have a password on the device.
Just sayin'...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interpretive Charity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Interpretive Charity
Congress got all screwy with the definitions. For instance:
Well, hold up there...
Wait a second, WTF is an "aural transfer"?
Did you follow that?
The god-damn act is a twisty-maze of confusing definitions!
When the judge came up with his own screwy definition, he was just following Congress' lead. They set up the rules for this game of Calvinball.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]