(A) That’s one more case than you have.
(B) Why you think you could successfully argue this is beyond me, since the plain letter of the law proscribes the conduct in question.
What argument would you use? Remember, judges do not make the law - they apply the law to the existing facts. I ABSOLUTELY agree you might argue successfully to the legislature that your view should be the correct one – your argument that makes some sense, and the legislature might well agree and change the law. But what possible argument could you give to the judge to make him disregard the plain language of the statute?
If I buy off the cable guy to give me free HBO- Illegal
If I alter wires in the Phone box to give me DSL- Illegal
If my neighbor has an open network and my computer logs on his network accidentally, and I peruse the internet on his account- UNSPECIFIED, and because of that, possibly legal.
Now, I agree they can show that I have been accessing his account for some time as my PRIMARY internet provider, they might have a case.
This whole thing about getting thrown in jail for checking email though…
Timmons did no such thing. His partners Salcedo and Botbyl caused 2.5 million dollars in losses and accessed credit card information; they were charged more seriously.
At the time of his guilty plea, the only thing Timmons had done was access his own e-mail. Read the damn article:
[quote]
Timmins later admitted to Kevin Poulsen of Security Focus that what he did next was technically illegal: he used the Lowe’s network to check his e-mail. When he realized it was Lowe’s private network, however, he says, he disconnected.
That in itself might have been the end of the story. However, Lowe’s became aware of the breach and contacted the FBI, who, after its investigation, charged Timmins with one count of unauthorized computer access. And that by itself would have been a significant story: Timmins’s plea has been reported as the first instance of a wardriving conviction. I think the claim is an exaggeration, however. The charge would have been the same had he used a wired connection.
And now for the real crime
But here’s where the story gets interesting. Several months later, Botbyl returned to the Southfield, Michigan, Lowe’s with a new friend, Brian Salcedo, now 21. Salcedo, it turned out, was in the final weeks of a three-year probation for an earlier computer crime.
Knowing the Lowe’s wireless corporate network was exposed, the pair gained access on October 25, 2003. This time, they routed through the company’s North Carolina headquarters, then out to the satellite stores nationwide. Log files show they connected to several stores located in California, as well as Florida, South Dakota, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Kansas.[/query]
For THAT crime, the accused (not Timmons, but his friend Salcedo and another partner:
This is not difficult stuff, and I fail to see why so many people have problems accepting it. The major crime - the real hacking - was subject to very serious criminal charges, but the unauthorized use of Lowe’s system to check personal e-mail was also charged with and convicted of a crime.
Where in the law do you read that distinction? If it’s legal for you to peruse the Internet for an hour on his network, why not for a year? Why not for two years, during which time you cancelled your own ISP service and used his? What, IN THE LAW, makes one legal and the other illegal?
(4) “Computer services” includes, but is not limited to, computer
time, data processing, or storage functions, or other uses of a
computer, computer system, or computer network.
I think I see the difficulty here. People see the words “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”, and they immediately start thinking of part of The Wiccan Rede, “An Ye Harm None Do What Ye Will” I see no problem with that attitude. I live next door to someone with a DSL connection, and he let’s everyone in his building use it, as well as myself. I have seen no slowdown ever since I first helped him set it up, no matter the number of users. However, as Bricker has already pointed/shouted out, use of the connections of others, without their permission, is against the law in the United States. Now, It’s The Law, so we must all lay on our backs, curl up and suck our thumbs.
If he lets everyone use it, then you have authorization.
The Tenth Amendment could be a colorable argument for the federal law being a matter of overreaching by Congress. However, Shurgard Storage Centers v. Safeguard Self Storage, 119 F. Supp. 2d 1121, W.D. Wash. 2000, suggests that such legislation is permissible under the Commerce Clause. And since I have quoted (and others have added) STATE law to the mix, it’s unclear how, precisely, the Tenth Amendment is relevant.
We won’t call you stupid because there was no harm done. There was no security risk. You just didn’t realize you were offering an open network to your neighbors. That’s what an open network is. It’s by design.
Not by my design, at least my intentional design. And the router’s manufacturers certainly have no legal ability to give my permission for others to use my computer equipment or my Internet connection that I pay for. I fail to see how a machine can decide for a human what the human has consented to.
I think that by failing to fully understand how your own hardware works, you must bear some responsibility for the fact that others could access your network. If you want to use ignorance to excuse yourself from any liability, I think another computer user who happened to find your network and use it (without causing you any harm, or otherwise intending or committing malicious acts) ought to be granted the same leeway. After all, there are people and companies that offer free wireless connections, without requiring explicit permission, so how are we to know that that wasn’t your intent, too?
That’s why I suggest a system where we agree on a particular SSID that’s different from any of the default SSIDs for wireless access points. Anyone who sets their AP to this SSID (and hasn’t set a WEP code) can be considered to have given explicit permission for others to use his network.
I don’t understand how anyone that knows how to plug in a computer and turn it on wouldn’t realize that, “hey, my computer is talking wirelessly to this box” doesn’t also think, “hey, another computer can talk wirelessly to this box.”
Lack of common sense is a much worse crime than using their open network.
Well, that was a General kind of Question, and besides, most factual questions don’t require three pages of discussion to hash out the details. This is an unusual case.
