  psb777
@plus.com | reply to tapeloop Re: There will be more prosecutions: law is clear
Well, duh! |
|
  tapeloop 1959. I try to kick the ball. I miss. Premium join:2004-06-27 Airstrip One
| reply to psb777 said by psb777:
I was in Ottawa until yesterday. When I got there a week ago I fired up my WiFi equipped laptop and my browser gave me a login screen for TelecomOttawa. I paid CAN$29 for a month's access and used the Internet everyday. Last day on the main pedestrianised street sitting on a bench only after an hour did I realise I had not been using TelecomOttawa that day at all! There was an open Linksys AP nearby that my laptop had connected to. Unconcerned, I shrugged and continued until my battery flaked out.
How should one act? I need never have found out that I wasn't connected to the correct ISP. At what point did I start breaking the law? How do you explain yourself to the RCMP who asks what you're doing? How do you prove to an IT-illiterate cop you are accessing an ISP to which you have a subscription? Unless they have laws forbidding such things in Canada (which may be, but I haven't heard of any), then such wi-fi access wouldn't be illegal. -- Copyright infringement is illegal. Murder is illegal. Therefore, file sharing is murder. |
|
  kapowaz
@dialnet.com
| reply to TKJunkMail From the UK Computer Misuse Act 1990:
Section 1 - Unauthorised access to computer material It is an offence to cause a computer to perform any function with intent to secure unauthorised access to any program or data held in any computer (section 1a). It is necessary to prove that the access secured is unauthorised (section 1b), and the suspect knew that this was the case (section 1c). So, if person A accesses person B's wireless access point, person B needs to prove that person A was unauthorised to do so. But... in broadcasting an SSID, running a DHCP server and allocating an IP address to a wireless client, the WAP of person B explicitly did the opposite of stating that person A was unauthorised; it responded to the request and let person A in with a hearty "you're welcome".
So, yes, the law is clear. That this isn't illegal.
But let's put the shoe on the other foot. How many online services do you have which enforce policies whereby you (the subscriber) have to agree that you are the only person who will use that service under a given account? For instance, frequently in gaming (MMORPGs, Xbox Live, Steam etc). If your account is banned due to the actions of somebody else who used your account, you have nobody to blame but yourself. So what if an individual accesses your wireless network in order to commit a crime, and the route is traced back to you?
What needs to happen is for owners of wifi technology to take responsibility for what they are using. If they don't understand the underlying principles behind what a wireless access point or wireless router does then they can have no right to complain when somebody walking past their house gets a free ride. |
|
  cobolhacker
@frankie.ca | reply to hrickpa You need to get a new router and use WPA.
Either that, or visit their house with a baseball bat. |
|
  psb777
@range86-134.btcentra
| reply to TKJunkMail I was in Ottawa until yesterday. When I got there a week ago I fired up my WiFi equipped laptop and my browser gave me a login screen for TelecomOttawa. I paid CAN$29 for a month's access and used the Internet everyday. Last day on the main pedestrianised street sitting on a bench only after an hour did I realise I had not been using TelecomOttawa that day at all! There was an open Linksys AP nearby that my laptop had connected to. Unconcerned, I shrugged and continued until my battery flaked out.
How should one act? I need never have found out that I wasn't connected to the correct ISP. At what point did I start breaking the law? How do you explain yourself to the RCMP who asks what you're doing? How do you prove to an IT-illiterate cop you are accessing an ISP to which you have a subscription? |
|
  ylen131
join:2000-02-09 Canoga Park, CA
| reply to TimmyDanny Re: Securing a router
said by TimmyDanny:
You should configure your router to only accept your MAC addresses.
Of course, your neighbor might possibly already know the MAC addresses for your equipment (since they've snooped your network) and be able to pretend to be one of your computers, but it's worth a shot, and simple to do. it will take 5 min to get around mac filter |
|
  TimmyDanny
@boeing.com
| reply to hrickpa You should configure your router to only accept your MAC addresses.
Of course, your neighbor might possibly already know the MAC addresses for your equipment (since they've snooped your network) and be able to pretend to be one of your computers, but it's worth a shot, and simple to do. |
|
  ylen131
join:2000-02-09 Canoga Park, CA
1 edit | reply to hrickpa Re: There will be more prosecutions: law is clear
said by hrickpa :how about some one cracking the WEP key to gain access i am running 802.11b my neighbors keep getting access when i change the WEP key 24 hours later there back in linksys befw11s4 WEP 128 bit been going on for 4 months they started getting bandwidth greedy that's how i found them leaching i have a program that warns me if there is a computer that is an intruder (not belong on my network} the program gives me a network map of all computers and devices attached yes it's illegal, get your self a new route rand set up wap, gl to them cracking that. |
|
 hrickpa
join:2001-06-07 Reading, PA
·Covad Communications
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to shadowstalker how about some one cracking the WEP key to gain access i am running 802.11b my neighbors keep getting access when i change the WEP key 24 hours later there back in linksys befw11s4 WEP 128 bit been going on for 4 months they started getting bandwidth greedy that's how i found them leaching i have a program that warns me if there is a computer that is an intruder (not belong on my network} the program gives me a network map of all computers and devices attached |
|
  tapeloop 1959. I try to kick the ball. I miss. Premium join:2004-06-27 Airstrip One
| reply to fiberguy said by fiberguy :Unless you have antying usefull to add to the discussion, skip the post. Your editorial isn't necessary. I can't believe that the babies here get all bent out of shape because someone posts a though.. wow! Shows the mentality here. (Sorry, I didn't check with the borg collective before posting a message that conforms) Now where's that Sarcasm Emoticon or better yet, the finger. Lighten up! You challenging me now too? 
I had no problem with the discussion until you pulled that "hey you calm down or step outside" junk. I'm sorry that you think "getting bent out of shape" over "thoughts" is inappropriate, but the sooner one drops the name-calling the sooner I'd go back to giving their arguments some credibility.
Plus I just thought it was kinda funny how angry people get around here. Zell Miller school of debate I'm sure.  -- Copyright infringement is illegal. Murder is illegal. Therefore, file sharing is murder. |
|
 fiberguy My views are my own. Premium join:2005-05-20
| reply to tapeloop Unless you have antying usefull to add to the discussion, skip the post. Your editorial isn't necessary.
I can't believe that the babies here get all bent out of shape because someone posts a though.. wow! Shows the mentality here. (Sorry, I didn't check with the borg collective before posting a message that conforms)
Now where's that Sarcasm Emoticon or better yet, the finger. Lighten up! |
|
 slicemaster
join:2001-12-14 Newbury Park, CA
·callwithus
| reply to fiberguy said by fiberguy :Personally, I think they need to make some stiff examples of some of the ones doing it now. So, I see it a very worth-while cause for the police. If you think about it, this plays into home land security issues. Some people may think I am over reacting, however, if you wanted to cause terror or what ever these people want to do, open Wi-Fi is an even better place to use the internet than an internet cafe where you have to phyiscally sit and risk getting found. Again, is it over reaching? We never thought that air planes would take down the trade towers too... Along with getting people who use these access points, I think there should be a drive to get people to secure them as well for the same reason. If you want to go the nation security route then you would be worried about all who dont secure there access points, not just the idiots who dont know better. Whether they dont know any better or they simply leave the AP open for public use, according to your theory, all unsecured WiFi hotspots would be a threat to national security, and based on that then the hotspot owner should be the one in trouble with the law, you know, for providing a gateway for terrorists. Luckily that is not the case because if it were then there would be laws against having open APs. And IMHO those who leave there access points open for use by others (mine is open for public use) are not guilty of anything, and last I check 2.4Ghz is a public frequency band and if no security is circumvented to access a wireless network then I dont think anything wrong has been done. Like I have said before, if the AP is not secured then it is one of two things, open for public use, or a crime of stupidity on the part of an idiot. Either way, you cant tell which were purposefully left open for public use and those that were not secured due to either laziness or stupidity on the part of the hotspot owner, therefore we should err on the side of freedom, people are free to not secure there APs (both on purpose and mistakenly) and others a free to access them as long as not security is circumvented. No one should be getting arrested or fined for accessing an open network (no security in place) on a public frequency band. This is just ludicrous. If security was circumvented (WEP, WPA, etc.) then nail the guy to the wall, but if it was wide open then no crime was committed.
Slice |
|
  tapeloop 1959. I try to kick the ball. I miss. Premium join:2004-06-27 Airstrip One
| reply to fiberguy said by fiberguy :You, little boy, need to chill out. Back down unless you want a flame war bud. (what are you, one of those libbys that think they know everything in this world? And that the collective knows better? Tell me why the government is going to hollywood to help them think of possible ways that people can slip through the cracks or new ways they can hurt us? Because they try to think outside the box - MORON!) Too bad BBR doesn't have a BAWK BAWK BAWK Chicken emoticon for you to add to your...erm, stimulating post.  -- Copyright infringement is illegal. Murder is illegal. Therefore, file sharing is murder. |
|
 fiberguy My views are my own. Premium join:2005-05-20
| reply to Boricua65 Yea.. and don't you think that those HOTSPOTS log mac addresses and other information such as sites visited that can later be used if need be? Don't you think that if something was done illegal that if they found a suspect that they could trace it back to a computer if one was found?
Please read my whole post next time and see that I did mention cyber cafe's and such. Those are managed areas and can trace evidence. Personal WAPs are not. |
|
 fiberguy My views are my own. Premium join:2005-05-20
| reply to CrazyFingers Yea, I am serious or I wouldn't have posted it. Duh!
Sorry, but I don't subscribe to the "this crime is worth more than another" theory. I think all crimes are worth while.
I am also someone that thinks proactively rather than reactively as well.
Do YOU mean to tell me that people aren't looking for new ways to get around barriers? You REALLY think I am the only one that has this thought? Come on.
It's clear, after reading your post, that you didn't read mine clearly. It's also clear that you think all is well in the world.
Ad for your "yea, we did know that planes would be used" - I guess if people did more to look out for that, they may have been stopped too.
You, little boy, need to chill out. Back down unless you want a flame war bud. (what are you, one of those libbys that think they know everything in this world? And that the collective knows better? Tell me why the government is going to hollywood to help them think of possible ways that people can slip through the cracks or new ways they can hurt us? Because they try to think outside the box - MORON!) |
|
 Skippy25
join:2000-09-13 Hazelwood, MO
| reply to richdelb Me choosing not to secure my house, car, bike, or wallet does not give you, or anyone else, the right to "borrow" it. If it is not yours and you know it is not yours, then leave it alone. It is as simple as that.
Don't start with the.. "well if they didnt want you to this or that" arguement. If they dont explicitly tell you that you can, than you can't. Ignorance and stupidity, though many of you have a valid case for this, is no excuse. |
|
  Boricua65
join:2002-01-26 Puerto Rico
| reply to fiberguy said by fiberguy :...Some people may think I am over reacting, however, if you wanted to cause terror or what ever these people want to do, open Wi-Fi is an even better place to use the internet than an internet cafe where you have to physically sit and risk getting found... If that was true, then many cities and municipalities wouldn't set up wireless hotspots. In front of city hall, here in downtown Oakland, the Mayor had the city set up a free wireless zone. There's even a cafe near this wi-fi hotspot that offers free wireless as well. Unfortunately, if somebody wanted to do damage, whether terrorist or an individual, they will not matter. |
|
  shadowstalker
@12.153.x.x | reply to ylen131 actually that is not quite true i recommend you read the patriot act 1 and 2 jawhol herr bush |
|
  CrazyFingers
join:2003-10-01 Columbia, MO
| reply to fiberguy Are you serious??
You see this as a worthwhile cause for the police... Rather than, oh, I don't know...trying to police crime-ridden neighborhoods, apprehend murderers, rapists, drunk drivers, and other actually dangerous crimes...mmmkay. And I am thinking about it, and it doesn't have a damn thing to do with Homeland Security, Mr. Goebbels. If you wanted to cause terror, I seriously doubt a lack of an unsecured wireless router would stop you dead in your tracks. (You know, terrorists could staple coded messages onto telephone poles. FOR THE CHILDRENS, tear down those poles!!!!) And yes, we did think that planes could take down the towers, several years prior to it happening. I guess it was all those unsecured wireless routers that let them waltz into the country, get pilots training, drivers licenses, and plane tickets? You, sir, flunk the internet. -- Burrow owl...burrow owl... |
|
 bmn ? ? ? Premium,ExMod 2003-06 join:2001-03-15 hiatus
| reply to manfmmd said by manfmmd :said by bmn :ISP records won't help if the person is browsing from behind a router because the IP address is shared among multiple computers. You are forgetting about the index.dat for IE and browser cache for other browsers that will 'tell' where you have been on the internet. That only proves you went to said sites, but does not prove what connection you used to get to those sites.
Also people have utilities installed that elininate that data, not to mention there are other ways to hide your tracks (for example, using a VPN to another location, etc.). |
|