3 ms·
This is just denying a dismissal of the suit, but it's pretty interesting. I'm still reading the opinion, but the court's reasoning appears to be that wifi shou
by magicalist 13y ago
This is just denying a dismissal of the suit, but it's pretty interesting. I'm still reading the opinion, but the court's reasoning appears to be that wifi shouldn't be considered a "radio communication" under the wiretap act because it didn't really exist at the time it was written (and doesn't really belong in a category with things like traditional radio systems), but, as "electronic communication", they find open wifi is not "readily accessible to the general public".
There is a distinction to be made here, but I'm worried about that particular one. It seems like it would be better to make it on something like accessing the data not meant for you and storing it/processing it (something closer to many privacy laws). Criminalizing the access of open wifi seems like it will quickly become problematic, and I'm sure some enterprising DAs will find it the perfect tool for some case they're having trouble making stick.
That said, this is just denying a dismissal, so we could get more nuance if this goes to trial.
- fleitz 13y agoThere could be a distinction made between utilizing open wifi and sniffing traffic. It seems to me that collection of the packets is the crux of the issue.
- magicalist 13y agoThat's exactly what I mean. The collection is the problem, but the court ruled on the phrase "readily accessible to the general public" (to be fair, though, that was the basis of the motion to dismiss and it would have been a stretch to expand the ruling). Anyone accessing an open wifi point is seeing other people's traffic. It's looking at it and storing it that seems to be the problem, but that's not the distinction the wiretap act makes.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]