Re: Wireless Security (Part 2)

[Ian Scott <ian () pairowoodies com>]

On May 24, 2006 02:57 am, Craig Wright wrote:
> Hi
> Nothing to do with a theological discussion, it is (the issue of natural
> rights) a philosophical discussion.

Well, when "God" is mentioned, it becomes theological as well.  But there are 
plenty of arguments for natural rights, regardless of the existence of a 
"God."

> This is the difficultly of answering one issue in law on the list. Under
> the "TRESPASS TO PROPERTY ACT" in CA, trespass has not been repealed as
> a criminal offence.

In CA? CAnada?  California?  As per my previous email, it is NOT a "criminal" 
offence in Canada, but is a Provincial Offence.  This is still not the same 
as "Civil," however.

> Even in this case though you had better hope for a conviction...

In my own personal experience, being the primary witness in dozens, I've 
always had a conviction.  Sometimes, I've been a secondary witness, and the 
conviction was not gotten.  No further consequences every successfully came 
about, as far as the person charged bringing forth civil suits on their own.

Generally, when the charged was not convicted, it was due to some curious 
decision of the JP or Judge, because of his "mood" that day.

> Still it is just reasonable force, not anything you like

It is any force that may be justified.  AS much force as is NECESSARY.  
Correct.. not anything I "like," but whatever it takes.

There have been times, when the suspect fled, I was in fresh pursuit, becuase 
the suspect had no known address to serve him at, and he was a regular 
offender - so the only way I could ensure he was physically handed a summons 
to court was to arrest him - that I've knocked out teeth.

After the pursuit, in which I caught him, he continued to fight and I was 
required to use increasing force in order to subdue and take control of him, 
which also included having to punch him in the mouth and knock out teeth.

The suspect and his lawyer made a great deal about this fellow's front teeth 
being knocked out.  I showed that it was necessary for me to use that amount 
of force, due to the accused's actions, and fighting with me upon being 
arrested - that it was "reasonable" as you put it.

Bringing this back to the point of this thread - if I see something on my 
network, that apparently does not belong on my network, I am justified in 
using whatever degrees of "force," beginning with passive investigation, to 
determine whether or not that device has lawful access to my network, and 
then doing whatever is necessary to stop the trespass from continuing.

Best,

Ian Scott

> Regards,
> Craig
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Scott [mailto:ian () pairowoodies com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 24 May 2006 4:47 PM
> To: security-basics () securityfocus com
> Cc: Craig Wright
> Subject: Re: Wireless Security (Part 2)
>
> On May 23, 2006 06:08 pm, Craig Wright wrote:
> > 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).
> :)  Well, theological discussions are probably best left for a different
>
> list.
> However, the founding fathers were "Deists" mostly, and didn't recognize
> a
> "law of God" as organized religion does - it was more a "law of God" in
> respect to an individual's own interpretations and peace of mind with
> whatever God they worshipped.  It was for the individual to choose and
> all
> others had no business imposing their will on any one with regard to
> anything
> consentual.
>
> > Trespass is a "wrong". It is not only property but also goods and the
> > person. Assault and Battery for example is a trespass.
>
> Technically speaking, yes.
>
> > "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.
>
> Not in all jurisdictions. It is not "criminal" in my jurisdiction
> (Canada) as
> property laws are not governed federally, but provincially.  The
> Province I
> live in, Ontario, recognizes to some degree, property rights (note word
> "recognizes."  To me, it matters not if they recognize the right or not
> - I
> will still excercise, what to me, is my right even when not recognized).
> In
> Ontario, it is not a "civil tort." It is in fact, governed by Provincial
> law
> and there are penalties for trespass (generally a small fine, but could
> be up
> to $1,000.00 and/or jail time if other restrictions have also been
> ignored).
>
> > Thus you have no right to arrest
> > them if they flee.
>
> Incorrect.  Yes I do.  I spent 20 years in law enforcement in Ontario,
> and am
> quite proud of my record of having NEVER lost any case in court where I
> was
> the principle witness.  Even including trespass charges.  And believe
> me, I
> chased and arrested trespassers that had tried to flee!  Under some
> circumstances.
>
> Occupants of real property, OR THEIR AGENTS, may arrest ANYONE who
> trespasses
> upon the property.  Now.. if You have asked them to leave, and they flee
>
> towards public property, or someone else's property, then usually, you
> let
> them flee.
>
> HOWEVER, if the person has been advised previously that they are not
> welcome
> on your property, and they are aware of this, and then  trespass upon
> it, you
> can chase them all over God's green acres, as long as you do not lose
> site of
> them for a "fleeting moment," until you have arrested them in order to
> have
> them charged and hopefully, convicted.
>
> > 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).
>
> Not true.  In Ontario, any occupant of property is entitled to use as
> much
> force as is necessary in order to arrest a trespasser that:
>
> 1.  Has been advised either in letter or orally not to trespass on your
> property.
>
> 2.  Has trespassed upon your property where signs have been posted.
>
> 3.  Engages in any act on the property that you don't want engaged in,
> ie.
> comes onto your property and disturbs the peace - that in itself is
> considered a trespass, whether or not the above conditions are met.
>
> 4.  Is asked to leave the property (with none of the three conditions
> above
> having been met), and refuses to do so.
>
> I will agree.. that if one simply asks a person to leave their property,
> and
> they do so IMMEDIATELY, then no trespass charge will ever stick..
> However, if
> any of the above conditions are met, then an occupant OR THEIR AGENT has
>
> every right to chase down and arrest the trespasser and have them
> charged by
> handing over the trespasser as soon as reasonably possible, to a peace
> officer.
>
> > You have the right to make a civil arrest in cases of a crime.
>
> Incorrect.  I have the right to make a citizen's arrest.  In fact, with
> regard
> to my property, I have more power than a police officer does.  A police
> officer CANNOT arrest for trespassing UNLESS the police officer, either
> by
> letter authorizing the police, or orally at the time of the incident
> directly
> to the attending police officer, is given "agent status" by the occupant
> of
> property.
>
> > You may
> > only do this after the event (police etc may do this prior).
>
> Actually, this is incorrect.  Police may ONLY arrest AFTER a crime if
> there is
> a warrant for the arrest of a person first sworn out.
>
> Now, citizens do NOT have the right to arrest for, what in Canada are
> called
> "summary" conviction crimes, unless.. this is interesting.. it is in
> direct
> relation to themselves or their property.  This is probably why most
> property
> crimes are what are called "dual procedure" crimes - they could end up
> being
> prosecuted EITHER as indicatable OR summary conviction.  Summary
> conviction
> offences come with a penalty that is less than 2 years less a day.
>
> Citizens, like police, ALWAYS have the right to arrest for any
> "indictable"
> crime, either while it is occurring, or while in fresh pursuit.
>
> And ANYONE can swear out a warrant for the arrest of someone - if the
> Justice
> of the Peace accepts the sworn statement.  Once this happens, ONLY the
> police
> may arrest on a warrant.
>
> But it should be noted that not even the Police can arrest ANYONE for
> ANY
> crime if they have lost the suspect after a fresh pursuit.  A warrant
> must be
> issued, even for the Police to arrest.
>
> > 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.
>
> Sure, if the person wishes to sue me, civilly.  Trespass, however, in my
>
> jurisdiction at least, is not "civil."
>
> > In the case of the person breaking into a house, you may take ***
> > Reasonable action*** and use reasonable force to eject them.
>
> Incorrect.  I may use AS MUCH FORCE AS NECESSARY.  Both Provincial and
> Criminal law recognize my right to use as much force as necessary, in
> protecting my property.  Trespass on real property is a Provincial
> affair,
> but if someone decides to steal my property from me, and I observe that
> action take place, the Criminal Code of Canada (sorry, I forget the
> Section)
> states that I have the right to use AS MUCH FORCE AS NECESSARY to take
> my
> property back.
>
> Which is actually quite interesting... "pain" does not equate to
> "force."  :)
> I can inflict GREAT PAIN on someone, using a minimal amount of force.
>
> All I have to do is justify the force I used to a jury/judge or Justice
> of the
> Peace.
>
> > The right
> > to civil arrest is to hold them for another authority only. This is
>
> the
>
> > police or to take them to a magistrate.
>
> Correct.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ian
>
>
> 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.

Attachment: _bin
Description: