TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| reply to LinuxJunkie
Re: Deserved arrest
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. |
|
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. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Physical real world trespass comparisons are stupid and you know it. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA | And that would be how? No one is harmed in either case. It's an 'intrusion' in either case. We're using stuff that doesn't belong to us without knowledge of the OWNER in either case. I see it as a DIRECT comparison. |
|
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to LinuxJunkie
said by LinuxJunkie :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. You would be a thief taking the calculator without asking(taking someones property - nothing to do with computers). And no, I didn't support the eminent domain ruling by SC:
This from 10 months ago:
»Re: [POLL]Should there be limits on Eminent Domain
And this from 2 weeks ago:
»Re: Supreme Court of the US Strikes.....
--
My Web Page
Join Red Room Forum |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to oliphant
quote:
And that would be how? No one is harmed in either case. It's an 'intrusion' in either case. We're using stuff that doesn't belong to us without knowledge of the OWNER in either case. I see it as a DIRECT comparison.
And that's a flaw in logic. Your pool is not sitting open and inviting in the middle of the street. It's probably fenced behind your house to avoid such intrusions. As your hotspot should be. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| reply to LinuxJunkie
said by LinuxJunkie :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. Yeah...although a foreign concept to you...you shouldn't take/use other people's crap without asking them. It's people like you that are the reason we have to lock our doors and encrypt our APs. You think everything is yours to use. |
|
iamsomeone
@rr.com
| reply to Karl Bode
the pool is "almost" a fair comparison except.... it would be an equal comparison if your pool had a sign on it saying anyone is free to use it and you standing by the sign waving for people to come in. Your pool does not have a setting that can be set to assign leases to all incoming connections or to be "private". AP's can be set either to only allow some connections or to "allow" everything, and assign a "lease" to whichever computers within range. If it's set to assign a lease to whatever is in range, then it makes sense that this would constitute "permission"---- unless there is some sort of security or encryption that the user is "tricking" or "hacking". Security in itself does not change whether it's illegal or not to connect, but if there is security then the user connecting is lying about it's identity which would seem to relate to "obtaining property (service) under false pretenses". |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
edit:
July 4th, @06:02PM
| So if you leave your door unlocked that is permission for me to enter. That's fine.
An AP is a gate. Encryption is a lock on the gate.
You must actively connect to the AP just as you must open the gate. Neither imply permission to do anything. |
|
iamsomeone
@rr.com
| reply to oliphant
i think you misunderstood DebianDude. i dont think it said it's "right" or "not stealing" to take the calculator..... i think he was pointing out that by the logic you presented that taking the calculator would be a 3rd degree felony..... which it would. calculators are computers in the same manner that an AP is. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
edit:
July 4th, @06:04PM
| What if it's a $1000 calculator? The fact that you returned it doesn't negate the fact that you didn't have a right to touch it.
So you're cool if people 'borrow' your car without your knowledge or permission so long as they bring it back? |
|
iamsomeone
@rr.com
| wow from most of your comments you seem intelligent but here maybe you neglected to read what you replied to..... i said the right or wrong of taking the calculator was NOT in dispute. taking the calculator is wrong, taking the calculator is stealing. taking the calculator is NOT a third degree felony but the calculator IS a computer (in the same way that an AP is... even more so if it's a nice one like a TI-89) so by the definition that accessing a computer(if an AP falls under the definition of a computer) is a third degree felony then taking the calculator would be a third degree felony.
no, the fact that the calculator was returned does NOT negate the fact that the other person did not have a right to touch it.
no, i'm not cool if people 'borrow my car without my knowledge or permission so long as they bring it back.
(and FYI also no, i do not condone wardriving to use open WIFIs. but whether something is right or wrong does not always mean it is or should be legal/illegal -- or, more relevantly, whether it is or should be interpreted as legal/illegal when there is no legislation pertaining specifically to the actions in question) |
|
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
·Comcast Formerly ..
| reply to oliphant
said by oliphant :It's wouldn't occur to you that it's just wrong would it? 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. Come on man make some common sense approaches and don't try and blanket a law to fit all the issues at hand.
That is why america is horrible at the moment lawyers try to use laws to blanket everything. That is why every one is sue happy and every insurance rate is going sky high.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" |
|
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
·Comcast Formerly ..
| reply to oliphant
said by oliphant :So if you leave your door unlocked that is permission for me to enter. That's fine. An AP is a gate. Encryption is a lock on the gate. You must actively connect to the AP just as you must open the gate. Neither imply permission to do anything. See you go back to a physical intrusion which is nothing like a broadcast item. You are putting it out to be seen by many. You don't leave a door open and a sign saying come in and take what you want.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" |
|
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
·Comcast Formerly ..
| reply to oliphant
said by oliphant :What if it's a $1000 calculator? The fact that you returned it doesn't negate the fact that you didn't have a right to touch it. So you're cool if people 'borrow' your car without your knowledge or permission so long as they bring it back? So by your meanings if you found an ipod in the street and no one was around to lay claim you would leave it there and keep walking?
If so Now I have an idea why you are so against this. You lost an ipod and couldn't find it.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" |
|
spenster
join:2001-04-03
Houston, TX
| reply to Karl Bode
quote:
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.
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. |
|
