| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 69176 | 2006-05-24 10:39:00 | War Driving story on the news tonight | Greven (91) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 457390 | 2006-05-25 03:21:00 | [quote=from this article about the ]Accessing computer system without authorisation has a maximum two year term and applies to anyone who intentionally accesses, directly or indirectly, knowing that you are not authorised to access that computer system, or is reckless as to whether or not you are authorised./quote] crimes amendment act 2003 (www.internetnz.net.nz/proceedings/ctte/pub-pol/archive/larac030708crimes-amendment-6.html) | Graham L (2) | ||
| 457391 | 2006-05-25 03:21:00 | Accessing computer system without authorisation has a maximum two year term and applies to anyone who intentionally accesses, directly or indirectly, knowing that you are not authorised to access that computer system, or is reckless as to whether or not you are authorised. crimes amendment act 2003 (www.internetnz.net.nz/proceedings/ctte/pub-pol/archive/larac030708crimes-amendment-6.html) You know it's illegal. You will be done if you are caught. |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 457392 | 2006-05-25 05:34:00 | crimes amendment act 2003 (www.internetnz.net.nz/proceedings/ctte/pub-pol/archive/larac030708crimes-amendment-6.html) You know it's illegal. You will be done if you are caught. is a router technically a computer system? |
Tux (606) | ||
| 457393 | 2006-05-25 05:58:00 | It doesn't really matter. Technically, it is a computer. It is also a part of a computer system. Legal definitions are very special. If one doesn't fit, they'll invent another one to nail you. These things are actually fairly clear. Don't think you'll get away with arguing whether the cow was black or white, as described by Jonathon Swift (everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=457369) a few hundred years ago. He didn't like lawyers. "Access a computer system" will certainly "legally" mean "access any part of a computer system". Do it without authorisation, get caught (and that's not difficult), and you will be doing "up to two years". |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 457394 | 2006-05-25 06:13:00 | It doesn't really matter. Technically, it is a computer. It is also a part of a computer system. Legal definitions are very special. If one doesn't fit, they'll invent another one to nail you. These things are actually fairly clear. Don't think you'll get away with arguing whether the cow was black or white, as described by Jonathon Swift (everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=457369) a few hundred years ago. He didn't like lawyers. "Access a computer system" will certainly "legally" mean "access any part of a computer system". Do it without authorisation, get caught (and that's not difficult), and you will be doing "up to two years". not exactly, prosecutions often hinge on the definition of a word. in this case, you would have to prove that a router is a computer system, which i dont feel it is.it is a telecomunications device rather. |
Tux (606) | ||
| 457395 | 2006-05-25 06:15:00 | Go ahead then. We'll follow the case with interest. | Graham L (2) | ||
| 457396 | 2006-05-25 07:42:00 | The law is besides the point. Whether there are laws or not people will still do it. Piracy is illegal but how many peopple download games, movies and music? As for computer literacy I've always thought they should make the Computer Drivers License compulsory. That would eliminate all these silly people bleating after they discover its happened and blaming someone else. Like keylogging and internet banking. I did the ICDL qualification a few years back - complete waste of time. Well - not really - but there is very little regarding network security, or anything along those lines. It was mainly focused on Office productivity software (at least when I did it anyway). |
somebody (208) | ||
| 457397 | 2006-05-25 08:44:00 | not exactly, prosecutions often hinge on the definition of a word . in this case, you would have to prove that a router is a computer system, which i dont feel it is . it is a telecomunications device rather . What legal course are you doing!? Go read McKenzie v A . G . Although the literal rule was affirmed (Obiter Dicta I believe), it will still not be taken in an inflexible manner . Even if you take use of a dictionary/terms of art in interpretation there are a minimal number of cases which it has effect (Fisher v Bell is a good example) . Prosecutions don't often rely on a dictionary definition . Although feel free to live under that assumption . I think theres a Internet Law paper in stage3 law at Auckland uni taught by Judge David Harvey, might be relevant . He's put out a book too, Internet . law . nz which is an interesting read . I think its at the law library . |
DangerousDave (697) | ||
| 457398 | 2006-05-25 09:10:00 | however the point as made by someone else......if you are looking for wireless acess and you come across a couple of unsecured networks how will you know which is a 'public access point' and which is a private ? You should know which one you should be using by the SSID. And remember folks, ignorance of the law is no defense. |
vinref (6194) | ||
| 457399 | 2006-05-25 21:54:00 | not exactly, prosecutions often hinge on the definition of a word. in this case, you would have to prove that a router is a computer system, which i dont feel it is.it is a telecomunications device rather. I disagree. Routers have cpu's, memory and run an operating system. I would say that is a computer system. The wireless radio is a communications device but it is being driven by a computer (in the router). You are only using the wireless radio as an access to cross the computer system (router) to get to the internet connection. |
Sb0h (3744) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 | |||||