Re: Article: 'Stealing' Your Neighbor's Wi-Fi I've asked this elsewhere and haven't received a response: When is authorization implied?
In the case of crackers attempting to penetrate a poorly secured wire-network computer, laws have consistently fallen on the side of the computer owner. Before the US Patriot act, there were some cases where a computer intruder was not properly informed that all access to the computer was unauthorized unless permission was specifically granted - and in those cases, there was some wriggle room for defense attorneys to argue that permission was implied (perhaps by virtue of the computer being accessible from a public network.) After the Patriot act was established, that issue was apparently laid to rest, essentially making access prohibited whether spelled out or not. The evolution of wireless ethernet has practically placed an onus on the owner, as the vast majority of wireless clients use an automatic, or semi-automatic link hunting scheme. With the barrier to connecting to a wireless network so low, I doubt a case in court will establish a precedent that this activity is illegal - even with the accused sitting out front, on a public street. So now we have a battle of ignorant user versus ignorant user. If I am ignorant in installing a wireless access device in my house, and an ignorant computer user associates with that access point and begins checking out the game on ESPN.com, who is at fault? As a disclaimer, I strongly believe that those who invest in technology, be it a VCR or a combo router/access point -- have no protection in ignorance from the consequences when those technologies make them vulnerable. It is not unreasonable to expect a buyer to read the instructions (whether they be on paper or on an electronic disk) before they begin using a product. Especially at this juncture, when computer security is a well-known problem. What we have is a culture of laziness, and one where ignorance is rewarded and encouraged. Take as example the ban on cell phone monitoring which occurred around 1993. At the time, analog cell phones were relatively easy to monitor with inexpensive radio equipment. A particularly high-profile case, a politician's embarassing comments were turned over to a journalist by a rival. As a consequence, the FCC banned radios capable of receiving cell phone frequencies. The burden of ignorance was placed on the hobbyist. Not long after, cellular phone providers wised up and introduced encryption technology. Yet the ban continues. Will we see a similar ban on devices capable of open access? Probably not, but don't rule out the possibility that the FCC will mandate devices that only operate in a password access configuration, putting open access devices in a commercial-class. We may hack around these limits, but the FCC recently mandated that radio makers make it impossible to hack around the cellular block. The precedent exists to cripple technology in the name of ignorance. Don't punish the lazy fool, punish the engineer! As engineers, we try to further society through the application of technology. Yet, we're frequently abused because we enable freedoms that infringe on corporations, government or the ignorant. It is a trend that has existed throughout history, but perhaps never at such an individual level as with computer technology. Bill -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
