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

Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:39:23 -0700 


I dont post to this newsgroup (just listen in from time-to-time). I can see how 
a cantenna could be considered an illegal item due to it having the capability 
to exceed the allowable energy emissions restricted by the FCC. I'm not an 
expert, but I'm familiar with a few instances where this has been the case.



The existing laws are designed to protect us from high emisions; however, these 
laws seem rather hypocritical when one considers the energy radiating from 
power lines - causing all sorts of medical issues for those in close proximity.



To heck with the FCC and silly Sheriff's that prevent the "good" technology in 
the world from serving the people as it should...often waiting till the 
government finds some way to control and profit from it.



Thanks for the read! Sorry if my post seems redundant at this point!



Jay











 --- On Tue 07/26,  < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:

From:  [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: [email protected]

Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 17:40:00 +0000

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



<html><body>

<DIV>Thanks for the information, Shawn.  Where did you get the "burglar tools" 
quote from Lozito, though?</DIV>

<DIV> </DIV>

<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 
2px solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2668" name=GENERATOR>

<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=193390117-26072005><FONT face=Arial 
color=#0000ff size=2>My guess is he was referring to section 466 of the penal 
code.  You can find it here:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>

<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=193390117-26072005><FONT face=Arial 
color=#0000ff size=2><A 
href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=3975495503+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve";>http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=3975495503+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve</A></FONT></SPAN></DIV>

<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=193390117-26072005><FONT face=Arial 
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>

<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=193390117-26072005><FONT face=Arial 
color=#0000ff size=2>I'm not a lawyer and don't know the <STRONG>case 
law</STRONG> 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 <STRONG>guess</STRONG> is you could find a 
judge to buy into the argument that a cantenna could fall under the same 
section of the penal code.</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>

<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: 
#0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">

<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>

<HR tabIndex=-1>

<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL 
PROTECTED] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, July 26, 2005 1:30 AM<BR><B>To:</B> 
[email protected]<BR><B>Subject:</B> [SOCALWUG] Re: Now Cantennas Are 
Illegal Too? Why Don't They Just Outlaw WiFi?<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>

<DIV> </DIV>

<DIV>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.</DIV>

<DIV> </DIV>

<DIV>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.  </DIV>

<DIV> </DIV>

<DIV>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.</DIV>

<DIV> </DIV>

<DIV> </DIV>

<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 
2px solid">

<P> </P>

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

<p>

_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!

Reply via email to