From: Nick Selby (nick.selby@the451group.com)
Date: Mon May 28 2007 - 02:24:27 EDT
Thanks, that's great information! THis has been a really interesting
thread - I did agree also with someone else who said, Hey, it's still
kind of a cheesy way to do business, and the lawyers I speak with are
less convinced than you, but you make great points.
Cheers,
Nick
cwright@bdosyd.com.au wrote:
>> <snip>Access and authorisation are not the issue. The law is well developed in terms of property, license and authorisation. When you claim that it may be difficult to prosecute, this is a function of evidence.
>>
>> In the respect of the law, rules of evidence are also well defined. The issue is that of collecting evidence. Being a matter of fact, the nature of the evidence is not one that requires a large amount of legal dispute. It does however require more than the word of the accuser.
>>
>> In civil cases, the requirements are lower. In criminal, there is a higher hurdle. Either way, there is a duty to collect evidence if you want to persue this. The difficultly is that it is not likely that a system running an open WEP gateway will have detailed logging and monitoring enabled. You do not need to notify the user that they are accessing the system without authority; they are not licensed to do so by the nature of the communications.
>>
>> The law of license is a subset of property and requires a legal technical background that I can not extrapolate adequately on this list. </snip>
>>
>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This List Sponsored by: Cenzic
Are you using SPI, Watchfire or WhiteHat?
Consider getting clear vision with Cenzic
See HOW Now with our 20/20 program!
http://www.cenzic.com/c/2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat Apr 12 2008 - 10:57:50 EDT