11 ms·
> When I write a letter to somebody, nobody has the right to intercept the letter in transit, break its seal and examine its contents unless I am under formal,
by tkahn6 16y ago
> When I write a letter to somebody, nobody has the right to intercept the letter in transit, break its seal and examine its contents unless I am under formal, individual and prior suspicion of a specific crime. In that case, law enforcement (and only them) may do this. Of course, I am never under any obligation to help anybody open and interpret my letters. It is perfectly reasonable to demand that this applies online as well.
I would be willing to bet that 90% of the readership of TorrentFreak have run wireshark at one time or another.
- ori_b 16y agoI would argue that unencrypted communication is the equivalent of sending a postcard. There's no envelope or anything protecting the contents, so it's hardly a crime if someone happens to see the contents while it's in transit. If you don't want someone to see what you wrote, encrypt it. And yes, this will take a massive amount of user reeducation.
- elliottcarlson 16y agoThere is a difference in passively trying to intercept unencrypted communication and accidentally seeing a postcard in transit. It is illegal to look in someone's mailbox and it's illegal to remove contents from someone's mailbox to possibly read mail even without opening it. The points of contact for a postcard are minimal and generally would only be by employees of the postal service. I would argue that snooping on unencrypted communication would still be a crime because the user made a passive decision to do so. (I'm not preaching what to do or not to do - I'm no angel and have done my share of deeds - but this is to point out what it really comes down to when you compare analog and digital actions...)
- nightpool 16y agoI would say using someone else's network is like giving them your mail to put in your mailbox 'cause you're lazy. Using an unsecured public wireless connection is like shouting to a friend across the park. The problem really is that people think of a line to the internet as just a line to the internet, no matter where it comes from or who it goes through, not considering that some of their communications are public
- elliottcarlson 16y agoYour focus is on public networks though. While the ratio of unsecured private networks are slowly dwindling, there are plenty still out there. It could be argued that it's the owners responsibility to secure the network, just like it's their responsibility to lock their doors at night - but there are plenty of people not tech savvy enough to know how to do this - or to even distinguish that leaving your network open is equivalent to leaving your door unlocked and possibly wide open. The problem is - are they wrong in assuming that their personal network should not in normal circumstances be invaded? Just because we know there is a risk of someone entering our house far easier if we leave the door open, they should not in normal circumstances be entering without obvious intent to do something, anything. The same could be said for someone going on to an open network. While it's easy enough to join said network to just use free WiFi, one could also be snooping on communication, or other possible actions on the person private network. My point really comes down to reasonable expectation of privacy (with possible complete ignorance on such matters) from the network owner, and the possible intent of the person on the network. While it might seem like nothing, I think it's an important topic if we are discussing analog laws in a digital world.
- petsos 16y agoSo? What is the point you are trying to make?