[wplug] On the subject of wardriving...

[Brent M. Rust]

I gotta put in my two cents too.

1) As far as we know, no one here is a lawyer, paralegal, FBI agent,
Police Officer, Sherrif or a law scholar. So, suffice it to say, you all
may know part of the truth, but not all of the truth.

2) Just because you have done some research, or have talked to a police
officer, FBI agent, judge, ISP council (lawyeer), read the TOS, etc.
Until someone is tried in a civil or criminal court, for Wardriving, and
the facts have been presented or dispelled, you really won't know if
wardriving is legal or illegal.

3) It ain't wrong until you get caught.

4) Time has a way of sorting this out.

5) Keep playing with the fire, until you get burned, then put on a
glove.

6) Eat twinkies, it makes a good defense.

Brent

-----Original Message-----
From: wplug-bounces+rust=lucasware.com at wplug.org
[mailto:wplug-bounces+rust=lucasware.com at wplug.org] On Behalf Of Bobbie
Eicher
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 2:28 AM
To: General user list
Subject: Re: [wplug] On the subject of wardriving...

> Just because one can put a radio in the car and collect raw data does 
> not automatically mean they are doing something illegal. Drew and 
> others have tried to make this point repeatedly. The FBI have also 
> been clear on this matter -- simply associating to an access point is 
> not illegal.

The laws being discussed are recent (and untested) Pennsylvania state
laws, not federal laws.  When you ask an FBI agent whether something's
illegal, the odds are that you're going to hear about federal laws,
because it's simply impractical to expect someone who isn't an extreme
specialist to remain fully up to date at all times on the details of
technology-related laws in all 50 states, plus assorted plots of land
that go by other titles.

Therefore, what the FBI has said -- barring the possibility that it was
said since (late) 2002 and was directly addressing the state of
Pennsylvania -- probably wasn't in reference to the same set of laws
that Bill Moran was mentioning as a potential issue.

Even if they did specifically reference the recent PA state laws, the
interpretation wouldn't necessarily be binding.  If everyone interpreted
the law the same way, we wouldn't be able to make use of the sheer
number of lawyers and judges that we've got.  We also wouldn't need the
extensive appeals process that we have.

In non-trivial cases it is, unfortunately, very difficult to have a
clear idea of what is and is not illegal (in the sense that the
authorities can and will enforce it) before there've been a few good
test cases through the courts to build up some precedent.

>>Yet it would be exactly like "wardriving."

On the user end, they're similar enough that it's not much worth fussing
over.  On the ethical and legal levels, they don't necessarily have much
in common.  [To be clear, for the sake of responding to this sentence
I'm simply assuming a definition of "wardriving" that strays as closely
as reasonably possible to the analogy he was trying to draw.  We've had
multiple potential definitions of the term in this conversation alone,
and some of them wouldn't fit the comparison he's trying to make at
all.]

I'm not saying that wardriving [with the definition of your choice] is
legal and I'm not saying it's illegal.  I'm saying that no one really
knows for sure until it's officially been through some kind of attempt
at enforcement.

- Bobbie Eicher
_______________________________________________
wplug mailing list
wplug at wplug.org
http://www.wplug.org/mailman/listinfo/wplug