how-to block ads
|
Comments on news posted 2008-03-21 08:56:34: Slashdot directs our attention to a bill being proposed in Maryland that would make intentional unauthorized access of another person's computer, network, database, or software a misdemeanor. ..
| |
 
Nipster
@ntelos.net
| User Accountability If you're going to establish a wireless network within your home or business, learn how to use it. If you don't want people "Freeloading" off your unsecure network, secure it. IF you don't want individuals getting into your computer, then lock it down. While I believe its disrespectful to dig/hack into someone else's computer, some common sense use of a computers is needed by the computer user(s)/owner.
If you dont' know ask, read, be aware of the problems out there. While no network administrator wants to be everyone's home network tech, most are at least willing to give you a heads up on what directions to begin looking for your answers. | |
| 
Simba7
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT
 ·Bresnan Online
3 edits | Stupidity... This is just plainly stupid..
I keep 2 "Access Points" here. One is secure, the WiFi 11g card in my router using WPA, and one isn't (some generic 11b bridge I found for a couple bucks that's hooked up to an EtherLink III ISA Card in my router).
I have open access on the unsecure access point, but it's for internet only (speed throttled down to 128kbps), absolutely NO access to my internal network.
The secure one is full speed and uses WPA encryption with MAC blocking. That has completely open access to our internal network and the internet.
I don't have a problem with people using my internet. Heck, when we first moved here, we had NOTHING. I was grateful to be able to use someone elses internet temporarily while we were waiting for ours to get setup.
To show we were grateful, we placed an 11b (unsecure) bridge in front of our house so everyone has access to it.
I, personally, think this bill is BS. If you don't want people to get into your network, secure it. You can even use WEP encryption at the minimum.
--
Bresnan 15M/1M | My Computer (P4 1.8GHz, 3GB RAM, 80+160GB HDDs, Vista) | Wife's Computer (Duron 2.15GHz, 1GB RAM, 40GB HDD, Vista) | Router (P2 450MHz, 224MB RAM, 40GB HDD, AT-2560FX, 2x DE504, Atheros AR5212, DGE-500T, EtherLink III running Gentoo) | |
| | 
yolarry
join:2007-12-29
Creston, WV | Re: Stupidity... That's really nice of you.
Thanks, you give me a good idea. | |
|
cuda
@sbcglobal.net
| The analogies have got to go All these car analogies are so far off. The WiFi is not a material possession. A closer analogy would be;
Your driving down a road... a sign says turn next right for free donuts and coffee... at the next right there is a sign that says.... turn now for hot fresh coffee and donuts.... you being in need of a quick snack turn the corner to get some... WHAMM! Officer barbrady arrests you for driving on a private road (trespassing). Of course you argue that the signs were advertising you to stop in for coffee & donuts. Officer barbrady then informs you that the signs and private road was only for family & friends. You persist to argue that the signs should say that then. The officer then explains "since the signs are on private property they do not have the authority to make them fix there signs". Then he smiles and says "chill out man...its only 3 years".
Hey, if this law passes, everyone in CT can drive around with laptops, iphones..etc. and call the police whenever someone's home network illegally invites your computer. The are after all stealing my clock cycles and ram. I didn't ask for mr & mrs frigindumb to access my wireless receiver and send info to my portable. Wouldn't that be against the law also? | |
|
joeschmeaux
@pacbell.net
| Unauthorized entry means hacked Clearly this wouldn't apply to people who connect to and use open wi-fi networks. It has gotta be about hackers -- people who intentionally make unauthorized access. If the network is open, everyone is authorized. Relax! Have a beer! Go watch porn on your neighbors open wi-fi! | |
| cerone
join:2001-10-28
Hialeah, FL
| Interesting... Unless you can get a complete list of all wireless device MAC address, how are you going to track down the "Offender"? It's true, if you don't secure your wireless moden/router, you are inviting anyone who has a wireless device to logon and do what he wants. Then again, if you don't secure your wireless device, who is the dumb one here? | |
|
wodt
@verizon.net
| WEP yall are nubs.
wep can be hacked in 10-30 minutes.
gg encryption
personally, if your broadcasting a signal on a public frequency, its public domain. If someone else is using your signal, its your choice to turn it off, stupidity is not an excuse. | |
| |
Simba7
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT
·Bresnan Online
| Re: WEP ..but then that's forcefully breaking into your network..
That's no different than picking a lock. Just a bit more complicated.
At least they used some form of encryption, basically telling people to "Keep Out". It's their choice if they ignore it or honor it.
--
Bresnan 15M/1M | My Computer (P4 1.8GHz, 3GB RAM, 80+160GB HDDs, Vista) | Wife's Computer (Duron 2.15GHz, 1GB RAM, 40GB HDD, Vista) | Router (P2 450MHz, 224MB RAM, 40GB HDD, AT-2560FX, 2x DE504, Atheros AR5212, DGE-500T, EtherLink III running Gentoo) | |
| 
EGeezer
Go Bobcats
Premium
join:2002-08-04
Country!
 ·Callcentric
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T CallVantage
3 edits | Seems defendable in many cases said by »mlis.state.md.us/2008rs/billfile/hb1377.htm :Synopsis: Prohibiting a person from intentionally, willfully, and without authorization accessing, attempting to access, causing to be accessed, or exceeding the person's authorized access to wireless Internet service with knowledge that the access is unauthorized and prohibited by law; etc. and
(c) (1) A person may not intentionally, willfully, and without authorization access, attempt to access, cause to be accessed, or exceed the person’s authorized access to all or part of a computer network, computer control language, computer, computer software, computer system, computer services, or computer database.
Kinda seems like "intentionally, willfully" is a key phrase. There seem to be lots of people who think it's OK to leave their access open, or that they believe in sharing connections.
According to the law as cited, the plaintiff would have to show
1) the network owner didn't want the network used by any other than certain people.
2) The person accessing the network knew or reasonably believed that the network was restricted and not a gesture of "free access" by the owner.
If the wireless is, for example, a Linksys WRT54G(or GS), the manual's installation instructions and the install/configure CD clearly and explicitly step the user through securing the wireless and router admin access. It would be reasonable to expect that if a WRT54GS is "open", the user intends for it to be open.
On a side note, it's interesting that a guy who beats up his wife usually gets a few days to a few months in the pokey and someone who drives drunk and injures someone usually gets a few months in jail. I'm not necessarily saying to lower the wifi stealing penalty, but maybe they should raise the effective penalties for other actions.
--
Mayors of New York come from nowhere and go nowhere.
Wallace Sayre (apparently, so do governors... ) | |
|
My Two Lincolns
@verizon.net
| So the point is...? I knew someone who wanted help to configure her laptop...she did not subscribe to an ISP--instead a friend who lived next door in her apartment complex told her she could connect to his wireless router. This is an example of someone giving explicit consent to another person to tap into his Wi-Fi network.
On to the subject at hand. Here's my superficial take on this:
Does this mean it's OK for other people in adjacent apartments to have free rein to "steal" his Wi-Fi signal? Does he care? When will he care--when someone in the apartment complex goes marauding into his folders and files and steals his identity? The question is what happens to the two parties--the guy who was not smart enough to configure Wi-Fi security properly (pay with an expensive lesson and for the cost of repairing the damage) and the thug who goes on a shopping spree on this guy's dime (jail and a fine), maybe?
I may be wrong, but it sounds like some people here think the law shouldn't go after the bad guy because the other guy didn't take the proper time and effort to close his open network. In other words, the "bad" guy is not really a "bad" guy, just a "smart" guy who "intentionally" and "willfully" broke into the other guy's network, because, hey, he left the door open--it's his fault.
Some have said the legislation is not needed because there are other laws in place already. Really? I don't know that. Do you know that? Where in the Annotated Code of Maryland is this addressed specifically?
Just askin'... | |
| 
N O Y B
St. John 3.16
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR
| Which WiFi's Are For Public Use? So how am I to know which open WiFi’s are intended to be used by the general public, and which are not.
If my computer requests access to someone’s WiFi and their WiFi obliges it would seem to me they have authorized my use.
If I ring someone’s doorbell and they invite me in, how can they then claim trespassing.
--
Be a Good Netizen - Read, Know & Honor Your ISP Terms of Service
Comcast: »www.comcast.net/terms/index.jsp
Verizon: »onlinehelp.verizon.net/consumer/···0707.pdf | |
|
Logic dictates
@securenet.net
| I see too many conveniently selfish 'perspectives' Post:
I seem to notice a lot of the "if you're not actively stopping me it must be OK" mentality in this thread. Since when does no opposition mean its ok to steal? If its not yours don't touch it. If the owner wanted you to play with it they would have put a "free wi-fi" sticker on their door like they do at taco bell.
Reply to above:
They DID put an electronic "free wi-fi sticker". It's included right in the broadcast message the router is putting out. It says "Anyone may connect to me".
My comment:
Well, that "Anyone may connect to me" thing is the DEFAULT setting of the router - IT IS NOT necessarily a conscious, voluntary decision that the owner of the router made. It's strange that no-one in those posts mentioned that the DEFAULT setting for routers is open access.
If the owner of the router simply doesn't know about routers, then he is stuck with the DEFAULT setting.
Obviously, the DEFAULT setting should be SECURE, and not OPEN ACCESS.
Or the signal should have a limit of 30 feet or so.
Or the router should come with some sort of material that would block the signal from exiting your house.
To expect everyone to have the technical knowledge to know that others can access their network is ridiculous.
I don't give a damn about the money that the internet providers are "losing" when people use someone else's signal. What I care about is that the individual transmitting the signal is not necessarily doing this voluntarily. And if the person taking that signal has no idea if he's hurting the person he's stealing from or not, then he shouldn't use the signal. The only way to know if he's hurting the owner of the signal is to find out who the owner is, and ask him if he has a limited or unlimited account.
Of course, doing illegal things (like child pornography) on someone else's connection is also wrong. But people who would do that likely wouldn't care that they're looking at naked children on a stolen signal.
Post:
"So how am I to know which open WiFi’s are intended to be used by the general public, and which are not.
If my computer requests access to someone’s WiFi and their WiFi obliges it would seem to me they have authorized my use."
My comment:
NO - it SHOULD NOT "seem to you" that the owner of the signal has authorized your use. If anything, it should "seem to you" that the owner of the signal does not know that his signal is reaching your house.
How dare you conveniently and selfishly assume that he has knowingly authorized your use. That's simply ignorance and selfishness combined. | |
| | | |
|
