| reply to HiVolt
Re: CIPPIC is watching DSLReports 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! |
|
| 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. |
|
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.
|
|
 HiVoltPremium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:17
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
| 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!!!
|
|
| 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. |
|
| 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. |
|
| 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... |
|
| 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....  |
|
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! |
|
| 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... |
|
|
|
