| reply to knightmb
Re: What Is A Crime? said by knightmb:I see wireless access the same way. Everyone knows that this little device allows *any* computer to connect to it and get Internet access. If you don't want that, then you secure it, even if it's just plain old 64 bit WEP, it's better than nothing. If someone breaks into it and then starts stealing bandwidth after you already put in the "no freeloaders sign" encryption on, then I can see it being a good reason to arrest someone for stealing. If someone doesn't patch their Windows computer, it gets hacked, and CC #'s stolen....
who is wrong? Isn't that just an invitation to take data? It's the exact same argument, just a different piece of hardware.
In this case, the user of the unpatched computer left a sign on it saying "Here, have my credit card number".
No difference. |
|
 djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1
 ·Verizon Wireless..
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·VOIPo
·PHONE POWER
1 edit | quote:
If someone doesn't patch their Windows computer, it gets hacked, and CC #'s stolen....
who is wrong? Isn't that just an invitation to take data? It's the exact same argument, just a different piece of hardware.
In this case, the user of the unpatched computer left a sign on it saying "Here, have my credit card number".
No difference
There's a huge difference there: Intent. There's nothing nefarious about jumping onto a neighbor's wifi and surfing the web. It is highly unlikely that the neighbor who set up the unsecured access point would ever know it was happening. Bandwidth currently isn't charged by the byte, it's use it or lose it. I obviously wouldn't condone large file downloads or other activities that will cause noticeable slowdowns for the paying user.
If you take someone's personal info and use their credit cards, they WILL know, it WILL cause them hardship, and it IS theft.
I equate using an open access point for light tasks as someone pulling into my driveway to do a 3 point turn-around real quick. Legally it's probably tresspassing,and it's something one probably shouldn't do, and is not real courteous, but no lasting harm is done so I just tolerate it. No harm no foul. 
--
\\ROB - a part of the SCB local network |
|
|
|
 marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | said by djrobx:There's a huge difference there: Intent. There's nothing nefarious about jumping onto a neighbor's wifi and surfing the web. It is highly unlikely that the neighbor who set up the unsecured access point would ever know it was happening. So, using an AP to download email is okay, but using an AP to download email containing child porn worm is not?
Accessing a website is okay, but accessing a child pron website is not?
How about unintentional harm, like downloading a worm via email, or accessing a website that downloads network compromising software? What if the user accidentally opens up the network to attack from those with nefarious intent (something all too common for intentionally open wifis)?
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
| reply to djrobx
said by djrobx:I equate using an open access point for light tasks as someone pulling into my driveway to do a 3 point turn-around real quick. Legally it's probably tresspassing,and it's something one probably shouldn't do, and is not real courteous, but no lasting harm is done so I just tolerate it. No harm no foul. It's not just trustpassing.
In most states, that's a moving violation. You can't use private property (without permission of the owner) to operate a moving vehicle. Same as using a gas station on the corner to get around a red light. |
|
Reviews:
·Bright House
1 edit | reply to raccettura
When you say this, it sounds ignorant. I can't stand people who buy a $70++ piece of equipment (router) and don't know the first thing on how to secure it, or what "WiFi" means. If you are dumb enough to leave it wide open, more power to the person "stealing" it. I think it's right, because if that person cared enough about what someone else is doing on their network, they would secure it. END OF STORY. The REAL person they should sue is the router manufacturer, for sending them an "non-locked down" router. If they took a small amount of assembly line time to send each router with a unique default WiFi password, and a quick start guide on how to configure their machine, none of this would happen. Instead of sueing the person "stealing" the connection, why not make a law stating you need a license to use a computer or router. Then people will read the book, understand a little, and get rid of problems like this, or face fines and jail time. People are so "techno-stupid" these days they have no business purchasing stuff like this, yet we keep making all these advances in technology without requiring them to be up to speed.
(Sorry for the rant, but lets look at it this way, if an ISP left the default settings including passwords and usernames, set for their routers, all hell would break lose, and everyone here would say "what idiots". This is no different, it's the users "responsibility" to keep this from happening, it even says so in the manual). |
|
| reply to marigolds
Uh. The difference? You gotta be kidding me. He was probably arrested because in most locations child porn is illegal.
In Va the code is: § 18.2-374.1:1. Possession of child pornography; and is a felony crime. So yeah he was most likely arrested for accessing child porn for personal pleasure which is not a legit purpose at least in the U.S. Because apparently certain people are allowed to view child porn for research.
If you don't understand what you are buying then read a book and get a clue, otherwise don't bother with it. Computers demand a certain know-how & knowledge. If you don't possess it then learn or don't bother. We don't need laws to govern every little damn detail because people don't know how to operate equipment. If that were the case MS should have been out of business long ago because they have grossly neglected the security in every version of windows, with exception to maybe 1.0. You can patch every flaw that currently has a patch and still be vulnerable to an attack. So what? You going to sue MS for negligence? Even with closing up a wifi network if someone really wanted to get in they could. WIFI AS IT IS, IS NOT SECURE! NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO. Its open-air...the whole idea of wifi is insecure.
Now one argument that could be used in the defense, which I'm unsure whether it has been posed or not...
Say I were to have a database that allowed employees to telnet into it, as long as they know the correct IP as it is not advertised on the net. Yet a guest account was left for those employees that forget their passwords. And a non employee was to access the database. That guest account is not saying come one come all and join in. If unauthorized access was still achieved by that non-employee I'm certain that a court would find a case in the favor of the company as its intention was not to allow others outside of the business access the site.
Granted that is somewhat of a poor example. |
|
Reviews:
·Bright House
| said by Techman21:Say I were to have a database that allowed employees to telnet into it, as long as they know the correct IP as it is not advertised on the net. Yet a guest account was left for those employees that forget their passwords. And a non employee was to access the database. That guest account is not saying come one come all and join in. If unauthorized access was still achieved by that non-employee I'm certain that a court would find a case in the favor of the company as its intention was not to allow others outside of the business access the site. Granted that is somewhat of a poor example. No, more like the court would not do much unless $10,000 of damage was inflicted. Then they would probably fine you for leaving personal info in the open, unsecured. Very poor example, because you would walk away just as screwed as you were when the data was stolen... |
|
| reply to djrobx
There's a huge difference there: Intent.
And there you have the problem - intent, or rather, the proving thereof. How can it be proven beyond reasonable doubt that someone is accessing wifi for a non-nefarious purpose? How do you know for sure that the person is benign?
Any time the law is brought into a situation, it must be able to define what is or is not legal, regardless of intent. Stealing bread to feed a family is still concerned to be stealing bread, even if it garners a lighter sentence. It needs to be determined whether or not such an activity is considered theft or not and prosecuted in that regard. |
|
1 edit | reply to raccettura
I like the response by one poster on a similar topic recently using a neighbor's light as an example. So, if a neighbor's outdoor light reaches my property line, does that mean my neighbor is technically trespassing? HAHAHA...
This is a stupid topic, honestly. I could not agree more that computers do require a certain know how. RTFM or pay someone to do it for you, EOF. |
|
