Talk:Legality of piggybacking
|This subarticle is kept separate from the main article, Piggybacking (internet access), due to size or style considerations.|
"Somes portable devices, such as the Apple iPod touch, allow on-street-hopping on open Wifi networks as a basic feature, and even use it for user geolocation.[specify]"
What does this mean, and why is it in the United States section? — Omegatron 06:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Laws in each state
- Then reference it — Omegatron 22:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please explain how you created this table. Provide a reference for the information in the table, meaning a reference that says "piggybacking is legal in Alabama, illegal in Alaska", etc. I don't see this information in either reference 1 or 16, which are the only ones near the table. — Omegatron 23:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've removed the table again. Please provide a real source before replacing it. — Omegatron 14:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
New York Law
Though a lot of the sources suggest that New York law only criminalizes access in defiance of a security scheme (like breaking encryption or sniffing a key), I don't see language in the laws to back it up. I think it has been amended. 156.00 and 156.05 suggest that piggybacking is illegal in New York State. Am I wrong? Krapitino (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- I checked this out with an NYS Assembly member, and they confirmed that the law had been changed, but could not give me a date. I would consider the date to be 2005 at the earliest. This is based on the publication dates of the articles in used as sources (the 2006 OSU law review article, cited resource 1, quotes a 1999 copy of New York Penal Code and the other source was 2004), and that an NYS Office of the Attorney General legislative recommendation from 2005 describes desired changes to Penal Code section 156. Some of these changes were adopted and some were not, and some changes not mentioned were made.
- If someone better at Wiki than I wants to update sources or rewrite the section, feel free, but a reversion would be incorrect.
- § 156.05 Unauthorized use of a computer.
A person is guilty of unauthorized use of a computer when he or she knowingly uses, causes to be used, or accesses a computer, computer service, or computer network without authorization.
Unauthorized use of a computer is a class A misdemeanor.
- 156.00(8), defining "unauthorized," reads:
8. "Without authorization" means to use or to access a computer, computer service or computer network without the permission of the owner or lessor or someone licensed or privileged by the owner or lessor where such person knew that his or her use or access was without permission or after actual notice to such person that such use or access was without permission. It shall also mean the access of a computer service by a person without permission where such person knew that such access was without permission or after actual notice to such person, that such access was without permission.
Proof that such person used or accessed a computer, computer service or computer network through the knowing use of a set of instructions, code or computer program that bypasses, defrauds or otherwise circumvents a security measure installed or used with the user's authorization on the computer, computer service or computer network shall be presumptive evidence that such person used or accessed such computer, computer service or computer network without authorization.
I would update the article to state that piggybacking is illegal in Belgium, but I don't have a good enough source. I'm putting a weak source here, in case someone wants to follow this case and make a proper update later: http://www.anti-malware.info/weblog/2008/10/piggybacking-is-not-allowed-in-belgium.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)