augustjackson dot net

Entries tagged as ‘law’

Got the Fever for the Flavor of a Pringle? Make Sure to Destroy Can Properly.

28 July 2005 · Leave a Comment

I’m a day late (and a buck short?) on this one, but when I saw this article it really annoyed the hell out of me. Many thanks to Andy from Slashdot Review for brining this to my attention in his Podcast. I had been so busy at work the past few days that the news item completely escaped my attention.

According to this piece posted on Inside Bay Area, it is illegal to own a modified Pringles can or “cantenna”. These home-made items are used to extend the range of Wi-Fi routers. Just like the story of Florida man arrested for using an unprotected home Wi-Fi connection from his car. Once again, reading the article itself makes me as mad as hell. Let’s take a look, shall we:

Last month in Elk Grove, a high-school student faced eight felony computer-theft charges for allegedly hacking into his school’s computer system and changing his grades.

When police searched his home, they found aluminum-lined, cylindrical potato-chip containers that some hackers use as crude antennas to help them intercept wireless signals.

Known as “cantennas,” they consist of a Pringles can and some hardware worth $5 to $10 but can be used to amplify a wireless signal several miles away.

“They’re unsophisticated but reliable, and it’s illegal to possess them,” said Lozito of the Hi-Tech Crimes Task Force. [Sacramento County Sheriff's Lt. Bob Lozito of the Sacramento Valley Hi-Tech Crimes Task Force]

Cantennas are illegal? When the hell did THAT happen? People can use cantennas to extend the range of their OWN Wi-Fi networks, even encrypted and protected networks. How can the cantenna be considered illegal if there is an overwhelming legitimate reason why someone might use one for legitimate purposes?

It’s also illegal to access wireless networks that aren’t public. In other words, if you’ve ever been pleasantly surprised to open your laptop, pull up your browser and have Internet access, that likely means you’ve just intruded into someone else’s unsecured network and really aren’t allowed to be there.

Strike two. Again, when the hell did this happen? Who defines what constitutes a “public” network? What if I’m sitting in a coffee shop with a free “public” connection and accidently access the network from a house around the corner. Have I just broken the law? This is absolutely nuts that accessing the network would be the crime. Committing the illegal acts that this article claims takes place over open networks are mentioned (the usual bugaboos of identity theft and child pornography are brought up). THESE acts are the crime– NOT accessing the network.

I’m not sure if the jurisdiction being referenced here is on such a local level that it escaped my attention. But these are two of the most absurd laws I’ve ever heard. I’m skeptical that the alleged laws mentioned in this article really are laws in any jurisdiction. Clearly they don’t pass any test of common sense.

The conspiracy theorist in me sees two things in this and related articles: bad journalism and a concerted effort to convince the public that open Wi-Fi access points are evil and free or municipal Wi-Fi networks should be illegal.

Categories: Technology
Tagged: , ,

Florida Man Arrested for Using Open Wi-Fi Access Point

6 July 2005 · 4 Comments

In what has to be one of the most perfect examples of technical ignorance and technophobia, a man in Tampa Bay, Florida has been arrested for parking outside a house and making use of an open Wi-Fi network. The story in the St. Petersburg Times is here.

Aside from the sheer lunacy of the charge itself, I strongly recommend reading the article for an example of yellow journalism. Some of the scare words used are phenomenal:

  • Police say Benjamin Smith III, 41, used his Acer brand laptop to hack into Dinon’s wireless Internet network.
  • But experts believe there are scores of incidents occurring undetected, sometimes to frightening effect.
  • People have used the cloak of wireless to traffic in child pornography, steal credit card information and send death threats
  • “I’ll guarantee there are tons of people out there who have their wireless network being exploited but have no idea,” Breeden said.

I could go on with the language in this article, but I’ll stop. Clearly this piece is intended to scare the technology novice away from Wi-Fi and breathlessly describe a new horror sweeping the nation. It’s some pretty weak journalism.

The real kicker with respect to the arrest has to be that the guy who owned the wireless access point knew that he should encrypt his signal and employ a password, but simply didn’t bother:

The problem, security experts say, is many people do not take the time or are unsure how to secure their wireless access from intruders. Dinon knew what to do. “But I never did it because my neighbors are older.”

So what have we learned today from the St. Petersburg Times?

  • Anybody who uses an open Wi-Fi access point is a criminal of the worst sort
  • Those who own Wi-Fi access points are excused for any element of these crimes they apparently enable not only on the basis of ignorance of the technical means of protecting that infrastructure but also by sheer laziness
  • You shouldn’t worry about exploits of your network infrastructure if your neighbors are “older” people, because “older” people don’t know anything about technology

With more pieces like this one we’re likely to see more public support for bills put forward by incumbent telcos opposing municipal Wi-Fi projects. If the general, uninformed public can be convinced that Wi-Fi is the domain of child pornographers and identity thieves, then grassroots support for the opposition to muni Wi-Fi will be a synch.

Categories: Politics
Tagged: ,

Media Giants are the new United Nations

24 March 2005 · Leave a Comment

I came across a very interesting entry on Susan Crawford’s blog about recommendations for ISP accountability. One of the topics raised was similar to my own suggestion that equal treatment for VoIP traffic would be an element of that accountability. Susan speculates, with good reason, that content and copyright holders could transform the notion of ISP accountability into something altogether less appealing for those of us who use the Internet and enjoy content (i.e. everybody).

On a somewhat related note with respect to treatment of VoIP traffic, Robert Cringely’s column on the subject has gotten a great deal of attention in the blogosphere. Mr. Cringely’s basic assessment is that broadband ISPs will apply Class of Service to their own VoIP services, effectively downgrading the performance of other VoIP services moving across their network to best-effort level traffic. I agree with Cringely that this is a possible work-around for ISPs that don’t want to be caught blocking competing VoIP services. Where I think Cringely’s argument has problems, at least in the near term, is that implementing CoS mechanisms across multiple IP networks is somewhat difficult technically. The various tags and classes which can be applied to IP packets must be standardized across each network the packets will traverse. Most service providers offering classes of service to business customers have been taking an our-approach-is-best stance with respect to their class structure, so there isnt a tremendous push to compromise or standardize on something that wasnt invented within their own engineering groups. I just don’t see the major ISPs coming together anytime soon to come to any sort of agreement on this. Antitrust issues aside, VoIP is one of the key means by which the regional bell companies and cable companies will be able to compete in one another’s markets.

Categories: Media
Tagged: ,

Say No to Crack?

9 February 2005 · 3 Comments

The Virginia House of Delegates has voted to outlaw low-slung pants, or “droopy drawers” as they might also be known. First they vote to ammend the state Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage, now this. I am SO glad the House of Delegates has no serious issues to distract them from the pressing threat of gay couples in baggy pants.

I’m hopping next the House of Delegates might take action to ban the word “titmouse.”

Categories: Politics
Tagged: