Kismet Wireless: Wi-Fi isn't radio!?
dimanche 15 septembre 2013 à 16:21 CAFAI, le 15/09/2013 à 16:21
So, this happened. #$&^@#.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/09/appeals-court-rules-google-must-stand-trial-for-wi-fi-data-scandal/
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Google can be prosecuted for the capturing of wireless data by Street view cars. (Disclaimer: Reports indicate that this software was Kismet; having never been a Google employee I have no position on that; it's open source software, I expect it to show up all over the place).
There are some very odd aspects to the ruling - the full text of which can be found here:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/09/10/11-17483.pdf
The most controversial aspect of the ruling is the declaration that Wi-Fi isn't radio.
Data Transmitted over a Wi-Fi Network Is Not a “Radio Communication” under the Wiretap Act.
From a technical standpoint this is obviously, blatantly, wrong - of course Wi-Fi is radio. From a legal standpoint, this appears to be drawn from previous interpretations by Congress and exact terminology:
Congress does not use “radio” or “radio communication” to reference all of the myriad forms of communication that use the radio spectrum. Rather, it uses “radio” to refer to traditional radio technologies, and then separately describes other modes of communication that are not ordinarily thought of as radio, but that nevertheless use the radio spectrum.
One of the cited examples is the specification of "radio" as a separate concept from "television" or "communications". So how did they decide this? It's tied to the phrase "common meaning", in other words, the non-technical belief that "radio" is for AM and FM audio, and not a whole lot else. Specifically, the ruling references previous statements, in utterly unrelated cases:
"..Not surprisingly, Congress has not typically assumed that the term “radio” encompasses the term “television.” See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (imposing liability for “[f]raud by wire, radio, or television”) (emphasis added); 18 U.S.C. § 2101 (imposing liability for inciting a riot by means of “mail, telegraph, radio, or television”) (emphasis added); 7 U.S.C. § 2156 (defining an “instrumentality of interstate commerce” as “any written, wire, radio, television or other form of communication);
Which leads to the surprisingly clear statement:
2. A “radio communication” is a predominantly auditory broadcast, which excludes payload data transmitted over Wi-Fi networks
and:
The payload data transmitted over unencrypted Wi-Fi networks that was captured by Google included emails, usernames, passwords, images, and documents that cannot be classified as predominantly auditory. They therefore fall outside of the definition of a “radio communication” as the phrase is used in 18 U.S.C. § 2510(16).
So under this ruling, Wi-Fi isn't broadcast - but what about when it is? For example, literally, broadcast packets, which are transmitted indiscriminately and define the actual presence of the network?
(Permalink)
So, this happened. #$&^@#.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/09/appeals-court-rules-google-must-stand-trial-for-wi-fi-data-scandal/
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Google can be prosecuted for the capturing of wireless data by Street view cars. (Disclaimer: Reports indicate that this software was Kismet; having never been a Google employee I have no position on that; it's open source software, I expect it to show up all over the place).
There are some very odd aspects to the ruling - the full text of which can be found here:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/09/10/11-17483.pdf
The most controversial aspect of the ruling is the declaration that Wi-Fi isn't radio.
Data Transmitted over a Wi-Fi Network Is Not a “Radio Communication” under the Wiretap Act.
From a technical standpoint this is obviously, blatantly, wrong - of course Wi-Fi is radio. From a legal standpoint, this appears to be drawn from previous interpretations by Congress and exact terminology:
Congress does not use “radio” or “radio communication” to reference all of the myriad forms of communication that use the radio spectrum. Rather, it uses “radio” to refer to traditional radio technologies, and then separately describes other modes of communication that are not ordinarily thought of as radio, but that nevertheless use the radio spectrum.
One of the cited examples is the specification of "radio" as a separate concept from "television" or "communications". So how did they decide this? It's tied to the phrase "common meaning", in other words, the non-technical belief that "radio" is for AM and FM audio, and not a whole lot else. Specifically, the ruling references previous statements, in utterly unrelated cases:
"..Not surprisingly, Congress has not typically assumed that the term “radio” encompasses the term “television.” See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (imposing liability for “[f]raud by wire, radio, or television”) (emphasis added); 18 U.S.C. § 2101 (imposing liability for inciting a riot by means of “mail, telegraph, radio, or television”) (emphasis added); 7 U.S.C. § 2156 (defining an “instrumentality of interstate commerce” as “any written, wire, radio, television or other form of communication);
Which leads to the surprisingly clear statement:
2. A “radio communication” is a predominantly auditory broadcast, which excludes payload data transmitted over Wi-Fi networks
and:
The payload data transmitted over unencrypted Wi-Fi networks that was captured by Google included emails, usernames, passwords, images, and documents that cannot be classified as predominantly auditory. They therefore fall outside of the definition of a “radio communication” as the phrase is used in 18 U.S.C. § 2510(16).
So under this ruling, Wi-Fi isn't broadcast - but what about when it is? For example, literally, broadcast packets, which are transmitted indiscriminately and define the actual presence of the network?
(Permalink)