Warren Harrison wrote: >> Ignorance of the law is different from ignorance of the facts. >> Trespass is not trespass unless "no trespassing" signs are clearly >> posted, because one can be fully aware of the laws of trespassing, >> but have no chance of detecting passage from state land to private >> property while wandering through the woods, unless signs are posted. > > Actually, this isn't true - see ORS 164.205 and below. > While most of the time, you won't get arrested for > trespass if you stumble onto someone's property, you > are indeed trespassing unless you have their permission. Interesting. So if there is no visible signage to indicate the boundary of the private property, how am I supposed to know I am trespassing? > Most home wireless users are clueless that their > wireless access is accessible by anyone within > their home. In spite of a relatively small community > that not only knows it is available, but are willing > to share their own bandwidth, I would doubt that > a "reasonable person" would think that random wireless > networks are premises open to the public. And that is the point of contention, because I do think that a "reasonable person" would assume that an unprotected WAP means "permission to surf the Internet." I have watched business people do exactly that; they pop open the laptop, let the machine promiscuously connect, and have at it. Crispin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Sep 28 2004 - 09:16:44 PDT