Access to "hacker's" computer legal?

(I quoted the work "hacker" in my subject because, though I feel the term is
incorrectly overused, in this case it should be applicable in both the "evil
hacker" and "recreational hacker" tenses.)

OK, so we know about people that hop onto their (unwitting) neighbor's AP to
use their internet access. Legally, it appears, that this connection is
defined as "access" to the equipment. Here's the question: once someone has
made themselves part of *your* network, what are the legal ramifications of
you accessing their computer? I would think that existing law would
actually not allow you to do so, since it technically would be "unauthorized
access" of their system, however one could make the argument that the person
*using* the neighbor's wireless network has given tacit approval for reverse
access just by the very action of linking to the network.

Does anyone know if exceptions exist in the law for unauthorized access to
the equipment of someone who has gained unauthorized access themselves?

Keep in mind that I am not talking about someone running a rogue AP that
duplicates an existing SSID in an *attempt* to misdirect computers for
nefarious access attempts. I believe in this case the rogue gives up any
legal protection by operating with intent.

> Does anyone know if exceptions exist in the law for unauthorized access to
> the equipment of someone who has gained unauthorized access themselves?

Well if it helps your thought process, consider that (UK example), some
thieves have successfully been awarded damages by hurting themselves or
getting hurt in the course of their illegal action by what they have
claimed to be dangerous property or being shot by the property owner for
example.

In my view, as soon as you commit a crime with intent, you lose all
rights against the person to whom your crime was aimed but then i'm
neither a laywer or judge, just a reasonable person with commonsense.

David.

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:36:46 GMT, "TV Slug"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>(I quoted the work "hacker" in my subject because, though I feel the term is
>incorrectly overused, in this case it should be applicable in both the "evil
>hacker" and "recreational hacker" tenses.)
>
>OK, so we know about people that hop onto their (unwitting) neighbor's AP to
>use their internet access. Legally, it appears, that this connection is
>defined as "access" to the equipment. Here's the question: once someone has
>made themselves part of *your* network, what are the legal ramifications of
>you accessing their computer? I would think that existing law would
>actually not allow you to do so, since it technically would be "unauthorized
>access" of their system, however one could make the argument that the person
>*using* the neighbor's wireless network has given tacit approval for reverse
>access just by the very action of linking to the network.
>
>Does anyone know if exceptions exist in the law for unauthorized access to
>the equipment of someone who has gained unauthorized access themselves?
>
>Keep in mind that I am not talking about someone running a rogue AP that
>duplicates an existing SSID in an *attempt* to misdirect computers for
>nefarious access attempts. I believe in this case the rogue gives up any
>legal protection by operating with intent.
>
Actually if you FIRST try using "reasonable" means to keep them out
and then they come back, they have opened themselves up to your wiles.
BUT you must FIRST try and stop them from coming in...someone walks in
your front door and leaves when you tell them to, you lock it and they
break it down, you have the right to stop them because they are then
"breaking" in and you would have the expectation that they could then
escalate that to involve you or others in your home.
If however they do NOT advance towards you, you are stuck and cannot
do anything to them. Same thing with the computer hacker, if he comes
back after you have put up some security and just stays there, then
you have the right to exclude but not harm them. If HOWEVER they try
to damage your info/computer/etc. then you have the right to protect
yourself from that same damage. That could then involve damaging their
computer.

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:36:46 GMT, in alt.internet.wireless , "TV Slug"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>defined as "access" to the equipment. Here's the question: once someone has
>made themselves part of *your* network, what are the legal ramifications of
>you accessing their computer? I would think that existing law would
>actually not allow you to do so,

I agree. Its no different to any othe crime - just because tealeaf X
nicks your wallet, doen't mean you're ok to pinch his telly.


--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

TV Slug wrote:

..
>
> Does anyone know if exceptions exist in the law for unauthorized access to
> the equipment of someone who has gained unauthorized access themselves?
>
> Keep in mind that I am not talking about someone running a rogue AP that
> duplicates an existing SSID in an *attempt* to misdirect computers for
> nefarious access attempts. I believe in this case the rogue gives up any
> legal protection by operating with intent.
>
>
With today's low-life lawyers you would be guilty of causing mental
distress to the person breaking into your system and have to support him
the rest of his life.

In the Usenet newsgroup alt.internet.wireless, in article
<yg9Ee.21$x32.2@trndny09>, TV Slug wrote:

>(I quoted the work "hacker" in my subject because, though I feel the term is
>incorrectly overused, in this case it should be applicable in both the "evil
>hacker" and "recreational hacker" tenses.)

Actually, the "hacker" use is wrong - you are referring to crackers and
skript kiddiez. Or haven't you every "hacked" something together with duct
tape - because that's all you have handy at the moment?

>OK, so we know about people that hop onto their (unwitting) neighbor's AP to
>use their internet access. Legally, it appears, that this connection is
>defined as "access" to the equipment.

In some legal jurisdictions, yes. Other jurisdictions may have different
definitions, or none at all.

>Here's the question: once someone has made themselves part of *your* network,
>what are the legal ramifications of you accessing their computer?

Do you normally solicit medical advice from the clerk at the grocery check
out line? Then why are you soliciting legal advice from Usenet? Consult
your lawyer.

>I would think that existing law would actually not allow you to do so,
>since it technically would be "unauthorized access" of their system,

Probably - but consult your lawyer

>however one could make the argument that the person *using* the neighbor's
>wireless network has given tacit approval for reverse access just by the
>very action of linking to the network.

Do you have kids? Haven't you heard the argument "(s)he started it first"
when you tell them to stop {fighting|screaming|what-ever} often enough?
Does that "reason" make any difference? Why do you think it might make a
difference in the legal system? The black-hat accessing your LAN/computer
is not a threat of gross bodily harm - so that exception is irrelevant.

>Does anyone know if exceptions exist in the law for unauthorized access to
>the equipment of someone who has gained unauthorized access themselves?

What jurisdiction? You are posting from a Verizon address to a Usenet
newsgroup that is read around the world. Personally, I rather doubt it, but
the only way you'll know for sure is to ask a lawyer who is licensed by your
state.

Old guy

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:36:46 GMT, "TV Slug"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Does anyone know if exceptions exist in the law for unauthorized access to
>the equipment of someone who has gained unauthorized access themselves?
(...)

I get this disgusted feeling every time I read one of these "is it
legal?" type of questions. What bothers me is that it's almost always
the wrong question. What you should be asking is "is it right?". Are
your proposed actions morally and ethically correct? Is anyone going
to be hurt by your actions? Is there damage being done? You should
be able to answer these within the framework of your own common sense,
good judgement, and assorted teachings from skool, church, temple,
guru, messiah, or parents. Once you have made that determination,
then you can ask "is it legal". You will then discover that the fine
print of legality only matters to lawyers and criminals who want to
get away with something by squeezing through loop holes and oversights
in the law. If you cannot make such a common sense judgement, then I
suggest you consult someone you respect that can deliver a proper
lecture on ethics, and forget about consulting an attorney. For
example, put yourself in the "hackers" shoes and predict how you would
respond. If it feels wrong, don't do it.

Laws are written because people do not know how to act. If you have
no knowledge of ethics or common sense, no amount of laws is going to
teach you right from wrong. If it's ethically or morally wrong, you
need no lawyer or law to remind you that it's wrong.



--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831.336.2558 voice http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
# (E-Mail Removed)
# (E-Mail Removed) AE6KS

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:36:46 GMT, "TV Slug"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Does anyone know if exceptions exist in the law for unauthorized access to
>>the equipment of someone who has gained unauthorized access themselves?
>
> (...)
>
> I get this disgusted feeling every time I read one of these "is it
> legal?" type of questions. What bothers me is that it's almost always
> the wrong question. What you should be asking is "is it right?".

Hear hear.

--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/

It appears that Moe Trin <(E-Mail Removed)> shook an
Etch A Sketch before scribbling:
> In the Usenet newsgroup alt.internet.wireless, in article
> <yg9Ee.21$x32.2@trndny09>, TV Slug wrote:
>
>> (I quoted the work "hacker" in my subject because, though I feel the
>> term is incorrectly overused, in this case it should be applicable
>> in both the "evil hacker" and "recreational hacker" tenses.)
>
> Actually, the "hacker" use is wrong - you are referring to crackers
> and skript kiddiez. Or haven't you every "hacked" something together
> with duct tape - because that's all you have handy at the moment?
>
>> OK, so we know about people that hop onto their (unwitting)
>> neighbor's AP to use their internet access. Legally, it appears,
>> that this connection is defined as "access" to the equipment.
>
> In some legal jurisdictions, yes. Other jurisdictions may have
> different definitions, or none at all.
>
>> Here's the question: once someone has made themselves part of *your*
>> network, what are the legal ramifications of you accessing their
>> computer?
>
> Do you normally solicit medical advice from the clerk at the grocery
> check out line? Then why are you soliciting legal advice from
> Usenet? Consult your lawyer.
>
>> I would think that existing law would actually not allow you to do
>> so,
>> since it technically would be "unauthorized access" of their system,
>
> Probably - but consult your lawyer
>
>> however one could make the argument that the person *using* the
>> neighbor's wireless network has given tacit approval for reverse
>> access just by the very action of linking to the network.
>
> Do you have kids? Haven't you heard the argument "(s)he started it
> first" when you tell them to stop {fighting|screaming|what-ever}
> often enough? Does that "reason" make any difference? Why do you
> think it might make a difference in the legal system? The black-hat
> accessing your LAN/computer is not a threat of gross bodily harm - so
> that exception is irrelevant.
>
>> Does anyone know if exceptions exist in the law for unauthorized
>> access to the equipment of someone who has gained unauthorized
>> access themselves?
>
> What jurisdiction? You are posting from a Verizon address to a Usenet
> newsgroup that is read around the world. Personally, I rather doubt
> it, but the only way you'll know for sure is to ask a lawyer who is
> licensed by your state.
>
> Old guy

I wasn't actually looking for legal advice, I was looking for what people
*thought* about this. As you said, jurisdiction controls what, if any,
penalty is handed out. I was wondering what people's opinions were. From
your response, it would appear your opinion is "ask someone else" which is
exacly what I was doing.

It appears that Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> shook an
Etch A Sketch before scribbling:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:36:46 GMT, "TV Slug"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Does anyone know if exceptions exist in the law for unauthorized
>> access to the equipment of someone who has gained unauthorized
>> access themselves? (...)
>
> I get this disgusted feeling every time I read one of these "is it
> legal?" type of questions. What bothers me is that it's almost always
> the wrong question. What you should be asking is "is it right?". Are
> your proposed actions morally and ethically correct? Is anyone going
> to be hurt by your actions? Is there damage being done? You should
> be able to answer these within the framework of your own common sense,
> good judgement, and assorted teachings from skool, church, temple,
> guru, messiah, or parents. Once you have made that determination,
> then you can ask "is it legal". You will then discover that the fine
> print of legality only matters to lawyers and criminals who want to
> get away with something by squeezing through loop holes and oversights
> in the law. If you cannot make such a common sense judgement, then I
> suggest you consult someone you respect that can deliver a proper
> lecture on ethics, and forget about consulting an attorney. For
> example, put yourself in the "hackers" shoes and predict how you would
> respond. If it feels wrong, don't do it.
>
> Laws are written because people do not know how to act. If you have
> no knowledge of ethics or common sense, no amount of laws is going to
> teach you right from wrong. If it's ethically or morally wrong, you
> need no lawyer or law to remind you that it's wrong.

See my above response. I was soliciting opinons rather than a strict legal
definition. I realize that certain laws have loopholes while others are a
catch-22. In this vein, I was wondering how people intepreted the "illegal
access" laws that, when badly written, can actually make it possible to
penalize someone trying to determine the identity of a legal or illegal
network user.

And again, thank you for your opinion. It demonstrates how many different
ways a question can be answered.