how-to block ads
|
Komputerguy
join:2001-03-29
Melbourne, FL
| reply to Iridium
Re: here we go again
You can't assume that if a wireless network is not secured that the owner doesn't care if you are using it or not. It's simply not true. Now, if the owner doesn't want you on it and does not have it secured, they are not being too smart. However, that says nothing about the legality or morality of an unauthorized person using it. Is is illegal to do so? Maybe not. It probably depends on the jurisdiction. And the legality of such things may very well change in the future. It is definitely not honest to do so IMO. Remember just because something is not illegal does not make it an honest or right thing to do.
Using your own analogy, you have basically described yourself as being one of those people who would have taken someone's wallet and keys that they left on the top of their car without a second thought.
--
What can possibly go wrong? | |
Iridium
Premium
join:2003-04-02
Los Angeles, CA
 ·DSL EXTREME
| said by Komputerguy  :You can't assume that if a wireless network is not secured that the owner doesn't care if you are using it or not. It's simply not true. Now, if the owner doesn't want you on it and does not have it secured, they are not being too smart. However, that says nothing about the legality or morality of an unauthorized person using it. Is is illegal to do so? Maybe not. It probably depends on the jurisdiction. And the legality of such things may very well change in the future. It is definitely not honest to do so IMO. Remember just because something is not illegal does not make it an honest or right thing to do. Using your own analogy, you have basically described yourself as being one of those people who would have taken someone's wallet and keys that they left on the top of their car without a second thought. I understand where you are coming from, but I guess it is all in perception. Some people view an open network as the person is leaving the network open for anyone to access. Maybe it isn't the owners intention to let anyone connect, but there are people out there ( like me) that view it that way.
On the flip-side, there are people who come across open networks, and view them as someones private property. I am assuming this is the way you feel.
But an owner of a network doesn't know which side the person is on, ome people respect open connections and don't connect, and others hop right on, so I guess I seem like the kind of person who would take the keys and wallet (I wouldn't).
So a person who runs a network should realise that either the network will be respected, or abused. If you run a wireless network you do have some responsibility. I know there are no laws yet (at least in California), that you are responsible for whatever goes on with your connection, so you should take reasonable efforts to secure your shit. I agree, you shouldn't have to, but you have to, thats how people are. If you don't want the responsibilities, maybe you shouldn't run a wireless network, just stick to Ethernet. Ignorance on how to set up WEP on your router is no excuse.
--
Start the Revolution, download Opera, »www.opera.com | |
Komputerguy
join:2001-03-29
Melbourne, FL
| The owner's ignorance is no excuse for what? If someone does not secure his wireless network, it is really only himself he is accountable to. He may unknowingly or knowingly exposing himself to risk but that does not excuse the actions of others who are abusing it against the owner's wishes. And the determination on whether it is right to do use the network has absolutely nothing to do with the "view" of those who wish to abuse (or use) the network and everything to do with how the owner wishes it to be used. If you don't have reasonable confidence in knowing how the network is intended to be used, then it is your responsibility to find out before using it.
Don't you see how contradictory your statements seem to be? On one hand you say that people in this world should be honest enough such that someone who has a wireless network shouldn't have to worry about people jumping on his network unauthorized but then you turn around and say that you, yourself don't take a second thought about jumping on someone's wireless network without knowing whether they mind or not.
--
What can possibly go wrong? | |
Iridium
Premium
join:2003-04-02
Los Angeles, CA | I'm a hypocrite. | |
smrgol
Premium
join:2002-02-05
Culver City, CA
1 edit | reply to Iridium
Some people also view an encrypted network as open for anyone who can obtain the key to access. Their claim is that the owner should have used stronger encryption if denial of access was really desired.
All the wireless encryption protocols today are basically insecure. The FBI has a road show showing less than 30 seconds to crack a WEP network and a bit more than a minute to crack WAP. To be really secure you have to tunnel over your (presumed open) wireless link.
I have four or five (depending on time of day) access points not belonging to me within range of my wireless adaptor. Three are protected, two are not. I (and the courts in California, at least) view these access points, whether secure or not, as being similar to a garden gate, a telephone junction box, or a gardon hose bib. In other words, if you enter, take, or use without the resource owner's permission, you can be arrested for theft no matter how inconsequential you consider the amount taken or used.
And it doesn't matter whether the owner put a lock on the thing -- it only matters that you used without the owner's permission.
As a computer services professional, I monitor my access point and would not hesitate to call the police if I encountered a theft-of-service situation. The last thing I want is some gamer in a nearby apartment or with a pimped up car computer sucking up all my bandwidth. | |
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
1 edit | Exactly. If there's no dispute to what the law says, then it's the law. Ignorance of a law is not a defense, especially when you've been informed of it by the owner repeatedly. It's not like they didn't give this shmoe a chance to knock it off. If it had been the first time, I would've been a little amenable to, "he should have been given a warning first", but that had already been done. He was told, go away, this is the law, and he chose to break it again and again. Well, he shouldn't have been surprised when someone showed up and arrested him. | |
|
