NY Judge Gary Brown - Page 3

Nope, sorry to make you feel bad about needing to blame the victem for the actions of the criminal, but no matter how much you want to blame the victem, it is still the fault of the criminal.

The real question you need to ask is why do you demand the victem be blamed for the actions of the criminal?

Personally, I think the solution to ensuring everyone sets up security is to simply have the setup routine of the router/access point walk you through it as part of the setup. It will require you to setup a password and require you to turn on WPA2, for example. It should even tell you to write the password down and store it in a safe place.

most (all?) new wireless routers COME password protected right out of the box. They are secured and have a sticker with the password on it.

That's funny. In your alternate universe, you're the victim for losing your car because you were too stupid or lazy to take 3 seconds to turn it off and take the keys with you when you ran in to use the ATM machine. But in the real world, the law recognizes that the innocent victim is the 30 year old mother of three who was minding her own business driving to pick up her kids after school but died in a fiery wreck when the guy who took your car for a joyride slammed into her. You see, you won't be in a courtroom with the joyrider. It will just be you across the aisle from the husband and three small kids who lost their wife and mother because of your stupidity, and the jury won't have any difficulty determining who are the victims and who is the responsible moron.

Oh good lord. All this drama over unsecured routers.

You must be a criminal or a moron, for only criminals and morons blame the victem for the crime committed against them. Which category do you want to admit you fit into?

In the real world, the person stealing the car is at fault for the crime of car theft. It does not matter if the car is left running and unattended, if it does not belong to you and you take it, you are a felon.

LOL no kidding. We all agree people SHOULD secure their wireless access, but some people also think that any unlawful acts done on it are the fault of the person who did not do the act.

Another pointless strawman. No one is arguing that the thief isn't liable for his conduct. But you are also liable for yours.

The point is there is no law against unsecure wireless routers.

It's not the same thing as leaving a loaded gun around your house that someone swipes and uses for a crime. It's not apples to apples. You need a permit for that gun, and you are required (I assume by law) to keep it in a safe place, and only use it under certain conditions. That doesn't exist for a wireless router.

I'm done with this thread, but it's obvious there are a lot of folks here who are very naive and very ignorant regarding tort law. It doesn't have to be illegal to be negligent. And if you act negligently, your negligence is the proximate cause of harm to someone else, and that harm was foreseeable, then you'll probably be held liable for damages to the injured person. And that's the way it is whether anyone likes it or not.

It's all drama all the time here at AVS now. Everything's black and white and argument for argument's sake. It's a wonder anyone gets anything built.

It's too bad too because there's a good bit of learning that could come from this thread about negligence and liability. There's even three good examples that cover the spectrum.

Yep, you are still blaming the victem, the hallmark of the criminal. According to you, if someone pushes in your screen window (your window is open to allow the cool breeze in) and robs you, then you are at fault for being robbed. Hogwash, only criminals feel that way.

How is it negligence if it doesn't say anywhere you should secure it? Leaving it unsecure doesn't cause harm to anyone. It's the actions of others that cause harm (if you can even call copying 1/0's harm...). If you call this negligence, then I could come up with like 1 billion reasons to sue people, and corporations for negligence. I'll give you one: TV... it's TV's fault for putting those images and thoughts in my head. I'm not responsible for my own actions... it was TV

BTW, I'm not saying people shouldn't secure them, cause it could prevent lots of headaches. The point of this thread is about how an IP address isn't equal to a person. Up to now they are basically treated as finger prints... which they are not.

What if I put a sign on my lawn that says "By connecting to my open wireless you agree not to do anything that is illegal"... Am I still being negligent?

haha.


While your technically correct regarding tort law and negligence your making a big assumption by suggesting that in this scenario.

The issue is if someone is a victim or not.

Leaving your car unlocked in your driveway does not give someone the right to go into and steal your wallet or cash. It's still wrong.

Leaving your door unlocked does not mean someone can come into your home and steal something. It's still wrong.

Leaving your internet open does not mean someone can sign onto it and steal something. It's still wrong.

But- your a victim if that happens. Your not negligent.

In what odd world would this be considered negligence???

While it's common for many people to lock their doors- it just as common for many other people not to lock doors. Locked or not - stealing is stealing. It's no less wrong to steal from a home with unlocked doors than a deadbolted and tripple pad locked home.

The idea of negligence has been taking out of control these days in the court system where everyone wants to sue everyone... Even if it defies common sense.

Someone who gives CPR or a manuver to a choke victim could be sued for hurting them- even if the act saved their life. Thus many people won't even bother trying to save someone for fear of that.

Negligence is abused and the concept is excessive in application in modern society. It's sad. Law or not- it often defies common sense and wisdom.

Which is exactly the problem I have with the concepts in this thread. Taking, for example, Zon's scenario of someone leaving their keys in the car, then being held accountable because someone stole it and injured someone else. I'm not saying that couldn't or wouldn't happen, but it shouldn't. But it is the ridiculous state society has come to. The lawyers get a hold of those who got injured, and say "you're not going to get anything out of the low-life who hit you, but hey, we can go after the guy who's car got stolen.". Now everyone who has anything happen to them is looking to profit from it. No one really cares about fixing the problems in our society that make leaving your keys in your car risky. It's just a lot easier to spend money on insurance and lawyers.

Just imagine how much better our economy would be if everyone spent their lives productively. When you stop and think about how many resources our society puts into necessary or beneficial products like food, technology, housing, etc., vs. how many resources we put into suing each other, moving money around, figuring out how to pay taxes, and keeping up with the Kardashians, it's amazing the entire country isn't starving.

But yeah, it's good to know at least someone out there realizes there's a chance that we may not always be able to control what's done with the four numbers our ISP has assigned to us.

It's always interesting to see the backroom lawyers try and defend laws they know nothing about. Are any of you involved in this discussion actually lawyers or have a law degree? I seriously doubt it. Don't even think about defending your perception of the law in an actual courtroom because you'll be in for an extremely rude awakening.

While I don't claim to be an expert on the subject or a lawyer I have spent the last 3-1/2 months on a local county Grand Jury and the State's Attorneys that present the cases are extremely helpful in helping us decipher the law. What I perceived the law to be and what it actually is ended up being worlds apart. I quickly discovered that I know next to nothing about the law and what constitutes a crime with regards to how it is charged.

Unless you have an actual law degree or are a current member of the bar I suggest you all cease and desist any claims about what the law is all about because chances are your perceptions are going to be wrong 95% of the time.

I think we can all safely say that there is no negligence involved in leaving your car running and the door open and then walking away. If there was, Bait Cars would not exist. But they do, and they make rather good TV.

And doing so is actually illegal in most states. You're not even supposed to leave your car running unattended even if it's in your driveway or parked in front of your house. Certainly sounds like entrapment to me, but then I'm only guessing.

I'm pretty sure only law enforcement or someone acting in their behalf can commit entrapment. By the way police use questionable tactics all the time and get away with it until challenged by a group like the ACLU.

And who do you think is going to try to fix this lawsuit happy culture we have developed the politicians? They are all scum sucking lawyers to.

I'm not suggesting there is a solution. I'm simply bitchin'.

The irony of that statement is that the real scum sucking lawyers tend to have private practices (i.e., ambulance chasers and the like) whereas most lawyers that elevate to public office generally come from within the system (District Attorneys and so forth). Most of the lawyers I've met that are part of the system are anything but scum suckers, IMHO. FWIW, not all politicians are lawyers.

Politicians are people that get lost in the muck and mire of the political system and quickly learn that the only way to get anything done is to play the game. They start off with good intentions, but somewhere along the way they start believing their own lies and think the system is there for their own personal benefit, not the public's.