 
Nerdtalker
Working Hard, Or Hardly Working?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ
clubs:
 ·Comcast
edit:
July 7th, @07:00PM
| Now he installed spyware?
"observed foreign icons on his home computer screen, and suspected that Smith, 41, may have been using his network."
I find that far-fetched beyond belief.
The same person who runs their AP in it's default state probably continues that trend with all their other computer equipment. It doesn't take much imagination to see Joe Idiot not running windows update and getting a variety of malware through unpatched IE exploits. Plus, it's laughable at best to think that the AP user installed some malware/trojan that comes with a desktop icon.
Also, it is critical to stop associating (and thus falsely equating) "wardriving" with the act of connecting to an open AP without the owner's concent. The two are entirely different, both in the practice, purpose, and legality.
Wardriving is the act of driving around detecting Access Points while creating a database of information about them (SSID, Privacy Yes/No, Speed, Hardware type, Latitude and Longitude for mapping). It is entirely legal.
Connecting to an open AP is entirely different, and is illegal | |
|  | 
Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA
edit:
July 7th, @07:45PM
| Are you sure? said by Nerdtalker  :Wardriving is the act of driving around detecting Access Points while creating a database of information about them (SSID, Privacy Yes/No, Speed, Hardware type, Latitude and Longitude for mapping). It is entirely legal. Connecting to an open AP is entirely different, and is illegal Netstumbler sends out beacon requests, and in that sense could be considered "illegal" as you define it. Only a truly passive sniffer like Kismet would be considered "legal".
But you state a blanket assumption that "connecting to an open AP is illegal"?
How is that? The owner of any given AP is using an unlicensed spectrum and he has no more right to the SSID of "linksys" than I do. No where in law is it stated I must only connect to secured networks. For all I know the wireless is open because the owner wants to share his 'net access!
With your logic, I could sue the owner of an AP for his device connecting to my laptop!
Any unsecured open access point is not illegal to connect to - what is illegal is what you may do with that connection.
--
Want an OC3? Go to college! Washington State University OC3 MRTG | |
| | | 
DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
edit:
July 7th, @09:02PM
| Re: Are you sure? said by Jerm :said by Nerdtalker :Wardriving is the act of driving around detecting Access Points while creating a database of information about them (SSID, Privacy Yes/No, Speed, Hardware type, Latitude and Longitude for mapping). It is entirely legal. Connecting to an open AP is entirely different, and is illegal Netstumbler sends out beacon requests, and in that sense could be considered "illegal" as you define it. Only a truly passive sniffer like Kismet would be considered "legal". Yes but it does not initiate a connection so long as it is in promiscuous mode.
said by Jerm :But you state a blanket assumption that "connecting to an open AP is illegal"? Aye, given the ease with which a system might associate with damn near any AP, whether you requested it or not, it would be a really tough call to make the simple act of association with an AP illegal.
said by Jerm : ...snip... For all I know the wireless is open because the owner wants to share his 'net access! But this argument is a red herring. The correct assumption *REQUIRED* by a civilized legal system is to err on the side of the privacy and property of the individual who owns the service or device. It is correct to assume that a service is not open for sharing unless there is some compelling reason to believe otherwise.
said by Jerm :With your logic, I could sue the owner of an AP for his device connecting to my laptop! Hardly. His device does not connect to your laptop. Your laptop initiates the connection sequence. He merely announces his presence with his beacon packets. They do not solicit a connection unless the SSID he is beaconing clearly indicates otherwise.
said by Jerm :Any unsecured open access point is not illegal to connect to - what is illegal is what you may do with that connection. I'd have to say I agree with you here. My thinking is that the vendors have made it too easy to connect to the wrong network. Generally that is desirable because there are lots of instances where people don't mind you using their service. Personally I believe there should be a public convention which agrees upon an SSID which everyone who wants to offer free access should use. "FREE PUBLIC ACCESS" always worked for me. This would facilitate all sorts of things including easier roaming.
Yep, if we are going to criminalize the simple act of connecting to an AP, we are going to fill up the jails pretty quickly when we enforce it. 
--
Need a bit more range? WWW.FREEANTENNAS.COM
Need a bit more privacy? WWW.FREEANTENNAS.COM
Need a bit more speed? WWW.FREEANTENNAS.COM
| |
| | | | 
wifi sucks
@verizon.net
| Re: Are you sure? said by "DaDogs":
But this argument is a red herring. The correct assumption *REQUIRED* by a civilized legal system is to err on the side of the privacy and property of the individual who owns the service or device.
Except that in this case, the homeowner does not own either the: 1) ISP service, nor 2) the "public airwaves", meaning the frequency spectrum that these devices operate on. If some other device transmits or recieves on the same frequencies, then too bad, that's not illegal. If the owner of the AP in question didn't configure it properly to prevent "outside interference", then that is his own fault / problem.
said by "DaDogs":
It is correct to assume that a service is not open for sharing unless there is some compelling reason to believe otherwise.
It may be "rude" to use someone's AP to access the "public" internet without asking first, but is it directly illegal? I think that's the question. The other question is if someone accessed the homeowner's private PC, via a connected wireless AP, and the intent of the access. If there was a clear intent to "trespass" into a private PC's files, then that would seem likely to be prosecutable.
It really does seem to be primarily about intent, here, not technology. | |
| | | |
comment
@sub-70-209-234.myvzw
| I thought the law can only burst the user if he or she attempt to hack to system(s)/network(s) that are intended for authorized users and/or accessing to network/system that have private warning banner to indicate that only authorized users are allowed.
Therefore, if the AP owner does not enforce any good security and/or does not have private warning banner, then he/she has no right to prosecute anyone.
Does it make sense to anyone? | |
| | |
Nerdtalker
Working Hard, Or Hardly Working?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ
clubs:
·Comcast
| said by Jerm :said by Nerdtalker :Wardriving is the act of driving around detecting Access Points while creating a database of information about them (SSID, Privacy Yes/No, Speed, Hardware type, Latitude and Longitude for mapping). It is entirely legal. Connecting to an open AP is entirely different, and is illegal Netstumbler sends out beacon requests, and in that sense could be considered "illegal" as you define it. Only a truly passive sniffer like Kismet would be considered "legal". No it wouldn't, WZC also does the same, is it illegal? It doesn't actually associate with the AP, it simply requests a responsesaid by Jerm :But you state a blanket assumption that "connecting to an open AP is illegal"? That was a bit broad, but I would've hoped that it would've gone without saying that connecting to an open AP that you have been authorized to isn't illegal.
--
"Some people never see the light till it shines thru bullet holes." -Bruce Cockburn
iPod Shuffle=iPos
I'm testing Gmail's spam filters: Broadbandreports1@gmail.com
Spam: 6200+ | |
| | |
wifi sucks
@verizon.net
| I think that the "foreign icons" bit sounds like total crap too, and most likely spyware that was aquired by the legitimate user of the private computer, originally unbeknownst to him. Or they are using that as a convenient "hook" to attempt prosecution for "unauthorized access", because: 1) they had a complaint from a resident, and 2) they don't want to risk setting a precident here that such access is "legal", otherwise it would lead to even more of this sort of thing happening, along with perhaps other potential ancilliary "real" trespassing and other crimes.
I have a couple of hypothetical analogous scenarios to posit here for consideration:
Imagine a private residence, with a lawn. There is a public sidewalk abutting the edge of the lawn. It's summertime, and the homeowner is watering their lawn, using one of those sprinklers that waves back and forth for better coverage.
Scenario 1: The homeowner places the sprinkler on the edge of the lawn, such that it ends up spraying water past the lawn and through the air over the public sidewalk. It's a hot day out, and I walk past the house in summer clothing. I linger for a while on the public sidewalk, just outside the homeowner's lawn, while getting sprayed by the sprinkler and and gaining benefit by cooling off that way. He is paying for the water - am I "stealing" it, even though I haven't set a foot on the homeowner's physical property? Is the water exclusively his, or does he simply pay for the service to access it, and my "usage" of the water, does not materially affect how much it costs him to provide that service? Is it theft of services? Is it trespassing if I'm physically still located on the publically-accessable / usable sidewalk?
I would hope that most rational and reasonable folk would see that it is neither theft, nor trespassing. The homeowner has set up the sprinkler equipment in such a way as to allow me to "cool off" using it, even though that possibility may not have been explicitly forseen by the homeowner while setting it up.
Secenario 2: In this case, the sprinkler was configured to NOT "wave" over the public sidewalk, although it could have easily been so. I (briefly) step onto the edge of the lawn, to reconfigure the sprinkler such that it does "wave" slightly over the sidewalk, so that I can cool down using it.
In this scenario, I think that there could be an issue - if the homeowner filed a complaint that I trespassed onto his lawn - while not quite to the same level as "breaking and entering", it could well be a minor case of trespass, and should be dealt with accordingly. As far as "theft" of the water goes - if the homeowner is simply paying for access, and it is not a directly-metered service (as most consumer broadband internet connections likewise are not directly metered), and thus my usage of that small amount of water that no longer is used 100% to water his lawn, doesn't actually increase his cost for that service or materially degrade that service for him or other customers served by the "water service", then I don't really see that as "theft".
So perhaps "minor trespass" would be a possible result from that scenario.
Now, the scenario that the article seems to paint, would be more akin to someone standing on the sidewalk, and filling up water balloons using the sprinkler, and then lobbing them back at the homeowner's property. Clearly, if that IS what was happening, then the intent was malicious, and should be dealt with as such.
But if the true scenario was more akin to Scenario 1, above, but with the addition of a car, a convertable, parked in the driveway next to the lawn, and in the eventual path of the sprinkler, and the homeowner comes out later after setting up the sprinkler, and finds: 1) someone on the sidewalk, using the sprinkler to cool themselves, and at the same time 2) the homeowner's car, with the top down, and the leather seats have water puddles on them, and automatically assumes that it was the fault of the stranger standing on the sidewalk, and calls the cops.
I hope that the truth comes out at the trial. My guess is that the charges will be dismissed, if (and only if) the nature of the access was in fact personal and non-malicious. If it was intentionally malicious, if someone was directly involved in unauthorized access to the homeowner's PC and the files on it, then it should likewise be treated as such.
I just hope that it doesn't result in cops specifically looking for and arresting anyone and everyone that might happen to linger in the path of a sprinkler that cross a public sidewalk in the summertime, if you know what I mean.
PS. Perhaps a better analogy would be a homeowner, whom is connected to the "public" municipal water supply ("public" internet), and they have an outside hose, and they leave the end of that hose coiled up and sticking out onto the public sidewalk at the edge of their property. Would I be breaking the law, to use that hose (assume that it has a control nozzle on the end, and doesn't require access to the property to adjust the outside faucet), to fill up a container that I happened to be carrying with me, or otherwise use that water, that comes not directly from that homeowner's property, but from the public water-supply? I'm not physically trespassing, nor am I stealing "his" water, but rather just using that hose as a gateway to access the "public" water-supply. The homeowner may be paying for that connection to the water-supply, but assume that my personal usage wouldn't materially affect that service or the costs.
In fact, how would I know, if the homeowner regularly did that (left the hose on the sidewalk), *on purpose*, in case any hot traveller during the summer might wish to avail themselves of water?
And what if there were a group of young individuals in the area, that made it a point or a game, to "chalk" the sidewalk, to indicate those potential sources of water during the summertime?
Hmm.  | |
| | | | footballdude
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO | Re: Are you sure? In either case, if the owner comes out and says, "Hey! Get out of here you creep!", the only polite thing to do would be to move on. | |
| | |
Nerdtalker
Working Hard, Or Hardly Working?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Analysis of confiscated laptop will tell all said by TK Junk Mail :Analysis of confiscated laptop will tell all Where within the article(s) does it say that they seized his laptop? | |
| | | 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Analysis of confiscated laptop will tell all said by Nerdtalker :said by TK Junk Mail :Analysis of confiscated laptop will tell all Where within the article(s) does it say that they seized his laptop? In the CNN story link.
Smith's motives in using the network are unclear, but the laptop was confiscated from him at the time of arrest and will be analyzed by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE).
--
My Web Page
Join Red Room Forum | |
| | Kital
join:2002-01-04
Park Hills, MO | I wonder how many many hours and how much money its going to take to prosecute a guy for a theft of a few cents worth of service(assuming he only used the access point for a couple of hours or less). | |
| | |
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Analysis of confiscated laptop will tell all said by Kital :I wonder how many many hours and how much money its going to take to prosecute a guy for a theft of a few cents worth of service(assuming he only used the access point for a couple of hours or less). It is called "MAKING AN EXAMPLE" of him. A cautionary tale. The arrest has already resulted in at least 3 news items here at BBR and in many newspapers. It is the same reason the IRS always makes big splashy arrests in Feb and March every year.
--
My Web Page
Join Red Room Forum | |
| | | lestat99
join:2000-08-04
Piscataway, NJ
| Folks, it is all about intent here. If the guy was just browsing the web then I would be surprised if the charges stick. Being that he was lurking outside of someones home I am fairly certain that he was up to something else. It is common for spammers to find open access point in which to send. This is what the AG is going to have to prove which is I am sure why they seized the latop. There is more than likely much more to the story than what is in the article. | |
| | looser
join:2001-02-04
La Mesa, CA | Ya,I am going to believe what the police say. | |
| | |
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Analysis of confiscated laptop will tell all said by looser :Ya,I am going to believe what the police say. And why not? Are you one of these people that think there are no criminals and that every arrest is a frame up? Or did some cop chase you off a corner one time and you have harbored a hatred ever since?
--
My Web Page
Join Red Room Forum | |
| | | | 
DaMaGeINC
The Lan Man
Premium
join:2002-06-08
Greenville, SC
clubs:
| Re: Analysis of confiscated laptop will tell all said by TK Junk Mail :said by looser :Ya,I am going to believe what the police say. And why not? Are you one of these people that think there are no criminals and that every arrest is a frame up? Or did some cop chase you off a corner one time and you have harbored a hatred ever since? Are you one of those people that think cops do NO WRONG? And are actually here to serve and protect? Did they LIE against you and arrest you for no reason, and charge you with a felony? Then when an investagator found out that it was a lie, the cop lost his job and the JUDGE HIMSELF, said sorry for what has happned.??????????????????????? It happned to me.
--
inc.ath.cx
Have a Networking problem or question? Stop by the Networking Forum and let us help you. | |
| | | | |
no justice in this w
@verizon.net
| Re: Analysis of confiscated laptop will tell all Yep, cops lie all of the time, almost as a matter of course, specifically to make you look bad, and to give the state prosecutor more ammunition. If you don't believe that, then you've never actually been arrested yourself, IMHO. If you did, your eyes would be opened to the truth.
The *real* reason (AFAICT), for not saying *anything* if you are being arrested (other than, "I want my lawyer" - although it is a LIE that they tell you when reading your rights that one will be appointed to you - only for major crimes, minor ones, even though it is a criminal charge, do not merit a court-appointed lawyer, and even if one should be "appointed" to you, you still have to pay them a reasonably-significant sum, although generally less than a private lawyer costs), is because of this common effect. If you say *nothing*, then the police are less likely to get away with taking anything you say, and twisting it completely around and presenting it as something different. (IOW, your defense could legitimately be, "I didn't say *that*, because I never said *anything*". That's one of your only defenses when it comes to your word against the officer's, regarding unwitnessed statements made during the arrest.)
Me, I'm too fucking honest. I have this bad habit of telling the cops the truth, out of a naive belief that if I showed them honesty and respect, that they would extend the priviledge likewise. Well, that's not true. I found out first-hand. Don't ever trust the police, and don't say anything should you ever happen to have the unfortunate experience of being arrested. They *will* lie, and they *will* attempt to use it against you. That's about the only truism about "the system" - it protects itself, and is "never wrong". There is no justice, really. Just enough of an appearance of such to avoid causing a revolt, and disrupting the profits of the mega-multi-nationals that exploit both the law and the people for their obscene profits. Slavery, although in a different and obscured form, is alive and well today, let me assure you. | |
| | | | | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | Re: Analysis of confiscated laptop will tell all If you are so honest and have such respect, why is it you have to be talkig to them to begin with?
I guess the BS truck just drove by. | |
| | | | 
LinuxJunkie
join:2005-01-19
Cyberspace
edit:
July 8th, @12:43AM
| Our entire legal system is designed to protect criminals and make money for lawyers. Why do you think there are more lawyers graduating every year in this country than there are doctors? They can't even follow the rules of supply and demand... way too much of a surplus of them to justify their $500/hour billings. | |
| | | | | 
tapeloop
Long live Ollie.
Premium
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One
| Re: Analysis of confiscated laptop will tell all said by LinuxJunkie :Our entire legal system is designed to protect criminals and make money for lawyers. Why do you think there are more lawyers graduating every year in this country than there are doctors? They can't even follow the rules of supply and demand... way too much of a surplus of them to justify their $500/hour billings. hy·per·bo·le (h-pûrbə-lE) n. -
A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.
--
Copyright infringement is illegal. Murder is illegal. Therefore, file sharing is murder. | |
| | |
DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
| said by looser :Ya,I am going to believe what the police say. Hate to break this to you but nobody, not even the police, care if you believe what they say. When they arrest you they don't care if you believe them, just remember to go along quietly while you are telling them you don't believe them or they will "make a believer out of you" during the arrest.
Must be great to be twelve. 
--
Need a bit more range? WWW.FREEANTENNAS.COMNeed a bit more privacy? WWW.FREEANTENNAS.COMNeed a bit more speed? WWW.FREEANTENNAS.COM | |
| |
DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
| said by TK Junk Mail :... Also, they can obtain the ISP's logs to see where he was going on the internet(if he did at all). ... Maybe, maybe not. ISP's are not required to log anything at all. Most log quite a bit, but if he had connected to us we would not have a log of everything he did or for that matter anything he did. It would look to us like he was the customer because he connects behind the customers firewall. If we knew up front that he was supposed to be watched, sure we could give you every byte of traffic.
The network owners comments suggest that he was aware the man had previously used his network and they also suggest that the whole thing may have been a trap to catch a fellow who was "frequenting that watering hole". Scary business when all that would have been necessary is to walk out onto the lawn and tell him to get the hell away from the house.
--
Need a bit more range? WWW.FREEANTENNAS.COMNeed a bit more privacy? WWW.FREEANTENNAS.COMNeed a bit more speed? WWW.FREEANTENNAS.COM | |
| | | looser
join:2001-02-04
La Mesa, CA | Re: Analysis of confiscated laptop will tell all Let me see here, one Unnamed Gov't Official and a person from the great state of VA., probably McLean area. Like I would have chance against you two as would frosty in hell. | |
| 
Tsume
My little Toby.
join:2004-02-23
Winter Park, FL | Hey. If someone goes to my house and starts throwing unlocked safes full of cash in my door, you damn well bet I'm going to be taking that money. | |
| 
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| The cluess come out in droves I've read a lot of the arguments that 'the guy should be arrested for accessing it'. If the clueless posters knew how wireless DHCP works, the would understand that 'The Linksys INITIATES the connection' you freaking idiots.
»www.microsoft.com/resources/docu···hmwd.asp
Don't be idiots and say 'he hacked into it'. He most certainly did NOT hack into it. The idiot who setup the linksys told the router to 'let everyone access', and MORE IMPORTANTLY, told the router to 'broadcast to the world, and attempt to authenticate ANY device that comes in range'. Stupid morons with their 'it's morally wrong' don't understand how technology works, and sit too high on their 'holier than thou' horses to research it.
The router is sending out an open challenge to every single 802.xx device in range. Guess what, it's not MY responsibility as a laptop owner to prevent my device from talking to your device which is shouting 'talk to me! use me! I don't authenticate!'. It's you, the owner of the router, it's YOUR responsibility to configure it in a manner you think is appropriate. The fact that you're a sub-defective mouthbreathing fundamentalist moron doesn't excuse you from your responsibilities if you purchase a new technology, one which is obviously so far beyond your comprehension that the one or two working neurons in your brain couldn't possibly grasp the social or moral implications involved.
It's dumbasses who think that 'a law can fix this' who are leading the government to restrict even more liberties, instead of forcing people to take responsibilities for their actions. Those people are the same ones who think the broadcast flag is a good idea, and that skipping commercials is 'stealing tv'. For them, any change is bad change.
--
Grand Poobah | |
| | jdmax
join:2002-06-25
Minneapolis, MN
| Re: The cluess come out in droves I am getting more and more frustrated with the lack of responsibility that the internet seems to be advocating.
For those who are preaching that responsibility belongs with the owner of the AP for allowing an open access point really are pushing the blame away from where it belongs. Which unfortunately if becoming more commonplace with the younger "everything is somebody's else's problem" generation.
The constant banter about no damages were done because the internet isn't metered (mostly) has little bearing on how the legality of this issue will be determined. The above post about water overflowing onto the sidewalk and somebody using it attempts to illustrate the lack of damages that can be sought.
The problem here is when we add intent and/or expectations into the equation. If the expectations of the homeowner is such that it is not their intent or expectation to openly share their internet access then this takes priority. The assumption in the water example shows the commoditization of water and the expectation of the homeowner is one of indifference.
My guess is that the manufacturers will begin configuring their equipment to match consumer expectations. And I wholeheartedly believe that the expectations and intent of the majority of AP owners is NOT to openly share it with unauthorized passerbys.
On to intent of the AP "unauthorized" user or the person who rolls up in their vehicle, parks outside somebodies house and uses their internet through the unsecured AP.
The above post states that "it's not MY responsibility as a laptop owner to prevent my device from talking to your device which is shouting 'talk to me! use me! I don't authenticate!" This much is true. But it is that users responsibility to disconnect or at least not use that AP unless they have determined that the intent of the owner is to allow free access. Anybody smart enough to sit outside somebodies house and search for open AP's knows that they are accessing somebody else's internet access.
How many of these people would go knock on the door and ask the owner of the AP if it was ok to use their connection? Not too many I would bet. If they were so sure that the owners intent was to openly share their AP then this shouldn't be a big problem. But the chicken scat's prefer to hide out in their car justifying it to themselves by saying, no damages, no problem and if it the owner didn't want to share their internet access they wouldn't have an open AP.
This is where the intent of the person using the open AP comes into play. Their intent is to use somebody's internet connection for their own use without confirming the owner's intent. And if the intent, irregardless of actual damages, is to use something that you do not pay for then that person is in the wrong. No matter how they may want to put the blame back on the other person for not securing it.
Unfortunately there is a disconnect between technology (shipped open AP's) and consumer intent. New technology always causes these types of discussions and problems. I'm sure cars didn't come with keys until people started stealing them. And I can hear the same lame excuses, "if they didn't want their car stolen they would have locked it up."
The whole situation is actually a pretty sad commentary on this society.
Hopefully the manufacturers will correct the problem by somehow shipping the AP with security on and making the AP open a conscious act by the consumer. This would be the responsible thing to do by the manufacturers. Until then the law and any new laws will sort it out.
And personally, I hope they throw the book at that person and make an example out of him. Throw him in the same cell with all the spammers and malware authors. It's too bad that even if they tossed the book at him and gave whatever maximum sentence is possible that it would not be enough to change the thinking of those that believe "If you don't want me to steal it, you should lock it up."
| |
| | | 
BronsCon
join:2003-10-24
Cleveland, OH
·Cox HSI
| Re: The cluess come out in droves Ok, I'll counter the first part of your message here.
I ran a wireless AP up until today when the wireless card in the one computer that was using it died and I decided it would be better to run a cable to that location rather than buying a new wireless card. After all, it was only 17 feet away and I have numerous ethernet cards laying about and a 20 foot cable in a box sitting right there. Free fix. So I disabled the wifi. Doesn't get any more secure than that.
During the year that I had the AP active I did not bother with WEP, MAC filtering (on the AP side, i used MAC filtering on the ethernet side because my firewall is configured to allow greater access to my LAN from the ethernet and I don't want some arse plugging in to one of my outside CAT-5 jacks and getting into where I don't want him), I DID turn off DHCP, and that was the only security measure I took.
If someone wanted to connect and was able to figure out what IP range I was using, my DNS server and gateway addresses, then they were more than welcome to the 1mbit of shared wireless bandwidth I allowed (wit the 56k upstream my packet shaping would allow them). I have 4mbit downstream and 384k upstream so it is unlikely that I would notice during normal browsing. No big.
Now, if someone were to clone a MAC addredd from one of my ethernet-connected systems and plug into one of my outside CAT-5 ports and do the same, possibly gaining access to other systems on that segment of my LAN, then i'd have an issue. Then I may consider taking precautions such as using DHCP to lock a specific MAC address to a specific IP address and to allow it to only assign those addresses that I plan to use.
Even that's not a perfect option, but at least then it's not like I'm leaving it wide open.
Anyway, if someone accesses my AP from off my property, that's my fault because I left it open, on purpose, to allow them access. If they set foot on my property with that intent (or to plug in to my ethernet) without my permission, that is trespassing. They would foot the blame for that.
Now, if I set up an ethernet jack on the side of the road, then the blame would again fall on me. Until they set foot on my property or begin trying to crack passwords or clone MAC addresses.
It's not cut-and-dry, he accessed your AP it's his fault or you left it open it's your fault. How, when, and where come into play. Why also plays a part.
Of course, then i read the rest of your message and I'm simply too lazt to change what I wrote. No need to, really, as it still sheds some light on the situation. | |
| salahx
join:2001-12-03
Saint Louis, MO
| Does a state even have jurisdiction over wireless? Wouldn't this fall under the jurisdiction of the FCC, not Florida? Wireless AP/adapters are Part 15 devices, and there's no law against receiving such signal, encrypted or otherwise (unlike cell phones, which is a specific exemption in federal law for unauthorized reception, because until that was passed it was legal to "tap on" on conversations).
It seems like this law would be null and void, even if access point was secured and this person was actively breaking into it. | |
| 
ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
clubs: | Part 15 Violating part 15, except where and when test exclusions occur, would be violation within jurisdiction of Federal Law, as the FCC is the authority when it comes to airwaves. | |
| fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| HOTSPOT vs. Wireless Access Point This news article refers to these WAPS as HOTSPOTS. Hotspots are actually something different. When you connect to a HOTSPOT, you are generally greeted with a registration page to use the hotspot service.
A WAP, waireless access point, is used by private individules for their own use. There are exceptions to the rules.. some businesses will acutally put up a poster of some sort advertising that a WAP is available and what the name of the network is.
What I see wrong with the arguments of "it's open, so I assume that it's there for my use" is just wrong. Other than the fact that it's there and unsecure, (keyword, unsecure) doesn't mean come on in.
I think in a court of law, you would find that intent was not for public use or it would be advertised as public access points are today.
I also have a MAJOR problem with people here (who ever rights the news stories these days) using the word HOTSPOT instead of WAP or wireless router as they are usually termed two different things. | |
| 
Dakine
A Happy Camper
Premium
join:2000-03-26
Honolulu, HI
 ·Hawaiian Telcom
| Societal Value This case should set precedence for several reasons that have been previously mentioned and it is MHO that the prosecution will and must throw the proverbial book at the alleged.
Hopefully the outcome of this case will set precedence for future cases and will be constructive by creating societal awareness that is always of some value to the society as a whole especially for those that are less educated and would assume that this type of conduct is condoned by the majority.
I believe that the majority of the posts herein are made by educated persons that understand the difference between right and wrong just like the difference between Hotspots and Access Points and it is MHO that the alleged is similarly educated, that said ignorance should not be a consideration in the prosecution of this case.
Based on the facts presented so far it is my opinion that this is a act of theft by an individual that probably has committed other less than desirable acts in his lifetime.
Something that has not been mentioned previously in the post and would require answers if I was conducting a similar investigation; is where does the alleged reside? does the alleged have similar access or capability at his residence? does the alleged allow others access to his bandwidth? and why is he conducting this type of activity in the area if not to gain free access or to commit some type of questionable or undesirable activity that he could not do with his own bandwidth.
That said each of us have a responsibility to use our knowledge and expertise to educate those that are not similarly educated and do not understand the difference between a Hotspot and a Access Point on both sides of the legal system rather than try to reason or rectify the alleges actions or to pass judgement in this case.
Any way this case is looked at in the future, regardless of the outcome society will IMHO have gained from the dollars spent to prosecute the alleged.
--
Surfs Up!!!! GBA | |
| 
rob_in_chatt
Premium
join:2004-09-17
Chattanooga, TN
·Comcast
edit:
July 8th, @06:38AM
| wifi it still goes back to being the host of the the internet connection. i still stand by the fact that if the wifi was not properly secured then it was that person's fault for not having a secure network. i mean sure i agree that whorig a signal off a neighbor is not right but you have got to take steps on your own to ensure that your wireless network is secure. i mean if all this fuss about identity theft and credit card databases being hacked isnt enough to tell you nothing is safe, why be arrogant enough to assume that your unlocked wifi network is safe too? that is poor thinking by anyone that has wifi. i have wifi for my psp and yes sir it is locked like fort knox. but then again i am no n00b either. maybe this story and this thread here on BBR will raise everyones awareness on this issue as it is very important.
edit: also if you think someone might be trying to get into your wifi, shut off all your devices that access your wireless and you can watch your sending and receiving of the packets. i know my router allows me to do that as it has 4 wired ports as well as wirelss "B" and "G" and i can monitor those packets too. i mean changing the encryption key takes all of 5 seconds to change it in the router/access point then you take your new key and insert it into your devices that access via wireless. | |
| | Washington9
join:2005-08-13
Madison, WI
| Re: wifi Hey Rob I dont really know much about wifi and I was wondering about it. Actually i was wondering about my psp and how that kind of thing works with the wifi connection and that kind of thing. I dont know if you know anything about psp's or anything but I just thought i would ask. Any info you can give about wifi would be a help thanks. | |
| GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA
| Make an example of him. Wireless trespassing is an interesting avenue for which law enforcement can help inhibit this kind of activity. If someone on a laptop has a program for which to track cafe-style wifi hot-spots then this shouldn't be confused with software used to farm wifi networks in residential areas where such hot-spots are not in aspect.
Its more often the occasion that someone is wardriving because they feel empowered to abuse ignorant and gulliable wifi networking hardware. Of course, this is a growth point in which both the industry, law, and consumer-social bnehaviors will evolve to better understand, protect, and regulate itself. And in the early days it will make examples of such abusers.
If the person arrested did actually commit malicious activity then hang them by their proverbial balls. Of course, I say pass a law to fine people for NOT securing their networks, too. Ignorance would, then, not be an excuse fore said new law.
BTW, how hard is it to lock down the wireless portion of a wireless router such that a simple idiot's wizard to forcing the user/owner of said wireless router to a) use WPA, IP filtering, MAC filtering, etc., etc., etc. before they can use it? | |
| |
forgot pw
@verizon.com
| Re: Make an example of him. ok..
do we lock our doors when we leave the house ?
do we lock our doors when were at home sleeping ?
do we lock our cars when we leave it parked ?
do we lock our cars while driving?
do we have passwords for various accounts and systems ?
do we show ID's when entering a secure area ?
do we show ID's when asked by Law Enforcment ?
you get my point.. all of the above is a measure of security.. so the big question is.. why are we soo ignorant and lazy about secureing our internet connection, furthermore via wireless where you physically cant see the intruder (atleast most of the time)..
I blame this Mainly on the Owner of the AP for not being educated enough on how to secure his own PRIVATE network.. I also Blame the Wardrive for knowingly commiting a crime.. why i believe the Blame is partially on the WarDriver is due to the fact of that anyone who travels with their laptop with particular software to find open AP's and connect to them know more than what their doing for any intent they choose to conceive dureing the access time of the AP.
I very well know what i am doing if i was to go around with my laptop in my car and search for OPEN AP's.. and i find it very hard to believe that anyone who would do that would be soo blind and ignorant to not know it is illegal... IMO..
now if your at hoome and sitting around and your laptop picks up another AP in your MDU (b/c the laptop searches for the best signal strength by default unless specified to connect to 1 network only) then i can say the blame is solely on the OWNER Of the AP..
i live in an APT building where there are 5 Open AP's.. MY wifi AP is turned off b/c i have no need to use it.. my wiried network serves me fine..
however. if my friend comes over with his laptop.. i still dont turn on my AP's Radio card... i let him connect to anyones AP if he chooses too... he does nothing more than web surf or check email..
point is.. if you dont want anybody on your property.. dont allow them.. do not leave the door wide open.. have some form of identification / authentication /authurization.. PERIOD. if you cant provide the means of security due to the lack in knowledge of HOW TO.. then get help. | |
| | | jdmax
join:2002-06-25
Minneapolis, MN
| Re: Make an example of him. do we lock our doors when we leave the house ? Because some dirtbag will steal us blind.
do we lock our doors when were at home sleeping ? Because some murderer will come in and kill us.
do we lock our cars when we leave it parked ? Because some car thief will steal it or the equipment inside.
do we lock our cars while driving? Because some lunatic will car jack us.
do we have passwords for various accounts and systems ? Because the morally defunct will steal information or money from us.
do we show ID's when entering a secure area ? Because too many psychos will do harm if given the opportunity.
do we show ID's when asked by Law Enforcement ? Because it's the law.
Once again the brilliance of the pass the responsibility shows itself again. We do all those things because some people will lie, cheat, and steal us blind if we don't. But of course those who support your opinion believe that those people are not at fault for anything.
For the thousandth time. Just because somebody doesn't put a lock on something does not mean that you or anybody else has a open invitation to use it.
While not a perfect analogy it is close enough to get the point across.
If you lose your credit card and somebody picks it up and starts an unauthorized spending spree on it the fault lies with the person who did the criminal activity. There is obviously some responsibility for the safeguarding of a credit card but that is only because the world is full of people who would willingly steal all the funds out of the account as they could get away with.
The above poster says.. "point is... if you don't want anybody on your property... don't allow them... do not leave the door wide open..."
The point is what happened to the people who had enough self respect and decency to stay out of another person's property without the need for locks. | |
| pepsiwithice
join:2005-08-12 | PSP into a wirless modom hi i was wondering if anyone knew how to make the PSP into a wirless wifi modom? anyhelp would be great thanks | |
| bgraham
join:2001-03-15
Smithtown, NY
edit:
April 17th, @01:49PM
| I was on the road a lot in a sales job posted in error | |
| | | |
|
|
More on Wi-Fi Freeloader Arrest
Analysis of confiscated laptop will tell all