StraitShootWho Loves Ya Baby? - Theo Kojak Premium Member join:2003-02-08 Clinton, MA |
The owner of the "Unsecured" WiFi should be arrestedIf someone is stupid enough NOT to tie up their WiFi with a Password, they shouldn't care if someone else can "steal" the signal. Ineptness and ignorance shouldn't be rewarded. | |
|
| 88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness 1 edit |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2007-Aug-22 9:23 am
Re: The owner of the "Unsecured" WiFi should be arrestedsaid by StraitShoot:If someone is stupid enough NOT to tie up their WiFi with a Password, they shouldn't care if someone else can "steal" the signal. Ineptness and ignorance shouldn't be rewarded. So if I forget to lock my door I DESERVE to get robbed? The robber shouldn't be punished because it would be just rewarding my ineptness? | |
|
| | roady1 join:2003-11-13 Cleveland, OH |
roady1
Member
2007-Aug-22 9:41 am
Of course not...said by 88615298:said by StraitShoot:If someone is stupid enough NOT to tie up their WiFi with a Password, they shouldn't care if someone else can "steal" the signal. Ineptness and ignorance shouldn't be rewarded. So if I forget to lock my door I DESERVE to get robbed? The robber shouldn't be punished because it would be just rewarding my ineptness? But in this case you DESERVE to get into some trouble for redistributing the internet access which you agreed not to do in your ISP TOS. | |
|
| | |
to 88615298
Re: The owner of the "Unsecured" WiFi should be arrestedsaid by 88615298:said by StraitShoot:If someone is stupid enough NOT to tie up their WiFi with a Password, they shouldn't care if someone else can "steal" the signal. Ineptness and ignorance shouldn't be rewarded. So if I forget to lock my door I DESERVE to get robbed? The robber shouldn't be punished because it would be just rewarding my ineptness? no but if you put something out in the trash should you have me arrested if i take it or better yet if you leave your front door wide open and the wind kicks up and 100$ blows off your desk out your front door and ends up flying through my open window and lands in my house am i a theif for spending it. This case may be diffenet becaus ethey were out in public space but the argument is similar if you dont want me on your network encrypt it or keep it the hell off my land. Wep encryption may be pointless because it can be cracked in under 10 min but its a way of telling people this is not a public access point | |
|
| | | |
AstroBoy
Anon
2007-Aug-24 9:41 am
Re: The owner of the "Unsecured" WiFi should be arrestedsaid by mustang03282:said by 88615298:said by StraitShoot:If someone is stupid enough NOT to tie up their WiFi with a Password, they shouldn't care if someone else can "steal" the signal. Ineptness and ignorance shouldn't be rewarded. So if I forget to lock my door I DESERVE to get robbed? The robber shouldn't be punished because it would be just rewarding my ineptness? no but if you put something out in the trash should you have me arrested if i take it or better yet if you leave your front door wide open and the wind kicks up and 100$ blows off your desk out your front door and ends up flying through my open window and lands in my house am i a theif for spending it. This case may be diffenet becaus ethey were out in public space but the argument is similar if you dont want me on your network encrypt it or keep it the hell off my land. Wep encryption may be pointless because it can be cracked in under 10 min but its a way of telling people this is not a public access point Well said! | |
|
| | Noah VailOh God please no. Premium Member join:2004-12-10 SouthAmerica |
to 88615298
Why don't you take all of your belongings, and put them on the street.
At nighttime, anyone equipped with a flashlight could locate them and make use of them.
How smart would you be for doing that?
Are you still offended by somebody using your stuff when you have spent time and money to put it unattended in a public place?
NV | |
|
| | | ROCINANTEOriginal Member 007 Premium Member join:1999-06-29 Hartsdale, NY |
ROCINANTE
Premium Member
2007-Aug-22 10:27 am
Re: The owner of the "Unsecured" WiFi should be arrestedWow, logical fallacies and invalid analogies are making a comeback in this thread.
Why is the attitude of "innocent people deserve bad things to happen to them when they make mistakes" so pervasive on this board? | |
|
| | | | AmeritecTechChange we can believe in, 1922 Premium Member join:2002-09-06 Houston, TX |
Re: The owner of the "Unsecured" WiFi should be arrestedsaid by ROCINANTE:Wow, logical fallacies and invalid analogies are making a comeback in this thread. Why is the attitude of "innocent people deserve bad things to happen to them when they make mistakes" so pervasive on this board? Ignorance of the law and of technology is no excuse. If terrorist activity or other criminal activity takes place from an unsecured wireless connection, it may indeed be appropriate to make them partially liable for anything that takes place. | |
|
| | | | | ROCINANTEOriginal Member 007 Premium Member join:1999-06-29 Hartsdale, NY |
ROCINANTE
Premium Member
2007-Aug-22 11:05 am
Re: The owner of the "Unsecured" WiFi should be arrested..and here is another one. The terrorist activity itself is obviously the point of contention. Is there actually a law that states that if someone grabs your signal to conduct terrorist activities, then you are partially liable? How does ignorance of the law apply here? If there isn't a law, then this would be a civil case. Perhaps in the court of public opinion someone would be considered liable, but where is the intent? What would "reasonable" people do? Is there negligence involved? What is the cause and effect? Do reasonable people purchase routers to allow others to conduct illegal activities? Of course not, and it does not matter if they are secured or not. | |
|
| | | | | |
to AmeritecTech
Regardless, it is not free nor does the owner need to make it clear that it is not free as that should be a given. You have it ass backwards. Instead of assuming everything is free for the taking by default just because it is there and you can access it, why don't you assume you need permission to take it first. The burden is on you, not the owner.
It is people like you that think anything you are not specifically told to leave alone you can mess with that cause a vast majority of the problems in every society.
It isn't yours, you know it isn't yours, so STFU and move on to one that you know is being offered publicly. | |
|
| | | | | | AmeritecTechChange we can believe in, 1922 Premium Member join:2002-09-06 Houston, TX |
Re: The owner of the "Unsecured" WiFi should be arrestedsaid by Skippy25:Regardless, it is not free nor does the owner need to make it clear that it is not free as that should be a given. You have it ass backwards. Instead of assuming everything is free for the taking by default just because it is there and you can access it, why don't you assume you need permission to take it first. The burden is on you, not the owner. It is people like you that think anything you are not specifically told to leave alone you can mess with that cause a vast majority of the problems in every society. It isn't yours, you know it isn't yours, so STFU and move on to one that you know is being offered publicly. I'm puzzled why you'd choose to respond to that particular post, but whatever. A router that is shouting at my wireless card "HEY BUDDY, HAVE AN IP!" is not even trying to keep me out, indeed, it is inviting me. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
Re: The owner of the "Unsecured" WiFi should be arrestedWrong, your NIC was shooting HEY CAN I HAVE AN IP. At least learn the basics for what your DA is going to argue.
I know, your next response is going to be that the router say yeah you can have an IP so all is good as permission was granted. I would say your fraudently accepted that IP and should be arrested for it. | |
|
| | | | | | | | AmeritecTechChange we can believe in, 1922 Premium Member join:2002-09-06 Houston, TX |
Re: The owner of the "Unsecured" WiFi should be arrestedsaid by Skippy25:Wrong, your NIC was shooting HEY CAN I HAVE AN IP. At least learn the basics for what your DA is going to argue. I know, your next response is going to be that the router say yeah you can have an IP so all is good as permission was granted. I would say your fraudently accepted that IP and should be arrested for it. In what way did I commit fraud? I didn't spoof a MAC to pretend that I am an authorized computer and I didn't guess or brute any passwords. And why do you need to call me a dumb ass to discuss this with me? | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
to Skippy25
And before the nic could ask for an ip, it had to be told by the router that the router was there. What's your point? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | AmeritecTechChange we can believe in, 1922 Premium Member join:2002-09-06 Houston, TX |
Re: The owner of the "Unsecured" WiFi should be arrestedsaid by Necronomikro:And before the nic could ask for an ip, it had to be told by the router that the router was there. What's your point? Not true, the SSID can be entered manually. SSID is broadcast for the purpose of people who do not know what the SSID is, or for convenience. Requesting an IP is a roughly equivalent transaction to asking for entry into someone's house. As long as you represent yourself appropriately, ("My name is Bob and I sell vacuums" / "I am a computer using a wireless card with MAC ID xxxxxxxxx") granted access was not obtained fraudulently. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Re: The owner of the "Unsecured" WiFi should be arrestedI mean for a random joe to connect, it needs to broadcast the SSID. I'm aware that you can have it not broadcast and enter that information manually. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
to AmeritecTech
Regardless of any technological argument you try to make, you don't know if you are suppose to be using it, you can safely conclude in probably 99% of all cases (especially from your home) that they don't want you to use it, so until you receive permission by the OWNER to do so you should stay the hell off of it.
How you can connect to it and why doesnt matter. You can blame them for not protecting it. You can blame the router for penetrating your walls. You can blame science for giving us the technology. And you can blame God for giving us the intelligence. But the bottom line is, you can safely conclude in virtually every single case they don't want you there so it is on you to seek permission to be there. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | AmeritecTechChange we can believe in, 1922 Premium Member join:2002-09-06 Houston, TX |
Re: The owner of the "Unsecured" WiFi should be arrestedsaid by Skippy25:Regardless of any technological argument you try to make, you don't know if you are suppose to be using it, you can safely conclude in probably 99% of all cases (especially from your home) that they don't want you to use it, so until you receive permission by the OWNER to do so you should stay the hell off of it. How you can connect to it and why doesnt matter. You can blame them for not protecting it. You can blame the router for penetrating your walls. You can blame science for giving us the technology. And you can blame God for giving us the intelligence. But the bottom line is, you can safely conclude in virtually every single case they don't want you there so it is on you to seek permission to be there. Except that I don't agree with your premise. Many people are happy to offer free access as evidenced by all the listings on nodedb.org. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Mudpie2
Anon
2007-Aug-23 10:46 am
Re: The owner of the "Unsecured" WiFi should be arrestedExactly,
I leave my WIFI network wide open for the simple reason that if someone is using my network (roommate, family member, friend, etc) illegally, "unbeknownst to me", I can not be help liable for the "possibility" that someone accessed my network remotely.
Remember the RIAA case where the RIAA could not prove that the owner of the computer was in fact the person downloading songs because the WIFI network was unsecure and the "accused" DHCP IP address was the wireless router and not the private network IP address/computer name behind the router.
I do not endorse rouge behaviour, but I do not want to be placed in that position unfairly either.
Also, I am not a lawyer nor computer specialist, so I will not "assume" what is or is not legal versus ethical. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Re: The owner of the "Unsecured" WiFi should be arrestedsaid by Mudpie2 :
Exactly, I do not endorse rouge behaviour, but I do not want to be placed in that position unfairly either. LOL. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Skippy25 |
to AmeritecTech
So find someone on that list that lives by you offering free wifi for your cheap freeloading ass. If you can't find someone, then go ask your neighbors if you can connect to their wireless. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | AmeritecTechChange we can believe in, 1922 Premium Member join:2002-09-06 Houston, TX |
Re: The owner of the "Unsecured" WiFi should be arrestedsaid by Skippy25:So find someone on that list that lives by you offering free wifi for your cheap freeloading ass. If you can't find someone, then go ask your neighbors if you can connect to their wireless. I don't freeload. | |
|
| | | | | | | | greendragon Premium Member join:2003-09-20 Stewartville, MN |
to Skippy25
And I would say that if a person wants to use technology then they should either know how to set it up or hire someone that knows.
The fact that a SSID is being broadcast is not the problem. If you do not password protect it then it is open for anyone to use.
If my neighbor is transmitting the signal into my house and the router is allowing me to get an IP address then I should be able to. However when I ask for permission and it says no, then I cannot. If the neighbor is breaking his ISPs TOS by sharing his connection then he should be responsible for the consequences. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | roady1 join:2003-11-13 Cleveland, OH |
roady1
Member
2007-Aug-22 12:09 pm
Yep...That's what I said | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
to Skippy25
so what about the other ignorant people that don't know how to stop there laptops from conencting to open ap's. should they be arested also?? | |
|
| | |
to 88615298
Not necessarily, but, if you leave a baby out in a hot car (negligence), you deserve the legal repercussions. This is just another, less extreme, example of negligence. | |
|
| | |
to 88615298
said by 88615298:said by StraitShoot:If someone is stupid enough NOT to tie up their WiFi with a Password, they shouldn't care if someone else can "steal" the signal. Ineptness and ignorance shouldn't be rewarded. So if I forget to lock my door I DESERVE to get robbed? The robber shouldn't be punished because it would be just rewarding my ineptness? Did the owner of the unsecured Wi-Fi had any monetary loss as a result of the alleged theft? | |
|
| | | Ebolla join:2005-09-28 Dracut, MA |
Ebolla
Member
2007-Aug-22 1:13 pm
Re: The owner of the "Unsecured" WiFi should be arrestedsaid by aurgathor:Did the owner of the unsecured Wi-Fi had any monetary loss as a result of the alleged theft? No but I am sure the person using his internet was using up his bandwidth. Now if the person who pays for the services pays for bandwidth usage then yes the person accessing his services is causing a monetary loss. Also lets not forget we cant apply US laws to this since this was in UK. | |
|
| | |
Anomus to 88615298
Anon
2007-Aug-22 1:44 pm
to 88615298
Its one thing for me to journey over to somebodys private property and make entry thru doors that are expected to be locked. Its an entirely different thing for me to be legally bebopping my way thru life and find out that somebodys signals are openly invading my space. I can either complain or be happy. I rather be happy and make the best of the situation. Free internet via unpassworded signals. Yipeeeeeee. But with the huge gray area in prosecutorial law in this respect that might allow me to win aquital of criminal activity, it would still cost me a huge pile of cash to simply defend myself. So anybody is a complete IDIOT to stand up and admit that they "freeload" their wifi if thats what you choose to call it. I claim that I am certainly legal but I in no way can afford to defend my claim finacially in todays court of law. The legal system is simply out of control financialy. | |
|
| | Anomus |
Anomus to 88615298
Anon
2007-Aug-22 4:17 pm
to 88615298
Yet another case of my post being deleted... This place is very hypocritical and I would be an idiot to proclaim my identity while talking about my cantenna lifestyle. I am content to talk anonomously, but there is no point when my words are deleted. | |
|
| | | Ebolla join:2005-09-28 Dracut, MA |
Ebolla
Member
2007-Aug-22 4:20 pm
Re: The owner of the "Unsecured" WiFi should be arrestedwhy proudly proclaim you have a cantenna lifestyle while hiding behind an anonomous post. THATS being a hypocrite. | |
|
| | | |
Anomus to Anomus
Anon
2007-Aug-22 4:29 pm
to Anomus
Its about freekin time... How can you even meaningfully participate in any worthwhile discussion when your posts are roadblocked for such lengthy amounts of time? There comes a point when one cant help but think his posts are deleted. And its not like it was borderline vulger and 6 people had to wieght in on wether to allow it to post. Registering and then talking about behavior companies suit you into bancrupsy over is the height of stupidity. Once a person is targeted and served, he has lost. The legal system today is just too expensive no mater wether your innocent or guilty. Even if you win you lose so its best just to stay anonomus and not be a target. Those are the real winners. | |
|
| | | | Anomus |
Anomus
Anon
2007-Aug-22 8:38 pm
Re: The owner of the "Unsecured" WiFi should be arrestedMy connection thru RR cant see my posts. My connection thru AT&T can see my posts. Curious developement I will have to be aware of for future reference. | |
|
| | |
AstroBoy to 88615298
Anon
2007-Aug-24 10:35 am
to 88615298
said by 88615298:said by StraitShoot:If someone is stupid enough NOT to tie up their WiFi with a Password, they shouldn't care if someone else can "steal" the signal. Ineptness and ignorance shouldn't be rewarded. So if I forget to lock my door I DESERVE to get robbed? The robber shouldn't be punished because it would be just rewarding my ineptness? If you left your door unlocked and threw your stuff in the street, then yes I might take it. Just keep your wifi behind your un-locked door and I will not touch it, but extent it to my car and it is mine to take or use. | |
|
| DataDocMy avatar looks like me, if I was 2D. Premium Member join:2000-05-14 Hedgesville, WV 1 edit |
to StraitShoot
Yeah, it's as if you installed software that misused your PC's file system, adding thousands of entries and didn't even ask first. You should have known better than install it.
Ineptness and ignorance shouldn't be rewarded. | |
|
| |
to StraitShoot
It's my oxygen!!! lol! To all you freaks who think this is stealing... then don't come by my house. The plants and trees on my yard are producing oxygen that belongs to me! You can't breath it - even though it's in the public domain.
Of course, I can agree there's something to be said about leaning up against a private building and private property - but sitting on the street? | |
|
intellerSociopaths always win. join:2003-12-08 Tulsa, OK |
What kind of questions do they ask?Do officers go around asking questions like "are you using unsecured wireless access?" Because I know for sure no one is stupid enough to sit there and say "oh officer I'm just sitting here using unsecured wireless access that is someone elses"
If I was sitting on a park bench next to starbucks using a MAC hack and a cop asked me what I was doing I'd just say "browsing the web" Its up to THEM to prove how and where I'm getting access. | |
|
| exocet_cmWriting Premium Member join:2003-03-23 Brooklyn, NY |
Re: What kind of questions do they ask?said by inteller:Do officers go around asking questions like "are you using unsecured wireless access?" Because I know for sure no one is stupid enough to sit there and say "oh officer I'm just sitting here using unsecured wireless access that is someone elses" If I was sitting on a park bench next to starbucks using a MAC hack and a cop asked me what I was doing I'd just say "browsing the web" Its up to THEM to prove how and where I'm getting access. Or hit the dang OFF switch on the WIFI card... | |
|
|
passwordyour right. people just set it up and go about your business. if it had been a loaded handgun left on the porch that the guy stole and then killed a store clerk with, do you think anything would be done to the careless owner of the handgun? | |
|
| greendragon Premium Member join:2003-09-20 Stewartville, MN |
Re: passwordyes | |
|
AmeritecTechChange we can believe in, 1922 Premium Member join:2002-09-06 Houston, TX |
Of course I have permission.My computer requested an IP from their router and the router granted it without requiring me to forge any credentials. | |
|
| ••••••••••••••••••• |
X_DigitBinary Enhanced Premium Member join:2003-06-12 Mansfield, TX 1 edit |
X_Digit
Premium Member
2007-Aug-22 9:05 am
Context..."was seen sitting on a wall outside a home"
So, my question is really... did he get arrested solely for using this guys WiFi, or is there more to the story than meets the eye. Sounds to me like he was "probably" arrested for trespassing; however, since he was trespassing to use the guys WiFi... the story may have gotten out of context!?
I'm aware according to the article... the WiFi issue ALONE is illegal, but I bet that's not the original charge they book him on. | |
|
| Telukin Premium Member join:2004-03-26 UK |
Telukin
Premium Member
2007-Aug-22 9:09 am
Re: Context...It depends what he was browsing, and what he was doing while he was looking at what he was browsing... | |
|
| | |
Re: Context...said by Telukin:It depends what he was browsing, and what he was doing while he was looking at what he was browsing... Yeah -- most people here in downtown Atlanta "just sitting outside a home" are probably doing more than just that. The full answer is usually, when they 'fess up to it, just sitting outside this home where I'm begging/loitering, waiting for this townhome resident to park the bike that I intend to steal. While I wait, I'll surf the 'net using the laptop I got out of a car that I broke into down the street. But really, just sitting outside this home. IronChefMorimoto | |
|
Trinijoy Premium Member join:2005-09-12 Brick, NJ |
Trinijoy
Premium Member
2007-Aug-22 9:11 am
Hmm"Whaddya in for buddy?"
--
"I was on the internet." -- "OMG GET AWAY FROM ME!" | |
|
| |
anonner
Anon
2007-Aug-22 8:14 pm
Re: HmmBest comment in the thread. Kudos. | |
|
1 edit |
Just stop it, OK?Look, this is getting old. We all know it's illegal to use someone else's wireless connection without permission, as you and the media have told us so many times. How do I phrase this...I do not care that some bozo in GB gets tapped for stealing someone else's broadband service. Why do I have to be reminded of this every single time someone gets arrested. What possible good doe it do to report yet another "crime" of stealing, when the only thing taking place is someone surfing the net on a connection that belongs to someone else. How about we arrest the "owner" of the unsecured device, and charge him with enabling and enticing said criminal behavior? Why is it we don't see the owner getting involved? I'll tell you, it's because he's supposedly the victim. A victim who does not know he is a victim AND APPARENTLY DOES NOT CARE... So it really doesn't matter. If the victim was aware, he would take steps to protect his service against unauthorised use. Including turning the encryption on. So what we have here is a law that says even if there is no crime per the "victim", there's a crime and a victim? Oh yes, forgot to add, what of those high-gain wireless antennas that can hook up from miles away? You know, like the one that those guys at the annual electronics convention in Las Vegas use that is able to connect at a distance of a hundred miles or more?
You can't make this stuff up... | |
|
| 88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2007-Aug-22 9:25 am
Re: Just stop it, OK?said by treetop1000:Look, this is getting old. We all know it's illegal to use someone else's wireless connection without permission, as you and the media have told us so many times. How do I phrase this...I do not care that some bozo in GB gets tapped for stealing someone else's broadband service. Why do I have to be reminded of this every single time someone gets arrested. What possible good doe it do to report yet another "crime" of stealing, when the only thing taking place is someone surfing the net on a connection that belongs to someone else. How about we arrest the "owner" of the unsecured device, and charge him with enabling and enticing said criminal behavior? Why is it we don't see the owner getting involved? I'll tell you, it's because he's supposedly the victim. A victim who does not know he is a victim AND APPARENTLY DOES NOT CARE... So it really doesn't matter. If the victim was aware, he would take steps to protect his service against unauthorised use. Including turning the encryption on. So what we have here is a law that says even if there is no crime per the "victim", there's a crime and a victim? Oh yes, forgot to add, what of those high-gain wireless antennas that can hook up from miles away? You know, like the one that those guys at the annual electronics convention in Las Vegas use that is able to connect at a distance of a hundred miles or more? You can't make this stuff up... If the person stealing wi-fi is downloading kiddie pr0n then it's going to show up as the owner of the house is doing it. I suspect he would care then. | |
|
| AmeritecTechChange we can believe in, 1922 Premium Member join:2002-09-06 Houston, TX |
to treetop1000
said by treetop1000:Look, this is getting old. We all know it's illegal to use someone else's wireless connection without permission, as you and the media have told us so many times. No, it rests on tenuous and varied legal grounds. Since this is state law, each state will vary. And in this case, its an entirely different country. How do I phrase this...I do not care that some bozo in GB gets tapped for stealing someone else's broadband service. Why do I have to be reminded of this every single time someone gets arrested. What possible good doe it do to report yet another "crime" of stealing, when the only thing taking place is someone surfing the net on a connection that belongs to someone else. How about we arrest the "owner" of the unsecured device, and charge him with enabling and enticing said criminal behavior? Why is it we don't see the owner getting involved? I'll tell you, it's because he's supposedly the victim. A victim who does not know he is a victim AND APPARENTLY DOES NOT CARE... So it really doesn't matter. If the victim was aware, he would take steps to protect his service against unauthorised use. Including turning the encryption on. So what we have here is a law that says even if there is no crime per the "victim", there's a crime and a victim? Oh yes, forgot to add, what of those high-gain wireless antennas that can hook up from miles away? You know, like the one that those guys at the annual electronics convention in Las Vegas use that is able to connect at a distance of a hundred miles or more?
You can't make this stuff up... Hm, you really turned your post around. | |
|
|
HangTHEscum
Anon
2007-Aug-22 10:25 am
MOST people are A-HolesYeah, we should punish the VICTIM -- AGAIN because some scumbag thief decided to steal their Wi-Fi access. How can people be so G.D. DUMB???
All criminals should do prison time and pay the full cost of prosecution, incarceration and losses suffered by the victim for court appearances, etc.
We live in a society where you need to understand that people are basically no damn good until they prove otherwise. | |
|
| |
Re: MOST people are A-HolesHe probably abused the wifi. | |
|
dslwanter20 years on this site Premium Member join:2002-12-16 Mineral Ridge, OH ·Armstrong Ubiquiti UniFi AP-LR Ubiquiti EdgeRouter X SFP
|
dslwanter
Premium Member
2007-Aug-22 10:48 am
Both are stupid.If you run into unsecured wifi chances are the person who set it up is also too ignorant to tell if anyone is actually using it.
But the idiot sitting on the wall couldn't be anymore obvious either. That's like the guy trying to break in their house and sitting there starring at the door, of course you look suspicious idiot! Or like the car who rides up and down the street really slow and gets pulled over. Duh! | |
|
|
EnforceTheLaw
Anon
2007-Aug-22 11:23 am
The only good thief is a dead thiefThe Scum of the Earth that can't abide by the laws of society are not entitled to live in society. | |
|
| bmn? ? ?
join:2001-03-15 hiatus |
Re: The only good thief is a dead thiefsaid by EnforceTheLaw :
The Scum of the Earth that can't abide by the laws of society are not entitled to live in society. Yeah, let's put everyone in front of a firing squad for ANY law broken... That's a great way to solve the crime problem because everyone will be dead. Everyone has broken the law at one point in time, most not knowing they were doing it. | |
|
MooJohn join:2005-12-18 Milledgeville, GA |
MooJohn
Member
2007-Aug-22 11:38 am
How Do You Differentiate between "Unsecured" and "Public"?Many people leave their connections open on purpose. Are you to guess which is which? | |
|
| greendragon Premium Member join:2003-09-20 Stewartville, MN |
Re: How Do You Differentiate between "Unsecured" and "Public"?good point. Maybe that should be a setting within a wirless access points setup. When you look at the SSID then it would say the ID then public or private. | |
|
|
Common sense...For now it's not against the law to have no common sense. Although sometimes many of us feel it should be. Think about the default passwords that come with routers. There is no hacking/cracking/attacking going on when someone is asked for a password and provides one that the router accepts. Yet that is surely an unauthorized access. Just as it is unauthorized access in using someone else's WiFi. Unfortunately it seems the equipment alone is not the one with the final say on who is authorized access. | |
|
| •••••••• |
|
WIFI USAGE
Anon
2007-Aug-22 12:43 pm
Unsecured wifi usage should not be illegalIn a large city like New York, Chicago, Boston, etc, within a city block which is around 200 feet, or the wifi range limit, there can be several hundred to a few thousand apartments and businesses. Even if a small %age of those are unsecured, say 1%-5%, you can have a lot of open wifi bandwidth subject to usage. Most of the time that bandwidth is idle, or has very little load on it.
Now, lying on your apartment couch with your wireless laptop you can inadvertantly be using you neighbors' wifi connection instead of yours and you wouldn't even know it. The wireless in your laptop will connect automatically to the best signal at the moment. If your wireless cable/dsl modem/router is in your living room and you are a couple of rooms over in your bedroom say, your wieless laptop may connect to the wifi router from across the street instead of your own. Again, you wouldn't even know it, especially if you leave your laptop unattended at that location for some period of time as most of us do.
That is not illegal, should not be illegal, and besides in a densely populated area as described above it is next to impossible to find whose wireless notebook is logged to whose wifi and at what time. Even if there is some criminal activity going on it'll be next to impossible in such an environment to carry on a criminal investigation that will stand up in court. Besides if there are active crooks they will be most likely more sophisticated and will operate with spoofed equipment that will change id frequently making a criminal investigation extremely difficult. Now, if the NSA or CIA station a couple of fully equipped electronic sniffing vans within the block it may be done, but it is highly unlikely the local police will devote the time, energy, or valuable resources to track a voyeristic internet pervert.
To stop open wifi it would be much easier to pass a law forcing the cable/dsl companies to sell/install only secured wifi cable/dsl modem/routers and provide the appropriate directions to the customers. It can also be illegal for anyone to install an unsecured wifi router and broadcast an open connection to the public just as it is illegal now for any one to setup their own neighborhood radio station. That's the ONLY way to stop open wifi.
But open wifi is NOT a problem or it is an extremely minor annoyance right now and only to those who leave their wifi unsecured. It does not warrant spending the time and energy on it, or making it criminal. The jails are full already with real criminals. If anything, it may warrant the status of a minor parking ticket. It is much ado about nothing, really.
Besides in many cities now there are open wifi parks or city sections where anyone with criminal intent can anonymously use open connections.
Enough of all this non-sense about open wifi. There are far more important matters the government can be focusing on. | |
|
WIFI USAGE |
WIFI USAGE
Anon
2007-Aug-22 1:01 pm
In a large city like New York, Chicago, Boston, etc, within a city block which is around 200 feet, or the wifi range limit, there can be several hundred to a few thousand apartments and businesses. Even if a small %age of those are unsecured, say 1%-5%, you can have a lot of open wifi bandwidth subject to usage. Most of the time that bandwidth is idle, or has very little load on it.
Now, lying on your apartment couch with your wireless laptop you can inadvertently be using you neighbors' wifi connection instead of yours and you wouldn't even know it. The wireless in your laptop will connect automatically to the best signal at the moment. If your wireless cable/dsl modem/router is in your living room and you are a couple of rooms over in your bedroom say, your wireless laptop may connect to the wifi router from across the street instead of your own. Again, you wouldn't even know it, especially if you leave your laptop unattended at that location for some period of time as most of us do.
That is not illegal, should not be illegal, and besides in a densely populated area as described above it is next to impossible to find whose wireless notebook is logged to whose wifi and at what time. Even if there is some criminal activity going on it'll be next to impossible in such an environment to carry on a criminal investigation that will stand up in court. Besides if there are active crooks they will be most likely more sophisticated and will operate with spoofed equipment that will change id frequently making a criminal investigation extremely difficult. Now, if the NSA or CIA station a couple of fully equipped electronic sniffing vans within the block it may be done, but it is highly unlikely the local police will devote the time, energy, or valuable resources to track a voyeuristic internet pervert.
To stop open wifi it would be much easier to pass a law forcing the cable/dsl companies to sell/install only secured wifi cable/dsl modem/routers and provide the appropriate directions to the customers. It can also be illegal for anyone to install an unsecured wifi router and broadcast an open connection to the public just as it is illegal now for any one to setup their own neighborhood radio station. That's the ONLY way to stop open wifi.
But open wifi is NOT a problem or it is an extremely minor annoyance right now and only to those who leave their wifi unsecured. It does not warrant spending the time and energy on it, or making it criminal. The jails are full already with real criminals. If anything, it may warrant the status of a minor parking ticket. It is much ado about nothing, really.
Besides in many cities now there are open wifi parks or city sections where anyone with criminal intent can anonymously use open connections.
Enough of all this non-sense about open wifi. There are far more important matters the government can be focusing on. | |
|
| •••••••• |
amungus Premium Member join:2004-11-26 America |
amungus
Premium Member
2007-Aug-22 1:03 pm
seriously - I've had it with the open door analogies. also had it with the dumb trolls who have nothing better to do than say "send the world to jail because you're guilty until proven innocent!"
This is wi-fi we're talking about here.
For the sake of keeping a good analogy, I'm going to go back to the telephone.
You leave your cordless phone base station wide open? no. If you did, you'd be letting ANYONE be able to make a call if they had a handset. They could be cool and just make a quick call locally, or not so cool and call 900 numbers...
Get it?
It's up to BOTH the owner of the base station AND the users. In other words IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO!
Sure, haul the guy off for "stealing" a connection. It's still the owner of that base station who needs to understand that he is responsible for his own line - esp. when it is wireless.
Would anyone with a cordless phone base (router) think that they should be able to arrest some freeloader for using their phone line? Yeah, because BY DEFAULT they are encrypted such that ONLY the phone/base should be able to talk to each other...
Routers WALK you through setting them up these days and BY DEFAULT want you to set an encryption key. If you aren't smart enough to write down/print these screens and understand them, then hire somebody to help you or ask a friend. It's not even as difficult as programming a VCR was in the 80's.
So, in closing, please stop the open door to a house analogy, it's totally beaten to death and it's annoying.
And to the trolls, please do anything more constructive than publicly humiliating yourselves anonymously. Grow up. | |
|
|
Simple as that I dont want people stealing from my house so I lock my Fvcking doors | |
|
|
Mudpie2
Anon
2007-Aug-22 6:42 pm
FTA
If radio signals are being transmitted, they are Free To Air reception, just like aatellite, radio, and TV. Anyone with an antenna can recieve the transmission. And yes satellite is free accept for fee-based encrypted channels. I have a 80cm Ku band dish and a 8 ft. C-band and surf backhaul transmissions all the time...for free and legally.
Likewise, If I turn on my laptop and pick up a hotspot, no harm, no foul. I did not hack into a router or computer.
BTW, it has not been determined to be a computer crime because a wireless adapter/router is not a computer, although some may argue the differences. Now hacking a password and encryption is a crime. If that were the case, run a port/protocol log file and capture all the government and higher education TCP/UDP attacks on your computer. You will be amazed who is hacking what. | |
|
RevMortisI Hear Dead Silicon Premium Member join:2005-05-10 Saint Paul, MN |
Say you go visit either the hospital or even a department store. There are telephones strategically placed throughout the hospital/store. If you pick up the handset, you get a dial tone. You can phone home. You might even be able to call long distance (especially if it's a VOIP phone!) Is it legal? No probably not. There is no indication that it is there for your personal use. Actually it's probably intended for use by the personnel, (Doctors if they get paged, "Housewares, call on line 5".
The phone could even ring and "invite" you to answer it and use it. You still would not... it's not for you. This hot-spot is meant to serve the people that work there.
Change of scenery, Same Phone. The Phone is now on a pillar in the center of a Cafe. Is it for your use? Well if there is a sign that says "local calls only", then please feel free to call your mistress. If not, good manners will ask before calling Troy and asking him to ship you a souvenir water bottle. | |
|
JAXxaka Stephen Premium Member join:2000-03-31 New York, NY |
JAXx
Premium Member
2007-Aug-22 10:40 pm
I have an ongoing debate with a person at the Birmingham newspaper forum where the story was reported. » forums.icbirmingham.co.u ··· 53#51253 | |
|
i1me2ao Premium Member join:2001-03-03 TEXAS |
i1me2ao
Premium Member
2007-Aug-23 12:07 am
if you can pick up from public access then enjoy it. if you are leaning against my flat that is flat out stealing.. | |
|
|
|