I know Google was caught snooping on individuals' unsecured WiFi communications not too long ago. (Not sure about WiFi as Aleron Ives mentioned. I'm not sure exactly what constitutes a "private communication," but I believe the old analog cell-phone signals were considered private, while communications on CB radio or FRS (walkie-talkie) bands are not. I think that particular law applies specifically to the airwaves, so it wouldn't directly apply to cable theft, but of course cable theft is illegal under other laws anyhow. I believe you're correct there is a law against intentionally receiving private communications intended for someone else, even if unencrypted. There aren't too many legal precedents covering these matters yet, so many of them are something of a grey area. If you're using a method of communication that utilises the public spectrum and is known to be insecure, you shouldn't expect security from it, and if ways to add security exist, it's your choice as to whether you take advantage of them. The same is true with cordless telephones and walkie-talkies. It's the responsibility of the signal's owner to secure it, and if he doesn't, then it's his fault if it gets intercepted. If you're intercepting someone's unencrypted WiFi signals, that's potentially legal, because WiFi uses public spectrum to broadcast information freely. If you're stealing cable, you're stealing private property to gain access to a private network, which is illegal. As for whether eavesdropping is legal, it depends upon whether the transmission is using the public airwaves or not. Homeworx isn't responsible if you're stealing cable TV: you are. It really depends on what kind of transmission you're monitoring, and it isn't really relevant to whether the DVR can tune QAM channels. But I'm quite sure it's perfectly legal, even here in the US with our strict IP laws. Of course, they'll have to get clearance from their legal department first, and I can understand them being a bit paranoid about US law, so it may still take a while. (They may wish to advertise the box as receiving over-the-air or unscrambled cable only, and add a disclaimer that the availability of unscrambled cable channels cannot be guaranteed, since some cable companies encrypt all their channels.) It'll expand their potential customer base a little bit, and won't cost a thing. So I'd urge MediaSonic to go ahead and enable QAM reception. They couldn't do it with this box even if QAM were enabled. To watch scrambled channels, someone would still need authorized equipment from their cable company. After all, the box just receives the signals if they're encrypted it doesn't decrypt them. Many American TVs, digital tuners, and DVRs receive unencrypted QAM, so I don't know any way that doing so could get a manufacturer in legal trouble.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |