Slashdot Log In
Possession of Cantenna Now Illegal?
Posted by
timothy
on Mon Jul 25, 2005 05:52 PM
from the you-must-must-must-be-joking dept.
from the you-must-must-must-be-joking dept.
Mad-Mage1 writes "The recent arrests in Florida and the UK of men who were accessing unsecured wireless hotspots has created a flood of articles that contain panic inducing rhetoric. "A small subset of computer-savvy hackers has the know-how and gadgets for more nefarious activities," claims the Sacramento Bee (via Techdirt). "They're (Pringles cans fashioned into antennas) unsophisticated but reliable, and it's illegal to possess them," quips Sacramento County Sheriff's Lt. Bob Lozito of the Sacramento Valley Hi-Tech Crimes Task Force." I hope they tell Fry's about all the illegal antennas they're stocking, too.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
How about parts? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How about parts? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hrm, no, we're talking 2.4GHz, I guess that would actually be a *short* piece of wire, my bad.
But regardless, it's like saying owning a screwdriver is illegal because it could be used to take the hinges off an insecure door. Dumb.
Parent
Re:How about parts? (Score:5, Informative)
'm sorry, but how can an antenna possibly be illegal? If that were true, then a long piece of wire would now be illegal too.
I am not a specialist, but I vaguely remember that every antenna used for transmission in that range (2.4Ghz included) is supposed to be FCC approved and not modified, much like every electronic device sold in US must pass FCC tests, etc. Even combining two FCC approved antennas or using an approved antenna for a purpose other than what it is tested for, requires a separate approval.
Again, I am no speciallist.
-Em
Parent
part 15 section 23: home-built devices (Score:5, Informative)
That's true for anything mass produced, but there is an exception [akamaitech.net] for homemade devices:
Parent
Re:How about parts? (Score:5, Insightful)
(You as an experimenter could design and build such a device without any special permission. If a company were to do it and sell it commercially, I think they'd still need FCC certification.)
And of course, ham radio operators are licenced, and can use transmitters in the 2.4 gHz band, up to 1500 watts (or 1 or 100 watts if it's spread spectrum like WiFi), if they follow all the ham radio rules.
But anybody can listen to anything they want, and can make antennas for receiving of any sort. In fact, as long as you're only receiving and not transmitting, I don't see how wardriving could ever be illegal.
(I believe this even applies to listening to analog cell phone calls, though it is illegal to make or sell equipment that can listen to those bands. But I do believe it's still legal to listen to the calls, as long as you don't tell anybody else what you've heard. (The law is a bit more complicated than that, but I won't get into that right now.))
Oh really? I guess you've never heard of charges like `posession of drug paraphernalia' or anything like that? Similar things often apply to lock picks, crowbars and wire cutters as well. I agree that these laws are stupid (as there's already laws against having drugs and committing burglarly) but the are the law.But in this case, the police are nuts, and the FCC is likely to smack them down. Only the FCC gets to police the airwaves -- they've made this quite clear in the past.
However, for normal users, using normal power WiFi equipment, transmitting with one of these cantennas is illegal. Possession isn't, but transmitting is. The FCC regulations limit the amount of power you can transmit with, and it's based either on effective radiated power or volts/meter. Either way, any sort of directional antenna (like a cantenna) increases these figures without increasing the total power, and therefore exceed the FCC permitted power (unless they reduce their transmitter power by a similar amount, of course. Which they probably don't do.)
Parent
Re:How about parts? (Score:5, Insightful)
That is solely up to the FCC. This issue has been proven in court before. For example, vehicle operators in NY charged with assorted violations for having equipment in the vehicle capable of receiving police radio calls. Courts have repeatedly found that the local police have no jurisdiction to regulate a federally licensed use, i.e. ham radios that happen to be capable of receiving police radio. The cops don't like that, of course. They want to have jurisdiction over everything. I know of cases where aircraft have had to make emergency landings on roads and been issued traffic tickets for things like illegal parking, etc. The cops justify their own existance by how many tickets they write. (See how many tickets I wrote? Of COURSE we need more cops and more laws!)
In this case, the 2.4gHz ISM band is unregulated and you certainly CAN own and use any receive-only antenna and operate any approved transmit antenna. Hams can operate any 2.4gHz antenna they want and at higher power levels to boot.
Any dispute over someone's right to operate in that band is up to the FCC, who has their own invesigative and enforcement officers (a small outfit called the FBI, perhaps you've heard of them?), thank you very much local copper.
My main question is why they are even bringing up this issue. If the guy was accessing the wifi network without authorization, bust him for that. There's no need to go chasing after "illegal" antennas. Unless they haven't got any other solid evidence. Hmmm.
Parent
Re:How about parts? (Score:5, Informative)
As an extreme example you might consider 'safe' signal levels rather than regulated levels - a high power omnidirectional antenna at some level L might be safe to be around ... but if all that power's concentrated by a dish in the same direction you don't want to get in the way (if you want kids for example) - that's why those satellite uplink dishes have all those warnings on them.
Receiver antennas are unregulated though - it's legal to have a stock wifi transmitting antenna ... but a pringles can receiver - probably not much use unless you have a pringles receiver on both ends though
Parent
Re:How about parts? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, you are correct that in most cases, your computer would be set for DHCP when you open up and look for a new wireless network. It sees a SSID, associates and asks "Can I get in (get an IP?) "
The AP that's BROADCASTING it's beacon (not that it HAS to!) says "Sure, have an IP... "
You get your IP, you're permitted in (as opposed to refused) and then you go about your merry way.
There are multiple instances along the way where you could have been refused entry.
As if people can't tell, I support your position of being given permission by being given an IP. There was a conversation there.... and nobody said no.
To move the door analogy into the mix, it would be like having a doorman standing by the open door. You ask the doorman "Can I have a room?" He says "Sure, take room 42, it's open." and you walk in and go up to the fourth floor. The doorman could have stopped you. He could have told someone you were there. He could have carded you. He could have asked what your business was. But no, he told you "Use room 42, it's not taken" and let you in. Sure, you perambulated in on your own, but he certainly made no move to stop you.
$.02. FWIW
Parent
NEWSFLASH (Score:5, Funny)
Today, sherif deputies in California unleashed a country wide 'Pringles can ring' bust, raiding over 22 seven-elevin stores. They managed to confinscate over 133 cans of Pringles before they had to cease activities. Apparently the commando-style raids all went smoothly, but an unnamed source in the sherrif's department stated the raids ceased because , 'We were full'.
Parent
National TURN IN YOUR: Pringles cans? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sacramento County Sheriff Department
3341 Power Inn Rd Ste 313
Sacramento, CA 95826-3835
mail them empty and uncapped, just slap the mailing label on it and seal the end with clear tape. we don't want them treated as possible 'other things' it matters not if the get there crushed. We can keep screaming at them that they are fools, but unless the world notices the won't either.
Parent
Re:National TURN IN YOUR: Pringles cans? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Illegal? (Score:5, Funny)
No wonder why I got bad reception, its in the WRONG antenna jack!
Possesion is fine, use often illegal (Score:5, Informative)
The reason why there's all those proprietary connections in antenna space is because you're only supposed to use antennas that are approved for use with the transmitting device, so you stay within the perscribed limits for effective directional power. (Just recently the FCC announced plans to allow for mix-and-matching of antennas. [slashdot.org]) Connect a tightly directional antenna to a transmitter that's operating at full power meant for omnidirectional use, and you'll have an illegal setup. That's exactly the situation most canttenas find themselves in.
most cantennas well within limits (Score:5, Informative)
The limit for part 15 devices is 1 watt (30 dbm) absolute power or 4 watts (36 dbm) effective radiated power (EIRP). Most wireless cards are around 35 milliwatts (~15 dbm), and are well within the absolute limit. EIRP is measured as transmit power+gain, so a 15 dbm wireless card connected to a 12 dbi cantenna gives us 27 dbm EIRP, about 1/10th the legal EIRP limit. (Note: this is for point-to-multipoint communication. The gain restriction is much looser for point-to-point setups.)
Those who use high power cards (200 milliwatt (~23 dbm) wireless cards are available) may be close to or over the limit, but I doubt they represent a majority of cantenna deployments.
Homemade antennas are permissible according to part 15 section 23 (subject to a few restrictions).
Parent
Re:Possesion is fine, use often illegal (Score:5, Funny)
1865 called. They want their legal argument back.
Parent
In The News... (Score:5, Funny)
"This is clearly an issue for us." said Warren B. Crapola, director of Ohio's Department for Screwing People Over. "We simply cannot have our radio signals being lost to us, particular to backwaters like Michigan and Indiana."
Legislators are set to pass the Photon Restriction Act, and hope to have photons stopped at the state line by Fall.
"We're confident," says Governor Dolt Q. Nailbrain, "that not only will Ohio's photons be kept in the state, but that there's a potential revenue stream here as we tax crossborder photons. I hope that an amendment to the proposed bill will give us a grandfathering clause allowing us to tax photons back to 1965."
Neighboring Michigan is looking at a similar law that would ban neutrinos. "Are you aware," said Michigan's Attorney General, "that these beasties pass through your body. It's just plain indecent."
Not to be left out, Indiana hopes to redirect all unwanted X-rays directly into Ohio. "We feel destroying Ohio and turning it into a moltent, irradiated slagheap will bring us in line with Federal requirements, particularly the Patriot Act." said spokesperson Marylin Ipeenightly.
Parent
Yeah yeah (Score:5, Funny)
I hope I don't... (Score:5, Funny)
In a word... YES, but... (Score:5, Informative)
See Page 2 - Antenna Requirements
Changing the antenna on a transmitter can significantly increase, or decrease, the strength of the signal that is ultimately transmitted. Except for cable locating equipment, the standards in Part 15 are not based solely on output power but also take into account the antenna characteristics. Thus, a low power transmitter that complies with the technical standards in Part 15 with a particular antenna attached can exceed the Part 15 standards if a different antenna is attached. Should this happen it could pose a serious interference problem to authorized radio communications such as emergency, broadcast and air-traffic control communications.
In order to prevent such interference problems, each Part 15 transmitter must be designed to ensure that no type of antenna can be used with it other than the one used to demonstrate compliance with the technical standards. This means that Part 15 transmitters must have permanently attached antennas, or detachable antennas with unique connectors. A "unique connector" is one that is not of a standard type found in electronic supply stores.
(Section 15.203)
It is recognized that suppliers of Part 15 transmitters often want their customers to be able to replace an antenna if it should break. With this in mind, Part 15 allows transmitters to be designed so that the user can replace a broken antenna. When this is done, the replacement antenna must be electrically identical to the antenna that was used to obtain FCC authorization for the transmitter. The replacement antenna also must include the unique connector described above to ensure it is used with the proper transmitter.
Now here is the stick. So yes, technically under federal law they are.
If the operation of a non-compliant transmitter causes interference to authorized radio communications, the user should stop operating the transmitter or correct the problem causing the interference. However, the person (or company) that sold this non-compliant transmitter to the user has violated the FCC marketing rules in Part 2 as well as federal law. The act of selling or leasing, offering to sell or lease, or importing a low-power transmitter that has not gone through the appropriate FCC equipment authorization procedure is a violation of the Commission's rules and federal law. Violators may be subject to an enforcement action by the Commission's Field Operations Bureau that could result in:
Section 15.1
Section 15.5
Section 2.803
Section 2.805
Section 2.1203
o forfeiture of all non-compliant equipment
o $100,000/$200,000 criminal penalty for an individual/organization
o a criminal fine totalling twice the gross gain obtained from sales of the non-compliant equipment
o an administrative fine totalling $10,000/day per violation, up to a maximum of $75,000
Cantennas not illegal to own or use. (Score:5, Informative)
Lozito, meet fcc part 15 rules [gpo.gov]:
Also, cantennas are no better (except in terms of price) than commercially available antennas which are also legal to own and use, provided you use them in accordance with fcc regulations, for instance by not exceeding power and gain limits, and without breaking any other applicable laws.
(disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, or an RF engineer)
Email reply from the officer (Score:5, Informative)
bani: Er, what exact law makes cantennas illegal? I'd seriously like to know.
bob_lozito: Bad quote.
bani: is there an accurate transcript or recording available?
bob_lozito: Not sure. Either way, it is not illegal and if I inferred it, I was
wrong. I have had so many emails concerning this, it is getting to the
point that I cannot get any work done.
I cannot reply to all of you but am trying to do the best I can.
He admitted he was wrong, maybe we can cut him some slack?
Re:Email reply from the officer (Score:5, Insightful)
This alone deserves a standing ovation.
Parent
WTF, message of article lost (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wardriving is an exclusively male crime (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:They're illegal to use, but not to possess... (Score:5, Informative)
Subtle (but critical) error in the above. They are not legal for sale on 802.11 equipment if they're not approved. Untested (i.e. not specifically approved by the FCC for that application) homebuilt antennas are perfectly legal so long as the home builder has made a reasonable effort to heep the gain within FCC transmission power limits. Even then, the worst the FCC can do its require that you stop using it upon finding out it does exceed the limit. (See FCC part 15 rules, specifically 15.23)
Parent