voiplover
Premium
join:2004-05-28
Portsmouth, NH | reply to kyler13
Re: Wooo.
Wait, Someone will buy it using your CC info them boot leg it... |
|
alancain
Premium
join:2006-07-10
Grand Coulee, WA
 ·Bigdam.net
| reply to Anomus
Re: interesting
You are putting those neighbors of yours at risk; they are at risk in several ways. If you are stealing movies and images, and music, you are from the point of view of the legal system stealing content. You may be downloading child porn, for all we know, putting your neighbors at risk of felony convictions if they get pinned for it (not reasonable, but possible). They may get the blame; you are putting them at risk. I am certain that what you are doing is illegal and prosecutable.
I would hide my cantenna if I were you.
And on the topic of hotspots that are open versus hotspots that are closed, the test is easy: does the hotspot invite you in or does it not. An invitation must be active and not passive. Unless the hotspot is labelled as an invitation it is not open, regardless of whether the users are sophisticated or not. I have one at my office that is an invitation. Its ESSID includes the phrase freenet_dhcp; pretty clear, eh?
My neighbor has one that says SMITHnet. That is not an invitation, even though it is set up to give addresses automatically, and is not secured. They are inexperienced, but it is not a public access point. As they are not my customers, I let them be; I might tip them off sometime, but I haven't really tried to search them down. If they were my customers, I would pursue it. I might well associate with the access point then, too. Their bandwidth is really my bandwidth in that case.
A chicken in the yard is not fair game just because you see it.
Taking things without permission is called theft. |
|
justathought
@rogers.com | reply to Noah Vail
Re: Wooo.
There's always the Linux option. »sourceforge.net/projects/bonding
Of course that would mean that one's nice cozy M$ Server 2003 box is now 100% worthless.. |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| reply to Noah Vail
said by Noah Vail  :999 Euros = 1,342.0566 U.S. dollars act:google. Hmmmmm. $1300 or $50 to my own isp. . . . .
think i'll just pay for my own ISP.
only thing i use open wireless points for is seeding to get ratios up but not over my own connection 
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth |
|
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| reply to ronpin
said by ronpin : quote:
obviously increasing download speeds.
...uhh...not! It could increase capacity though. Depends on what you are doing and how closely you are looking at things. Many of the speed booster technologies from a few years back would open multiple ftp connections and divide the file into multiple chunks. While there were multiple physical connections, the overall effect would be the same as a single connection. It wouldn't work for applications where a single pipe/bonded connection is required, but would effectively work just as well for p2p, usenet, etc where you would typically be downloading files/packets in multiple short bursts.
--
Go Colts |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | reply to BIGMIKE
Re: interesting
I would say both.... the stupid user's that are stealing services will find they have legal issues. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
| reply to Kearnstd
Most wireless drivers allow you to turn off automatic association because of the potential grave security risks involved. Some folks put up "honey pot" open APs so that once you associate, they attack your computer and try to compromise it. They can also perform man-in-the-middle attacks where they sniff your packets and directing your traffic to an unencrypted locally hosted sites that fish you for information.
I have my laptop set so that it does not associate to any APs that are not already setup in my profile. I have to deliberately setup a new profile to associate to any new AP.
I would also draw a distinction between accidental association and using the open AP. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
| reply to Anomus
I think this might only apply to patents and/or copyrights. I think there are some rulings in these areas that if you don't defend them for years and years and abuse is widespread that you may then lose the privilege to enforce them later.
Lots of private land owners have "no tresspassing" signs but they don't have fences stopping would be offenders. However, it's still tresspassing if they catch you and decide to prosecute even if you've been riding your ATV on their land for years and years.
I think the problem with some of the assumptions here are common sense. As painful as this might sound I recommend watching Judge Judy or one of the other courtroom reality shows. A lot of the rulings are common sense and I can hear Judge Judy asking now: "You're computer savvy, right? You know that Internet access is not free, right? You know that your neighbor was paying for their service, right? Judgement for the plaintiff."
I guess if someone can use a computer and truly be ignorant of the fact that Internet access is not free they might be able to get off with a warning. However, I don't know if any judge will believe them.
But hey -- I'm no lawyer, I just stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
| reply to Noah Vail
Re: Wooo.
WinTel data center servers typically use two NIC cards and a driver that "teams" the cards for enhanced throughput and high availability. However, I believe this is done at the driver layer and not the OS layer. I think it also has to have the blessing of the switch at layer 2 since I think a virtual MAC address is involved.
Microsoft also has a poor man's load balancing feature where two servers share a MAC address and listen to all the packets but this wouldn't help in this case.
I don't know how the Windows routing table works. I know you could put the same default gateway in for each card and I suppose giving it the same metric might make Windows round robin (RR). If it does RR, it might only do so with five different apps and/or destinations. Windows may have an affinity with a single application and/or single destination always routing down one NIC. If it does RR this way, it would work for multiple concurrent destinations and/or applications but it wouldn't aggregate a single application's download from a single site.
Take all of this with a grain of salt. I know enough about infrastructure to be really, really dangerous but that's about my limit. I'm by no means an expert. |
|
BIGMIKE
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Westminster, CA | reply to morbo
Re: interesting
Can we say legal issues? or Can we say stupid Users?
--
Type "miserable failure" in Google |
|
Anomus
@rr.com
| reply to dda
No, No, I mean a real challege with somebody with the finances to really work the legal process. All there is now are people with cheap attorneys only interested in coping pleas. That doesn't mean the law holds up. Bad law interpretations run over stupid people all the time until a smart wealthy person comes along and uncovers the stupidity of the prosecutors claims. |
|
click_310
Eat my shorts
join:2002-12-06
Savannah, GA
| reply to dda
said by dda : I seriously doubt any court/jury would buy the "I couldn't tell the difference" argument. Especially if you happen to own a € 999 device 
--
(757) 644-3863 |
|
click_310
Eat my shorts
join:2002-12-06
Savannah, GA
2 edits | reply to Anomus
Leaving the age old,"leaving the front door open", analogy... the ,"theft of service", law(s) came about around the time electricity started being distributed.
Its time they were updated... not that stealing / borrowing someones bandwidth is right or wrong.
But if someone repeatedly drives too slow in the middle/fast lane, takes an eternity to accelerate out of a red light /stop sign, {do stuff on the road that my grand mother would do }.
Their driving license should be revoked. Thats what the internets are like. If you cannot be bothered to use it, right,don't.
Driving a certain way can lead to financial hardships, (accident -> lawsuit ) , and so can using those damn computers. One stupid click , (or open AP), and all of a sudden identity theft + ruined credit.
---
[EDIT] added "right"
--
(757) 644-3863 |
|
dda
Premium
join:2003-12-29
Bolton, MA
| reply to Anomus
said by Anomus :
But one day somebody is going to really test that "theft of service" claim in court and see if it gets shot all full of holes. It is being tested in court right now; there have been a couple recent news items about people getting both arrested and sentenced for "theft of service" because they were leaching.
said by Anomus :And lets face it, there are lots of people that leave hotspots open on purpose and you can't really tell the difference. In court that constitutes reasonable doubt and the case is thrown out. Hence its not really illegal. I believe the law (in the U.S.) says that unless you are invited in, you should stay out so yes, it is really easy to tell the difference; I seriously doubt any court/jury would buy the "I couldn't tell the difference" argument. |
|
Anomus
@rr.com
| reply to jacour
I have been cantenna connected to my neighbors access for 2 years now. I dont want to stir unknown trouble so I keep quiet and let sleeping dogs lie. But one day somebody is going to really test that "theft of service" claim in court and see if it gets shot all full of holes. People say if somebody leaves their front door open and somebody goes in, its still burglary. But if they leave their front door open for 2 years, how is any jury going to be convinced that entry was unlawfull. Its clearly implied if you want people to stay out, you close the door. Leaving it open for years is about as implied an invitation as it can ever be. And lets face it, there are lots of people that leave hotspots open on purpose and you can't really tell the difference. In court that constitutes reasonable doubt and the case is thrown out. Hence its not really illegal. |
|
iknowurkidding
@qwest.net | reply to morbo
gosh, i guess maybe i better stop 2 times @ the next stop sign then eh?, for those of us that maybe a little slow...well, i just ran a stop sign, you know, did not come to a complete!!!stop... |
|
kyler13
Is your fiber grounded?
join:2006-12-12
Arnold, MD
| reply to Noah Vail
Re: Wooo.
1342 US dollars could get you about 2.5 years of broadband legally from cable (6-8Mbps) or fiber (15-20Mbps). In that 2.5 years, some or all of your neighbors could leave, cancel service, or upgrade to equipment that can't be broken in to. Then you have an expensive paperweight. I'm sure it would be useful to a select number in select locations, but it would be much more attractive if it were, say, a quarter of the cost. |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| reply to jacour
Re: interesting
said by jacour :Still, this has to illegal as hell in most countries... Well I wouldn't think the device itself would be illegal, just some (probably most) of its uses. |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana | reply to Noah Vail
Re: Wooo.
quote:
obviously increasing download speeds.
...uhh...not! It could increase capacity though.
--
Give up all hope for a better past. |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| reply to morbo
Re: interesting
the wep thing makes it shaky on the legal side, auto locking onto wireless networks is hard to make illegal. my laptop if left turned on will find and access an unsecure WIFI link if it sees it because that is what windows does if it cant find any of my default networks.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
