Court Says WiFi Isn't Radio Because It's Not Audio; Therefore WiFi Sniffing Can Be Wiretapping
from the it's-not dept
A couple years ago, we were disappointed to see a judge take the technologically wrong stance that data transmitted over WiFi is not a "radio communication," thereby making sniffing of unencrypted WiFi signals potentially a form of wiretapping. Indeed, based on that, the court eventually ruled that Google's infamous WiFi sniffing could be a violation of wiretap laws. This is wrong on so many levels... and tragically, an appeals court has now upheld the lower court's ruling.There are serious problems with this. Under no reasonable view is WiFi not a radio communication first of all. That's exactly what it is. Second, sniffing unencrypted packets on an open network is a perfectly normal thing to do. The data is unencrypted and it's done on a network that is decidedly open. It's like saying it's "wiretapping" for turning on your radio and having it catch the signals your neighbor is broadcasting. That's not wiretapping. Third, even the court here admits that based on this ruling, parts of the law don't make any sense, because it renders those parts superfluous. Generally speaking, when a court ruling would render a part of a law completely superfluous, it means that the court misinterpreted the law.
Bizarrely, the court seems to rely on the claim that most radio communications are "auditory" (i.e., involving sound) and thus data transmissions are somehow not radio. Seriously. This statement is so uninformed and flat out wrong that it's kind of shocking the court made it. Specifically the ruling says that the "telltale signs" of "radio communications" are that they're (1) "auditory" and (2) "broadcast" and then says it doesn't even need to consider whether or not WiFi signals are broadcast, since the fact that they're not auditory means they don't even have to consider that fact. Seriously. Read this and try not to bang your head on the nearest desk or wall:
We need not reach the question of what exactly constitutes a "broadcast" because the Wi-Fi transmissions in question were not predominantly auditory.The court also stumbles badly on the other key question in the lawsuit -- over whether or not these things are "readily accessible to the general public." Again, here, if you know anything about the technology you know without question that broadcasting unencrypted data over an open WiFi network are by definition "readily accessible to the general public." That's how it works and how it was designed to work. But the court says it's not because someone might send something "sensitive" from a secured network to an open WiFi network, and the sender didn't intend for that info to be available via open WiFi. But that gets the calculus totally wrong. First, if I'm sending something "sensitive," it should be encrypted, full stop. Second, the security of the endpoint recipient is the responsibility of that recipient, not the sender, so the whole analogy makes no sense.
Later, the court argues that WiFi isn't readily accessible because the signal is "geographically limited." But, um, again, that's true of just about any radio signal. If I have a low-power transmitter, that's still a radio transmitter. It also claims that it's "difficult" to access unencrypted data on an open network, but that's not true at all. They claim it requires "sophisticated" hardware and software, but that's not actually true, and if you believe it's true, you could basically make the same argument about all kinds of radio transmissions.
Either way, there's a fundamental fact here that the courts don't seem to recognize: when you broadcast unencrypted data on an open network it's there for anyone to access. It seems ridiculous to then claim that it's illegal to access it when it's presented in a manner that more or less cries out "come take a look!" This really feels like a situation where the court looked at what Google did, decided it didn't like it, and then tried to tap dance around reality to make it a violation of the law even though it's almost certainly not a violation.
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: encryption, radio communications, wifi, wifi sniffing, wiretapping
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I think somebody called that speciation or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They can't speak the same language or we'd realize how stupid they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow...
Hopefully this goes to SCOTUS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One minor point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We do not want courts to first decide what the outcome should be and then figure out how to make it that way regardless of what the law says. When that happens, laws have no meaning and courts can do whatever they want. If you like the outcome, then you should hope for the laws to be changed, but there is no reason to think this ruling is a good one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Snooping on open wifi is simply not a problem.
If you think of the following analogy:
Secured WPA WiFi with encrypted data is like a vault in your home. The contents of the vault are expected to be invulnerable.
- It would be disastrous if someone got access.
Secured WiFi is like a locked home. The contents of your house are expected to be relatively safe.
- You wouldn't want anyone to break in, and have taken measures against it.
Unsecured WiFi is like offering a connection to anyone. It's like leaving the contents of your house in a park with a "Free, take me" sign.
- This is a useful tool for coffee shops, marketers, people hoping that users can easily get on the network.
Our problem with government agencies is hardly that they are snooping on our open WiFi networks. I would care as little about that as I do about Google's mapping war drives. This discussion is soooo far away from what the government does, it's hard to see how you connected them.
You don't *want* to broadcast your WiFi transmissions? Turn on security. Most routers have defaulted to this for almost 5 years. It should be considered a conscious choice if someone leaves their WiFi fully open.
In fact, the very "openness" of the WiFi signal is the only indication I have as to whether you want your signal to be open or not.
So, if you don't want people to snoop on your open WiFi...secure it. But that still won't stop the gov't from seeing your shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
For people who (a) are not tech savvy and (b) generally expect privacy, they see it instead as leaving your house unlocked and then having people come inside just because it's trivial to open an unlocked door.
Most people who do not realize they have to use a lock, expect privacy and aren't voluntarily putting things outside with a "take me" sign.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Google should not be punished for some people not understanding wifi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Then how would someone who DOES want to put the wifi out there for automatic guest connections indicate they are offering access?
Because that is what open wifi is saying with it's broadcast signal and beacon.
People can sent the opposite message by using a lock/security, and that is now the default (so even the ignorant are safe from unwittingly sharing).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, since every consumer WiFi AP goes to great lengths to inform people that the need to secure their AP and make it as easy as possible to do, the only ones that are unaware of this are those who actively avoid looking at any documentation at all, even those little "IMPORTANT INFO" fliers.
People who run sophisticated equipment without learning even the bare minimum about the equipment they're using are idiots. We should not design our society to cater to idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In other words, it's not the technology but the expectations for that medium.
This is what I think the judges are responding to. (I haven't read the rulings).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
�The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.� -Neil deGrasse Tyson.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packet_radio )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like Google, Mike thinks everything is open to the public.
Private property and privacy already include the rulings of this court.
Passers-by including Google Streetview have no right to access your network.
As for Mike's all-inclusive "radio communications" -- PFFFT! Distinctions are easily made, and should be.
Mike Masnick on Techdirt: "its typical approach to these things: take something totally out of context, put some hysterical and inaccurate phrasing around it, dump an attention-grabbing headline on it and send it off to the press."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Like Google, Mike thinks everything is open to the public.
An unencrypted, non passworded Wifi radio signal? It passes through the walls of your house and goes next door, where anyone can pick it up. Most, if not all routers, these days are intentionally manufactured with a password/phrase by default, so typically, if you detect a signal and it's open, it's by design. The last router I used had a guest access feature (too bad my current one doesn't) and I left that open intentionally for others to use, so that shoots a hole in your "No-one is intentionally broadcasting to the public".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Like Google, Mike thinks everything is open to the public.
Although it's disingenuous to compare a radio frequency signal to a gazebo, I think it would be more similar to your Gazebo sitting partially in your lawn and partially in the sidewalk; there's no mistake here that this is your gazebo, but damn it, you've placed it in and on an area that is considered a public easement. If you get upset that the public is now sitting in your gazebo, it is your responsibility to make sure it's no longer in a public easement.
Wifi is the same reason, and this court's opinion is wrong exactly as you've defined the reason: Most routers have some basic form of security built in by default, so if you're broadcasting openly you're doing it intentionally. If you're intentionally broadcasting a signal to the public, it's no longer up to you who receives it. Containing the signal in a non-public way is YOUR responsibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Like Google, Mike thinks everything is open to the public.
-Starbucks
-Many Coffee Shops
-Pacbell Park (San Diego)
-City Wifi in Los Angeles
-City Wifi in Downtown San Diego
-City Wifi in XXXXX
-Many Hotels and Motels
-Any network that offers intentional guest access
-A TON OF OTHER PLACES
So the idea is to regulate all these places so people dont transmit Wifis from them? lol -.-
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Like Google, Mike thinks everything is open to the public.
It's their responsibility to not listen to something that's there (just like air) as opposed to my responsibility to keep my voice down if I don't want people to hear?
Before you go off saying my example is different, think carefully about a few things:
1) Sound is simply a signal
2) I broadcast it to a public area
3) I somewhat have an expectation that people aren't just sitting outside listening to me
4) My voice is geographically limited (I can't yell in quite a few areas - think library)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Like Google, Mike thinks everything is open to the public.
Total analogy fail. Your lawn is on your property; your WiFi signals can reach well outside your property.
"No one is intentionally broadcasting to the public."
Except for those people deliberately running open WiFi for the specific purpose of providing public access.
"Passers-by including Google Streetview have no right to access your network."
Receiving open WiFi signals is not accessing a network! Now you sound just as technologically ignorant as this judge.
"As for Mike's all-inclusive "radio communications" -- PFFFT! Distinctions are easily made, and should be."
But we note you haven't made any distinctions, most likely because you know you can't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Most Radio is audio...
Someone needs to send these intellectually challenged judges back to grade school, or buy them a "How and Why" book. (How and Why, for those who do not know, are books from the '60s and '70s which simplifies science for 8 to 12-year-olds)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Most Radio is audio...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TV antenna?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TV antenna?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Radio? FCC?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2)The first radio transmissions were digital, not audio.
3)Cell phones are digitally transmitted audio signals. Does that mean listening in on cell phone calls is not wiretapping?
Guess that's why the NSA can do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Predetermined Outcome
One can usually tell when a court is doing something like this because it results in all manner of legal and factual absurdity. The most famous example of this is the Roe v. Wade case and the "penumbras of freedom" that somehow were discovered only in the 1970s.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Predetermined Outcome
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Predetermined Outcome
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Predetermined Outcome
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Predetermined Outcome
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...Because It's Not Audio
The court seems to be fixated on whether or no the final product comes out a speaker as audio waves. When it does, they call it "audible" and i's not wire-tapping, according to the court's logic.
By their thinking, it should be fine to capture the AUDIO-only portion of Skype traffic over wi-fi (or MagicJack, etc) and do what you want with it.
BTW, I guess it's now a crime for me to fire up my short wave radio and listen to some CW only morse code traffic. Anyone care to contribute to my defense fund?
Stan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To broadcast or not to broadcast, that is the question
By way of analogy, sending a sealed envelope by "snail mail" offers no real protection beyond that which the seal's glue can provide. One could argue that it's not much protection, and yet we have developed laws as a means of building trust in that form of communication, that an opened sealed envelope by someone other than who it was originally addressed to, is a federal offense, and this carries harsh penalties. In other words, just because it's technically feasible to open an envelope (or to sniff a data stream) doesn't mean it should be legal. For their to be a modicum of trust in these communications, there needs to be disincentives. Of course, my disincentive logic fails immediately when we learn that the NSA isn't subject to any of this ;)
Again, while I believe their ruling's justification is a kludge, I can't disagree with its intent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To broadcast or not to broadcast, that is the question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: To broadcast or not to broadcast, that is the question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: To broadcast or not to broadcast, that is the question
Un-secured WiFi would be like me posting this and then saying "I'm only talking to you so no-one else read it please".
You mean every single WiFi device in existence. This is how WiFi works. Your WiFi card receives every packet and then chooses whether to throw it away afterwards based on who it says it's for.
If it's like mail at all as PW says then would be like a postcard - a polite postman might not read what's next to the address, but would you really expect him not to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To broadcast or not to broadcast, that is the question
Secured WiFi on the other hand is more like having the same conversation in Attic Greek - everyone can hear it but no-one can understand unless they break the "code". This would fit better with your "snail mail" analogy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FM & AM are audible..if you are SUPERMAN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh great!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's what the ignorant masses used to think. Luckily, we have the federal courts to teach us otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Most judges are so far behind technology, that their profession is fast becoming obsolete. If they want to keep from going the way of the Dodo Bird, I advise the court to start hiring independent technology advisers, ASAP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This could be interesting...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "readily available to the general public"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
radio
Radio is the wireless transmission of signals through free space by electromagnetic radiation of a frequency, or frequencies, as with spread spectrum transmissions.
notice it does not say anything about audio, video, or digital, just signals, which means the transmission of anything you can modulate the radio frequency with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike has as usual, UN-stated key facts:
http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-google-street-view-liable-wiretapping-20130910, 0,817289.story
And that was NOT by accident, occurred over three years.
It's all lies from a mega-corporation that's keeping $48 billion offshore to dodge US taxes, until it can buy politicians to let it bring that in at a "legally" zero rate.
When you think surveillance or spying or snooping, think Google!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike has as usual, UN-stated key facts:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike has as usual, UN-stated key facts:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike has as usual, UN-stated key facts:
Why is the well-known fact that Google collected this information "key" to a moronic attempt to pretend that receiving information on a publicly owned radio magnetic spectrum frequency is wiretapping? What difference does it make to the idiocy being argued?
Oh yeah, you couldn't stop masturbating over the idea that you can "attack" Mike by slandering Google again long enough to realise that this is irrelevant. Yet again, more insane drivel from an obsessed stalker, not a shred of facts or logical argument as to why the article being commented upon is incorrect. Quelle surprise!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike has as usual, UN-stated key facts:
Statement of fact or opinion? your opinion? no fact? really? are you sure?
oblig: [citation required] you pusillanimous weasel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike has as usual, UN-stated key facts:
"But the Google equipment also gathered and stored data from unencrypted networks, including personal emails, usernames, passwords, videos and documents."
What that really means is:
But the Google equipment also captured the bits that happened to be transmitted in the few seconds as they were driving by. If those networks were not locked, that means Google would capture bits that represented parts of emails, web pages, or whatever content the WiFi network was broadcasting openly at the time.
You see, the way the reporter positioned it, and the way you read it, it makes it look like Google went poking around INSIDE the "victim's" LAN network, snooping into PCs and programs to take documents, emails, etc. They did not. They just stored what was being transmitted freely into the streets, as they briefly drove by.
You want security for your documents and emails (from Google), don't broadcast them, unencrypted into the street. Not when Google drives by...or not really ever. Easy to achieve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where the hell is this reasoning when the court is deciding if it's OK for the government to snoop on my communications based on whether I have a reasonable expectation of privacy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your ontology is absurd in the real world
There are alternative ways to classify electromagnetic signals in terms of their privacy effects. Namely, if I expect people to not look then they shouldn't look. Radio broadcasts are meant to be publicly viewed by the people putting out the signal. I have never met a person who uses wifi to broadcast what they are doing online to other third parties.
The argument that encryption should be used is also kind of weak. What if the crypto sucks and someone cracks it? I am not sure if it is legal or not to crack wifi crypto. If it is it seems like you run in to difficulties defining what is and isn't crypto. If I use an outdated easily broken cypher or realy stupid password doe sthe law protect me from people breaking it? If it does it seems like the law is just saying I am protected because I had the intent to remain private. If the law doesn't protect people who use shitty security practices then who gets to decide what qualifies as good practices in an age where the fundamentals of encryption protocols and practices are in doubt. Crypto is just prespective, if you gave a scientist from the 1950's access to a wifi signal stream he plausibly could look at it and assume that it was encoded to maintain privacy. Most citizens are that way today, they are no more likely to really understand the technical risks of using any given protocol online.
I love techdirt and read it everyday but every once in a while they make an argument that just doesn't seem that sound.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your ontology is absurd in the real world
If you could choose whether to emit infrared or not, maybe.
Namely, if I expect people to not look then they shouldn't look.
Not quite - if a court decides you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
I have never met a person who uses wifi to broadcast what they are doing online to other third parties.
Everyone who ever uses an open wifi connection does exactly that, whether they realize it or not.
The argument that encryption should be used is also kind of weak. What if the crypto sucks and someone cracks it?
That has nothing to do with this situation, since this is about unencrypted wifi.
Crypto is just prespective, if you gave a scientist from the 1950's access to a wifi signal stream he plausibly could look at it and assume that it was encoded to maintain privacy.
That doesn't mean it actually is encrypted. Encryption is not a matter of perspective. An unencrypted signal doesn't become encrypted just because someone doesn't have the equipment or understanding to receive it. Encryption involves transforming the signal in such a way that a piece of secret information is (intended to be*) necessary to receive the message.
* obviously sometimes encryption is broken
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your ontology is absurd in the real world
IR heat signatures are totally involuntary, and we have no option to stop transmitting. Wi-Fi is completely deliberate, and requires effort to openly broadcast a signal (since the defaults are secured).
Once again, my main counter-argument is: how do people who WANT to share do so, if courts consider the technological equivalent of broadcasting an invitation as NOT an invitation. My side of this debate has given a clear answer as how people can signal that they don't want to share, but the opposition has not shown a way we can signal a share, given that signaling "I am open for connections" means not that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your ontology is absurd in the real world
But how is do you inform people what your expectation are?
In terms of Wifi, I think encryption can perform this function nicely.
If you've turned on WEP, you're pretty clearly indicating that you don't want people to use your AP without permission. How easy the encryption is to break is irrelevant -- you've still signaled your expectations. If you're running an unsecured AP, then you cannot expect people to ignore your AP.
It's very much like a window. You can't blame people for looking through it if you leave your blinds open. If you close them, you can, even if they can use some kind of trickery to see through them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google Stole My Kid's Toys
"From where?"
"From right in the city park, where I left them. I figured why take them home every night, then back to the park the next day, so I just left them there. But when I came back, they were gone."
"Here's an idea. You should not leave your stuff in a public park where its free for anyone to access. People won't know whether it's public property, private, a freebie, and eventually some person will surely just take it. Next time, take your toys home, and put them inside your house. Then, lock your house."
"Wow. That's easy to do. Thanks for the great advice."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google Stole My Kid's Toys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google Stole My Kid's Toys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny wi-fi names
e.g.
http://www.freemake.com/blog/top-20-funny-wi-fi-names/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judges
On the issue of wiretapping, I have never understood how a wiretapping law could apply to videotaping anyone. Where is the wire being tapped?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Judges
On the issue of wiretapping, I have never understood how a wiretapping law could apply to videotaping anyone. Where is the wire being tapped?
It depends how the law is written, not whether it's referred to in the press as a "wiretapping" law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dumb dumb DUUUUMB
second, you seem to defend this with the concept:
if i have the technology to listen in on your conversations and the conversation is NOT encrypted, then i'm not doing anything wrong.
therefore, if there is a way for me to use passive microphones to listen to your unencrypted telephone communications, then there is no wrongdoing here right? you don't encrypt your telphone communications, and these are broadcast across publicly accessable wire lines, listening in on your conversations is completely okay then? right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: dumb dumb DUUUUMB
Phone lines are not publicly accessible. A better analogy would be if I'm talking to my neighbor with an unencrypted walkie-talkie, and you listen in. Not a problem, because I'm broadcasting in the clear. You have done nothing wrong by receiving my transmission. If you hear something that's clearly meant to be a private conversation, it would be rude to listen in, but IMO not immoral. And it certainly should not be illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WiFi Sniffing
Source" http://www.wi-fihacker.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Best WiFi Names
Source:http://www.wifinames.net/ .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Best WiFi Names
Source: http://www.wifinames.net
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Creative WiFi Names
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this is really great
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I will defiantly gonna bookmark this page and share it with my friends:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Instagram Captions
Nice Post. but i like to connect wifi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WiFi Ssid names
Nice post. I learn something new and challenging about wifi Ssid names I stumble upon on a daily basis. It will always be exciting to read content from other authors and practice something from their websites.
WiFi Ssid names
⋮
[ link to this | view in chronology ]