4 ms·

It makes the laws really complicated too. Normally, I don't think there's an expectation of privacy for things that you transmit with a radio transmitter, so AF

It makes the laws really complicated too. Normally, I don't think there's an expectation of privacy for things that you transmit with a radio transmitter, so AFAIK it's still (mostly?) ok to own a radio receiver that can receive (almost) anything anyone transmits. (almost, because things like radar detectors are already illegal in some jurisdictions.) I think there's a tradeoff here. Having people carve out more and more frequencies that become illegal to monitor might not actually make the world a better place in the long run.

shadowgovt 5y ago
Interestingly, this varies from country to country, but in the US: yes. With very, very few exceptions, the law errs on the side of "If it's broadcast, anyone may receive it." Don't broadcast things you don't want received.
- teraflop 5y ago
  Legally, Wi-Fi communications in the US are not considered to be "broadcast", even if anybody sufficiently nearby can receive them. If you're not the intended recipient of a message, and you intentionally intercept it (or attempt to do so), and the content isn't "readily accessible to the general public", then you're breaking the law. Google was successfully sued over this, and to my knowledge the law has not been changed in the decade since then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joffe_v._Google,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joffe_v._Google,_Inc. In particular, the SSID of a network is readily accessible to anyone with a Wi-Fi device, whereas the contents of data packets (even unencrypted ones) are not accessible unless you have packet-sniffing software and know how to use it. This seems to me like a fairly common-sense interpretation. You can still own general-purpose radio receivers (subject to the usual FCC rules about radiated emissions and so on). The legal restrictions are about what you can do with that equipment.
  - betterunix2 5y ago
    "If you're not the intended recipient of a message, and you intentionally intercept it (or attempt to do so), and the content isn't "readily accessible to the general public", then you're breaking the law." ...if true, then wifi itself is illegal, because every wifi station will "intercept" (i.e. receive) frames transmitted by nearby stations in order to avoid interference when attempting to transmit a frame.
    - OJFord 5y ago
      It would not at all surprise me to learn that large swathes of technology are technically illegal, just not anticipated (or properly understood by the right people) or against the 'spirit' of the law.
      - betterunix2 5y ago
        Perhaps, but given how tightly regulated radio is in general and how closely wifi device makers work with regulators (e.g. look at DFS/TPC in the 5Ghz band) it would surprise me if one of the core technologies of wifi (CSMA) was in such a precarious legal situation.
        OJFord 5y ago
        Oh I don't mean I would ever expect it to play out precariously, just that it would be an awkward technicality of the way something happened to be phrased, and fixed when noticed/required.
    - teraflop 5y ago
      A Wi-Fi station is an inanimate object that is incapable of breaking the law. The law applies to what people (or legal entities) do. Sure, whenever somebody else sends a Wi-Fi packet in your vicinity, the components in your phone are physically reacting to the signal that they receive, and inspecting the data to see if you're the intended recipient. If the packet is addressed to somebody else, and your device never stores or displays the payload, then obviously you are not intentionally intercepting anything. The law assumes judges and juries are human beings, who have at least a modicum of intelligence and common sense. It's not a mathematical formalism in which the slightest contradiction lets you prove absurdities.
mason55 5y ago
You’d have to legislate what you can do with the data. Saying that you’re not allowed to receive random broadcasts would make it so you basically couldn’t connect to wifi APs.
- teraflop 5y ago
  According to US law, what's against the law is intercepting communications that are not readily accessible to the public. A Wi-Fi beacon containing an SSID is not a communication intended for somebody else, so there's no legal issue with receiving it. The restrictions are on how the hardware is used, not what it's technically capable of.
betterunix2 5y ago
If monitoring the ISM bands was illegal, wifi would be illegal. Wifi stations continuously monitor the channel they are using to avoid interference and will typically monitor the whole band during the frequency selection process (i.e. searching for the least-crowded channel when setting up the AP). The fact that the ISM bands are basically a free-for-all is one of the best regulatory moves in the history of radio, since that has basically made the diverse market for wireless consumer electronics possible (including wifi and bluetooth, two of the greatest inventions in consumer electronics in my lifetime).

shadowgovt 5y ago

Interestingly, this varies from country to country, but in the US: yes. With very, very few exceptions, the law errs on the side of "If it's broadcast, anyone may receive it." Don't broadcast things you don't want received.

teraflop 5y ago
Legally, Wi-Fi communications in the US are not considered to be "broadcast", even if anybody sufficiently nearby can receive them. If you're not the intended recipient of a message, and you intentionally intercept it (or attempt to do so), and the content isn't "readily accessible to the general public", then you're breaking the law. Google was successfully sued over this, and to my knowledge the law has not been changed in the decade since then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joffe_v._Google,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joffe_v._Google,_Inc. In particular, the SSID of a network is readily accessible to anyone with a Wi-Fi device, whereas the contents of data packets (even unencrypted ones) are not accessible unless you have packet-sniffing software and know how to use it. This seems to me like a fairly common-sense interpretation. You can still own general-purpose radio receivers (subject to the usual FCC rules about radiated emissions and so on). The legal restrictions are about what you can do with that equipment.
- betterunix2 5y ago
  "If you're not the intended recipient of a message, and you intentionally intercept it (or attempt to do so), and the content isn't "readily accessible to the general public", then you're breaking the law." ...if true, then wifi itself is illegal, because every wifi station will "intercept" (i.e. receive) frames transmitted by nearby stations in order to avoid interference when attempting to transmit a frame.
  - OJFord 5y ago
    It would not at all surprise me to learn that large swathes of technology are technically illegal, just not anticipated (or properly understood by the right people) or against the 'spirit' of the law.
    - betterunix2 5y ago
      Perhaps, but given how tightly regulated radio is in general and how closely wifi device makers work with regulators (e.g. look at DFS/TPC in the 5Ghz band) it would surprise me if one of the core technologies of wifi (CSMA) was in such a precarious legal situation.
      - OJFord 5y ago
        Oh I don't mean I would ever expect it to play out precariously, just that it would be an awkward technicality of the way something happened to be phrased, and fixed when noticed/required.
  - teraflop 5y ago
    A Wi-Fi station is an inanimate object that is incapable of breaking the law. The law applies to what people (or legal entities) do. Sure, whenever somebody else sends a Wi-Fi packet in your vicinity, the components in your phone are physically reacting to the signal that they receive, and inspecting the data to see if you're the intended recipient. If the packet is addressed to somebody else, and your device never stores or displays the payload, then obviously you are not intentionally intercepting anything. The law assumes judges and juries are human beings, who have at least a modicum of intelligence and common sense. It's not a mathematical formalism in which the slightest contradiction lets you prove absurdities.

mason55 5y ago

You’d have to legislate what you can do with the data. Saying that you’re not allowed to receive random broadcasts would make it so you basically couldn’t connect to wifi APs.

teraflop 5y ago
According to US law, what's against the law is intercepting communications that are not readily accessible to the public. A Wi-Fi beacon containing an SSID is not a communication intended for somebody else, so there's no legal issue with receiving it. The restrictions are on how the hardware is used, not what it's technically capable of.

betterunix2 5y ago

If monitoring the ISM bands was illegal, wifi would be illegal. Wifi stations continuously monitor the channel they are using to avoid interference and will typically monitor the whole band during the frequency selection process (i.e. searching for the least-crowded channel when setting up the AP). The fact that the ISM bands are basically a free-for-all is one of the best regulatory moves in the history of radio, since that has basically made the diverse market for wireless consumer electronics possible (including wifi and bluetooth, two of the greatest inventions in consumer electronics in my lifetime).