 KeepOnRockinMusic Lover ForeverPremium
join:2002-11-08
Beaverton, OR
1 edit | Hell Froze Over For once, I actually agree with the RIAA.
It is the individual user's responsibility to secure their wireless network!
If people don't know how, find someone who does or look it up online. Most (if not all) manufacturers of wireless routers have at least some security built into their devices. Ignorance is no excuse!
[please no bad analogies comparing open wi-fi hotspots to other things; for everyone's sake  ] |
|
|
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | What about businesses that provide WiFi hotspots as a cuteousy to customers? |
|
Stumbles
join:2002-12-17
Port Saint Lucie, FL | reply to KeepOnRockin
um hm. And when someone exploits your secured wifi through a new method and starts uploading the RIAA precious, don't whine to us when then sue you. |
|
 HiVoltPremium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:11
 ·TekSavvy DSL
 ·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to KeepOnRockin
said by KeepOnRockin:For once, I actually agree with the RIAA. It is the individual user's responsibility to secure their wireless network! So if its secured, and its cracked? There are millions of routers out there that only have WEP for security, and is easily cracked.
Will the RIAA push for those old routers to be outlawed? These people just don't know when to stop.
--
GO LEAFS GO! |
|
| reply to KeepOnRockin
It's the individual user's PREROGATIVE to secure their wireless network. If they don't want anybody using their bandwidth all they have to do setup a password account. Easy. People who WANT to share their bandwidth should not be forced to secure their open network.
The RIAA is up to their usual tricks again, thinking they can extort their clientele and skirt the law while doing it. I hope the EFF, or better yet the ACLU, get in on this particular case. It's way too invasive to impose liability like that. |
|
| reply to HiVolt
said by HiVolt:said by KeepOnRockin:For once, I actually agree with the RIAA. It is the individual user's responsibility to secure their wireless network! So if its secured, and its cracked? There are millions of routers out there that only have WEP for security, and is easily cracked. Will the RIAA push for those old routers to be outlawed? These people just don't know when to stop. How much is enough to secure it before you get held responsible? We lock our houses but break-ins still happen. We lock our cars but car theft still occurs.
A fence will only keep honest people out.
 |
|
 maartenaElmoPremium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:1
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·DIRECTV
1 edit | reply to HiVolt
said by HiVolt:There are millions of routers out there that only have WEP for security, and is easily cracked. And actually, due to bugs in the WPA security it is actually even less secure then WEP. This is why they came out with WPA2
WEP and WPA can be cracked in less then 15 minutes, WPA can be cracked in as little as 1 minute if you know how to exploit the bugs.
WEP and WPA are both useless. Only WPA2 will actually somewhat secure your network, especially if you use WPA2-Enterprise.
But PLEASE don't be fooled into thinking you are somehow "more secure" by using WPA instead of WEP, because you are not.
--
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -
Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father. |
|
bi0tech
join:2003-06-19
Cockeysville, MD Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon FiOS
| reply to KeepOnRockin
You can never have a 100% secure wireless access point unless it's wrapped in a Faraday cage. This blame game bs really has to stop. I'm sorry people feel the need to share information, it's only been going on since before we became homo sapiens.
It's truly insanity to think you can track every single piece of information and where it came from every second of the day. The future of networking is faster, more availability, more portability, and on a global scale. If the RIAA wants to make it's job easier get a new business model. The world will not bow down because you ask it to. |
|
| reply to SRFireside
as a matter of fact the eff is involved in this case |
|
b10010011Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA Reviews:
·Comcast Formerl..
2 edits | reply to moonpuppy
said by moonpuppy:A fence will only keep honest people out. Interesting to note: If someone climbs over your fence then falls into your swimming pool and drowns, you could still be held liable. |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| reply to maartena
This is moot. A casual (insert teen) music downloader (majority of infractions) is not going to war drive and run a decryptor to crack into some wifi spot in a neighbors driveway without being noticed.
The individual(s) that will, are guilty just by having these (tools) programs (unless actual Wifi installers/techs). even that I question (Court would like to know why you have programs designed to penetrate wireless (encryted) networks).
Actually, the ISPs should not be liable. The router manufacturer should be. It's not difficult to have a default OFF setting. And Default "broadcast SSID" off. Software can be implemented to instruct and configure this, even for "idjuts".
Yes, WEP/WPA are not secure (to someone willing to crack it). But it will stop interlopers and those wanting to jump on for free.
But where is RIAA's accountability for not making music secure? Why must taxpayers carry the burden of RIAA's fiscal "witch hunt"? How come our politicians just stand by and allow this egregious invasion of our personal freedoms and liberties over a greedy, (monolopy) music industry failure to modernize and adapt?
I think Ted K was onto something. Just did in the wrong people. (ok, that is extremist..) |
|
 x30n_Not Sure What Color Pill To Call ItPremium
join:2000-09-14
wrong turn | reply to KeepOnRockin
said by KeepOnRockin:For once, I actually agree with the RIAA. It is the individual user's responsibility to secure their wireless network! If people don't know how, find someone who does or look it up online. Most (if not all) manufacturers of wireless routers have at least some security built into their devices. Ignorance is no excuse! [please no bad analogies comparing open wi-fi hotspots to other things; for everyone's sake ] Is there a law stating that wlans have to be secure? If there is please point it out. From my stance on it, its a choice and if it was law then all wireless routers would be shipped for secure modes only.
I don't buy or download music and haven't in the past 7 years. RIAA is losing money not because of downloaded music, but because most of the music is they protect is crap except 1 or 2 songs on a CD and who wants to spend (I think) $15 for a CD that has 1 or 2 songs that you like.
They really need to change their business model and allow people to purchase the music (individual songs) they like. They also need to give the artist their fair share. Because they don't do that, they are losing money because people don't want to throw $15 down for a CD just to have a few songs they want and figure they would sue people to make up for it. My question is if they win the case, does the artist get the money? I bet not.
So I am glad they also lost this case and have to pay all the fees and I think any artist that is in contract with them should just jump ship and sell or give out free their music on-line and make it all back in concerts they perform. It really wouldn't be any different for them other then they would now be more in control of themselves.
--
Get your own Gamercard Sig. |
|
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:What about businesses that provide Wi-Fi hotspots as a courtesy to customers? Provide limited access (i.e. web browsing) and block all other ports. If you are nice enough to let someone use your network, at least make sure that no one abuses it and exposes you to a lawsuit while they are at it.
--
Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies...
A MESSAGE to the RIAA and the MPAA: You shouldn't wound what you can't kill... |
|
JoelC707Premium
join:2002-07-09
Stone Mountain, GA
kudos:4 | reply to openbox9
Just because you provide a hotspot as a courtesy doesn't mean it has to be open. What I have done on the few that I have setup is use the companies phone number as the key. It makes it "secure" in the eyes of the RIAA and whoever else, it will keep the casual passerby out and make it easy for those that you want to use it to be able to use it. Plus if they come back it should be pretty easy for them to remember the key. |
|
| "Make it secure in the eyes of the RIAA"??!!
Screw the RIAA and the horse it rode in on. Since when does the RIAA have any sort of official power to dictate the terms under which I operate my home network and its services? They are simply an industry organization that represents a music distribution cartel. Next, someone will suggest they play a role in Homeland Security.
Oh, Sweet Bleedin' Jeebus on a Garage Creeper, save us from the endless parade of willing victims. I beseech thee. |
|
JoelC707Premium
join:2002-07-09
Stone Mountain, GA
kudos:4 | Oh I agree, they can kiss my ass for all I care. I'll run my home and work network how I want to. I was simply posting a suggestion for those that want to provide a hotspot but don't want to leave it wide open. |
|
bigjimc
join:2003-04-21
Middleboro, MA | reply to Pirate515
Slow it down so people are not able to get more than 512 down and 128 up. It may piss people off but it is a courtesy. At those speeds you could still use Skype or other VOIP service.
I don't know if I agree with the RIAA but I feel for the law enforcement agencies. |
|
bigjimc
join:2003-04-21
Middleboro, MA | reply to TScheisskopf
They don't but your ISP does. Most ISPs have a TOS which does not allow for an open WiFi.
Not agreeing with the RIAA but I think they want ISPs to enforce their TOS. |
|
bigjimc
join:2003-04-21
Middleboro, MA | reply to JoelC707
I like that...The phone number is a good one. |
|
| reply to JoelC707
said by JoelC707:Oh I agree, they can kiss my ass for all I care. I'll run my home and work network how I want to. I was simply posting a suggestion for those that want to provide a hotspot but don't want to leave it wide open. Well, as it stands now, this is just the RIAA blowing smoke and spreading FUD, which is something that they do particularly well. There is a legal term for that: "Flailing".
They have lost some cases and they are seeking out new avenues to continue their de-facto plan of Litigation and threats thereof as a revenue stream.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the courts are starting to grok their true intent and are getting quite bored with them. |
|
