The practice involves looking for an open wireless access point, sometimes by driving around in a car with a wireless laptop computer. This is really a borderline area. The ethics of the practice are a different situation, and may depend on the level of interference with the owner of the wireless network. She should not be punished for that. Powered by Zimbra. Site Search User. What is the legality of wardriving? Should it be illegal or legal? If it illegal, what is the penalties? The penalties for ward driving could be criminal trespass and a fine if someone get caught.
Bao Mai. Jessica H. Wardriving is legal but I feel it should not be. It could invite hackers to hack into your personal information. Wardriving should be illegal and should have a monetary penalty if you get caught. Mahaylah Mabrey. Madi Armstrong. War driving is driving around looking for open wireless networks for the purpose of accessing the Internet. When the investigations were carried out it was found that the owners of the IP addresses from which the crimes had been allegedly committed had no idea what was going on [4].
It is difficult to know and thus catch these culprits until they commit the crime in which case it is too late. How would one be able to monitor what another individual does as they drive around? They may not be the doers of the crime but more than often are the accessory to the crime where they avail that network information to people with ill intentions. As such it is better to be safe than sorry, protect your network!!
Wardriving Access Point Mapping. WarDriving; Technical and Legal Context. The ethical issues surrounding Wi-Fi. You are commenting using your WordPress. You are commenting using your Google account. You are commenting using your Twitter account. You are commenting using your Facebook account. Notify me of new comments via email. Notify me of new posts via email.
Is he likely to troll newsgroups in order to find evidence that his home computer can be compromised? As Ryan observes, few people would be happy if a self-appointed watchman were to test their door locks uninvited, and then post online a list of insecure houses. He breaks down this new hacker community into three camps: those who want free wireless access, those who want to sell their security services to owners of unsecured networks, and a small group with malicious intentions.
Since over half the world's Wi-Fi networks are unprotected, and with wardriving databases listing over 2. This is where Ryan delves into a lengthy, somewhat drab argument for the legality of wardriving. Not that he isn't convincing: He dredges up several cases, as well as an FBI memorandum, that pretty clearly show that doing no more than noting a wireless network's location won't lead to anyone's conviction.
Yet there's something frustratingly academic about Ryan's rhetorical gymnastics in support of wardriving's legality. As he admits, "the premise that wardriving is legal relies on a narrowly construed and somewhat arcane distinction between viewing or recording the existence of open networks and accessing those networks. As Ryan acknowledges, wardrivers know that they're abetting the covert use of Wi-Fi connections by unauthorized people.
So should wardrivers be considered accessories to computer trespass? Sharing information on network vulnerabilities without apprising the network owner of the problem could amount to what is commonly referred to as "crime facilitating speech. Unfortunately, Ryan never explores this issue.
Instead, he focuses on the need for a widespread code of ethics for hackers, a tangent that takes him far off topic. He tries to outline the year evolution of hacker ethics, arguing that the formerly anarchic computer underground now recognizes the need for a uniform code of ethics.
0コメント