Swarz evaded MAC address bans by changing his MAC address. Also, at once point, WIFI guests needed to agree to terms on a captive portal IIRC; this may not have been the case when he was active though. Finally, no one had blanket permission to plug arbitrary devices into the network. Physical access has always required permission, and, IIRC, agreeing to terms.
Finally, just because a network is open does not mean you have permission to use it.
> Finally, just because a network is open does not mean you have permission to use it.
If it looks like a store and the door's unlocked their are unsettling consequence when it is considered appropriate to charge trespassing when someone comes in expecting to shop around.
If it is common understanding that MIT's net work is open and is used/viewed as a public resource with out MIT making it know otherwise then their are unsettling consequences if it is considered appropriate to charge a user with digital trespassing.
Now there have been several reports that the MIT network often unpoliced/regulated on purpose, and there are many other universities that have similar polices though most not as liberal as MIT's, so in this light I have not been able to see any arguments for digital trespassing as a strong argument.
it is common understanding that MIT's net work is open and is used/viewed as a public resource
IT IS NOT. I'm an MIT alum. MIT is crystal clear that their network is private and people can only use it while following their rules. Seriously, does http://ist.mit.edu/mitnet sound like a free for all network where anyone can do anything to you?
Finally, just because a network is open does not mean you have permission to use it.