Doctor Dan
Weapons Of Masturbation
Premium
join:2001-10-20
Papiopolis
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to BVT
Re: Deserved arrest
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
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | But if he's simply accessing the hotspot, he's not accessing the computer.... |
|
TK Junk Mail
Golf season has returned - hurrah
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| said by Karl :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 |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
Neil
Stop All The Downloadin
join:2003-08-20
New York, NY
| 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. |
|
iamsomeone
@rr.com | reply to Karl
and what of the AP when it's set to "Broadcast" the SSID? that would make the AP "accessing" the laptop or whatnot that would end up connecting to it........... |
|
Sodium
Premium
join:2003-12-02
Rice Lake, WI
| reply to LinuxJunkie
said by LinuxJunkie :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. My LinkSys WRT54GS has the CPU, Memory, etc. mentioned as well as 8M of Flash memory and a version of Linux compiled for the custom Broadcom CPU.
I have logging enabled on my router, which *could* contain private/valuable information stored in the Flash memory - i.e. private MAC addresses, who's been on my network, etc. I would consider the Flash memory a form of hard drive in that the memory is non-volatile.
I have to agree with you about the closed LAN thing though, in general. The problem is the only way to really know if it's a closed LAN or if it's connected to the internet is if you connect to the AP itself.
Boy, I would really hate to be a lawyer in the Information Age.  |
|
boog
Premium
join:2000-07-24
Trenton, OH
| reply to LinuxJunkie
said by LinuxJunkie :But it contains no hard drive so therefore it contains no pertinent, private or valuable data. If you were to connect to my AP it would have to ask my linux box for an ip address, it has a hard drive. The linux box is also the dns server, which is handed out in the dhcp request. I would say that would be "connecting" to my computer.
Even with that said, I still have to feel that if they didn't try to lock it down in any way, they must not care that anyone connects to it. I believe that AP's and wireless routers come with directions, and it says in there that if you don't encrypt or at least mac filter, that anyone can connect and possibly steal your info.
I for one do care and I lock mine down.
Am I a hypocrite? I'm sure it can be twisted to look like I am. |
|
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! |
|
