Two questions you need to seriously answer to make changing your MAC address on Comcast's network to be the exact same thing as what Aaron did:

1. Are you bypassing a security mechanism by changing your MAC address?

2. Did you gain something and/or cause them losses exceeding $5,000?

This question seriously calls into question your profile description of "security guy". A security mechanism based on MAC is as effective as a security mechanism based on asking a stranger whether their name is Aaron Swartz, because Aaron Swartz isn't allowed on this network.

Please stop.

Note, that doesn't mean I think you should get 30 years in prison for simply walking across my lawn.

Agreed, which is one reason it is important in this conversation to separate false identity from trespassing.

The relevance of the security measure is that it serves to prove that the trespasser knew he wasn't allowed on the property.

Ah! Exactly! Which is why this conversation is important. The OP has said that he effectively always says no when asked if he is "Insert Name". My example is also poor, because asking someone if they are Bob Dylan also informs them that Bob Dylan is restricted from entry, which means something to the law.

A better example would be a security system based on something fleeting and baseless, like your favorite color. You might have always liked the same color, or you might change favorite colors every year, or you might just tell people a different color because no one really knows what your favorite color is but you anyway. If the security call box asked you what your favorite color was, you told them something random, and they let you in, is that illegal? The security guard never said that people whose favorite color is X are not allowed, he just asked what your favorite color was, and then he let you in.

Favorite colors are non-specific enough that you might reasonably not know. But MAC addresses aren't like favorite colors. Every Ethernet device has a unique one. If you find your MAC address banned, I think you can reasonably conclude that you're being singled out.

I agree that I'm darting around, but it's in the interest of truth. Here's the problem: if Aaron was running an automated MAC randomization system for the purpose of personal privacy, he would never have known that his MAC was blocked. The details of his case show that he was aware, but this OP describes a situation in which there is no awareness. If the law is primarily concerned with the knowledge aspect, this can be attended to on a case by case basis. However, much of the discussion has suggested that a MAC is an identifier, and any alteration of this identifier is criminal. This should not be the case.

His defense team vigorously contested the searches of his home, office, computers, even the netbook found in the closet at MIT under the aegis of his expectation of privacy at MIT; his team also attempted to have wire fraud indictments dismissed by challenging the notion of IP and MAC address "spoofing" constituted false statements. If Swartz had been continuously "spoofing" his addresses, he surely would have raised that point. Instead, he appears to stipulate that he was altering his addresses to bypass the authorization controls at MIT.

I wrote the first line of this comment a couple hours ago because I remembered reading this on Sunday, but it took me a while to track down the exact filing.

https://ia700504.us.archive.org/29/items/gov.uscourts.mad.13...

>By the same token, obtaining new IP addresses by “spoofing,” i.e., changing, the Acer’s MAC address, Indictment, ¶¶19(a)-(c), 27(a)-(c), also cannot constitute false statements or misrepresentations or omissions of material fact, nor can Swartz’s use of an automated collection device which made it appear that multiple people were requesting articles rather than a single person making multiple requests, Indictment, ¶34(c). //

So they're really claiming that writing a program to appear to be many people accessing data when only being one person, that program solely being to gain unauthorised access, wasn't fraudulent at all.

Does anyone genuinely believe that?

Yes. Engineers deal with uncooperative systems all the time. One might have the task of getting SCADA system A to integrate with financial system B, and report to management system C. But SCADA system A rate limits requests from a single origin, and the financial calculations will be inaccurate without more frequent updates. So, the engineer creates a system that appears to be multiple different origins to SCADA system A, and the world still turns.

I think what terrifies lawmakers and non-technical people is that, for the first time in history, computers present a potential world in which their expectations of the outcome of force and command do not apply; a virtual universe in which the laws are entirely different, and it takes bending over backwards to make the old laws of the physical world apply in the virtual world. So they do the only thing they know how, apply the physical world's laws of force and command to that chunk of the physical world at the opposite end of the virtual world, in a scale that is proportional to their vast fear instead of the actual behavior.

Look I've done MAC spoofing, switched UA's, tunnelling, used VPNs and such; it's not rocket science - certainly a moderately computer able person with legal training is going to be able to understand such things.

It's like signing up for multiple API keys in contravention of the ToS, you know it's not authorised.

There's nothing especially technical about what happened my only incredulity is that anyone supposes a person doing such a hack wouldn't know it's not _authorised_ (ie countenanced by the system owners). The first thought in addressing the access limit is that switching IP and/or MAC and/or UA is likely to enable access to 3(?) more JSTOR docs - but there's a realisation implicit within that of the JSTOR owners having only authorised a very limited access.

Now if we're talking about the ridiculousness of the proposed sentence that's an entirely different matter ...

As an aside I'm surprised no-one has crowdsourced the gathering of all JSTOR docs, they'd need an index, a script to pass the links to a person for download and a repository for upload. It would be just as copyright infringing as any other method but far harder to trace - the majority of it could be automated I'd expect (perhaps not the JSTOR registration).

Now, is it the case that if you habitually use MAC address randomization and try to access a network repeatedly without permission, your randomization of MAC address might be interpreted as a way of trying to get around blocks? This is quite possible, and will be handled by a jury that probably doesn't understand why anyone would randomize their MAC address any more than they would understand why anyone would habitually walk around wearing a ski mask. I think that's a legitimate concern.

I would hope that someone would realize that wearing a ski mask for no reason has considerable downsides, while changing you MAC address for no reason has none.

What if someone uses different devices instead of changing the identifier of one device? A policy that very explicitly says you can only take so much food on a plate, but that anyone can take a new plate, doesn't suggest that the server is too concerned about how much food is served.

On this note, I recall several years ago while in college getting a mass email from administration that warned students not to wear masks during Halloween on the street because doing so was banned in the city. A quick googling just now doesn't turn up anything of the sort, though it does seem some other states have laws concerning masks, though often with exceptions for children, holidays, religion, education, etc.

Who specifically has suggested that it should be the case? You're constructing a strawman or not reading what people are writing.

The criminal act is continuing to do something after you've been told to stop.

The fact that something is easy to bypass doesn't mean it's legal to bypass.

In fact, that "Aaron Swartz isn't allowed on the network" example is perfect. If I have a sign saying "Bob isn't allowed on my property" and Bob comes on my property, that's trespassing.

You can't answer legal questions with engineering. They are different fields with different goals.

Yes, and it's not the same as MAC blocking.

You can't answer legal questions with engineering

Technology changes the subtleties upon which laws are based, so you necessarily have to answer a legal question with certain aspects of engineering.

A network that is protected by MAC identification cannot be directly compared to a room protected by a lock and key. In the case of Aaron, you can point to his modification of the MAC as an awareness that his is skirting network policy. Whether breach of network policy should be a felony is another discussion. However, someone who maintains privacy by randomizing his MAC is in a very different situation that looks strikingly similar to the case at hand. Will the courts understand the difference? We can only hope.

Now imagine if each key is valid for only five openings of the door. When someone comes back to your place for a sixth time and their key doesn't work anymore, is it really reasonable to be upset if they choose another key from the bowl?

> 1. Are you bypassing a security mechanism by changing your MAC address?

As far as I can tell? Quite possibly. If I don't make my router use my laptop's MAC address then I get hit with a captive portal at random times. This appears to be a security measure, though in my unresearched opinion I believe it to be a mis-firing of a security measure.

> 2. Did you gain something and/or cause them losses exceeding $5,000?

Considering the cost of my bill, it won't take me all that long to cross that limit.

The situation would be different if you were not paying Comcast, but still using technical trickery to defeat their network security and access their bandwidth.

So you really think that Comcast doesn't want you on their network with a router spoofing a laptop MAC today?

It's the intent to be somewhere you know (or ought to know) you aren't wanted that matters.

2.

It's not just "I did $5,000 worth of business." If Comcast had a program where they sold "router-attached Internet" for a price difference that totaled $5,000 over the price you paid for "computer-attached Internet" then you would hit CFAA levels.

Their captive portal demands that I install client side software. If they didn't want me to do this, there are definitely better ways of letting me know about this than a captive portal. Why would they captive portal someone they intend to let use their service?

What concerns me here is the degree to which I seemingly have to guess at Comcast's motives.

> It's not just "I did $5,000 worth of business."

So on one hand we are violating the terms of service for a connection we paid for... and on the other hand we are violating a terms of service for a connection we paid for.

How is a layman, who is apparently responsible for evaluating the legality of his own actions, supposed to make a distinction?

I don't understand about the captive portal. Do you really think they don't want you on their network with a router?

The fact that their motives are unclear would be a good argument in your favor in case you were in court. Note that there wasn't any doubts about MIT's motives. Aaron isn't an idiot and he knew they were trying to keep him off the network.

2.

So on one hand we are violating the terms of service for a connection we paid for... and on the other hand we are violating a terms of service for a connection we paid for.

I don't understand how this is a reply.

If I use fraud to buy something you would sell for $8000 for $6000 instead, that's only $2000 worth of damages.

Comcast is preventing me from accessing their network unless I install their client side software. I am circumventing the technical measure in place to enforce this demand by changing my MAC address such that they think I have their software installed.

Am I in violation of their ToS for doing this? The hell if I know, but it seems entirely plausible.

Is this activity illegal? Like most questions in law, the answer is, "it depends".

Are you paying Comcast for internet? If so, its probably not illegal because they have authorized you to access the internet through their networks.

However, if Comcast's network authentication was based on MAC addresses and you spoofed yours to match a paying customer's, that would probably be wire fraud.

> Or, if it is the "something valuable" part, would gaining access to that "something valuable" have been an issue if there was no deceit?

I'm not sure what other laws would be relevant if there was no deception, but it certainly wouldn't be wire fraud. Deception is a pretty integral component to fraud.