What really is the difference between a FLIR gun and a wifi card in promiscuous mode?
The person that claims a right to privacy needs to take reasonable steps. Behind a solid wall, is a reasonable step to take. As is building a wall. Failing to secure your network, that you set up to "broadcast" in open mode, is arguably different.
To you or I, yes; securing your wireless network is obvious.
Can you really say that about the general population? Certainly there is a non-trivial portion of that population, if not a majority, that lacks an understanding of the mechanics behind how wifi works. Even more technically inclined users may reasonably be under the impression that MAC filtering, hidden SSIDs, or WEP provide privacy. Why should any of these people be any less deserving of privacy than the rest of us?
Knowledge of the basic properties of visible light is built into most of us. The laws were written with that in mind. However you cannot say the same about wifi.
I'm not disagreeing at at all your point. Only noting that the general rights to privacy are (for good or bad) hinging on 'reasonable' expectations. If the public and the police are not in a 'fair fight' so to speak, this is a problem and should be taken up. We just need to frame the problem. Properly though, so it makes sense.
Right now, it does seem pretty unreasonable to expect citizens to line their house with lead shielding, for example, to keep from being visually intruded upon. Because the cost and complexity, if nothing else.
The wi-fi example is more tricky, because of a couple areas. You are technically using unlicensed public spectrum in 2.5ghz. You can secure it (somewhat) with simple, lo-cost steps, etc. Its broadcasting signal beyond your propert lines, etc.
Now, what about 3G datacard? Thats protected because not only is it encrypted but its a 1 to 1 telco connect which requies a warrant. 1 to 1 calls are not exempt from warrant requirements. are on private spectrum. and because 1 to 1 their is no broadcast element. etc. Even though this too is lookingh alot like wi-fi in a diagram (radio, spectrum, mobile etc)
So, these are some things in the context that are relevant. Generally, if the authorities have 007 technology that we cannot see, hear, smell, detect or ever reasonably avoid, then we have a major problem. This is one reason we need transparency (no pun intended).
Will be of interest to see when that lines are crossed.
it wasn't illegal to listen in on other people's cordless phone calls since they were broadcasting unencrypted in the 900MHz and 2.4GHz parts of the spectrum.
I am not so much concerned with the state of the law as I am with what we, the technically inclined members of society, think of these people's right to privacy. We cannot allow ourselves to abuse our position and justify preying on those who are less skilled.
Claims from within our community that "Privacy is dead." concern me more than any warrantless wiretapping the FBI may be enjoying. It confuses the ability to secure your own privacy with the right to enjoy it. I expect law enforcement to live by the letter of the law, but I expect better of us. I expect ethical behaviour, not just merely legal behaviour. We innovate too quickly for the law to keep up with us.
Claims from within our community that "Privacy is dead." concern me more than any warrantless wiretapping the FBI may be enjoying.
-- This is an important point, because the notion of "reasonable" will ultimately be a relative point. so, in this case "a sinking tide sinks all ships" (to bastardize an old phrase). This is arguably a 21stC disease.
But, If you have school debts to pay, those facy granite countertops, or a promotion on the line, etc people will revert to: "I'm smarter than XYZ, I deserve PQR, all these other people are [naive, dumb, suckers]...etc. So I'll do [whatever morally grey area thing] will be [instrumentally useful].
So, at the end of the day, root cause is (1) greed; and (2) entitlement. You could also throw in (3) moral haze. But in my experience, (3) often is a byproduct of (1) and (2) coming into conflict. There is also likely a component which is just "lack of imagination" in the pre-9/11 sense. You just won't believe tha people will do certain types of things, until its too late. Confronting the problems is too disruptive, etc.
The person that claims a right to privacy needs to take reasonable steps. Behind a solid wall, is a reasonable step to take. As is building a wall. Failing to secure your network, that you set up to "broadcast" in open mode, is arguably different.