Re: [inbox] Re: Supporters urge halt to, hacker's, extradition to US

["Eliah Kagan" <degeneracypressure () gmail com>]

Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
> In the US, there have been a number of successful prosecutions in cases where
> people used an unsecured wireless access point to launch attacks.  You'd
> probably need to show *all* of the following:
>
> 1) That it was unsecured.
> 2) That it was *intentionally* unsecured.
> 3) That the security was set up for the explicit purpose of allowing free
> guest access, and people were actively invited.
>
> In other words - if the sign at the coffeeshop says "Free Wifi", it's fair
> game.  If the login banner says "Free guest shell access - no password needed",
> it's fair game.   However, if you happen to find an unsecured WAP while
> wardriving, or an account that accidentally has a null password, things are a
> *lot* stickier for you...

Not that this actually pertains to the case of Gary McKinnon, but...

They used them **to launch attacks**.

It's illegal to launch cruise missiles from the public park, but that
doesn't mean it's illegal to go in the public park.

Has anyone ever been prosecuted for using unsecured wireless for legal purposes?

Wouldn't that contradict FCC rules governing use of wireless (in the
general sense of wireless), where a wireless system must accept
interference?

(Whereas breaking into, or perhaps even using with a null password,
encrypted wireless, even if the encryption is as pathetic as WEP,
would still be illegal.)

What am I missing?

-Eliah

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/