[funsec] Hasn't the LA Times and Humphrey Cheung ever heard
of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act?
mattmurphy at kc.rr.com
Sat Apr 28 15:57:15 CDT 2007
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Apr 28, 2007, at 1:39 PM, Adam Jacob Muller wrote:
> What if Starbucks put WEP (or WPA) on, but hung a sign with the key?
> Does (or should) that still fall under section 1?
ECPA would be satisfied because the communication is encrypted. The
act doesn't contain any provisions limiting the disclosure of the key.
Ironically, it might be found under Section 632 that a "reasonable
expectation of confidentiality" did not exist, because the encryption
key was on the door. However, if that sign contained phrasing
"Wireless network is provided for customer use only. Joining our
wireless network or utilizing the access key provided here represents
an agreement not to use the network for any illegal purpose and to
respect the privacy of other network users. Interception of network
traffic is expressly prohibited, and may be a violation of state and
Then the obligation of users not to sniff the network, which was
established by their use of the key to associate with the wireless
LAN, is probably sufficient to establish an expectation of privacy
under 632 as well.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the funsec