3 ms·
As vitovito mentions, wideband data in high resolution is incredibly expensive from a storage perspective. There are entities that do it, but this also has the
by kastnerkyle 10y ago
As vitovito mentions, wideband data in high resolution is incredibly expensive from a storage perspective. There are entities that do it, but this also has the same privacy concerns as saving every packet that comes over a wire - in fact if you record 2.4 MHz and 5 MHz you will be picking up someone's (hopefully encrypted) private data. I don't think it is illegal, but the technical aspects of this are pretty daunting.
You would be better off decoding and storing that, but that gets into v& territory pretty quickly, depending on who and what you decode (definitely don't decrypt/crack).
- elbrownos 10y agoGoogle was deemed to have broken wiretapping laws when it scooped up unsecured wifi data while collecting images for Streetview. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24047235 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24047235
- throwaway7767 10y agoIn my country back in the eighties, the TV networks broadcasting scrambled content over the airwaves sued some people who were making a profit modifying receivers to unscramble the broadcasts without entering the numeric key (it was a very weak scheme). The court ruled that no law was broken as the signals were being sent over the air, and therefore had no expectation of privacy. And since at that time the descramblers were sold to the user, there was no problem with modifying the hardware. This is why they switched to leasing the descrambler boxes when they upgraded their system (and chose a system for which descramblers were not easily publicly available). It always seemed a sensible ruling to me. Though I don't think anything has changed legally, I suspect the ruling might be different if such a case were tried today. :/