Comments on: No such thing as a free lunch, even at BarCamp http://www.cearta.ie/2007/04/no-such-thing-as-a-free-lunch-even-at-barcamp/ the Irish for rights Sun, 05 Feb 2012 01:43:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: cearta.ie » Something must be done - I http://www.cearta.ie/2007/04/no-such-thing-as-a-free-lunch-even-at-barcamp/comment-page-1/#comment-3710 cearta.ie » Something must be done - I Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:47:59 +0000 http://www.cearta.ie/2007/04/no-such-thing-as-a-free-lunch-even-at-barcamp/#comment-3710 [...] is human nature to fear the new. And for many of us, the internet is still new. I have pointed out before that Lilian Edwards observes (in “The internet and security: do we need a man with a red flag [...] [...] is human nature to fear the new. And for many of us, the internet is still new. I have pointed out before that Lilian Edwards observes (in “The internet and security: do we need a man with a red flag [...]

]]> By: cearta.ie » I wish I’d said that http://www.cearta.ie/2007/04/no-such-thing-as-a-free-lunch-even-at-barcamp/comment-page-1/#comment-3582 cearta.ie » I wish I’d said that Fri, 18 Jan 2008 13:36:59 +0000 http://www.cearta.ie/2007/04/no-such-thing-as-a-free-lunch-even-at-barcamp/#comment-3582 [...] (see also here and here, to which Bernie links), though (as I have said before on this blog, here, here and here) there are deep legal waters [...] [...] (see also here and here, to which Bernie links), though (as I have said before on this blog, here, here and here) there are deep legal waters [...]

]]> By: cearta.ie » Blog Archive » Just when are wardriving and piggybacking illegal? http://www.cearta.ie/2007/04/no-such-thing-as-a-free-lunch-even-at-barcamp/comment-page-1/#comment-3492 cearta.ie » Blog Archive » Just when are wardriving and piggybacking illegal? Mon, 29 Oct 2007 02:38:31 +0000 http://www.cearta.ie/2007/04/no-such-thing-as-a-free-lunch-even-at-barcamp/#comment-3492 [...] have mused on previous occasions on this blog (here and here) as to whether it really is the case that piggybacking on someone else’s open wi-fi [...] [...] have mused on previous occasions on this blog (here and here) as to whether it really is the case that piggybacking on someone else’s open wi-fi [...]

]]> By: Daithí http://www.cearta.ie/2007/04/no-such-thing-as-a-free-lunch-even-at-barcamp/comment-page-1/#comment-3451 Daithí Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:55:24 +0000 http://www.cearta.ie/2007/04/no-such-thing-as-a-free-lunch-even-at-barcamp/#comment-3451 Following up on the mention of Singapore, I read an interesting overview recently that mentioned the case mentioned in your last paragraph above, and also another case, that of Lin Zhenghuang (<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/07/AR2007020701338.html?nav=rss_technology" rel="nofollow">AP Report</a>). The relevant law (Computer Misuse Act) says in s 6(1): "any person who knowingly ... secures access without authority to any computer for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, any computer service" which is apparently based on what is now s 342 of the Criminal Code in Canada (and duplicated across a lot of the Commonwealth). It's a slightly different trend than either the Comms Act 2003 or the Irish mishmash. I read reports of these two cases, by the way, in this <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2007.03.012" rel="nofollow">note</a> on Asian developments in Computer Law & Security Report (v 23 p 238 at 245, for anyone following at home). Following up on the mention of Singapore, I read an interesting overview recently that mentioned the case mentioned in your last paragraph above, and also another case, that of Lin Zhenghuang (AP Report).

The relevant law (Computer Misuse Act) says in s 6(1): “any person who knowingly … secures access without authority to any computer for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, any computer service” which is apparently based on what is now s 342 of the Criminal Code in Canada (and duplicated across a lot of the Commonwealth). It’s a slightly different trend than either the Comms Act 2003 or the Irish mishmash.

I read reports of these two cases, by the way, in this note on Asian developments in Computer Law & Security Report (v 23 p 238 at 245, for anyone following at home).

]]> By: Eoin http://www.cearta.ie/2007/04/no-such-thing-as-a-free-lunch-even-at-barcamp/comment-page-1/#comment-3435 Eoin Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:48:46 +0000 http://www.cearta.ie/2007/04/no-such-thing-as-a-free-lunch-even-at-barcamp/#comment-3435 <strong>Update</strong> (1 August 2007) from <i><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/01/smut_spam_wifi/" rel="nofollow">The Register</a></i> via <a href="http://www.out-law.com//default.aspx?page=8344" rel="nofollow">OUT-LAW</a>: <blockquote><strong>Wi-Fi spam man avoids can</strong> A US man who sent out pornographic spam while driving around Venice, California, has escaped imprisonment for his misdeeds. ... Nicholas Tombros, 40, was sentenced to three years' probation and six months' home detention after he was convicted of emailing out thousands of advertisements for pornographic websites. The spam emails were sent from Tombros's laptop using unsecured, unencrypted wireless internet access points he discovered while driving around in his car. ... Tombros was, however, ordered to pay a $10,000 fine over his wrongdoing as part of a plea-bargaining agreement. ... Tombros can consider himself more than fortunate to have escaped a tougher punishment, especially in comparison with other recent prosecutions for similar offences. For example, Singapore teenager Garyl Tan Jia Luo was <a href="http://www.todayonline.com/articles/166274.asp" rel="nofollow">given</a> 18 months probation and an internet ban simply from hopping on his neighbour's internet connection without permission, while a Michigan man who parked outside a local Wi-Fi cafe every day to check his email has been fined $400 and <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/23/michigan_wifi_conviction/" rel="nofollow">sentenced</a> to 40 hours' community service. Sam Peterson's actions would have been perfectly lawful if he'd simply stepped inside the cafe to buy a coffee while he surfed the net. ...</blockquote> Update (1 August 2007) from The Register via OUT-LAW:

Wi-Fi spam man avoids can

A US man who sent out pornographic spam while driving around Venice, California, has escaped imprisonment for his misdeeds. … Nicholas Tombros, 40, was sentenced to three years’ probation and six months’ home detention after he was convicted of emailing out thousands of advertisements for pornographic websites. The spam emails were sent from Tombros’s laptop using unsecured, unencrypted wireless internet access points he discovered while driving around in his car. … Tombros was, however, ordered to pay a $10,000 fine over his wrongdoing as part of a plea-bargaining agreement. …

Tombros can consider himself more than fortunate to have escaped a tougher punishment, especially in comparison with other recent prosecutions for similar offences.

For example, Singapore teenager Garyl Tan Jia Luo was given 18 months probation and an internet ban simply from hopping on his neighbour’s internet connection without permission, while a Michigan man who parked outside a local Wi-Fi cafe every day to check his email has been fined $400 and sentenced to 40 hours’ community service. Sam Peterson’s actions would have been perfectly lawful if he’d simply stepped inside the cafe to buy a coffee while he surfed the net. …

]]>