The Labyrinth (of th3 Malfunction3d Droi3d)

Introduction Note: Because there are MANY different scenario's that involve packet sniffing and because they need to be evaluated on a case by case basis in various countries, I highly RECOMMEND you seek legal counsel specializing in Intellectual Property law or "I.T" law in THOSE respective countries if you need to better understand the legality of such issues OUTSIDE of the U.S. If you ARE legal counsel in the U.S and want me to make technical corrections or add more case scenario's for U.S readers, DO NOT hesitate to contact me. I understand U.S law is not static and open to interpretation. Thank You! In this week entry, I will be analyzing the varying degree of circumstances, in which packet sniffing with Kismet/Wireshark computer programs maybe consider "legal" and "illegal", given two real life, real world scenario's. I noticed that this question comes up quite frequently between "hackers" and law/policy analysts. This was

Introduction  In this weeks entry, I will be re-exploring a very important topic! the question that a lot of people often bring up in different scenarios is whether or not law enforcement or the F.B.I needs consent in order to search a computer that you or somebody you know who has given the computer to a repair person in order to do maintenance on and the computer has "questionable" material on it. Is it considered an "illegal search and seizure" under the fourth amendment or can you be implicated? The short answer is yes, you can in fact can be implicated in "most" scenarios and under a varying degree of circumstances. Here is why the F.B.I can seize the computer without a warrant and go back and obtain one, in order to perform a computer forensics investigation on you. What the CCIPS Manual by the F.B.I states under constitutional law  "As discussed above in Section B.4, computer searches by repairman prior to contact with law enforcement a

Introduction In this weeks entry, I am going to be looking at a landmark U.S Supreme Court ruling using "stare decisis", meaning a precedent that was set this past summer in the world of privacy law, that has made it unconstitutional to perform wireless GPS tracking of potential suspects vehicles. I am going to briefly analyze two cases that have been decided upon (one by the U.S Supreme Court that you may have heard about on some I.T news sites about a month ago) and the other being decided upon in California by California legislators. Both of these events are significantly IMPORTANT and should not be ignored by those working in the field of law, law enforcement, all other parties involved, and may need to be included in future revisions to the F.B.I manual for prosecuting federal crimes. Let's begin by analyzing each case piece by piece, in order to fully appreciate and understand what each case means in the context of warrant-less wireless GPS tracking and what it me