Re: CRIME Wiretapping WiFi

From: Duane Nickull (duane@private)
Date: Wed Oct 15 2003 - 13:59:50 PDT

  • Next message: Alan: "Re: CRIME Wiretapping WiFi" 

    



  
  


That does beg the comparison to unencrypted email being sent over public
networks. If the network is public, does that also grant anyone a right to
intercept without a warrant?
    

    
I elaborated a lot on my reply to Bill since the subsequent use of the information
is very important.  If a law enforcement officer overheard a an unencrypted
2.4 ghz WiFi discussion and ascertained that someone was doing something
illegal, it is arguable whether or not he may use that evidence in court
directly.  He or she could, however, use that information to set up further
surveillance that results in a conviction and the perpetrator may never know
that the original communication was comprimised.
    

    
I would therefore assert that the context in how privileged information will
be used is a factor in the methods and means of which it may be captured.
    

    
D
    

    
Curd, Bill (AZ75) wrote:
    

     
 
  
  
   
  
 
  
    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

  
    
     
      
           
        
             
          
    
            
    Crispin Cowan <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
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 
    
    
    
    
  
    

    

    

    -- 
***************************************************
Yellow Dragon Software - 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 - 14:40:57 PDT