Is wardriving for wireless LANs illegal under UK Law?

[Skywatch]

Kit and the group

>I seem to recall that intercepting some transmissions would be subject to=
=20
>the 1949 Wireless Telegraphy Act.  From what I recalled this included=20
>things like air traffic control, etc.  The way it was worded (and someone=
=20
>with more skill in this area please correct me if I'm wrong) suggested=20
>that it was fine to listen in *as long as you didn't discuss the content*=
=20
>of the broadcast!  Slightly odd legislation I'll agree

This is one of those 'urban myths' that just won't go away. It is not true=
=20
that it's OK to listen if you don't use/act on/profit from the message=20
contents. Unlike more enlightened countries it is the reception that is=20
illegal, but tollerated and known about by most authorities. Unless used=20
with criminal intent it is largely ignored (go to an airshow and see how=20
many thousand people there are with airband radios blaring out and you'll=20
see what I mean).

>  - but there again what else can you do when you have a broadcast that's=
=20
> totally open and you'd preferably not have everyone hear it (ala Police=20
> radios) but technically haven't really got any way of stopping them (due=
=20
> to the availability of scanners).

That's why cell phones and voice 'code words' are used a lot. Also having a=
=20
number of different frequenices, even in the clear, makes it more difficult=
=20
for the novice to track the content.
There have also been 'sting' ops for this too. One was giving a UFO landing=
=20
out on police channels and cautioning any member of the public who turned=20
up! The other was a 'robbery gone wrong' where lots of =A320 notes were said=
=20
to be floating around a park in the air. Again anyone who turned up at the=
=20
scene was quizzed and cautioned.

>This may be applicable - namely that if you did intercept the traffic, as=
=20
>long as you told no one about the *content* (the quantity, source,=20
>presumed destination, power levels, etc. etc. I don't remember being=20
>covered) of the packets, you'd probably be fine.  You may even be fine as=
=20
>long as you do not write up the content of any one packet - for example=20
>"x% were Windows Networks" or similar if you were after such stats.

I wouldn't bank on it. You would likely only attract attention if you had=20
criminal intent, but advertising this sort of thing would not be beneficial=
=20
if someone took proceedings against you.

Skywatch




**** British Internet Privacy - Now twinned with China ! ****

(Terrorists note - You should now use the post instead!)