Security Basics mailing list archives
RE: Wireless Security (Part 2)
From: "Craig Wright" <cwright () bdosyd com au>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 08:08:31 +1000
In respect of "natural rights" and the "founding fathers" - well this is technically correct as all law is (supposedly) based on "natural rights". "Natural rights" are those rights that reflect the interpretation of the law of God (just the messenger here). Trespass is a "wrong". It is not only property but also goods and the person. Assault and Battery for example is a trespass. "I have every right to make an arrest and determine the identity of that person, even if they attempt to flee" - actually trespass to land is no longer a crime but only a civil tort. Thus you have no right to arrest them if they flee. You have a right to ask them to leave and a right to take action in court. If you arrest them you are stopping them from leaving and if they only committed a trespass than you will be liable (possibly criminally). You have the right to make a civil arrest in cases of a crime. You may only do this after the event (police etc may do this prior). If the person is not just charged but also convicted, than you will be liable (at least in tort if not criminally) for False imprisonment and/or deprivation of liberty. In the case of the person breaking into a house, you may take *** Reasonable action*** and use reasonable force to eject them. The right to civil arrest is to hold them for another authority only. This is the police or to take them to a magistrate. Regards, Craig -----Original Message----- From: Ian Scott [mailto:ian () pairowoodies com] Sent: Sunday, 21 May 2006 1:19 PM To: security-basics () securityfocus com Subject: Re: Wireless Security (Part 2) On May 17, 2006 06:14 pm, Craig Wright wrote:
In common law jurisdictions (and the US is a common law country, not civil law - other than in Louisiana) you have rights. In the US there are also constitutional rights.
In the US, constitutional rights are those rights reconized as "natural rights" by the founding fathers.
You have every right to stop the attack or remove a host from your network, but never any right to attack back. Two wrongs and all that. Committing a trespass of your own can not be defended by a defence of they did it first.
I have every right to find out what exactly is on my network. I may begin with less intrusive methods which may escalate until I am satisfied. I do not know what you mean by "trespass" in this context. Most definitely if someone trespasses on my real property, if there has been notice posted, I have every right to make an arrest and determine the identity of that person, even if they attempt to flee. If my property is not posted, I begin with low intrusive methods, ie. telling them to leave but have every right to get into a full blown fight, if they refuse to surrender to me peacefully when I advise them they are under arrest. Some may refer to this as an "attack" on the trespasser. But that is semantics. I am course, NOT talking, in my message below, about machines that are attacking machines on my network from another network. I am talking about any device using MY network. Regards, Ian
Regards, Craig -----Original Message----- From: Ian Scott [mailto:ian () pairowoodies com] Sent: Wednesday, 17 May 2006 4:46 PM To: security-basics () securityfocus com; gillettdavid () fhda edu Cc: hfebelingjr () lycos com Subject: Re: Wireless Security (Part 2) On May 16, 2006 02:47 pm, David Gillett wrote:2. Can you post a sign on your driveway, giving yourself the right
to
search any cars that park there that you don't recognize? I don't think so. You have the right to report them to the *police*, who inturnmight determine that a search warrant (or one of the few exceptions)isappropriate, but simply arrogating that authority to yourself is
risky
at best.People confuse "rights" with what governments limit one in doing. The only "rights" that I know are those "natural rights" which include
ownership
of property. With this in mind, I would have every right to do anything with any
item
found on my property without my permission or knowledge. In my jurisdiction,
I
don't have to call the police to have the property removed. I can remove the vehicle myself without any permission from the State or its representatives. I may also have reason to search the vehicle myself before removing it for any number of reasons. So, this analogy is false. As someone who has a number of computers on a network, and include computers with multiple IP addresses, I believe i have every right to attack an
IP
I find on my network to discover what it is that is using that IP
address.
I don't always have time, nor is it always convenient for me upon
discover
of the use of an IP address that I don't have a record of, to call all my customers and ask if they perhaps configured their computer with an IP (accidents can happen) incorrectly. This applies to both wireless and wired components. Depending on the circumstances, I may choose not to attempt to gain access to the computer or whatever it is that is on my network - if for example, one of my clients' boxes appears to have been hacked itself, and is sending
out
spam, I won't bother trying to access the box. I'll simply walk over and unplug it. One could argue that my actions of removing the ethernet cable from the box is some form of "trespass" against that box - the male
end
of the cable is inside the female end of the ethernet card inside the
box.
They can argue that all they want - with whatever analogies they want. It's my network - the resources that make the network possible, regardless
of
whether it is wired or wireless, are my resources. It's my property - and I have every "right" to know what or who is on my network - and there
may
be times when I simply can't ask - I have to do something else to find
out.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation in respect of matters arising within those States and Territories of Australia where such legislation exists. DISCLAIMER The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use
or
disclose the information. If you have received this email in error,
please
inform us promptly by reply email or by telephoning +61 2 9286 5555.
Please
delete the email and destroy any printed copy. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender. You
may not rely on this message as advice unless it has been
electronically
signed by a Partner of BDO or it is subsequently confirmed by letter
or fax
signed by a Partner of BDO. BDO accepts no liability for any damage caused by this email or its attachments due to viruses, interference, interception, corruption or unauthorised access.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation in respect of matters arising within those States and Territories of Australia where such legislation exists. DISCLAIMER The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use or disclose the information. If you have received this email in error, please inform us promptly by reply email or by telephoning +61 2 9286 5555. Please delete the email and destroy any printed copy. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. You may not rely on this message as advice unless it has been electronically signed by a Partner of BDO or it is subsequently confirmed by letter or fax signed by a Partner of BDO. BDO accepts no liability for any damage caused by this email or its attachments due to viruses, interference, interception, corruption or unauthorised access.
Current thread:
- RE: Wireless Security (Part 2), (continued)
- RE: Wireless Security (Part 2) Murad Talukdar (May 17)
- RE: Wireless Security (Part 2) Ebeling, Jr., Herman Frederick (May 20)
- RE: Wireless Security (Part 2) Craig Wright (May 20)
- Re: Wireless Security (Part 2) Ian Scott (May 23)
- RE: Wireless Security (Part 2) Ebeling, Jr., Herman Frederick (May 23)
- Re: Wireless Security (Part 2) Ian Scott (May 23)
- Re: RE: Wireless Security (Part 2) mikem (May 20)
- RE: RE: Wireless Security (Part 2) Ebeling, Jr., Herman Frederick (May 23)
- RE: RE: Wireless Security (Part 2) Lloydm (May 23)
- Re: RE: Wireless Security (Part 2) Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers (May 24)
- RE: RE: Wireless Security (Part 2) Ebeling, Jr., Herman Frederick (May 23)
- RE: RE: Wireless Security (Part 2) Murad Talukdar (May 23)
- RE: Wireless Security (Part 2) Murad Talukdar (May 17)
- RE: Wireless Security (Part 2) Craig Wright (May 23)
- Re: Wireless Security (Part 2) Ian Scott (May 24)
- RE: Wireless Security (Part 2) Craig Wright (May 24)
- RE: Wireless Security (Part 2) Craig Wright (May 24)
- Re: Wireless Security (Part 2) Ian Scott (May 24)
- RE: Wireless Security (Part 2) Craig Wright (May 24)
- Re: Wireless Security (Part 2) Ian Scott (May 24)