> 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

> 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.