5 ms·
> 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 ca
by 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 agoPoor 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 agoSo when you are actually developing such a technical implementation, you must make sure you're in a Faraday cage?
- Syzygies 7y agoI'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.