Slashdot Mirror
MD Bill Would Criminalize Theft of Wireless Access
Pickens writes "A bill presented by Delegate LeRoy E. Myers Jr. to the Maryland House of Delegates would criminalize purposely surfing the Internet on someone else's wireless connection. The bill would make intentional unauthorized access to another person's computer, network, database, or software a misdemeanor with a penalty up to three years imprisonment and a fine of up to $1,000. The Maryland public defender's office has submitted written testimony opposing the specific ban and penalty suggested in Myers' bill. Noting that wireless connections are becoming common in neighborhoods, the written testimony says: 'A more effective way to prevent unauthorized access would be for owners to secure their wireless networks with assistance where necessary from Internet service providers or vendors.'"
...in pre-XP windows, and pre-SP1 installations of XP.
Yey, my OS breaks the law for me!
Trackball users will be first against the wall.
Here in Toronto, Bell is already sending out wireless dsl routers with 128 bit WPA-PSK pre-configured, and the key printed on the base of the router. Hopefully, that'll soon be the norm everywhere.
Once everyone is using WPA, this is a non-issue. Even if an exploit is discovered that makes cracking WPA trivial, breaking encryption on someone else's network is clearly illegal, and it will be safe to assume that any unencrypted network is intended for public access.
I, for one, will not mourn the passing of a thousand light/water/keyhole/car-left-with-keys-in-ignition/radio/tv-through-window analogies.
Caps as in the original bill, emphasis mine.
"A person may not intentionally, willfully, and without
authorization access, attempt to access, cause to be accessed, or exceed the person's
authorized access to all or part of a computer network, computer control language,
computer, computer software, computer system, computer services OTHER THAN
WIRELESS INTERNET SERVICE, or computer database."
"A PERSON MAY NOT INTENTIONALLY, WILLFULLY, AND
WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION ACCESS, ATTEMPT TO ACCESS, CAUSE TO BE
ACCESSED, OR EXCEED THE PERSON'S AUTHORIZED ACCESS TO WIRELESS
INTERNET SERVICE WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT THE ACCESS IS UNAUTHORIZED
AND PROHIBITED BY LAW."
As I'm reading this, it seems like the most reasonable interpretation of the bill is: 1. You need authorization EXCEPT for wireless internet service, 2. When using wireless internet service, you may not access the service if you know that it's unauthorized and prohibited by law. It doesn't actually prohibit the access itself, it provides the fines for doing so if another law has made that access illegal.
Can any lawyers comment on this reading? Because it seems actually to be somewhat counter to the headline and summary, and actually somewhat benign.
How many people will be so intimidated by the whole process that they'll just accept whatever plea is offered?
Ditto those who don't have the several thousand dollars to hire a lawyer?
Ditto those who don't have the courage to tell the prosecutor "go fuck yourself - see you in court, numnuts - and you'd better have LOTS of proof ..."
Ditto those who don't want to "rock the boat"
Ditto those who can't afford to take time off work.
When a case goes to trial, even when you win, you usually end up losing. Its not like the other side has any "skin in the game." They still get paid, win or lose. Justice? Not for us.
Kevin Smith on Prince
3 years and $1000? I've seen people who have gotten less for rape of a minor. Does the punishment really need to be this severe?
"Capital punishment makes the state into a murderer. Imprisonment makes the state into a gay dungeon-master"