6 ms·

"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 g

"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.
- betterunix2 5y ago
  "...then using any wifi device is illegal..." Let's not be pedantic here. We call a technology illegal when there is no legal way to use it. Wifi stations do not just discard frames not intended for them; APs typically keep track of the frequency utilization in their immediate vicinity in order to choose the least crowded channel for the networks they manage. More advanced APs (e.g. CBW APs) will also keep track of other APs and nearby stations long-term for various other purposes (mostly related to improving wireless throughput). There is also DFS/TPC in the 5Ghz band, which involves continuously listening for transmissions that are clearly not intended for any wifi devices (and recording the time and frequency on which such a transmission was received so that an AP does not select that channel again). If your argument is that "displaying" the received transmission is the issue, then Google has done nothing wrong, because the BSSID/GPS database is not "displayed" to any human beings -- the entire system is automated, much like the CSMA and DFS/TPC technologies of wifi itself. Personally I think that is a weak argument since it would make it legally questionable to use a debugger on a device that operates in an explicitly unlicensed part of the radio spectrum. You are right that judges and juries are human beings. They make mistakes when they are tasked with interpreting laws governing technologies they do not understand, and that is why we rely on organizations like the FCC, which are supposed to rely on actual experts when deciding compliance. I doubt that any major corporation would sell wifi equipment if there was any serious question about the legality of monitoring transmissions intended for other stations in the ISM bands. This whole debate sounds like another case of "Google did something, how dare they!"
  - dmurray 5y ago
    > If your argument is that "displaying" the received transmission is the issue, then Google has done nothing wrong, because the BSSID/GPS database is not "displayed" to any human beings -- the entire system is automated, much like the CSMA and DFS/TPC technologies of wifi itself. Personally I think that is a weak argument since it would make it legally questionable to use a debugger on a device that operates in an explicitly unlicensed part of the radio spectrum. This seems like a plausible argument to me. Google use similar arguments with, say, Gmail: their algorithms can read your mail and use what they learn to show you ads, but individual engineers can't, even for debugging purposes.

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.

betterunix2 5y ago
"...then using any wifi device is illegal..." Let's not be pedantic here. We call a technology illegal when there is no legal way to use it. Wifi stations do not just discard frames not intended for them; APs typically keep track of the frequency utilization in their immediate vicinity in order to choose the least crowded channel for the networks they manage. More advanced APs (e.g. CBW APs) will also keep track of other APs and nearby stations long-term for various other purposes (mostly related to improving wireless throughput). There is also DFS/TPC in the 5Ghz band, which involves continuously listening for transmissions that are clearly not intended for any wifi devices (and recording the time and frequency on which such a transmission was received so that an AP does not select that channel again). If your argument is that "displaying" the received transmission is the issue, then Google has done nothing wrong, because the BSSID/GPS database is not "displayed" to any human beings -- the entire system is automated, much like the CSMA and DFS/TPC technologies of wifi itself. Personally I think that is a weak argument since it would make it legally questionable to use a debugger on a device that operates in an explicitly unlicensed part of the radio spectrum. You are right that judges and juries are human beings. They make mistakes when they are tasked with interpreting laws governing technologies they do not understand, and that is why we rely on organizations like the FCC, which are supposed to rely on actual experts when deciding compliance. I doubt that any major corporation would sell wifi equipment if there was any serious question about the legality of monitoring transmissions intended for other stations in the ISM bands. This whole debate sounds like another case of "Google did something, how dare they!"
- dmurray 5y ago
  > If your argument is that "displaying" the received transmission is the issue, then Google has done nothing wrong, because the BSSID/GPS database is not "displayed" to any human beings -- the entire system is automated, much like the CSMA and DFS/TPC technologies of wifi itself. Personally I think that is a weak argument since it would make it legally questionable to use a debugger on a device that operates in an explicitly unlicensed part of the radio spectrum. This seems like a plausible argument to me. Google use similar arguments with, say, Gmail: their algorithms can read your mail and use what they learn to show you ads, but individual engineers can't, even for debugging purposes.