Re: Interlopers on the WLAN

[Al Potter <apotter () icsalabs com>]

First, I am not a Lawyer, etc., etc....


> Is it reasonable to assume that those who access WLANs without the 
> permission of the owner are violating the same cybercrime laws that 
> apply to any unauthorized access of a computer network?

I do not think this is a reasonable assumption in all cases.

> Some have recently argued this is not the case if someone doesn't 
> "enable the security features", but personally I don't see the 
> distinction between this kind of activity and anything normally 
> prohibited by laws such as California Penal Code section 502a and 
> various other cybercrime laws.  It doesn't seem to me that the law 
> makes a distinction about whether the network in question was secured 
> or not. (what does 'secured' mean anyway?)

The Law probably does not foresee that you would run a network cable out 
to the parking lot and install a hub with patch cables there for all to 
use. This is the equivalent of an unsecured wireless network.

WEP is broken, no argument.

Turning WEP on, despite the debatable value it has for providing a 
protective layer, does send a clear indication of a closed network.

To borrow a phrase from Robert Moscowitz, "Think of WEP as the No 
Trespassing sign of Wireless LANs."


If nothing else, independent of requirements (or the lack thereof) in the 
law for enabling security measures, I do believe most would agree that it 
would probably make it easier to convince a Judge / Jury that a crime had 
been committed, if one could show that a security measure was present, and 
circumvented.



AL

Attachment: _bin
Description: