On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 23:23:34 EDT, Eliah Kagan said: > Has anyone ever been prosecuted for using unsecured wireless for legal > purposes? Not to my knowledge - mostly because all the white hats are too damned busy dealing with bigger issues. I doubt that we, as a society, can ever get to the point where this one will be on prosecutor's radar. I certainly could envision a *civil* suit for somebody pirating an unsecured WAP - but unless the plaintiff has a truly viable and novel reason to claim huge monetary damages, it would be cheaper and more productive to just secure the WAP. > Wouldn't that contradict FCC rules governing use of wireless (in the > general sense of wireless), where a wireless system must accept > interference? No, because the interference regs have a very specific meaning - the wireless system isn't allowed to freak out and misbehave just because somebody uses a device in some *other* spectrum range. It's explicitely *allowed* to not work if something else stomps on its range (so if two WAP's overlap in channel and coverage, there's no requirement that *either* one work properly). If your device *generates* interference, and it causes a problem for a device operating in a licenced spectrum range, it's your problem to cut the crap out. (So if your vacuum cleaner generates interference on your neighbor's TV, it's your problem). If it's in an unlicensed range (as almost all consumer-class electronics are - cordless phones, WAPs, etc), it's basically up to the two parties involved to work it out between themselves somehow.
Attachment:
pgp30TNbPstt2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/