Is Wigle.net violating FCC rules too?

Is Wigle violating FCC rules too?  We previously posted about Google's admission that its Street View data collecting vehicles were also collecting MAC addresses (the number assigned to the computer's network adapter)  and SSID addresses (basically the name for your wireless router, which you need to know in order to connect your computer to the wireless network) in addition to private information sent over the internet through private wireless routers.  On Wigle, the public can actually browse maps which identify the approximate physical address of the wireless router and the SSID of the wireless router.  For those with unsecured routers, that means anyone can connect their wi-fi enabled device to the non-secured wireless network, if they are within range of the router.

According to 47 U.S.C. §605, it is a violation of the statute for anyone to intercept any radio communication and divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication to any person. It is also a violation for any person who has received any intercepted radio communication or having become acquainted with the contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication knowing that such communication was intercepted, from using the communication or any information therein contained for his own benefit or for the benefit of another.

The FCC, pursuant to the authority granted to it by Congress, has adopted a series of rules relating to radio communications. The FCC has defined "radio communication" as telecommunication by means of radio waves. The FCC has defined "telecommunication" as any transmission, emission or reception of signs, signals, writing, images and sounds or intelligence of any nature by wire, radio, optical or other electromagnetic systems.

Wireless routers usually transmit on 2.4 or 5.8 gigahertz wavelengths, which is within the radio spectrum.   It is clear that wireless routers fall within the FCC's jurisdiction and that the FCC does have rules relating to router specifications.  FCC rules It seems pretty clear that wireless router transmissions of SSID addresses fails within the statute.

The statute imposes potentially huge fines on its violators.  Potential exposure is up to $100,000 per violation.  Wigle.net looks to have potentially millions of violations.  Just something to keep in mind for Wigle.net owners.

Google grabbing more than just SSIDs

In our April blog entry, we talked about the recent disclosure that Google has been collecting MAD addresses and SSID information as part of its mapping and street view programs. Google violating FCC rules? Now it appears that Google has also collected communication data transmitted through unsecured wireless routers, possibly including emails and passwords.  Google collecting data

47 USC 605 provides in substance that no person who intercepts a radio broadcast shall use it for its own benefit.  FCC regulations define a radio as anything that broadcasts on radio frequencies, which wireless routers clearly do.  Has Google used any of the intercepted data for any purpose?  We don't know for sure, but Google originally denied collecting any information other than MAC addresses and SSIDs. 

Every month we see fines assessed by the FCC for peeling paint on antennas or other technical violations of the rules.  When are we going to read about an investigation by the FCC into the blatant interception, collection and use of private information by Google?  Its time the FCC did something to protect the privacy of the citizens. 

Entone settles with FCC

On May 14, 2010, the FCC announced it had reached a settlement with Entone related to allegations that Entone was marketing equipment in violation of FCC regulations.  Entone settlement  While the settlement documents are vague on the claims, it appears that Entone was marketing video equipment without a Part 15 certification or declaration of conformity.  Part 15 of the FCC's rules deals with harmful interference and requirements that certain equipment not cause interference and that they accept interference from other equipment.  The settlement agreement does not state that Entone equipment failed to comply with technical standards.  It only implies that the equipment failed to display the correct label.

As part of the settlement, Entone agreed to pay $35,000 to the FCC.  The settlement also imposed onerous reporting conditions on Entone, including appointing a compliance officer to make sure violations do not occur in the future.  As mentioned in other blogs entries, the FCC has no power to assess fines against non-licensees for equipment marketing violations without a citation being issued first.  None was issued here.  Again the FCC bullies someone into paying a fine not owned.  It happens over and over again, so it is important that anyone contacted by the FCC consult with an attorney right away.