Comments, opinions and an occasional ramble
Illegal wireless access: Guilty of abetment?
Dr Huang had this very interesting entry on the recent case of a 17-year old who tapped on his neighbour’s wireless network and was charged in court for the act.
In Dr Huang’s view, the 17 year-old, Gary, was extremely resourceful. He is also of the view that since Gary did not forcefully enter the wireless network, nor attained access by means of fraud, it’s not exactly his fault.
I’m no lawyer, but I think that the moment you appropriate something that does not legally belong to you, or that you have not legally gained permission to appropriate something that does not legally belong to you, it is a crime. The means of obtaining the thing does not matter at all. The crux of the issue is that something that does not legally belong to Gary has been appropriated without permission.
Perhaps the neighbour was extreme in reporting a 17 year-old kid to the police, but that’s another issue altogether. I sympthatise with the boy, and if I know the neighbour, I would probably have lectured that person for adopting such a merciless stand towards a teenager who has yet to see the world. However, I wouldn’t say that the neighbour did something wrong.
Besides this, another thing that concerned me was Dr Huang’s analogy to the incident, which went:
“A man keeps the front door of his house open, and through this door daily flies out wads and wads of dollar notes for no conceivable reason. The man makes no attempt to close the door and his neighbours had been walking past to pick up the notes from day One.
On the 2,345th day, Gary walks by and picks up a two-dollar note. Some nosy guy then stops him and calls the police. Gary gets to see the judge and then gets the slammer?
The person who let the dollar notes out for the previous 2344 day is not guilty of abetting this ‘hideous’ crime?”
Since Dr Huang supports this analogy, I can extrapolate his belief and assume that that he probably supports a similar analogy of Australian muslim cleric Sheik Taj Al-Din Al-Hilali when Al-Hilali was quoted a couple of weeks ago implying that it would be the fault of an unveiled woman if she were raped, because the lack of covering would tempt men:
“If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street or in the garden or in the park or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it, whose fault is it-the cats’ or the uncovered meat?”
So, a woman who dresses skimpily and gets raped by a man should equally be punished by the law for “abetting” the man through temptation?
| Print article | This entry was posted by Aaron Ng on 20/12/2006 at 7:22 pm, and is filed under Ramblings. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 3 years ago
Hi,
I am surprised that you need to stoop so low to win an argument.
To extrapolate my belief and assume that I support an extremist Muslim cleric just because of an analogy I use to try to help Garyl is simply ridiculous.
I don’t know you from Adam and vice versa.
Please don’t edit your post. Let others judge for themselves how far people like you will go to support their own egos.
Dr.Huang
about 3 years ago
Dr Huang,
I don’t get you. I’m pointing out that your analogy is no different from the one that is made by the muslim cleric in that you are trying to shift the blame onto someone who committed no wrong in the first place. If that was not what you intended, you would have stood up and explain your stand more clearly. By not doing so, and labelling me as one who “stoop so low” in order “to support their egos”, it is clear that you have no response to the main point of my entry, which is that there is no abetment at all in this case.
I sincerely hope that as a respectable blogger and intellectual, you will provide a robust argument against my point. I know you are a kind-hearted person who wants to help Gary but that does not mean that you should put the blame onto the person who reported Gary. Two wrongs do not make a right. As much as you are infuriated with me for drawing a parallel between you and what you term an “extremist” muslim cleric, don’t you think that the person who reported Gary is equally infuriated with you for unfairly blaming him/her?
about 3 years ago
Aaron,
bringing in examples like this (comparing a teenager to an extremist) is in poor taste. However, agree with your analysis on the skimpily dressed thingy.
BUT,
in this case, it seems that the connection is NOT SECURED and not poorly secured, the analogy would be NAKED rather than skimpily dressed.
So,
base on the above analogy, what say you?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Would like to try a different example:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One day your friendly neighbor bought a super expensive karaoke set and started to have super loud karaoke sessions.
Being a typical singaporean and bombasted with so many Super Idol programs, you became a talented singer yourself, started singing along.
One day, your friendly neighbor started his karoake session as usual but this time, you somehow forgot to pay the electrical bills and the tv is cut off. Being taught to be creative and resourceful, you do the next best thing; you sing LOUDY along to your friendly neighbor karoake tunes.
Your singing disturbs him as your singing is damn bloody lousy and created had so much noise and spoilt his singing mood and atmosphere.
Next thing you know, you are on the news for you have committed a crime. You had “appropriate something that does not legally belong to you” aka “you have not legally gained permission to appropriate something that does not legally belong to you” aka “it is a crime”.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Interesting, isn’t it ?
Confused
about 3 years ago
well, perhaps dr. Huang is trying to say that the neighbour reacted in an unnecessarily extreme manner.
Bringing a 17-year-old to court? Please lah. For what, tapping into his Wi-Fi?
That person should have just password-protected it the next time around? Instead must go to court…Sounds so LKY-ish…much ado about nothing.
about 3 years ago
Hi Aaron,
Are you saying that just because I use an analogy to try to persuade readers why I think Garyl has been wrongly charged/punished, and the muslim cleric Sheik Taj Al-Din Al-Hilali uses a not dissimilar analogy, then I am a supporter of this cleric and all he stands for?
Dr.Huang
about 3 years ago
Hi Confused,
Your analogy on the poorly secured and unsecured is very funny. I like that.
In anycase, I think it’s more of comparing the originators of both analogies that’s the issue, and not comparing the teenager to the cleric.
As for bad choice of analogy, basically, that’s the closest to mind that I had. Maybe it’s a little extreme, but the underlying assumptions are pretty much the same. It makes me wonder why people jump at one analogy but not the other.
about 3 years ago
Hi Aaron,
what’s your view on the
1. “NOT SECURED and not poorly secured” and the
2. “Karaoke” analogy?
by the way, did not noticed that Dr. Huang (didn’t kow him or his blog, sorry) had made a comment before me, else wouldn’t have bothered to touch on that.
as for bad choice of analogy, you may get into trouble if you are using the wrong analogy at the wrong people.
Confused
about 3 years ago
I think that the question here is not about which analogy to use, but why the government would give the teenager such a heavy emphasis while not give a damn about a guy using millions of dollars for some unknown reasons.
The government took the opportunity from this case and started the “fixing”. They are making an example out of him.
Another distraction from the MIW, and we are falling right into it.
about 3 years ago
Dr Huang,
I think I see where is your main grouse. I did not mean to imply that you support Sheik Taj Al-Din Al-Hilali and all he stands for. My point is that since your analogy and his are so similar, it is probable that the both of you share similar sentiments that the victim is equally to blame as the perpetuator, which is not the case. I should have made it clearer that it is only in the instance and context of the quote, which I thought was pretty obvious. Thanks for bring to my attention that I was less clear than I should have been. I’ll do the necessary adjustment to convey across the meaning of my words more clearly.
about 3 years ago
Hi Guojun,
It’s not that I do not understand D Huang’s intention. I just think that taking a more compassionate approach and taking a wrong approach are very different matters.
about 3 years ago
Well Confused,
In terms of comparingly naked and skimpily clad with unsecured and poorly secured, you are right. However, the point here is not a matter of secured or not. The point here is whether in both analogies, should the person who throws his money about and the woman who does not bother to cover herself be blamed at all if the money was picked up by another and the woman was raped respectively.
As for the karaoke analogy, I’m sorry but I don’t see the connection. If you say the person gets arrested for being a public nuisance, alright. I don’t think that the person will be arrested for “appropriating” the music though, unless maybe the person does a sound recording.
about 3 years ago
Dear Aaron,
I have it here on record that you said,
“Since Dr Huang supports this analogy, I can extrapolate his belief and assume that that he probably supports the Australian muslim cleric Sheik Taj Al-Din Al-Hilali”
Do you now than retract the whole statement and what it implies?
It would then be proper for you to make an apology and put a statement on your main post that you had made such an error and that the original meaning which implied that I support Sheik Taj Al-Din Al-Hilali was erroneous and not intended.
I may be unconventional and sometimes even different. But I am not a racial or religious fundamentalist.
I definitely do not think that women deserve to be raped just because they do not cover all their body parts.
I wish that you make the necessary amendments at the earliest opportunity.
Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan
about 3 years ago
To me, anyone who leaves his wifi connection unsecured is inviting troubles. All your online activities can be easily monitored by hackers that can cause more harms than Gary (assuming he only used it to surf the net).
I think the act of Gary’s neighbour reflects the sort of society in singapore, one that is lack of compassion and hamanity. The neighbour is damn mean to report Gary to the police Mind you they are neighbours, not that Gary is a stranger passes by. Why do such thing to leave a stigma on a 17 years old? What does he gained out of this? Gary may be wrong in tapping on his neighbour’s wifi but I tend to agree that the neighbour ought to bear some responsibility as well. I wonder how would the neighbour feels when he meets Gary or his family face to face everyday, may be he does not care in the first place about his neighbour!
So if your neighbour stripped herself naked and leave her windows open, you walk pass and took a peep into the window, you are guilty of outraging the modesty of your neighbour? better close your eyes and see no evil next time as you walk along the corridor of the HDB flats!
about 3 years ago
“Dear Aaron,
I have it here on record that you said,
“Since Dr Huang supports this analogy, I can extrapolate his belief and assume that that he probably supports the Australian muslim cleric Sheik Taj Al-Din Al-Hilaliâ€
Do you now than retract the whole statement and what it implies?
It would then be proper for you to make an apology and put a statement on your main post that you had made such an error and that the original meaning which implied that I support Sheik Taj Al-Din Al-Hilali was erroneous and not intended. ”
There is no need for him to apologize, you are much older than him and as the cantonese say, you should tai hoie tih – be bigger hearted.
What is the point if you make the boy apologize only for you to gain an enemy or shall I say enemies, if you are wise you would not take it so seriously.
No one here takes it seriously, besides he was just superimposing and extrapolating, we all do that all the time including me.
I am sure he meant no offence from his statement – I for one see none other than perhaps drawing analogies.
A wise man knows when to choose his battles.
about 3 years ago
Hi Darkness,
Thank you for stepping in.
In my books, if Aaron had made a mistake (even if I accept that he did not mean to), the least that he could have done was to apologize.
It is not about winning clever arguments.
Although I am older than he, he is by no stretch of the imagination a child.
I am disappointed.
This would (probably) be my last word on this.
Dr.Huang
about 3 years ago
Dear Dr Huang,
The meaning of the initial formulation of the sentence that you took offence to was less than clear than intended, and since that is what you take offence to, I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings and implied something about you that was not completely true with the phrasing of the sentence.
If you have noticed, I have reworded the offending sentence to make my meaning clearer the moment I understood clearly what was your objection (that was done around the same time you posted your 11.44pm comment).
I am glad that you have clarified your stand that you do not support a similar analogy by the muslim cleric, although I do wonder why is there a double standard of sorts. Now that you’ve seen my point much more clearly, I wonder if you will still stand by your original argument that the neighbour was guilty of abetment, or do you agree with me that what the neighbour did was not legally wrong, but morally suspect.
All said, I think your initial choice of response to me was quite surprising. As this little exchange has proven, even the smartest people who believe in freedom of speech do get blindsided by emotions sometimes, resulting in them not being able to differentiate something worded strongly from something that’s malicious in intent.
about 3 years ago
I agree with Darkness, why make a fuzz in demanding from Aaron an apology. after all Aaron has clarified in his ealier post at 1057pm and also amended the wording to “… support a similar analogy of …”, I think that should be good enough. After all Dr Huang has earlier asked Aaron not to edit his original post and let others judge for themselve!
I feel that in the first place Dr Huang shouldn’t have used words like ” …stoop so low to win ….” and “….. how far people like you will go to support their own egos” on Aaron. If every comment someone make on his postings receive such treatment it shows either he is too emotional or blogging is not the appropriate forum for him to exchange views. it does not matter whether one is old or young, it is how you treat and respect each other in your argument!
Take it easy man!
about 3 years ago
sorry, too many typo-errors in my posts, i was thinking of somethingelse, it should have been read as: “fuss” and not “fuzz”, and “humanity” and not “hamanity”.
about 3 years ago
If everyone were to discuss issues without attacking the
character of the person who brings out or responds to an
issue, I think the discussion would be more beneficial.
However, once someone tries to or by insinuation attacks another’s character, rightly or wrongly, the discussion would most likely get heated up and distracted from the main issue. So, if we can all observe a certain degree of caution in what we type/say, a lot of inconvenience would be avoided.
about 3 years ago
Dr Huang, I read your blog and I like it. Aaron, I read your blog and I like it too. Still if I read Aaron rightly, it seems I can also conveniently and lazily extrapolate that Dr Huang is probably the type that will rape girls and blame the girls for being skimpily dressed. Still a blog is where if you are not careful, you can cause a lot of frustration, so Aaron, as part of the learning curve, do be careful. Why is Dr Huang so upset? I guess if I am Dr Huang, I would too. It is a joy to read Dr Huang’s blog, to have him share his heart, and it is so easy for people to misunderstand him and write pretty nasty things about him. And I do agree that those idiots who do not set up passwords on their wifi are just idiotic – unless they are deliberately being generous – then I say thank you to them.
about 3 years ago
Bill said – I feel that in the first place Dr Huang shouldn’t have used words like †…stoop so low to win ….†and “….. how far people like you will go to support their own egos†on Aaron. If every comment someone make on his postings receive such treatment it shows either he is too emotional or blogging is not the appropriate forum for him to exchange views. it does not matter whether one is old or young, it is how you treat and respect each other in your argument!
I feel that aaron thought of something, and wrote about it, and Dr Huang has every right to his feelings and reply. Not knowing Dr Huang, Aaron was ascribing such thoughts and views on Dr Huang – please, if Dr Huang does not come out strongly, what does it say about him? And to think that Aaron was ‘surprised at his response’ – Aaron – grow up. Yuo wrote, and you got an appropriate response, and I think your apology – quite half f*cked lah…..quite like the Wee wees. Your last para in your apology again show you to be a smart ass and undid all your apology. Just apologise and keep it short. I don’t know – with this style of writing you can write all types of analogy about other people and everyone has to get on your blog to deny having the same thoughts that you have??
about 3 years ago
TC,
You are another clear example of my little experiment with this entry that most Singaporeans are not ready for freedom of expression and mature discussion. For some weird reason, Singaporeans cannot distinguish what constitutes a strongly worded entry and a “personal attack”. If Singaporeans cannot even see beneath the surface for the substance and choose instead to jump at the surface meaning, it’s small wonder why the government needs to control us so tightly.
I think you need to read in between the lines, rather than to take the words at face value. The context should also be examined. If it wasn’t a muslim cleric but say a respectable world leader who made that comment, would anyone jump? If the context was not referring to women and rape, would anyone jump? Why is it that people won’t get upset if there is no perceived threat to their ego, even though the premise of the argument is unchanged?
Lastly, I issue the apology because it was my own inadequate phrasing of the sentence that might have given the wrong impression, which is indeed true. However, as Dr Huang himself noted, the analogy he made and the analogy the muslim cleric made are “not dissimilar”. What then is your beef with people coming to my blog to deny the same thoughts I have? The issue isn’t even about the analogy. You are pointing your gun in the wrong direction.
I don’t really care what you think about me. If this is the level that Singaporeans can conduct free speech with, I think we are not ready for democracy. I have made it clear in my original entry that it’s my assumption and my extrapolation, and whether people choose to believe or not, that’s their problem. I have not stated for a fact that Dr Huang is of a certain character; I merely extended the argument with a similar analogy, which is a pretty normal way of arguing. In fact, I salute Dr Huang for being able to hold an argument so well, despite the little emotional response right at the start. As for you, I think you have a little more to learn from Dr Huang.
about 3 years ago
Aaron, I learnt so much from Dr Huang and from you. Stop, look, listen, reflect. That way, we all grow. Thanks and I am amazed at your level of ‘maturity’ and my own immaturity. Wee-wee was really matured too – with zero EQ, and I learnt so much from her too! Thanks and a merry Christmas.
about 3 years ago
By demanding an apology, he thinks, he is God almighty. Demanding an apology on the net only goes to say a few things. One you dont know how to defend yourself or you cannot roll with the punches or you are just like two fleas arguing abt who owns the dog.
The really confident people in the net and those who just give as good as they take
about 3 years ago
and those confident ones are those who knows automatically when they have crossed the boundaries. Ahhhh….the fiery vigour of youth. self censorship ? What for? Should Aaron have censored himself and not write the post and the analogy (rightly or wrongly?) Should Dr have self censored, held back and not demand an apology? Like Dr Huang said – why self censor? It is interesting how this sphere will develop with time….
about 3 years ago
Why self censor? I doesn’t take alot of brain juice to see what happens when there is a free for all.
I am personally not going to take sides because I am new to blogging in Singapore and I dont really know the personalities of those involved.
I don’t really see anything interesting about the development of this sphere except perhaps conclude. One must really take responsibility for one’s actions. I think a large part of it has to do with ego and having delusions of being larger than life. The really confident people in my view, do not really need to project their influence. From what I have seen in the blogging comminity, the really confident people are those who dont even feel the need to defend themselves when others criticize them. Typically they dont go after everyone…sorry that is what I meant to say. They are also people who are not afraid to demonstrate their expressive side even if it requires them to be very honest by sharing with us the limits of their vulnerability and weaknesses. I enjoy reading about these things as it allows me to learn more about myself by being able to read other people’s confessions. Of course sometimes, I am a bit naive and tend to swallow everything hook, line and sinker, so this is one way to develop my street smartness.
I once asked my kong kong which was harder to do, to hate or ignore someone. He replied, if you hate someone, it just means you think about that person in a particular way. But if you choose to ignore someone, you would have to forget yourself, him, events, places, people etc and this naturally means ignoring someone or treating them like dead is 10 times harder to do. So I asked my kong what was the easiest thing to do, he just said, love them and when I asked why? He said, because it doesnt take any energy to love and understand someone.
about 3 years ago
I too, feel that the comparison in this particular 2 analogies are not well made.
As it is already stated elsewhere, wifi gives implicit sharing permission when unsecured. A person dressed skimpily, or naked, for that matters, has not implicitly consented to be violated.
That person may be looking for someone to share a good time, but still have the right to refuse. By securing your wifi, you are exercising the right to not give consent to share.
The cleric’s statement about skimpy women is just an age old excuse. A lady friend said, “females dress mostly not to impress males, but other females”. When a person is considering to violate another, clothes is not really an issue.
I would consider it equivalent to hacking into secured wifi, and then claiming that I did it because I think that I should not ever pay to use the internet.
My stand: this is a silly case. No one should have even been dragged to the police station because of this.
about 3 years ago
Hi Aaron (and fellow commentators),
I am not sure how applicable the skimpy dressing analogy is to all this — unless one perhaps introduces a third party, who decides whether people are sent out in public naked by default.
In short, we might wish to explore the role of the wireless router manufacturers, since they have specified an unsecured network as the default configuration.
Perhaps it is time for manufacturers (and industry consortia) to change their position on this?
I’ve tried to analyse the wireless access policy conundrum in an article on Singapore Angle, and it’d be great to hear from you on the matter…
Mooch Ado About Something: Illegal Wireless Access