What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
44 Comments
- squirl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2For those that want to share your personal/professional opinions with this individual that has no idea what he's talking about (and yet he's supposed to be an expert), feel free.
Sacramento County Sheriff's Office
Jurisdiction: Sacramento County California
Contact: Lt. Bob Lozito
Phone: (916) 874-3030
E-mail: rlozito@sacsheriff.com - WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Using a legal item
http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=SCB10&cpc=SCH&srm=0
to commit an illegal act does not make the legal item illegal.
By this Lt's logic, if someone commits a murder with a shovel, then all shovels become illegal. - MikeMacMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Cantennas could be illegal due to FCC rules. I don't know if they are or not, but here is what someone says about them on the linked blog.
"Part 15
by Zoter on Monday, July 25th, 2005 @ 09:52AM
Yup - they are, technicly, illegal.
Wi-Fi gear operates under Part 15 of the FCC rules. Those rules state you can't modify or use any antenna that isn't 'accepted'. Acceptance is a procedure the manufactures jump through. So adding an after market or home brewed antenna is a violation of part 15.
So is using any kind of external ammplifier.
There's a lot more to Part 15 - but those are the biggies.
" - camalot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2jkfan87: "Yes, it is illegal. YOU are all wrong, not the cop."
So by owning http://www.fireballpc.com/ssproduct.asp?pf_id=10179058, according to you, I am breaking the law.
How can a cantennas be illegal if it is a "homebrew" directional antenna? - Bimmer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That zotter guy goes on to post this:
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet63/oet63rev.pdf
Changing the antenna on a transmitter can significantly increase, or decrease, the strength of the signal that is ultimately transmitted. Except for cable locating equipment, the standards in Part 15 are not based solely on output power but also take into account the antenna characteristics. Thus, a low power transmitter that complies with the technical standards in Part 15 with a particular antenna attached can exceed the Part 15 standards if a different antenna is attached. Should this happen it could pose a serious interference problem to authorized radio communications such as emergency, broadcast and air-traffic control communications.
In order to prevent such interference problems, each Part 15 transmitter must be designed to ensure that no type of antenna can be used with it other than the one used to demonstrate compliance with the technical standards. This means that Part 15 transmitters must have permanently attached antennas, or detachable antennas with unique connectors. A "unique connector" is one that is not of a standard type found in electronic supply stores. (Section 15.203)
It is recognized that suppliers of Part 15 transmitters often want their customers to be able to replace an antenna if it should break. With this in mind, Part 15 allows transmitters to be designed so that the user can replace a broken antenna. When this is done, the replacement antenna must be electrically identical to the antenna that was used to obtain FCC authorization for the transmitter. The replacement antenna also must include the unique connector described above to ensure it is used with the proper transmitter.
If you really give a flying flatulance one way or the other - go read the rules for yourself and make the call. Or hire a lawyer to make it for you. Either way, eh... - Carbito, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Complete ignorance like this is getting really annoying, they just don't take the few seconds of time which would be required to understand this simple concept.
- WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1""If they were Illegal how could they sell them at COMPUSA??"
Dude, trust me, they don't sell pringles cans at CompUsa."
Looks like they do, dude.
http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?product_code=315787&pfp=cat3 - AmateurX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's so frustrating that developing technologies get the cut off at the knees like this...
- JimXugle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Cops who are assigned a job where they deal with technology should be 70% nerd and 30% cop. That should be the requirement.
If Cantenna's are an illegal enhancement to WiFi, maybe Mayo and mustard are illegal enhancements to Sandwiches. - Andir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think jkfan87 had someone "steal" bandwidth from him before and couldn't find a way to get that person arrested. :p
You sound upset man. Lay off the pills. - Bimmer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1camalot - posession isn't illegal. It's the using of the thing that is.
So, no, by owning a Cisco Aironet AIR-ANT2410Y-R Wireless Directional Antenna you're not breaking the law. Likely using that antenna on a device Cisco designed it for (and certified as compliant) isn't breaking the law either.
But, using that Cisco antenna on a device that Cisco didn't certify it for, yes - technicly that is breaking the rules.
Now, wether or not anything will come from that - not very likely.
FCC is more interested in facilitating commercial interests and selling bandwidth rather than enforce their own rules. You'd have to piss a lot of folks off, cost some a chunk o money, make a hella big stink or something to get 'em to take notice.
Now, you do something else that does get noticed, like steal 500K CC nos via your cantenna and get caught - yea, the prosocutor is likely to tack on anything and evrything he can come up with - including 'violation of Part 15 rules'. - DannoHung, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Why is it that they never cite the statutes that are hypothetically being violated in these stories?
I mean, I'd like to go and look this up to see just what the language says that restricts these things or activities. - squirl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0hitech@40sacsheriff.com
- RMuffin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Relating to WackyT's comment.
Same thing is happening to P2P networks, used for legal reasons, but highlighted by the illegal useage. - ultratechi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I remember several episodes of TSS where krose was talking about cantennas bieng illegal as per FCC regulations. Now, i'm not citing this as total proof, but it leaves room for some looking into.
- amprancid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I've built one. Quite interesting it was. Picked up my friend network 2 miles away.
- EPeters, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"If they were Illegal how could they sell them at COMPUSA??"
Dude, trust me, they don't sell pringles cans at CompUsa.
As for the FCC rule, check out some past eps of TWIT, where they talk about "non-standard" antennas, and modifying output signal power/strength. - BadMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Build your own cantenna http://digg.com/mods/Build%20your%20own%20Cantenna
- AT0MIC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is just stupid, go find some real criminals. Too many cops not enough crime.
- Cobra_Rob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If they were Illegal how could they sell them at COMPUSA??
- LoTek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's fairly obvious that these people haven't got a schmeck what they're talking about when they state that a cantenna can extend range up to 'several miles'.
Maybe I'm doing something wrong?! - realnebby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Any chance anyone knows how to get in touch with Lt. Lozito and find out what law he thinks makes a cantenna illegal? If someone can find an email address for him a letter writing campaign could be attempted.
- Joe_rigby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Cantennas" are Yagi antennas, or so I remember it saying on the TSS episode where it showed how to make them. That was before it went to *****.
- IraqManiac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0oh, so basically any directional antennae is illegal, that's so f__ked up
- IraqManiac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0someone should beat this guy down with a cantenna and take pictures and see what the cops do then, they'd make wifi illegal anyways, those little *****
- comat0se, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Where he got it wrong was the "illegal to possess" part. There's nothing stating that you can't have one... you just can't use it. Plus, if you are a licensed ham, you are completely allowed to make antennas however you choose.
- vypergts, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"If they were Illegal how could they sell them at COMPUSA??"
Best Buy sells radar detectors, but they are illegal in certain states. However, places that sell radar detectors can't sell them to people in those states and I don't see anything on CompUSA that says there is any restriction. - disord3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0WackyT - that would be fine, except that cantennas are passive. But if the cantennas are illegal, then surely the devices they are attached to must also be illegal for the very same reason? (:
- daggett, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0See what Patrick Norton started! lol
...or was it Kevin, my memories of TSS are a bit foggy these days. - hackhen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hell I've got 4 in my apartment facing in nsew... Muahaha 38db
- buckeye, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0A close friend of mine, who was chief of police of a major U.S. city, once told me: "Never ask a cop about the law. They know very little about it".
This clown just proved that statement to be correct. - kebera, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i've looked thru all the threads and links on this and nowhere does it say what the actual range improvement is when using one or more of these cantennas. does it go from 50ft up to 200ft? 600ft? 2 miles?
presumably, when it works the bandwidth isnt reduced in half as it is with those expensive wireless repeater devices... - WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Not unregulated, krupter. Unlicensed. 802.11 equipment has to pass FCC regulations concerning frequency usage, power, and radio interference with other electronic equipment.
- Andir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"A "unique connector" is one that is not of a standard type found in electronic supply stores." You can get these "unique" connectors at Radio Shack, no?
JimXugle: When I inquired about an IT job at a police station where I used to live, they stated that the person hired would have to go through the same training that a regular officer goes through in case they are needed for active duty. I don't know if this is standard practice or required. But I almost agree with that statement. - krupter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I thought Wifi was on unregulated bands
- WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The FCC does have it's purpose.
Scenario: What if you sit down after a hard day's protesting against everything governmental, try tuning into PBS to see what the latest liberal propaganda is for the day, and find out somebody setup a more powerful transmitter that is rebroadcasting FoxNews on all the PBS channels.
Of course you don't have cable television because all the cable companies are corrupt, and satellite television is really alien mind control in disguise. Who would you call? - PacoBell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Mr. Lozito, you are officially a dumb *****. An antenna doesn't "amplify" signals, it _focuses_ them like an optical lense does with light. Someone needs to go back to school ¬_¬
- WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0These regulations for the 2.4 GHz band have been around for years. Many devices use that band beside wireless networks, and all have to live by the same rules.
- comat0se, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Actually I don't think that Part 15 is a "law" just a regulation... as the FCC is not part of the justice dept, they are a regulatory agency. They have to power to levy fines, but I don't believe they could take you to court over it because it's not a law. They'd just hand you a notice saying you owe them X amount of money.
Maybe I'm wrong... but I don't think so. - Saxonx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Man, more regulations, less and less freedom everyday. Is there a sane nation left in the world!
- comat0se, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0So is the aluminum foil you wrapped around your rabbit ear antenna for your hoopty TV.
- Andir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Ghostbusters?
- WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0My example was for people who think all the FCC does is sell frequencies. They also regulate those frequencies to prevent interference from interlopers.
Cantennas by themselves are not illegal. If when attached to a device it makes that device perform outside it's perscribed parameters, then both the device and the cantenna are illegal. - KZ_PuGz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I cant see how its illegal to have one. However if you hook up any antenna that exceeds what the equipment was designed for it would be illegal according to the FCC. You can not exceed the db rating limit the FCC has in effect.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is