2nd WIFI thief charged in court!
-
Don't know...Originally posted by Icemoon:wah .. need to define family ah?
so friends come with their centrino cannot use?
-
Actually why were those people caught? Because the owner complained issit?Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:If the owners proved to be computer idiots, prosecutors will push for Section 7.
Is this whole business a public or private affair? Will the state step in if the owner never complain? -
It is those businessman logic.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:Don't know...
don't they know we chinese have a saying - si4 hai3 jie1 xiong1 di4?
So we are all one big family .. in order to keep up the kampong spirit .. we shd share our stuff with our neighbors. -
so far .. any case of ISP catching subscribers sharing bandwidth with neighbors?Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:Because one owner is so evil, the other criminal is so dumb to post a bomb hoax.
-
Btw har, I'm devil to these WIFI thievies one.
I disable my wireless setting, so they can't leech, or use, or whatever word that is suitable.
So I use hard cable now. -
Cannot use Wifi now ...too many damn government buildings jamming signals.
Anyways want to use wifi , just go to a wifi cafe ......that way it is free and legal ...just drink your coffee slowly . -
The legalities with respect to this issue is clear through legislation we have brought in and I agree with it. As others have mentioned, it is difficult to catch the perpetrators. So when we do catch one, he should be prosecuted according to the law as a warning to others.Originally posted by LazerLordz:That's because you are applying the conventional sense of logic of property and location to a technology that transcends physical boundaries.
Take a course in Web Studies and you will know what I mean, the legalities for such occurances is still quite murky, and only we are stupid enough to lump it together with physical theft when the comparative point of breaking in, has not even happened here, i.e brute force cracking of the WPA/WEP, or physical theft of documents that provide the password or key to the network.
The whole problem here is that even by sharing my network, the system frowns on it because I have taken one potential customer away and provided for a direct challenge on the concept of paying for a service. This has much to do with the culture here as it has to do with a legal system that pays heed to the lettering and not to the spirit of the law. In fact, the first case was dealt pretty fine IMHO, and the judge was prudent to give him just a slap on the wrist, whereas the prosecution was screaming bloody murder et al.
What is needed is a differentiation to be made, but I believe the legal codes here are not attuned to the changing times of the Internet Age.
Sha yi jing bai -
What a way to start adult life
-
Basically two words to the capitalism behind this issue of proprietary and subscriber-as-collaborator maxim, and it basically tells them to fornicate a horse's ass.Originally posted by Icemoon:It is those businessman logic.
don't they know we chinese have a saying - si4 hai3 jie1 xiong1 di4?
So we are all one big family .. in order to keep up the kampong spirit .. we shd share our stuff with our neighbors.
This is not about legislation anymore, it is about which prevailing school of thought exists. The legal clause that prohibits people from sharing their paid for bandwidth goes beyond fair payment, and is inherently anti-trust in nature.
We have corporate bandwidth and leased line resellers. So what about us little people? The law has to change. The CMA was passed in an age where wireless internet was just a concept in the clouds. -
Whats the punishment for both offence?Just want to know...Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:If you use free wireless for surfing, it will be merely a Section 6.
If you went to their configuration page and lock them out, it won't be a Section 6. If my memory serves me well, it's Section 3 of the Computer Misuse Act for hacking. -
" sa ji jin hou " = kill the chicken to warn the monkeys
-
Maximum 3 years jail and up to $10000 fine or both. Torturing and killing cats only warrant maximum 1 year jail and $1000 fine or both.Originally posted by ceecookie:Whats the punishment for both offence?Just want to know... -
Bloody hell.Originally posted by ditzy:Maximum 3 years jail and up to $10000 fine or both. Torturing and killing cats only warrant maximum 1 year jail and $1000 fine or both. -
The first one - owner complainedOriginally posted by Icemoon:Actually why were those people caught? Because the owner complained issit?
Is this whole business a public or private affair? Will the state step in if the owner never complain?
The second one - found out by police
I believe the first one is just a private affair. I have no idea why this owner wants to make such a big hooha about it.
The second case is slightly complicated. When this person was caught posting a bomb hoax, the police traced the IP address to another owner. As per usual, the house was raided and all IT-related stuffs are confiscated. When the police hacked down the whole computer for evidence, they could find none, and figured out that somebody might be using her wireless network.
I think read about this somewhere, as she kept protesting her innocence. Netizens were discussing about it also, and some chided her for not securing her wireless network.
After some investigations, it was finally traced to this bomb hoax poster.
That's how he became our second offender. For your info, he has 60 other charges under his name, 9 of which could see him sitting in jail for a maximum of 27 years because of Section 6 of the Computer Misuse Act. -
Sharing is good, but at the rate I see Singaporeans complaining about our net speeds...Originally posted by Icemoon:It is those businessman logic.
don't they know we chinese have a saying - si4 hai3 jie1 xiong1 di4?
So we are all one big family .. in order to keep up the kampong spirit .. we shd share our stuff with our neighbors.
Sigh... -
I don't think so. I have heard of none.Originally posted by Icemoon:so far .. any case of ISP catching subscribers sharing bandwidth with neighbors? -
Woo... can say bye bye to his life already..Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:The first one - owner complained
The second one - found out by police
I believe the first one is just a private affair. I have no idea why this owner wants to make such a big hooha about it.
The second case is slightly complicated. When this person was caught posting a bomb hoax, the police traced the IP address to another owner. As per usual, the house was raided and all IT-related stuffs are confiscated. When the police hacked down the whole computer for evidence, they could find none, and figured out that somebody might be using her wireless network.
I think read about this somewhere, as she kept protesting her innocence. Netizens were discussing about it also, and some chided her for not securing her wireless network.
After some investigations, it was finally traced to this bomb hoax poster.
That's how he became our second offender. For your info, he has 60 other charges under his name, 9 of which could see him sitting in jail for a maximum of 27 years because of Section 6 of the Computer Misuse Act. -
Section 3 Part 1Originally posted by ceecookie:Whats the punishment for both offence?Just want to know...Subject to subsection (2), any person who knowingly causes a computer to perform any function for the purpose of securing access without authority to any program or data held in any computer shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to both and, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to both
Section 3 Part 2If any damage is caused as a result of an offence under this section, a person convicted of the offence shall be liable to a fine not exceeding $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or to both.
Section 6 Part 1
Damages - (a) causes loss aggregating at least $10,000 in value, or such other amount as the Minister may, by notification in the Gazette, prescribe except that any loss incurred or accrued more than one year after the date of the offence in question shall not be taken into account;
(b) modifies or impairs, or potentially modifies or impairs, the medical examination, diagnosis, treatment or care of one or more persons;
(c) causes or threatens physical injury or death to any person; or
(d) threatens public health or public safety;Subject to subsection (2), any person who knowingly —
Section 6 Part 2
(a) secures access without authority to any computer for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, any computer service;
(b) intercepts or causes to be intercepted without authority, directly or indirectly, any function of a computer by means of an electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device; or
(c) uses or causes to be used, directly or indirectly, the computer or any other device for the purpose of committing an offence under paragraph (a) or (b),
shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to both and, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding $20,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both.If any damage is caused as a result of an offence under this section, a person convicted of the offence shall be liable to a fine not exceeding $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or to both. For damages, refer to Section 3 Part 2 explanation
Section 7 is pretty relevant too.Unauthorised obstruction of use of computer
7. —(1) Any person who, knowingly and without authority or lawful excuse —
(a) interferes with, or interrupts or obstructs the lawful use of, a computer; or
(b) impedes or prevents access to, or impairs the usefulness or effectiveness of, any program or data stored in a computer,
shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to both and, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding $20,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both.
(2) If any damage is caused as a result of an offence under this section, a person convicted of the offence shall be liable to a fine not exceeding $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or to both. -
You can say so, if the judge decides to hand out the maximum penalty. Either way, his life is already gone after posting the bomb hoax. I could count at least 10 years of jail for him.Originally posted by mhcampboy:Woo... can say bye bye to his life already.. -
so thats how a Singaporean tech-savvy person looks like eh.... wow
-
You call that tech-savvy? I call that amateur.Originally posted by tomsss:so thats how a Singaporean tech-savvy person looks like eh.... wow -
i got a feeling i saw this person before suddenly..
-
There will not be any death penalty so he can continue his life inside. The yellow ribbon project is not there for nothing. he can pursue a course or take up a degree, if the sentence is 10 years it is more than the time he needs.Originally posted by mhcampboy:Woo... can say bye bye to his life already.. -
For the first case if the stolen bandwidth was causing lag my guess is most probably anyone will get mad at it.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:The first one - owner complained
The second one - found out by police
I believe the first one is just a private affair. I have no idea why this owner wants to make such a big hooha about it.
The second case is slightly complicated. When this person was caught posting a bomb hoax, the police traced the IP address to another owner. As per usual, the house was raided and all IT-related stuffs are confiscated. When the police hacked down the whole computer for evidence, they could find none, and figured out that somebody might be using her wireless network.
I think read about this somewhere, as she kept protesting her innocence. Netizens were discussing about it also, and some chided her for not securing her wireless network.
After some investigations, it was finally traced to this bomb hoax poster.
That's how he became our second offender. For your info, he has 60 other charges under his name, 9 of which could see him sitting in jail for a maximum of 27 years because of Section 6 of the Computer Misuse Act.
As for the second case its clear that the offender has a certain degree of IT and networking intelligence. Its just that the Government and the Police have their finest people and hardware so unless you are working for the 'CIA' the chances of evading the consequences of a bomb hoax is less than 1 percent.
He may be intelligent but just do not have the common sense to assess a situation. People like him may be an amateur but given the guidance and opportunities he might be a professional working for the better Good instead of walking on the dark side. -
So, after MRT suicides, we are seeing a new trend where people are getting charged for piggybacking on Wi-fi networks.
This country is so hip and happening.