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.
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.
Second, I was talking about advocacy of 'open windows' by someone who
knows how to close and lock a window.
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.
[Of course, with unlockable street-side mailboxes, a stranger would not
need an open window to do such.]
Terry Jan Reedy
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
