3 ms·

If you're shouting your password at your roommate loudly, and a neighbor overhears it, then how is that really snooping? Once the extremely loud signal leaves y

by ddunkin 14y ago

If you're shouting your password at your roommate loudly, and a neighbor overhears it, then how is that really snooping? Once the extremely loud signal leaves your property, I'm not sure you can be responsible for that data. It doesn't take any sort of high-end equipment to intercept this data, it's being thrown at us constantly.

jlgreco 14y ago
What really is the difference between a FLIR gun and a wifi card in promiscuous mode? Both do nothing more than pick up non-visible light and are widely available, but both are still magic to the layman. Hell, a FLIR gun is even easier to use, you just point it like any other camera. Is the important difference to you really price? Yes, unprotected wifi can be trivially snooped. But that is now what people expect.
- 001sky 14y ago
  What really is the difference between a FLIR gun and a wifi card in promiscuous mode? The person that claims a right to privacy needs to take reasonable steps. Behind a solid wall, is a reasonable step to take. As is building a wall. Failing to secure your network, that you set up to "broadcast" in open mode, is arguably different.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    To you or I, yes; securing your wireless network is obvious. Can you really say that about the general population? Certainly there is a non-trivial portion of that population, if not a majority, that lacks an understanding of the mechanics behind how wifi works. Even more technically inclined users may reasonably be under the impression that MAC filtering, hidden SSIDs, or WEP provide privacy. Why should any of these people be any less deserving of privacy than the rest of us? Knowledge of the basic properties of visible light is built into most of us. The laws were written with that in mind. However you cannot say the same about wifi.
    - 001sky 14y ago
      I'm not disagreeing at at all your point. Only noting that the general rights to privacy are (for good or bad) hinging on 'reasonable' expectations. If the public and the police are not in a 'fair fight' so to speak, this is a problem and should be taken up. We just need to frame the problem. Properly though, so it makes sense. Right now, it does seem pretty unreasonable to expect citizens to line their house with lead shielding, for example, to keep from being visually intruded upon. Because the cost and complexity, if nothing else. The wi-fi example is more tricky, because of a couple areas. You are technically using unlicensed public spectrum in 2.5ghz. You can secure it (somewhat) with simple, lo-cost steps, etc. Its broadcasting signal beyond your propert lines, etc. Now, what about 3G datacard? Thats protected because not only is it encrypted but its a 1 to 1 telco connect which requies a warrant. 1 to 1 calls are not exempt from warrant requirements. are on private spectrum. and because 1 to 1 their is no broadcast element. etc. Even though this too is lookingh alot like wi-fi in a diagram (radio, spectrum, mobile etc) So, these are some things in the context that are relevant. Generally, if the authorities have 007 technology that we cannot see, hear, smell, detect or ever reasonably avoid, then we have a major problem. This is one reason we need transparency (no pun intended). Will be of interest to see when that lines are crossed.
    - joshAg 14y ago
      it wasn't illegal to listen in on other people's cordless phone calls since they were broadcasting unencrypted in the 900MHz and 2.4GHz parts of the spectrum.
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        I am not so much concerned with the state of the law as I am with what we, the technically inclined members of society, think of these people's right to privacy. We cannot allow ourselves to abuse our position and justify preying on those who are less skilled. Claims from within our community that "Privacy is dead." concern me more than any warrantless wiretapping the FBI may be enjoying. It confuses the ability to secure your own privacy with the right to enjoy it. I expect law enforcement to live by the letter of the law, but I expect better of us. I expect ethical behaviour, not just merely legal behaviour. We innovate too quickly for the law to keep up with us.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  What really is the difference between a FLIR gun and a wifi card in promiscuous mode? Both do nothing more than pick up non-visible light and are widely available, but both are still magic to the layman. If the layman is competent to setup a WAP then it's not exactly magic. I have unpleasant memories of doing so from the Unix command line back int he bad old days, but the average person using a consumer operating system will be asked by a friendly wizard whether they with their WAP to be public or private. This isn't difficult, and the public signal can be intercepted with the same sort of technology that is used to broadcast it in the first place. A FLIR gun, on the other hand, provides the user with a superior sensing ability to that of the subject, who is unable to estimate the IR signature of anything or anyone except by touch or close approach.
- magicalist 14y ago
  The difference is that radio communication is well defined in the US code, as are the conditions that exempt the interception of radio communications from being prohibited. FLIR guns do not fall under these definitions and so are covered by different codes. As is discussed by dangrossman above, laws are not constructed in the fashion that you are attempting: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4491872 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4491872

by ddunkin 14y ago

jlgreco 14y ago

What really is the difference between a FLIR gun and a wifi card in promiscuous mode? Both do nothing more than pick up non-visible light and are widely available, but both are still magic to the layman. Hell, a FLIR gun is even easier to use, you just point it like any other camera. Is the important difference to you really price? Yes, unprotected wifi can be trivially snooped. But that is now what people expect.

001sky 14y ago
What really is the difference between a FLIR gun and a wifi card in promiscuous mode? The person that claims a right to privacy needs to take reasonable steps. Behind a solid wall, is a reasonable step to take. As is building a wall. Failing to secure your network, that you set up to "broadcast" in open mode, is arguably different.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  To you or I, yes; securing your wireless network is obvious. Can you really say that about the general population? Certainly there is a non-trivial portion of that population, if not a majority, that lacks an understanding of the mechanics behind how wifi works. Even more technically inclined users may reasonably be under the impression that MAC filtering, hidden SSIDs, or WEP provide privacy. Why should any of these people be any less deserving of privacy than the rest of us? Knowledge of the basic properties of visible light is built into most of us. The laws were written with that in mind. However you cannot say the same about wifi.
  - 001sky 14y ago
    I'm not disagreeing at at all your point. Only noting that the general rights to privacy are (for good or bad) hinging on 'reasonable' expectations. If the public and the police are not in a 'fair fight' so to speak, this is a problem and should be taken up. We just need to frame the problem. Properly though, so it makes sense. Right now, it does seem pretty unreasonable to expect citizens to line their house with lead shielding, for example, to keep from being visually intruded upon. Because the cost and complexity, if nothing else. The wi-fi example is more tricky, because of a couple areas. You are technically using unlicensed public spectrum in 2.5ghz. You can secure it (somewhat) with simple, lo-cost steps, etc. Its broadcasting signal beyond your propert lines, etc. Now, what about 3G datacard? Thats protected because not only is it encrypted but its a 1 to 1 telco connect which requies a warrant. 1 to 1 calls are not exempt from warrant requirements. are on private spectrum. and because 1 to 1 their is no broadcast element. etc. Even though this too is lookingh alot like wi-fi in a diagram (radio, spectrum, mobile etc) So, these are some things in the context that are relevant. Generally, if the authorities have 007 technology that we cannot see, hear, smell, detect or ever reasonably avoid, then we have a major problem. This is one reason we need transparency (no pun intended). Will be of interest to see when that lines are crossed.
  - joshAg 14y ago
    it wasn't illegal to listen in on other people's cordless phone calls since they were broadcasting unencrypted in the 900MHz and 2.4GHz parts of the spectrum.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      I am not so much concerned with the state of the law as I am with what we, the technically inclined members of society, think of these people's right to privacy. We cannot allow ourselves to abuse our position and justify preying on those who are less skilled. Claims from within our community that "Privacy is dead." concern me more than any warrantless wiretapping the FBI may be enjoying. It confuses the ability to secure your own privacy with the right to enjoy it. I expect law enforcement to live by the letter of the law, but I expect better of us. I expect ethical behaviour, not just merely legal behaviour. We innovate too quickly for the law to keep up with us.
anigbrowl 14y ago
What really is the difference between a FLIR gun and a wifi card in promiscuous mode? Both do nothing more than pick up non-visible light and are widely available, but both are still magic to the layman. If the layman is competent to setup a WAP then it's not exactly magic. I have unpleasant memories of doing so from the Unix command line back int he bad old days, but the average person using a consumer operating system will be asked by a friendly wizard whether they with their WAP to be public or private. This isn't difficult, and the public signal can be intercepted with the same sort of technology that is used to broadcast it in the first place. A FLIR gun, on the other hand, provides the user with a superior sensing ability to that of the subject, who is unable to estimate the IR signature of anything or anyone except by touch or close approach.
magicalist 14y ago
The difference is that radio communication is well defined in the US code, as are the conditions that exempt the interception of radio communications from being prohibited. FLIR guns do not fall under these definitions and so are covered by different codes. As is discussed by dangrossman above, laws are not constructed in the fashion that you are attempting: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4491872 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4491872