BVT
join:2004-10-25
Mount Juliet, TN
| reply to oliphant
Re: Unencrypted Signal Leaves Property = Public
I provided you with the perfect example, you just had to be a smarta$$ didnt you.
Dont try to complain to me, complain to the **AA. You purchase the cd/dvd but you do not own the contents. You are provided with a service. Same as with this guy. Internet connection is a service, it is not property. You cannot own a service.
That is not semantics. Uh okay |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
edit:
July 4th, @01:39PM
| No...I'm granted certain rights as to what I can do with that CD or DVD intellectual property under Title 17 USC. I see no such rights to another person's internet service which is also property...especially the equipment that is used by the subscriber to use it.
You don't have to "own" the service. You have only to own the right to access the service which is done under contract between the sub and the ISP. Meanwhile the subscriber DOES OWN the MEANS to connect to the service eg the router and modem OR the ISP owns them (eg Verizon and Versalink)...in either event a war driver does not have permission to use that PRIVATELY OWNED equipment no more than you have permission to use someone elses' rental car or swimming pool. |
|
LinuxJunkie
join:2005-01-19
Cyberspace | Better take down that antenna off your house because all those TV signals belong to ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA | I'm sorry...what part of CBS's equipment do I share bidirectional communications with when using OTA antenna? |
|
Damon85
Premium
join:2004-12-25
Louisville, KY | Let's not forget CBS et al have already given us permission to access that signal. They want us to. Apparently the home owner in question didn't want such a thing. |
|
BVT
join:2004-10-25
Mount Juliet, TN
| reply to oliphant
You pay for a right to access the service, you do not own a right. It is stated clearly in any isp contract, you do not own or have a right to service.
This guy did not commit a crime unless it is written in FL law that you cannot access a private homeowners wireless network. Furthermore, the guy that runs the network will have broken one of the service agreements by running an unsecured network. He should loose his service for being stupid.
I can understand where you are coming from, but that is mid 20th century thinking. It may be better the way you want it, but it will never be that way again. Since you can sue for anything and everything (ie hot coffee not saying hot), you have to start punishing people for being ignorant. Common sense should have to rule at some point. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
edit:
July 4th, @05:41PM
| I didn't say I owned the service and access is private property. I own my connection to verizon. I own the modem and the AP. Without the presence of my private property there is no access from my location. I also own the phonelines to which the modem is connection. The phone company doesn't own anything after the NID. They grant me a right to access the internet through their service in accordance with the TOS/AUP in exchange for money. But that is immaterial...the service is owned and the wardriver doesn't have permission to use it.
The AP is also owned and is private property and the wardriver doesn't have permission to use it.
Flordia Law
quote:
Fla. Stat. 815.06 Offenses against Computer Users
Whoever willfully, knowingly, and without authorization accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer system, or computer network; or whoever willfully, knowingly, and without authorization denies or causes the denial of computer system services to an authorized user of such computer system services, which, in whole or part, is owned by, under contract to, or operated for, on behalf of, or in conjunction with another commits an offense against computer users.
Except as provided in this subsection an offense against computer users is a felony of the third degree, punish- able as provided in S.775.082, S.775.083, or S.775.084.
If the offense is committed for the purposes of devising or executing any scheme or artifice to defraud or to obtain any property, then the offender is guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in S.775.082, S.775.083, or S.775.084.
»www.clas.ufl.edu/docs/flcrimes/s···00000000
By accessing an AP without permission you are denying that available bandwith to authorized users. And in the case of some providers that place monthly DL limits on their service you are denying them that percentage of their service or all of it should the person reach their limit as a result of unauthorized access. |
|
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
 ·Comcast
·Comcast Formerly ..
| reply to oliphant
said by oliphant  :I'm sorry...what part of CBS's equipment do I share bidirectional communications with when using OTA antenna? By your analogy is does not have to be bi directional even catching his SSID is illegal. Me thinks you are just angry you had an AP you didn't secure and some one was downloading porn on you.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" |
|
Damon85
Premium
join:2004-12-25
Louisville, KY
| Actually, we're not calling that illegal. If you receive an SSID broadcast from my equipment while driving by, then that is indeed my fault. My equipment is sending that signal out.
You're just misinterpreting it as an invitation for you to access my equipment; something that was never granted to you explicitly. Implicit permission is practically impossible to justify ever, as permission itself is a very explicit thing, it's either there or not.
End of case, it's not your fault you receive my SSID broadcast, it is your fault if you, knowing that the equipment is there, allow or force your equipment to connect to my private network, regardless of whether I have secured it or not. Running an unsecured access point is stupid, but not an invitation. |
|
wifi sucks
@verizon.net
| reply to oliphant
said by "oliphant":
I own my connection to verizon.
No, you don't. Try to re-sell their services, or use them for commercial purposes. Try to re-sell your assigned IP address off to a third party. I guarantee you that you don't "own" anything - you only pay for access to *their* services, *their* internet bandwidth, and *their* ARIN-assigned IP addresses.
Re-selling their services (at least for a residential subscribed), is a clear violation of their TOS, and you could have your service terminated, and be sued civilly for breach of contract. I dare you to try it, and then claim in court that "you own it" (which would grant you the legal right to re-sell it as you wished). That would be funny to watch. Again, please, get a clue dude.
If someone accessed your wireless AP, for the sole purpose of using a negligible amount of your ISP's internet bandwidth via your connection, any such "theft of service" would be between the rogue wireless user and your ISP, not you personally. And in fact, you could be held partially liable for that theft (contributory negligence), for not securing your wireless AP and ensuring that you complied with your obligations under their TOS.
Any over-the-air RF communications on the unlicensed ISM bands are completely legal. I have just as much right to use those bands as you do. If my radio communications happen to result in my data getting sent to your ISP via your hardware installation / configuration, then YOU are jointly liable for that, and any resultant "theft of services" that may likewise result.
It would be no different, then installing one of those "wireless video senders" to your cable-TV connection. Say that I just so happen to live next-door, and also happen to have one of them. You subscribe to for-pay channels. I don't. You happen to be watching a movie on one of those channels, so I decide to watch it too - via your for-pay cable-TV! Am I stealing cable (even though, physically, I have no "connection" to your cable-TV feed, I have my own), or are you in fact facilitating the illegal public re-broadcast of copyrighted content (and in the case of for-pay cable channels, likely originally encrypted, your re-broadcast would be decrypted, and thus also a DMCA violation)?
All because *you* bought a "wireless video sender", and didn't take the necessary steps to secure it (negligence). |
|
