That was not a probable cause search warrant. The article mentions a warrant to "trail him". This would be a surveillance warrant, and I would be curious as to which "crime" the AG would list on the warrant. At least in California, it is not yet illegal to "scan radio frequencies", which is exactly what War Driving is. Now, once they crack into a network, that is another story, but you would be hard pressed to bust someone in public, for scanning radio frequencies, with a laptop. You would have to show intent to do another codified activity. I doubt a Judge would let him hang his hat on that activity alone, but with post 9/11 laws in force, maybe he could? Jeff Neithercutt CNA, GSEC Wells Fargo Bank Corporate Information Protection 155 5th Street MAC 0186-030 San Francisco, CA. 94103 (415)243-5549 -----Original Message----- From: Erik Hjelmstad [mailto:ehjelmstadat_private] Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 11:18 AM To: Bill Pennington; vuln-devat_private Subject: RE: Wireless Legality- Netstumbler and kin Here is the article. http://www.infosecuritymag.com/articles/january02/columns_note.shtml Erik -----Original Message----- From: Bill Pennington [mailto:billpat_private] Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 9:19 AM To: vuln-devat_private Subject: Re: Wireless Legality- Netstumbler and kin Just a quick follow-up to Batz excellent points. I recall reading that the Attorney General of Massachusetts made the statement that if any officer spotting someone walking are driving around with a laptop and an antenna, the officer should call him and that he would be able to get a probable cause search warrant issued in no time. Sorry I can;t find the article right now but I think it was in the Boston Globe. ----- Original Message ----- From: "batz" <batsyat_private> To: "Bill Pennington" <billpat_private> Cc: <vuln-devat_private>; "Russell Handorf" <rhandorfat_private-world.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 9:00 AM Subject: Re: Wireless Legality- Netstumbler and kin > On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Bill Pennington wrote: > > :1. For Netstumbler to detect the WLAN in question the WLAN must be > :configured in "open" mode. So the WLAN (Access Point more specifically) must > :respond to 802.11b probe packets with a packet that says, hey I am here and > :available. > > There is also a big issue with "illegal" vs. "successfully prosecutable", > which is; On networks, No Policy = No Crime. Without explicit warnings > to all users on the network about acceptable use and the ownership of > the network, it is quite possible that charges would not stick because > of this very issue. > > IANAL, however, there are laws in Canada that may apply to war driving, > which have to do with the unlawful interception of data. Whether something > is legal or not is actually a much more abstract question than many people > tend to realize. > > If you are worried about whether something is illegal, err on the side of > caution, and stop doing it, and find out from a professional. Free advice > is seldom worth what you pay for it. > > Illegal can mean anything from being probable cause for search, to cause > for arrest, to being charged, to being convicted and the weight of the > sentence you recieve. It is a question of whether you are provoking > someone into interprating the law as a means of recourse, and whether > you are willing to risk the consequences of that provocation. > > -- > batz >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Mar 26 2002 - 11:50:45 PST