The Dean Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 You know, enough already. You make it sound like people just wish for a wireless network at their house and -- PRESTO -- it simply appears out of thin air. Someone has to install a router, and if you're either smart enough to have someone set it up (like your service provider) or smart enough to figure out how to do it yourself, you're smart enough to set up a freaking password. In other words, you can't possibly be smart enough to get wireless set up in your house and yet, somehow, also be too ignorant to understand the security part of it. If you're that !@#$ing stupid, you're too !@#$ing stupid to know people are using your network. I appreciate your defending the ignorant, but seriously...for a guy who's talked himself out of being shot on four different occasions, your argument on this is ridiculously sappy. If you want to defend the world, leave the ignorant for your spare time because most of the time you just can't fix ignorant, and defending them only prolongs the pain for everyone. Look, I actually go to people's homes and fix their computers. These are usually elderly folks, or simple people with very little computer knowledge. Often their wireless router was installed by Bell South/AT&T, or some local computer company....maybe it was installed by a relative, who doesn't live with them. Really doesn't matter, the point is they have no real idea of how it works. So, you are suggesting that people who don't understand the technology shouldn't be using the Internet...or are fair game for those who might want to take advantage of them? That is really a disgusting point of view, IMO. It is the position that many in the spyware/adware/bot game take. Many believe that those who don't properly secure their machines deserve what they get. I'd rather defend the ignorant, than defend those who take advantage of them for a living. Those people are some of the lowest scum the earth has to offer. Of course, if it were you, or someone in your family that was duped by a doctor, perhaps, and subjected to poor/dangerous medical treatment...the explanation that they deserved it, because they didn't understand all the implications, probably would upset you...at least i hope it would. But, I will end it here, as I can't really have a legitimate conversation with someone who is devoid of scruples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 If you need the net while you're mobile, then wifi doesn't make sense, and you'd be on AT&T's 3G network. But if you're sitting in a park or S'bucks, then wifi is the better option. Agreed. The point of the earlier poster was, the iPhone connected to unsecured Wi-fi, automatically. So, if you are walking down the street, and turn the phone on, what does it do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 There's a concert in the park, tickets are $60.00 each, while it is a crime to bust in the gate, it's ok to sit a block away and listen to it. If they don't wan't you to hear it, they can host it in a dome. Ahh... Brings up the old Wrigley Field situation with regards to the roof tops. Why can't I watch the game from my roof... Now if I charge others to use my neighbors connection, I take that is bad... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Ahh... Brings up the old Wrigley Field situation with regards to the roof tops. Why can't I watch the game from my roof... Now if I charge others to use my neighbors connection, I take that is bad... Agreed. I also always felt the same way about scrambled cable signals. At one time, the cable company would send all the signals to your home, only some (channels you didn't pay for) were scrambled. I always felt that, if they are in my home, and I can find a way to unscramble them, they are mine. If they don't want me to have those channels, don't send them in my house. Now, I know that it was illegal, and my beliefs didn't change that. But, to me, it was wrong. Their signals invaded my home. There are filters and other ways to prevent the signal from getting into my home...use one of those methods. I never thought it was OK to go up the pole and screw with their filters, or steal cable from the neighbor...that seems different, to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Agreed. I also always felt the same way about scrambled cable signals. At one time, the cable company would send all the signals to your home, only some (channels you didn't pay for) were scrambled. I always felt that, if they are in my home, and I can find a way to unscramble them, they are mine. If they don't want me to have those channels, don't send them in my house. Now, I know that it was illegal, and my beliefs didn't change that. But, to me, it was wrong. Their signals invaded my home. There are filters and other ways to prevent the signal from getting into my home...use one of those methods. I never thought it was OK to go up the pole and screw with their filters, or steal cable from the neighbor...that seems different, to me. I concur. To take it to another level: What about how Stever Jobs made his first buck and then hit it big with that capital he made... You know the analog phone signal and the "blue boxes" he sold. Phreaking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Too bad the router can't tell the owner that someone used it, like the butler would tell the owner. I know mine, if I go into the admin/setup menus, has a tab to show what pc's are on it currently, not sure if it'll keep a log though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 lol ... what if you tie your pitbull to the doorknob? That sounds like a secure network. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 It's like someone who walks around naked in their home with the lights on and curtains open. Are you guilty of leering if you catch a glimpse from the street? PTR So far no, I'm not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 What if your neighbor is a serial killer and uses the lawnmower for something other than mowing the lawn? Well, then you have a hell of a mess to clean up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I know mine, if I go into the admin/setup menus, has a tab to show what pc's are on it currently, not sure if it'll keep a log though. I was going to post the same thing. The router does keep track and can also send those logs elsewhere. Of course if you're going to set that up, then you could also set up encryption if you didn't want someone using the router. I still maintain that you're authorized to use an unsecured WiFi signal -- as I said in my previous post, you're asking the computer for access, and it's providing the authorization. You may not know you have it setup that way, but it IS authorization (not authentication - which is disabled without encryption). But as I've said, the laws haven't been tested at all. Even the guy from Michigan mentioend in another thread did not challenge it in court because the misdemenor was the easier way out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millbank Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I agree with this, that if a person is able to go into logging setting , they are able to secure router. This I feel should be responsibility of installer. Either installer knowing router capabilities or service person informing client , router options and setting it up accordingly. At issue is a person need be informed of how to use router, user documentation with router purchased need be as clear as possible regarding securing a router, purchaser responsible for reading information and implementing it. Installing a router , leaving it open for all to use than complaining that others are using it , and by ignorance not knowing routers settings if installed personally or not being informed by service people , need be on respective people make decision to secure on unsecure router and be aware of ramifications of either. I am not comfortable with people saying they were not aware. We all need be responsible to be aware of how to use safely and properly what we are using. If you install a router either yourself not knowing fully how to properly or have friend who does not know how properly rather than have qualified service people, its on you. imo I was going to post the same thing. The router does keep track and can also send those logs elsewhere. Of course if you're going to set that up, then you could also set up encryption if you didn't want someone using the router. I still maintain that you're authorized to use an unsecured WiFi signal -- as I said in my previous post, you're asking the computer for access, and it's providing the authorization. You may not know you have it setup that way, but it IS authorization (not authentication - which is disabled without encryption). But as I've said, the laws haven't been tested at all. Even the guy from Michigan mentioend in another thread did not challenge it in court because the misdemenor was the easier way out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayFinkle Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Don't leave your lawnmower outside and go in for a drink. Someone could load it into their truck, go cut their lawn, and return it. You should have secured it. Your analogy makes no sense. An analogy which makes sense would be you leaving your lawnmower running in your neighbor's fenced in backyard, unattended, with no way of knowing who the owner actually is, and then getting pissed if he used it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Exactly. That's the main reason I think it would/should be hard (in most cases) to prosecute this sort of thing. Except that there's precedent. RIAA goes after people who's file sharing software is set by default without their knowledge to allow downloads. It's not the same thing, since it's easier to argue mens rea against someone who installs file sharing software to begin with. But it's ample precedent for making the same argument against wifi theives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Except that there's precedent. RIAA goes after people who's file sharing software is set by default without their knowledge to allow downloads. It's not the same thing, since it's easier to argue mens rea against someone who installs file sharing software to begin with. But it's ample precedent for making the same argument against wifi theives. Sure, the law is is way behind, and prosecution inconsistent, when it comes to "new" technologies. Anyone following the case of Julie Amero can see how screwed-up, and uninformed even the police and prosecutors, can be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Your analogy makes no sense. An analogy which makes sense would be you leaving your lawnmower running in your neighbor's fenced in backyard, unattended, with no way of knowing who the owner actually is, and then getting pissed if he used it. Parsing theft...not seeing the larger picture. Do you add that skill to your resume? Find, and read A.N. Whitehead's essay - "Minds In a Groove". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Except that there's precedent. RIAA goes after people who's file sharing software is set by default without their knowledge to allow downloads. It's not the same thing, since it's easier to argue mens rea against someone who installs file sharing software to begin with. But it's ample precedent for making the same argument against wifi theives. There's very little precedent in court cases regarding file sharing. Almost all of them were settled out of court. I can only think of one that the RIAA won - and it was eventually declared a mistrial: http://www.electronista.com/articles/08/09...in.riaa.thomas/ Not much different than the Michigan guy who paid the $400 fine instead of challenging the law's validity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Parsing theft...not seeing the larger picture. Do you add that skill to your resume? Find, and read A.N. Whitehead's essay - "Minds In a Groove". Just don't leave it at the curb on garbarge day and head in for a drink... The person going by may think you are pitching it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Wow...this thread has gone on a lot longer than I thought that it would. The exact answer depends on which level of answer that you want to hear. Is it illegal? Yes it is, but so is driving 58 mph in a 55 mph zone. It now becomes a question of "is it something you will get prosecuted for". And 99% of the police out there will not arrest the perpetrator, but instead will simply tell him to "stop doing it". If this were a Pollyanna world we would not need locks on our doors or security codes. But it isn't a Pollyanna world, and therefore the owner is as much to blame, as he should have "taken reasonable steps" to protect his property". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarkLessWagMore Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Wow...this thread has gone on a lot longer than I thought that it would. The exact answer depends on which level of answer that you want to hear. Is it illegal? Yes it is, but so is driving 58 mph in a 55 mph zone. It now becomes a question of "is it something you will get prosecuted for". And 99% of the police out there will not arrest the perpetrator, but instead will simply tell him to "stop doing it". If this were a Pollyanna world we would not need locks on our doors or security codes. But it isn't a Pollyanna world, and therefore the owner is as much to blame, as he should have "taken reasonable steps" to protect his property". Hey, it only took 4 pages to get to the common sense reply. That's 2 pages faster than our average!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 it's called theft of services Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts