View Single Post
Posts: 179 | Thanked: 90 times | Joined on Dec 2007
#34
Originally Posted by briand View Post
IANAL, but...

If the tablet is in possession of the criminal when the unauthorized network access takes place (which, it can be shown, only took place because the criminal was in possession of the tablet as a direct result of a prior, connected criminal act), then it is the criminal (not the actual, true owner of the tablet) that would be liable for any criminal or civil penalties arising out of the unauthorized use (be it automatic or otherwise) of the (open or otherwise) wireless network with the tablet.

...in other words, even if the 'recovery script/program' does initiate what might, in some states, be considered an illegal network access attempt, the law will have been broken by the person in possession (albeit, criminally so) of the tablet at the time.

short answer: great! that's one more charge to levy against the miscreant when he is apprehended. bring it on!
I doubt that would hold up. Think of a bomb in a taxi. The taxi driver is driving the vehicle and does not know of the bombs existence. But the bad guy has a remote and sets the bomb off after the driver parks and exits the taxi. The person initiating the illegal action is at fault, even if you change the analogy to a car thief instead of a cabby.

PROGRESS REPORT 2-
I've been reinventing the wheel- Nokia already replaced osso-gnupg with gnupg for Diablo in CVS. I have them compiled and installed in scratchbox AND on my tablet. Plus the full version of GnuPG in diablo means NO WEIRD DEPENDENCIES!!!

The ball is rolling!

Cheers,
kernelpanic