how-to block ads
|
SometimeWarDriver
@146.148.x.x
| reply to oliphant
Re: Deserved arrest
Let's try another analogy. You're driving down a country road and you miss your turn. You need to turn around. From Driver's Ed, you remember that the safe, legal way to turn around is to back into a driveway on your right, then turn left onto the road. So you do just that. In effect, you use someone's private property without their permission in order to get or enhance your access to the public network of roads. Did you commit criminal trespass? Maybe so, in a technical, legalistic sense. Could you be prosecuted for it? Maybe if you were a bank robber and did this in the course of trying to make your getaway. But if using someone's driveway to turn around were your only offense, any attempt to prosecute you would be laughed out of court. (It would be different, mind you, if the owner had put up signs at the end of his driveway saying "POSTED - NO TRESPASSING - DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT TURNING AROUND HERE!")
Here's another. We're at a picnic in the park. You have a bottle of soda. I've gone on a hike and left a bottle opener on my cooler. You borrow my opener, without my permission, to open your drink. I return just in time to catch you in the act and I accuse you of theft. Am I acting reasonably?
One more. I work in an office where pads and pencils are not provided. Employees are expected to bring their own Post-Its and Bics. I go to visit a coworker in his cubicle but he isn't there. Am I behaving acceptably if I pick up his pen and write him a note on a piece of his paper, or does that constitute theft of his office supplies?
Fact is, people use each other's property all the time, often without explicit permission. Where do you draw the line between reasonable borrowing and criminal theft? | |
wifi sucks
@verizon.net
| reply to BVT
said by "BluVeiner":
That subsection & the courts interpretation is very dangerous. Anyone could file a complaint against anyone that accessed their system. It is way to broad. Wait until BestBuy starts claiming break-ins on their computer because someone has accessed it to compare prices. There are numerous price comparison websites that will fall under this law if a company tries to pursue it.
The interpretation, in effect, outlaws the internet.
Wow, yours is the first post here that really "gets it". IMHO, your logical conclusion as to this interpretation of the law is indeed what would effectively happen. It would give web sites the power to arbitrarily start filing "computer trespass" charges against various parties simply for accessing their publically-accessable web sites, should they so choose to throw their weight around.
Although it might be difficult for a court to be able to understand this - the technical protocol used, allows for the (physical) property owner to implement access-control *if they so choose*, but if they do not, then the protocol defaults to "public" access.
For another example, consider a post-office box. Could someone file "trespass" or "theft of service" charges, if an unwanted party mailed them a letter to their post-office box? Why or why not? After all, it's private property, they're paying for it, and unwanted mail takes up space in their box - shouldn't other parties have to obtain proper legal authorization first before using it? What? You mean to tell me that the "postal protocol", allows anyone to mail letters, to any postal box? Why, that's outrageous! I bet most P.O. box holders don't even know that those boxes default to an open, public, "allow" protocol... that should be changed! | |
wifi sucks
@verizon.net
| reply to spenster
said by "spenster":
Hey Karl, does the name Paul Timmins ring a bell? All he did was use an open access point to check his email at Lowes and once they contacted the FBI, he was charged with one count of unauthorized computer access.
He should have used the defense, "Windows XP made me do it" - referring of course to the fact that the WZC wizard automagically seeks out and assocates with the wireless AP with the strongest signal, to connect to the internet. He could have said, "Hey, I just opened my laptop, and it had an internet signal, so I decided to check my e-mail. I had no idea who was providing that signal."
At least that would have provided a fairly simple-to-understand and sensible defense. That wouldn't apply though, should it have been proven if he was trying to "hack Lowes" wirelessly though. (Was he? I hadn't heard about that case.)
WiFi was more or less originally designed for "open" access, much like ethernet, and then components of the protocol were provided to create private spaces, namely the use of encryption. If the owners of the AP didn't use it, then that should really be their fault, IMHO.
I mean, what happens, when everyone and their brother starts to provide "free WiFi internet access", and there are several stores nearby (say, at a mall), that provide such a feature, along with some stores that do not, but also use WiFi for (private) purposes, but (negligently) lacking encryption. Combine that with things like WZC, and you've got a lawyer / prosecuting attorney field day, quite frankly. What a mess. The sensible thing to do is, consider the issues of: 1) intent, and 2) notification.
For example, in this state IIRC, you cannot *prosecute*, at least not criminally, trespassing, on your land, unless it is "posted" with clear notice. Sure, the landowner can call the cops to have you escorted off of the property, but they don't necessarily have the ability to prosecute it as a crime, unless they clearly stated "no trespassing" - in that case, then being on the property without authorization would indeed constitute clear proof of "intent to trespass".
Without clear notice, there is no clear intent, and thus no real case for criminal prosecution. That same standard should be used for wireless APs connected to the internet, IMHO. All APs, should have an initial sign-on page, should common internet protocols be used to access the AP, from a previously-unknown MAC address. That sign-on page should clearly state whether or not the access that was being provided by that AP was for public or private usage only, and then either block the MAC address, or allow it, perhaps for a limited time / bandwidth quota only, after perhaps providing some identification details.
The consumer wireless AP providers really need to "step up to the plate" here, and offer something like that, although I think I recall that some entity was claiming patent rights on that sort of initial-contact hotspot sign-up page idea. If that's true, then that's too bad, seems like an "obvious" invention to me. (If visitor is unidentified, tell them "halt", and force them to identify themselves before allowing access. Standard access-control protocol, since the middle ages even!) | |
wifi sucks
@verizon.net
| reply to SometimeWarDriver
said by "SometimeWarDriver":
Maybe if you were a bank robber and did this in the course of trying to make your getaway. But if using someone's driveway to turn around were your only offense, any attempt to prosecute you would be laughed out of court. (It would be different, mind you, if the owner had put up signs at the end of his driveway saying "POSTED - NO TRESPASSING - DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT TURNING AROUND HERE!")
Thank you, excellent example. Again, people - "notice", and "intent". Those are really the key issues here. The wireless AP mfgs need to implement a mean to provide clear notice, and they need to do it *stat*, or there are going to be more of these annoying and hap-hazardly prosecuted cases, further muddying the legal issues involved. | |
wifi sucks
@verizon.net
| reply to BosstonesOwn
said by "BosstonesOwn":
Then when the router broadcasts it is trying to access my computer since each AP is aware of it's surrounding systems and Yes they do try and handshake. So that equipment is in violation of the law also.
That's a good point, and that gives me a good idea on how to solve the "unprotected WiFi AP problem" - simply drive around, "reverse wardriving" - have a client PC set up, and log how many APs broadcast their SSIDs or otherwise attempt to handshake with my client. (Could also use a WDS-capable router wired to the laptop, for varieties' sake, I guess.)
The idea being, that all of these homeowners with unsecured WiFi APs, are GUILTY of "unauthorized access" to my client PC with wireless NIC. (It shouldn't matter legally that it happens to be travelling - it is in my vehicle, which is my personal property.)
Ok, honestly, I doubt that it would stick, but it *could* get people to "think twice" about the overly-broad mis-application of those "computer trespass" statutes.
We need to have a "WiFi awareness month" or something, perhaps some month in the summer. The idea is, that knowledgable geeks in the local community would volunteer their services and mostly technical knowledge, and help those that came forward with questions about WiFi technology and deploying and securing it. (Plus, it could prove profitable should those geeks also offer their installation / configuration services privately on the side too.  )
Perhaps DSLR / BBR would consider spearheading some sort of effort in that direction? I wouldn't be surprised if Linksys and Intel might get behind it too, perhaps with some free promotion or donations or something. Could be interesting.
But the only problem is, the technology in this space is still evolving at a rapid pace, WEP, WPA, WPA2, 802.11b, .11g, and now MIMO, etc. I wonder if one month a year would be "good enough"... but at least there should be some sort of "awareness day", kind of like how people check their smoke alarms twice a year - they should check their WiFi installation / security / technology as well. | |
|
