TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| reply to Doctor Dan
Re: Deserved arrest
said by Doctor Dan  :Attempting to access wireless networks without permission is no different than going through a neighborhood and trying the front doors of all the houses to see which ones are unlocked. An unlocked door is not an implicit invitation to enter and take what you want. - Dan Too many of the younger generation raised on the Internet and illegally downloading music, videos, software, etc. are morally deficient. Too bad their parents never taught them right from wrong. Just look at the responses in this thread seeing absolutely nothing wrong with this.
--
My Web Page
Join Red Room Forum |
|
BVT
join:2004-10-25
Mount Juliet, TN
| Chances are, there is no law against using a wireless network you do not own in 99% of the US. If there is, it is most likely poorly written and will actually include free wifi spots. This guy just happened to be in the wrong city.
If there is no law against it, there is no harm in doing it. Do not confuse your morals with the law. |
|
the niTz
Premium
join:2004-07-05
Sahuarita, AZ
·Cox HSI
| reply to TK Junk Mail
the only thing i see wrong is someone not locking their wifi and leaving it open for others to use, which is pretty nice.
morality has nothing to do with this, the wifi point was open hide it, lockit but dont complain if someone is using it cause its out there, which means its as free as air!
--
its official everyone in sahuarita is a spy u cant even post with out somebody calling the authories!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
Doctor Dan
Weapons Of Masturbation
Premium
join:2001-10-20
Papiopolis
 ·inmotionhosting
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to BVT
said by BVT :Chances are, there is no law against using a wireless network you do not own in 99% of the US. If there is, it is most likely poorly written and will actually include free wifi spots. This guy just happened to be in the wrong city. If there is no law against it, there is no harm in doing it. Do not confuse your morals with the law. Not quite...
(From »www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline···aws.html )
As it reads today, each major subsection of the CFAA is intended to explain a particular aspect of computer crime. In simple terms, the CFAA prohibits:
accessing a computer without authorization and subsequently transmitting classified government information. [Subsection 1030(a)(1)];
theft of financial information [Subsection 1030(a)(2)];
accessing a "protected computer," which the courts have recently interpreted as being any computer connected to the internet, even if the intruder obtains no data [Subsection 1030(a)(3)];
computer fraud [Subsection 1030(a)(4)];
transmitting code that causes damage to a computer system [Subsection 1030(a)(5)];
trafficking in computer passwords for the purpose of affecting interstate commerce or a government computer [Subsection 1030(a)(6)];
and computer extortion [Subsection 1030(a)(7)]. - Dan
--
"That which does not kill us makes us stranger." |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | But if he's simply accessing the hotspot, he's not accessing the computer.... |
|
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| said by Karl Bode :But if he's simply accessing the hotspot, he's not accessing the computer.... All depends on how the definition of "computer" is worded in the law. An AP could be a "computer". It has memory, a processor, a UI, etc.
--
My Web Page
Join Red Room Forum |
|
Dragasoni
We're All Mad Here
Premium
join:2001-12-14
Clearwater, FL
| reply to the niTz
I agree, if they bought the equipment it's their responsibility to lock it down, period. If they leave it open, I consider it free for anyone within range to use.
I live in a high rise building and I can pick on 2 AP's in addition to mine. One uses RR an the other Verizon DSL. You bet when my RR goes down, I connect to the "linksys" SSID that is hooked up to Verizon. I use it to do simple things, I don't abuse it or anything. As far as I'm concerned, they'll never know about it and I don't think I risk being fined for it.
Now, do I drove around looking for free hotspots...No I don't. I think that is a bit more questionable for criminal intent, but not always.
-Dragasoni-
--
dragasoni@hotmail.com |
|
the_buz
join:2004-02-15
Yorba Linda, CA
edit:
July 4th, @12:51PM
| reply to Doctor Dan
I see no mention of wifi in that excerpt. Try again.
Well, unless their definition of wifi is "computer" I really don't see how any of that applies. |
|
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to Dragasoni
said by Dragasoni :If they leave it open, I consider it free for anyone within range to use. Unless you get permission from the AP owner(and I know you may not know who that is), then accessing the internet thru his system means you broke the law. You can rationalize things all you want, but you are a criminal - just not a caught criminal.
--
My Web Page
Join Red Room Forum |
|
BVT
join:2004-10-25
Mount Juliet, TN
| reply to Doctor Dan
Applying that law here is a stretch at best. He will probably plead guilty or get it pled down. If he had money, he could fight this and win.
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. |
|
Dragasoni
We're All Mad Here
Premium
join:2001-12-14
Clearwater, FL
| reply to TK Junk Mail
What if your life depended on it? What if you were going to die unless you got on the internet to...I don't get an antidote for a snake bite? Would you use a neighbors free access point?? I bet you would!
I know it's a dumb analogy, almost as dumb as the "just because you left your front door unlocked..." one I hear entirely too often.
Why should I take an extra step to protect the idiot next door? Like setting Windows to not automatically connect to any access point within range.
You "older" folks with your "morals" sound really stupid, you need to adapt to the year 2005.
-Dragasoni-
--
dragasoni@hotmail.com |
|
LinuxJunkie
join:2005-01-19
Cyberspace
edit:
July 4th, @02:06PM
| reply to TK Junk Mail
But it contains no hard drive so therefore it contains no pertinent, private or valuable data. Nice try with the spin, however. Furthermore, that law says "any computer connected to the Internet" -- what about computers that are simply on a closed LAN that happens to have a wireless connection? No Internet connection there so that law wouldn't even apply in that case. |
|
LinuxJunkie
join:2005-01-19
Cyberspace
| reply to TK Junk Mail
Quote me the EXACT law that says connecting to unsecured WiFi spots to connect to the Internet is illegal. I've seen you and several others in this thread flinging that accusation around but I've yet to see the actual law that defines it. I'm willing to bet you can't/won't find it. |
|
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| said by LinuxJunkie :Quote me the EXACT law that says connecting to unsecured WiFi spots to connect to the Internet is illegal. I've seen you and several others in this thread flinging that accusation around but I've yet to see the actual law that defines it. I'm willing to bet you can't/won't find it. It was posted by Doctor Dan in an earlier post. Read the thread and stop griping.
--
My Web Page
Join Red Room Forum |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| And again, that law doesn't apply to Wi-Fi, it applies to PCs. Unless you stretch to fit the law to suggest a router is a computer, which isn't implicit and would be a stretch. As it stands, there is no law on the books dealing with unsecured Wi-Fi access.
All the morality hyberbole is a little silly too, particularly in cases where nobody is harmed. Sounds like someone advocates a massive waste of government money by cracking down on people who aren't really criminals. |
|
LinuxJunkie
join:2005-01-19
Cyberspace
edit:
July 4th, @02:35PM
| reply to TK Junk Mail
As the other poster said, that does NOT apply to unsecured wireless networks. If you never touch their computers on the LAN side of the wireless network, that law wouldn't even apply. Quit your grasping at straws.
Using YOUR logic, if you picked up a classmate's pocket calculator off their desk to use it to solve a problem without asking them, then they've just committed a third degree felony. After all, wouldn't that be "unauthorized access to a computer?" It's judges and people like you that love to over-interpet the laws that are making this country such an unbearable place to live. I'm sure you were all for the Supreme Court's decision to privatize the eminent domain clause as well. |
|
Neil
Stop All The Downloadin
join:2003-08-20
New York, NY
| reply to LinuxJunkie
said by LinuxJunkie :Furthermore, that law says "any computer connected to the Internet" -- what about computers that are simply on a closed LAN that happens to have a wireless connection? No Internet connection there so that law wouldn't even apply in that case. According to the Wikipedia definition (»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internets),
Internets may refer to: .. # Wide area networks using a private IP address space, called "private internets" in RFC 1918 Granted, a private network wouldn't be "THE" Internet, but apparently it is still AN internet.
--
idunno much about computers other than the one we got at my house my mom put a couple games on there and i play em
The views and opinions expressed herein do not reflect those of my employer. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA | reply to Karl Bode
It's wouldn't occur to you that it's just wrong would it? |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
edit:
July 4th, @02:45PM
| I think it's wrong if he accesses the person's PC, causes damage, throttles connections, engages in criminal activity etc.
Do I think it wrong if someone drives by a neighborhood, and uses a totally unprotected hotspot to send e-mail? Check stock quotes? Surf? No. Nobody is harmed.
Don't want that? Secure your hotspot.
The idea we'd start prosecuting such cases is utterly idiotic. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA | Wow...cool.
It's the 4th and my neighbor has a nice pool. Wonder if they would mind me taking a dip and using their BBQ...after all nobody is harmed. |
|
