RE: Wireless Legality- Netstumbler and kin

[neitherj () WellsFargo COM]

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:ehjelmstad () polivec com]
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 11:18 AM
To: Bill Pennington; vuln-dev () securityfocus com
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:billp () boarder org]
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 9:19 AM
To: vuln-dev () securityfocus com
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" <batsy () vapour net>
To: "Bill Pennington" <billp () boarder org>
Cc: <vuln-dev () securityfocus com>; "Russell Handorf"
<rhandorf () mail russells-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