[Steuard]

I hope you're not still talking cruise ships here! Those folks are often paying high prices by the minute or by the megabyte for access: you'd be pretty literally stealing from your neighbors in that situation. (The moral issue for pay-by-the-day systems is one step further removed, but I think it's still real.)

[jrockway]

802.1x covers access control to networks. MAC addresses are not for access control.

Not that a court would agree with my logic, of course.

[WiseWeasel]

Yeah, you might have a tough time explaining to the judge that Media Access Control addresses are not for access control.

[AnthonyMouse]

In this context "access control" doesn't mean what you think it does. It refers to multiplexing the communications of multiple devices over a single shared communications medium, as in "controlling" (arbitrating) shared access to the radio spectrum. It has no relationship to network authorization or authentication and provides no security whatsoever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_access_method

Calling it "access control" has always been confusing which is why people started calling it Machine Address Code or Ethernet Hardware Address instead.

[growupkids]

Regardless, the judge is going to look at intent and knowledge. You knew this was a paid service, and your intent was to not pay. You understood this was a way to avoid payment, and you understood that someone else had paid for access.

[AnthonyMouse]

None of which has anything to do with "media access control" which still has nothing to do with authorization or authentication.

[ceejayoz]

> In this context "access control" doesn't mean what you think it does.

Good luck explaining that to the judge.

[annnnd]

Doesn't really matter - it might (!) be legal, but it is immoral (if they really are paying by MB).