how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 DaDogsSemper VigilantisPremium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
1 edit | reply to Jerm
Re: Are you sure? said by Jerm:said by Nerdtalker:Wardriving is the act of driving around detecting Access Points while creating a database of information about them (SSID, Privacy Yes/No, Speed, Hardware type, Latitude and Longitude for mapping). It is entirely legal. Connecting to an open AP is entirely different, and is illegal Netstumbler sends out beacon requests, and in that sense could be considered "illegal" as you define it. Only a truly passive sniffer like Kismet would be considered "legal". Yes but it does not initiate a connection so long as it is in promiscuous mode.
said by Jerm:But you state a blanket assumption that "connecting to an open AP is illegal"? Aye, given the ease with which a system might associate with damn near any AP, whether you requested it or not, it would be a really tough call to make the simple act of association with an AP illegal.
said by Jerm: ...snip... For all I know the wireless is open because the owner wants to share his 'net access! But this argument is a red herring. The correct assumption *REQUIRED* by a civilized legal system is to err on the side of the privacy and property of the individual who owns the service or device. It is correct to assume that a service is not open for sharing unless there is some compelling reason to believe otherwise.
said by Jerm:With your logic, I could sue the owner of an AP for his device connecting to my laptop! Hardly. His device does not connect to your laptop. Your laptop initiates the connection sequence. He merely announces his presence with his beacon packets. They do not solicit a connection unless the SSID he is beaconing clearly indicates otherwise.
said by Jerm:Any unsecured open access point is not illegal to connect to - what is illegal is what you may do with that connection. I'd have to say I agree with you here. My thinking is that the vendors have made it too easy to connect to the wrong network. Generally that is desirable because there are lots of instances where people don't mind you using their service. Personally I believe there should be a public convention which agrees upon an SSID which everyone who wants to offer free access should use. "FREE PUBLIC ACCESS" always worked for me. This would facilitate all sorts of things including easier roaming.
Yep, if we are going to criminalize the simple act of connecting to an AP, we are going to fill up the jails pretty quickly when we enforce it. 
--
Need a bit more range? WWW.FREEANTENNAS.COM
Need a bit more privacy? WWW.FREEANTENNAS.COM
Need a bit more speed? WWW.FREEANTENNAS.COM
| |
| said by "DaDogs":
But this argument is a red herring. The correct assumption *REQUIRED* by a civilized legal system is to err on the side of the privacy and property of the individual who owns the service or device.
Except that in this case, the homeowner does not own either the: 1) ISP service, nor 2) the "public airwaves", meaning the frequency spectrum that these devices operate on. If some other device transmits or recieves on the same frequencies, then too bad, that's not illegal. If the owner of the AP in question didn't configure it properly to prevent "outside interference", then that is his own fault / problem.
said by "DaDogs":
It is correct to assume that a service is not open for sharing unless there is some compelling reason to believe otherwise.
It may be "rude" to use someone's AP to access the "public" internet without asking first, but is it directly illegal? I think that's the question. The other question is if someone accessed the homeowner's private PC, via a connected wireless AP, and the intent of the access. If there was a clear intent to "trespass" into a private PC's files, then that would seem likely to be prosecutable.
It really does seem to be primarily about intent, here, not technology. | |
| reply to DaDogs
I thought the law can only burst the user if he or she attempt to hack to system(s)/network(s) that are intended for authorized users and/or accessing to network/system that have private warning banner to indicate that only authorized users are allowed.
Therefore, if the AP owner does not enforce any good security and/or does not have private warning banner, then he/she has no right to prosecute anyone.
Does it make sense to anyone? | |
|
