Legal responsibility of WLAN insecurity
in [Cryptography]
|
Prev: Major step ahead for cryptography
Next: SHA-3 Ouch!
From: Tom St Denis on 30 May 2010 22:25 On May 28, 9:53 pm, unruh <un...(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote: > On 2010-05-28, Carsten Krueger <cakru...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Am Fri, 28 May 2010 09:52:09 -0700 (PDT) schrieb Tom St Denis: > > >> In Canada you're not responsible for your net connection in that way. > >> Though if your IP gets used for illegal activity you might be on the > >> receiving end of a search warrant. > > > Than everbody could lie about the usage and say my open wlan was used by > > someone else. > > Just like you can murder someone and lie and say you did not do it. > The legal system is used to dealing with lies. Except that in Canada it is NOT a crime for allowing someone to break the law with your internet connection [whether on purpose or not]. Hell, I could LET my neighbours use my net connection knowingly and unless I actually knew they were committing crimes I'm not liable for anything. So I need not lie at all. Tom
From: unruh on 30 May 2010 23:52 On 2010-05-30, Carsten Krueger <cakruege(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Am Sat, 29 May 2010 01:53:49 GMT schrieb unruh: > >> Just like you can murder someone and lie and say you did not do it. >> The legal system is used to dealing with lies. > > The question is if there is a "presumption of innocence" or not. There is no presumption of innocence in a civil suit anywhere in the world. That is a criminal code concept. I do not know if this was a civil trial (eg someone suing someone else for damages) but I strongly suspect it was. In the case of murder, there is both a presumption of innocence and a very strong standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt). And yet people who deny having murdered someone are regularly convicted. The courts are well used to dealing with people who lie. > > greetings > Carsten
From: unruh on 30 May 2010 23:54 On 2010-05-31, Tom St Denis <tom(a)iahu.ca> wrote: > On May 28, 9:53?pm, unruh <un...(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote: >> On 2010-05-28, Carsten Krueger <cakru...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Am Fri, 28 May 2010 09:52:09 -0700 (PDT) schrieb Tom St Denis: >> >> >> In Canada you're not responsible for your net connection in that way. >> >> Though if your IP gets used for illegal activity you might be on the >> >> receiving end of a search warrant. >> >> > Than everbody could lie about the usage and say my open wlan was used by >> > someone else. >> >> Just like you can murder someone and lie and say you did not do it. >> The legal system is used to dealing with lies. > > Except that in Canada it is NOT a crime for allowing someone to break > the law with your internet connection [whether on purpose or not]. Do not be sure. If in allowing him to use your connection you change any data anywhere in the world (including on your own computer) you are guilty of Mischief to data, a criminal offense.:-) > > Hell, I could LET my neighbours use my net connection knowingly and > unless I actually knew they were committing crimes I'm not liable for > anything. > > So I need not lie at all. > > Tom
From: Mok-Kong Shen on 31 May 2010 01:38 Mok-Kong Shen wrote: > > If one doesn't secure his WLAN connection with an appropriate password, > then he would be (to a certain extent) responsible for eventual abuses > by others, according to a recent verdict of the German > Bundesgerichtshof: > > http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=pm&pm_nummer=0101/10 > > What is the legal status of such cases in other countries? While references to laws in other countries are awaited, the following question seems also to be interesting: If in a concrete case the court (acting like in Germany) asks an expert to testify whether the passeword involved is secure, how would he proceed? Thanks. M. K. Shen
From: Gordon Burditt on 31 May 2010 13:52
>> What is the legal status of such cases in other countries? > >While references to laws in other countries are awaited, the following >question seems also to be interesting: > >If in a concrete case the court (acting like in Germany) asks an expert >to testify whether the passeword involved is secure, how would he >proceed? If in a concrete case the court asks an expert to testify whether the bank vault involved is secure, how would he proceed? No bank vault is secure against a sufficient number of nuclear weapons (and for ones that aren't buried, 1 is likely to be sufficient). If it can be opened with a combination alone, the combination can be guessed. Some *unlocked* bank vaults are secure against 3-year-olds, who lack sufficient strength to open them. Security is a matter of degree, not an absolute. Sometimes a question as phrased has no answer, and an expert witness should ask to have the question rephrased, or refuse to answer on the grounds that he doesn't understand the question. Is the defendant evil? Is the defendant stupid? Is the defendant a jerk? |