3 ms·
That's trespassing, not hacking. I certainly hope plugging into a switch doesn't upgrade a minor local misdemeanor to federal felony hacking.
by superuser2 14y ago
That's trespassing, not hacking. I certainly hope plugging into a switch doesn't upgrade a minor local misdemeanor to federal felony hacking.
- raldi 14y agoHope aside, I'm trying to address what the bill would actually do, and I don't see how it would have cleared Aaron. Reread the first line I quoted. What part of the redefinition of "unauthorized access" makes it no longer apply to plugging into a network layer you know you're not authorized to be on, for the purposes of circumventing a technological access barrier like the JSTOR antiscraping system?
- politician 14y agoWasn't the trespassing charge dropped?
- raldi 14y agoI don't see how the trespassing charge is relevant here. We're discussing the proposed bill, and what its impact would be on computer crime law.
- politician 14y agoSorry, I misread you as suggesting that because the proposed bill wouldn't affect the closet access that it was an ineffective bill. In any case, all of the MAC addresses he used were authorized to be on the MIT network until they stopped working without notice. Doesn't the bill now state that changing MAC addresses is not circumvention?
- mpyne 14y agoHe saying there's two separate things going on when Aaron went into the closet. 1. Trespassing. This is not germane to this discussion though. 2. Unauthorized circumvention of a technological measure (i.e. deliberately hooking up to a trusted subnet to evade the blocks that had been place on his previous network access) Aaron would very well still have been in violation of even the proposed law, as worded now.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- tzs 14y agoSneaking into the closet is trespassing. Plugging into the network while he's in there is not trespassing.
- raldi 14y agoWell, to be fair, trespassing law is complicated. If there's a sign like "NO TRESPASSING" or "WELCOME" it's pretty clear-cut, but otherwise, there's several centuries of case history that comes into play, ultimately boiling down to which of the two signs above was implied by the surrounding objects and circumstances. It's hard to know whether his presence in the closet legally counted as trespassing or not, but from my understanding (and the fact that he wasn't being prosecuted for it), I don't think it applied here.