I think you're trying to reverse-engineer FCC rules a bit too much. When it comes to wireless scanning, I think the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) has much more relevance. That's the law that provides Federal penalties to anyone who "intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication." In other words, the ECPA is the anti-eavesdropping law. I don't know if this has been tested with wardriving, and I'm no lawyer. I also think there's a big logical difference between scanning for networks and capturing packets -- but I don't know if the law sees a difference. In any event, if it ever came to trial, I doubt an argument about FCC part 15 would hold water. There's a big difference between "accepting" interference and decoding transmissions. At 06:11 PM 5/26/2002 -0500, Alex Hartman wrote: >I've been asked quite a bit lately the legal grounds for wardriving. Correct >me in ANY of this if i am misunderstood/misinterpreting the laws and >regulations. > >According to FCC rule part 15 for class B devices, it states: > >"This device may NOT cause any harmful interference AND (!!) this device >*MUST* accept any interference it recieves, including interference that may >cause undesired operation." > >Now, if i read part 15 for class B devices correctly, that means, driving by >a place with my laptop on and in a scanning mode, (passive of course, no >transmission on my part causing an otherwise "harmful" rf signal) and i pick >up your WAP or high powered point-to-point net connection, and you're >transmitting data over it, unencrypted or otherwise, my device MUST accept >that interference. This is what i construde to be legal. Completely by the >books. This is where the questions begin. > >What defines harmful interference? The FCC defines it as this: > >"(m) Harmful interference. Any emission, radiation or induction that >endangers the functioning of a radio navigation service or of other safety >services or seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly interrupts a radio >communications service operating in accordance with this Chapter." > >Okay. In humanspeak to me, that reads, that my device cannot cause >interference with GPS, police/rescue/fire, to the point of anything. Even >slight degredation in signal is violation of this part. Do i read that >correctly? Has no part in anything pertaining to the general public. >There's alot of grey area involved in this. Not really much in line with the >general public, but more ment for the companies that manufacture and install >the hardware near government radios. > >Onto the matter of which this post is about. Wardriving. Hypothetical >situation. I drive by in my car, with my laptop on, and running a scan >program such as kismet. You, sitting in your house, using your laptop to >check your email via the wireless network you own and control, and my laptop >just happens to pick up the interference (although not intended for me) of >your password, and the email from aunt flo. Do i see that as illegal? No. >What i do with the data might be interpreted as illegal, but me driving by, >picking up the signal, i do not consider illegal, as my gear is operating >within it's designed spec. It is up you to secure your data using the >provided means from the manufacturer (wep) or some other means. In that >situation you did not have wep configured and turned on. Thus meaning your >data is flying, clear text through the air. Now, the other side of this. Say >you did have wep turned on, and i still managed to get a password or some >data. (keep in mind i'm not transmitting ANYTHING. I'm simply allowing my >hardware to show me the interference it's receiving.) > >I would say that if i sat there, and had enough data to crack your wep key, >i would consider that a break-in attempt, hence illegal. It took effort on >my part to sit in front of your house, gather data from your network, and >run some kind of cracking system upon the data i've gathered. Now, if i'm >standing across the street, at a dairy queen, aiming a dish at your house >for the intent of gathering your data. This is illegal. I'm purpously trying >to be malicious and gain access to your network. (not to mention blatently >obvious) > > From what has been said in a few law reports, it is the burden of the >network owner and controller to secure his data in any means seen fit by >himself. This means WEP, VPN, PPtP, etc etc. If you neglect to do this, your >data is floating about in the airwaves free as a radio station, since >802.11b does use the ISM band, set asside for the public's use, without >license. This raises another question. Cordless phones use ISM as well. >(2.4ghz, 900Mhz) It is illegal to intercept and recieve any of those >transmissions. The wiretap laws cover those. Some states do have >"computer-to-computer" transmissions in their wiretap laws (such as New >Jersey), but it does not state anything about allowing your computer to show >you interference it's recieving from another computer. > >Now, the question of the software. I'm sure many are familiar with kismet >and netstumbler, and airsnort. Kismet does collect the data that it picks up >in 802.11b packets floating about the air. Does that land in with the "it's >in the public, it *IS* public" laws? I think so. Anyone? Now, intentionally >sitting in front of someone's house using this to gather passwords, read >email, or even attempt a wep key crack, i would find to be illegal. Since >you're using the data you are gathering for malicious intent. (As stated >above) > > >This is on the wardriving.com website, in the FAQ. Feel free to read it all, >but this was the only part that was valid to this post. >http://www.wardriving.com/doc/Wardriving-HOWTO.txt > >3. Why are people Wardriving? > >3.1 Is it legal? > >There is no cut and dry answer to this question, but simply driving around a >city searching for the existence of wireless networks, with no ulterior >motive cannot be deemed illegal. However, if you are searching for a place >to >steal internet access, or commit computer crimes then the wardriving you >performed was done in a malicious manner and could be treated as such in >court. Don't forget in the US, simply receiving radio transmissions on the >Cellular telephone frequencies (895-925 MHZ) is illegal, a similar law could >be written to discourage this, but this isn't likely. >As with any questionable activity, there are always two sides. Whether you >agree or disagree with the whole practice makes no difference to me, but in >the future, legal proceedings and violations may be related to wardriving. >Technology is not bound to ethics. It is the application and use (or abuse) >of that technology that brings ethics into it. To get back to the question >this technology is not really new (802.11 IEEE Standard - 1997), but this is >the peak of it's popularity. And at this peak it's good to get the kinks >worked out, and the security of wireless Ethernet is a pretty huge kink. >WEP(Wired Equivalent Privacy) uses up to 128-bit RC4 encryption, but it was >implemented wrong, so now it makes no difference whether or not you use it, >it's vulnerable. There are few built-in mechanisms that provide security, >not >broadcasting the ESSID is a start, but a sniffer can pick it up, anything >else is left to other 3rd-party devices. > > >"3rd-party devices" Meaning that it's up to you to secure your data. If you >cannot secure your data, oh well, figure it out. :) > >Personally, i think there needs to be more definition in the laws and >regulations reguarding this. WEP could be useful, and there is a new driver >based WEP256 floating about, but at the physical layer, it's still only RC4, >128-bit wep. > >So, the short & sweet answer to "is wardriving illegal?": No. >The long answer is whatever you want it to be, with as many definitions and >explanations as you see fit. I don't see wardriving illegal, but i do see >association to another's access point without expressed permission, illegal. > > >Just some observations, and my opinions, which are mine alone, with a bit of >mixed fact. I would like to hear your ideas and observations on this topic. >Perhaps it could be a subject for the meeting in a few weeks here. > > >-- >Alex Hartman - goober at goobe.net >PGP Key fingerprint = 26 41 19 56 19 81 E2 BC EE C8 1D F4 DB B8 ED B8 >"Watch out for that bus!" > > > >_______________________________________________ >Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, >Minnesota >http://www.tcwug.org >tcwug-list at tcwug.org >https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list ---- Jim Graves Alphabet Soup: CCIE #7524, CISSP, CWNA, MCSE, BFD Senior Network Systems Consultant Lucent Worldwide Services Alpha Pager: 1-800-467-1467