Reasonable doubt doesn't mean anything if you admit to a crime.
Yes it does. There are many people who have signed confessions and yet been found not guilty. It is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that A) I actually made this statement, not someone else, and B) That I was telling the truth at the time. They have to prove C) That the crime was committed recently enough to fall under the statute of limitations. And all of this has to be proven through admissible evidence. No self-incrimination. No hearsay.
If your neighbor turns up dead and you are overheard in a bar saying "I killed that bitch", fully expect to be charged with her murder.
And if that's the only evidence, expect to be found not guilty.
Whether or not you are convicted is another matter (you probably would be) but rest assured you will be charged if enough people come forward and testify that you actually said that.
Not in this scenario. You couldn't even get probable cause to get a warrant. There's no reason to believe that I am telling the truth. There's no evidence that a crime was even committed. If I was overheard in a bar saying that I killed a guy once, I wouldn't be arrested. That's a closer analogy to this than my neighbor dying and then me saying I killed him.
In any case I doubt a judge, jury, or DA would consider a pen sitting on a desk somewhere to be the equivalent of an Internet connection.
True. A pen can only be used by one person at a time. Borrowing it would be a much worse crime than using someone's internet connection.
Ah, but you just gave me permission to use it.
Well, you could have used it even before I gave you permission. As long as you don't harm anyone in any way, you can do whatever the hell you want with my stuff. But hey, I just gave you permission, so it doesn't apply... Oh well.
My whole point all along has been that using something that doesn't belong to you without permission is wrong and in most jurisdictions will be considered a crime.
And my whole point is that it may or may not be wrong depending on the circumstances, though it usually is a crime.
So you are impatient, greedy and want things that belong to someone else - let's face facts.
If that's what you want to call it, fine. If I want something, and I can get it without harming anyone, I'm going to take it. Is that greedy? I guess... Impatient? Sure...
It's a maximum of ten years.
Right. It's a maximum of ten years.
For your crimes you'd probably get a much less severe sentence.
The problem is that word probably. It shouldn't be possible for me to get 10 years for what I did. It shouldn't be possible for me to get any jail time whatsoever.
There are practical aspects like the pen being insignificant
Just like the internet access was insignificant.
but if you look at it by the letter of the law then you would still technically be wrong using the pen.
Like I said, I fully agree that what I did was probably illegal. That's what I'm complaining about.
I can see how you would want to use an analogy like this because a pen is so insignifcant and it helps trivialize the arguments against you, but a home internet connection isn't as insignificant as a pen.
That's just not true. My use of the other person's internet connection was insignificant.
There is also the issue of setting precedent. If one person can use a neighbour's connection to check email, then why not another for gaming, then why not another for downloading things they shouldn't be?
I dunno. Why not? If you don't want people sharing your connection, don't set up a device for the purpose of sharing your connection.
Unfortunately many people, it seems you are included, have this idea that if something can be taken electronically and "doesn't hurt anybody" then it's not a crime.
No. I've said it like 10 times now. It is a crime. It just shouldn't be.
Hence the ideas that downloading music without paying for it is perfectly acceptable, having an illicit cable tv connection is okay or using someone else's wifi network is alright.
Sounds good to me.
Many people's justification for this stance is nothing more than the idea that if something is available it can be taken. The onus is on you not be immoral; security is simply compensation for people who cannot control their urges and greed.
Sure. But if you're not hurting anyone, then what you're doing is not immoral.
Here you are giving permission, but the point was that " I can take your lawn mower and mow my lawn without your permission".
Well what else can I say? It seems to me the person being greedy is the one who is hoarding the lawn mower for no good reason.
Perhaps you cannot address this point because your arguements hold no water. If I am wrong, then please have another try.
What point? That you can take my lawn mower without my permission? I don't see how that is a point.
Unfortunately you seem to be in a deep state of denial and so arguing with you is almost pointless.
Fair enough. Stop arguing with me then. We're at an impasse anyway. I think it's perfectly moral to use something which is owned by someone else so long as you don't hurt anyone. You seem to define using something which is owned by someone else as hurting someone in and of itself. To me, you seem to be the one in denial. You don't want to share.
I've secured mine. And it's for two reasons. First of all, I'm too lazy to set up a DMZ between my intranet and the internet. I run windows on my laptop, and I don't want people breaking into my computer. I don't care if they leech internet access, and I don't really care if they sniff my unencrypted traffic, but I don't want to have to worry about every little Windows exploit that comes along. So I set up a firewall to keep the internet out. That would be pointless if I let anyone with an 802.11 card in.
Secondly, if someone got on my network and started doing illegal things, I could very easily lose my internet access (running an open access point is probably against the ISPs rules anyway), and I could possibly even be sued for negligence. But my main reason is the first one. I just don't trust Windows.
I drew the analogy to refute the whining hordes who post in repsonse to this kind of story, all of them trying to assert, in their own semi-literate fashion, that a crime isn't a crime when "no one is hurt".
Well that's kind of obvious, isn't it. A crime is always a crime. That's what makes it a crime. If it wasn't a crime, then it wouldn't be a crime. But it is a crime, so it's a crime.
The fact that you found one exception in NJ code (or, so you say) doesn't bear on that point.
I guess I got confused when you replied to me. I figured you were trying to tell me something I didn't already know.
WOW. OK... I finally realize what happened here. I was reading the 3rd circuit appeals court ruling. But the California Supreme Court overturned that ruling. Now, some quotes:
After reviewing the decisions analyzing unauthorized electronic contact with computer systems as potential trespasses to chattels, we conclude that under California law the tort does not encompass, and should not be extended to encompass, an electronic communication that neither damages the recipient computer system nor impairs its functioning.
This is a ruling on 6/30/2003 by the Supreme Court of California. Unless you can show me a later ruling by the Supreme Court of California, or can somehow argue that the US Constitution overrules this law, then it is undisputably fact. Any other rulings you point to which conflict with this are either 1) not in California, or 2) overruled.
So Glidden v. Szybiak was upheld. It isn't trespass to chattels unless there is harm caused to the thing you are using.
I'm going to go back and reread Intel v Hamidi, because I'm completely confused now. I'll get back to you, maybe, if I can manage to get unconfused.
Lastly, what is "knowingly using something that doesn't belong to you" defined as in your world?
What is it defined as? You're asking for a single word, or short phrase, I assume.
Knowingly using something that doesn't belong to you... Obviously you mean knowingly using something that belongs to someone else without permission... I don't think one can sum that up in a single word. But it's certainly not stealing. If I need a pen, and there's one lying in front of me, and I use it, would you call that stealing? I highly doubt most people would. If someone has a swimming pool in their backyard, and I use it without permission, would you call that stealing? I doubt most people would. If someone has a mirror in their bathroom, and I use it to check my hair... OK, OK, I'm sure you'll object to that one.
Are you seriously proposing that laws against breaking and entering or trespass are "disproved" because you say you went to a "fire school" in which you claim someone said you could break into a house with impunity if it was on fire?
No, I never disproved a law. I disproved your statement that "Your reason for breaking into my house are irrelevant."
Furthermore, state law is perfectly clear on this point. I'd show you the law, but http://lis.njleg.state.nj.us/ is down (as is all too common).
In any case, none of your posturing is relevant to the issue at hand: Believing that theft is not theft does not make the thief any less guilty.
Oh, is that the issue? Then we're in perfect agreement.
Doesn't surprise me since it's a logical followup to my line of reasoning.
Security has nothing to do with abandonment. Abandonment is a function of possession, and possession has nothing to do with protecting property
What is possession, then, if it has nothing to do with protecting property?
While securing land by means of a fence is ONE way to demonstrate ownership, it is not the only one, or even the most common.
Of course not. I never said it was.
If I pay taxes on a piece of land that I own, and never see it, never fence it or develop it, and ignore it completely, as long as I pay the taxes, it's mine.
If you own it, it's yours. You're begging the question.
And as far as the house/tree thing, you're just being pedantic.
Only because I'm responding to you being pedantic.
I happened to pick up an 802.11 signal from the place next door, so I used it.
I didn't harm anyone.
That's not for you to decide -- that's for the aggrieved party and the police.
Umm, it's not for anyone to decide. It's a true fact.
If you steal services, you have to be prepared to face the consequences.
Bring it on.
If their front door had been left open overnight, and you'd walked in and made a few phone calls, would that have been OK too?
Sure, why not? As long as I don't harm anyone, there's nothing wrong with it.
What if you'd called your drug dealer?
I don't have a drug dealer. But no, in and of itself it wouldn't have been wrong. Illegal, certainly, but wrong and illegal are two completely different things.
It was decided in favor of Hamidi, because Intel failed to conclusively prove damage.
WT... So when you said that "USE of others property, regardless of whether it has interfered with the owners use, is actionable," you were wrong? Hamidi used the property of another, right? And yet it was found to not be actionable, right?
The reason the case failed was that at the lower court level, Intel argued damages based on the content of the emails, instead of the quantity. The court held that had Intel argued at the lower court level that the volume of e-mail was damaging, they probably would have won.
That doesn't make sense, shouldn't the case be retried, then? Intel never argued that the volume of e-mail wasn't damaging, did they?
You made the statement that "knowingly using something that doesn't belong to you...is otherwise known as stealing." But that's incorrect. Stealing is when you take something, not when you use something.
Even if you did win, the exception does not prove the rule.
Of course not. The exception disproves the rule.
Using a portion of the bandwidth purchased by someone else without that person's permission is theft, as defined by the law of Canada.
Yep, sure is.
Your analogy about fires is irrelevant; the kind of stuff sophomores try in debating class or after one too many beers.
I never made an analogy. You made a statement: "Your reason for breaking into my house are irrelevant." I disproved your statement. That's how the example of fires came into play.
Secondly, your definiton of ownership is absurd. Every definiton I've ever seen says that ownership is defined as exclusive leagl right to posession. The law doesn't require one to provide "security" in order to prove ownership.
It does, though. If you abandon something, eventually you don't own it any more. This isn't something which comes up a lot, but it is part of the law.
I came into ownership of my house, which was NEVER public.
Sure it was. At one point your house was a tree. And that tree was public. Then someone acquired either the land that the tree was on, or the tree itself. Then that ownership was eventually passed on to you.
That's tort law, we're talking about criminal law.
Hmm, maybe. I'd still like to see where mere use of something that doesn't belong to you is defined as stealing, cause I don't think it is.
That means that USE of others property, regardless of whether it has interfered with the owners use, is actionable.
Always? I don't know. I thought Intel v. Hamidi was decided in favor of Hamidi. But apparently it wasn't. I'm going to have to look further into this. But you're probably right.
Well, no, my statement was after you sort the two lists it's an O(1,000,000) job. And I'm basically using shorthand notation anyway. I should be using little o or something. Anyway, yeah, index based sort on psuedorandom data. Assuming the list isn't already sorted, which it probably will be. And the generated list could be sorted as you build it. Or you could just check against a hash table as you generate keys.
But hey, as someone else pointed out, the real solution is to use a salt on each entry. Then the dictionary attack becomes completely unfeasible.
And by the way, I just want to say that google rocks. I wanted to find the natural log of 1,000,000, and was just about to download a calculator, then I remembered... I just typed in "natural log of 1,000,000" into google and got the answer, 13.8155106.
That would work. I'd definately support that. Make sure the salt is a bit (not that kind of bit) better than the/etc/passwd two characters, and you've got a decently secure list.
I still think they should allow full domains to be put on the list, though:). I'd certainly like to put my domain on there.
I don't know where you live, but there is no requirement for a "no trespassing" sign on my house.
Not on your house, because your house is protected.
However, if I leave the door open and you come inside, you've broken the law (unlawful entry, the bastard cousin of breaking and entering without the breaking)
First of all, it's still breaking and entering. Secondly, as I said, the house itself is considered protection against trespassing.
I'm referring to walking on someone's property which is completely unprotected. Like the woods in your backyard. There you have to have a "no trespassing" sign in order for there to be criminal charges.
The lack of security is irrelevant, you must have explicit permission.
Wrong. Security is what defines ownership. Otherwise, how are we to say who owns what? You come into ownership of something which was previously public by possession and protection.
One can always conjure extraordinary circumstances. The possibility that something extremely unusual or rare might happen doesn't nullify the intent of the law.
One should be more careful to consider extraordinary circumstances before making unequivical statements. As I said, I'd need a realy good reason before I'd do it. But if I had one, then I'd win the case.
However, if you broke into my house while it was on fire, you're defense would be considerably weaker.
No. I'd win. I'm sure of it.
If I was not at home, or if you made no attempt to warn me, I will certainly argue that forcing an entry through a second-floor window, rather than using the front door, is evidence of breaking and entering and an intent to use the fire to camouflage your activities.
Of course. Try before you pry, is what they taught us in fire school. I'm not going to go in through a second floor window unless there are some pretty unusual circumstances. But if those circumstances ever arose, I'd break in, and if you had the balls to file charges, I'd beat them.
You're knowingly using something that doesn't belong to you, which is otherwise known as stealing.
No, it's known as trespass to chattels. Stealing would be if you physically remove that something that doesn't belong to you. And according to Glidden v. Szybiak it isn't even trespass to chattels unless there is harm caused to the thing you are using. So no, it's not stealing. It's not even trespass to chattel. It's might be electronic trespass, but I don't know the specifics of the law here in the US.
Your reason for breaking into my house are irrelevant.
No it's not.
Entering a house without permission is usually defined as trespassing. Opening a second-floor window and entering a house without permission sounds to me like breaking and entering.
Usually. But what if your house is on fire? Then it's not breaking and entering, and if you sued me you'd lose.
If you open a second-floot window in my house, walk around the living room, and leave by the same window, you may not have done me or the house any physical harm, but you'd better believe I'm filing charges.
I wouldn't do that without a really good reason, so you probably wouldn't win that case.
I agree that you don't deserve 10 years in prison for stealing bandwidth, but how about 30 days and a hefty fine?
How about nothing since I didn't steal anything?
Every time/. posts a story like this, a bunch of folks get on and whine that no one was harmed and that no crime was committed. That's silly. Crimes are defined in the criminal codes. You may disagree sometimes, but your disagreement is no defense in court.
At what point, legally, do you hold consumers responsible for locking down their own equipment to prevent unauthorized use?
I think we should use the same rules as trespassing laws. If it's unprotected, then you have to have some sort of "no trespassing" sign. If you haven't put up some sort of "no trespassing" sign (the law could specify the means by which this sign is put up, for instance in some states if you paint a purple spot on a tree every so many feet that means no trespassing), then you can only be charged civilly with actual damages.
So if some one leaves a computer on the side of the street and you sit down and use it is that against the law.
Where I live, scavaging is technically illegal, so technically, yes.
If some one doesnt deny public access to something, then why should the public get in trouble for using it.
I agree. In order to be considered to have ownership of something you should at least make some token effort at protecting it. At the very least you should put up some sort of notice that it is yours. We require "no trespassing" signs in order to charge someone criminally for trespassing on unprotected (unfenced) property. You can still be held civally liable for any actual damage you do, but in order to be charged criminally there needs to be a "no tresspassing" sign. Why shouldn't we do the same with internet access?
Slashdot Mirror
No, but I would call it trespassing.
Exactly. And likewise using someone else's internet connection isn't stealing. It might be electronic trespass, but it isn't stealing.
Reasonable doubt doesn't mean anything if you admit to a crime.
Yes it does. There are many people who have signed confessions and yet been found not guilty. It is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that A) I actually made this statement, not someone else, and B) That I was telling the truth at the time. They have to prove C) That the crime was committed recently enough to fall under the statute of limitations. And all of this has to be proven through admissible evidence. No self-incrimination. No hearsay.
If your neighbor turns up dead and you are overheard in a bar saying "I killed that bitch", fully expect to be charged with her murder.
And if that's the only evidence, expect to be found not guilty.
Whether or not you are convicted is another matter (you probably would be) but rest assured you will be charged if enough people come forward and testify that you actually said that.
Not in this scenario. You couldn't even get probable cause to get a warrant. There's no reason to believe that I am telling the truth. There's no evidence that a crime was even committed. If I was overheard in a bar saying that I killed a guy once, I wouldn't be arrested. That's a closer analogy to this than my neighbor dying and then me saying I killed him.
In any case I doubt a judge, jury, or DA would consider a pen sitting on a desk somewhere to be the equivalent of an Internet connection.
True. A pen can only be used by one person at a time. Borrowing it would be a much worse crime than using someone's internet connection.
Ah, but you just gave me permission to use it.
Well, you could have used it even before I gave you permission. As long as you don't harm anyone in any way, you can do whatever the hell you want with my stuff. But hey, I just gave you permission, so it doesn't apply... Oh well.
My whole point all along has been that using something that doesn't belong to you without permission is wrong and in most jurisdictions will be considered a crime.
And my whole point is that it may or may not be wrong depending on the circumstances, though it usually is a crime.
So you are impatient, greedy and want things that belong to someone else - let's face facts.
If that's what you want to call it, fine. If I want something, and I can get it without harming anyone, I'm going to take it. Is that greedy? I guess... Impatient? Sure...
It's a maximum of ten years.
Right. It's a maximum of ten years.
For your crimes you'd probably get a much less severe sentence.
The problem is that word probably. It shouldn't be possible for me to get 10 years for what I did. It shouldn't be possible for me to get any jail time whatsoever.
There are practical aspects like the pen being insignificant
Just like the internet access was insignificant.
but if you look at it by the letter of the law then you would still technically be wrong using the pen.
Like I said, I fully agree that what I did was probably illegal. That's what I'm complaining about.
I can see how you would want to use an analogy like this because a pen is so insignifcant and it helps trivialize the arguments against you, but a home internet connection isn't as insignificant as a pen.
That's just not true. My use of the other person's internet connection was insignificant.
There is also the issue of setting precedent. If one person can use a neighbour's connection to check email, then why not another for gaming, then why not another for downloading things they shouldn't be?
I dunno. Why not? If you don't want people sharing your connection, don't set up a device for the purpose of sharing your connection.
Unfortunately many people, it seems you are included, have this idea that if something can be taken electronically and "doesn't hurt anybody" then it's not a crime.
No. I've said it like 10 times now. It is a crime. It just shouldn't be.
Hence the ideas that downloading music without paying for it is perfectly acceptable, having an illicit cable tv connection is okay or using someone else's wifi network is alright.
Sounds good to me.
Many people's justification for this stance is nothing more than the idea that if something is available it can be taken. The onus is on you not be immoral; security is simply compensation for people who cannot control their urges and greed.
Sure. But if you're not hurting anyone, then what you're doing is not immoral.
Here you are giving permission, but the point was that " I can take your lawn mower and mow my lawn without your permission".
Well what else can I say? It seems to me the person being greedy is the one who is hoarding the lawn mower for no good reason.
Perhaps you cannot address this point because your arguements hold no water. If I am wrong, then please have another try.
What point? That you can take my lawn mower without my permission? I don't see how that is a point.
Unfortunately you seem to be in a deep state of denial and so arguing with you is almost pointless.
Fair enough. Stop arguing with me then. We're at an impasse anyway. I think it's perfectly moral to use something which is owned by someone else so long as you don't hurt anyone. You seem to define using something which is owned by someone else as hurting someone in and of itself. To me, you seem to be the one in denial. You don't want to share.
You'd think he would be more careful. Driving the wrong way up a one way street, no pants, whacking off to kiddie porn? This guy was asking for it!
Maybe he was just a libertarian. They don't want laws against any of those things.
Secure those AP's folks.
I've secured mine. And it's for two reasons. First of all, I'm too lazy to set up a DMZ between my intranet and the internet. I run windows on my laptop, and I don't want people breaking into my computer. I don't care if they leech internet access, and I don't really care if they sniff my unencrypted traffic, but I don't want to have to worry about every little Windows exploit that comes along. So I set up a firewall to keep the internet out. That would be pointless if I let anyone with an 802.11 card in.
Secondly, if someone got on my network and started doing illegal things, I could very easily lose my internet access (running an open access point is probably against the ISPs rules anyway), and I could possibly even be sued for negligence. But my main reason is the first one. I just don't trust Windows.
I drew the analogy to refute the whining hordes who post in repsonse to this kind of story, all of them trying to assert, in their own semi-literate fashion, that a crime isn't a crime when "no one is hurt".
Well that's kind of obvious, isn't it. A crime is always a crime. That's what makes it a crime. If it wasn't a crime, then it wouldn't be a crime. But it is a crime, so it's a crime.
The fact that you found one exception in NJ code (or, so you say) doesn't bear on that point.
I guess I got confused when you replied to me. I figured you were trying to tell me something I didn't already know.
WOW. OK... I finally realize what happened here. I was reading the 3rd circuit appeals court ruling. But the California Supreme Court overturned that ruling. Now, some quotes:
This is a ruling on 6/30/2003 by the Supreme Court of California. Unless you can show me a later ruling by the Supreme Court of California, or can somehow argue that the US Constitution overrules this law, then it is undisputably fact. Any other rulings you point to which conflict with this are either 1) not in California, or 2) overruled.
So Glidden v. Szybiak was upheld. It isn't trespass to chattels unless there is harm caused to the thing you are using.
I'm going to go back and reread Intel v Hamidi, because I'm completely confused now. I'll get back to you, maybe, if I can manage to get unconfused.
Lastly, what is "knowingly using something that doesn't belong to you" defined as in your world?
What is it defined as? You're asking for a single word, or short phrase, I assume.
Knowingly using something that doesn't belong to you... Obviously you mean knowingly using something that belongs to someone else without permission... I don't think one can sum that up in a single word. But it's certainly not stealing. If I need a pen, and there's one lying in front of me, and I use it, would you call that stealing? I highly doubt most people would. If someone has a swimming pool in their backyard, and I use it without permission, would you call that stealing? I doubt most people would. If someone has a mirror in their bathroom, and I use it to check my hair... OK, OK, I'm sure you'll object to that one.
No, the exception doesn't disprove the rule.
Sure it does.
Are you seriously proposing that laws against breaking and entering or trespass are "disproved" because you say you went to a "fire school" in which you claim someone said you could break into a house with impunity if it was on fire?
No, I never disproved a law. I disproved your statement that "Your reason for breaking into my house are irrelevant."
Furthermore, state law is perfectly clear on this point. I'd show you the law, but http://lis.njleg.state.nj.us/ is down (as is all too common).
In any case, none of your posturing is relevant to the issue at hand: Believing that theft is not theft does not make the thief any less guilty.
Oh, is that the issue? Then we're in perfect agreement.
I knew you were going to get to this.
Doesn't surprise me since it's a logical followup to my line of reasoning.
Security has nothing to do with abandonment. Abandonment is a function of possession, and possession has nothing to do with protecting property
What is possession, then, if it has nothing to do with protecting property?
While securing land by means of a fence is ONE way to demonstrate ownership, it is not the only one, or even the most common.
Of course not. I never said it was.
If I pay taxes on a piece of land that I own, and never see it, never fence it or develop it, and ignore it completely, as long as I pay the taxes, it's mine.
If you own it, it's yours. You're begging the question.
And as far as the house/tree thing, you're just being pedantic.
Only because I'm responding to you being pedantic.
I happened to pick up an 802.11 signal from the place next door, so I used it.
I didn't harm anyone.
That's not for you to decide -- that's for the aggrieved party and the police.
Umm, it's not for anyone to decide. It's a true fact.
If you steal services, you have to be prepared to face the consequences.
Bring it on.
If their front door had been left open overnight, and you'd walked in and made a few phone calls, would that have been OK too?
Sure, why not? As long as I don't harm anyone, there's nothing wrong with it.
What if you'd called your drug dealer?
I don't have a drug dealer. But no, in and of itself it wouldn't have been wrong. Illegal, certainly, but wrong and illegal are two completely different things.
It was decided in favor of Hamidi, because Intel failed to conclusively prove damage.
WT... So when you said that "USE of others property, regardless of whether it has interfered with the owners use, is actionable," you were wrong? Hamidi used the property of another, right? And yet it was found to not be actionable, right?
The reason the case failed was that at the lower court level, Intel argued damages based on the content of the emails, instead of the quantity. The court held that had Intel argued at the lower court level that the volume of e-mail was damaging, they probably would have won.
That doesn't make sense, shouldn't the case be retried, then? Intel never argued that the volume of e-mail wasn't damaging, did they?
You made the statement that "knowingly using something that doesn't belong to you...is otherwise known as stealing." But that's incorrect. Stealing is when you take something, not when you use something.
Even if you did win, the exception does not prove the rule.
Of course not. The exception disproves the rule.
Using a portion of the bandwidth purchased by someone else without that person's permission is theft, as defined by the law of Canada.
Yep, sure is.
Your analogy about fires is irrelevant; the kind of stuff sophomores try in debating class or after one too many beers.
I never made an analogy. You made a statement: "Your reason for breaking into my house are irrelevant." I disproved your statement. That's how the example of fires came into play.
Secondly, your definiton of ownership is absurd. Every definiton I've ever seen says that ownership is defined as exclusive leagl right to posession. The law doesn't require one to provide "security" in order to prove ownership.
It does, though. If you abandon something, eventually you don't own it any more. This isn't something which comes up a lot, but it is part of the law.
I came into ownership of my house, which was NEVER public.
Sure it was. At one point your house was a tree. And that tree was public. Then someone acquired either the land that the tree was on, or the tree itself. Then that ownership was eventually passed on to you.
That's tort law, we're talking about criminal law.
Hmm, maybe. I'd still like to see where mere use of something that doesn't belong to you is defined as stealing, cause I don't think it is.
That means that USE of others property, regardless of whether it has interfered with the owners use, is actionable.
Always? I don't know. I thought Intel v. Hamidi was decided in favor of Hamidi. But apparently it wasn't. I'm going to have to look further into this. But you're probably right.
Well, no, my statement was after you sort the two lists it's an O(1,000,000) job. And I'm basically using shorthand notation anyway. I should be using little o or something. Anyway, yeah, index based sort on psuedorandom data. Assuming the list isn't already sorted, which it probably will be. And the generated list could be sorted as you build it. Or you could just check against a hash table as you generate keys.
But hey, as someone else pointed out, the real solution is to use a salt on each entry. Then the dictionary attack becomes completely unfeasible.
And by the way, I just want to say that google rocks. I wanted to find the natural log of 1,000,000, and was just about to download a calculator, then I remembered... I just typed in "natural log of 1,000,000" into google and got the answer, 13.8155106.
That would work. I'd definately support that. Make sure the salt is a bit (not that kind of bit) better than the /etc/passwd two characters, and you've got a decently secure list.
I still think they should allow full domains to be put on the list, though :). I'd certainly like to put my domain on there.
I don't know where you live, but there is no requirement for a "no trespassing" sign on my house.
Not on your house, because your house is protected.
However, if I leave the door open and you come inside, you've broken the law (unlawful entry, the bastard cousin of breaking and entering without the breaking)
First of all, it's still breaking and entering. Secondly, as I said, the house itself is considered protection against trespassing.
I'm referring to walking on someone's property which is completely unprotected. Like the woods in your backyard. There you have to have a "no trespassing" sign in order for there to be criminal charges.
The lack of security is irrelevant, you must have explicit permission.
Wrong. Security is what defines ownership. Otherwise, how are we to say who owns what? You come into ownership of something which was previously public by possession and protection.
One can always conjure extraordinary circumstances. The possibility that something extremely unusual or rare might happen doesn't nullify the intent of the law.
One should be more careful to consider extraordinary circumstances before making unequivical statements. As I said, I'd need a realy good reason before I'd do it. But if I had one, then I'd win the case.
However, if you broke into my house while it was on fire, you're defense would be considerably weaker.
No. I'd win. I'm sure of it.
If I was not at home, or if you made no attempt to warn me, I will certainly argue that forcing an entry through a second-floor window, rather than using the front door, is evidence of breaking and entering and an intent to use the fire to camouflage your activities.
Of course. Try before you pry, is what they taught us in fire school. I'm not going to go in through a second floor window unless there are some pretty unusual circumstances. But if those circumstances ever arose, I'd break in, and if you had the balls to file charges, I'd beat them.
You're knowingly using something that doesn't belong to you, which is otherwise known as stealing.
No, it's known as trespass to chattels. Stealing would be if you physically remove that something that doesn't belong to you. And according to Glidden v. Szybiak it isn't even trespass to chattels unless there is harm caused to the thing you are using. So no, it's not stealing. It's not even trespass to chattel. It's might be electronic trespass, but I don't know the specifics of the law here in the US.
Your reason for breaking into my house are irrelevant.
No it's not.
Entering a house without permission is usually defined as trespassing. Opening a second-floor window and entering a house without permission sounds to me like breaking and entering.
Usually. But what if your house is on fire? Then it's not breaking and entering, and if you sued me you'd lose.
Anything that you do that is against the law could be (and often is) prosecuted whether you knew it was a crime or not.
That's not true. Some crimes require that you know that what you are doing is illegal. For instance, the DMCA (that's how Elcomsoft was acquitted).
If you open a second-floot window in my house, walk around the living room, and leave by the same window, you may not have done me or the house any physical harm, but you'd better believe I'm filing charges.
I wouldn't do that without a really good reason, so you probably wouldn't win that case.
I agree that you don't deserve 10 years in prison for stealing bandwidth, but how about 30 days and a hefty fine?
How about nothing since I didn't steal anything?
Every time /. posts a story like this, a bunch of folks get on and whine that no one was harmed and that no crime was committed. That's silly. Crimes are defined in the criminal codes. You may disagree sometimes, but your disagreement is no defense in court.
I never said that no crime was committed.
At what point, legally, do you hold consumers responsible for locking down their own equipment to prevent unauthorized use?
I think we should use the same rules as trespassing laws. If it's unprotected, then you have to have some sort of "no trespassing" sign. If you haven't put up some sort of "no trespassing" sign (the law could specify the means by which this sign is put up, for instance in some states if you paint a purple spot on a tree every so many feet that means no trespassing), then you can only be charged civilly with actual damages.
So if some one leaves a computer on the side of the street and you sit down and use it is that against the law.
Where I live, scavaging is technically illegal, so technically, yes.
If some one doesnt deny public access to something, then why should the public get in trouble for using it.
I agree. In order to be considered to have ownership of something you should at least make some token effort at protecting it. At the very least you should put up some sort of notice that it is yours. We require "no trespassing" signs in order to charge someone criminally for trespassing on unprotected (unfenced) property. You can still be held civally liable for any actual damage you do, but in order to be charged criminally there needs to be a "no tresspassing" sign. Why shouldn't we do the same with internet access?