Running an AP without encryption usually just indicates that the owner took it out of the box and used the defaults. Most consumer-level equipment leaves the SSID being broadcast and encryption turned off. If I see an access point elsewhere with the AP broadcast turned off, that is a strong indication that the owner does not want to grant access to casual users, because they went through the trouble to find how to turn the function off.
Usually the point of locking down an AP is not that people will use your internet access, but that they will have access to any other computers you have on your network, inside any firewall that your router may have. So it all comes down to how comfortable you are giving strangers access to you data.
Now *personally* I have an open AP myself, with the SSID of "free2use" to give a hint of that. The difference is that I have other equipment locally to segregate that AP from my wired units. When I want to use it, I either connect with a "casual use" laptop boot partition or change the AP configuration to be "more" secure if I plan to use it for a longer period of time.
On your final question, if you set your computer to a fixed SSID, you can turn off the broadcast of the SSID on the AP. This is what I mentioned in my first paragraph. This is not secure, however. Even without the SSID being broadcast, most software that comes with wireless access cards will still be able to see there is an AP out there, and freely available software will be able to sniff out the SSID.
What was described is *not* looking into open windows... which by the way *can* get you a trip to the hoosegow.
That is the same as scanning for wifi AP. Walking in the door is like connecting to the AP. You best not just knock before you enter, but wait for someone to admit you.
That is because they have *invited* you in. The wifi equivalent would be a wifi hotspot that is labeled as exactly that, or advertised otherwise to be that. Just like businesses, there are plenty of them. You *don't* want to mistake a private AP for a public one any more than you want to mistake a private home for a business.
Ever notice how businesses tend to put a sign out, that says "open" when you are allow through the door, and "closed" when you aren't?
Yes, and you seem to be misunderstanding *every single one of them*.
So? That issue has been through the courts in just about every country that makes a difference, and they have *all* ruled the same.
I'm talking about the law, and you are talking about fantasy.
Wrong.
And the fact that the intruder thinks differently has *no* significance, which was my point even if you want to hide from it.
So a toy lock makes it different? If my door is unlocked and you go through it without permission, you are still in violation of the law and can be arrested. Same with unauthorized access to a computer with or without WEP or other encryption.
Nice fantasy, but the law doesn't agree with you.
However, it *is* illegal to monitor some telephone transmissions, and it *is* illegal to use or divulge anything you might hear on a telephone transmission.
So it turns out that you *are* aware that it is illegal. And you no doubt also know that the courts upheld those laws too.
Oh Lord. There's a commie under every bed, and there are 207 of them in Washington DC, I know because I've got Joe McCarthy's list right here in my hand.
Do you have any more jokes? (Better ones, we hope...)
I've spent 40 years in the communications industry (and one of my children is a lawyer who deals with the communications industry too). Clearly I've talked to lawyers about the law means or does not mean a great deal more than you have.
Nothing you've said here indicates *any* respect for the privacy and property of others.
All of the above is wonderful...
However you seem to have a very strange idea of what indicates that a network is "intended" for you to see. What you have advocated is simply illegal.
That is ambiguous. If it is "OPEN ACCESS" because the owner
*intends* it to be available, then there is *explicit approval*. If it is open because somebody didn't install a toy lock (WEP) out of ignorance or whatever, then accessing it is indeed technically a crime.
*You* have the power and the responsibility to restrict yourself to legal acts. That has *nothing* to do with someone else's power/ability to force you to be lawful.
As you note, this is a free country... and you are free to put yourself in jail by not following the rules. Nobody is standing there forcing you to follow the law, but they *are* standing there waiting to restrict your freedom in the future if you don't follow the law on your own.
I personally think it would be abjectly ridiculous to vigorously enforce such laws. But there is *no**way* I'm going to advocate breaking them in a public forum where it might encourage someone with no perspective to do something that
*does* get the attention of an over zealous prosecutor.
It has happened *many* times, and people have gone to jail for years for things just as trivial. (Most of our drug possession laws are equally silly, and thousands of people have been sentenced to 20 years in jail for possession of a marijuana cigarette.)
Remember back in the early 1990's when 4 or 5 guys were caught with purloined copies of an AT&T manual of the E911 system? Three or four of them plead out and went to jail. One of them stood up and fought. Midway through the trial in Federal court an AT&T person admitted that the information, claimed in the charging documents to be worth $79,000, was available to anyone from AT&T for $13.
They threw that case out, but the other individuals all served their sentences, including at least one who got extra time for refusing to testify against the others. All for something wasn't even a crime...
Making overly simplified statements about what you believe the system *should* be, and cloaking them as what it actually is, does nobody an service.
I once asked an attorney about laws on wiretapping. For only $50 he went through both the State and Federal laws, and explained the significance and specifics to me in detail. The final "legal opinion" was that in the specified incident no Federal law had been broken, but that it was clearly a violation of Alaska Statutes. His comment was "The Troopers have murders to investigate", which puts it into perspective.
It is also true that I've seen the Alaska State Troopers totally ignore a newspaper that essentially tapped a Trooper wiretap, and published the transcription on the front page no less! What I knew that not everyone was aware of though, was that the Trooper's were performing an illegal wiretap without a court order, and that is why they didn't choose to so much as investigate the newspaper! (The perpetrator admitted to having committed a murder, and eventually was sent to jail forever.)
That is true. Monitoring someone's wireless transmission is not accessing their network, and is not illegal. Even if whatever encryption used is broken, it isn't illegal. However, unauthorized *connections* to their network is illegal, whether the network access is encrypted or not.
If you do it intentionally, it is technically a violation of law! Even if all you do is disconnect. But obviously it is not going to cause prosecution...
You do realize that in most states it is not just that you have committed burglary, but the owner even has the right to shoot you dead on the spot!
You probably didn't mean "burglary", which is *not* stealing. It is "breaking and entering" for the purpose of commission of a crime. So if you walk through an open door that you clearly have no authorized access to, the *assumption* is that you are a burglar. That assumption justifies the owner, in a home, to protect that home with deadly force, and you can be shot dead on the spot quite legally. Of course if you are not killed, when you (not the shooter) go to trial they will have to prove your intend to commit a felony in order to make a charge of burglary stick.
But if the shooter is charged, he will *not* have to prove any intent on your part; instead he just has to claim that he experienced fear that it was your intent, and the prosecution would have to prove he didn't (which is probably impossible).
....
I don't disagree with that sentiment. That's why I don't think it is smart to encourage anyone to think they can go around tapping into just any "open" wifi network they find.
Exactly. Law enforcement is an industry filled with assholes. It comes with the territory, and anyone who isn't when they start will be within a few years if they stay. How could it be otherwise? Look what they have to do...
No comment... it would be insulting to *both* of us! ;-)
Whats your point? If the AP has a SSID that says 'OPENHOUSE' or login page that says 'free access here' its a different story.
D'oh! Yes it is. Read up on 'trespass' sometime.
yes, and you should always lock your house / car when away from it, and never leave your wallet in your jacket. Doesn't mean its still ok for someone to steal it though.
He is, however, legally correct. You're not.
Then keep out of other people's wireless routers, unless invited in.
It is in the UK, unless the owner /explicitly/ makes the router open access, or you were given express permission to use it. .
There's no such thing, and frankly I'm surprised to hear you say it, given the respect most people have for your opinion.
If you'd ever been burgled, you'd know that the physical loss is nothing compared to the feeling of being soiled by someone else's grubby little fingers in your underwear drawer, going through your record collection, and spitting on your toothbrush.
Extend this to wireless: some geek, possibly a pervert, possibly a crim, possibly just a w*nker, has been through your personal files, looking at photos of your kids in the altogether, reading your personal email and documents including the ones to your ex and your shrink, noticing where you go on holiday and when, laughing at that parking fine dispute, and so on. Victimless eh?
only if all APs were sold with encryption on by default, and turning if off was jolly hard.
Unfortunately most APs are sold with encryption off by default, and most end-users are not clued up enough to enable it. They expect it to be like a toaster - plug it in, turn it on and it works.
If you're connected to the internet and they used your account to download illegal p*rn, you would be the one getting prosecuted.
you probably wouldn't notice even then, until the cops knocked on your door.
if you are on public property, anything you can see in plain sight is fair game, including through a window and also taking a photograph of it.
it does in new york and probably elsewhere.
formatting link
In fact, the companion New York State computer crime law, NY Penal Code Section 156 (6), requires that, before you can be prosecuted for using a computer service without authorization, the government has to prove that the owner has given actual notice to potential hackers or trespassers, either in writing or orally. In the absence of such notice in New York, the hacker can presume that he or she has authorization to proceed, under state law.
Get caught across the road taking pictures with a telephoto lense looking into some lady's bedroom, and see just how much fun you have...
It is true that under *some* circumstances it is not a crime. But under others it is. As I noted, it "can" get you jail time.
Wrong. You didn't read the source you cited, did you...
Directly after the text you quoted above is a discussion, which culminates with this conclusion:
So simply getting the wireless connection may be a crime.
It also has a few other statements, meant to put that one in perspective:
In fact, using someone else's wireless signal -- even if only to get Web access -- might constitute a felony. So could reading other people's cleartext communication, or even just putting an 802.11 wireless hub in your house.
Is that clear enough?
The simple act of driving around and getting WiFi connections as needed is fraught with legal risk.
How about this:
The U.S. federal computer crime statute, Title 18 U.S.C. 1030, makes it a crime to knowingly access a computer used in interstate or foreign communication "without authorization" and obtain any information from the computer. A separate provision makes it a crime to access a computer without authorization with "intent to defraud" to obtain "anything of value."
And it then goes on to discuss how merely monitoring traffic on someone else's network might also be a Federal crime.
All in all, electronically examining packets traveling through the air is probably a crime, just as intentionally listening to someone's cell phone or cordless phone calls is a crime -- even if unencrypted and broadcast in the air.
We might note that the above opinion is from a "columist"; however, his name is Mark D. Rasch. Rasch is a "former head of the Justice Department's computer crime unit" and is an attorney.
Thank you for the cite that demonstrates *precisely* how accurate my comments have been.
Note the words "in my never humble opinion". That allows me a bit of leniency in interpreting the letter of the law. If the laws were so clear that everyone could understand them, and there were no contradictions, gray areas, or gross stupidities in the law, then we would not need judges or juries. While my opinion does not hold the same weight as that of a judge or legal practitioner, it's still my opinion.
By implication, I presume you believe that touring someone home network via wireless should be a criminal offense, punishable by whatever, and vigorously enforced by the authorities. You might ask your local constabulary what they think of such enforcement. I have and the local sheriff indicated that they would have a serious problem trying to collect evidence, convince the DA it's worth prosecuting, and dealing with the technical issues if it ever goes to court. I tried to explain how wireless encryption and security works, and they were instantly lost.
If you re-read what I posted, I indicated that the offense was not the access of the wireless link, but the "unauthorized use" of the victims computah. Methinks you're failing to recognize the distinction. Merely "accessing" someone's network is not and should not be a crime. You can do that by accident with Windoze XP SP2, which will try to connect to literally anything it finds if so configured. I've often found myself on someone else's access point instead of the one I wanted. Hopefully, you won't have a problem with that. It's what I do after I've connected that's the problem.
If you left your door open, and I walked into the doorway, would you have me arrested for burglary? I haven't stolen anything. I might be trying to determine if everyone is OK and that nothing bad has happened. You could, but would you?
It's difficult to go through life without ever getting ripped off, mugged, burgled, or somehow victimized. It bothers me, but not as badly as it apparently bothers you. Different reactions from different people I guess.
Again, in my opinion, I believe that I have less to fear from the average burglar, than from those sworn to enforce the tangle of rules, ordinances, laws, torts, guidelines, regulations, and fine print. I know what the burglar wants and am prepared to give it to him to avoid a hassle. I don't know what officialdom wants, and I'm often not prepared to deal with their hassles. I'm 57 years old and have had the displeasure of having been on both sides of the law. I would say both sides are seriously lacking.
Yep. You can prosecute for "mental anguish" or whatever is the current name for non-monetary damage. Perhaps the court might award payments for psychiatric care. I know of one lady that claimed the loss of her trinkets affected her already marginal mental state and that she could no longer work as a result. That's rather extreme, but that's where you're heading.
It's also apparent that you didn't catch the last part of my previous rant. Again, in my opinion, the law should not get involved in minor offenses that are best handled by common sense and a bit of ethics. If someone considers it correct and proper to trample into someone's private files and life, inflicting *NO* monetary damage in the process, then this is not a problem for the legal system. It's a moral and ethical problem that should have been dealt with by the parents, schools, church, temple, real life experience, business practices, and such. If you disagree, be prepared to have your life micro-managed by the authorities to an excessive degree. This may not be a bad thing as it does save on the expense and efforts of teach kids right from wrong.
Incidentally, I was once on the opposite side of the wireless intrusion problem. I was wandering around the parking lot of a large apartment complex with my laptop and panel antenna. I was trying to identify the source of some rather high power interference that I was sure involved an illegal amplifier. I eventually found the source and explained to the owner that he really didn't need 10 watts to go 20ft in his apartment. In the mean time, I was stopped by the local security guards twice, and by the local police once. Each one assumed that I was doing something illegal, but lacking any knowledge of what I was doing, went fishing for a crime. This is nothing unusual as the police do not like to come back empty handed and will often invent crimes for the occasion. I even had the same problem in the days of modems and laptops:
formatting link
item #27.
Sheesh... Why do I get involved in such discussions?
There's only one company that ships wireless access points with encryption enabled and a WEP key set by default. That's 2wire.com. All the other are delivered wide open.
I've often wondered why there are so many access points with encryption turned off. Well, I kinda blame a mixture of Microsoft and Wi-Fi.org. I keep running into combinations of wireless client and access point that will connect with an encryption enabled but fail to deliver a DHCP assigned IP address. It will work with a static assigned IP address, but not with DHCP.
I ran into that last night with my Linksys BEFW11S4 and my DLink DWL-G630 card. Nothing I could do would get DHCP to work. I disabled everything, and slowed things down to 1-2Mbits/sec. No DHCP as long as encryption is enabled. Yet, the card would get a DHCP assigned IP address from any of the 2 other local access points (DI-614+ and Belkin something) as well as 3 other open access points within range.
This is not an isolated case. I've seen it all too often and don't have a solution. My guess(tm) is that others run into the same problem, can't get encryption to work, and just leave it wide open.
Does wi-fi.org test for DHCP functionality on the LAN side? As near as I can determine, they do not. So much for interoperability. If I get ambitious, I'll post a black list of combinations that don't work. With luck I'll get the attention of the vendors before I attract the attention of the attorneys.
it says 'may be a crime' and 'might constitute a felony.' it does not say 'it is a crime' nor 'it is a felony.'
it also says, 'just putting an 802.11 wireless hub in your house' might be illegal. if so, there are an awful lot of criminals out there, along with an awful lot of stores selling these illegal devices.
clearly, there are other factors involved. it is not as simple as you make it out to be.
and then it says it does not apply if the value obtained is less than $5000:
Fortunately, this provision also specifies that it doesn't apply if "the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $ 5,000 in any 1-year period."
merely connecting and hitting a web site or two or checking email is hardly worth $5000, let alone something significant over $0.
you can't convict someone if it is 'probably a crime.'
only to you.
here is another:
A bill that's breezing through New Hampshire's legislature says operators of wireless networks must secure them -- or lose some of their ability to prosecute anyone who gains access to the networks.
House Bill 495 would, experts say, effectively legalize many forms of what's known as war driving -- motoring through an inhabited area while scanning for open wireless access points. ...
According to the proposed amendment, "the owner of a wireless computer network shall be responsible for securing such computer network."
the article is two years old and i could not determine if the proposed bill did pass, but it certainly appears it had very little opposition.
Exactly. It might be, and it might not be. And if you do it, you might end up in jail. Most likely not, but do you want to take that risk? Do you want to advise someone else to take that risk? Maybe nobody has ever threatened you with *exactly* that kind of idiocy, but it *does* happen.
Until there is sufficient case law to define how the statutes can be used in court... that's true.
Where have I said any of this was simple?
Can you read? "Makes it a crime to knowingly access a computer used ..." is one thing, and the separate provision, with added penalties, is what requires the $5000 limit to be passed.
But it *is* a crime if you do not have authorization.
You are quibbling over how much jail time you'll get for doing it.
Prosecutors can and do.
Besides, technically what that particular attorney is saying is that you *can* be prosecuted, though even if convicted you might win on appeal. Which means they would not actually put you in jail (for more than a few hours or days).
Of course, "winning" will bankrupt you...
You apparently can't read. You cited an attorney with a background in the field, who repeated everything I'd been saying.
Bills sailing through one house of a bicameral legislature are not laws...
You just don't read these things you post URL's to, do you.
Committee Chairman Andrew Peterson said the goal of the proposed law is to protect those who innocently stumble upon insecure wireless networks. But Peterson said the committee is open to arguments from anyone who believes the bill could undercut existing protection for victims of wireless hacking.
"We want to be sure that it wasn't the case that, through trying to protect people under certain circumstances, we were opening up greater opportunity for criminal activity," said Peterson.
The *intent* is to make sure inadvertent connection to an unauthorized network is not a crime, to allow intentionally open networks to be used, and *not* to allow intentional unauthorized access.
Just like the last URL you cited, it is *not* what you have represented it to be.
OK. I'll admit that I stretched his view a bit beyond reasonable. I like to do that as it's often not enough to see what one advocates, but it's also useful to see where they're going.
Now your reading between my lines. I never advocated anything of the sort. However, I see your point. The very fact that someone has to ask "is it legal" implies that they are also having problems distinguishing what's right and what's wrong.
Oh yes. Knight Lightning and friends. Big messy "crackdown" by the FBI in Operation Sundevil. Should be some references somewhere:
formatting link
details are in Chapter 4. The results are in:
formatting link
botch on the part of law enforcement that hasn't been repeated.
I wasn't aware that anyone served time. As I recall, there was an appeal sponsored by the EFF but I don't remember (and can't find) the outcome.
Incidentally, don't forget what happens when you try to do your employer a favor by "testing" their security.
formatting link
got Randal Schwartz (of Perl fame) a guided tour of the Oregon state legal machine. Basically, the prosecution decided that doing anything "unauthorized" was a criminal offense. It's one of the things that I'll never forgive Intel for allowing to continue.
Well, yes. Things can go awry when dealing with law enforcement. I believe I mentioned that could happen. If you're not sure if it's legal or not, don't take the chance. It's not worth the hassle.
Which is roughly what I said when mentioning that the DA chose to not prosecute in what he considers to be a trivial issue. I guess if some very important person files a complaint, it might get his attention. Incidentally, I was on a voluntary manslaughter jury many years ago. After the verdict, I asked the obviously unprepared assistant DA how much time he had to prepare his case. About 8 hours. It's like that even for major criminal cases.
Trivia: FCC rules-n-regs say that disclosing the content of the intercept to a third party is illegal. Never mind that it happens all the time in the media.
I don't recall reading the federal statutes anything about intent. Intent is one of the most difficult things to prove in court as it involves so many thing that cannot be demonstrated, produced, or measured.
So, the network security droid sniffs your laptops MAC address. Later, someone breaks into the network, makes a mess, and leaves. The authorities look at the log files and collect all the unauthorized MAC addresses. Since many wireless manufactories use the MAC address as the product serial number, the product is traceable to the laptop owner. This hasn't happened yet, but it's easy enough to do.
Yep. Been there. We caught a burglar in the act and pounded him into the ground. He was rescued by the police who arrested everyone in sight. The burglar eventually pleaded guilty. He then got an attorney who sued everyone involved (and some that were not) for physical and mental damages. Fortunately, the judge was not convinced but still awarded the burglar one dollar. The mainstay of his argument was the he "felt threatened" and was therefore only defending himself.
Maybe I'm not being terribly clear. In order, think first "is it right or wrong to do this"? After that, think "what can go wrong (evaluate the risks)"? Lastly, "Is it legal or illegal"?
As I said, I've been on both sides of the law. It takes a certain type of individual to get into law enforcement. I don't have what it takes.
It's after midnight, I'm still in the office waiting for the worlds slowest machine to backup a failing hard disk. Maybe law enforcement would be an improvement.
Incidentally, I have 3 cousins, all of which are attorneys, and all of which I've tried to talk out of becoming attorneys. However, none of them are specialists in criminal law, and are therefore marginally useful for asking legal questions. Oh well.
Sorry, I just meant to state what "I personally think". Most of which was in relationship more to what others have said than what you did.
Our experiences, which as you stated about yourself as being on "both sides" of the issue, tend to give us a very similar appreciation of just how scary someone going off half cocked is, if they just happen to have the authority to put you in jail.
It was absolutely disgusting. Robert Riggs, Grant Adams, and Frank Darden all served time. Adams and Darden were sentenced to 14 months, and Riggs to 21 months. Each was also ordered to pay $233,000 in restitution. (The sentences could have been 15 years for Riggs and 5 years for the other two; hence, they were under significant pressure to plea bargain.) Riggs was given extra time for several reasons, but one of them according to the prosecution's sentencing recommendation was his refusal to implicate Craig Niedorf... in which Riggs was being absolutely truthful.
In another case, Len Rose went to jail for possession of the login.c source code file!
Now, it happens that *I* had logins on most of the same Unix systems that those guys did: jolnet (I used to help Rich Andrews' kids with their homework!), killer, et al. And it happens that, after the hysteria caused in that case, someone twice tried to "get" me too, by telling people who were giving me access to various facilities that I was a potential "hacker" with criminal intent. (I was one of only two non-University people who had access to the Internet through the University of Alaska Fairbanks at the time, with a guest account on the computer system at the Institute of Marine Science. That was, in those days, the *only* Internet access in Alaska.) I was investigated by some national group like CERT or CPSR or whoever it was that was investigating potential security breakins in those days. And I was also investigated by a security audit team from Northern Telecom Inc.
All of which turned out to be fairly hilarious in the end, because of course these investigations made the accusers look like total idiots (they eventually lost their jobs, because they
*were* total idiots).
It happened that the guy who did the work for NTI later told me about the fun he had presenting his report. He had caught on to what was going on (not to mention that he knew me personally...), and made the most of it for his own entertainment! He sat down with said jerk, and started by telling him that this guy he investigated was a real piece of work, and apparently damned lazy. He said the man's ears shot up, and he knew he'd hooked him. Then he said something like, "Yeah, you ought to see all of the work saving software tools he's put together to make his job easier." Poooofffffff.
On the other hand, when the University of Alaska Computer Network (UACN) people got their report, they were not at all surprised by the report, but until then had not been in any position to actually talk to me about it. And boy did they want to! They asked me to stop by for a visit, which I'd never done before, and the whole office came in and sat down with me for a chat. What they wanted to know was what the heck was the matter with the two idiots they had been dealing with! (It was more than just the issues with me, one particular individual was on the Supercomputer User Group, or whatever it was called, as an industry representative, and his actions where less than sensible. So with this in hand they now had an opportunity to find out what the inside story was! I did not disappoint them either... I spilled the beans!)
And, Northern Telecom did a security audit of the company's entire system a couple years later, and that turned out to be another beaut too. They walked right into 2 of the 3 major toll switching systems in Alaska, and simulated stealing every bit of data in them. But data in the Fairbanks switch could not be accessed... because *I* sat there and watched what they were doing and refused to be persuaded that it was legitimate. They had the right words to gain initial access, but the first thing they did was way out of bounds. The second thing they did was look to see if I was watching. Then they spent several minutes on the phone trying to talk me into turning off the monitor, and gave up. I reported it as an attempted security breach, and didn't find out until perhaps a month later that I'd made the Fairbanks report into a one liner: "Fairbanks: Unable to gain access." The other two had lots of detail about the significance of what was "stolen" and how to correct the security holes. Nobody ever did though...
I *do* get intense about people going off half cocked about what is and is not legal in regard to various computer and telecom related legal issues. But then I'm one of the few people who have ever actually found an illegal wiretap on their work phone too... And it does give one a whole different perspective!
Another absolutely *disgusting* case.
Not just disclosure, but any *use* of the information is illegal. No horse bets, no stock purchases... and you can't tell the lady next door about it. (For people who end up listening to hundreds or thousands of other people talking on the phone, that is *important*.)
If you turn on your computer and it connects to something you don't know exists, you are not a criminal. If you know that is going to happen, turning on the computer is a crime.
I'm not sure what the order should be, but I'll agree that all three need to be considered.
You 1) aren't an asshole, and 2) don't want to become an asshole. :-)
I don't see what anyone who deals with the part of society that the criminal justice system works with can do to avoid it. I know police officers that have tried too. Some of them do things like get assigned to court duty, warrant service, administration, whatever works for them to isolate at least part of it. But a lot of them just quit and do something else. One guy told me that one day he got home and realized he had wanted to arrest about 20-30 college kids who heckled him. He said he realized *they* weren't wrong, and resigned a couple weeks later.
I only ever got to know one criminal attorney. He couldn't seem to get away from it because he was good. But he kept trying to do various civil trial work and let his partner's do the crime stuff. But somehow he ended up on all the serious cases they took on.
Most of the lawyers I know don't even practice law. It happens that I asked my daughter last night if she would ever practice law again (corporate, not trial) and she didn't hesitate even one second in saying she'd never go back to that.
On the other hand, a month ago I spent most of two days being interviewed by an attorney. He has an undergrad degree in engineering. He told me that it was interviews like that which made his job fun. He said *law* is *boring*, but every case requires that he learn a great deal of the background information about something... and he gets to interview people with the most diverse backgrounds and learn about the oddest of things!
You win Floyd. I see no sane benifit to continue exchanging ideas with a man that knows it all. It is amazing how many geniues there are on the newsgroups. Give yourself a pat on the back for another victory.
I guess I am just another criminal that deserves jail time for stumbling onto an open wireless connection and using it to connect to the internet. I have no ethcs, shame on me!
in the usa, anything you can plainly see while on public property or private property with permission is fair game for a photograph, unless there is a specific prohibition (i.e. a military base). property owners can restrict photography only while someone is *on* their property, not from other locations.
I read in the latest issue of MacAddict (June 05) an article about how to build a directional antenna and what software to use for searching for un-cripted wireless access points.
Kinda fits in with what we are discussing right here.
Shouldn't someone tell them that is illegal and downright imoral? I wonder if anyone at the magazine has been arrested or sued yet?
Roughly true. I wouldn't say you are immoral for telling him that, but it is a foolish thing to do (either you telling him that, or him do doing that).
That is *not* what they are promoting. They are promoting the
*legal*, *moral*, *sensible* use of those tools. They may not be writing articles on how to make that determination, but obviously others are, and you cannot insinuate that their emphasis on one thing (the tools) means they are not aware of or concerned with the rest of the topic. Nor are they suggesting that their readers should ignore the other concerns.
You are demonstrating exactly why it is ill advised to just tell people they can "assume it was OK unless he was informed otherwise". For whatever reason, some people are not able to get a perspective on just what is or is not sensible.
I'm not talking about interpreting the law, I'm talking about the idea of a victimless crime. Sorry, but whenever I see that phrase I instantly think someone is trying to justify something they know to be wrong.
Its not germane to the point I was making.
Not at all.
Why do you think it shouldn't be a crime to access someone elses' property? Would you be happy with someone 'accessing' your bank account, or pictures of your kids? Irrespective of whether they apparently stole anything from you or not?
You can accidentally wander into MoD land, and be politely escorted off. On the other hand, if you climb the fence at Porton Down, you may even get shot and will certainly get arrested.
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.