 
beentherenow
@comcast.net
 from:
GOLFnSUN 
| That's a good thing About time criminals be held accountable. Now it's time to prosecute music/software Pirates. | |
|
 | 
ib50MbSoon
Formerly TwoKDialup
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Coloma, MI
| Re: That's a good thing "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
| 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
Brooklyn NYC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: That's a good thing 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. | |
|
| | | |
| | | |
TamaraB
Question The Current Paradigm
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Brooklyn NYC
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: That's a good thing said by KrK : ... they have to keep creating new laws ... This is true, and a bad thing.
Bob | |
|
| | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
| 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. | |
|
| | | |
TamaraB
Question The Current Paradigm
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Brooklyn NYC
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: That's a good thing said by jc100 :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.... I agree. I think it would have been a bad law. All I was pointing out is that enforcement of all laws (including bad ones) is a government thing. I was replying to a statement which indicated Gov. has no place in the matter.
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
1 edit | 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
/dev/null
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: That's a good thing 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
| Re: That's a good thing 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
1 edit | Re: That's a good thing 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. | |
|
| | | | | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
| Re: That's a good thing Wine,
You totally have missed the boat.
1) One theft of a car would be very similar to theft of wifi. The person leaving themselves open is negligent. As I stated above, if you leave your car running with the doors unlocked, you ARE RESPONSIBLE if it gets stolen. Sure the police will not press charges against you (though they could if say a child got into it and harmed people). Most likely, your insurance company would refuse to pay any claim due to the overall ignorance that went behind leaving your car running with the doors open. Similar to wifi, if you leave it open and people use it, it's your own damn fault. Learn the technology or the item in use, before enacting it. That's part of being an adult. The government HAS NO RIGHT to step in and enforce that fact. You pay for the internet, the equipment, etc, it's your responsibility to set it all up properly. Not doing so leaves you open to whatever headaches might arise from such negligence.
2) Unlimited is UNLIMITED. ISPS that advertised this have gotten in a LOT OF TROUBLE or changed their marketing. You do not promise customers something you cannot adhere to. Therefore, there is no stealing when one is promised the world and then some. | |
|
| | | | |
TamaraB
Question The Current Paradigm
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Brooklyn NYC
·Verizon Online DSL
| 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
| 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
/dev/null
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: That's a good thing 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
| Re: That's a good thing said by joako :Where is it a crime? Under what law? Under the bill being proposed, idiot. | |
|
| | | | | | |
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: That's a good thing 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
| Re: That's a good thing 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | nitzan
Premium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
 ·ViaTalk
 ·Comcast
| Re: That's a good thing said by BF69 :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. Oh, I think I get it now!!
What you're trying to say is, Stealing WiFi is the same as stealing someone's car, and then raping their wife, right??
You get extra points for calling people names, idiot.
jeez. hopping on an OPEN network should NOT be a crime. I'm sure each and everyone of us here on the forums has done it at least once in their life.
What, you want YOUR taxes wasted on some poor schmoe going to jail because they used their neighbor's open network a couple of times to read their email during an internet outage? | |
|
| | | | irsean
join:2001-05-10
Redlands, CA
·Verizon FIOS
| 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 | |
|
| | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
| 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. | |
|
| 
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
| 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
| |
|
| wvcaver
Premium
join:2005-04-17
Millersburg, OH | then the person that is handing out the insecure wireless signal should be charged with accessory to the crime ! | |
|
tomkb
Premium
join:2000-11-15
Avon, OH
clubs: | yes I think it's worth the risk. I mean, according the a news article I just read, slightly more than 1 in 100 are now in prison. | |
|
jonnyb
join:2008-03-15
Haverhill, NH
1 edit | Security Security Security It is beyond me why people cant set up security on there wi-fi connections, it is a matter of running a disc...anyway good luck trying to catch someone using a wi-fi connections especially someone on the move. Just to add to what i just said most people that dont know how to set up a secure connection arent going to know if it is being used by someone else. | |
|
| 
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
·Cruzio Internet
2 edits | Re: Security Security Security I would think that 3 years is a bit harsh punishment unless illegal activities were performed with the connection.
Perhaps the punishments should be for the ones who are carelessly allowing unauthorized access to their connection.
If there is really a big problem with this, maybe private industry with help from local districts, can advertise a service to help people to secure their wi-fi. Thereby helping the local economy and putting people to work instead of in jail. | |
|
| | 
battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000 | Re: Security Security Security Use higher fines and no jail time. It's a waste of resources to jail someone like this. Besides these freeloaders are often cheap asses and they are just looking for free internet. Hit them where it hurts a cheap ass the most, in the pocket. | |
|
| | | 
Nightshade
sic semper tyrannis
Premium
join:2002-05-26
Salem, OR
| Re: Security Security Security Exactly, and on the flipside the judge should also berate the person who didn't secure his Wi-Fi after convicting the person who freeloaded off of their connection. Don't make yourself a target and secure your hotspot!
--
True Happiness Must Come From Within | |
|
| | DemonicLlama
join:2007-11-19
Potomac, MD
 ·DIRECTV
1 edit | Its more about getting them to pay the $1,000 into annapolis' pocket. The state is hitting all IT related issues in order to come up with more money for their reckless spending.
edit: $1,000 fine not $10,000....well for now. I would not put it past them to increase the fine. | |
|
| | 
TheHelpful1
Premium
join:2002-01-11
Upper Marlboro, MD
| Scrap the three years - if they freeload someone else's wi-fi connection it means the owner has broadband. Make the freeloader pay the victims ISP Bill for the next 3 years. That is what, $3600 if they're on FIOS?
Oh wait, the state doesn't profit.....
--
"My weakness is that I care too much" | |
|
| |
TamaraB
Question The Current Paradigm
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Brooklyn NYC
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by gaforces : ... Perhaps the punishments should be for the ones who are carelessly allowing unauthorized access to their connection. ... If access is "allowed" there is no "theft", so neither party are guilty of anything. As it should be.
Bob
--
Motor Vessel - Tamara B.
43' Long-Range Trawler
Cape Elizebeth ME.
See her Here. | |
|
| | | 
Snickerdo
Premium
join:2001-02-28
Niagara Falls, ON
| Re: Security Security Security said by TamaraB :If access is "allowed" there is no "theft", so neither party are guilty of anything. As it should be. This is exactly how it works in Canada. | |
|
| |
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
·AT&T U-Verse
| said by gaforces :I would think that 3 years is a bit harsh punishment unless illegal activities were performed with the connection. Perhaps the punishments should be for the ones who are carelessly allowing unauthorized access to their connection. If there is really a big problem with this, maybe private industry with help from local districts, can advertise a service to help people to secure their wi-fi. Thereby helping the local economy and putting people to work instead of in jail. I agree. And using the internet, no matter how you connect, for illegal purposes is already well, um, illegal. No need to further legislate illegal things.
--
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 gaforces :I would think that 3 years is a bit harsh punishment unless illegal activities were performed with the connection. Perhaps the punishments should be for the ones who are carelessly allowing unauthorized access to their connection. If there is really a big problem with this, maybe private industry with help from local districts, can advertise a service to help people to secure their wi-fi. Thereby helping the local economy and putting people to work instead of in jail. No one will get 3 years, it's just a threat. Even if someone did get 3 years they'd serve less than half with good behavior. | |
|
| | |
dglenn
@BELIEVEWIRELESS.NET
| Proportionate Punishments To put things in perspective: just over a year ago here in Baltimore, a drunk idiot without a driver's license swiped the keys to his girlfriend's mother's car, totalled that car and two parked cars on my block (one of them mine, as a result of which, since I'm poor, I had to go without a car for a [expletive]ing year before I was able to get another one) and damaged two more cars on my block to a lesser degree ... after which he shot holes in the stolen car with an illegally-owned handgun to try to convince people he'd been carjacked and wasn't the one driving he wrecked it.
He got the maximum sentence possible for the charges that were filed against him. A whole whopping sixty days. I don't know how much of that he served, whether good-behaviour bonuses kick in on such a short sentence or not, etc.
Sixty days for depriving three people of their transportation and causing additional monetary harm to two more while being an actual danger to anyone else on the road that night...
...versus what, three years for piggybacking on somebody else's signal for a spell?
I can see both sides of the "should it even be a crime or not" debate (I do have an opinion, but I can see the sense in both viewpoints), but in any case the punishment proposed is way out of line with other penalties for more serious crimes. Something is seriously out of whack here. | |
|
| openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | Because a vast majority don't know, or care, about security concerns revolving around their home computers. And it's not just a matter of running a disc. | |
|
| |
See 11 replies to this post |
|
| |
ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
clubs: | Analogy time... Here comes the analogies of "if you leave your front door of your house wide open" and the "if you have your car door open with the keys in it"..... | |
|
|
See 11 replies to this post |
|
hopeflicker
Capitalism breeds greed
Premium
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA
| all i can say is... goodluck finding the user that is "stealing" your internets.
You'll never see me browing my neighbors net from within my home.
such a waste of tax dollars when you cant even find these people, and when you do, it's like finding a needle buried at the bottom of the ocean. 
--
Religion does three things quite effectively: Divides people, Controls people, Deludes people. | |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| It's Cool! You have to understand something about Maryland. We have zero crime in this state. None. It is all taken care of. Every last crook is in prison rotting away and since speeding cameras are becoming more prevalent, cops really have nothing much to do.
So we should be thanking the government for proposing a new crime.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
|
|
See 21 replies to this post |
|
russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA
| So what's unauthorized use? Hmm. So I (through my WiFi card) request authentication to your WiFi router, your router says, "OK, go ahead". I then request an association to your router, and your router says "No Problem". Then I ask for an IP address, some DNS servers, and a gateway to the Internet, and your router says "Here you go", and this is somehow unauthorized? | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
|
| 
TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ
 ·Sprint Broadband D..
| Re: big deal over nothing Sadly, it is the almost exclusive domain of ineffectual backbench politicians who want to make a name for themselves to introduce laws that address things that are fundimentally not a problem, or of such low probability of causing widespread societal damage as to be negligable. It gives them something to point to, at campaign time, ans crow "Ain't I just sumthin'? Look at what I did to protect you!". It's politics at its basest level. Both parties play it with nauseating regularity. A lot of tightly special interest laws come into effect this way.
Here in NJ, we have a long and scabrous history of this sort of lawmaking. Any act, behavior or social trend that gets anyone's knickers in a twist, no matter how trivial, eventually gets made illegal. What this has resulted in is a lot of chaos. Case in point: There are over 300 ways to lose your driver's license in NJ. Less than 100 have anything to do with driving. What is the effect of this orgy of driver's license suspension? Loss of license is the #1 cause of people going on welfare and a huge contributor to childhood poverty and family breakup. Because our mass transit could not suck more, fully 80% of people with a first license suspension get a second offense for driving on the suspended list. Because they have to work. Feed their family and whatnot.
This is what cheap, retail lawmaking causes. Because it's easier than addressing the real problems. | |
|
|
DataDoc
My avatar looks like me, if I was 2D.
Premium
join:2000-05-14
Greenville, NC | because you neighbor clicked the link, are you willing to do the time? | |
|
birdfeedr
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI
·Verizon FIOS
2 edits | The real reason for this law is not so much to look for and catch people using someone else's connection.
It's to have something on the book to charge the perps when evidence is flimsy on what they were really doing. "We can't get 'em on this one, but this one will stick for sure."
Got a leech sitting in his car, you can't call it loitering or jaywalking. No sweat! Get him on freeloading.
The fines ought to be used to fund router security education programs, at least.
Edit to add: Topic subject is not displayed. | |
|
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·Qwest.net
| Yet another case of, "we are doing something about it" crap from a politician. We have protected you, we have passed a law to make it illegal, so now we have war riders shaking in their boots......NOT! They would have been better off hiring a group of people to do the job. Perhaps computer science students from Universities, or Jr Colleges. This group would announce in advance they are going to ride around a neighborhood and offer to secure any unsecured wireless networks they find free of charge.
--
Send a prayer to Allah, eat Beans. | |
|
| 
AZ_OGM
join:2007-01-12
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: Here we go again. Sounds like a good idea on paper. But I'm not sure many would trust college students with access to their computers and their routers. Especially if they were wearing white shirts and thin black ties driving around in matching VW Beetles.  | |
|
|
Chuckles
Premium
join:2006-03-04
Saint Paul, MN | Smoke a joint while using unauthorized wi-fi internet and you're worse off than a murderer. This placed is f'd up.
--
kustomerservice.net | |
|
|
|
Hehe
@ssa.gov
| You router said you were there and open.
My computer asked to an IP address.
Your router gave my computer the info it needed to access your network and the Internet.
Does not sound like stealing to me.
Now if you had a password and I "hacked" it, then I would agree that it was stolen. | |
|
| kevinloydw
join:2001-08-18
Gresham, OR | Re: Define steal as it relates to wi-fi I think of it this way, I have a sprinkler going... It is spraying my sidewalk/grass with water... You run through the water. Were you stealing my water?
KLW | |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
| I think stolen car analogies are kind of silly here- if someone steals your car, you don't have a car anymore and can't drive it. If someone uses your WiFi network, you can usually still connect, though speeds may suffer.
I had an unsecured WiFi network for awhile, though my old router was pretty bad to the point where you couldn't get a signal outside the house anyway, any would-be WiFi thief would have to come inside to use the connection... | |
|
| 
Mike D
I want your skulls
Premium
join:2001-09-12
Harrisburg, PA
clubs:
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: Car analogies... said by EPS :I think stolen car analogies are kind of silly here- if someone steals your car, you don't have a car anymore and can't drive it. If someone uses your WiFi network, you can usually still connect, though speeds may suffer. I had an unsecured WiFi network for awhile, though my old router was pretty bad to the point where you couldn't get a signal outside the house anyway, any would-be WiFi thief would have to come inside to use the connection... My point was that while "stealing" in any sense is wrong whether it's a physical object or bandwidth. Your router (home, car, etc) comes equipped with the tools to secure it. If you choose not to use them then expect that there are less than honest people in the world that will "steal" your bandwidth (car, valuables, etc) and personally I think you are partially responsible for what happens if you don't use the tools. Willingly sharing aside.
--
In a society that is drug infested, violence wracked, and polluted by chemical greed, no one has ever died from an overdose of pornography!
______________________________ | |
|
| | 
MemphisPCGuy
Senior Systems Engineer
Premium
join:2004-05-09
Memphis, TN
·Comcast
| Re: Car analogies... Each CAR comes with a unique or semi-unique key to prevent unauthorized use.
Routers come with Identical SSID and Admin logins. The only way I know my linksys router from my neighbors linksys is the signal strength is slightly higher on mine.
So, perhaps router companies should require you to first run a setup disk to change SSID and Security features before wireless is activated? Or make them unique with a card included with the device with the lowest possible security enabled already (WEP).
--
»www.memphispcguy.com | |
|
|
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: Old News OLD news. You do realize today is 3/21/08 | |
|
| | Samwoo
join:2002-02-15
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
1 edit | Re: Old News That's because news site readers are awesome at directing news to the editors rather than just posting it randomly to one of the forums!
Btw this is a reply to the first (top) post on this subeject | |
|
Spurs3Arsenal0
@munet.com | Whoever introduced this bill should be put in jail for wasting tax payers time on something that shouldn't be enbforced and can't be enforced. It's like Arlin Specter holding hearings on Partiots "Spygate" | |
|
|
|
|
Steal Wi-Fi In Maryland? Face 3 Year Prison Stretch
I gave a friend of mine a wireless router Christmas 2007. I was dismayed to see that his home was surrounded by other wireless networks so I set up both of his laptop computers, clients with WPA security. For future reference I gave him written instructions on how to install a new computer on his wireless network. I visited his home on the Fourth of July and asked how his wireless network was working. He indicated that he was dissatisfied by his broadband provider. He claimed that his new laptop kept disconnecting from his network and he had other problems with reliability of his internet connection. His firewall portion of his virus protection kept indicating that someone was attempting to access his computer. When I checked his wireless connection, I found that he had connected to another homeowners unprotected wireless network. When I asked how that happened he claimed that his Twelve Year old daughter had set up the computer. When I offered to correct the situation, he had trouble finding the instructions on how to connect the new laptop to his network along with the necessary passwords. Fortunately I written the WPA and Router password on the bottom of router. Within Two Minutes I had his laptop connected to his network and well the problem fixed itself. No further attempts to access his computer, no disconnects.