Possession of Cantenna Now Illegal? 502
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.
How about parts? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parts: Pringles cans? (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re:National TURN IN YOUR: Pringles cans? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:National TURN IN YOUR: Pringles cans? (Score:5, Funny)
The solution is simple; leave some Pringles in there. This is apparantly Pringles' intention too, taking the user interface into consideration.
Or are my hands just especially
Re:National TURN IN YOUR: Pringles cans? (Score:4, Funny)
updated address. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:National TURN IN YOUR: Pringles cans? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:National TURN IN YOUR: Pringles cans? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:National TURN IN YOUR: Pringles cans? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, he's being arrested for being in possession of a hand with which he could, conceivable, open your unlocked door
Re:National TURN IN YOUR: Pringles cans? (Score:3, Insightful)
I can see a giant flashing neon sign above your head that says "VIRGIN"
Or "MARRIED"
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.
Re:How about parts? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's like saying having a copy of DeCSS is illegal because it could be used to take copies of movies and put them on the Internet for copyright infringement. Dumb.
Re:How about parts? (Score:4, Insightful)
All joking aside, the FCC has always mainted, "That the air waves are free". Recieving data is one thing, but transmitting back is quite another. And just because my front door is open, doesn't mean anyone has permission to enter. The good guys can do everything the bad guys can do. The difference between the good guys, and the bad guys is that the good guys choose not to do it.
Re:How about parts? (Score:4, Insightful)
It is NOT the same! First, a wireless router is broadcasting it's self and if unsecured implies an open INVITATION! Not to mention, that a computer REQUESTS an IP only to be GRANTED, implicitly, by nature of the router ISSUING an IP address. Posting a sign outside your house reading, 'Open House' (at least in America) is an invitation for passerbys to just walk inside. Doing so, and you can't cry about people coming into your home. The police will tell you to take down the sign.
Re:How about parts? (Score:4, Insightful)
You've just shown how little you know about wireless networks. By default, your wireless network is doing exactly that. Unless setup otherwise, a wireless network is broadcasting the fact that it is there and is open to all comers. It's like you standing by your open front door yelling out to the world "Hey, guys, come right on in, the water's fine!"
If you want only a certain subset of computers in this world to use it, then setup MAC address filtering - that's a bit like having a couple of hefty bouncers standing along side your door pushing people away. If you only want a certain subset of people to use it, then set up encryption - that's like having a lock on the door, and only people who have the key can enter. But in both of these cases you're still standing outside inviting anyone and everyone to come in.
However, if you don't want to yell out to the world to enter your house, the equivalent in wireless terms is to simply not broadcast your ESSID. It's not hard to do
This type of law enforcement is ignorant, stupid and just plain wrong. The guys weren't doing anything illegal, even if it might have been immoral. A far better solution would be to let the guys keep on using the unsecured, open networks and publicise the fact. Maybe that way people might learn a bit about how to set up a wireless network correctly.
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
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
Re:How about parts? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Only the FCC can answer this... (Score:3, Interesting)
Suddenly makes me wish I'd set up that "legitimate use" cantenna link to my employer a couple of years ago. I figure if I can see our base stations for half a
Re:How about parts? (Score:2)
Licensed users are a different story.
In any case, possessing a device that you're not allowed to use isn't a crime. Although using it may be.
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.)
Re:How about parts? (Score:3, Funny)
>>allowed to use isn't a crime. Although using it >>may be."
>Actually, yes, in some cases, it stupidly is.
Damn those feds and their limits on neighborhood nuclear weapons!
hawk
Re:How about parts? (Score:3, Funny)
Ah yes....red capes were legal, blue tights were legal, red speedo and boots were legal, but posession of all four was "intent to impersonate Superman". The dumb part is that Superman is no more dangerous than any of the other superheroes, and it wasn't ill
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.
Re:How about parts? (Score:2)
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:
Re:How about parts? (Score:3, Informative)
Anyway, if people are worried about store-bought brand Cantennas (cantenna.com), here is a snipplet of their FAQ:
Is it legal to use your Cantenna?
Yes, our Cantennas and Pigtails have been tested and comply with part 15 of the FCC rules. Make sure other wireless devices that you use also comply. Compliance with FCC regulations is your responsibility. Check with your Internet Service Providers to find out if they permit sharing of their Internet connect
Re:How about parts? (Score:3, Informative)
But possession? It is absurd to say that is illegal. Any metal object can be used as an antenna. I don't think the FCC has any rules whatsoever about wiring up connectors to Pringles cans, unless you then use it to generate unlicensed RF fields.
This cop is clueless. Ignore him.
-John (AE6NK)
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
Re:How about parts? (Score:3, Informative)
And in order to stay completely with the letter of FCC regs, you can't pick any antenna and radio you want and do the math to stay below the dBi limit. FCC certification is for a complete system (both antenna and radio) and not for the separate components. If you check the websites for outdoor WISP equipment, you will find that they
Re:How about parts? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd like to offer a minor correction on the above: eyes are specifically sensitive to microwave heating, rather than the much larger category of "RF radiation". Blindness in the form of cataracts can happen at much lower powers than would be necessary to cause general bodily injury from burns. Like cooking an egg, the clear parts of the eye tur
Re:How about parts? (Score:2)
Except that if you we actually caught robbing a place, having that screwdriver would (depending on jurisdiction) earn you the additional charge of possesion of burglars tools.
wbs.
Re:How about parts? (Score:4, Informative)
I'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.
Actually it's my understanding from working with a WISP that the cantenna would be illegal as far as the FCC is concerned.
Our lawyer and the local FCC field people always told us that the entire system had to be certified for Part 15 before it could be used. Even if you build a system out of certified pieces and parts (say an amplifier and an antenna) it's still not Part 15 compliant unless the complete system is certified.
Now of course that doesn't mean that mere possession of such a device would be illegal. But in the eyes of the FCC you could receive a notice of violation if you were to actually use an uncertified system.
Just food for thought.
Re:How about parts? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How about parts? (Score:3, Funny)
Mwahahahahhaaha....
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'.
seems to be a misquote by the reporter (Score:4, Informative)
before you spam him into oblivion perhaps give it a second thought:
Several users e-mailed Lt. Bob Lozito to let him know he was dead wrong. You can't broadcast with a Cantenna or you'll violate FCC guidelines, but you can receive signal. Also, there's no law on the books in any state we're aware of that would make owning a makeshift Wi-Fi antenna illegal. "have received several similar emails," says Lozito. "My comment was not accurately quoted," he states.
Come arrest me pls. (Score:4, Funny)
Illegal? (Score:5, Funny)
No wonder why I got bad reception, its in the WRONG antenna jack!
Hmmmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmmmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmmmm... (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Possesion is fine, use often illegal (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Possesion is fine, use often illegal (Score:2)
So when you get that 24dB parabolic antenna out, you might be going beyond the regulated power limit for that band.
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).
Re:most cantennas well within limits (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps by itself it is nothing but a container for storing pringles, but it becomes a part 15 device when it's connected to an appropriate transciever.
Homemade devices are permitted under Part 15 section 23 [akamaitech.net]:
Re:Possesion is fine, use often illegal (Score:5, Funny)
1865 called. They want their legal argument back.
Re:Possesion is fine, use often illegal (Score:3, Informative)
The FCC was created by an ACT OF CONGRESS "for the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce...." The power of law is in the details, especially the definitions of words and phrases.
For more see: http://www.nationalassociationofmicrobroadcasters . com/whatisthelaw.htm [nationalas...asters.com]
JURISDICTION IS EVERYTHING IN LAW. You don't seem to get that, so I think your legal legs a
More legal tidbits (Score:4, Informative)
For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is created a commission to be known as the "Federal Communications Commission", which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this chapter.
Title 47, section 153 (Definitions)
(22) Interstate communication
The term "interstate communication" or "interstate transmission" means communication or transmission
(A) from any State, Territory, or possession of the United States (other than the Canal Zone), or the District of Columbia, to any other State, Territory, or possession of the United States (other than the Canal Zone), or the District of Columbia,
(B) from or to the United States to or from the Canal Zone, insofar as such communication or transmission takes place within the United States, or
(C) between points within the United States but through a foreign country; but shall not, with respect to the provisions of subchapter II of this chapter (other than section 223 of this title), include wire or radio communication between points in the same State, Territory, or possession of the United States, or the District of Columbia, through any place outside thereof, if such communication is regulated by a State commission.
--
Clearly the FCC does not have jurisdiction in matters of intRAstate commerce.
No authority is conferred to it by congress. It is because that is the sole domain of state governments. The consitution LIMITS the powers of the federal government as well as establishes them. In this regard, congress's authority to control intrastate broadcasts is limited.
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.
Re:Possesion is fine, use often illegal (Score:2)
Re:Possesion is fine, use often illegal (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't get me wrong, I think that's total crap. But I think it's total crap for a different reason then you. I think it's crap because I don't think the goverment should have the right to regulate speech on the airwaves through the back door--which is ex
Yeah yeah (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yeah yeah (Score:2)
Wardriving is an exclusively male crime (Score:2, Interesting)
or are there any women wardrivers ?
seems everyday like hacking is strictly a sausage party
Re:Wardriving is an exclusively male crime (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wardriving is an exclusively male crime (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Wardriving is an exclusively male crime (Score:3, Funny)
Why it is illegal (Score:2)
I suppose it is illegal to possess the "Cantenna" because it has not undergone government, ala FCC, testing.
Re:Why it is illegal (Score:2)
You suppose wrong. Antennas alone require no FCC testing. The FCC only regulates transmitters, and approves them for use with a specific antenna. An antenna alone is a freakin' metal stick, man. The FCC can't regulate the sale of springy bits of wire, regardless of whether the threaded end happens to fit a transmitter somewhere.
I hope I don't... (Score:5, Funny)
You can take ... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:You can take ... (Score:2)
Just remember this little thing I was once told while talking to a former Sniper who had served during Vietnam:
We aim to make headshots.
Re:You can take ... (Score:3, 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
Re:In a word... YES, but... (Score:2)
Re:In a word... YES, but... (Score:2)
That's a rather scary statement - isn't the connector on the back of
They're illegal to use, but not to possess... (Score:3, Informative)
When Linksys comes up with a new antenna design, they must test it with every single AP they want it to be legal to use it with. The idea is that you can't accidentally transmit a stronger signal than you're supposed to.
If you are a radio amateur, you can re-classify the gear and use it legitimately, as long as you use no encryption, no swearing, nothing commercial, etc. etc.
However, for most people, and most uses, pringles can antennas are unquestionably illegal to use. They also usually don't work that well - many of them are _directional_, sure, but they're directional because they're weak in most directions, rather than strong in a particular one.
A good antenna would mask the signals behind you and boost the signals in front. Many pringles designs mask the signals behind you but don't amplify the ones in front. That makes them really not very useful.
Re:They're illegal to use, but not to possess... (Score:2)
I also understood that pringle cans are pretty close to the perfect diameter, but not perfect. A cookie can with a bigger diameter or something similar should work better than a Pringle can. And it's a change of diet for most of
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)
Stupid Title but a good point..... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not hard to understand, but when I go to a friends' house who has wireless, 2 times out of 3 my notebook can use their internet w/o a problem. Then I end up telling them to admin their router and set it up for encrypted transmission + letting only certain wireless MAC addresses through.
Any other suggestion on security?
Re:Stupid Title but a good point..... (Score:2)
A better solution (IMO) is to establish a VPN to a physically-connected computer, and route through it. That machine should also act as a firewall, and deny any non-VPN-based traffic.
This is more setup, and does require an anchor machine. However, the odds of an e.g. IPSec-based VPN getting broken are much lower then someone spoofing a dormant
I can never keep up with young people and... (Score:3, Funny)
Its sorta true. (Score:2, Informative)
That's not strictly accurate, but it contains a grain of truth.
It is an unlawful violation of the FCC regs to USE a cantenna, as it has not been certified for use with any radio broadcast systems.
Violators may be forced to immediately and permanantly cease use of their uncertified system. That is the extent of the possibile penalties.
Yeah, this sherriff is NOT tech savvy (Score:2, Informative)
Sheriff's Dept??? (Score:2)
Will they go after copies of the ARRL Handbook [arrl.org] next?
Transmitting vs. receiving (Score:2)
I can understand how putting a more powerful TRANSMITTING antenna on an access point would be bad. The FCC is actually looking out for us, making sure we don't scramble our brains with too much power. However, how can having an antenna that simply boosts a weak signal to your computer be regulated? The power from the transmitter is the same...this receiving a
Re:Transmitting vs. receiving (Score:2)
In effect, the antenna takes the energy that a simple monopole would transmit equally in all directions, and concentrates it in one (or occasionally two) directions. So the transmitted signal is higher in the favored direction (and weakened in other directions).
Re:Transmitting vs. receiving (Score:2)
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)
Give Lt. Bob Lozito a call and find out! (Score:2, Insightful)
Hi-Tech Crimes Task Force
4510 Orange Grove Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95841
916.874.3002
(Courtesy of:
http://www.sacsheriff.com/organization/contract_se rvices/hi_tech.cfm [sacsheriff.com])
Not available for comment (Score:2, Informative)
I checked up on the task force and sent a request for more information. You can to here: info@sachitechcops.org.
From the looks of their website [sachitechcops.org], they are a loose collection of law enforcement agencies that are using this organization so they can be associated with a group with "High Tech" and "Task Force" in the title
I think this title association was described in a Dilbert book...
cut and paste much (Score:2, Informative)
Get a ham radio license (Score:3, Informative)
Channels 1 thru 6 are inside the 2.4Ghz ham radio band. If you have a valid amateur radio license, you have the right to operate with homebrew equipment.
The July 2005 QST magazine has an article about ham expermenting with 24dbi dish antennas and standard off the shelf AP's. They claim 12 miles is easy, but they run into problems with ack timing at longer ranges. Bandwidth rolls off significantly... at 34 miles!
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:3, Informative)
The Bee's Erika Chavez can be reached at (916) 321-1203 or echavez@sacbee.com.
from http://sacbee.com/content/news/crime/story/1320241 9p-14045441c.html [sacbee.com]
Re:Email reply from the officer (Score:4, Funny)
Mmm, probably not. But maybe he'll get lucky and the source story will be corrected by the time the dupe gets posted in a few hours.
Re:Email reply from the officer (Score:5, Insightful)
This alone deserves a standing ovation.
Re:Email reply from the officer (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Hah! First he says "Bad quote", but immediately allows for the possibility that he implied it upon request for a transcript.
He admitted he was wrong, maybe we can cut him some slack?
Man, he ain't admitted squat! He's giving us the classic liar's line
ALWAYS expect to be misquoted in an article (Score:3, Insightful)
I have been quoted in a couple of articles in local papers over the past few years. I have never seen an article that didn't include at least one misquote. Usually something minor, true, but a misquote none the less.
I don't know what the cause of this is - bad note taking? Reporters hearing what they expect, instead of what you say? Misunderstanding of the nuances of jargon a
Well just called LT. Bob... (Score:4, Interesting)
WTF, message of article lost (Score:5, Informative)
"Cantenna" is a registered trademark of (Score:4, Informative)
Illegal by regulation, not law. (Score:3, Informative)
It just happens to be administrative law, not legislative law. The FCC regulations are laws regarding transmission of radio frequencies, and it is a violation of such regulations to use a "cantenna" to broadcast as a Part 15 user, which is what you fall under as a consumer with your wifi equipment. If you have a HAM license, you can operate under a different set of regulations, but there are restrictions on what you can do with the radio, and most people don't have such authorization who are using these antennas.
Not to mention it is illegal to connect to someone else's computer network and use its resources without their explicit approval. This legal approval may be automated (software that takes payment or verifies location) or not (you have to talk to the owner) but unless you're given some sort of legal authorization, not just the technical authorization, you're also breaking the law.
So, two things in one there, really.
Cantenna Illegal? (Score:3, Informative)
Heathkit sold a dummy antenna (really a 1000w 50ohm resistor in a paint can filled with transformer oil) back in the 60's and 70's for hams to use for testing transmitters without causing interference, the device was called a 'cantenna'. Guess the word now has a new meaning.
BTW since hams also have use of the 2.4ghz band, this new cantenna would be LEGAL for sale and use by hams in this band.
Re:Cantenna ! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Uh, guys... (Score:2)
One More Thing.... (Score:2)
And a couple of decades ago, the amateur power limits were changed from 2kW input to the final stage to 1500W output from the final. Not that any of that's terribly relevant at 2.4GHz, for most of us anyway.