7 ms·

I am NOT a laywer, but I checked how much of what the article describes is illegal in Germany. The answer is just about everything. Installing a doorbell with

I am NOT a laywer, but I checked how much of what the article describes is illegal in Germany. The answer is just about everything. Installing a doorbell with a camera that looks into the hallway is illegal. You may not record what happens in public spaces on security cameras. And even inside your home, you still have to ask for consent to make an audio recording. Otherwise, this constitutes a crime. Also, sniffing Wifi for data not aimed at you is illegal. The law is quite broad and covers unencrypted data. Sniffing MACs of devices that don't communicate with your own network falls under that. Sending deauthenticarion packages using those MACs proves the intent to deliberately obtain that data. Thus might even result in a prison sentence. Deliberately interfering with the operation of a Wifi network may also constitute computer sabotage, but the bar for that is higher. EDIT: I also forgot: creating the program that is intended to specifically interfere with the doorbell is also punishable. This is one of the rare cases where the preparation of a crime constitutes a separate crime in itself. The same goes for the distribution of such tools.

jedimastert 7y ago
> You may not record what happens in public spaces on security cameras In America this could be up for debate. Much of this kind of law depends on a "reasonable expectation of privacy", meaning that if anyone could see you there, it's not an issue to record or take pictures. An apartment hallway actually may or may not count as a public space, depending on whether or not the building is access controlled.
- istjohn 7y ago
  In America, as a rule, anything in public can be filmed.
  - iso947 7y ago
    Define public
    - vorticalbox 7y ago
      Anywhere you don't have reasonable expectation of privacy.
      - berbec 7y ago
        Strange example - in a hotel, with an open window, on the 45th floor. If paparazzi with a telephoto lens can see you, it is considered fair game.
        dylan604 7y ago
        If you're standing in front of a window and can see out (and can be seen), you don't really have a reasonable expectation of privacy. This applies to my single floor single family residence. If I want privacy, I close the blinds and/or drapes. As a matter of courtesy, I never aim a telephoto at windows. Paparazzi are an entirely different class though in that most have no "class" anymore it seems.
        JoeAltmaier 7y ago
        You don't have a practical expectation. Its reasonable to expect polite neighbors not to stare in windows, take photos etc. Used to be called a 'Peeping Tom' and was actionable. Nowadays we've become jaded?
        judge2020 7y ago
        Not a Lawyer, but it looks like it varies by state. CA penal code 647 j makes this illegal even without entering the property, but mississippi code 97-29-61 does require entering the property.
        gnopgnip 7y ago
        This is a poor example for two reasons. The reasonable expectation of privacy standard is for audio, not images. And you do have an expectation of privacy in your own hotel room
  - Spooky23 7y ago
    It can be filmed, but audio may not be unless you are a party to the conversation. Doing so is a felony is many places.
    - amarshall 7y ago
      This does vary by U.S. state, though. Most are “one-party”, but some are “two-party”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_laws#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_laws#...
      - cryptonector 7y ago
        GP refers to zero-party recording. I would be surprised if surreptitious (i.e., not announced) audio recording by non-parties were legal anywhere at all in the U.S.
    - gnopgnip 7y ago
      This is incorrect, it is not a felony to record audio from a security camera in the US. Two party /all party consent only applies to confidential communications.
      - cryptonector 7y ago
        If you're not a party to a conversation, then one-party rules don't apply. I.e., in one-party States you can record any conversation to which you are a party, but you can't eavesdrop on conversations that you're NOT a party to. This means you can't leave a microphone at a bus stop to record random conversations, say, not without a) owning the bus stop, and b) loudly announcing the presence of the microphone to all users of said bus stop. Replace "bus stop" with any public space. This also applies to private spaces as well, even when you're the owner. Thus you can have video surveillance at any office, but audio surveillance is generally a big no-no.
      - Spooky23 7y ago
        I am not incorrect. Record audio at your peril: (This is re: New York) http://www.dmlp.org/forum/newsgathering-law/new-york-recording-public http://www.dmlp.org/forum/newsgathering-law/new-york-recordi... “...it is possible to violate the Wiretapping Act (and thereby commit a felony) by pointing a camera at a person speaking on a cell phone and creating an audio recording of part of the telephone conversation.” Recording audio is always fraught with risk. You should avoid it, especially in indoor locations that you do not control.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
looperhacks 7y ago
You might find it interesting that some German universities [1] actively send out deauthentication packages to clients that connect to SSIDs that are not on their internal whitelist to "protect" the clients from "rogue APs". A lecturer from my Hochschule was fired for protesting this practice. [1]: https://meinehochschulebehindertdaswlan.de/ https://meinehochschulebehindertdaswlan.de/
- picselated 7y ago
  From a network admin's perspective- this is necessary to protect the integrity of the air space. It discourages the use of rogue AP's which wreck the channel utilization for everyone. It's common to find this feature in enterprise wifi systems. Some actively spoof the SSID of the rogue AP in order to draw the client back to the institution's network.
  - jhayward 7y ago
    In the US, that practice is black-letter illegal. A major hotel chain had to pay a rather large fine for doing exactly what you describe.[1] There is no private property right to the radio frequency energy traversing someone's property. The owner / lessor of a property may not interfere in someone's use of the airwaves. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2014/10/03/travel/marriott-fcc-wi-fi-fine/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2014/10/03/travel/marriott-fcc-wi-fi-fin...
  - Avamander 7y ago
    Too bad for the admins then that newer standards don't tolerate this fuckery.
  - gruez 7y ago
    And what about the people who don't/can't use the institution's network? Why should the institution be allowed to effectively monopolize the unlicensed airwaves?
    - akersten 7y ago
      Why not? It's unlicensed, so it's a free-for-all. If we don't like that, the answer is to license it. Which doesn't seem better to me.
nocturnial 7y ago
In Belgium there's a similar law which almost prohibits the usage of Ring. In the law, there are two main usages of this kind of system. In case you want to use it to identify persons who ring your doorbell, you need to comply with the following: - The camera can only be active when someone actually rings your doorbell - You cannot store any images from this camera. If the system you have installed doesn't abide by those rules, it falls under the more stringent camera surveillance law. That includes hanging up pictograms indicating camera surveillance, registering and obtaining permission,... and so on (gdpr becomes relevant).
- thw0rted 7y ago
  I suspect that your rules are also the ones that the GP is subject to in Germany, since you actually can buy video doorbells here and use them at least without an Überwachung sign -- not sure about registration since I don't have one myself.
akersten 7y ago
> Also, sniffing Wifi for data not aimed at you is illegal. Ugh, yuck, I hate when lawmakers write laws like that. What does that even mean? All WiFi that I can hear is aimed at me. That's how radio works. No, I'm not being disingenuous or obtuse, this is a legitimate concern with the way we're allowing artistic liberty into the written law. It's really badly ambiguous, not to mention the ridiculous violation of autonomy that you can't listen to broadcasts you can hear is.
- gmueckl 7y ago
  Poor word choice on my part. You are only free to capture and process information that either a broadcast without target or addressed specifically to you in some form. And that makes total sense. There is some leeway in the interpretation so that the mandatory reception and decoding as part of the technical implementation are not illegal in themselves, but any further processing of data clearly addressed at someone/something else is not legal.
  - gpvos 7y ago
    So when you are actually developing such a technical implementation, you must make sure you're in a Faraday cage?
- Syzygies 7y ago
  I'm reminded of early Unix, with default permissions that made one's files public, in the spirit of sharing. Well before one could Google, I wanted good examples of TeX vitas, so I searched all unprotected files of every math department server I could access. Some people were horrified to learn that this was possible or that I had done this. That most people do not choose 802.11w is a similar state of ignorance. Yes these are public broadcasts. The laws are substitutes for more thoughtful engineering. We have little privacy on the internet; that ship has sailed, through similar ignorance. It's worth worrying about doorbells, but that's not the big picture.
rolltiide 7y ago
Only the ring owner would get caught though

jedimastert 7y ago

> You may not record what happens in public spaces on security cameras In America this could be up for debate. Much of this kind of law depends on a "reasonable expectation of privacy", meaning that if anyone could see you there, it's not an issue to record or take pictures. An apartment hallway actually may or may not count as a public space, depending on whether or not the building is access controlled.

istjohn 7y ago
In America, as a rule, anything in public can be filmed.
- iso947 7y ago
  Define public
  - vorticalbox 7y ago
    Anywhere you don't have reasonable expectation of privacy.
    - berbec 7y ago
      Strange example - in a hotel, with an open window, on the 45th floor. If paparazzi with a telephoto lens can see you, it is considered fair game.
      - dylan604 7y ago
        If you're standing in front of a window and can see out (and can be seen), you don't really have a reasonable expectation of privacy. This applies to my single floor single family residence. If I want privacy, I close the blinds and/or drapes. As a matter of courtesy, I never aim a telephoto at windows. Paparazzi are an entirely different class though in that most have no "class" anymore it seems.
        JoeAltmaier 7y ago
        You don't have a practical expectation. Its reasonable to expect polite neighbors not to stare in windows, take photos etc. Used to be called a 'Peeping Tom' and was actionable. Nowadays we've become jaded?
      - judge2020 7y ago
        Not a Lawyer, but it looks like it varies by state. CA penal code 647 j makes this illegal even without entering the property, but mississippi code 97-29-61 does require entering the property.
      - gnopgnip 7y ago
        This is a poor example for two reasons. The reasonable expectation of privacy standard is for audio, not images. And you do have an expectation of privacy in your own hotel room
- Spooky23 7y ago
  It can be filmed, but audio may not be unless you are a party to the conversation. Doing so is a felony is many places.
  - amarshall 7y ago
    This does vary by U.S. state, though. Most are “one-party”, but some are “two-party”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_laws#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_laws#...
    - cryptonector 7y ago
      GP refers to zero-party recording. I would be surprised if surreptitious (i.e., not announced) audio recording by non-parties were legal anywhere at all in the U.S.
  - gnopgnip 7y ago
    This is incorrect, it is not a felony to record audio from a security camera in the US. Two party /all party consent only applies to confidential communications.
    - cryptonector 7y ago
      If you're not a party to a conversation, then one-party rules don't apply. I.e., in one-party States you can record any conversation to which you are a party, but you can't eavesdrop on conversations that you're NOT a party to. This means you can't leave a microphone at a bus stop to record random conversations, say, not without a) owning the bus stop, and b) loudly announcing the presence of the microphone to all users of said bus stop. Replace "bus stop" with any public space. This also applies to private spaces as well, even when you're the owner. Thus you can have video surveillance at any office, but audio surveillance is generally a big no-no.
    - Spooky23 7y ago
      I am not incorrect. Record audio at your peril: (This is re: New York) http://www.dmlp.org/forum/newsgathering-law/new-york-recording-public http://www.dmlp.org/forum/newsgathering-law/new-york-recordi... “...it is possible to violate the Wiretapping Act (and thereby commit a felony) by pointing a camera at a person speaking on a cell phone and creating an audio recording of part of the telephone conversation.” Recording audio is always fraught with risk. You should avoid it, especially in indoor locations that you do not control.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

looperhacks 7y ago

You might find it interesting that some German universities [1] actively send out deauthentication packages to clients that connect to SSIDs that are not on their internal whitelist to "protect" the clients from "rogue APs". A lecturer from my Hochschule was fired for protesting this practice. [1]: https://meinehochschulebehindertdaswlan.de/ https://meinehochschulebehindertdaswlan.de/

picselated 7y ago
From a network admin's perspective- this is necessary to protect the integrity of the air space. It discourages the use of rogue AP's which wreck the channel utilization for everyone. It's common to find this feature in enterprise wifi systems. Some actively spoof the SSID of the rogue AP in order to draw the client back to the institution's network.
- jhayward 7y ago
  In the US, that practice is black-letter illegal. A major hotel chain had to pay a rather large fine for doing exactly what you describe.[1] There is no private property right to the radio frequency energy traversing someone's property. The owner / lessor of a property may not interfere in someone's use of the airwaves. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2014/10/03/travel/marriott-fcc-wi-fi-fine/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2014/10/03/travel/marriott-fcc-wi-fi-fin...
- Avamander 7y ago
  Too bad for the admins then that newer standards don't tolerate this fuckery.
- gruez 7y ago
  And what about the people who don't/can't use the institution's network? Why should the institution be allowed to effectively monopolize the unlicensed airwaves?
  - akersten 7y ago
    Why not? It's unlicensed, so it's a free-for-all. If we don't like that, the answer is to license it. Which doesn't seem better to me.

nocturnial 7y ago

In Belgium there's a similar law which almost prohibits the usage of Ring. In the law, there are two main usages of this kind of system. In case you want to use it to identify persons who ring your doorbell, you need to comply with the following: - The camera can only be active when someone actually rings your doorbell - You cannot store any images from this camera. If the system you have installed doesn't abide by those rules, it falls under the more stringent camera surveillance law. That includes hanging up pictograms indicating camera surveillance, registering and obtaining permission,... and so on (gdpr becomes relevant).

thw0rted 7y ago
I suspect that your rules are also the ones that the GP is subject to in Germany, since you actually can buy video doorbells here and use them at least without an Überwachung sign -- not sure about registration since I don't have one myself.

akersten 7y ago

> Also, sniffing Wifi for data not aimed at you is illegal. Ugh, yuck, I hate when lawmakers write laws like that. What does that even mean? All WiFi that I can hear is aimed at me. That's how radio works. No, I'm not being disingenuous or obtuse, this is a legitimate concern with the way we're allowing artistic liberty into the written law. It's really badly ambiguous, not to mention the ridiculous violation of autonomy that you can't listen to broadcasts you can hear is.

gmueckl 7y ago
Poor word choice on my part. You are only free to capture and process information that either a broadcast without target or addressed specifically to you in some form. And that makes total sense. There is some leeway in the interpretation so that the mandatory reception and decoding as part of the technical implementation are not illegal in themselves, but any further processing of data clearly addressed at someone/something else is not legal.
- gpvos 7y ago
  So when you are actually developing such a technical implementation, you must make sure you're in a Faraday cage?
Syzygies 7y ago
I'm reminded of early Unix, with default permissions that made one's files public, in the spirit of sharing. Well before one could Google, I wanted good examples of TeX vitas, so I searched all unprotected files of every math department server I could access. Some people were horrified to learn that this was possible or that I had done this. That most people do not choose 802.11w is a similar state of ignorance. Yes these are public broadcasts. The laws are substitutes for more thoughtful engineering. We have little privacy on the internet; that ship has sailed, through similar ignorance. It's worth worrying about doorbells, but that's not the big picture.

rolltiide 7y ago

Only the ring owner would get caught though