undefined | Better HN

0 pointsrayiner13y ago0 comments

In the law of property, there is a concept called "license." Basically, it encompasses the idea that you can give people permission to trespass, either explicitly or implicitly. If I invite you to my house for dinner, I'm giving you implicit permission to trespass.

What you're getting at is the scope of implied license and how it can be revoked. Here is a pretty good, non-legal take on it: http://news.domain.com.au/domain/real-estate-news/how-privat...

Basically, the implied license has a scope defined by the rationale for the implication. If you invite a plumber to fix your toilet, they don't have license to use your jacuzzi (though a dinner guest might!) A license can be revoked in any manner that reasonably conveys the revocation to the licensee.

The law of property isn't directly applicable to computer networks, but is a source of guiding principles and analogy. If you're on an open network and the administrator bans your MAC address, I think a normal person would conclude that the message that you are no longer welcome has been reasonably conveyed. Moreover, MIT Net does have terms of use, and one of those terms (#4 of 6) is: "Don't misuse the intellectual property of others." You can also argue that these terms of use define the scope of the implied license to use MIT's open network.

0 comments

7 comments · 2 top-level

BrokenPipe13y ago· 3 in thread

I disagree. If I call your phone and one day you don't answer and I try from a different phone number and you do I think you are ok to have me call you.

Had they notified him with a web page that his mac address wasn't welcome it would have been a different matter altogether.

What Aaron did was the equivalent of trying a different laptop to see if things resumed working.

danielweber13y ago

The very first time that happens, maybe he could have thought it was a network error.

But Aaron kept on evading every single countermeasure MIT was putting in his place. By the time you get to going into a wiring closet, you have well passed the point where you know you are no longer welcome on the network.

The law cares very little about what tools you use, and they care a lot more about the actions you do and why you do them.

Aaron wasn't an idiot. He knew MIT was trying to keep him off. It wasn't just a network error.

elpool213y ago

Yeah, if they had just blocked his mac address then he could reasonably think "hmmm, I can't connect with this mac address, I'll try a different one" instead of "I am no longer authorized". But if you have to keep reconnecting with different IP addresses and mac addresses over and over again, and finally resort to connecting directly to a wiring closet, then the message is pretty clear that you (not just your mac address) are no longer allowed on the network.

1 more reply

rayinerOP13y ago

Calling someone isn't considered analogous to trespassing, while accessing someone's network is. I don't think that's a meaningless distinction at the technical level either. Calling someone is like issuing an HTTP GET on a public server. Putting a computer on their network is something quite different.

As for whether banning they MAC address conveys revocation of the license. The precise form of the communication is irrelevant, it's about whether it can be expected to get the message across in context. Do you think Aaron didn't know, after the various measures MIT took, that he was no longer welcome on the network? If he did know, then the message was conveyed.

You're basically attacking a straw man. You're acting like he was charged for trying to access the publicly-available MIT home page, getting a 404, and trying again with a different laptop to see if the problem was on his end. That's what would be analogous to your "calling someone who isn't answering then trying a different phone" example.

defen13y ago· 2 in thread

> The law of property isn't directly applicable to computer networks, but is a source of guiding principles and analogy. If you're on an open network and the administrator bans your MAC address, I think a normal person would conclude that the message that you are no longer welcome has been reasonably conveyed.

Let's say Aaron's laptop gets its MAC address banned for doing whatever it is he did initially. Aaron then walks over to one of the available library computers and looks up directions to the train station. In your opinion, has he just committed a federal crime?

rayinerOP13y ago

Let's say I normally let people cut through my lawn to get to the road behind it. But you come on my lawn and start yelling at my house. So I tell you to leave. Are you still welcome to cut through my lawn to get to the road?

defen13y ago

I have no idea. As a non-lawyer, my answer would be yes, I'm still allowed. So the message is "we don't like what you're doing", not "you aren't allowed on this network".

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

7 comments · 2 top-level

BrokenPipe13y ago· 3 in thread

I disagree. If I call your phone and one day you don't answer and I try from a different phone number and you do I think you are ok to have me call you.

Had they notified him with a web page that his mac address wasn't welcome it would have been a different matter altogether.

What Aaron did was the equivalent of trying a different laptop to see if things resumed working.

danielweber13y ago

The very first time that happens, maybe he could have thought it was a network error.

The law cares very little about what tools you use, and they care a lot more about the actions you do and why you do them.

Aaron wasn't an idiot. He knew MIT was trying to keep him off. It wasn't just a network error.

elpool213y ago

1 more reply

rayinerOP13y ago

defen13y ago· 2 in thread

rayinerOP13y ago

defen13y ago

I have no idea. As a non-lawyer, my answer would be yes, I'm still allowed. So the message is "we don't like what you're doing", not "you aren't allowed on this network".

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse