On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:22:08 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 02:16:27 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
>
>>> The rationale I have seen is this: if one leaves the wi-fi router open
>>> and illegal activity is conducted thru it, and there is no residual
>>> evidence on the hard drives of on-premises machines, then one may
>>> claim that it must have been someone else. On the other hand, if the
>>> router is properly closed, then it will be hard to argue that someone
>>> hacked trough it.
>>>
>>> There are, of course, flaws in this argument, and I take it as
>>> evidence of intention to conduct illegal activity, whether properly so
>>> or not.
>>
>> So, if somebody leaves their car unlocked, is that evidence that they
>> were intending to rob a bank and wanted a fast getaway car?
>>
>> If you leave your window open on a hot summer's night, is that evidence
>> that you're planning to fake a burglary?
>>
>> If you leave your knife and fork unattended in a restaurant while you
>> go to the toilet, is that evidence that you intended to stab the waiter
>> and blame somebody else?
>>
>>
>> I assume you would answer No to each of these. So why the harsher
>> standard when it comes to computer crime?
>
> Your cases are not at all analogous or parallel.
I disagree, obviously, otherwise I wouldn't have posted them.
> First, I did not say 'computer crime'. I said 'illegal activity, whether
> properly so [illegal] or not'. The latter is much broader, sometimes
> including the viewing of non-sexual pictures of undraped young adults.
You're talking about *crimes* ("illegal activity") committed via
*computer*. Having an open wi-fi connection isn't going to be an alibi if
you're caught with a scrapbook full of such photos, or if you have a meth
lab in your bathroom.
> Second, I was talking about advocacy of 'open windows' by someone who
> knows how to close and lock a window.
If you're known to advocate "open windows" *for the express purpose of
being an alibi*, then some people might (improperly, in my opinion) draw
the conclusion you do. But I read your argument as being that having an
open wi-fi connection was prima facie evidence of intent to commit crime
regardless of whether you were a public advocate or not. Perhaps I
misunderstood.
The distinction you seem to be making between people who known how to
lock windows (lock their wi-fi network) and those who don't is
irrelevant. The question we're debating is whether or not the deliberate
decision to leave your windows (your wi-fi network) open is prima facie
evidence of intention to commit crime. You say it is. I say that such a
conclusion would be seen as ridiculous if applied to common everyday
situations, and wonder what's so special about wi-fi that it is treated
more harshly than analogous situations involving non-computer crimes?
The only other example I can think of is that now that mobile phones are
so ubiquitous, and since they can be tracked so easily by police, leaving
your mobile phone at home can be treated as prima facie evidence that you
were committing a crime during the period you were untrackable. So far
this outrageous conclusion has only been applied to "Mafia bosses"
accused of murder (as far as I know), but how long will it be before
people are arguing that if you've got nothing to hide, why would you
object to being tracked by police 24/7?
> So the analogy would be someone who advocates leaving your living room
> window open so that if the Feds come knocking on your door about
> 'illegal' materials being sent to or from your home, you can claim that
> the within-house sender or receiver must have been a stranger that came
> in through the window. Hmmmm.
So it's the *advocacy* (for the purposes of alibi) which is evidence of
wrong-doing? Not the open windows themselves?
What do you make of those who advocate for open windows but don't have
illegal materials in the house? Or those who have open windows, and
illegal materials, but have never spoken about the use of open windows as
an alibi?
How would your answers change if we lived in a world where strangers did
routinely drop illegal materials into people's houses (or at least to
their front door), and police frequently treated the recipient as a de
facto criminal?
We live in such a world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwyn_Heights,_Maryland_mayor's_residence_drug_raid
This sort of episode -- a botched, probably illegal, paramilitary raid by
police against innocents -- is only unusual because the victim was white
and the mayor of the town.
There's an interesting parallel here. Many patent lawyers recommend that
you never search the patent records for technology before attempting to
market something you've invented, because if *don't* search, and
infringe, you are liable to damages, but if you *do* search, fail to find
anything, and then nevertheless infringe inadvertently, you are deemed to
have willfully infringed and therefore are liable to triple damages.
Given the difficulty of finding every possible patent you might infringe,
the risk of triple damages if you search is very high. Food for thought.
--
Steven
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
