[SOCALWUG] Re: Now Cantennas Are Illegal Too? Why Don't They Just Outlaw WiFi?

[Shawn Rogers]

My guess is he was referring to section 466 of the penal code.  You can find it here:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=3975495503+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

 

I'm not a lawyer and don't know the case law on this, but my guess would be the sheriff was thinking he could bend the case law on this to include a cantenna if he could show you were using it to break into someone's computer network.  You will notice section 466 makes it illegal to posses a screwdriver or spark plug provided you have the "intent" to use it to commit a crime.  My guess is you could find a judge to buy into the argument that a cantenna could fall under the same section of the penal code.

---

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 1:30 AM
To: SOCALWUG@googlegroups.com
Subject: [SOCALWUG] Re: Now Cantennas Are Illegal Too? Why Don't They Just Outlaw WiFi?

A cantenna would be no more illegal to own  if used while breaking into a network than a ladder would be illegal to possess if used to climb someone's fence and get into their yard.

 

Neither are "burglar tools."  Someone who enters a network without permission is charged pursuant to 18 USC 1030, not cantenna ownership.  Someone who enters a yard without permission is charged with trespassing, not ladder possession. 

 

Unfortunately, the intellectually lazy and those who benefit from spreading the FUD will rarely make the right distinctions.  Don't be surprised if having a high IQ eventually becomes illegal in some way.  Court TV shows like Masterminds and Forensic Files often imply that smart = evil.  It's sad.

 

 

 

-------------- Original message --------------

>
> For the record, the Sheriff in question says he was misquoted by the
> press. What he had said was that a person could be cited for possession
> of "burglar tools" if a cantenna was used in the process of breaking
> into someone's private network.
>
> Its up to you who you want to believe, the Sheriff or the reported. On
> one hand the Sheriff may be trying to cover his ass. On the other hand,
> reporters are always botching up quotes or just plain making stuff up
> that sounds good. I've seen it happen plenty of times.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mike Burgess [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 1:11 PM
> > To: SOCALWUG@googlegroups.com
> > Subject: [SOCALWUG] Now Cantennas Are Illegal Too? Why Don't
> > They Just Outlaw WiFi?
> > !
> >
> > http://techdirt.com/articles/20050725/017242_F.shtml
> > http://www.insidebayarea.com/businessnews/ci_2886879
> >
> > Now Cantennas Are Illegal Too? Why Don't They Just Outlaw
> > WiFi?
> >
> > "They're unsophisticated but reliable, and it's illegal to
> > possess them," said Sacramento County Sheriff's Lt. Bob
> > Lozito of the Sacramento Valley Hi-Tech Crimes Task Force.
> >
> >
> >
> > And the downward spiral continues.......
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >