On Tue, 2004-09-28 at 09:30, Warren Harrison wrote: > This is actually more interesting than it sounds > (well, maybe it does sound interesting :-) > Burglary is basically defined (in Oregon) as committing > a crime while trespassing. So *if* war driving *was* > trespassing, and the intruder committed a computer > crime, they would also be committing burglary. > An ambitious DA could really stack the charges :-) There seems to be a big misunderstanding what wardriving is. Wardriving does not involve _using_ the network, only _identifying_ it. A wardriver does not normally use ANY of the bandwidth of the target, he just identifies the location and accessibility of the network. The "all connection is theft" attitude is going to involve just about everyone with a wireless card. Most wireless configurations are set yo locate and identify all connections in range, just like a wardriver does. (They just do it in bulk.) They do this so that the "average person" can actually use wireless. Furthermore, most wireless connections are set to connect to the first wireless signal that they find. The OS will ask for a connection, dhcp address and configure everything without the user having to do anything but have the machine turned on. In the hyper-prosecute mode of the "all connection is theft" crowd, this is automatically a crime. (And under the INDUCE act, will also allow punishment of anyone who makes any wireless hardware or software.) The point of wardriving is to show just how many wireless connections there are and just how many are unsecured. Connecting after discovery is something else entirely. -- 'This message has not been made with the consent or cooperation of the Federal Board of Regulations (F.B.R.) or the Central Enquires Agency (C.E.A.). Any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental, and so forth and so on.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Sep 28 2004 - 12:18:21 PDT