beentherenow
@comcast.net
 from:
TK Junk Mail 
| That's a good thing
About time criminals be held accountable. Now it's time to prosecute music/software Pirates. |
|
i5050MbSoon
Formerly TwoKDialup
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Coloma, MI
| "The bill would make intentional unauthorized access to another person's computer, network, database, or software a misdemeanor with a penalty up to three years imprisonment and a fine of up to $1,000."
Hmmmm! Sounds like this could be applied to the spyware/adware distributors.
--
Comcast has spoiled me rotten! |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to beentherenow
Um.... So you want the government to STEP IN AND TAKE OVER because people are too stupid to do things themselves? Have you ever heard that don't use something unless you understand it. Otherwise, take the time to read the manual, then set it up. You're the type that wants the state to give people constant handouts I am sure. People can;t work lets toss them a check. This goes along the same line. If people don't want to take responsibility, let the government take over. It shouldn't be a crime. It's no different than the idiot leaving his or her keys in the car, running, and being surprised the insurance company denies the claim for negligence after it's stolen. |
|
TamaraB
Question The Current Paradigm
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Underway
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| said by jc100 :Um.... So you want the government to STEP IN AND TAKE OVER ... Law enforcement is a legitimate government function.
Bob
--
Motor Vessel - Tamara B.
43' Long-Range Trawler
Cape Elizebeth ME.
See her Here. |
|
Winerin
Premium
join:2002-03-30
Woodland Hills, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
edit:
March 21st, @12:23PM
| reply to jc100
Yes, I think the government should "step in and take over" law enforcement--which does not make sense since government is in charge of enforcing the law. If I failed to lock my car (and that does not make me stupid, mind you) and someone steals something inside and gets caught, I would hope they get prosecuted. Yes, it would be nice if people would could be educated on wireless security, and computing security as a whole, but that does not mean they shouldn't be allowed to use computers nor ignored when theft occurs. |
|
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
Gainesville, FL
| said by Winerin :Yes, I think the government should "step in and take over" law enforcement--which does not make sense since government is in charge of enforcing the law. If I failed to lock my car (and that does not make me stupid, mind you) and someone steals something inside and gets caught, I would hope they get prosecuted. Yes, it would be nice if people would could be educated on wireless security, and computing security as a whole, but that does not mean they shouldn't be allowed to use computers nor ignored when theft occurs. Theft is illegal. Of course they are going to prosecute (if they catch) someone that breaks into your car... locked or unlocked.
But I don't think using an unsecured wifi network is a crime. Look at the low level processes that take place:
1) Your computer sends its MAC address and other details to the router
2) The router grants or allows access to the network based on the provided information.
3) Now on the network the PC provides identifying information such as MAC address and hostname and requests a DHCP lease
4) The router either responds with a DHCP lease or it denies the request based on its configuration.
Sorry, I don't think ignorance is an excuse. If I let someone into my house and offer them a glass of soda I can't turn around later and say they broke into my house and stole a glass of soda.... same goes for the wireless. Ignorance is no excuse... use even WAP or MAC address filtering and then I'll be sympathetic to the computer-n00bs... read the manual the info about encryption is right there!
--
09:F9:11:02:9D:74:E3:5B:D8:41:56:C5:63:56:88:C0 |
|
JoeOnSunset
Doublethink Is Doubleplus Ungood.
Premium
join:2002-11-25
Ormond Beach, FL
| This is totally stupid. The fact is, unauthorized access to a computer network is already a crime in most jurisdictions. The only issue is, it's hard to prove a wi-fi freeloader is "unauthorized," since an open network is, by definition, OPEN.
To anyone who thinks that setting up a WiFi network configured as open is analogous to leaving your car unlocked: you're wrong. Analogies like these do not work in the world of networks. (Also, the internet is not a series of pipes, okay.)
A network is a RESOURCE, not a physical object like your car or your house. And it has a SYSTEM TO ADVERTISE ITSELF that STATES WHETHER it is OPEN ACCESS, or CLOSED.
Just because you're ignorant of that, and that hardware manufacturerers aren't responsible enough to educate you, doesn't mean legislation is warranted--unless perhaps it's legislation mandating that WiFi routers come with a big red notice. |
|
Winerin
Premium
join:2002-03-30
Woodland Hills, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
edit:
March 21st, @02:28PM
| It is true, it is hard to prove unauthorized access. That is another issue and not what I was debating. I'm pretty sure that there are some out there that could care less on who uses their wireless access. Casual access (intentional or not) really shouldn't be a crime in itself, I do agree that much.
in regards to what is considered theft, however, most "unlimited" services are capped. If someone downloaded a bunch of stuff that caused you to get frozen, then in a sense something was stolen (bandwidth).
That would be an extreme case as it probably would take a lot of data to cause an account closure. However, something does not have to be tangible to considered stealable.
I am all for more education on computer security. But someday it may come down to forced encryption and security (i.e. registering your hardware MAC to your provider) if you want to or not. If it comes that far, then we place even more power to the government since we couldn't find a more independent solution. |
|
TamaraB
Question The Current Paradigm
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Underway
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to JoeOnSunset
said by JoeOnSunset : ... Just because you're ignorant of that, and that hardware manufacturerers aren't responsible enough to educate you, doesn't mean legislation is warranted--unless perhaps it's legislation mandating that WiFi routers come with a big red notice. Here is the crux of the entire thread. When my neighbor bought his first laptop (an HP with XP), he turned it on, and after putting in all his info, and answering yes to everything (this guy never owned a computer before), he was presented with a pretty desktop Connected to my OPEN wireless network. He came running over shouting "I have Internet", I got updates! how do I use email??
OK? WindoZ, in league with the wifi card manufacture made his laptop find and connect to the net automagically.
Like putting "do not take with alcohol" printed in red on some medications, it is the responsibility of the manufacture to put a warning on their hardware/software stating that if you don't do X and Y, you will be sharing your connection with anyone who wants to use it. This entire issue boils down to the industry catering to the lowest common denominator, to the dumbest of the dumb.
If I sold a car which came with a hard to remove sign saying "drive for free", and I made the doors hard to lock, and the keys hard to remove, whose fault is it if the car is used by a neighbor? The owner? Or the manufacture. You answer.
Apply this same normal life-logic to the issues of botnets, trojans, and viruses. Who is at fault? The same money-grabbing corporations, who sacrifice security for profit.
Bob
--
Motor Vessel - Tamara B.
43' Long-Range Trawler
Cape Elizebeth ME.
See her Here. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to joako
said by joako :Theft is illegal. Of course they are going to prosecute (if they catch) someone that breaks into your car... locked or unlocked. But I don't think using an unsecured wifi network is a crime. But it IS a crime whether you think so or not. Some people think smoking pot shouldn't be a crime. It is. If a law is on the books then it's a crime whether you agree it should be or not. If you don't think it should be a crime then you need to petition you state government to change the law.
So if I think stealing a rich persons wallet shoudn't be a crime, since they have so much money, then I guess it's ok to do since if I think it's not a crime it's not a crime. |
|
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
Gainesville, FL
| said by BF69 :said by joako :Theft is illegal. Of course they are going to prosecute (if they catch) someone that breaks into your car... locked or unlocked. But I don't think using an unsecured wifi network is a crime. But it IS a crime whether you think so or not. Some people think smoking pot shouldn't be a crime. It is. If a law is on the books then it's a crime whether you agree it should be or not. If you don't think it should be a crime then you need to petition you state government to change the law. So if I think stealing a rich persons wallet shoudn't be a crime, since they have so much money, then I guess it's ok to do since if I think it's not a crime it's not a crime. Where is it a crime? Under what law?
--
09:F9:11:02:9D:74:E3:5B:D8:41:56:C5:63:56:88:C0 |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by joako :Where is it a crime? Under what law? Under the bill being proposed, idiot. |
|
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
Gainesville, FL
| said by BF69 :said by joako :Where is it a crime? Under what law? Under the bill being proposed, idiot. So its not a crime, only a proposed crime!
--
09:F9:11:02:9D:74:E3:5B:D8:41:56:C5:63:56:88:C0 |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by joako :said by BF69 :said by joako :Where is it a crime? Under what law? Under the bill being proposed, idiot. So its not a crime, only a proposed crime! Um that's kind of the way things work. At one time a man could leglaly rape his wife. It wasn't a crime. Now he can't, because it is NOW a crime. |
|
Tzale
Ron Paul 2008 - Proud Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
NJ, USA
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
| reply to beentherenow
said by beentherenow :
About time criminals be held accountable. Now it's time to prosecute music/software Pirates.
Be careful... There is a politician somewhere in the hills of Kentucky who is looking to put you behind bars for posting anonymously!
-Tzale
--
Neoconservatives (G.W.B) are not true conservatives. A conservative believes in defending the Constitution. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - RON PAUL 2008 »www.usconstitution.net/const.html
|
|
irsean
join:2001-05-10
Redlands, CA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to joako
said by joako :said by Winerin :Yes, I think the government should "step in and take over" law enforcement--which does not make sense since government is in charge of enforcing the law. If I failed to lock my car (and that does not make me stupid, mind you) and someone steals something inside and gets caught, I would hope they get prosecuted. Yes, it would be nice if people would could be educated on wireless security, and computing security as a whole, but that does not mean they shouldn't be allowed to use computers nor ignored when theft occurs. JUMPIN' JESUS on a Pogostick!!!
Unauthorised use of WiFi is nothing like stealing a car. It's more like looking at a person getting undressed when they're too stupid to close the curtains.
Speaking of theft...isn't your sig a violation of law, theft, in fact?
--
Message of the Day
There is no message of the day |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to TamaraB
said by TamaraB :Law enforcement is a legitimate government function. Problem is, they have to keep creating new laws to criminalize activity and then enforce it. |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to TamaraB
Actually, no it's not. That's an excuse. It would be like saying walking into your house at random is a law enforcement function and for public safety. Are you willing to let cops randomly search homes to see if people are breaking the law? I'd hope not. This is no different. Cops would literally have to go door to door to help people secure their networks. I mean, do they REALLY have this much time to be bothered with this crap? This country has 22,000 murders a year. I think we have bigger problems than wifi piggy backing. I mean, sometimes, stupid is as stupid does (forest gump). If the owners are too dumb to know what they are working with, so be it. The government doesn't need to sit there and waste its time and money helping people figure it out. That's part of being an adult and taking responsibility for one's actions and choices. |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Winerin
If you failed to lock your car, and left it running, you would also be liable. Why? Well the cops couldn't criminally charge you, but your insurance could hold you as negligent. I mean, you gave a thief the right situation to steal. Sure you didn't intend for it to happen, but you set it up for it to. Therefore, the thief would face criminal charges and you'd probably get stuck buying yourself a new car. See, that's what happens when stupid choices are made. People should not setup wifi if they don't know how to properly secure it. The same with driving. If you're too damn lazy to lock your doors or take out the keys, then don't drive. It's all part of being an adult where choices and responsibility are key. If you aren't able to make them, then the other choice is DON'T said items. Simple. The government doesn't need to waste its money or manpower telling or enforcing what one should already know. |
|
TamaraB
Question The Current Paradigm
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Underway
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to KrK
said by KrK : ... they have to keep creating new laws ... This is true, and a bad thing.
Bob |
|
