See, this is a view that I don't understand and never really understood.
You say "Congress won't defend the constitution or the rule of law", but it's Congress's job to create the rule of law, and it does that.
You say the "Supreme Court has been compromised", and yet the purpose of the Supreme Court is to rule on constitutional questions (among other things), and it's doing that.
Now, Congress may not be enacting the laws you like, and the Supreme Court may not be ruling the way you think it should. But Congress is empowered with enacting the law, and the Supreme Court is empowered with judging it, and as I see it, both groups are doing exactly that.
That depends on your jurisdiction certainly (and trespassing law has some interesting exceptions which are not really relevant here); in most jurisdictions it is illegal to enter property without consent, but you cannot obtain a conviction unless you issue a warning and the person refuses to leave. This is not true in all jurisdictions, and it depends to a great extent on the situation and the area involved.
There is also an issue of reasonableness in that physical trespassing operates on very different observational and notificational levels than informational trespassing (and I know I used way too many -'ionals' in that sentence.)
It's the job of the router to grant or deny permission to connect to the network. That's precisely what it's designed to do, and an entire protocol exists just for that purpose. When my laptop asks for permission to connect to your network and your router says, "Sure! Let me help you with that," how am I supposed to know (or even ask) your true feelings about it? Your router is your authorized agent in that case. It's not a difficult thing to choose a password and turn encryption on.
Your router's job is such in a technical sense, not a legal one.
Suppose you encounter a vending machine selling snacks for 10 cents. That's a bargain, but the sign on the machine says "Only 10 cents!" and when you insert your dime, out pops a package of twinkies. A little while later the SWAT squad shows up in full armor, because the owner of the vending machine actually intended the price to be $1, but because he's not a technophile he didn't know how to change the price on the old machines he bought and maybe didn't even realize that he had to. You have twinkie cream all over your chin, so you're busted. How much prison time are you OK with?
Laws and court decisions already exist to deal with this, and it's not the same thing, although some of it breaks down to commercial and contract law which is not really relevant to wireless routers.
However a lot of it breaks down to intent, due diligence, and negligence, as well as public perception on the parts of both the (shall we say) vendor and purchaser.
I would argue that there is a great deal more due diligence that applies to the owner of a vending machine. Why?
There are a variety of reasons.
Firstly, a vending machine is in plain sight. if the vending machine owner knew it was selling things for 10 cents when that was not his intent, he had an obligation to alter that state of affairs, and knowing it should be set that way is his responsibility as it is in plain sight. (To head off the argument: if it was installed by a representative of his, his beef and legal debate is with the representative, not the purchaser, and he has a valid argument there).
Secondly, such plain sight does not apply to routers, which generally are headless and incomprehensible to their owners; a reasonable person would not assume that the router's operator had specifically set the router the way it was currently set.
Would a reasonable person conclude that the owner or operator of the router configured it to allow entry? Merely claiming that it was technologically doing so is not relevant, as that is the default state.
A child can talk, and a child can invite somebody in. That doesn't stop it from being trespassing.
The reason I shied away from using children as an example is that they often maintain a different relationship in law with regard to trespassing than do adults.
(I am also unable to find any case-law dealing with invitations issued by individuals who have no authority to do so, and in any case, this case is not really comparable to trespassing for a variety of reasons.)
However, the issue basically, in my mind, breaks down to this: Your computer/router/child has no authority, on its own, to issue or deny an invitation for entry or use of your systems, space, etc, etc.
The question then becomes, do you have a duty to take action to prevent people, or warn them off, from using or entering your systems/space, etc.
I do not believe there is; property is generally accepted as being inviolate, with a handful of exceptions, unless a reasonably explicit invitation is issued to the contrary by a legitimate issuing authority.
To some extent, certainly. If I purchased a microwave, plugged it in, and it started spewing microwave radiation and irradiated some of my colleagues without me controlling it to any extent, then yes, I should not be liable.
In this case, there is no due care that needs to be taken, as the burden of due diligence reasonably falls on the accessor, as it does with the trespasser.
It is often true that the owner of the access point does not set it up. They plug it in. They give it no orders in any direction.
That can hardly be seen as issuing it any specific authority to invite people in, in much the same way as purchasing a dog does not issue it any specific authority to invite people in.
I think comparing the router to a kid is a bad analogy. Try that analogy with a dog.
Somebody comes into your home and their defense is "Your dog invited me in!"
Sounds totally nonsensical now, doesn't it?
The router is not sentient. It has no ability to judge, and despite the fact that it may invite some people in does not mean it is entitled to do so or that they are entitled to enter.
I'm not sure that's an effective analogy. By comparison, can you argue that you were not trespassing if the family dog invited you in?
Of course not. The family dog is not sentient, and its judgment as to who is or is not legitimately entitled to enter the premises is simply not valid.
I'll point out it was a jury who returned that verdict, and jurors in the case have repeatedly pointed out that the reason they ruled the way they did was because they felt the defendant was lying to them and the Court in her own defense.
It wouldn't, but his point is that the feeling that you are invincible, which leads to not running AV software, is problematic.
And it is. Defense in depth applies just as much to any *nix OS as it does to Windows. Hell, it applies to buildings and defensive fortifications, too.
But the authors of the codebase have no requirement to ensure further versions of the software fall under the GPL (as they are the original owners) which is essentially what is happening.
the GPL, like this license, is a license for the work as it stands. Any further revisions that occur must include their own licenses, which may be different.
The Israelis are indeed shooting back at the Palestinians- see this article, for example, which mentions 120 Palestinians killed recently including many civilians (although the definition of 'civilian' is so lose in that area it's spin either way).
Rather, the Israelis are seeking an option that 'doesn't require them to shoot back' much like the United States was seeking an option that 'didn't require them to shoot back' in Star Wars and BMD.
They'll shoot back anyway, all right, but none of what's aimed at them will get through.
It is a tort, but it is also an offense against the state and the public order, just like you can sue someone for, from your example, throwing a ball at your eye- that's a tort. The state could also charge them with assault (and or battery, depending on your jurisdiction)- that's a crime.
What about slander and libel? Would you appreciate it if the President got up on National TV and called you a sex freak who liked to molest little boys?
Okay, and your point is? You are suggesting that there is a corruption so pervasive in law enforcement that your complaint will make an enemy of the entire police force who will them abdicate their sworn duty to the public in order to be vindictive about a complaint so minor you didn't bother to actually take it up with someone who could actually do something about it.
If that's true, your worry is not how many minutes it will take the police to arrive, but when they're going to shoot you dead for parking in a handicapped spot or mouthing off to one of their friends.
Regardless of whether you believe police discretion is fair (it should be, but it isn't, because police officers are people too and therefore by definition unfair) it is necessary for them to do their jobs.
Quite frankly, I don't see a point in a website like this. There are plenty of venues which one can use if one feels that one has been unfairly discriminated against by law enforcement, not the least of which are the courts.
Whining on a website, however, will not serve an effective purpose as you have no means to retaliate against them. You cannot attack the police, or boycott their services, and neither can your twenty five friends. (Well, I suppose you could attack the police, but then you'd most likely be killed.)
Especially anonymously, it seems to serve no purpose other than to allow individuals to air grievances against individuals they did not like or grievances that are not substantial enough to stand up to disciplinary review or court challenge.
Or, you could prohibit anonymous speech. This would have the dual purpose of both allowing people to speak and allowing them to be held responsible for their speech if need be (slander/libel).
Or, indeed, you could trust that there are sufficiently paranoid people out there to examine the data going over the wire.
Because that was really my point in the parent post (which admittedly was somewhat misinterpreted and that was probably fault)- namely it doesn't matter what the code does, unless it has a way out- and you can watch that way out, which is probably easier and provides a variety of security advantages.
It's only 'easy' if your time has no value and you're competent to examine the source, which I would say the vast majority if not 99.9999% of people aren't.
Rather, you're much better off running a strong firewall that's not the same piece of software or hardware at the boundary of your network which will pick up on nasty things you haven't asked to be run; alternatively, you can run a packet sniffer and keep an eye on what the software is sending across the network (and unless the software has got a built-in ansible, that should be good enough for almost all applications.)
Slashdot Mirror
See, this is a view that I don't understand and never really understood.
You say "Congress won't defend the constitution or the rule of law", but it's Congress's job to create the rule of law, and it does that.
You say the "Supreme Court has been compromised", and yet the purpose of the Supreme Court is to rule on constitutional questions (among other things), and it's doing that.
Now, Congress may not be enacting the laws you like, and the Supreme Court may not be ruling the way you think it should. But Congress is empowered with enacting the law, and the Supreme Court is empowered with judging it, and as I see it, both groups are doing exactly that.
Members of the jury, in interviews, specifically stated they were punishing her for lying and apparently destroying evidence.
"She's a liar," remember?
That depends on your jurisdiction certainly (and trespassing law has some interesting exceptions which are not really relevant here); in most jurisdictions it is illegal to enter property without consent, but you cannot obtain a conviction unless you issue a warning and the person refuses to leave. This is not true in all jurisdictions, and it depends to a great extent on the situation and the area involved.
There is also an issue of reasonableness in that physical trespassing operates on very different observational and notificational levels than informational trespassing (and I know I used way too many -'ionals' in that sentence.)
I agree. A very large amount of responsibility falls on the vendors for failing to issue their equipment in a state that requires configuration.
I wonder how a lawsuit against them on those grounds would go?
Your router's job is such in a technical sense, not a legal one.
Laws and court decisions already exist to deal with this, and it's not the same thing, although some of it breaks down to commercial and contract law which is not really relevant to wireless routers.
However a lot of it breaks down to intent, due diligence, and negligence, as well as public perception on the parts of both the (shall we say) vendor and purchaser.
I would argue that there is a great deal more due diligence that applies to the owner of a vending machine. Why?
There are a variety of reasons.
Firstly, a vending machine is in plain sight. if the vending machine owner knew it was selling things for 10 cents when that was not his intent, he had an obligation to alter that state of affairs, and knowing it should be set that way is his responsibility as it is in plain sight. (To head off the argument: if it was installed by a representative of his, his beef and legal debate is with the representative, not the purchaser, and he has a valid argument there).
Secondly, such plain sight does not apply to routers, which generally are headless and incomprehensible to their owners; a reasonable person would not assume that the router's operator had specifically set the router the way it was currently set.
Would a reasonable person conclude that the owner or operator of the router configured it to allow entry? Merely claiming that it was technologically doing so is not relevant, as that is the default state.
A child can talk, and a child can invite somebody in. That doesn't stop it from being trespassing.
The reason I shied away from using children as an example is that they often maintain a different relationship in law with regard to trespassing than do adults.
(I am also unable to find any case-law dealing with invitations issued by individuals who have no authority to do so, and in any case, this case is not really comparable to trespassing for a variety of reasons.)
However, the issue basically, in my mind, breaks down to this: Your computer/router/child has no authority, on its own, to issue or deny an invitation for entry or use of your systems, space, etc, etc.
The question then becomes, do you have a duty to take action to prevent people, or warn them off, from using or entering your systems/space, etc.
I do not believe there is; property is generally accepted as being inviolate, with a handful of exceptions, unless a reasonably explicit invitation is issued to the contrary by a legitimate issuing authority.
To some extent, certainly. If I purchased a microwave, plugged it in, and it started spewing microwave radiation and irradiated some of my colleagues without me controlling it to any extent, then yes, I should not be liable.
In this case, there is no due care that needs to be taken, as the burden of due diligence reasonably falls on the accessor, as it does with the trespasser.
It is often true that the owner of the access point does not set it up. They plug it in. They give it no orders in any direction.
That can hardly be seen as issuing it any specific authority to invite people in, in much the same way as purchasing a dog does not issue it any specific authority to invite people in.
I think comparing the router to a kid is a bad analogy. Try that analogy with a dog.
Somebody comes into your home and their defense is "Your dog invited me in!"
Sounds totally nonsensical now, doesn't it?
The router is not sentient. It has no ability to judge, and despite the fact that it may invite some people in does not mean it is entitled to do so or that they are entitled to enter.
I'm not sure that's an effective analogy. By comparison, can you argue that you were not trespassing if the family dog invited you in?
Of course not. The family dog is not sentient, and its judgment as to who is or is not legitimately entitled to enter the premises is simply not valid.
That's a problem with the justice system in general, not any specific law.
Plea bargains are a cancer on the judicial system, although in the system as it stands, it's necessary.
I'll point out it was a jury who returned that verdict, and jurors in the case have repeatedly pointed out that the reason they ruled the way they did was because they felt the defendant was lying to them and the Court in her own defense.
How is free software at all relevant to the article? Did you even read it?
(Silly question around here, I know.)
It wouldn't, but his point is that the feeling that you are invincible, which leads to not running AV software, is problematic.
And it is. Defense in depth applies just as much to any *nix OS as it does to Windows. Hell, it applies to buildings and defensive fortifications, too.
But the authors of the codebase have no requirement to ensure further versions of the software fall under the GPL (as they are the original owners) which is essentially what is happening.
the GPL, like this license, is a license for the work as it stands. Any further revisions that occur must include their own licenses, which may be different.
I think even if you did that, you would only be pulling the right of the people to redistribute it. They'd still have it.
Admittedly, I wrote this in about thirty seconds while not paying attention, so YMMV.
The Israelis are indeed shooting back at the Palestinians- see this article, for example, which mentions 120 Palestinians killed recently including many civilians (although the definition of 'civilian' is so lose in that area it's spin either way).
Rather, the Israelis are seeking an option that 'doesn't require them to shoot back' much like the United States was seeking an option that 'didn't require them to shoot back' in Star Wars and BMD.
They'll shoot back anyway, all right, but none of what's aimed at them will get through.
It is a tort, but it is also an offense against the state and the public order, just like you can sue someone for, from your example, throwing a ball at your eye- that's a tort. The state could also charge them with assault (and or battery, depending on your jurisdiction)- that's a crime.
Why do you believe that an action that causes direct harm to another is not a criminal action?
What about slander and libel? Would you appreciate it if the President got up on National TV and called you a sex freak who liked to molest little boys?
Okay, and your point is? You are suggesting that there is a corruption so pervasive in law enforcement that your complaint will make an enemy of the entire police force who will them abdicate their sworn duty to the public in order to be vindictive about a complaint so minor you didn't bother to actually take it up with someone who could actually do something about it.
If that's true, your worry is not how many minutes it will take the police to arrive, but when they're going to shoot you dead for parking in a handicapped spot or mouthing off to one of their friends.
Regardless of whether you believe police discretion is fair (it should be, but it isn't, because police officers are people too and therefore by definition unfair) it is necessary for them to do their jobs.
Quite frankly, I don't see a point in a website like this. There are plenty of venues which one can use if one feels that one has been unfairly discriminated against by law enforcement, not the least of which are the courts.
Whining on a website, however, will not serve an effective purpose as you have no means to retaliate against them. You cannot attack the police, or boycott their services, and neither can your twenty five friends. (Well, I suppose you could attack the police, but then you'd most likely be killed.)
Especially anonymously, it seems to serve no purpose other than to allow individuals to air grievances against individuals they did not like or grievances that are not substantial enough to stand up to disciplinary review or court challenge.
Or, you could prohibit anonymous speech. This would have the dual purpose of both allowing people to speak and allowing them to be held responsible for their speech if need be (slander/libel).
Or, indeed, you could trust that there are sufficiently paranoid people out there to examine the data going over the wire.
Because that was really my point in the parent post (which admittedly was somewhat misinterpreted and that was probably fault)- namely it doesn't matter what the code does, unless it has a way out- and you can watch that way out, which is probably easier and provides a variety of security advantages.
It's only 'easy' if your time has no value and you're competent to examine the source, which I would say the vast majority if not 99.9999% of people aren't.
Rather, you're much better off running a strong firewall that's not the same piece of software or hardware at the boundary of your network which will pick up on nasty things you haven't asked to be run; alternatively, you can run a packet sniffer and keep an eye on what the software is sending across the network (and unless the software has got a built-in ansible, that should be good enough for almost all applications.)