dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
19
share rss forum feed


HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·TekSavvy Cable

1 recommendation

reply to JMJimmy

Re: CIPPIC is watching DSLReports

Very good summary of points, all valid IMO.

One thing which has been discussed many many times, is that identifying an IP does not mean identifying the person themselves.

Non-secured or poorly secured (WEP) WiFi is of course the easiest way a nogooder can steal someone's internet connection to perform illegal activity.

How many times have we read on these forums stories like "my internet is down, but thank god for my neighbour's open wifi".

Stupidity or non-awareness does not make you guilty. There isn't a law that you have to have your home internet connection secured to the highest available standards. For the same reason if you forget to lock your house or your car, it does not give another person the right to steal from you.
--


JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23

HiVolt: added. Also, excellent analogy with the door... there is a reason why it's "breaking and entering" (ie: breaking the seal on the door/window/etc = 1 crime, crossing the threshold = 2nd crime)



hm

@videotron.ca
reply to HiVolt

said by HiVolt:

How many times have we read on these forums stories like "my internet is down, but thank god for my neighbour's open wifi".

Stupidity or non-awareness does not make you guilty.

1. Someone should do a site search for this and paste everything they find over 3 years. There are indeed many like this. Good thought hivolt.

2. Stupidty hmm... not sure. The family owning the spoofed IP used by Pierre Poutine didn't get tangled up in the case. They were let off for being ignorant to it.

However I do believe there is a threshold the court could/would use. That is, "is this reasonably expected of the entire population".

Not having an antivirus could be seen as being both stupid and unreasonable. But it doesn't protect you from being spoofed anyhow. Way-back-when after I went into a targets exploited machine I used to update peoples Norton anti-virus for them

Stupidity and ignorance is no excuse. But, they let this fly with the spoofed IP in the Pierre Poutine case...


drjp81

join:2006-01-09
canada
reply to HiVolt

said by HiVolt:

Very good summary of points, all valid IMO.

One thing which has been discussed many many times, is that identifying an IP does not mean identifying the person themselves.

Non-secured or poorly secured (WEP) WiFi is of course the easiest way a nogooder can steal someone's internet connection to perform illegal activity.

How many times have we read on these forums stories like "my internet is down, but thank god for my neighbour's open wifi".

Stupidity or non-awareness does not make you guilty. There isn't a law that you have to have your home internet connection secured to the highest available standards. For the same reason if you forget to lock your house or your car, it does not give another person the right to steal from you.

Also if I didn't make this clear last time, I'd like to point out that even pretty well secured wifi, there the good old WPS vulnerability that I'm sure affects 80-90 of the hardware owned by our friends here at DSL reports. Of course, that's if you have the original firmware...
--
Cheers!

globus9991

join:2004-11-14
Argelia

said by drjp81:

Also if I didn't make this clear last time, I'd like to point out that even pretty well secured wifi, there the good old WPS vulnerability that I'm sure affects 80-90 of the hardware owned by our friends here at DSL reports. Of course, that's if you have the original firmware...

I am not sure about that. I did some surveys bout a year plus ago and most systems I found did not had the flaw. But this is pointless. For this info to be valid we would have to have a current study and even then I am not sure if it can be presented as evidence because it is just heresay. I think (but not sure) that one would have to present either the author or a pro that would testify to the accuracy of the report.

morisato

join:2008-03-16
Oshawa, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
·ELECTRONICBOX
reply to drjp81

But if you leave a Loaded firearm With On the front seat of your car with the windows open and someone gets killed Your still responsible.. hence if u leave your internet open Your responsible Law or not. At least thats the arguement they would use.
--
Every time Someone leaves Sympatico an Angel gets its wings.



HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·TekSavvy Cable

said by morisato:

But if you leave a Loaded firearm With On the front seat of your car with the windows open and someone gets killed Your still responsible.. hence if u leave your internet open Your responsible Law or not. At least thats the arguement they would use.

Isn't that a little different? Cause & effect?

Nobody gets killed, injured, affected directly when a file is shared...

The trolls would like everyone to believe that every shared copy is a sale lost... Thats just not true.
--
F**K THE NHL. Go Blue Jays 2013!!!

globus9991

join:2004-11-14
Argelia
reply to morisato

said by morisato:

But if you leave a Loaded firearm With On the front seat of your car with the windows open and someone gets killed Your still responsible.. hence if u leave your internet open Your responsible Law or not. At least thats the arguement they would use.

I would argue that there is a huuuuuge difference. You have a statutory duty to secure your weapon.This is, by law. you must keep your weapon out of other people's hands. So, if you leave your weapon where anybody can get it, sure, you are responsible.

However, there is no law against having poorly secured or un-secured wifi. Furthermore, if somebody uses your internet connection without your persmission through it, that would fall under the definition of theft.

So no. The question is not that. The question is if a judge would accept the argument. Frankly, I don't know. I guess it would have to be compellling. For example a total noob. If anyone with a modicum of tech-savvy would try it, the judge would probably not accep it.

Fuzzy285

join:2012-12-12
reply to morisato

Keiichi, if you forget your car unlocked and someone steals it and mows down an octagenarian it is still them who are comitting an illegal act. Your car's main purpose is not to mow down pedestrians, just as your Internet connection's main purpose is not to commit illegal acts, so the level of "responsibility" regarding it's misuse is very different from that of a firearm. That's probably why there are no laws about locking down your Internet, though they might be coming soon, what with all the hyperbole.



watchers

@telus.net

So instead of preventing content flying around FOR FREE, they go after the people who cant afford to buy it in store, FOR MONEY ? How is this calculated Voltage ??? Going after individuals is the dumbest long term strategy of all time. Good luck to you all. Looks like someone has way too much money to burn...


Grappler

join:2002-09-01
Ottawa, ON
reply to JMJimmy

said by JMJimmy:

HiVolt: added. Also, excellent analogy with the door... there is a reason why it's "breaking and entering" (ie: breaking the seal on the door/window/etc = 1 crime, crossing the threshold = 2nd crime)

It is still only one crime, there is no offence in Canada of Breaking and Entering, specifically it is Breaking and Entering with Intent to commit an indictable offence, hence only one crime, there is no separation for each individual act committed.

You are somewhat correct in that all they have to do is "break the seal", however the person or an object must also cross that "magic line" and subsequently the intent is proved unless there is evidence to the contrary.

globus9991

join:2004-11-14
Argelia

said by Grappler:

You are somewhat correct in that all they have to do is "break the seal", however the person or an object must also cross that "magic line" and subsequently the intent is proved unless there is evidence to the contrary.

Interesting!
I was also wondering about statutory v. non-statutory (i.e. actual) damages. The way I understand it, is that if an accused is sued for statutory damages, this person has the right to request a trial by jury for actual damages. Is this correct?
If this is so, wouldn't it be fun to watch if somebody has the balls to force Voltage to actually try to prove true damages?

globus9991

join:2004-11-14
Argelia
reply to watchers

said by watchers :

So instead of preventing content flying around FOR FREE, they go after the people who cant afford to buy it in store, FOR MONEY ? How is this calculated Voltage ??? Going after individuals is the dumbest long term strategy of all time. Good luck to you all. Looks like someone has way too much money to burn...

Sad but true. However, I don't think they care. People will watch a movie if good and reject it if bad. Since Voltage makes exclusively crap, they have noting to loose. There is no way they will have even less watchers because of this....


drjp81

join:2006-01-09
canada

1 edit
reply to globus9991

said by globus9991:

I am not sure about that. I did some surveys bout a year plus ago and most systems I found did not had the flaw. But this is pointless. For this info to be valid we would have to have a current study and even then I am not sure if it can be presented as evidence because it is just heresay. I think (but not sure) that one would have to present either the author or a pro that would testify to the accuracy of the report.

Survey shmurvey.
I've tested myself at least 4 routers that I can confirm are vulnerable. They could be compromised in little as 10 minutes but some took a few hours.
Dlink: dir-615
dir-628
dir-825
Linksys: WRT54G2
And my router is also vulnerable. But I've mitigated the problem by having a renewal of the key/reboot at intervals that are typically shorter than it takes to crack the pin.

The spreadsheet here says much:
»docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?k···page=250

--
Cheers!

globus9991

join:2004-11-14
Argelia

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. My data says otherwise. But, in any event, unless one can put an expert on the stand, it is irrelevant...