Canadian Spy Agency Tracking Users Of Free WiFi At Airports, Hotels, Coffee Shops & Libraries

from the free-wifi dept

A few years ago, we wrote about why, for many years, whenever you were in a public place like an airport or a hotel, you'd often see an available WiFi option called Free Public WiFi -- though if you looked carefully, it was an ad hoc (computer-to-computer) network, rather than to a WiFi access point. It turns out that it was because of a stupid bug in Windows XP, which also explains why it's a lot less common these days. Of course, some people always would joke that it was really spy agencies trying to get you to connect to their WiFi. Except, that might not be that much of a joke. The latest reporting on Snowden documents from Glenn Greenwald, in association with some reporters from the CBC, reveals that the Canadian equivalent of the NSA, the Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC) has been tracking people as they connect to WiFi networks in a variety of public places including airports, hotels, coffee shops and libraries. The main focus appears to be on airports, but then they use that data to create a map of information about where someone goes.

Just two months ago, the head of the CSEC, John Foster, insisted that the CSEC does not spy on anyone in Canada:

“I can’t comment in detail on the intelligence operations or capabilities of ourselves or our allies. What I can tell you is that CSEC, under its legislation, cannot target Canadians anywhere in the world or anyone in Canada, including visitors to Canada.”

And yet, as this report shows, they absolutely are collecting tons of data on Canadians and visitors to Canada. And not just a few. The document shows that in a test that "swept a modest size city," they collected information on over 300,000 people. Also, they can then use that information to track where a person goes, creating profiles over time. The document reveals that they're just testing this capability (which was created in coordination with the NSA), but it indicates the plan is for all of the "Five Eyes" countries to use a similar system -- though the reporters say they've been told the system is now fully operational, and not just in test mode.

It's not clear from the document exactly how the CSEC is able to get this data. The CBC report questions a few potential sources, such as key airports and Boingo (the company that supplies WiFi to many public hotspots) and both deny providing the information. The Boingo denial seems reasonable, since in the presentation it actually indicates that they have trouble getting information on users on Boingo's network.

The reporters spoke to multiple experts who all say that there's no possible way that this effort is legal under Canadian law. After all, as Foster himself stated above, the CSEC cannot target anyone on Canadian soil, but they clearly do. The article even quotes Ontario's privacy commissioner Ann Cavoukian who seems horrified by this revelation:

Ontario's privacy commissioner Ann Cavoukian says she is "blown away" by the revelations.

"It is really unbelievable that CSEC would engage in that kind of surveillance of Canadians. Of us.

"I mean that could have been me at the airport walking around… This resembles the activities of a totalitarian state, not a free and open society."

For all the wonders of free WiFi, there's one more downside to keep in mind. If you're using it, you're almost certainly being tracked by a spy agency.

Filed Under: airports, canada, csec, free wifi, john foster, library, privacy, tracking, wifi

How Ruling On WiFi Snooping Means Security Researchers May Face Criminal Liability

from the not-a-good-thing dept

We wrote last week about an appeals court's technologically illiterate ruling that WiFi isn't a radio communication, and therefore picking up unencrypted WiFi data, even though it's broadcast for anyone to access, could be a violation of wiretapping laws. This seemed ridiculous for a variety of reasons, including the fact that part of the reasoning is that radio is supposedly mostly "auditory" (even though it's not).

Over at the EFF, Hanni Fakhoury explains how this ruling could be a disaster for security researchers:

If you're a security researcher in the Ninth Circuit (which covers most of the West Coast) who wants to capture unencrypted Wi-Fi packets as part of your research, you better call a lawyer first (and we can help you with that). The Wiretap Act imposes both civil and serious criminal penalties for violations and there is a real risk that researchers who intentionally capture payload data transmitted over unencrypted Wi-Fi—even if they don't read the actual communications —may be found in violation of the law. Given the concerns about over-criminalization and overcharging, prosecutors now have another felony charge in their arsenal.

There's a fairly big risk here that this interpretation of the law is going to create tremendous chilling effects on research.

Of course, there is a flip side. In theory, this might also mean that police can't scoop up WiFi signals either:

On the other hand, the decision also provides a strong argument that the feds and other law enforcement agencies that want to spy on data transmitted over unencrypted Wi-Fi will need to get a wiretap order to do so. We've seen the government use a device called a "moocherhunter" without a search warrant to read Wi-Fi signals to figure out who's connecting to a particular wireless router. This decision suggests that to the extent the government uses a device like this (or even a "stingray" to the extent it can capture Wi-Fi signals) to capture payload data —even if just to determine a person's location—they'll need a wiretap order to do so. That's good news since wiretap orders are harder to get than a search warrant. 

Still we've seen courts give much greater leverage to law enforcement scooping up communications, so this benefit might not actually be real. The risk and the chilling effects to security researchers, however, is very real. Having seen how often security researchers have been threatened and/or arrested for their research, giving law enforcement another bogus thing to use against them is a huge problem.

Filed Under: encryption, liability, research, security, vulnerabilities, wifi, wifi sniffing

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.

Filed Under: encryption, radio communications, wifi, wifi sniffing, wiretapping
Companies: google

Whatever You Think Of The Google WiFi Settlement, It's Bad That It Requires Google To Attack Open WiFi

from the that's-just-silly dept

We're still a bit confused about why so many people freaked out a few years back when Google's Street View cars gobbled up some open WiFi data -- since anyone can do that on an open WiFi network. Various investigations did show that Google was a bit disorganized and had some poor controls in place, which perhaps meant that it should have caught the data collection sooner. So, if you think Google should be punished for that kind of thing, then the recent settlement with a group of state attorneys general perhaps made you happy.

That said, EFF is pointing out why the settlement is stupid -- not for Google, but for open WiFi and security. First, these technologically clueless attorneys general are requiring Google to create videos and ads promoting WiFi encryption... with a focus on old and bad standards like WEP, which is like saying you should be locking your front door with a cheap chain lock. It's a "lock," but one that could be broken by pretty much anyone in seconds.

Even worse, though, is that the settlement requires Google to push the message that the only way to protect yourself is to lock up your WiFi. But that's ridiculous. Open WiFi, by itself, is not a bad thing. Yes, unencrypted data could be exposed, but the better answer is to encrypt your data, such as by using a VPN. As EFF notes, end-to-end encryption is always going to make more sense than just encrypting your access point and hoping that keeps people out. And, yet, much of the settlement focuses on having Google push people to lock up their WiFi.

The solution to public surveillance problems should not involve discouraging people from providing public resources like open wireless, since this cuts against the general interest and takes away a common good. As we've explained elsewhere, wireless encryption provides few benefits compared to the much stronger end-to-end encryption, a technology that can thrive alongside environments with open wireless access. The settlement could have gone so much farther by educating people how to run open wireless networks safely and securely—for example, through open guest networks.

It is apparent that too little thought and analysis went into this settlement document, and, as a result, the requirements do the public a huge disservice by hurting the Open Wireless Movement.

Of course, this is the kind of thing you get when you let grandstanding politicians tell companies how they need to act concerning technology they don't understand.

Filed Under: encryption, open wifi, privacy, wifi
Companies: google

Canadian Schools Ban WiFi Based On Bad Science

from the and-what-are-they-teaching-our-kids dept

A decade ago, we first wrote about some freaked out, clueless parents suing a school district for wanting to install a WiFi network. The parents believed -- based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever -- that WiFi networks emitted "harmful" electro-magnetic radiation. Since then, we've heard of many such stories of people fearing the health impacts of WiFi, despite a near total lack of evidence of any harm at all. Studies have found that an entire year sitting next to a WiFi access point gives you the equivalent radiation of 20 minutes on a mobile phone. And yet, every few years, we hear about parents or politicians freaking out about the issue and trying to get WiFi banned in schools.

Amazingly, they've succeeded in some places, including 12 elementary and middle schools up in Canada, which are now being called out by a group called "Bad Science Watch" for making decisions based on absolutely and totally bogus science. You can read the full report here, in which they call out "anti-WiFi activists" who are "spreading misinformation." It seems they ought to call out schools as well. You would think that places of learning would investigate the actual science.

These claims are not substantiated by the scientific literature and have little acceptance from medical professionals and the scientific community. This activism therefore amounts to nothing more than fear-mongering by misguided special interest groups who are attempting to have these networks removed.

Nevertheless, the media has been all too willing to fan the flames of controversy and has contributed to a growing false uncertainty over the safety of WiFi. As a result many school boards, libraries, and town councils across Canada have been called on by concerned citizens to limit or remove WiFi networks.

Filed Under: canada, health, scared, wifi

EFF Reminds Us That Open WiFi Isn't A Bad Thing... And Should Actually Be Encouraged

from the help-out dept

We've had plenty of stories concerning open WiFi, and there seems to be a general opinion among some that open WiFi is "a bad thing." Some have even tried (and failed) to argue that having an open WiFi network makes you negligent. In some areas, law enforcement has even gone around telling people to lock up their WiFi. Those who argue against open WiFi are generally conflating different issues. It is true that if you use an open WiFi network without securing yourself you do open up yourself to snooping from others. Similarly, if others are using your open WiFi, it it could lead to at least an investigation if your access point is used for nefarious purposes. But combining those to claim that open WiFi itself is bad or illegal is a mistake. It is entirely possible to secure your own activities, and to set up an open WiFi network in a reasonable manner that minimizes any such threat.

The EFF and others have been trying to remind people that there are also tremendous benefits to open WiFi in increasing connectivity for everyone. As part of this, they've launched the Open Wireless Movement encouraging people to purposely leave their WiFi networks open (and to take appropriate security precautions). They're pointing out that especially in times of crisis, such open networks can be tremendously useful.

The Open Wireless Movement envisions a world where people readily have access to open wireless Internet connections—a world where sharing one's network in a way that ensures security yet preserves quality is the norm. Much of this vision is attainable now. In fact, many people have routers that already feature "guest networking" capabilities. To make this even easier, we are working with a coalition of volunteer engineers to build technologies that would make it simple for Internet subscribers to portion off their wireless networks for guests and the public while maintaining security, protecting privacy, and preserving quality of access. And we're working with advocates to help change the way people and businesses think about Internet service.

We're also teaching the world about the many benefits of open wireless in order to help society move away from closed networks and to a world in which open access is the default. We are working to debunk myths (and confront truths) about open wireless while creating technologies and legal precedent to ensure it is safe, private, and legal to open your network.

Hopefully we can finally get past the myth that open WiFi is automatically bad and get people moving towards a better understanding of how to use the internet safely while still offering up open access in a reasonable manner.

Filed Under: open wifi, security, wifi

Cisco, Motorola, Netgear Team Up To Expose Wifi Patent Bully

from the hitting-back-hard dept

Last year, we wrote about a crazy patent troll, named Innovatio, who had sued a ton of restaurants and hotels, claiming that anyone who used WiFi was violating its patents. It was even claiming that individuals who use WiFi at home infringed too -- but that it wouldn't go after them "at this time." Instead, it preferred to focus on shaking down tons of small businesses, offering to settle for $2,500 to $3,000 -- which is cheaper than hiring a lawyer to fight it, no matter how bogus. We noted at the time that Motorola and Cisco had gone to court to try to get a declaratory judgment to protect its customers.

Well, it seems that the effort to stop these lawsuits has been taken to the next level. Cisco, Motorola and Netgear have now filed an amended complaint which rips Innovatio apart, and doesn't just seek a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, but outlines a parade of lawbreaking by Innovatio, arguing that it's actually involved in racketeering and conspiracy among other things. The full filing, embedded below, is fascinating. The filing reveals some background about Innovatio, which apparently is connected to Noel Whitley, who had been VP of Intellectual Property at Broadcom... but then left to create Innovatio, which just so happens to have acquired most of its patents from... Broadcom. Among the parade of insanity charged against Innovatio:

• Motorola, Cisco and Netgear all have licensed the patents in question, meaning that users of that equipment are covered by those patents under the concept of patent exhaustion (basically, if you buy a licensed product, it's licensed). Innovatio conveniently doesn't mention this to the people it sends threat letters to.
• The patents in question are part of commitments to IEEE that they'll only be licensed on RAND terms, but the threat letters demand way more than would be considered "reasonable."
• Incredibly, Innovatio includes some expired patents in the list of patents it has threatened people over. That's a massive no-no. Once a patent is expired you can't demand a license for it. At all.
• Innovatio apparently tells the people it threatens that it'll be cheaper to just settle, rather than to even investigate the claims that it's making -- and has told people that the manufacturers in question aren't defending their customers, which is proven false by the lawsuit, which, again, was filed soon after Innovatio popped up on the scene.
• In an attempt to appear more legit, Innovatio claims that the patents in question have "generated in excess of $1 billion in settlements and license fees" to scare small businesses into complying. It leaves out that it appears to be basing this number on the famous broad patent fight settlement between Qualcomm and Broadcom, which was a wide-ranging cross licensing program, that has nothing to do with Innovatio or its specific patents.

There's a lot more in there, but if the allegations by the vendors are accurate, Innovatio's actions are really questionable. Even if people agree that the patents in question are legit, the fact that the vendors have already licensed them makes these actions quite incredible. The lawsuit claims that Innovatio has sent threat letters to an astounding 8,000+ businesses, mostly way too small to be able to understand the details of what's happening.

Defendants prey upon end users that are not involved in the development or supply of the accused technologies, demanding exorbitant licensing amounts that breach numerous obligations on the patents and greatly exceed any notion of reasonableness. In furtherance of their plan, Defendants threaten protracted negotiations with onerous burdens on end users, and offer supposed “discounts” for promptly paying Innovatio without engaging in such negotiations, while making it clear that Innovatio will initiate costly litigation with anyone that does not acquiesce (something it cannot realistically do given the 8000-plus letters sent throughout the U.S.). Under these circumstances, Innovatio circumvents its obligations and illegally obtains and seeks to obtain licensing fees to which it is not entitled, at great detriment to the Plaintiffs in this action, their customers, and the public generally.

Oh yeah, as for that whole "expired patent" thing? That seems especially egregious:

To date, at least ten of the Innovatio Patents have expired, yet those patents continue to be highlighted in Defendants’ threat letters in furtherance of their licensing campaign. Yet Innovatio states to its licensing targets that “Innovatio proposes granting [the licensing target] an upfront, paid-up license for its use under all of 31 of the issued Innovatio Patents,” when those targets have no liability on and therefore no need of such a license to expired patents. For example, on May 9, 2012, almost one year after the ‘771 patent expired and almost six months after the ‘311 patent expired, Innovatio sent a demand letter to [redacted] .... Innovatio did not provide notice of these or its other patents to [redacted] before expiration. Notwithstanding the expiration of these patents and other patents, Innovatio’s May 9, 2012 demand letter stated “[t]he operation and use of any [WLANs that use the IEEE 802.11 communication protocols] by [redacted] constitutes infringement of at least the following Innovatio Patents: . . . U.S. Patent No. 5,940,771 . . . [and] U.S. Patent No. 6,374,311.” .... Yet circumstances here including a failure to comply with 35 U.S.C. §287, confirms that Innovatio cannot assert infringement or recover damages on at least these expired patent claims. On information and belief, Innovatio never disclosed that these patents had expired, or that its remedies were limited, and the purpose behind inclusion of these patents is to inflate the size of Innovatio’s portfolio, instill fear, increase fees and costs to investigate, and force its targets to capitulate promptly to Innovatio’s unlawful demands.

The filing also includes standard claims of non-infringement and invalidity of the patents in question, but the highlighting of these other behaviors by Innovatio are really quite stunning. Even in cases of extreme patent trolling it's pretty rare to see such egregious behavior. Every so often we see RICO claims being used to counter trollish behavior, but they rarely work. However, the details in this case suggest that if a RICO charge is going to stick, this seems like a reasonable case for it to happen.

Filed Under: patent trolls, patents, racketeering, rico, wifi
Companies: broadcom, cisco, innovatio, motorola, netgear

Russia Wants To Ban Children From Using WiFi

from the with-liability-on-the-wifi-owner dept

Ah, Russia. Officials in the Federal Mass Media Inspection Service (?!?) are considering a plan to ban children from using WiFi -- and would enforce the ban by holding the hotspot owners liable if anyone under 18 got on their networks. Seriously.

The Communications and Press Ministry has proposed banning children from using Wi-Fi networks in public, potentially making cafes, restaurants and other locations providing the service responsible for enforcing the law.

Why? For the children, of course! They claim it's related to Russia's new internet censorship law, which they're afraid will be circumvented by kids at the local coffee shop or restaurant. Not surprisingly, various places that offer WiFi are not happy about this, pointing out that they have no way of making sure that teens don't get on their WiFi. That doesn't seem likely to stop moralizing bureaucrats (with a healthy appreciation for the ability to censor) from moving forward with this plan.

Filed Under: censorship, children, russia, wifi, wireless