OT: Jail for unsecured wireless access : Weights : Active Low-Carber Forums

View Full Version : OT: Jail for unsecured wireless access

Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums

Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Mon, Apr-10-06, 16:20

"Residents need to know that it is a crime, punishable by up
to a year in jail, to access someone else's computer, wireless
system or Internet connection without that person's approval"

http://www.networkingpipeline.com/blog/archives/2006/03/use_w-
ifi_go_str.html

Is it possible for a court to do the opposite: to convict
someone who failed to secure his network which as the result
was used for criminal activity?

Jmw

Mon, Apr-10-06, 16:20

DZ <30263@76424115.7833261.5405.31555.10155> wrote:

>"Residents need to know that it is a crime, punishable by up
>to a year in jail, to access someone else's computer,
>wireless system or Internet connection without that person's
>approval"
>
>http://www.networkingpipeline.com/blog/archives/2006/03/use_-
>wifi_go_str.html
>
>Is it possible for a court to do the opposite: to convict
>someone who failed to secure his network which as the result
>was used for criminal activity?

No more so than one could be convicted for leaving one's car
unlocked, resulting in it being stolen and used in a crime.

Tue, Apr-11-06, 05:18

JMW <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
> DZ wrote:
>>"Residents need to know that it is a crime, punishable by up
>>to a year in jail, to access someone else's computer,
>>wireless system or Internet connection without that person's
>>approval"
>>
>>http://www.networkingpipeline.com/blog/archives/2006/03/use-
>>_wifi_go_str.html
>>
>>Is it possible for a court to do the opposite: to convict
>>someone who failed to secure his network which as the result
>>was used for criminal activity?
>
> No more so than one could be convicted for leaving one's car
> unlocked, resulting in it being stolen and used in a crime.

Sounds reasonable, but what were they thinking in New
Hampshire?
http://www.wired.com/news/wireless/0,1382,58651,00.html

Perhaps it is easier to prove that you weren't in the car at
the time of the crime? On the other hand, someone with
questionable files on his computer or whose IP was found in
incriminating logs can claim "it's not me - my network is
wide open".