[Tfug] Re: warchalking

[klsmith]

Tom Rini wrote:

>On Sun, Jun 30, 2002 at 04:06:25PM -0700, klsmith wrote:
>
>>Tom Rini wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, Jun 30, 2002 at 10:11:46AM -0700, klsmith wrote:
>>>
>>>>Tom Rini wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 11:43:27AM -0700, klsmith wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>I personally will never wardrive because I'm not up for the hassle of 
>>>>>>dealing with a system gone wrong (government).  However if I were to 
>>>>>>and was ever charged for doing no more than using available bandwidth, 
>>>>>>I would make Nick's argument.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"...attempting to procure a lease, by definition, is ASKING for
>>>>>>authorization to access the network. DHCP OFFER is analogous to you
>>>>>>welcoming a hobo knocking at your door in for dinner."
>>>>>>
>>>>>That's a really bad argument since you're picking nits about how the
>>>>>technology works, not how the controlling entity set things up.  The
>>>>>intent (quite probably, unless they're offering free wireless
>>>>>connectivity to anyone walking buy) is that only authorized users would
>>>>>be attempting to connect in the first place.
>>>>>
>>>>>Technically the technology said 'sure, come on in!', but computers
>>>>>aren't the ones who legally are responsible for the policy.
>>>>>
>>>>>The fact is that unless you've got explicit permission for the legal
>>>>>entity behind/responsible for the connection, there's not really a
>>>>>difference between sitting in your car and connecting vs running a
>>>>>really long enet cable out of an open window.
>>>>>
>>>>Have you ever seen what goes on in a court room.  This would be an 
>>>>excellent argument and a compelling one at that.
>>>>
>>>No, I think what Jon said would be more likely.
>>>
>>>Seriously tho, just because the companies computer said 'Yes, please get
>>>on my network', who allowed you to ask that computer the question in the
>>>first place?  This isn't any different sitting in their lobby, seeing an
>>>enet jack, plugging in and running dhcp.  If they find out, they'll most
>>>certainly kick you out and could do alot more.
>>>
>>Maybe!  If I'm setting in the lobby and they have a HOT port there and I 
>>use it to check my mail, why would I not think a HOT port was placed 
>>there for my waiting convenience?
>>
>
>Because the odds are at least equal, if not better that the port is
>there due to furniture movement/office movement and it just happens to
>be there.  If there was a phone port too would you plug in a phone and
>call someone?
>
>>Maybe they are nice to the people who wait in their lobby.
>>
>
>Without some sort of sign?   But following your assumptions through,
>you're going to assume that all of the wide-open wireless networks are
>there for the convenience of people passing by?
>
No Matter what the burden of proof is on the state and they would have a 
very weak case.

Keith