LinuxJunkie
join:2005-01-19
Cyberspace
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Deserved arrest
Quote me the EXACT law that says connecting to unsecured WiFi spots to connect to the Internet is illegal. I've seen you and several others in this thread flinging that accusation around but I've yet to see the actual law that defines it. I'm willing to bet you can't/won't find it. |
|
LinuxJunkie
join:2005-01-19
Cyberspace | reply to jbozley
Go and find the law that makes this illegal. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| reply to LinuxJunkie
said by LinuxJunkie  :Quote me the EXACT law that says connecting to unsecured WiFi spots to connect to the Internet is illegal. I've seen you and several others in this thread flinging that accusation around but I've yet to see the actual law that defines it. I'm willing to bet you can't/won't find it. It was posted by Doctor Dan in an earlier post. Read the thread and stop griping.
--
My Web Page
Join Red Room Forum |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| And again, that law doesn't apply to Wi-Fi, it applies to PCs. Unless you stretch to fit the law to suggest a router is a computer, which isn't implicit and would be a stretch. As it stands, there is no law on the books dealing with unsecured Wi-Fi access.
All the morality hyberbole is a little silly too, particularly in cases where nobody is harmed. Sounds like someone advocates a massive waste of government money by cracking down on people who aren't really criminals. |
|
LinuxJunkie
join:2005-01-19
Cyberspace
4 edits | reply to TKJunkMail
As the other poster said, that does NOT apply to unsecured wireless networks. If you never touch their computers on the LAN side of the wireless network, that law wouldn't even apply. Quit your grasping at straws.
Using YOUR logic, if you picked up a classmate's pocket calculator off their desk to use it to solve a problem without asking them, then they've just committed a third degree felony. After all, wouldn't that be "unauthorized access to a computer?" It's judges and people like you that love to over-interpet the laws that are making this country such an unbearable place to live. I'm sure you were all for the Supreme Court's decision to privatize the eminent domain clause as well. |
|
Neil
Stop All The Downloadin
join:2003-08-20
New York, NY
| reply to LinuxJunkie
said by LinuxJunkie :Furthermore, that law says "any computer connected to the Internet" -- what about computers that are simply on a closed LAN that happens to have a wireless connection? No Internet connection there so that law wouldn't even apply in that case. According to the Wikipedia definition (»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internets),
Internets may refer to: .. # Wide area networks using a private IP address space, called "private internets" in RFC 1918 Granted, a private network wouldn't be "THE" Internet, but apparently it is still AN internet.
--
idunno much about computers other than the one we got at my house my mom put a couple games on there and i play em
The views and opinions expressed herein do not reflect those of my employer. |
|
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to oliphant
said by oliphant :Love that liberal open door policy there Karl. It's that twisted logic of it's the fault of the AP owner that has crazy judges saying it's the rape victim's fault they got raped. Stupidity isn't a license to be victimized...even by nerds and powerbooks. I guess it's too much to expect people to respect other's PROPERTY and they won't understand this simple concept until they're arrested or fined. Dude you don't understand the actual concept here.
Rape is physical damage , stealing is physical damage , that stuff is physical. "Stealing" and I use the term loosely here , bandwidth via a unsecured access point is not illegal. It's free and in the clear. There is no reason for this case to go further unless he was doing something illegal behind it.
It is not illegal to receive free to air television signals so why is a internet signal is illegal ? Because it's "owned" by some one ? If that is the case then make an attempt to secure the system. Ignorance is no reason to do something wrong ever. And if they did not lock down the system with at least a minimum security setting then they deserve to have their bandwidth used.
If the person did something wrong behind the AP then they should be prosecuted, but to say that it's privately owned is just stupid, It's not protected by any means and by that standard it is free to use.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA | reply to Karl Bode
It's wouldn't occur to you that it's just wrong would it? |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | I think it's wrong if he accesses the person's PC, causes damage, throttles connections, engages in criminal activity etc.
Do I think it wrong if someone drives by a neighborhood, and uses a totally unprotected hotspot to send e-mail? Check stock quotes? Surf? No. Nobody is harmed.
Don't want that? Secure your hotspot.
The idea we'd start prosecuting such cases is utterly idiotic. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA | Wow...cool.
It's the 4th and my neighbor has a nice pool. Wonder if they would mind me taking a dip and using their BBQ...after all nobody is harmed. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Physical real world trespass comparisons are stupid and you know it. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA | And that would be how? No one is harmed in either case. It's an 'intrusion' in either case. We're using stuff that doesn't belong to us without knowledge of the OWNER in either case. I see it as a DIRECT comparison. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to LinuxJunkie
said by LinuxJunkie :Using YOUR logic, if you picked up a classmate's pocket calculator off their desk to use it to solve a problem without asking them, then they've just committed a third degree felony. After all, wouldn't that be "unauthorized access to a computer?" It's judges and people like you that love to over-interpet the laws that are making this country such an unbearable place to live. I'm sure you were all for the Supreme Court's decision to privatize the eminent domain clause as well. You would be a thief taking the calculator without asking(taking someones property - nothing to do with computers). And no, I didn't support the eminent domain ruling by SC:
This from 10 months ago:
»Re: [POLL]Should there be limits on Eminent Domain
And this from 2 weeks ago:
»Re: Supreme Court of the US Strikes.....
--
My Web Page
Join Red Room Forum |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| reply to BosstonesOwn
said by BosstonesOwn :said by oliphant :Love that liberal open door policy there Karl. It's that twisted logic of it's the fault of the AP owner that has crazy judges saying it's the rape victim's fault they got raped. Stupidity isn't a license to be victimized...even by nerds and powerbooks. I guess it's too much to expect people to respect other's PROPERTY and they won't understand this simple concept until they're arrested or fined. Dude you don't understand the actual concept here. Rape is physical damage , stealing is physical damage , that stuff is physical. "Stealing" and I use the term loosely here , bandwidth via a unsecured access point is not illegal. It's free and in the clear. There is no reason for this case to go further unless he was doing something illegal behind it. It is not illegal to receive free to air television signals so why is a internet signal is illegal ? Because it's "owned" by some one ? If that is the case then make an attempt to secure the system. Ignorance is no reason to do something wrong ever. And if they did not lock down the system with at least a minimum security setting then they deserve to have their bandwidth used. If the person did something wrong behind the AP then they should be prosecuted, but to say that it's privately owned is just stupid, It's not protected by any means and by that standard it is free to use. So it's okay to steal if I bring it back and the owner was unaware that I took it? Wow. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to oliphant
quote:
And that would be how? No one is harmed in either case. It's an 'intrusion' in either case. We're using stuff that doesn't belong to us without knowledge of the OWNER in either case. I see it as a DIRECT comparison.
And that's a flaw in logic. Your pool is not sitting open and inviting in the middle of the street. It's probably fenced behind your house to avoid such intrusions. As your hotspot should be. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| reply to LinuxJunkie
said by LinuxJunkie :As the other poster said, that does NOT apply to unsecured wireless networks. If you never touch their computers on the LAN side of the wireless network, that law wouldn't even apply. Quit your grasping at straws. Using YOUR logic, if you picked up a classmate's pocket calculator off their desk to use it to solve a problem without asking them, then they've just committed a third degree felony. After all, wouldn't that be "unauthorized access to a computer?" It's judges and people like you that love to over-interpet the laws that are making this country such an unbearable place to live. I'm sure you were all for the Supreme Court's decision to privatize the eminent domain clause as well. Yeah...although a foreign concept to you...you shouldn't take/use other people's crap without asking them. It's people like you that are the reason we have to lock our doors and encrypt our APs. You think everything is yours to use. |
|
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to oliphant
no your twisting it again. because you want to hang them high like a vigilante.
It's not physical property they are using its a damn signal. Any one and their mother can view and intercept, it is not even encrypted to a small degree. That is like saying oh yeah I broadcast video of my kids room and then get mad when some one intercepts and views it, well encrypt it and no one would do it except people who want to do harm.
Once it is encrypted and even the smallest attempt was made to secure the AP then it should be illegal , this guy did none of that.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
1 edit | It's not physical property...it's just some fire (BBQ) and water (pool). I'm just using it. So it's cool if I go across the street and take their hose to wash my car and put it back when I'm done? You don't see the problem with 'borrowing' in that way? How about if I 'borrow' their car? Even if I top the tank when I'm done? What if they left the key in it? Hey, no body is harmed. They don't lose the use of it.
I don't want to hang them high...I want them to have RESPECT for other people's PROPERTY. It's not their calculator. It's not their AP. It's not their ISP bill. It's not their stuff to use without permission. |
|
Damon85
Premium
join:2004-12-25
Louisville, KY
| reply to Dragasoni
"Linksys" isn't a hospital, which is where you should probably go if you need snake venom antidote. That's not even taking into consideration the fact you'd be waiting about a week for your antidote anyway... two weeks if it's coming via the USPS.
You "younger" folks with your "everything's-free-attitude" make me feel ashamed to be a somewhat young person. I'm almost 20 and I could've told you 10 years ago that using someone else's Wi-Fi signal was wrong. Didn't anyone tell you it's wrong to take other people's things; physical or not? Is there a sign or flag on the Wi-Fi signal that says "FREE! TAKE ME!"? I don't think there is.
Maybe (some day) you will realize that theft is theft and you don't have a leg to stand on arguing against it. |
|
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to oliphant
Your still talking physical property.
fire needs wood or charcoals physical material missing
hose needs water physical material missing
car physical material is missing it,s not borrowing if they don't allow it it's stealing and involves a personal loss even if for 1 second.
Electricity ? the AP still uses power no matter what to broadcast and that is even moot. Bandwidth ? side affect of energy and it's not metered so no physical loss.
It is akin to downloading a mp3. There is no physical loss. Only monetary loss for the isp or riaa and that is even questionable. Why must you equate it with physical products when it not a physical product. Come up with a better equal product.
Radio , TV thinks like that equate to it.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" |
|
