I don't like the bouncer analogy. The network people surely know that the MAC filter is ineffective and no bouncer would be fooled by a fake mustache.
I agree that it is clear enough that Aaron Swartz was intentionally circumventing their attempts to keep him off the network. Where I have trouble is that any notional security mechanism is apparently enough to make the circumvention a serious crime.
I suppose where I am going is that severe penalties should be for circumventing security features, and easily altered implementation details of network hardware should not qualify as security features.
Well I wasn't intending this as a debate of secure network practices. I was intending to voice my opinion that having your MAC address banned sends a very clear signal that you are no longer welcome. A signal that could be successfully argued in court. If you are banned from a network and you gain access back by changing your MAC address, no matter how trivial this exercise is you have to understand at some level that your machine address was purposefully blocked from the network.
Actually that makes me like the analogy again! If all you do is put on a mustache or change your shirt and the bouncer lets you in, then you don't really know what the purpose of the bouncing is.
I agree that it is clear enough that Aaron Swartz was intentionally circumventing their attempts to keep him off the network. Where I have trouble is that any notional security mechanism is apparently enough to make the circumvention a serious crime.
I suppose where I am going is that severe penalties should be for circumventing security features, and easily altered implementation details of network hardware should not qualify as security features.