4 ms·

Note, that doesn't mean I think you should get 30 years in prison for simply walking across my lawn. Agreed, which is one reason it is important in this conver

by ynniv 14y ago

Note, that doesn't mean I think you should get 30 years in prison for simply walking across my lawn. Agreed, which is one reason it is important in this conversation to separate false identity from trespassing. The relevance of the security measure is that it serves to prove that the trespasser knew he wasn't allowed on the property. Ah! Exactly! Which is why this conversation is important. The OP has said that he effectively always says no when asked if he is "Insert Name". My example is also poor, because asking someone if they are Bob Dylan also informs them that Bob Dylan is restricted from entry, which means something to the law. A better example would be a security system based on something fleeting and baseless, like your favorite color. You might have always liked the same color, or you might change favorite colors every year, or you might just tell people a different color because no one really knows what your favorite color is but you anyway. If the security call box asked you what your favorite color was, you told them something random, and they let you in, is that illegal? The security guard never said that people whose favorite color is X are not allowed, he just asked what your favorite color was, and then he let you in.

rayiner 14y ago
You're going to all sorts of gyrations to avoid the obvious. The fundamental question is still: do you know that you are being singled out? Favorite colors are non-specific enough that you might reasonably not know. But MAC addresses aren't like favorite colors. Every Ethernet device has a unique one. If you find your MAC address banned, I think you can reasonably conclude that you're being singled out.
- ynniv 14y ago
  You're going to all sorts of gyrations to avoid the obvious. The fundamental question is still: do you know that you're not allowed? I agree that I'm darting around, but it's in the interest of truth. Here's the problem: if Aaron was running an automated MAC randomization system for the purpose of personal privacy, he would never have known that his MAC was blocked. The details of his case show that he was aware, but this OP describes a situation in which there is no awareness. If the law is primarily concerned with the knowledge aspect, this can be attended to on a case by case basis. However, much of the discussion has suggested that a MAC is an identifier, and any alteration of this identifier is criminal. This should not be the case.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    I'm not an expert in the law, but I don't think it's the case that "any alteration of the identifier is criminal." Now, is it the case that if you habitually use MAC address randomization and try to access a network repeatedly without permission, your randomization of MAC address might be interpreted as a way of trying to get around blocks? This is quite possible, and will be handled by a jury that probably doesn't understand why anyone would randomize their MAC address any more than they would understand why anyone would habitually walk around wearing a ski mask. I think that's a legitimate concern.
    - ynniv 14y ago
      This is quite possible, and will be handled by a jury that probably doesn't understand why anyone would randomize their MAC address any more than they would understand why anyone would habitually walk around wearing a ski mask. I would hope that someone would realize that wearing a ski mask for no reason has considerable downsides, while changing you MAC address for no reason has none. What if someone uses different devices instead of changing the identifier of one device? A policy that very explicitly says you can only take so much food on a plate, but that anyone can take a new plate, doesn't suggest that the server is too concerned about how much food is served.
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        > I would hope that someone would realize that wearing a ski mask for no reason has considerable downsides On this note, I recall several years ago while in college getting a mass email from administration that warned students not to wear masks during Halloween on the street because doing so was banned in the city. A quick googling just now doesn't turn up anything of the sort, though it does seem some other states have laws concerning masks, though often with exceptions for children, holidays, religion, education, etc.
  - tedunangst 14y ago
    However, much of the discussion has suggested that a MAC is an identifier, and any alteration of this identifier is criminal. This should not be the case. Who specifically has suggested that it should be the case? You're constructing a strawman or not reading what people are writing. The criminal act is continuing to do something after you've been told to stop.

by ynniv 14y ago

rayiner 14y ago

You're going to all sorts of gyrations to avoid the obvious. The fundamental question is still: do you know that you are being singled out? Favorite colors are non-specific enough that you might reasonably not know. But MAC addresses aren't like favorite colors. Every Ethernet device has a unique one. If you find your MAC address banned, I think you can reasonably conclude that you're being singled out.

ynniv 14y ago
You're going to all sorts of gyrations to avoid the obvious. The fundamental question is still: do you know that you're not allowed? I agree that I'm darting around, but it's in the interest of truth. Here's the problem: if Aaron was running an automated MAC randomization system for the purpose of personal privacy, he would never have known that his MAC was blocked. The details of his case show that he was aware, but this OP describes a situation in which there is no awareness. If the law is primarily concerned with the knowledge aspect, this can be attended to on a case by case basis. However, much of the discussion has suggested that a MAC is an identifier, and any alteration of this identifier is criminal. This should not be the case.
- rayiner 14y ago
  I'm not an expert in the law, but I don't think it's the case that "any alteration of the identifier is criminal." Now, is it the case that if you habitually use MAC address randomization and try to access a network repeatedly without permission, your randomization of MAC address might be interpreted as a way of trying to get around blocks? This is quite possible, and will be handled by a jury that probably doesn't understand why anyone would randomize their MAC address any more than they would understand why anyone would habitually walk around wearing a ski mask. I think that's a legitimate concern.
  - ynniv 14y ago
    This is quite possible, and will be handled by a jury that probably doesn't understand why anyone would randomize their MAC address any more than they would understand why anyone would habitually walk around wearing a ski mask. I would hope that someone would realize that wearing a ski mask for no reason has considerable downsides, while changing you MAC address for no reason has none. What if someone uses different devices instead of changing the identifier of one device? A policy that very explicitly says you can only take so much food on a plate, but that anyone can take a new plate, doesn't suggest that the server is too concerned about how much food is served.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      > I would hope that someone would realize that wearing a ski mask for no reason has considerable downsides On this note, I recall several years ago while in college getting a mass email from administration that warned students not to wear masks during Halloween on the street because doing so was banned in the city. A quick googling just now doesn't turn up anything of the sort, though it does seem some other states have laws concerning masks, though often with exceptions for children, holidays, religion, education, etc.
- tedunangst 14y ago
  However, much of the discussion has suggested that a MAC is an identifier, and any alteration of this identifier is criminal. This should not be the case. Who specifically has suggested that it should be the case? You're constructing a strawman or not reading what people are writing. The criminal act is continuing to do something after you've been told to stop.