funsec mailing list archives
RE: Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act?
From: "Richard M. Smith" <rms () computerbytesman com>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 15:33:08 -0400
The Starbucks case is one for the lawyers to sort out if private WiFi network is readily accessible to the general public or not. My assumption is no. One data point here is intercepting insecure cordless phone conversations is illegal under ECPA even though older cordless phones can be heard with a $100 Radio Shack scanner.
You don't really think the paper would've published this story if it would've subjected an individual identified within to criminal
prosecution, do you? Absolutely. Back around 2003, the Washington Post did an article on how easy was for two computer security people to break into Windows computers owned by the Federal government. These computers had open shares which were easily detectable from the outside. A week later the two consultants were busted by the FBI. Not sure what the result of the arrests were. Richard -----Original Message----- From: Matthew Murphy [mailto:mattmurphy531 () gmail com] On Behalf Of Matthew Murphy Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 3:15 PM To: Richard M. Smith Cc: funsec () linuxbox org Subject: Re: [funsec] Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Apr 28, 2007, at 10:15 AM, Richard M. Smith wrote:
See: http://www.floridalawfirm.com/privacy.html Sec. 2511. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi- consumer22apr22,0,4976397,print.story? coll=la-home-headlines Public Wi-Fi may turn your life into an open notebook Don't assume wireless hot spots are secure. 'Sniffers' may be hacking nearby.
ECPA doesn't apply. It's obvious that Cheung didn't "hack into" the network, as judged from the piece. He sniffed a wide-open WLAN -- a communications system "readily accessible to the general public". That's specifically included as an affirmative defense under ECPA: (g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person - (i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public; [...] (16) "readily accessible to the general public" means, with respect to a radio communication, that such communication is not-- (A) scrambled or encrypted: (B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose essential parameters have been withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of such communication; (C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal subsidiary to a radio transmission; (D) transmitted over a communication system provided by a common carrier, unless the communication is a tone only paging system communication; (E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part 25, subpart D, E, or F of part 74, or part 94 of the Rules of the Federal Communications Commission, unless, in the case of a communication transmitted on a frequency allocated under part 74 that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way voice communication by radio; or (F) an electronic communication; California law, which requires mutual consent, is tougher, but not by enough to allow Cheung to be prosecuted; it also has a public communications exception. You don't really think the paper would've published this story if it would've subjected an individual identified within to criminal prosecution, do you? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iQIVAwUBRjOdRHXzqEAiV8M/AQKI4w/+LB92FuG31amKCTQrEtixaVx4D4R9gqCF /fJCtNpANc0wwAeIgNhSVQeRjGNoTLVyq60aj7tuEW6XqDWVhXQ3St9LSVrvRomO RDiNwik44EgRrkSrVXen1/08H+Uo2GrEE5MsO/ODjN17gvTu2Yd7qHcYx6vRzYA8 S9jRqfJt61swfHG/zY4zVKQK7LHtnx+CP2z1czCaRoO73WnEcZJlJmx3ShWLINbq bWoIztzZyPYL5nkr6Rywksg0odKI5F1j9LH8P0lG1Zp6Elh6x7FGDzbeQj2+w17/ 4CoXUfuWxxnZ0TIkHX2lxlibVHKxlbg687YYcN1i0UCEU3GblsmveOGjZknyMjeS l06d0edsa6KAbPK5rPjLMdtP97+X8ljLzS2jRx+1bdzwxHNWJfdQGyyPeayFYVcu aA+twaXEnTrm5Z+C1dXFwXRbnoaJmJT16ZTWresDdppzWXZggsQB9tynL0xJsDxr qH+8Ys2JNjpLW3x/PyBmO4gipvfJG09s1Ir5GWsW4yl+VW7h+9jaKCKPGmvdxOfZ crk5+Fu3gg/GfX7n7oYylwTM31rxNR3uhzohBbBivr3VnKyVkQLoaVOPF4rBz3aQ yOwZf02YhuKGPmieilb9NeW9beJJCf4vo/grqwLJ+KOamfn3bC/X3sbIIpGdkgcn GmGj0JVFBOE= =QL39 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
Current thread:
- Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act? Richard M. Smith (Apr 28)
- Re: Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act? Matthew Murphy (Apr 28)
- RE: Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act? Richard M. Smith (Apr 28)
- Re: Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act? Matthew Murphy (Apr 28)
- RE: Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act? Richard M. Smith (Apr 28)
- Re: Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act? Matthew Murphy (Apr 28)
- RE: Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act? Richard M. Smith (Apr 28)
- Re: Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act? Matthew Murphy (Apr 28)
- RE: Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act? Richard M. Smith (Apr 28)
- Re: Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act? Matthew Murphy (Apr 28)
- RE: Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act? Richard M. Smith (Apr 28)
- Re: Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act? Matthew Murphy (Apr 28)
- Message not available
- Re: Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act? Matthew Murphy (Apr 28)