Actually, the only thing Bill wrote was:
My understanding from a prosecutor in the Arizona AG's office is that the
2.4 GHz WiFi is not private because of the ISM frequency band used which is
inherently public by FCC allocation.
And, despite all that has been exchanged, I still doubt any warrant would be
necessary for intercepting unencrypted 2.4 GHz band traffic -- any more than
overhearing a loud conversation in a public place or listening to an AM-FM
broadcast. They are inherently public.
-----Original Message-----
From: Duane Nickull [mailto:duane@private]
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 11:06 AM
To: Curd, Bill (AZ75)
Cc: 'Anthony Brock'; crime@private; crispin@private
Subject: Re: CRIME Wiretapping WiFi
I feel it is also important to make a disctinction on the use of information
gained via wire tapping (or its' electronic equivalent).
If the items are to be used within a court in order to prosecute someone
within the confines of American legal parameters, then yes - a court order
for the tap will probably be necessary unless probable cause can be
established. Not doing so may provide the dfense with a legal way of
blocking such infromation.
If, however, the information is being used for purposes of tracking (
terrorists | hackers | spammers | virus writers | other mean people ) who
may not be prosecuted on american soil, under the rights granted to American
citizens by the constitution, then I cannot forsee why anyone would go to
the hassle of getting authorization for a wiretap, especially when the
eveidence provided to support the acquisition of such rights, may expose
secure information that could cause further harm to american interests. If
reasons had to be cited, it could lead to individuals who are working
undercover being conprimised or hackers to learn about the methodologies of
how agencies are tracking them.
This thread is starting to sound like a "B" movie. Maybe we can sell the
plot to hollywood and all retire. ;-)
D
Curd, Bill (AZ75) wrote:
Further, the information being transmitted did not pass into possession of
the telephone company until after it entered the hardline. Therefore, due to
the lack of expectation of privacy, listening to and recording these calls
was not a violation of the first amendment (nor did it imply an action
involving a third party - the telephone company).
However, I'm not aware of how this would translate into non-voice related
communications. Also, my information is dated (1994 era) and may have been
specific to California's law enforcement. Further, I doubt if the FBI is
still acting within the same levels of "restraint" since the passage of
recent laws.
Tony
Anthony Brock
Unix Administrator/Network Engineer
Oregon University System
Chancellor's Office
(541) 737-9607
Anthony_Brock@private <mailto:Anthony_Brock@private>
Crispin Cowan <mailto:crispin@private> <crispin@private> 10/14/03
08:07PM >>>
A friend posed this question, and I have no idea what the answer might be:
If I'm running an open, non-encrypted wireless network, what is (say) the
FBI allowed to intercept in an effort to gain evidence? Do they need a
warrant? Is the data admissible? What if I live in an apartment with
other folks. What about when I'm using a t-mobile hotspot?
Same questions, but this time, I'm running an encrypted network? Can they
capture the data and crack the key? Can they capture it for later use after
they sieze my equipment and get my key?
No, I'm not under surveillance I'm giving a presentation and I know I'm
going to get asked these questions.
Any lawmen out there know the actual answer?
Thanks,
Crispin
--
***************************************************
Yellow Dragon Software - http://www.yellowdragonsoft.com
<http://www.yellowdragonsoft.com>
Web Services & ebXML Messaging / Registry Downloads
UN/CEFACT eBusiness Architecture/ ebXMl Technical Architecture
Phone: +1 (604) 738-1051 - Canada: Pacific Standard Time
Direct: +1 (604) 726-3329
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Oct 15 2003 - 14:26:14 PDT