 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / General / Networking / April 2006Theft of WiFi charge in Florida
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/techbits_wi_fi_theft The charge is unauthorized access to a computer network. The defendant was parked outside a guy's house using the guy's wifi via the defendant's laptop. Take care, Mac users.  SignaturePhil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily. > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/techbits_wi_fi_theft > > The charge is unauthorized access to a computer network. The defendant was > parked outside a guy's house using the guy's wifi via the defendant's > laptop. So is this a municipal, state, or federal law being broken? The article doesn't say. I ask because it might make a difference whether the FBI would be involved. Inquiring minds want to know. --Fred > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/techbits_wi_fi_theft > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Inquiring minds want to know. Probably the Federal "Computer Crimes Act" which was passed several years ago to go after hackers. "Unauthorized access to a computer network" is the section they always seem to charge, as it doesn't matter if the network was protected (by password or otherwise), or not. If you are there, on someone else's network without their permission, you have committed a Federal Crime. Never heard of it being used for a wifi net though. Makes you wonder about all those folks with out of the box WiFi base stations (that have no protection what-so-ever, and computers that are set to join a net 'automatically'. Lots of chance of landing on someone's net without even knowing about it. Admittedly this is a lot different than be caught parking in front of someone's house, but technically, the law should be the same. Signature-Ernie- "There are only two kinds of computer users -- those who have suffered a catastrophic hard drive failure, and those who will." Have you done your backup today? In article <eckleinspammenot-5AA8E8.14390007072005@news1.west.earthlink.net>, > > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/techbits_wi_fi_theft > > > The charge is unauthorized access to a computer network. The defendant was [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > caught parking in front of someone's house, but technically, the law > should be the same. Which is all very interesting, because as I understand it (not a lawyer) if you leave your house door open and someone walks in (and they aren't carrying 'burglary tools'), the worst the person can be charged with is trespassing, a minor misdemeanor usually only enforced after repeated incursions and warnings to stop. Only if the door is locked, can they be charged with breaking and entering. Seems like there ought to be a similar provision for wifi to at least place some burden on the person with the network to secure it. This is just way to easy to make into a federal case. --Fred > Which is all very interesting, because as I understand it (not a > lawyer) if you leave your house door open and someone walks in (and > they aren't carrying 'burglary tools'), the worst the person can be > charged with is trespassing, a minor misdemeanor usually only > enforced after repeated incursions and warnings to stop. Only if the > door is locked, can they be charged with breaking and entering. I think there is another charge of "unlawful entry" that is more serious than trespassing that can be charged. It might vary by jurisdiction, though. But if they take anything, the charge then increases to burglary. SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. > > Which is all very interesting, because as I understand it (not a > > lawyer) if you leave your house door open and someone walks in (and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > But if they take anything, the charge then increases to burglary. I believe Michelle is correct, in California anyway. Walking in through an open door would be charged as "unlawful entry", while what is commonly referred to as breaking and entering would be charged as "forceable entry". However, the comparison of entering a persons home to unauthorized use of their WiFi is apples and oranges. The computer crime laws stand on their own, and have no bearing on physical access to property or visa-versa. It's pointless to dwell on what the computer laws "should be", and attempt to compare them to other situations which have their own established set of laws. As I recall the "Computer Crimes Act" was pushed through Congress at a time when worms, hacking, unauthorized access to computers was becoming a problem and there were no laws that adequately addressed the problem. At first they attempted to prosecute using the existing "breaking and entering" (I will use this for lack of a better term) laws, but since there was no physical access, and usually the crossing state (or country) lines was involved, local laws didn't work. WiFi existed at the time, but its widespread use, and the advent of "hot spots" probably was not addressed. "Unauthorized access to a computer network" is rather straight forward; either you are authorized to be on a computer network, or you are not. The widespread use of WiFi and the thousands of free "hot spots" muddies the water. There is nothing contained in the WiFi signal that says you are authorized or not. The network name might give a clue, but then again it might not; and since everyone has the ability to name their own network, you can't depend on the name to have any meaning at all. So the real question is (to me anyway): In normal day to day life, when one runs across an 'open' WiFi, how can they possible know if they are "authorized" or not to use it (the obvious case of parking in front of someone's house, which started this thread, notwithstanding)? Are they breaking the law if they had no intent to do so and only ended up on an "unauthorized" network because they had no way to know that that particular network was unauthorized when so many like networks _are_ authorized? To be guilty of a crime, usually one must be able to reasonably tell if ones actions are legal or not. "Unauthorized use" (of WiFi) would seem to be a gray area, where in some circumstances a reasonable person cannot possibly know. Signature-Ernie- "There are only two kinds of computer users -- those who have suffered a catastrophic hard drive failure, and those who will." Have you done your backup today? In article <eckleinspammenot-E95A24.10053108072005@news1.west.earthlink.net>, > To be guilty of a crime, usually one must be able to reasonably tell > if ones actions are legal or not. Actually, no. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse," is a well-established legal principle. As for the question of whether a network is authorized, there is always the matter of common sense. If you're in a residential neighborhood in a city where there are no known public hotspots provided by the city (some cities have set up or are setting up a Wifi network that covers the entire city.), you can reasonably be assured that you are not authorized to access that network. If you're in a store that advertises that it provides WiFi, you can be sure, especially if the network's name indicates the store. If you're in San Francisco's Union Square, which has city-provided WiFi, you can be sure. SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. > In article > <eckleinspammenot-E95A24.10053108072005@news1.west.earthlink.net>, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Actually, no. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse," is a > well-established legal principle. "Ignorance of the law" is not the issue. It is also a well established legal principal that vague or ambiguous laws get thrown out all the time because, that while the average, reasonable person, can know exactly what the law says, he has no reasonable way to know if he is breaking it or not. > As for the question of whether a network is authorized, there is always > the matter of common sense. If you're in a residential neighborhood in > a city where there are no known public hotspots provided by the city > (some cities have set up or are setting up a Wifi network that covers > the entire city.), you can reasonably be assured that you are not > authorized to access that network. I previously addresses the obvious case of being parked in front of someone's house. > If you're in a store that advertises that it provides WiFi, you can be > sure, especially if the network's name indicates the store. I frequent a small coffee shop that provides WiFi but you would never know by the name of the net (it's called "Me Too" after the owners boat). They are located in a very small area surrounded by apartment/condo units, and I usually find at least two other "no name" open nets when I am there. Since my laptop is setup to join automatically, I have accidently ended up on the wrong net. > If you're in San Francisco's Union Square, which has city-provided WiFi, > you can be sure. Only if you are computer savvy enough to realize what net you have joined. Like me, many folks have their computers setup to join automatically. They might think that because they are in Union Square they are on the city net, but could just as easily be on a private, unsecured net belonging to one of the hundreds of surrounding businesses. BTW I an not arguing that it is OK to use anyones net without their permission (or enter their house), whether or not it is secured (or the door is wide open). My point is that it is very easy for a non-tech person to end up on an non-authorized net (and using the service) without even knowing it. Signature-Ernie- "There are only two kinds of computer users -- those who have suffered a catastrophic hard drive failure, and those who will." Have you done your backup today? > Inquiring minds want to know. I just had a new wireless network show up in my home. Named "default". It's gotta be from a neighbor. I'm in my home and it's invading my airspace. Can I call the cops? Can I use it? Does someone who sets up an unsecured (and this one is totally open) network have *any* responsibility at all? djb Signature~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~ ------------------------------------------------------ One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca> The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com> >> Inquiring minds want to know. >I just had a new wireless network show up in my home. Named "default". >It's gotta be from a neighbor. >I'm in my home and it's invading my airspace. Can I call the cops? Can >I use it? Does someone who sets up an unsecured (and this one is >totally open) network have *any* responsibility at all? Why do you consider it *your* airspace? Have the cops been notified about the free-to-air TV signals passing through your home? SignatureChris. > I just had a new wireless network show up in my home. Named "default". > It's gotta be from a neighbor. > > I'm in my home and it's invading my airspace. Can I call the cops? Can :-> I hate to say it, but you've got a _lot_ more radio signals invading your airspace than "default." In addition to broadcast TV and radio, there are microwaves from your oven, megahertz and gigaherz from your phones, Louise and I are hams, so you've got our radio traffic, plus FRS, GMRS, and other land mobile transmitters (taxis, ambulances, police). SignaturePhil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily. > > I just had a new wireless network show up in my home. Named "default". > > It's gotta be from a neighbor. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > and I are hams, so you've got our radio traffic, plus FRS, GMRS, and other > land mobile transmitters (taxis, ambulances, police). So...? Does one get nabbed by the feds if one says "hi" on your CB? / taxi radio? or for using the radio/ TV? I think not. So this is unfair discrimination against computer networks, UNLESS some sort of damage can be proven. I've used a neighbours broadband WiFi internet access since I moved in April, so far no problems and its available 24/7 (as was my WiFi in my old neighbourhood before I moved). I'd like to meet the neighbour and offer to share costs, but is there a technical method to find out where the signal is coming from? In a built-up area like this it would otherwise mean knocking on a lot of doors! dude2 > So...? Does one get nabbed by the feds if one says "hi" on your CB? > / taxi radio? or for using the radio/ TV? I think not. So this is > unfair discrimination against computer networks, UNLESS some sort of > damage can be proven. It is theft of service; no damage has to be proven. > I've used a neighbours broadband WiFi internet access since I moved > in April, so far no problems and its available 24/7 (as was my WiFi > in my old neighbourhood before I moved). You have been committing a crime, namely unauthorized access to a computer network. (At least in the US, it would be; considering your spelling of "neighbor," it appears that you may not live in the US.) > I'd like to meet the neighbour and offer to share costs, That doesn't matter. The neighbor might not want you to use his access, and/or his contract with his ISP may prohibit the practice. SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. > > So...? Does one get nabbed by the feds if one says "hi" on your CB? > > / taxi radio? or for using the radio/ TV? I think not. So this is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > in April, so far no problems and its available 24/7 (as was my WiFi > > in my old neighbourhood before I moved). guess I should have sued someone.. > You have been committing a crime, namely unauthorized access to a > computer network. (At least in the US, it would be; considering your > spelling of "neighbor," it appears that you may not live in the US.) You're right on that point only. Now after labelling me a criminal and a thief I hope you feel better. But its almost a compliment coming from a yank. In that wonderful 'justice' system of yours murderers like LJ Simpson and pedophiles like Michael Jackson run around unpunished by your courts.. I just moved a few electrons, used a bit of airtime, hurt no-one, cracked no codes. I'd probably get 5 years in that crazy world of yours. > > I'd like to meet the neighbour and offer to share costs, > > That doesn't matter. The neighbor might not want you to use his access, > and/or his contract with his ISP may prohibit the practice. We'll sort it out, who cares whats written in your dumb statutes? Can anyone help on the technical aspect I asked about, ie finding the source of the WiFi signal or finding the owner's data online? dude2 > > You have been committing a crime, namely unauthorized access to a > > computer network. (At least in the US, it would be; considering > > your spelling of "neighbor," it appears that you may not live in > > the US.) > You're right on that point only. Oh, goody. > Now after labelling me a criminal and a thief I hope you feel better. I didn't label you anything. I merely pointed out that under US law, you have been committing a criminal act. Since you do not live in the US (nor do I know which country you live in; I would guess somewhere in the British Isles, Canada, New Zealand, or Australia, though.), I have no idea of whether you have violated the laws of your own country. > But its almost a compliment coming from a yank. Well, there goes rationality out the window. > In that wonderful 'justice' system of yours murderers like LJ Simpson Well, we do have a system of justice that attempts to protect the rights of the accused as well as bring justice to the guilty. In Simpson's case (and BTW, It is OJ, not LJ), there was a crooked police officer on the case, and he tainted the evidence enough to cause all twelve members of the jury to have a reasonable doubt based on the evidence. > and pedophiles like Michael Jackson run around unpunished by your > courts.. The prosecution couldn't provide enough credible evidence to convince twelve people--it couldn't provide enough evidence to convince even one person of that jury. If only one juror had believed him to be guilty, there would have been a hung jury and a mistrial. It is, admittedly, an imperfect system; however, no system is perfect, and ours is vastly superior to the one we got away from in the late 1700s. Our system is a system of laws, based on the reliability of evidence and the believability of witnesses. If you consider that to be bizarre, that's your prerogative, but that says more about you than about the system. > > That doesn't matter. The neighbor might not want you to use his > > access, and/or his contract with his ISP may prohibit the practice. > We'll sort it out, who cares whats written in your dumb statutes? We obviously do, but you had better search your statutes to see what they say. > Can anyone help on the technical aspect I asked about, ie finding the > source of the WiFi signal or finding the owner's data online? Send a letter (y'know, the kind that's on paper, and uses a stamp and is delivered by a letter carrier) to everyone in your neighborhood. Or, to save yourself some postage, you can just slip them under their front doors or hang them on their door handles. Here's a suggested content; please pardon any American spelling, and feel free to change it to your preferred spelling: "You may not know me, I live at <address> and am a neighbour of yours. For the past <insert length of time>, I have been using your wireless network, without your knowledge or permission, to access the internet. "I have a guilty conscience about that, and would like to make amends by sharing the cost of the internet service with you, if your ISP permits you to share it with someone outside of your household. I am willing to pay my share, backdated to the date I started using your network. "If you do not wish me to share your network any further, please encrypt it or at least password protect it. If you keep it open, and do not accept my cost-sharing offer, I shall consider that to be an invitation to continue to use your network as I have been doing. "Sincerely, "Dude2" SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. > I didn't label you anything. I merely pointed out that under US law, > you have been committing a criminal act. Since you do not live in the > US (nor do I know which country you live in; I would guess somewhere in > the British Isles, Canada, New Zealand, or Australia, though.), I have > no idea of whether you have violated the laws of your own country. Its a RIPE address, so somewhere in Western Europe. SignatureMany a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer > > I didn't label you anything. I merely pointed out that under US > > law, you have been committing a criminal act. Since you do not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Its a RIPE address, so somewhere in Western Europe. He wasn't worth the trouble of digging for it. SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. > It is, admittedly, an imperfect system; however, no system is perfect, > and ours is vastly superior to the one we got away from in the late > 1700s. Its vastly inferior. In those days at least the guilty were properly and swiftly punished, no rigging the jury system, etc. How come? Because slimely lawyers were few and far between. > Our system is a system of laws, based on the reliability of evidence and > the believability of witnesses. If you consider that to be bizarre, > that's your prerogative, but that says more about you than about the > system. ...And your many excuses for the system say plenty about you. Its results that count. The pedophile and the murderer run free. In a just society they would have been put down like the dogs they are, instead their fame & wealth bought and perverted justice. As a neutral outsider looking in believe me, it IS bizarre.. > > Can anyone help on the technical aspect I asked about, ie finding the > > source of the WiFi signal or finding the owner's data online? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > save yourself some postage, you can just slip them under their front > doors or hang them on their door handles. LOL! Um, yes. That would be a lawyer's solution to the problem. Thanks anyway. You're obviously the laughing stock of your neighbourhood already, but I dont intend to be that in mine.. dude2 > > It is, admittedly, an imperfect system; however, no system is perfect, > > and ours is vastly superior to the one we got away from in the late > > 1700s. > Its vastly inferior. In those days at least the guilty were properly and > swiftly punished, no rigging the jury system, etc. In those days the innocent were found guilty and punished. > > Our system is a system of laws, based on the reliability of > > evidence and the believability of witnesses. If you consider that > > to be bizarre, that's your prerogative, but that says more about > > you than about the system. > ...And your many excuses for the system say plenty about you. I made no excuses. The system is based on "innocent until proven guilty," a concept that was lacking in the British system of the late 1700s. > Its results that count. The pedophile and the murderer run free. It is better for ten guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to be punished. Yeah, Simpson went free because tainted evidence cast sufficient doubt on the reliability of that evidence. In the case of Jackson, you have no proof that he is a child molester, and more importantly, that he was guilty of any of the specific charges brought against him. Just because you wish him to be guilty does not mean that he is guilty. > LOL! > > Um, yes. That would be a lawyer's solution to the problem. Thanks > anyway. You're obviously the laughing stock of your neighbourhood > already, but I dont intend to be that in mine.. Ok, so you really didn't want any help; you're pretending. At least I am honest. SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. [commenting on the American system of justice] > The system is based on "innocent until proven guilty," a concept that was > lacking in the British system of the late 1700s. And if I am not mistaken, at the time of the American revolution the British system was "guilty until proven innocent". SignatureJames L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft > [commenting on the American system of justice] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And if I am not mistaken, at the time of the American revolution the British > system was "guilty until proven innocent". You are very much mistaken, American jurisprudence was lifted almost verbatim from British Common Law traditions. SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." > > And if I am not mistaken, at the time of the American revolution > > the British system was "guilty until proven innocent". > > You are very much mistaken, American jurisprudence was lifted almost > verbatim from British Common Law traditions. The British traditions may not have been "guilty until proven innocent," but under George III, the practice was. SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. > > > And if I am not mistaken, at the time of the American revolution > > > the British system was "guilty until proven innocent". [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The British traditions may not have been "guilty until proven innocent," > but under George III, the practice was. Examples... SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." > Ok, so you really didn't want any help; you're pretending. At least I > am honest. Honest? You are so opinionated/moralising and you assume the worst in a person. If I just wanted a free ride I wouldnt ask for assistance here.. I need a more tech-savvy way of sorting it out. Writing notes or knocking on doors is the low-tech, dumb way to do things, there must be a more discrete way. Similar to triagulation for GSMs? If I was using a laptop I could walk around with it to see where the signal was strongest. My desktop's Airport shows a strong signal already. I wasnt planning to upgrade my old pb for some time, maybe I can borrow or rent a pbook with an airport card. I'm sure the Wifi owner will be delighted to split the costs of the internet connection. dude2 > > Ok, so you really didn't want any help; you're pretending. At > > least I am honest. > > Honest? You are so opinionated/moralising and you assume the worst in > a person. LOL. After your condemnation, without any evidence, of Jackson, and condemnation, without any credible evidence, of Simpson, you dare complain that someone else is opinionated/moralizing and assumes the worst in a person! Feh, you're a hypocrite. You asked for a solution, and I gave you a reasonable one; it would cost you a little effort and a small sum of money, but it would achieve your goal. > If I just wanted a free ride I wouldnt ask for assistance here.. Unless you were merely going through motions to assuage your conscience. > I need a more tech-savvy way of sorting it out. Writing notes or > knocking on doors is the low-tech, dumb way to do things, there must > be a more discrete way. Oh, you want a tech-savvy way instead of an effective way. Low-tech does not mean dumb. SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. > > > Ok, so you really didn't want any help; you're pretending. At > > > least I am honest. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > complain that someone else is opinionated/moralizing and assumes the > worst in a person! Feh, you're a hypocrite. Great, now she puts me on the same level as her buddies OJ and MJ. You're a system zombie if you believe that someone is _really _ innocent just because they were acquitted by a jury. > You asked for a solution, and I gave you a reasonable one; it would cost > you a little effort and a small sum of money, but it would achieve your > goal. The financial cost would indeed be negligible but the cost of getting on with the neighbours in the future would be too high. Quit being so naive. Maybe you have neighbours like MJ or OJ so things could not get any worse, but I don't.. :-/ > > If I just wanted a free ride I wouldnt ask for assistance here.. > Unless you were merely going through motions to assuage your conscience. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Oh, you want a tech-savvy way instead of an effective way. I did not say it would be ineffective, just dumb and indiscrete. > Low-tech does not mean dumb. Not always, but in this case it did. SignatureEnd hunger and poverty, reserve first world medicine for countries with first world population growth rates. > > LOL. After your condemnation, without any evidence, of Jackson, > > and condemnation, without any credible evidence, of Simpson, you > > dare complain that someone else is opinionated/moralizing and > > assumes the worst in a person! Feh, you're a hypocrite. > > Great, now she puts me on the same level as her buddies OJ and MJ. They're not my buddies, nor did I put you on the level of anyone. I wasn't even speaking to you; I was speaking to "Dude2" > You're a system zombie if you believe that someone is _really _ > innocent just because they were acquitted by a jury. I didn't say they were really innocent. I didn't say they weren't. The fact remains, though, that in neither case, could the prosecution convince even one person on the jury of twelve of the accused's guilt. > > You asked for a solution, and I gave you a reasonable one; it would > > cost you a little effort and a small sum of money, but it would > > achieve your goal. > The financial cost would indeed be negligible but the cost of getting > on with the neighbours in the future would be too high. Quit being so > naive. Oh, you think your neighbors might be a bit peeved at him for using their network without permission? Maybe he should have thought of that before doing it. > Maybe you have neighbours like MJ or OJ so things could not get any > worse, but I don't.. :-/ Doesn't matter what your neighbors are; that's Dude2's problem, not yours or mine. But I wish that I had neighbors like either of them; I wouldn't mind having the money to afford to live in that kind of neighborhood. > > Oh, you want a tech-savvy way instead of an effective way. > I did not say it would be ineffective, just dumb and indiscrete. Oh, I got it; you are Dude2. Fooled me. > > Low-tech does not mean dumb. > Not always, but in this case it did. You haven't shown that. But then again, evidence doesn't mean anything to you. SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. > > It is, admittedly, an imperfect system; however, no system is perfect, > > and ours is vastly superior to the one we got away from in the late > > 1700s. > Its vastly inferior. In those days at least the guilty were properly and > swiftly punished, no rigging the jury system, etc. How come? Because > slimely lawyers were few and far between. And the innocent were just as quickly 'punished' as well. Also even in modern times we have gone back and found evidence has been tampered with witness baggered and cops lying just so a case can be closed. It likely happened more often than not in old time. The most infamous example of innocents being hurt for things they NEVER did by courts has even made its way into the language - it is call WITCHHUNT. > > > It is, admittedly, an imperfect system; however, no system is perfect, > > > and ours is vastly superior to the one we got away from in the late [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > innocents being hurt for things they NEVER did by courts has even made its > way into the language - it is call WITCHHUNT. So? Who believes in witches nowdays? If you do you've watch too many Disney films. :-/ Obviously things have changed since the 1700s, with DNA it has become easier to catch these SOBs. My point is there are too many loopholes being used by sleazy lawyers to keep them on the streets. dude2 > > > > It is, admittedly, an imperfect system; however, no system is perfect, > > > > and ours is vastly superior to the one we got away from in the late [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > So? Who believes in witches nowdays? In 1692 it was witches, in 1950's it was communists, and in the future it could be anyone who is arab or islamic. The term "Witchhunt' describes ALL equally well - innocent people hounded for personal or political reasons. > > > > > It is, admittedly, an imperfect system; however, no system is perfect, > > > > > and ours is vastly superior to the one we got away from in the late [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > could be anyone who is arab or islamic. The term "Witchhunt' describes ALL > equally well - innocent people hounded for personal or political reasons. Thanks, but I'm familiar with the term :-/ But I guess you had to snip my post out of context (it was humor, something you obviously lack) to make your point. dude2 > > > > And the innocent were just as quickly 'punished' as well. Also > > > > even in modern times we have gone back and found evidence has [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > snip my post out of context (it was humor, something you obviously > lack) to make your point. It was not out of context, and if you have a sense of humor, it is not evident. SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. > > > And the innocent were just as quickly 'punished' as well. Also > > > even in modern times we have gone back and found evidence has [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > "Witchhunt' describes ALL equally well - innocent people hounded for > personal or political reasons. You know that when someone takes a term like "witch hunt" and uses it literally, he has run out of all rational arguments. Thus far, he has produced not one iota of evidence or reasoning to support his accusations. SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. > > > > And the innocent were just as quickly 'punished' as well. Also > > > > even in modern times we have gone back and found evidence has [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Thus far, he has produced not one iota of evidence or reasoning to > support his accusations. Quoting out of context again to take your cheap shots and yell 'no evidence!' hmmm. Here's what I actually wrote (excuse the typo): "So? Who believes in witches nowdays? If you do you've watch too many Disney films. :-/ Obviously things have changed since the 1700s, with DNA it has become easier to catch these SOBs. My point is there are too many loopholes being used by sleazy lawyers to keep them on the streets." The comment about witches was purely an attempt at humor, totally lost on you of course. The previous poster specifically mentioned the witch hunt as a historic example. The comment on criminal law was simply ignored, I wonder why.. Are you one of the loophole diggers keep criminals on the streets? dude2 > The comment about witches was purely an attempt at humor, totally > lost on you of course. Totally lost on everyone, of course. You were spot on in saying it was an *attempt* at humor. SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. > > > You have been committing a crime, namely unauthorized access to a > > > computer network. (At least in the US, it would be; considering > > > your spelling of "neighbor," it appears that you may not live in > > > the US.) > > You're right on that point only. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the British Isles, Canada, New Zealand, or Australia, though.), I have > no idea of whether you have violated the laws of your own country. Turns out you have no idea about the laws in your own country either. In Texas, NH, New York, etc no crime would have been commited. dude2 > > > So...? Does one get nabbed by the feds if one says "hi" on your CB? > > > / taxi radio? or for using the radio/ TV? I think not. So this is [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Simpson and pedophiles like Michael Jackson run around unpunished by > your courts.. There were enough irregularities in the OJ Simpson case to send up red flags - poorly explained DNA evidence with odds greater than the number of people on the planet (bad statistics), a preservative on the blood on the glove that had no business being there, a cop of a department that had a long history of evidence irregularities (After the way they botched the evidence in the Helter Skelter case you would think they would have figured out chain of custosy by now) who himself had problems. A timeline the procution kept changing when facts came to light making the old one very iffy at bast. As far as the Michael Jackson case goes, what parent in their right mind would let their kid go near this guy after that settlement several years ago? He could just be someone who has the Peter Pan syndrome real bad - he use to dress up in quasi-military uniforms, owns a personal amusement park and so on. The worse case in the opposite extreme that I know about has to be Dr. Sam Sheppard which DNA evidence support what the Supreme Court had said decades - that the press railroaded an innocent man. 'Better that ten witches go free than the blood of a single innocent be shed' - Increase Mather _Cases of Conscience_ (1692) The sad fact of the matter is that as cases populized in films like the _The Thin Blue line_ show some cops DO plant evidence, prosecutors do go after people simply to clear out cases, and people are made to lie under oath. The Frank Lee Smith case is another prime example - a man who DIED on DEATH ROW that DNA now show was INNOCENT. What crimes with his DEATH prevent? Hmm? > There were enough irregularities in the OJ Simpson case to send up red > flags - poorly explained DNA evidence with odds greater than the number of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > procution kept changing when facts came to light making the old one very > iffy at bast. So who do you think killed OJ's ex wife? His temper was well-known, the motivation was there. Forget the botched evidence, that a.shole murdered his ex and ran because he had a guilty conscience, another reason he never opened his mouth at his own trial.. > As far as the Michael Jackson case goes, what parent in their right mind > would let their kid go near this guy after that settlement several years > ago? He could just be someone who has the Peter Pan syndrome real bad - he > use to dress up in quasi-military uniforms, owns a personal amusement park > and so on. A repeat offender, a pervert. Who cares about the parents motivation? Doesnt change the fact that he screws boys. dude2 > So who do you think killed OJ's ex wife? His temper was well-known, > the motivation was there. Forget the botched evidence, that a.shole > murdered his ex and ran because he had a guilty conscience, another > reason he never opened his mouth at his own trial.. In a nation and a system based on laws, one goes by the evidence. Your Attitude of "Forget the evidence, I think he's guilty, so kill him" is anathema to civilized society. > > As far as the Michael Jackson case goes, what parent in their right > > mind would let their kid go near this guy after that settlement [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > A repeat offender, a pervert. Who cares about the parents motivation? > Doesnt change the fact that he screws boys. Prove that he screws boys. Where is your evidence? Oh, I almost forgot, evidence doesn't mean anything to you. Your mind is made up, and you can't be bothered with facts. SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. > > So who do you think killed OJ's ex wife? His temper was well-known, > > the motivation was there. Forget the botched evidence, that a.shole [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Attitude of "Forget the evidence, I think he's guilty, so kill him" is > anathema to civilized society. Your "civilised" society lets murderers and pedophiles run free, enjoy! You're twisting what I wrote to suit your needs, guess you cant help doing that. My point was that they tried to get him convicted on botched evidence, they should have followed other leads. > > > As far as the Michael Jackson case goes, what parent in their right > > > mind would let their kid go near this guy after that settlement [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > forgot, evidence doesn't mean anything to you. Your mind is made up, > and you can't be bothered with facts. No, your mind is made up about how I see things. The jury was put off by the mother, so no matter what other evidence was presented, the pedophile had a home run. dude2 > > In a nation and a system based on laws, one goes by the evidence. > > Your Attitude of "Forget the evidence, I think he's guilty, so kill > > him" is anathema to civilized society. > Your "civilised" society lets murderers and pedophiles run free, > enjoy! Prove that we do. I would hate to live in a society that you propose, where people can be found guilty and punished merely on the say-so of others, without any evidence. > You're twisting what I wrote to suit your needs, guess you cant help > doing that. I twisted nothing. > My point was that they tried to get him convicted on botched > evidence, they should have followed other leads. You did not say that. So, please tell us, you most expert of experts on the laws of evidence, what other leads were there that they didn't follow? > > Prove that he screws boys. Where is your evidence? Oh, I almost > > forgot, evidence doesn't mean anything to you. Your mind is made up, > > and you can't be bothered with facts. > > No, your mind is made up about how I see things. I go strictly by what you say. I'm not a mind reader, so if you say something but mean something else, I have no way of knowing it. > The jury was put off by the mother, so no matter what other evidence > was presented, the pedophile had a home run Why were they put off by the mother? How were they put off by the mother? How do you know that Jackson molested that boy? Where is your evidence? SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. > > So who do you think killed OJ's ex wife? His temper was well-known, > > the motivation was there. Forget the botched evidence, that a.shole [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Attitude of "Forget the evidence, I think he's guilty, so kill him" is > anathema to civilized society. Besides it came out that the guy also killed was supposedly returning some glasses in a white envelope. It is just as likely somebody involved in drugs saw the white envelope and thought 'cash' and killed for what he thought was a 'score'. The case as presented by the prosecution simply did not hold together. Worse they took way too long to explain DNA and then it came out that one of their so called experts had messed up on his math and the stats they had been giving to the jury up to that time were all wrong. By Ommar's Razor of all the explinations for the perservative being there the simplest explination was that the blood had been put on the glove after being taken from OJ. > > > As far as the Michael Jackson case goes, what parent in their right > > > mind would let their kid go near this guy after that settlement [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > forgot, evidence doesn't mean anything to you. Your mind is made up, > and you can't be bothered with facts. And while weirder than a $4 bill weird does not equate to child molester. > By Ommar's Razor of all the explinations for the perservative being > there the simplest explination was that the blood had been put on the > glove after being taken from OJ. That would be Occam's (there are variant spellings) Razor. :) -- Michelle SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. > > There were enough irregularities in the OJ Simpson case to send up red > > flags - poorly explained DNA evidence with odds greater than the number of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > his ex and ran because he had a guilty conscience, another reason he > never opened his mouth at his own trial.. Let's look at the facts Blood takes 40 minutes to clot. The bodies were found 11:50PM and were still bleeding when the cops showed up 25 minutes later. 11:50-(:40-:25)= 11:35PM being the EARLIEST they could have been killed. At 11:00PM OJ was picked up and driven to the airport. Now given the FACTS how in the name of reason and intellagence could OJ done it when was was either on the way to the airport or in the air when the murders happened? The answer is he could not. The timeline simply does not allow it. The fact the blood on the glove was contaminated by a preservative what should not have been there and problems like cops running around with evidence long after it should have been turned just hammered the point home. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle said it best through his creation Sherlock Holmes: "It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." (The Adventure of The Blanched Soldier) Since it is impossible by scientific fact that OJ could not be at the crime scene at 11:35PM when the murder occured but there is evidence that he was then the conclusion is an obvious one. > > So...? Does one get nabbed by the feds if one says "hi" on your CB? > > / taxi radio? or for using the radio/ TV? I think not. So this is [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > computer network. (At least in the US, it would be; considering your > spelling of "neighbor," it appears that you may not live in the US.) I don't see it as being that simple. Someone who sets up a wireless access point that does not require a password has, it seems to me, implicitly given permission to connect. Being as it's almost trivial to require a password, the fact that they've declined to do so seems that it should carry some weight. The network doesn't need to be completely secure to clear things up; a simple password with weak encryption would at least serve to make it clear that you're not supposed to connect. A completely unsecured WAP leaves things murky at best. Following the idea that you must have explicit permission to use someone else's network, how is it that you can even visit a web site without written permission from the person who runs the site? To access the web site you must use their network. They could put a password on the site to restrict access, but here we presume that the lack of a password can be construed as permission to access. I don't think the wireless access case is that different. However I'm not sure that current US law agrees with this perspective... SignatureTom "Tom" Harrington Macaroni, Automated System Maintenance for Mac OS X. Version 2.0: Delocalize, Repair Permissions, lots more. See http://www.atomicbird.com/ > I don't see it as being that simple. Someone who sets up a wireless > access point that does not require a password has, it seems to me, > implicitly given permission to connect. Being as it's almost trivial to > require a password, the fact that they've declined to do so seems that > it should carry some weight. I'm beginning to think its a business or at least a home-office as there are a few on the neighbourhood. Maybe they are leaving it open for their free-lancers to access. OTOH one would expect a business to want more security, so its more likely that the signal is from a home computer. > The network doesn't need to be completely secure to clear things up; a > simple password with weak encryption would at least serve to make it > clear that you're not supposed to connect. A completely unsecured WAP > leaves things murky at best. Yes. There are also a few networks here with passwords, but they dont run 24/7 an I get the impression they are also surfing the "main" signal.. > Following the idea that you must have explicit permission to use someone > else's network, how is it that you can even visit a web site without [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > be construed as permission to access. I don't think the wireless access > case is that different. Agree. Some websites do require passwords and registration, but most dont. How does US law deal with that? It seems its not the access to websites thats the problem but accessing the net. Roaming the net without being registered seems to be considered equivalent to driving a car w/out a licence.. :-/ dude2 > > I don't see it as being that simple. Someone who sets up a wireless > > access point that does not require a password has, it seems to me, > > implicitly given permission to connect. Being as it's almost trivial to > > require a password, the fact that they've declined to do so seems that > > it should carry some weight. > I'm beginning to think its a business or at least a home-office as there > are a few on the neighbourhood. Maybe they are leaving it open for their > free-lancers to access. OTOH one would expect a business to want more > security Or they are like a lot of people I know. They buy a WiFi, take it out of the box, plug it in, and if it works, that it. Don't mess with something that works. At the most they might run a "setup wizard" and choose all the defaults, because that the "safe" thing to do, and will usually end up with an open net. This is very common with non-tech Windows oriented folks (non-tech Mac folks too, but there are many more Windows users than Mac and non-tech Windows users _always_ choose the default). Signature-Ernie- "There are only two kinds of computer users -- those who have suffered a catastrophic hard drive failure, and those who will." Have you done your backup today? > > You have been committing a crime, namely unauthorized access to a > > computer network. (At least in the US, it would be; considering your [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > access point that does not require a password has, it seems to me, > implicitly given permission to connect. No. > Being as it's almost trivial to require a password, the fact that > they've declined to do so seems that it should carry some weight. More likely, they didn't know they should. > Following the idea that you must have explicit permission to use > someone else's network, how is it that you can even visit a web site > without written permission from the person who runs the site? There is no parallel between the two. There is the matter of intent and purpose. > To access the web site you must use their network. No, you access their server. > They could put a password on the site to restrict access, but here we > presume that the lack of a password can be construed as permission to > access. The web site is there with the intent and purpose of people accessing it. But people aren't accessing the network, just the server. > I don't think the wireless access case is that different. It's totally different. > However I'm not sure that current US law agrees with this perspective... Be assured that it does not agree with it. SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. > > I don't see it as being that simple. Someone who sets up a wireless > > access point that does not require a password has, it seems to me, > > implicitly given permission to connect. > > No. no because why? you said so? in new york, one requires written or oral notification prohibiting use the computer, otherwise it is assumed to be ok. NY Penal Code Section 156 (6), requires that, before you can be prosecuted for using a computer service without authorization, the government has to prove that the owner has given actual notice to potential hackers or trespassers, either in writing or orally. In the absence of such notice in New York, the hacker can presume that he or she has authorization to proceed, under state law. <http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/237> <http://www.davismccownlaw.com/articles/ny-law.htm> in new hampshire, a bill was proposed (i can't find confirmation of its passage but it was expected to be unanimous) that not securing a wireless network is a form of negligence. <http://seclists.org/lists/isn/2003/Apr/0129.html> in houston, texas, a jury acquitted stefan puffer for unauthorized access of a wireless network in just fifteen minutes of deliberation. this is not as clear cut as it may initially seem. this case took place in florida. florida law: <http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL =Ch0815/ch0815.htm> 815.06 Offenses against computer users.-- (1) Whoever willfully, knowingly, and without authorization: (a) Accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer system, or computer network there is that 'without authorization' clause. presumably, the defense will argue that no authorization was requested, thus his access was not unauthorized. also, in this particular case, the defendant sat in a vehicle outside the plaintiff's house and reportedly shut off his laptop when people walked by - something which itself is quite suspicious. the plaintiff left the network open for neighbors to use, which is evidence that it was intended to be for public use. finally, just because one *wants* this to be illegal does not mean it *is* illegal. read the laws governing a specific jurisdiction, consult with an attorney to be sure and don't take legal advice from the internet. :) > > > I don't see it as being that simple. Someone who sets up a > > > wireless access point that does not require a password has, it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > no because why? you said so? No, because we're discussing a Florida case, and therefore using Florida law, which you so kindly presented to us, showing that indeed it is "No." > 815.06 Offenses against computer users.-- > (1) Whoever willfully, knowingly, and without authorization: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > defense will argue that no authorization was requested, thus his > access was not unauthorized. And therefore, was in violation of the law. I doubt that the defense would argue that the access was not authorized. > also, in this particular case, the defendant sat in a vehicle outside > the plaintiff's house and reportedly shut off his laptop when people > walked by - something which itself is quite suspicious. And again something that the defense would not argue. > the plaintiff left the network open for neighbors to use, Has that been established? > which is evidence that it was intended to be for public use. "Neighbors" does not mean "public." SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. > No, because we're discussing a Florida case, and therefore using Florida > law, which you so kindly presented to us, showing that indeed it is "No." Is it legal to use someone's Wi-Fi connection to browse the Web if they haven't put a password on it? Nobody really knows. "It's a totally open question in the law," says Neal Katyal, a professor of criminal law at Georgetown University. "There are arguments on both sides." <http://news.com.com/FAQ+Wi-Fi+mooching+and+the+law/2100-7351_3-5778822. html> > > 815.06 Offenses against computer users.-- > > (1) Whoever willfully, knowingly, and without authorization: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > And therefore, was in violation of the law. I doubt that the defense > would argue that the access was not authorized. given that the charge is unauthorized access, what else would you suggest that the defense argue? > > also, in this particular case, the defendant sat in a vehicle outside > > the plaintiff's house and reportedly shut off his laptop when people > > walked by - something which itself is quite suspicious. > > And again something that the defense would not argue. this is something the prosecution will most likely cite as evidence he knew he was in the wrong. > > the plaintiff left the network open for neighbors to use, > > Has that been established? it was in one blurb i read. > > which is evidence that it was intended to be for public use. > > "Neighbors" does not mean "public." it also does not mean 'private.' the pretrial hearing is today and hopefully the outcome is reported soon. > > > 815.06 Offenses against computer users.-- > > > (1) Whoever willfully, knowingly, and without authorization: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > given that the charge is unauthorized access, what else would you > suggest that the defense argue? The law says that if there is no authorization, it is illegal, so if the defense acknowledges that there was no authorization, he's admitting that it is illegal. Judge: "Your client is charged with unauthorized access." Defense: "Yes, your honor, it was unauthorized." Judge: "Guilty as charged." > > > also, in this particular case, the defendant sat in a vehicle > > > outside the plaintiff's house and reportedly shut off his laptop [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > this is something the prosecution will most likely cite as evidence > he knew he was in the wrong. Yup, the prosecution, not the defense. > > > the plaintiff left the network open for neighbors to use, > > > > Has that been established? > > it was in one blurb i read. He deliberately left it open for the specific purpose that his neighbors could use it? SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. > > > > 815.06 Offenses against computer users.-- > > > > (1) Whoever willfully, knowingly, and without authorization: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Defense: "Yes, your honor, it was unauthorized." > Judge: "Guilty as charged." If you think it is going to be THAT easy all the time there is a bridge in New York that somebody would likely want to sale to you cheap. Goes to Brooklyn. > > Judge: "Your client is charged with unauthorized access." > > Defense: "Yes, your honor, it was unauthorized." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > bridge in New York that somebody would likely want to sale to you > cheap. Goes to Brooklyn. No, I don't think it will be that easy all the time; most attorneys are smart enough not to tell the judge that his client did what he was accused of. Keep in mind that I was responding to a message that postulated that the defense attorney acknowledged that his client did engage in unauthorized access. SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. > From: Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> > Organization: Society for the Preservation of Endangered Societies [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > And therefore, was in violation of the law. I doubt that the defense > would argue that the access was not authorized. Is that the Florida Statute? I think the "knowingly" portion says it all. The law requires that the intruder "know" that he is intruding. Essentially, the law says that the accused must "know" that his/her access is unauthorized, and "willfully" access the network with full knowledge that his/her access to the network is prohibited. > > > You have been committing a crime, namely unauthorized access to a > > > computer network. (At least in the US, it would be; considering your [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > No. And why not? They could have trivially taken actions to make clear that it's not public. They didn't do so. > > Being as it's almost trivial to require a password, the fact that > > they've declined to do so seems that it should carry some weight. > > More likely, they didn't know they should. It's their responsibility to take care of it. > > Following the idea that you must have explicit permission to use > > someone else's network, how is it that you can even visit a web site [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > No, you access their server. And how do you think you get to the server? At some point you're using the portion of the network that the server connects to which, if not owned by the server operators, is at least under their control. You access this portion of the network even though you do not have any explicit permission from the person(s) responsible for it. This portion of the network is likely to be at least as substantial as the portion used by someone's wireless access point. > > They could put a password on the site to restrict access, but here we > > presume that the lack of a password can be construed as permission to > > access. > > The web site is there with the intent and purpose of people accessing > it. But people aren't accessing the network, just the server. A web site _might_ be there with the intent of _public_ access. It's entirely possible to set up a closed web site with password-protected access if you wish to do so. The presumption generally is that if the server does not require a password for access, then access is open to the public. However if a password is required, the site may be presumed to be not open for public use. It seems to me that the unprotected wireless access point is exactly the same situation; it might or might not be open to public use. If it doesn't require a password, it's not unreasonable to suspect that public use is permitted. Someone might well decide that they don't mind others using their wireless network. > > I don't think the wireless access case is that different. > > It's totally different. I don't think so; it seems quite similar to me. > > However I'm not sure that current US law agrees with this perspective... > > Be assured that it does not agree with it. Then the law is confused and unfair and should be changed. SignatureTom "Tom" Harrington Macaroni, Automated System Maintenance for Mac OS X. Version 2.0: Delocalize, Repair Permissions, lots more. See http://www.atomicbird.com/ In the case of the Internet, the "Network" technically belongs to no one. It is assumed that all "network" access on the Internet is free unless expressly stated otherwise. To connect from one computer to another over the Internet, access must be established over various networks along the route from point "a" to point "b". There is no "central" network that everyone has access to. > From: Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> > Organization: Society for the Preservation of Endangered Societies [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > No, you access their server. > I don't see it as being that simple. Someone who sets up a wireless > access point that does not require a password has, it seems to me, > implicitly given permission to connect. Being as it's almost trivial to > require a password, the fact that they've declined to do so seems that > it should carry some weight. I'm not so sure. I had a client once who was charged with embezzling from a bank. He claimed that the loan officer he duped was so stupid as to make it a crime _not_ to take advantage of him. Is that similar to your thoughts on wifi nets? Making it easy to steal means it's okay? (I think where one "implicitly" gives permission is an issue.) >SNIPM< > Following the idea that you must have explicit permission to use someone [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > be construed as permission to access. I don't think the wireless access > case is that different. I think there's a difference in a _public_ Web site and a home network. For one difference, my public Web site is not hosted on my home computer; it's on a public internet hosting service whose business it is (among other things) to host Web pages for service to all comers. > However I'm not sure that current US law agrees with this perspective... To quote the inestimable dude2, I think not. :-> SignaturePhil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily. > > I don't see it as being that simple. Someone who sets up a wireless > > access point that does not require a password has, it seems to me, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > wifi nets? Making it easy to steal means it's okay? (I think where one > "implicitly" gives permission is an issue.) One other comparison: a Windows computer owner who puts his computer on a broadband connection right out of the box -- he's just asking for it, right? :-> Implicit permission to hijack his computer via the internet? SignaturePhil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily. > > However I'm not sure that current US law agrees with this perspective... > > To quote the inestimable dude2, I think not. :-> In fact I was thinking in German when I wrote that, its a direct translation. Should I expect you to know that Shakespeare also used this form of negation? I think not... dude2 > > I don't see it as being that simple. Someone who sets up a wireless > > access point that does not require a password has, it seems to me, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > wifi nets? Making it easy to steal means it's okay? (I think where one > "implicitly" gives permission is an issue.) I wouldn't say that's similar to my thoughts on WiFi access, no. Free and unrestricted WiFi access that's _meant_ to be free and unrestricted is common. Even people running WiFi hardware at home often do this. However, so far as I know, banks are not commonly in the practice of letting people just walk away with money. Someone making use of an unrestricted WiFi connection has at least a reasonable claim that what they're doing is frequently meant to be free for their use, while someone embezzling from a bank cannot make a similar claim. I would also say that at some point the owner of the network hardware must have some responsibility to keep it private, especially given that the wireless range almost certainly will cover property that's either public or that's private but owned by someone else. It's not a question of whether it's easy to steal or not, but of whether they've taken even token steps to make the public/private nature of the network clear. Following the example, it's my understanding that WEP encryption is quite easy to break. However that doesn't mean I'd say it's OK to do so. Easy to break or not, the use of WEP encryption and the requirement of a password would make it explicit that the network was not meant to be public, and that anyone entering the network was doing so against the wishes of the owner of the network. Conversely, the failure to use even easily-broken security leaves the public/private question ambiguous at best, at least barring other things like big signs saying "PRIVATE WIRELESS NETWORK, DO NOT CONNECT!". :-) > >SNIPM< > > Following the idea that you must have explicit permission to use someone [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > on a public internet hosting service whose business it is (among other > things) to host Web pages for service to all comers. But if you wanted your web site to be restricted to private access, you could make it work that way, even if it's served from a hosting company rather than hardware you own. You buy the service from them, but that doesn't require you to make your site accessible to anyone who cares to use it. Anyone might "knock on the door", so to speak, by attempting to access the site, but you could easily ensure that they'd have to enter a password before being allowed access. Comparing that to the WiFi issue, it'd be reasonable for someone to check and see if the network requires a password, and only connect if no password is needed. And while the hosting company's hardware is not owned by you, your relationship with them gives you a certain degree of control over the network, if only through the potential restrictions described above. SignatureTom "Tom" Harrington Macaroni, Automated System Maintenance for Mac OS X. Version 2.0: Delocalize, Repair Permissions, lots more. See http://www.atomicbird.com/ > Free and unrestricted WiFi access that's _meant_ to be free and > unrestricted is common. Even people running WiFi hardware at home often [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that what they're doing is frequently meant to be free for their use, > while someone embezzling from a bank cannot make a similar claim. That's where we get into people saying photos on the Web are free for the taking. I hear it said, but I don't buy it. I think the issue with wifi networks is whether people are dumb enough to not know to password protect it -- like putting unprotected Windows computers on their DSL/Cable connection. An open invitation? I'm not convinced it's a reasonable claim that the connection was meant to be used by the public since the owner didn't take any steps to secure it. >SNIP< > It's not a question of whether it's easy to steal or not, but of whether > they've taken even token steps to make the public/private nature of the > network clear. Like putting copyright notices in the picture. People still take it because it's easy to steal. People put their Windows computer on always-on Internet connection not because they want their computers hijacked but because they're stupid (hence, using Windows :->). > But if you wanted your web site to be restricted to private access, you > could make it work that way, even if it's served from a hosting company > rather than hardware you own. Right. I have pages that I've password protected. They're on the same server, but not accessible without a username and password. SignaturePhil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily. > I would also say that at some point the owner of the network hardware > must have some responsibility to keep it private, e |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message