>A computer in The Netherlands is defined as a machine that is used for three things: the storage, processing and transmission of data. A router can therefore not be described as a computer because it is only used to transfer or process data and not for storing bits and bytes.
Secure routers, almost by definition, store some kind of authentication data (passwords, network filters, routing data) to perform their job.
Edit:
Unlike say, hubs or unconfigured routers, a secured router's job is to transmit information for those who have been granted access. The line is getting very fine now, but according to the court's statement, the interpretation is that it would be legal to use a secured network if you cracked the wireless password and "piggybacked" off its services (because, by analogy, Internet traffic is routed through arbitrary gateways) but would constitute hacking if you altered the router's configuration settings (e.g. added your MAC address to the router's MAC filter).
My point is the student was acquitted of hacking not because "routers are not computers" (an oversimplification) but because there was no evidence of him gaining unauthorized access to the router itself.
The law is not a computer program; it is written by humans and interpreted by humans. So while yes, technically routers do store information, their intended purpose is not to store information, but rather route it. The judge understood that and ruled accordingly.
So a computer scientist and an electrical engineer are tallying up the number of computers at a Cusinart's tradeshow booth as part of a scavenger hunt.
Frustrated, the computer scientist complains that he can only find one - namely the booth attendant's iPad showcasing Cuisnart's new product line.
The EE points to the HTCPCP-enabled coffee machine and says "No, there are at least two computers in there, the microwave in the corner has one, and if you want one in the toaster, here's my card."
I don't mean to be nit-picky, but if you make a router store data so it can do its job, then it is by definition designed to store data. Even of that is not its main purpose.
Something as simple as the configuration files for the router (or a web front end to edit said config) would make it qualify.
The law is indeed not a computer program, but it does in general seek to be extremely explicit about everything it defines. It has to be. And in this case as well, it is very explicit about what defines a 'computer'. The way I see it, the judge did not really understand what a router really is (or can be). And consequently made an incorrect ruling that is likely to influence future rulings in similar cases.
This is one case where I am happy that one ruling does not require other judges to abide by the same ideas. One can only hope that other judges are more informed if and when the situation arises.
I think you have it backwards and the judge actually did rule correctly by ruling based on its intended use. A television processes data, stores data, and transmits information, but hacking a TV is not hacking a computer.
If courts don't make this distinction, then the definition of computer becomes meaningless because everything becomes a computer.
I am pretty sure this judge knew the router stored data; that is where the police found the MAC address of the person accused.
Also, law is not explicit about what constitutes a 'computer'. All it says is:
"Onder geautomatiseerd werk wordt verstaan een inrichting die bestemd is
om langs elektronische weg gegevens op te slaan, te verwerken en over te dragen."
"with automated work, we mean an apparatus intended to e used to store, process,
and transport data using electronics means."
The only thing explicit here is that it must be electronic; breaking into hydraulic computers is not illegal. All others are open for interpretation (is copying data from an input port to an output port processing? Is digitally storing configuration data really different from having hardware switches?)
I suspect law will evolve nuances over time. For example, would an external hard disk with built-in encryption be an automated work? A SAN with built-in encryption? A home server? My guesses would be no (no real processing of information), no, and yes.
Secure routers, almost by definition, store some kind of authentication data (passwords, network filters, routing data) to perform their job.
Edit: Unlike say, hubs or unconfigured routers, a secured router's job is to transmit information for those who have been granted access. The line is getting very fine now, but according to the court's statement, the interpretation is that it would be legal to use a secured network if you cracked the wireless password and "piggybacked" off its services (because, by analogy, Internet traffic is routed through arbitrary gateways) but would constitute hacking if you altered the router's configuration settings (e.g. added your MAC address to the router's MAC filter).
My point is the student was acquitted of hacking not because "routers are not computers" (an oversimplification) but because there was no evidence of him gaining unauthorized access to the router itself.