4 ms·

Sooo technically this is on the edge of legal/not legal, depending on your intent and what the judge had for lunch that day. ID'ing devices without consent is a

Sooo technically this is on the edge of legal/not legal, depending on your intent and what the judge had for lunch that day. ID'ing devices without consent is a grey area at best.

davidee 8mo ago
Filming/video and lookups of people filtered through a corporate data mining operation without their consent should also be illegal. I'll take my chances, thank you. I recently had to interact with an idiot wearing meta glasses. There should be a mandatory consent requirement AND an "on air" red led.
- leephillips 8mo ago
  Do you mean in the courtroom or anywhere? Because filming and photographing people in public is legal everywhere in the U.S., and no consent is required.
  - magicalist 8mo ago
    > Do you mean in the courtroom or anywhere? Because filming and photographing people in public is legal everywhere in the U.S., and no consent is required. First, note that "filming" in public is not necessarily legal in every state if you include recording audio of conversations you're not party to. Second, the GP said should be illegal without consent, so clearly was talking about what's they consider right, not necessarily what is. But most importantly, "filming and photographing people in public" is also obviously not what the GP was talking about. They said: > Filming/video and lookups of people filtered through a corporate data mining operation without their consent should also be illegal. And, actually, extracting biometrics from video of people and tracking them/data mining them without consent is in fact not legal in several states already, and potentially federal law, depending on what they do.
pluralmonad 8mo ago
Is this legal advice?
cloudfudge 8mo ago
I'd probably go for "the device explicitly allowed itself to be ID'd by intentionally broadcasting a signal intended for this purpose."
NoahZuniga 8mo ago
> judge had for lunch This would be a criminal matter, so a jury would have to decide if you're guilty. I feel like you'd have a hard time convincing 12 jurors that you're doing something wrong here.
driverdan 8mo ago
[citation needed]
magicalist 8mo ago
> Sooo technically this is on the edge of legal/not legal, depending on your intent and what the judge had for lunch that day. ID'ing devices without consent is a grey area at best. It's looking at the BLE advertising packets that they send out to everybody. The only thing stored is manufacturer ID, not a device ID (which you wouldn't be able to get anyways). You might as well try to press charges against Apple or Google for putting readable names for nearby devices that aren't yours in the bluetooth pairing screen.
IncreasePosts 8mo ago
What region has laws that you're not allowed to look at a packet that was broadcast from a device? This sounds prima facie absurd, but I know a lot of strange laws exist out there.
- randallsquared 8mo ago
  This is a case where any law is strange, but so is a lack of a law, for some. * What do you mean it's allowed for people to record me while I'm telling them off? * What do you mean I'm not allowed to remember (with high fidelity) what someone said to me? Either way, someone thinks it's weird.
yonatan8070 8mo ago
So if I run a Wi-Fi Monitor Mode pcap and Wireshark automatically renders MACs as the company they belong to, that's not legal now?
- btbuildem 8mo ago
  Precisely. Don't ask me why I looked into this, but the legislation is what it is.

Sooo technically this is on the edge of legal/not legal, depending on your intent and what the judge had for lunch that day. ID'ing devices without consent is a grey area at best.

davidee 8mo ago

Filming/video and lookups of people filtered through a corporate data mining operation without their consent should also be illegal. I'll take my chances, thank you. I recently had to interact with an idiot wearing meta glasses. There should be a mandatory consent requirement AND an "on air" red led.

leephillips 8mo ago
Do you mean in the courtroom or anywhere? Because filming and photographing people in public is legal everywhere in the U.S., and no consent is required.
- magicalist 8mo ago
  > Do you mean in the courtroom or anywhere? Because filming and photographing people in public is legal everywhere in the U.S., and no consent is required. First, note that "filming" in public is not necessarily legal in every state if you include recording audio of conversations you're not party to. Second, the GP said should be illegal without consent, so clearly was talking about what's they consider right, not necessarily what is. But most importantly, "filming and photographing people in public" is also obviously not what the GP was talking about. They said: > Filming/video and lookups of people filtered through a corporate data mining operation without their consent should also be illegal. And, actually, extracting biometrics from video of people and tracking them/data mining them without consent is in fact not legal in several states already, and potentially federal law, depending on what they do.

pluralmonad 8mo ago

Is this legal advice?

cloudfudge 8mo ago

I'd probably go for "the device explicitly allowed itself to be ID'd by intentionally broadcasting a signal intended for this purpose."

NoahZuniga 8mo ago

> judge had for lunch This would be a criminal matter, so a jury would have to decide if you're guilty. I feel like you'd have a hard time convincing 12 jurors that you're doing something wrong here.

driverdan 8mo ago

[citation needed]

magicalist 8mo ago

> Sooo technically this is on the edge of legal/not legal, depending on your intent and what the judge had for lunch that day. ID'ing devices without consent is a grey area at best. It's looking at the BLE advertising packets that they send out to everybody. The only thing stored is manufacturer ID, not a device ID (which you wouldn't be able to get anyways). You might as well try to press charges against Apple or Google for putting readable names for nearby devices that aren't yours in the bluetooth pairing screen.

IncreasePosts 8mo ago

What region has laws that you're not allowed to look at a packet that was broadcast from a device? This sounds prima facie absurd, but I know a lot of strange laws exist out there.

randallsquared 8mo ago
This is a case where any law is strange, but so is a lack of a law, for some. * What do you mean it's allowed for people to record me while I'm telling them off? * What do you mean I'm not allowed to remember (with high fidelity) what someone said to me? Either way, someone thinks it's weird.

yonatan8070 8mo ago

So if I run a Wi-Fi Monitor Mode pcap and Wireshark automatically renders MACs as the company they belong to, that's not legal now?

btbuildem 8mo ago
Precisely. Don't ask me why I looked into this, but the legislation is what it is.