Connecticut Mulls Probe Of Google Wi-Fi Data Collection > Is listening illegal? Not unless the law says so...

Is listening illegal? Not unless the law says so...

And what about the gazillion CCTVs staring at you? How is what Google doing anything different than what a private investigator with a video camera or the city with street light cameras is doing?

reply to n1zuk

reply to n1zuk
It is not legal to intentionally intercept an electronic communication in the USA. To use this data for commercial gain compounds the crime.

This has been the law since the late 1980s. It was written to make people feel safer about using analog cell phones. There is no exception for "in the clear" transmissions that refuse to stop at the property line.

Nail those Google weirdos to the wall! They are way too nosy.

Federal Wiretap Act

Interceptions of electronic communications in “real time” come under the federal Wiretap Act. That Act provides that any person who intentionally intercepts an electronic communication is guilty of a felony and subject to a fine of up to $250,000 and imprisonment for up to five years.[10] The Wiretap Act defines an “interception” as the “acquisition of the contents of any electronic communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical or other device.”[11] So while some wardrivers may believe it is legal to peer into other people’s networks, so long as they do not record any of the information, this is not correct. Any “acquisition” under the Wiretap Act is unlawful, even if it only involves listening to or monitoring a communication.[12] Although no federal prosecutions of wardriving under the Wiretap Act have yet occurred, Wiretap prosecutions occur with enough frequency to make such a prosecution a possibility, even if an unlikely one.[13]
...
On the other hand, an innocent accidental interception of a wireless computer network can quickly become a criminal violation when someone, who realizes they have intercepted another person’s network, continues to do so at the other’s expense. Although there have been no published decisions involving wireless networks, this factual situation is closely analogous to a line of cases involving the interception of calls on cordless telephones that date from the mid-1990s. At that time, many individuals who purchased police scanners discovered that the scanners could also be used to intercept and monitor the telephone conversations of their neighbors’ cordless telephones. These individuals would have had no liability if they had stopped when they realized they had accidentally intercepted their neighbors’ telephone calls. When they continued to eavesdrop on their neighbors’ telephone conversations they were held by courts to have violated the Wiretap Act.[28] The interception of cordless telephone conversations appears closely analogous to the interception of insecure wireless computer networks. In neither case, does the fact that it is easy to conduct the interception provide a defense to liability under the Wiretap Act.

»www.lctjournal.washington.edu/Vo···07030429

reply to DavePR

reply to DavePR

Wrong

quote:

---

2(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person -

(i) to intercept or access any electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;

---

reply to DavePR

Re: Is listening illegal? Not unless the law says so...

reply to AVD
You can listen radio and TV stations. You can monitor Ham radio operators. You can print out NOAA weather maps. You can listen to planes in the air ans ships at sea. You can listen to public servants such as Police, Fire, USCG, etc. (except encrypted).

If you listen to an FM station's SCA without permission you have broken the law. If you listen to that station's Studio Transmitter Link on 948 MHz you have broken the law. If you listen to you neighbor's baby monitor on a scanner you have broken the law.

Interception means receiving a two party communication when you aren't either of the two parties. The connection between my router and my internet appliance is a two party communication, on a non public service, non broadcast, non amateur frequency and therefore I am afforded the protection of ECPA and other wiretap statutes against the megalomaniacal Google.

reply to n1zuk
really any unencrypted RF should have zero expectation of privacy. i mean if you are just beaming it out there for the world to see.

what an AG should be more worried about is all those insecure WAPs, in this era where the MPAA can sue you for piracy even if it wasnt you, that alone is reason enough to secure the network.

never mind things that are illegal like child porn, guess where the FBI goes if the Scumbag uses your open wifi.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports

reply to AVD
Why did Apple drop the wardriving app?

reply to Kearnstd

reply to DavePR

reply to AVD
I'm more worried about Google than these nebulous "terrorists".

People that steal because "we left it unlocked" are called thieves of opportunity. They are the lowest.

If you like Google and wish to assimilate with them, go ahead. Keep your snooping eyes away from my house. Personally, I think we are way too interconnected.

Whether I have an unsecured wireless access point or not is immaterial. It is none of anyone else's business that I am transmitting, period. Google (and other wardrivers) are intruding. What ever happened to respecting someone else's privacy?

don't confuse accesing your network with monitoring your transmissions. If you broadcast in the clear, all bets are off.
--
standard disclaimers apply.