how-to block ads
|
richk_1957
If ..Then..Else
Premium
join:2001-04-11
Minas Tirith
| My views
First thing I don't like is the light that 'War Driving' is being put into. The article mentioned every bad, sinister, evil thing in the book until the last paragraph. If this trend [writers saying that the only thing that Wardrivers have is criminal intent] continues, then soon Wardriver = Criminal. I remember that a 'Hacker' was someone that worked with something [whether it be computer, electronics, astronomy or a lot of other things] to get it to do new things - but the media made a 'Hacker' into a criminal. But to the subject at hand...
Doctor Dan  posted some interesting things about 'unauthorized access' but those laws pertain to wired networks ! W-Fi is not mentioned. Now, I know that people are going to say 'what's the difference'. The difference is we're talking about radio [more or less omnidirectional] transmission - anyone can access them, the front door is open [bad analogy - trespassing by using radio waves is not the same thing as physically walking in the front door]. The police have their sites (radio) open, but they're encrypted in some way. Try walking into the front door to a police station. If anyone uses wireless, it is up to them, at least partially, to secure their setup.
And 2kmaro , you're right, common sense plays a part. If you connect to a hot spot and it identifies itself as NETGEAR or LINKSYS, it's not a public. But I've been told by people at work who go to hotels who advertise Wi-Fi access, but don't identify themselves [but if you use the wi-fi access, there is a charge on your bill for it].
Legally, this is a gray area right now as I don't think there are any laws about Wi-Fi (radio) access specifically! Applying the rules for wired networks is not the same. Finally, if there has to be a charge for this it should not be a Felony. That's a hefty charge. | |
Sodium
Premium
join:2003-12-02
Rice Lake, WI
| I agree with you somewhat. However, I don't think that the law need be rewritten to cover WiFi technology in particular, the same as it would need to be to cover any other wireless technology such as WiMax, IR, etc. or even non-traditional access methods like BPL. The wireless part is just a means to an end, i.e. a medium in place that routes to a wired network with a wired connection to the internet. Just because you are using radio waves to connect to the "wired" network doesn't change the fact that you are accessing a private network.
If you want to get really technical with me, I would argue that even "wired" networks are "wireless" - the EM waves are just protected by a coating around the cabling that essentialy traps them in (talking about copper cabling here, not fiber). If you got close enough to the cabling and with the proper technology, you could wirelessly access the "wired" network directly through the cable as if you were splitting directly off of the cable.
I also agree that "physical" arguments are difficult to deal with because they oversimply the "technical" issues and can be easily defeated with simple logic that cannot be compared to the original technical idea. It is a very inefficient way of describing these situations, but is the only way of essentially "bridging the gap" between differing levels of technical savvy. I think this contributes to the level of legal "gray area" that you describe, and I also think that current computer laws are vastly inadequate to describe the crimes associated with the modern Information Age that we live in. Unfortunately, I don't see things changing anytime soon (other than for rich lobbyist groups such as the RIAA and such).
It is easy to see how difficult it is to write laws that regulate these types of things. They usually end up being much too broad or much too narrow. I think in the end, as with most things, it is best to trust your common sense and hope for the best.  | |
|
