2 ms·

what's worrying here is that the decision hinges on "readily accessible to the general public" This is a bizzare comment. The reporting here articulates the co

by 001sky 13y ago

what's worrying here is that the decision hinges on "readily accessible to the general public" This is a bizzare comment. The reporting here articulates the court's thinking in slightly more detail than the earlier piece: the court didn't think much of Google’s argument that unencrypted data sent over a Wi-Fi network is “readily accessible to the general public” because both the hardware and software needed to intercept and decode the data are widely available. People can easily buy technology to log every keystroke on someone’s computer, the court noted, but that did not make those keystrokes “readily accessible to the general public.” Using technology to snoop on people behind closed doors in their own homes, is using technology to pierce the veil of "what is readily available to the general public". Basically, if you have to use a fancy gizmo to make it accessible, even if the gizmo is available to the public, it does not make all information retreivable with that gizmo public by default. Which seems like fairly common sense. [NB: That doesn't make google guilty of anything. It just means that their arguments to date have missed the mark in getting the suit thrown out without further hearing]

magicalist 13y ago
> This is a bizzare comment. The reporting here articulates the court's thinking in slightly more detail than the earlier piece I was not basing my statements on the nytimes piece, I was basing them on the opinion itself, which is embedded in the wired story: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/09/10/11-17483.pdf http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/09/10/11... Much of the opinion does focus on if wifi should be considered "radio communication" The problem is that in accessing any open wireless access point you are "piercing the veil" whether you intend to or not. That's how IEEE 802 networks work: you get all the packets, you just drop the ones not meant for you. I would argue that switching the hardware you're already using in every computer that talks to a LAN or WLAN to promiscuous mode is not at all analogous to installing a keylogger. But even if you don't switch modes, it still will only take an ambitious DA to argue that whether you intended to or not, you were capturing all packets when you connected to that business's wifi hotspot, which is another broken law to add to your list of charges.
VikingCoder 13y ago
People can easily buy technology to log every keystroke on someone’s computer, the court noted, but that did not make those keystrokes “readily accessible to the general public.” This is an awful argument. On the one hand, someone is broadcasting information on a public channel. On the other, you need to surreptitiously install hardware or software on someone's computer. The fact that people didn't realize they were broadcasting on a public channel is terrible grounds to claim that they had an expectation of privacy. What do you mean truckers on the highway were listening to my private CB conversation with my fiance?!

by 001sky 13y ago

magicalist 13y ago

> This is a bizzare comment. The reporting here articulates the court's thinking in slightly more detail than the earlier piece I was not basing my statements on the nytimes piece, I was basing them on the opinion itself, which is embedded in the wired story: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/09/10/11-17483.pdf http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/09/10/11... Much of the opinion does focus on if wifi should be considered "radio communication" The problem is that in accessing any open wireless access point you are "piercing the veil" whether you intend to or not. That's how IEEE 802 networks work: you get all the packets, you just drop the ones not meant for you. I would argue that switching the hardware you're already using in every computer that talks to a LAN or WLAN to promiscuous mode is not at all analogous to installing a keylogger. But even if you don't switch modes, it still will only take an ambitious DA to argue that whether you intended to or not, you were capturing all packets when you connected to that business's wifi hotspot, which is another broken law to add to your list of charges.

VikingCoder 13y ago

People can easily buy technology to log every keystroke on someone’s computer, the court noted, but that did not make those keystrokes “readily accessible to the general public.” This is an awful argument. On the one hand, someone is broadcasting information on a public channel. On the other, you need to surreptitiously install hardware or software on someone's computer. The fact that people didn't realize they were broadcasting on a public channel is terrible grounds to claim that they had an expectation of privacy. What do you mean truckers on the highway were listening to my private CB conversation with my fiance?!