Re: Theft of WiFi charge in Florida
- From: Tom Harrington <tph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 15:00:25 -0600
In article <michelle-BFFE2C.11111308072005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In article <tph-2B2488.10551408072005@localhost>,
> Tom Harrington <tph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > You have been committing a crime, namely unauthorized access to a
> > > computer network. (At least in the US, it would be; considering your
> > > spelling of "neighbor," it appears that you may not live in the US.)
> >
> > I don't see it as being that simple. Someone who sets up a wireless
> > access point that does not require a password has, it seems to me,
> > implicitly given permission to connect.
>
> No.
And why not? They could have trivially taken actions to make clear that
it's not public. They didn't do so.
> > Being as it's almost trivial to require a password, the fact that
> > they've declined to do so seems that it should carry some weight.
>
> More likely, they didn't know they should.
It's their responsibility to take care of it.
> > Following the idea that you must have explicit permission to use
> > someone else's network, how is it that you can even visit a web site
> > without written permission from the person who runs the site?
>
> There is no parallel between the two. There is the matter of intent and
> purpose.
>
> > To access the web site you must use their network.
>
> No, you access their server.
And how do you think you get to the server? At some point you're using
the portion of the network that the server connects to which, if not
owned by the server operators, is at least under their control. You
access this portion of the network even though you do not have any
explicit permission from the person(s) responsible for it. This portion
of the network is likely to be at least as substantial as the portion
used by someone's wireless access point.
> > They could put a password on the site to restrict access, but here we
> > presume that the lack of a password can be construed as permission to
> > access.
>
> The web site is there with the intent and purpose of people accessing
> it. But people aren't accessing the network, just the server.
A web site _might_ be there with the intent of _public_ access. It's
entirely possible to set up a closed web site with password-protected
access if you wish to do so. The presumption generally is that if the
server does not require a password for access, then access is open to
the public. However if a password is required, the site may be presumed
to be not open for public use.
It seems to me that the unprotected wireless access point is exactly the
same situation; it might or might not be open to public use. If it
doesn't require a password, it's not unreasonable to suspect that public
use is permitted. Someone might well decide that they don't mind others
using their wireless network.
> > I don't think the wireless access case is that different.
>
> It's totally different.
I don't think so; it seems quite similar to me.
> > However I'm not sure that current US law agrees with this perspective...
>
> Be assured that it does not agree with it.
Then the law is confused and unfair and should be changed.
--
Tom "Tom" Harrington
Macaroni, Automated System Maintenance for Mac OS X.
Version 2.0: Delocalize, Repair Permissions, lots more.
See http://www.atomicbird.com/
.
- References:
- Theft of WiFi charge in Florida
- From: Phil Stripling
- Re: Theft of WiFi charge in Florida
- From: Fred Moore
- Re: Theft of WiFi charge in Florida
- From: Dave Balderstone
- Re: Theft of WiFi charge in Florida
- From: Phil Stripling
- Re: Theft of WiFi charge in Florida
- From: dude2
- Re: Theft of WiFi charge in Florida
- From: Tom Harrington
- Theft of WiFi charge in Florida
- Prev by Date: Re: Theft of WiFi charge in Florida
- Next by Date: Asante Readyswitch 5104
- Previous by thread: Re: Theft of WiFi charge in Florida
- Next by thread: Re: Theft of WiFi charge in Florida
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
