RE: Wireless Security (Part 2)

["Craig Wright" <cwright () bdosyd com au>]

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 in
>
> turn
>
> > might determine that a search warrant (or one of the few exceptions)
>
> is
>
> > appropriate, 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.