No, you're talking about a store analogy that I've rejected. I'm talking about the actual network, and you repeatedly say that it's giving you permission to use it because it's open. It's not any more permission than a door's openness permits you through it would translate into the owner giving you permission to be there.
And I reject your analogy that open wifi is analogous to an open door. I'veprobably said that already.
The above is not arguing, it's deceptions and fallacy. You're being fallacious. If you understood any of that you'd produce sound arguments. You're not going to persuade here with nonsense.
Ok, I can do the whole dismissive hand waving thing too: there is nothing fallacious about those statements.
They do not have a sign on them,
They DO have a sign on them. A broadcast multiple times per second on apublic radio frequency with security status. An active request-response between client and router. I could go on... It is so well advertised that, as many other people have mentioned, it is easy for an even an unskilled user to even _accidentally_ use that AP.
They do not have a sign on them, but if they did, I'd argue much like with the store, you should still not rely on anonymous signs as permission as the owner may still not have meant it, and if he didn't, you're breaking the law. And however irresponsible, the unaware network owner is not breaking the law, and if he was, it doesn't make you any less liable. It's not a defense.
[...]
Slashdot is not my neighbors' wifi.
I'm not saying that all signs must be ignored. I'm saying the one's that don't truly give you jurisdiction or rights should be treated with skepticism, especially when ignoring them opens you up to criminalliabilities, like a private network configured open by default, or an open door, or an unattended building with allegedly free stuff. Ignorance and the irresponsibility of others is no defense here.
And now you've finally agreed that not all such signs must be ignored, but now you simply draw the line at which ones those are arbitrarily. What, exactly, to you, is a sign that gives you rights? What the law says? That would be very little in the case of open wifi. And "X is not wifi" - THAT'S your answer to my question?
You're simply being arbitrary and saying "well it is my personal moral opinion that this is wrong, therefore it is wrong! Any attempt to say otherwise is illogical and lacking in common sense".
And I never even brought the whole issue of wether or not random open wifi use is LEGAL or not. I flat out said so several replies ago. In fact, there was a story on slashdot months ago where someone was arrested in wisconsin I believe for using an open coffee shop wifi AP from his car. He plead guilty to some minor charge and paid a fine. If your moral standard is simply "whatever is legal is right and whatever is illegal is wrong", then stop wasting your time. I'll be happy to agree that open AP use might be illegal. There is no point in arguing over what is or is not black letter law.
That a door is open and permits you entrance does not mean that you have a legal permit to be there. The same applies to a network.
I never said it did. I said that PLUS an open sign on the front door of a store does.
If someone puts a sign on my house that says "Free Stuff; do what you like" with the door open and you decide to help yourself even though no one's home, you would be truly naive to think it's okay to enter and take everything.
Because noone ever puts such signs on their property intentionally.
Why is it necessary for you to argue what doing business means and every other fine detail?
Because you brought it up and it is different from what I was talking about. I was talking about being in an unoccupied store. There's a difference. Even if you dismiss it as pedantry.
Trading money or goods or getting free samples is what's meant by business but that or the sign doesn't make it okay for you to be there. The presence of clerks does. It's common sense.
That's your opinion then, not mine. You think it is morally wrong to be in an unoccupied but marked open store for any length of time. You aren't making it make any sense to me, but clearly state that you believe it.
If you are going to admit that the store is not open for business because there's a lack of a clerk then what the hell are you doing in there removing merchandise? You have no business in there then. That's trespassing and theft.
I did not admit they weren't "open for business", depending on how you define that phrase. I said I could not buy something if there is no clerk. I can, however, look at things, try things, and simply be in there.
A sign in the absence of a clerk does not mean you have permission.
Permission to BE there? Why? You're waving your hand and merely stating your opinion and saying its common sense.
Open for business because the door was open with a sign, yet absent a clerk is not analogous to an unsecured network. I reject your argument so make a better one.
Well I've been rejecting your own analogies with actual arguments for a while now...
Let's say the clerk was murdered in the back, and there's a "Free" suitcase filled with cocaine. You throw it in your trunk and drive off. You get pulled over. You can't argue Mistake of Fact here because you should have looked in the suitcase and you should have checked to see if everything was legitimate, just as with a network. The fact that you didn't when you have every right and responsibility to verify legitimacy proves that you are in possession of cocaine. You could even make it $1000 from the safe and conceal it in a box of something else. The same would apply. Ignorance is not an excuse here.
So you're using that legal example to argue that the owner of an open AP is legally responsible for the activities of people who use it?
That obviously doesn't apply to computer networks, otherwise ISP and hosting companies could be legally held liable for their customer's or user's actions (anonymous or not). This is legally not the case for copyright infringment cases at least, per section 512 of the DMCA (aka the safe harbor clause). I don't know what it leagally means for other crimes, but the usual procedure is a law enforcement agency/court/victim asks the provider of service to the abuser to A) stop providing service to the abuser and B) provide any information about the abuser to LEA/court/vicim/etc.
I've been working for tech companies since 1997 or so and since then I can recall two instances where one of our systems had been broken into and then used to commit other crimes, and several other instances where someone we were intentionally provided access to was doing
If you really think you've answered anything effectively then you need to go back to logic school or get your sociopathic head examined.
Someone who completely ignores my arguments and simply repeats the same things but starts calling me "imbecile" here and "idiot" there tells me I need to go back to logic school... very interesting...
Permission to be in a store is not exclusively dictated by the absence of a clerks authority or signage. In fact it's more the opposite. A clerk would need to be present to oversee the store, sign or not, as common sense dictates, a store with merchandise and valuables that could be stolen would not be left unattended.
But do tell me how an empty store and a sign are going to conduct businessa nd decide when you've over-stayed your welcome.And don't forget to tell your sign to lock up at night and secure the perimeter. You imbecile.
Equivocation: Open network = Open Store, Open Privilege, etc.. Even when a store is mysteriously empty you assume that it's okay to enter and do business.
None of this has anything to do with your assertion that being in an unattended store is breaking and entering or trespassing, and that taking an item mistakenly placed on a free samples stand is theft because I'm not "doing business". I never said I was. That would inolve me buying something which I by definition cannot do in an unattended store. And when I've overstayed my welcome was already established: it is when the stated closing time ocurrs or a clerk tells me to leave.
I said it was ok to enter and be there simply because of the sign and you said that was criminal in various ways.
Fine. Then much like a network, make it a plain building with an open door. It's not permission to enter. You would be trespassing.
It is not like that at all. The network is not unmarked and passively "there" with no expressions on it.
You even said earlier that you could drive a car if you were accidentally given permission but than later recanted that when I described a car that said "Free" and had the keys in the ignition. Why? Because you figured out it could have been a mistake.
For the second time, no, I decided it was not ok in your example because A) anyone can put any sign on any car they want - there is no indication whatsoever that the owner put the sign there himself, and B) keys in an ignition is not an expression of permission to take a car.
That's the whole issue you've been trying so desperately to avoid. That many networks are open by mistake.
I'm not avoiding that at all - I completely acknowledge that networks are left open by mistake. It is the ENTIRE POINT of what I'm saying - that if the OWNER makes a MISTAKE and leaves signs around saying "I'm open", because the OWNER made a MISTAKE in giving me permission, I could not have done wrong.
If I were using his property contrary to his communicated permission to me, only then am I doing wrong. This is a COMPLETELY different situation.
But by avoiding that you create absurd conclusions that signs and computers and cars are sentient and capable of making and discerning those who should be granted legal privileges to property and not their human owners.
I came to the conclusion that computers and cars are sentient? I said nothing of the sort. Here, lets try this once again but with bullet points. I wonder if you'll continue to ignore it, put words in my mouth, and simply call me a sociopath or an imbecile or an idiot. I said this:
* There are impersonal expressions of permission, like signs.
* Those impersonal expressions can be contrary to the owner's actual intent sometimes.
* When we encounter these impersonal forms of permission we HAVE to be able to assume that they are true because it is impractical to directly seek personal permission directly from the owner all the time.
All they had to do was accept the cert and they would have been protected.
And then all you'd have to do to 0wn them in that case is intercept the TCP connection from them to the web server and present a similar looking certificate with a key of your choosing.
Then all they'd have to do is accept the cert and they would have been protected.... right...
Using certificates is about one thing - encrypted communication between browser A and server B. That's it. [...]it gives no guarantee whatsoever of who you are talking to
No they aren't. Also, there is no point in encrypting between A and B if A and B have no idea who each other are. A or B could in fact be one of the very people you're using encryption to protect your communications from. You have no idea.
I would assume I might be trespassing as soon as I find an absence of a clerk in a typical store
You would be wrong. Every definition of the word "trespass" I see on google necessarily involves a lack of permission to enter property. Obviously you have that permission - the open sign on the door gives you permission to be there until the owner tells you to leave or the stated closing time ocurrs.
Therefore, I would be dishonest if I declared a Mistake of Fact.
You mistook no fact by being in a store with an unlocked door and an open sign on the front. The store IS open whether the owner forgot to close it or not.
You are being slothful and pedantic and avoiding the logic that,
You accused me once of this already and I responded to it already.
Again: Common sense dictates that a reasonable person would not appropriate property anonymously.
You said this in your last message and I responded to it in my last message.
A computer that has been configured open by a third party or manufacturer does not mean that you have permission to use it by the owner.
You've been saying this for a while now and you've been ignoring my response that giving permission is not necessarily the same as the THOUGHT to give permission.
Why would you assume that nobody wants HIV
Because nobody does, probably because it causes a slow, painful and expensive death. Of course, if they expressed that they did want it, more power to them.
or for you to drive their abandoned car
I responded to this in my last message already. There was no valid expression of permission to do so.
networks that can be used to commit serious crimes that could destroy their life, you conveniently fail to assume that nobody wants you using their network?
That's pretty sad sensationalism you have going on there. An open access point and Internet access itself cannot be used to destroy someone else's life. I don't assume nobody wants an open access point because it simply isn't true. Many people, myself included, run them that way and want to run them that way. If you need more examples just look around in the replies to this story.
A network that is 'open' is not 'open' in the sense that you have been granted a right to use the network any more than an empty building with the doors open grant you the right to be inside of it.
I already answered this for you several times.
You can continue to filibuster but you're trespassing and you're wrong. You are either an idiot, a sociopath, or quite possibly a troll.
No, that would be yourself you are describing. You keep saying the same things over and over again and either are unable to comprehend my responses or are just willingly remaining ignorant.
As ostentatiously hard as it may be for you to understand, even if a store owner was so negligent as to leave his store open with a mistakenly placed item on the "Free Sample" stand which you decide to help yourself to, the owner would still have every right to not only be angry but to prosecute you for "Breaking and Entering" and/or theft.
Just because someone else is being negligent does not mean you now have permission to use their property and be faultless.
1) the criminal act of entering a residence or other enclosed property through the slightest amount of force (even pushing open a door), without authorization. If there is intent to commit a crime, this is burglary. If there is no such intent, the breaking and entering alone is probably at least illegal trespass, which is a misdemeanor crime.
I did have authorization. The store owner may not have meant to give it, but he did. If that isn't authorization then you're effectively arguing that anyone who ever shops at any store and doesn't buy anything or uses an automated checkout system is committing a crime.
You seem to believe that "authorization" is the exact same thing as "an intention to give authorization in the owner's mind". It isn't. The former can obviously be an impersonal form of communication, such as your authorization to use this web site, and the later is merely a thought in the owner's mind.
Their intention is not irrelevant. If you were to stumble upon an unlocked car with the keys in it with a sign that broadcast "Free Car" it would be highly unwise of you to take advantage of that so called opportunity. The owner may not have placed the sign on the car or had the intention of others driving it, which would mean that you're stealing.
It would be unwise because A) it is illegal B) keys in ignition alone does not communicate "free car" C) anyone could trivilally put a "free car" sign on any car, unlike creating an open access point.
Moreover, even if their intentions were true, you would be equally liable for driving it. What if something went wrong, you were drunk, or you were to kill someone? Is it insured? Is it stolen? Do you truly have permission? You'd better find out, otherwise you are a complete idiot and criminal.
I don't deny I'd be liable for my driving when driving that car, nor do I deny that I'd be responsible for my actions when using an open access point.
Again, common sense dictates that a reasonable person would not appropriate property anonymously. That goes for you and the owner. Especially in the case of property that could be used to commit a crime.
No it doesn't. I take property anonymously all the time. There are free samples at the supermarket ocasionally. There are two newspapers published for free around here that I ocasionally read. I frequently use restrooms at private truck/travel stops on the freeway without buying anything - in full view of the staff who never say anything. Sometimes I even use private driveways to turn around in when I make a wrong turn.
If there is so much as a traffic cone in the drive way, I won't use it. If there's a "restrooms for customers only" sign I'll buy something first. If the AP so much as has SSID broadcast off, I won't use it because while these things prevent me from doing very little they at least communicate "I don't want you to use this" to me on the owner's behalf.
Someone being irresponsible does not translate into a situation that's okay or justified to take advantage of.
As you can see from the numerous examples given, it depends entirely on just how they're being irresponsible.
Your analogies are not valid because putting a sign on a door and having a computer are two different scenarios. Common sense dictates that a store is open when the lights are on, the door open, employees and possibly customers wandering about.
Of course they're different, and that isn't what I said. If I go buy a building that is a store and the seller leaves the lights on and "open" signs in front and I don't bother to take them down then I damn well better not be angry if I show up some day and find someone wandering around. It doesn't matter what state the seller leaves the building in - the building is entirely my responsibility when I take possession. The same applies to computer equipment - especially the kinds that broadcast messages on radio all over.
Common sense also dictates that not all open networks are intentionally so.
Their intention is irrelevant. And some people DO run open networks intentionally. I can't tell the difference between the two if both APs are sending the same kinds of "this is open" message. There are MANY ways in wifi to express "this is private".
Having a computer does not make you a network security expert.
It doesn't make you a security expert but it does give you the responsibility to know basic things about your equipment or hire someone who does.
Computers generally come open with exploits. It doesn't give you permission, and you know that but you're being willfully ignorant.
Key word: exploit. There's a difference between breaking weak security and using something that not only has NO security but is advertised as public. The presence of ANY security would at least express an intention of wanting a private network. You can break down the door to my house if you wanted to even if it is locked, but if you do that you can't possibly say that it looked like a public place if you do.
Aren't you going to acknowledge that you don't steal broadband with the victims in front of you? Obviously because you know they'd probably be upset if you told them, as you don't have permission.
I definitely would. If they then corrected their expression of their network's status to me even by simply saying so I'd be happy to get off of their network.
Technically what you are doing is stealing and lying about it.
Wrong. Technically - in every sense of the word - I'm using an open serivce that is actively advertised and offered to me.
Just as if a store was left unlocked it does not mean that you were "given permission" to take whatever you wanted.
A store being unlocked is not communication saying "this is free" in any case. In any store "this is free" is only ever communicated by a sign saying "free sample" or something. In that case I'm not guilty of theft whether they put the wrong thing on the sample table by accident or not.
Come on now, it's not like the person with the public network is intentionally giving you permission.
I never said they were intentionally giving permission - just that they were giving permission and that's all that matters. It is impossible to tell just what is going through their mind when I see this "open network" sign being broadcast all over the place. When you walk in to a store with an "open" sign on the front you don't know that the owner is actually thinking "I WANT the store to be open" at that moment, so do you call up the owner, verify his identity and ask the owner himself permission each and every time you want to enter the store??
And you're completely wrong if you think accidentally leaving cars opened gives permission to drive it.
Not a valid analogy - a car being open is not in and of itself a sign of permission.
Therefore, he has his router configured open. Do those two hypothetically obvious facts really meet your standard for pedantry?
Of course the network is public and others have an invitation on to it - the router in question is (mis)configured to make it EXACTLY THAT. To say it isn't doesn't even make sense.
And the whole question of the owner's intention is completely irrelevant to the question of whether someone should be punished for using that network. It doesn't matter if the owner didn't want his network to be public - it simply IS public. If you don't want a public network, don't create a public network.
I can't put a sign on the front of my house saying "open house" or "yard sale" and then expect the cops to cite anyone that shows up for trespassing.
Public is too oblivious to lock up his router does not give someone else de-facto permission to use his internet connection. Just like forgetting to lock your car does not give you permission to joyride on roads.
He isn't just not locking up his router - he has it configured to broadcast its openness to everyone.
Joyriding on public roads is not okay, because the vehicle you stole is private.
If my joyriding is within the speed limit and everything and if the owner of the vehicle gave me permission (accidentally or not) then it sure is.
Using someone else's bandwidth just because you can is likewise unacceptable. Public frequency, but a privately-owned router, modem, and network you're connecting to.... o, back to the topic: Using someone's internet and router just because you can is unlawful and unethical, even if your access is due to their negligence.
Again, it isn't just someone else's property and reachable on a public frequency, it is actively doing things to advertise itself and its status to me and give me access.
And for all of the idiots stating that the "router" gave them permission, give me a break. The router isn't a legal entity, and only works in the way you interact with it. Just like the door knob.
I twisted the doorknob (initiated association with the accesspoint), and the doorknob gave me permission to enter by retracting the latch (allowing me to associate and giving me a DHCP lease). The owner of the door could have configured the door differently, by engaging the lock mechanism (using WEP or WPA), so since he didn't I'm free to enter and watch his HBO (use his broadband internet access).
Another stupid analogy. Does the doorknob have a sign on it that says "open"? Does it in any way communicate an intent of openness (real or accidental - doesn't matter) on behalf of its owner like an open access point, or an open sign on a store door, or a "free samples" sign at the supermarket? No.
That "open" sign may have been left on the router by accident, but that certainly doesn't make anyone guilty for using it.
Besides, you transmit a signal into his house when you use his network. If that's not "breaking in" in this weird network-is-my-house analogy, I don't know what is.
This whole analogy doesn't make any sense. The frequency he's transmitting on is public. He doesn't need anyone's authorization to transmit a signal on that frequency. The router and such might be private, but there's an "open" sign posted on them.
Put up a sign that says people are free to use it.
He is. He's broadcasting on public frequences, in the clear, actively accepting and responding to DHCP requests, carrying traffic, etc.
Who cares about the technical protocols involved.
People who are not ignorant idiots, or at least those who don't blame others for their own ignorance.
Some people want a leeching society as the norm, and some people don't. It's as simple as that.
And some just want a society where the user of a service can't be held liable for using a service that is advertised as open even if only as a result of the owner's ignorance. Much the same as similar situations like walking into a store that the owner forgot to lock and set the sign to 'closed', or wandering around the yard of someone who left a 'yard sale' sign up long after it ended.
Some people want a leeching society as the norm, and some people don't. It's as simple as that.
But try to decode the area starting on the 4th line down, 5 "1"s in from the left... the vertical alignment becomes unclear. It looks like there are two spaces in a row in that area but then those columns kind of drift together onto a single 1. Plus there's no way to tell if there's a space at the end or how many.
If this is written left to right, top to bottom then I'm kinda thinking that if the spaces are meaningful then only "inside" spaces are meaningful and there's never more than one in a row.
He already owns the computer at the time that agreement seal is presented. I wonder what would happen if I sold you a car and then later on put a sticker on it that said "by removing this sticker you agree to pay X $10,000. If you do not agree, sell your car."
If courts uphold this whether its your car or your computer it is obviously a travesty of justice and common sense...
If it is reprehensible to you that the law would limit how the product is manufactured, do you find it reprehnsible that the law would limit how the purchasers use the product? If so then I agree completely. Let's remove the laws propping up the DRM (DMCA) and then there will be no justifications for laws to regulate it.
Most mail servers are not configured to accept mail from anywhere. They use content filters, black/white/grey lists, and all kinds of other things plus in some cases statements in the SMTP banner that flat out states that they don't want spam. Obviously it is the will of practically all mail server owners that they don't want spam. Yet spammers do all kinds of things to evade these will enforcement techniques and therefore are knowingly and intentionally using the mail server against the will of its owner.
It is bad, which is why good security minimizes the need for obscurity by centralizing the obscurity into things like passwords or keys which can be easily kept obscure rather than broad information like how the system works, where it is located, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Irony:
And I reject your analogy that open wifi is analogous to an open door. I'veprobably said that already.
Ok, I can do the whole dismissive hand waving thing too: there is nothing
fallacious about those statements.
They DO have a sign on them. A broadcast multiple times per second on apublic radio frequency with security status. An active request-response
between client and router. I could go on... It is so well advertised that,
as many other people have mentioned, it is easy for an even an unskilled
user to even _accidentally_ use that AP.
And now you've finally agreed that not all such signs must be ignored, but
now you simply draw the line at which ones those are arbitrarily. What,
exactly, to you, is a sign that gives you rights? What the law says? That
would be very little in the case of open wifi. And "X is not wifi" - THAT'S
your answer to my question?
You're simply being arbitrary and saying "well it is my personal moral
opinion that this is wrong, therefore it is wrong! Any attempt to say
otherwise is illogical and lacking in common sense".
And I never even brought the whole issue of wether or not random open wifi
use is LEGAL or not. I flat out said so several replies ago. In fact, there
was a story on slashdot months ago where someone was arrested in wisconsin I
believe for using an open coffee shop wifi AP from his car. He plead guilty
to some minor charge and paid a fine. If your moral standard is simply
"whatever is legal is right and whatever is illegal is wrong", then stop
wasting your time. I'll be happy to agree that open AP use might be illegal.
There is no point in arguing over what is or is not black letter law.
I never said it did. I said that PLUS an open sign on the front door of a store does.
Because noone ever puts such signs on their property intentionally.
Because you brought it up and it is different from what I was talking about. I was talking about being in an unoccupied store. There's a difference. Even if you dismiss it as pedantry.
That's your opinion then, not mine. You think it is morally wrong to be in an unoccupied but marked open store for any length of time. You aren't making it make any sense to me, but clearly state that you believe it.
I did not admit they weren't "open for business", depending on how you define that phrase. I said I could not buy something if there is no clerk. I can, however, look at things, try things, and simply be in there.
Permission to BE there? Why? You're waving your hand and merely stating your opinion and saying its common sense.
Well I've been rejecting your own analogies with actual arguments for a while now...
So you're using that legal example to argue that the owner of an open AP is legally responsible for the activities of people who use it?
That obviously doesn't apply to computer networks, otherwise ISP and hosting companies could be legally held liable for their customer's or user's actions (anonymous or not). This is legally not the case for copyright infringment cases at least, per section 512 of the DMCA (aka the safe harbor clause). I don't know what it leagally means for other crimes, but the usual procedure is a law enforcement agency/court/victim asks the provider of service to the abuser to A) stop providing service to the abuser and B) provide any information about the abuser to LEA/court/vicim/etc.
I've been working for tech companies since 1997 or so and since then I can recall two instances where one of our systems had been broken into and then used to commit other crimes, and several other instances where someone we were intentionally provided access to was doing
Someone who completely ignores my arguments and simply repeats the same things but starts calling me "imbecile" here and "idiot" there tells me I need to go back to logic school... very interesting...
None of this has anything to do with your assertion that being in an unattended store is breaking and entering or trespassing, and that taking an item mistakenly placed on a free samples stand is theft because I'm not "doing business". I never said I was. That would inolve me buying something which I by definition cannot do in an unattended store. And when I've overstayed my welcome was already established: it is when the stated closing time ocurrs or a clerk tells me to leave. I said it was ok to enter and be there simply because of the sign and you said that was criminal in various ways.
It is not like that at all. The network is not unmarked and passively "there" with no expressions on it. You even said earlier that you could drive a car if you were accidentally given permission but than later recanted that when I described a car that said "Free" and had the keys in the ignition. Why? Because you figured out it could have been a mistake. For the second time, no, I decided it was not ok in your example because A) anyone can put any sign on any car they want - there is no indication whatsoever that the owner put the sign there himself, and B) keys in an ignition is not an expression of permission to take a car.
I'm not avoiding that at all - I completely acknowledge that networks are left open by mistake. It is the ENTIRE POINT of what I'm saying - that if the OWNER makes a MISTAKE and leaves signs around saying "I'm open", because the OWNER made a MISTAKE in giving me permission, I could not have done wrong. If I were using his property contrary to his communicated permission to me, only then am I doing wrong. This is a COMPLETELY different situation.
I came to the conclusion that computers and cars are sentient? I said nothing of the sort. Here, lets try this once again but with bullet points. I wonder if you'll continue to ignore it, put words in my mouth, and simply call me a sociopath or an imbecile or an idiot. I said this:
* There are impersonal expressions of permission, like signs.
* Those impersonal expressions can be contrary to the owner's actual intent sometimes.
* When we encounter these impersonal forms of permission we HAVE to be able to assume that they are true because it is impractical to directly seek personal permission directly from the owner all the time.
And then all you'd have to do to 0wn them in that case is intercept the TCP connection from them to the web server and present a similar looking certificate with a key of your choosing.
Then all they'd have to do is accept the cert and they would have been protected.... right...
No they aren't. Also, there is no point in encrypting between A and B if A and B have no idea who each other are. A or B could in fact be one of the very people you're using encryption to protect your communications from. You have no idea.
You would be wrong. Every definition of the word "trespass" I see on google necessarily involves a lack of permission to enter property. Obviously you have that permission - the open sign on the door gives you permission to be there until the owner tells you to leave or the stated closing time ocurrs.
You mistook no fact by being in a store with an unlocked door and an open sign on the front. The store IS open whether the owner forgot to close it or not.
You accused me once of this already and I responded to it already.
You said this in your last message and I responded to it in my last message.
You've been saying this for a while now and you've been ignoring my response that giving permission is not necessarily the same as the THOUGHT to give permission.
Because nobody does, probably because it causes a slow, painful and expensive death. Of course, if they expressed that they did want it, more power to them.
I responded to this in my last message already. There was no valid expression of permission to do so.
That's pretty sad sensationalism you have going on there. An open access point and Internet access itself cannot be used to destroy someone else's life. I don't assume nobody wants an open access point because it simply isn't true. Many people, myself included, run them that way and want to run them that way. If you need more examples just look around in the replies to this story.
I already answered this for you several times.
No, that would be yourself you are describing. You keep saying the same things over and over again and either are unable to comprehend my responses or are just willingly remaining ignorant.
No he can't. According to http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=98&bold= breaking and entering is:
I did have authorization. The store owner may not have meant to give it, but he did. If that isn't authorization then you're effectively arguing that anyone who ever shops at any store and doesn't buy anything or uses an automated checkout system is committing a crime.
You seem to believe that "authorization" is the exact same thing as "an intention to give authorization in the owner's mind". It isn't. The former can obviously be an impersonal form of communication, such as your authorization to use this web site, and the later is merely a thought in the owner's mind.
It would be unwise because A) it is illegal B) keys in ignition alone does not communicate "free car" C) anyone could trivilally put a "free car" sign on any car, unlike creating an open access point.
I don't deny I'd be liable for my driving when driving that car, nor do I deny that I'd be responsible for my actions when using an open access point.
No it doesn't. I take property anonymously all the time. There are free samples at the supermarket ocasionally. There are two newspapers published for free around here that I ocasionally read. I frequently use restrooms at private truck/travel stops on the freeway without buying anything - in full view of the staff who never say anything. Sometimes I even use private driveways to turn around in when I make a wrong turn.
If there is so much as a traffic cone in the drive way, I won't use it. If there's a "restrooms for customers only" sign I'll buy something first. If the AP so much as has SSID broadcast off, I won't use it because while these things prevent me from doing very little they at least communicate "I don't want you to use this" to me on the owner's behalf.
As you can see from the numerous examples given, it depends entirely on just how they're being irresponsible.
Of course they're different, and that isn't what I said. If I go buy a building that is a store and the seller leaves the lights on and "open" signs in front and I don't bother to take them down then I damn well better not be angry if I show up some day and find someone wandering around. It doesn't matter what state the seller leaves the building in - the building is entirely my responsibility when I take possession. The same applies to computer equipment - especially the kinds that broadcast messages on radio all over.
Their intention is irrelevant. And some people DO run open networks intentionally. I can't tell the difference between the two if both APs are sending the same kinds of "this is open" message. There are MANY ways in wifi to express "this is private".
It doesn't make you a security expert but it does give you the responsibility to know basic things about your equipment or hire someone who does.
Key word: exploit. There's a difference between breaking weak security and using something that not only has NO security but is advertised as public. The presence of ANY security would at least express an intention of wanting a private network. You can break down the door to my house if you wanted to even if it is locked, but if you do that you can't possibly say that it looked like a public place if you do.
I definitely would. If they then corrected their expression of their network's status to me even by simply saying so I'd be happy to get off of their network.
Wrong. Technically - in every sense of the word - I'm using an open serivce that is actively advertised and offered to me.
A store being unlocked is not communication saying "this is free" in any case. In any store "this is free" is only ever communicated by a sign saying "free sample" or something. In that case I'm not guilty of theft whether they put the wrong thing on the sample table by accident or not.
I never said they were intentionally giving permission - just that they were giving permission and that's all that matters. It is impossible to tell just what is going through their mind when I see this "open network" sign being broadcast all over the place. When you walk in to a store with an "open" sign on the front you don't know that the owner is actually thinking "I WANT the store to be open" at that moment, so do you call up the owner, verify his identity and ask the owner himself permission each and every time you want to enter the store??
Not a valid analogy - a car being open is not in and of itself a sign of permission.
He has a router.
The router is configured open.
Therefore, he has his router configured open. Do those two hypothetically obvious facts really meet your standard for pedantry?
Of course the network is public and others have an invitation on to it - the router in question is (mis)configured to make it EXACTLY THAT. To say it isn't doesn't even make sense.
And the whole question of the owner's intention is completely irrelevant to the question of whether someone should be punished for using that network. It doesn't matter if the owner didn't want his network to be public - it simply IS public. If you don't want a public network, don't create a public network.
I can't put a sign on the front of my house saying "open house" or "yard sale" and then expect the cops to cite anyone that shows up for trespassing.
He isn't just not locking up his router - he has it configured to broadcast its openness to everyone.
If my joyriding is within the speed limit and everything and if the owner of the vehicle gave me permission (accidentally or not) then it sure is.
Again, it isn't just someone else's property and reachable on a public frequency, it is actively doing things to advertise itself and its status to me and give me access.
Another stupid analogy. Does the doorknob have a sign on it that says "open"? Does it in any way communicate an intent of openness (real or accidental - doesn't matter) on behalf of its owner like an open access point, or an open sign on a store door, or a "free samples" sign at the supermarket? No.
That "open" sign may have been left on the router by accident, but that certainly doesn't make anyone guilty for using it.
This whole analogy doesn't make any sense. The frequency he's transmitting on is public. He doesn't need anyone's authorization to transmit a signal on that frequency. The router and such might be private, but there's an "open" sign posted on them.
He is. He's broadcasting on public frequences, in the clear, actively accepting and responding to DHCP requests, carrying traffic, etc.
People who are not ignorant idiots, or at least those who don't blame others for their own ignorance.
And some just want a society where the user of a service can't be held liable for using a service that is advertised as open even if only as a result of the owner's ignorance. Much the same as similar situations like walking into a store that the owner forgot to lock and set the sign to 'closed', or wandering around the yard of someone who left a 'yard sale' sign up long after it ended.
No, it isn't.
If the satellite signal is broadcast on a frequency specifically allocated for public use and is not encrypted, then it sure would be.
Someone else in this thread already disagrees with you:
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=577527&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=23703301#23706509
Now you see the problem.
freedom? like the freedom to... run free and protest?
But try to decode the area starting on the 4th line down, 5 "1"s in from the left... the vertical alignment becomes unclear. It looks like there are two spaces in a row in that area but then those columns kind of drift together onto a single 1. Plus there's no way to tell if there's a space at the end or how many.
If this is written left to right, top to bottom then I'm kinda thinking that if the spaces are meaningful then only "inside" spaces are meaningful and there's never more than one in a row.
He already owns the computer at the time that agreement seal is presented. I wonder what would happen if I sold you a car and then later on put a sticker on it that said "by removing this sticker you agree to pay X $10,000. If you do not agree, sell your car."
If courts uphold this whether its your car or your computer it is obviously a travesty of justice and common sense...
Until one day you find the files you're taring are corrupt...
If it is reprehensible to you that the law would limit how the product is manufactured, do you find it reprehnsible that the law would limit how the purchasers use the product? If so then I agree completely. Let's remove the laws propping up the DRM (DMCA) and then there will be no justifications for laws to regulate it.
Most mail servers are not configured to accept mail from anywhere. They use content filters, black/white/grey lists, and all kinds of other things plus in some cases statements in the SMTP banner that flat out states that they don't want spam. Obviously it is the will of practically all mail server owners that they don't want spam. Yet spammers do all kinds of things to evade these will enforcement techniques and therefore are knowingly and intentionally using the mail server against the will of its owner.
Impossible. Sending spam necessarily involves the use of someone else's (the recipient's) mail server and usually against their will.
It is bad, which is why good security minimizes the need for obscurity by centralizing the obscurity into things like passwords or keys which can be easily kept obscure rather than broad information like how the system works, where it is located, etc.