slicemaster
join:2001-12-14
Newbury Park, CA
 ·callwithus
| reply to fiberguy
Re: There will be more prosecutions: law is clear
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 don’t secure there access points, not just the idiots who don’t know better. Whether they don’t 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 don’t 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 |
|
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! |
|
tapeloop
1959. I try to kick the ball. I miss.
Premium
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One
| 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. |
|
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 |
|
ylen131
join:2000-02-09
Canoga Park, CA
1 edit | 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. |
|
TimmyDanny
@boeing.com
| reply to hrickpa
Securing a router
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
| 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 |
|
psb777
@range86-134.btcentra
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: There will be more prosecutions: law is clear
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? |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
psb777
@plus.com | Well, duh! |
|
