7 ms·

As I understand it, the problem was that he continued to connect to the network after being kicked off. It's unauthorized access. I don't really know how to ex

by nsmartt 14y ago

As I understand it, the problem was that he continued to connect to the network after being kicked off. It's unauthorized access. I don't really know how to explain how I feel about it, but that's my understanding.

tomp 14y ago
No, he wasn't kicked off, just the MAC address of his laptop was banned. As the article author wrote, if someone blocks your number, it's not illegal to call him/her from a different phone number. Maybe they could make it illegal if they got a restraining order, but AFAIK MIT did not do that.
- CurtHagenlocher 14y ago
  How do you kick an anonymous person off of a network? Other than blocking the MAC address, the only thing I can think of is to block non-HTTP access and redirect any HTTP requests to a page explaining what has happened with instructions for getting unblocked in case the block was due to a misunderstanding.
  - 1337biz 14y ago
    I find it odd to provide unlimited access to a network without any further form of authentication than just the IP address. There are enough alternatives out (e.g. Shibboleth) that could have been implemented if there were a needed for closer monitoring of access to journal databases.
    - danielweber 14y ago
      Just because my door is unlocked doesn't mean you have the right to be on my property. The law, for good reason, doesn't follow a "whatever you can get away with is legal" stance. For one, because then we don't have law anymore.
      - maxerickson 14y ago
        I guess if he had purchased multiple laptops to circumvent the filter, the prosecutor would have argued along similar lines. So the problem is that there is room to argue that the notion of unauthorized access exists on a network that doesn't do anything to identify or authenticate users.
        danielweber 14y ago
        That's not a problem. A mall has the right to kick you out even though they don't identify or authenticate each person coming into the building.
        maxerickson 14y ago
        Can disagree as to whether it is a problem?
        danielweber 14y ago
        I don't think you've really considered the practical effects of "unless someone has put in place measures to do identity and authentication of all people that enter, they don't have the rights to keep out unwanted parties."
        maxerickson 14y ago
        Evading a MAC filter should be equivalent to criminal trespass (usually a misdemeanor). There isn't any such notion in the law. So the problem I have is with the structure and application of the CFAA, not so much with people having the right to keep out unwanted parties. I did not put it clearly above, but I specifically meant unauthorized access where the CFAA would apply (in my world view, for circumvention to be a felony, the network operator needs to have some expectation the security mechanism will effectively prevent access).
        danielweber 14y ago
- freehunter 14y ago
  Perhaps its different for me since I work in information security, but if there's someone connected to our guest network (where we have no identity information) and their computer is misbehaving, the only recourse we have to demonstrate that they are not welcome anymore is to terminate their session and block their MAC address. There's literally no other way to get in contact with them. I would say it's safe to assume that if your MAC address gets banned, it was for a reason. It means you're not welcome on the network anymore.
  - RobAley 14y ago
    The retort would be : If you want to be able to address me, you don't have to have an open network, you can require registration and/or other physical verification first. You have chosen to run a network where you can't identify or talk to me, you should therefore know that I won't necessarily know what you're wanting. Some places have a policy that older versions of OSes aren't permitted on the network, and you'll get booted for that. Doesn't mean that you aren't welcome after you've updated your system or changed to another PC. But you haven't told me why you booted me, so I can't know for sure that I'm not welcome again.
    - nsmartt 14y ago
      I like this idea, but there's a problem with it. His MAC address, which is meant to be specific to a machine, was banned. The intent is clear-- "your machine is no longer welcome on our network."
      - RobAley 14y ago
        "His MAC address, which is meant to be specific to a machine" The article (which I tend to agree with) tends to argue that a MAC address is exactly NOT that, especially in a technical sense (thus a technical user may indeed have more reason for the intent not to be "clear"). I think a better description in plain english is : A MAC address is an address that a particular interface on a particular machine asks to be identified by in a particular session. I.E. it's not an identity of a machine, its an identity of an interface. Its not an identity assigned by the network, its an identity offered by the machine/interface itself. Its not guaranteed to be unique, or stable beyond a session. If it was meant to be a specific identifier for a machine, we would have many technical problems on the "legitimate" side of things, think multiple network cards and virtualised machines. There was no agreement between Arron and MIT that arron would use a particular MAC address as an indentifier on their network. Its a downside of running an open network.
- danielweber 14y ago
  You are arguing that Aaron was an idiot. He was many things, but not an idiot. He knew that MIT was trying to stop him from being on their network, and he continued to evade their countermeasures and get back on the network. How do I know this? Because I know Aaron was not an idiot.
  - tomp 14y ago
    I can't think of a better example, so this: Imagine I have a land that is for pissing. I.e. people are free to piss on my land. You piss. I don't like the smell of your piss. So I put some boxes where you piss and so I try to block you from peeing. Are you in the wrong to pee on a different part of my land? Wouldn't a better recourse be to require people to sign up before they pee? Or to find you when you're peeing and tell you in person that you can't any more (then if you do it again, it's trespassing)?
    - sigzero 14y ago
      That was a horrible example in many ways.
    - danielweber 14y ago
      Just because I have something that is open to the public doesn't mean I lose the ability to kick people out. I don't have to put security guards at every door to keep that person out. It was crystal clear that MIT did not want Aaron on their network doing what he was doing. (This doesn't mean, of course, he should be in jail for 7 years.)
    - CJefferson 14y ago
      Putting up boxes seems like a terrible example. Really, a MAC address is a unique name. Now your pissing land requires people give their name. I find my name has been banned, so I make up a new name. I think it is clear I know yo don't want me there, but I give a new name to get in.
      - ricardobeat 14y ago
- rayiner 14y ago
  In the law of property, there is a concept called "license." Basically, it encompasses the idea that you can give people permission to trespass, either explicitly or implicitly. If I invite you to my house for dinner, I'm giving you implicit permission to trespass. What you're getting at is the scope of implied license and how it can be revoked. Here is a pretty good, non-legal take on it: http://news.domain.com.au/domain/real-estate-news/how-private-is-your-property-20100602-wvym.html http://news.domain.com.au/domain/real-estate-news/how-privat... Basically, the implied license has a scope defined by the rationale for the implication. If you invite a plumber to fix your toilet, they don't have license to use your jacuzzi (though a dinner guest might!) A license can be revoked in any manner that reasonably conveys the revocation to the licensee. The law of property isn't directly applicable to computer networks, but is a source of guiding principles and analogy. If you're on an open network and the administrator bans your MAC address, I think a normal person would conclude that the message that you are no longer welcome has been reasonably conveyed. Moreover, MIT Net does have terms of use, and one of those terms (#4 of 6) is: "Don't misuse the intellectual property of others." You can also argue that these terms of use define the scope of the implied license to use MIT's open network.
  - defen 14y ago
    > The law of property isn't directly applicable to computer networks, but is a source of guiding principles and analogy. If you're on an open network and the administrator bans your MAC address, I think a normal person would conclude that the message that you are no longer welcome has been reasonably conveyed. Let's say Aaron's laptop gets its MAC address banned for doing whatever it is he did initially. Aaron then walks over to one of the available library computers and looks up directions to the train station. In your opinion, has he just committed a federal crime?
    - rayiner 14y ago
      Let's say I normally let people cut through my lawn to get to the road behind it. But you come on my lawn and start yelling at my house. So I tell you to leave. Are you still welcome to cut through my lawn to get to the road?

by nsmartt 14y ago

tomp 14y ago

No, he wasn't kicked off, just the MAC address of his laptop was banned. As the article author wrote, if someone blocks your number, it's not illegal to call him/her from a different phone number. Maybe they could make it illegal if they got a restraining order, but AFAIK MIT did not do that.

CurtHagenlocher 14y ago
How do you kick an anonymous person off of a network? Other than blocking the MAC address, the only thing I can think of is to block non-HTTP access and redirect any HTTP requests to a page explaining what has happened with instructions for getting unblocked in case the block was due to a misunderstanding.
- 1337biz 14y ago
  I find it odd to provide unlimited access to a network without any further form of authentication than just the IP address. There are enough alternatives out (e.g. Shibboleth) that could have been implemented if there were a needed for closer monitoring of access to journal databases.
  - danielweber 14y ago
    Just because my door is unlocked doesn't mean you have the right to be on my property. The law, for good reason, doesn't follow a "whatever you can get away with is legal" stance. For one, because then we don't have law anymore.
    - maxerickson 14y ago
      I guess if he had purchased multiple laptops to circumvent the filter, the prosecutor would have argued along similar lines. So the problem is that there is room to argue that the notion of unauthorized access exists on a network that doesn't do anything to identify or authenticate users.
      - danielweber 14y ago
        That's not a problem. A mall has the right to kick you out even though they don't identify or authenticate each person coming into the building.
        maxerickson 14y ago
        Can disagree as to whether it is a problem?
        danielweber 14y ago
        I don't think you've really considered the practical effects of "unless someone has put in place measures to do identity and authentication of all people that enter, they don't have the rights to keep out unwanted parties."
        maxerickson 14y ago
        Evading a MAC filter should be equivalent to criminal trespass (usually a misdemeanor). There isn't any such notion in the law. So the problem I have is with the structure and application of the CFAA, not so much with people having the right to keep out unwanted parties. I did not put it clearly above, but I specifically meant unauthorized access where the CFAA would apply (in my world view, for circumvention to be a felony, the network operator needs to have some expectation the security mechanism will effectively prevent access).
        danielweber 14y ago
freehunter 14y ago
Perhaps its different for me since I work in information security, but if there's someone connected to our guest network (where we have no identity information) and their computer is misbehaving, the only recourse we have to demonstrate that they are not welcome anymore is to terminate their session and block their MAC address. There's literally no other way to get in contact with them. I would say it's safe to assume that if your MAC address gets banned, it was for a reason. It means you're not welcome on the network anymore.
- RobAley 14y ago
  The retort would be : If you want to be able to address me, you don't have to have an open network, you can require registration and/or other physical verification first. You have chosen to run a network where you can't identify or talk to me, you should therefore know that I won't necessarily know what you're wanting. Some places have a policy that older versions of OSes aren't permitted on the network, and you'll get booted for that. Doesn't mean that you aren't welcome after you've updated your system or changed to another PC. But you haven't told me why you booted me, so I can't know for sure that I'm not welcome again.
  - nsmartt 14y ago
    I like this idea, but there's a problem with it. His MAC address, which is meant to be specific to a machine, was banned. The intent is clear-- "your machine is no longer welcome on our network."
    - RobAley 14y ago
      "His MAC address, which is meant to be specific to a machine" The article (which I tend to agree with) tends to argue that a MAC address is exactly NOT that, especially in a technical sense (thus a technical user may indeed have more reason for the intent not to be "clear"). I think a better description in plain english is : A MAC address is an address that a particular interface on a particular machine asks to be identified by in a particular session. I.E. it's not an identity of a machine, its an identity of an interface. Its not an identity assigned by the network, its an identity offered by the machine/interface itself. Its not guaranteed to be unique, or stable beyond a session. If it was meant to be a specific identifier for a machine, we would have many technical problems on the "legitimate" side of things, think multiple network cards and virtualised machines. There was no agreement between Arron and MIT that arron would use a particular MAC address as an indentifier on their network. Its a downside of running an open network.
danielweber 14y ago
You are arguing that Aaron was an idiot. He was many things, but not an idiot. He knew that MIT was trying to stop him from being on their network, and he continued to evade their countermeasures and get back on the network. How do I know this? Because I know Aaron was not an idiot.
- tomp 14y ago
  I can't think of a better example, so this: Imagine I have a land that is for pissing. I.e. people are free to piss on my land. You piss. I don't like the smell of your piss. So I put some boxes where you piss and so I try to block you from peeing. Are you in the wrong to pee on a different part of my land? Wouldn't a better recourse be to require people to sign up before they pee? Or to find you when you're peeing and tell you in person that you can't any more (then if you do it again, it's trespassing)?
  - sigzero 14y ago
    That was a horrible example in many ways.
  - danielweber 14y ago
    Just because I have something that is open to the public doesn't mean I lose the ability to kick people out. I don't have to put security guards at every door to keep that person out. It was crystal clear that MIT did not want Aaron on their network doing what he was doing. (This doesn't mean, of course, he should be in jail for 7 years.)
  - CJefferson 14y ago
    Putting up boxes seems like a terrible example. Really, a MAC address is a unique name. Now your pissing land requires people give their name. I find my name has been banned, so I make up a new name. I think it is clear I know yo don't want me there, but I give a new name to get in.
    - ricardobeat 14y ago
rayiner 14y ago
In the law of property, there is a concept called "license." Basically, it encompasses the idea that you can give people permission to trespass, either explicitly or implicitly. If I invite you to my house for dinner, I'm giving you implicit permission to trespass. What you're getting at is the scope of implied license and how it can be revoked. Here is a pretty good, non-legal take on it: http://news.domain.com.au/domain/real-estate-news/how-private-is-your-property-20100602-wvym.html http://news.domain.com.au/domain/real-estate-news/how-privat... Basically, the implied license has a scope defined by the rationale for the implication. If you invite a plumber to fix your toilet, they don't have license to use your jacuzzi (though a dinner guest might!) A license can be revoked in any manner that reasonably conveys the revocation to the licensee. The law of property isn't directly applicable to computer networks, but is a source of guiding principles and analogy. If you're on an open network and the administrator bans your MAC address, I think a normal person would conclude that the message that you are no longer welcome has been reasonably conveyed. Moreover, MIT Net does have terms of use, and one of those terms (#4 of 6) is: "Don't misuse the intellectual property of others." You can also argue that these terms of use define the scope of the implied license to use MIT's open network.
- defen 14y ago
  > The law of property isn't directly applicable to computer networks, but is a source of guiding principles and analogy. If you're on an open network and the administrator bans your MAC address, I think a normal person would conclude that the message that you are no longer welcome has been reasonably conveyed. Let's say Aaron's laptop gets its MAC address banned for doing whatever it is he did initially. Aaron then walks over to one of the available library computers and looks up directions to the train station. In your opinion, has he just committed a federal crime?
  - rayiner 14y ago
    Let's say I normally let people cut through my lawn to get to the road behind it. But you come on my lawn and start yelling at my house. So I tell you to leave. Are you still welcome to cut through my lawn to get to the road?